# Donald Trump Thread - 'Individual 1' - Speak Murican, Build Wall, Don't Smock



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

This remains one of the better threads on the internet to discuss politics.

The previous thread has reached its post count limit so I was asked to make this thread so the other one can be locked. Happy to do the honors since I remain the most active poster in Trump threads over its last two iterations lol.

Let's keep trucking boys and girls.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

First post in the new thread from Marin County, California shall be unremittingly political: Andrew Cuomo, in saying the other day that America "...was never that great..." as a kind of off-the-cuff jab toward Donald Trump made a rather obvious and colossal mistake. Cuomo has naturally attempted to throw as much water as he can on the inevitable political fire his comments engendered, but this hapless exercise reminds one of what commentator Michael Kinsley articulated. Kinsley stated that a "gaffe" in Washington, D.C. is someone in a position to face the unpleasant consequences of a statement that the speaker believes but does not wish the public to see as his or her genuine viewpoint. 

The bumbling Cuomo is but the latest of high-ranking national Democrats who seem intent on making this midterm season as difficult as possible for themselves. It is almost pathological, ostensibly. 

At this point looking at the races throughout the U.S., the state of the economy, etc., Democrats probably barely win the House and the Republicans--more because the map is in their favor--hold on to the Senate by a cigar or two.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> First post in the new thread from Marin County, California shall be unremittingly political: Andrew Cuomo, in saying the other day that America "...was never that great..." as a kind of off-the-cuff jab toward Donald Trump made a rather obvious and colossal mistake. Cuomo has naturally attempted to throw as much water as he can on the inevitable political fire his comments engendered, but this hapless exercise reminds one of what commentator Michael Kinsley articulated. Kinsley stated that a "gaffe" in Washington, D.C. is someone in a position to face the unpleasant consequences of a statement that the speaker believes but does not wish the public to see as his or her genuine viewpoint.
> 
> The bumbling Cuomo is but the latest of high-ranking national Democrats who seem intent on making this midterm season as difficult as possible for themselves. It is almost pathological, ostensibly.
> 
> At this point looking at the races throughout the U.S., the state of the economy, etc., Democrats probably barely win the House and the Republicans--more because the map is in their favor--hold on to the Senate by a cigar or two.


The comment that "America was never great" coming from someone of Cuomo's privilege and status is especially bad. 

If I hear it from a local Floridian ethnic minority (like the guy that does my lawn) that has spent a century or more fighting against failing battle in this state (which is still fairly oppressive towards african americans) against systems and processes that have allowed the majority enjoy social and financial growth while his family despite working hard was unable to achieve, then that's ok. 

America's perceived greatness is tied directly to the selling of the American dream "if you just worked hard you'll be successful" and therefore it is true that America is not great for those individuals who have not achieved such a dream as a consequence of just being a different race (and this has happened for a large chunk of local minorities). 

But a rich man spouting this rhetoric is just in it for the political points and that's it. 

In a lot of ways Cuomo has the exact same message as Trump even though he's saying the exact opposite. By saying that America has never been great what he's really saying is that I can make America great. Quite literally the same thing.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...es-150-layoffs-at-chicago-manufacturer-2018-8



> *A Chicago-area manufacturer is laying off 153 workers and moving to Mexico partly because of Trump's tariffs*
> 
> - Stack-On Products, a storage manufacturing company, will lay off 153 workers at its Chicago-area plants and move those jobs to Mexico.
> - Stack-On said that the move is in part due to President Donald Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum, and some Chinese products.
> ...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Meanwhile: Facebook is now just straight up trolling with how borked it is :lmao



















Aaah ... these poor bastards (I don't mean that as an insult) trying to navigate a world of algorithm based "oppression".


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I've had lots of fun in these threads, let's hope for another good year of hilarity from trump.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Think with Trump isolating a certain amount of his more Libertarian minded base this last year on his economics, he's going to have to double down on the Christian Right, abortion, making America white again stuff to retain in 2020. Don't see the other side putting anything decent through either so it might be another "go with whatever will harm us less" choice, making the US toxic for another four years after.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Unfortunately those that identify as libertarian in America are not enough to swing the election for either party. 

Meanwhile, the fucking Washington Post 










This is exactly the kind of shit you'd expect to read from corporate owned media. 

The author of this shitpiece is Indian btw. 

What the hell even is this?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Unfortunately those that identify as libertarian in America are not enough to swing the election for either party.
> 
> Meanwhile, the fucking Washington Post
> 
> ...


Well it is nicknamed the Washington Compost for a reason


----------



## Black Metal (Apr 30, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

One of my favorite joke videos:


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@reap did you see this video


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> @reap did you see this video


I've been ripping apart his economy myself the last few months ... But I will watch this. Remind me later.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I've been ripping apart his economy myself the last few months ... But I will watch this. Remind me later.


Oh, I know, but I remember you saying you consider yourself a libertarian and this guy is a Liberian on fox news. Just wanted to show you if you were interested


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> Andrew Cuomo, in saying the other day that America "...was never that great..." as a kind of off-the-cuff jab toward Donald Trump made a rather obvious and colossal mistake.





Reap said:


> a rich man spouting this rhetoric is just in it for the political points and that's it.


Let's see, America was never that great... :hmmm

Well, the country was built on slavery and the genocide of Native Americans, so it wasn't off to a very great start. Then you had things like the Civil War, the robber barons era and the Great Depression. The closest 'Murica ever became to being so called great was during the 50s-70s, which of course, was all a Big Government facade and it sure as shit wasn't great if you weren't a straight white Christian male during those years.

You can pick and choose any era during the history of the USA and say it was great for certain people but there has never been any point in this country's history where it was great for everybody.

But of course, Reap is also right, because Cuomo is full of shit and only said it for political points. Not that it will help him because it was an incredibly stupid thing to say, nor is he entirely wrong either, but for someone in his position to say it was about as dumbass as possible.





Yep, I'm happy with that being my first post in the new thread.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Does being great mean being moral or good. I mean Rome was considered great once.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> First post in the new thread from Marin County, California shall be unremittingly political: Andrew Cuomo, in saying the other day that America "...was never that great..." as a kind of off-the-cuff jab toward Donald Trump made a rather obvious and colossal mistake. Cuomo has naturally attempted to throw as much water as he can on the inevitable political fire his comments engendered, but this hapless exercise reminds one of what commentator Michael Kinsley articulated. Kinsley stated that a "gaffe" in Washington, D.C. is someone in a position to face the unpleasant consequences of a statement that the speaker believes but does not wish the public to see as his or her genuine viewpoint.
> 
> The bumbling Cuomo is but the latest of high-ranking national Democrats who seem intent on making this midterm season as difficult as possible for themselves. It is almost pathological, ostensibly.
> 
> At this point looking at the races throughout the U.S., the state of the economy, etc., Democrats probably barely win the House and the Republicans--more because the map is in their favor--hold on to the Senate by a cigar or two.


I like how the DNC pretends there isn't this massive rift in the party. It's very similar to the attitudes of the rich and powerful towards most things: "Let's just pretend it doesn't exist and it'll eventually go away." The DNC should (read: fucking better) make gains in both the house and the senate in a few months. That being said, if they don't get their house in order soon, 2020 is going to be a shellacking. It's easy to accomplish too. Run on the following few concepts (trigger warning bama):


Reduce military spending
Tax the rich
Expand medicare to everyone as a public option
Take cannabis off of the controlled substances list

Was that so fucking hard? For these nincompoops, it sure is.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

_*I will not lie, I love reading this thread. *_


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This is awful. This is one area that has been quite disappointing over the first year and a half of Trump's presidency. The Trump administration has actively rescinded limitations on weapon sales from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia imposed by the Obama administration. 

http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/middleeast/us-saudi-yemen-bus-strike-intl/index.html



> Bomb that killed 40 children in Yemen was supplied by the US
> By Nima Elbagir, Salma Abdelaziz, Ryan Browne, Barbara Arvanitidis and Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
> 
> Updated 7:50 PM ET, Fri August 17, 2018
> ...


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



dele said:


> Reduce military spending
> Tax the rich
> Expand medicare to everyone as a public option
> Take cannabis off of the controlled substances list
> ...


There is a answer for that


----------



## Stormbringer (May 3, 2008)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



dele said:


> Reduce military spending
> Tax the rich
> Expand medicare to everyone as a public option
> 
> Was that so fucking hard?


I will agree that military spending is out of control. There's billions of dollars that we can work with elsewhere. We don't need a trillion dollars for our military.

Taxing the truly rich would also help. But would that help out enough when billionaires start "relocating the wealth."

The healthcare issue is where things get really fucked up in America. There's just too many people in the US to really have a real sustainable healthcare system. Just look at how things are now. Emergency Room times are ridiculous. Too many patients, not enough doctors, nurses and beds. You can't compare a place like Denmark to America. Denmark is the size of a small state. You can provide great top of the line healthcare to one state. But for a country the size of America, we just don't have enough human resources. America gets screwed in the middle at every turn. The rich they can have any and everything they need AND want. But the middle have to pay out the ass. Any change to real policy hits the middle HARD.

We just don't have human resources to make true difference here. The best way I can explain it is like this. People flood ERs now as is. Imagine if the costs across the board were cut in half? The floodgates would open and our doctors and hospitals wouldn't be able to stay afloat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3YcGRCGEuY






The mini rant that Dore goes on a 1:03:00 hits the nail on the head for America. We're well and truly fucked.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DX-Superkick said:


> I will agree that military spending is out of control. There's billions of dollars that we can work with elsewhere. We don't need a trillion dollars for our military.
> 
> Taxing the truly rich would also help. But would that help out enough when billionaires start "relocating the wealth."
> 
> ...


You know what would help with ER times? If people could afford to go see a doctor for preventative care when issues first come up, instead of waiting until they are too sick to do anything else. You know what else that would help with? Costs.

Also, if we don't have enough doctors, nurses and beds, maybe we should invest in doctors, nurses and beds, instead of allowing the CEO of a for-profit healthcare insurance company buy his third yacht. Just a thought.


----------



## Stormbringer (May 3, 2008)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You know what would help with ER times? If people could afford to go see a doctor for preventative care when issues first come up, instead of waiting until they are too sick to do anything else. You know what else that would help with? Costs.
> 
> Also, if we don't have enough doctors, nurses and beds, maybe we should invest in doctors, nurses and beds, instead of allowing the CEO of a for-profit healthcare insurance company buy his third yacht. Just a thought.


I agree but money is power. Let me ask you this. How many times has real change come about that has fucked over the rich? We're too poor as a nation to help ourselves. But money is still being made at the top so nothing will change. 

Check the video link I posted in my edit. The timestamp I gave explains what's wrong with America. One hour and three minutes into the video Dore kills it when he sums up America.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> This is awful. This is one area that has been quite disappointing over the first year and a half of Trump's presidency. The Trump administration has actively rescinded limitations on weapon sales from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia imposed by the Obama administration.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/middleeast/us-saudi-yemen-bus-strike-intl/index.html


One of the sporadic occurrences, alongside the slash to spending military funding for for Israel, in which "Thanks, Obama" was actually a legit compliment toward his foreign policy instead of a snarky meme. bama4

Even though Trump deserves kudos in regard to being an integral part to the Korean War coming closer and closer to ending, he nevertheless deserves a ragging for this bullshit joining the Syria airstrike and permanent installment of a U.S. base on Israeli soil as yet another Middle East-related blemish to his foreign policy. :armfold


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DX-Superkick said:


> I agree but money is power. Let me ask you this. How many times has real change come about that has fucked over the rich? We're too poor as a nation to help ourselves. But money is still being made at the top so nothing will change.
> 
> Check the video link I posted in my edit. The timestamp I gave explains what's wrong with America. One hour and three minutes into the video Dore kills it when he sums up America.


I've already watched both Dore eps on JRE. (Y)

How many times has real change come about that has fucked over the rich? Is that a serious question? :lol

You should really study up on the last few thousand years of history. _Every single time_ the balance between those at the very top and everyone else reaches the levels we're at now, real change happens and the rich get fucked. Economies and entire societies collapse. It's usually not a very pretty process. You can see it play out over the course of human history in cycles. Wealth starts being created and for awhile, it's not all bad for the majority of people, but then as wealth and power start concentrating, as those at the top take more and more for themselves while leaving less and less for everyone else, the end result becomes inevitable. It's a tale as old as human civilization and it ends the same way every time.


----------



## Stormbringer (May 3, 2008)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I've already watched both Dore eps on JRE.
> 
> How many times has real change come about that has fucked over the rich? Is that a serious question?
> 
> You should really study up on the last few thousand years of history. _Every single time_ the balance between those at the very top and everyone else reaches the levels we're at now, real change happens and the rich get fucked. Economies and entire societies collapse. It's usually not a very pretty process. You can see it play out over the course of human history in cycles. Wealth starts being created and for awhile, it's not all bad for the majority of people, but then as wealth and power start concentrating, as those at the top take more and more for themselves while leaving less and less for everyone else, the end result becomes inevitable. It's a tale as old as human civilization and it ends the same way every time.


I know that but that requires a collapse of the system. I saw the Dark Knight Rises trailer lol. But I was talking about willing change. No one wants to make life fair if they're living the high life.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Couldn't sleep. Browsing Imgur and came across this. 

Sort of speaks volumes about what we think people value but also just how indifferent our mega structures really are .. 

We did this to our own society.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DX-Superkick said:


> I know that but that requires a collapse of the system. I saw the Dark Knight Rises trailer lol. But I was talking about willing change. No one wants to make life fair if they're living the high life.


Well, you should have said willingly and I would have said of course not. But as the old saying goes, real change only happens during times of crisis. If we're ever going to break the cycle of building, concentrating wealth, collapse, repeat, we're going to have to establish a system after the next collapse that does not allow for the kind of wealth concentration that leads to collapses.

Which reminds me of something else I've been meaning to post about...



> *Turkey’s Financial Crisis Surprised Many. Except This Analyst.*
> 
> By Landon Thomas Jr.
> Aug. 11, 2018
> ...


Leftist economists like Richard Wolff have been talking about it...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030863395581579267
...and so have righty economists like David Stockman (someone you should be familiar with, @CamillePunk).


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030202928043319296





Of course, same as you and I, CP, Stockman and Wolff don't agree on the solution, but they can both see the same reasons that is going to cause this upcoming collapse.

Global capitalism, especially since the crash of a decade ago, has been built on a house of cards. It was always about capitalists using debt and other shaky means to earn short term gains at the risk of long term collapse. It was never built on a solid foundation of growth.

The day of reckoning is coming a lot sooner than most people realize.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said on Saturday that he "fully admit" Twitter employees share a largely left-leaning bias after facing accusations that conservatives are discriminated against on the social media platform.
> 
> In an interview that aired Saturday on CNN, Dorsey said his company has a responsibility to be open about its political viewpoints, but to operate without bias when applying content policies to users.
> 
> ...



https://web.archive.org/web/20180818223233/http://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning



> In her Op-Ed in this Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed The Accountable Capitalism Act – new federal legislation requiring corporations to consider the interests of employees and other stakeholders as well as shareholders.
> 
> In principle, Warren's ideas sound good, but they are based on a flawed premise. She contends that CEOs and boards are following Nobel-Prize winning economist Milton Friedman's philosophy of maximizing shareholder value.
> 
> ...


https://web.archive.org/web/20180817154212/https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/17/senator-warrens-proposal-to-remake-american-capitalism-is-flawed-at-its-core.html


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> https://web.archive.org/web/20180818223233/http://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning
> 
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20180817154212/https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/17/senator-warrens-proposal-to-remake-american-capitalism-is-flawed-at-its-core.html


Jack is either full of shit or too stupid to know the difference between left leaning and neoliberal establishment. Censorship is never okay and I don't give a fuck what label you want to put on who is doing it. 

And Liz is a fucking joke masquerading as a leftist. All she proposes are weak solutions to massive problems without ever addressing the core issues. She doesn't want to change the system. She just wants capitalism to be _nice_ to people. What a pathetic joke.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> She just wants capitalism to be _nice_ to people. What a pathetic joke.


Isn't that basically what you advocate though with having all of the non-invested, unskilled/qualified and easily replaceable workers being able to decide the direction of the company they work for? It's hardly socialism that you advocate over and over, just "capitalism that does what the people want instead of what makes the most money." :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Isn't that basically what you advocate though with having all of the non-invested, unskilled/qualified and easily replaceable workers being able to decide the direction of the company they work for? It's hardly socialism that you advocate over and over, just "capitalism that does what the people want instead of what makes the most money." :lol


No... just, no. If that's what you think I want, then you have never understood a single word I have ever said.

But, on the bright side of things, I am winding down a nice celebratory birthday evening, so I am just gonna be kind and say have a nice day. Best to you and yours.


----------



## Nickelbackfan (Aug 20, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Wow, this Trump guy is an asshole. And, I thought Bon Jovi back in the 80's was a pain in the ass to deal with as a roadie. Geesh.

Rudy looks like he has been to a Quiet Riot concert, 10 too many times. Ha. I know that feeling and look he gets when people ask him hard questions, and it looks like you got caught with a Hustler mag from your Mom. Ha, crazy guy.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> No... just, no. If that's what you think I want, then you have never understood a single word I have ever said.
> 
> But, on the bright side of things, I am winding down a nice celebratory birthday evening, so I am just gonna be kind and say have a nice day. Best to you and yours.


You flat out stated that you want the bottom-rung workers to decide who the executives are and the direction the company takes. If you think you meant something different when that's what you explicitly stated then I'd recommend hitting up a community college to further your quite primitive education standards tbh. As anybody who's ACTUALLY in big business/management knows, that's a piss-poor way to run a company. I'll forgive you though, after all, you make grills for a living. Hope you had a great birthday though.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> here’s a new scandal quietly unfolding in Washington. It’s far bigger than Housing Secretary Ben Carson buying a $31,000 dinette set for his office, or former EPA chief Scott Pruitt deploying an aide to hunt for a deal on a used mattress. It involves the world’s richest man, President Trump’s favorite general, and a $10 billion defense contract. And it may be a sign of how tech giants and Silicon Valley tycoons will dominate Washington for generations to come.
> 
> The controversy involves a plan to move all of the Defense Department’s data—classified and unclassified—on to the cloud. The information is currently strewn across some 400 centers, and the Pentagon’s top brass believes that consolidating it into one cloud-based system, the way the CIA did in 2013, will make it more secure and accessible. That’s why, on July 26, the Defense Department issued a request for proposals called JEDI, short for Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure. Whoever winds up landing the winner-take-all contract will be awarded $10 billion—instantly becoming one of America’s biggest federal contractors.
> Try Vanity Fair and receive a free tote.Join Now
> ...


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/has-bezos-become-more-powerful-in-dc-than-trump


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Strangley quiet on the western front so far in here over Guliani's latest gaff, what a disaster that man has proven to be. Surprised he's made it this far in the administration team after all the bufoonery he's already shown.

Oh wait i get it now, he just 'misspoke'. Honestly, surely the most dyed in the wool Trump supporters should see this clown needs to go.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Strangley quiet on the western front so far in here over Guliani's latest gaff, what a disaster that man has proven to be. Surprised he's made it this far in the administration team after all the bufoonery he's already shown.
> 
> Oh wait i get it now, he just 'misspoke'. Honestly, surely the most dyed in the wool Trump supporters should see this clown needs to go.


Its because its the only lawyer that will take Trump. All the good ones know Trump is guilty and won't defend him.

Its funny how Rudy basically admitted Trump would lie and that is why he won't testify.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its because its the only lawyer that will take Trump. All the good ones know Trump is guilty and won't defend him.
> 
> Its funny how Rudy basically admitted Trump would lie and that is why he won't testify.


Well to be fair, he's still working out their 'previous facts'.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Strangley quiet on the western front so far in here over Guliani's latest gaff, what a disaster that man has proven to be. Surprised he's made it this far in the administration team after all the bufoonery he's already shown.
> 
> Oh wait i get it now, he just 'misspoke'. *Honestly, surely the most dyed in the wool Trump supporters should see this clown needs to go.*


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Turkey is an intriguing case study but it is only a fairly small part of the puzzle with the Chinese and now the Americans briefly moving in concert financially. The U.S. is set to monetize over 1.2 trillion of federal debt alone by January, and this does not touch the approximately half of a trillion in state and local debt. The most conspicuous ramification is the plummeting stock of credit. The entire world is effectively seeking to achieve 6% growth with just a little over 2% growth in the monetary base, which is an inversion of the 2000s and early 2010s central bank-backed model. Due to the shrinking of the pool of credit a considerably stronger U.S. dollar is lapping up the pool of credit which is leading to all sorts of curious financial matters. Which is hitting a lot of different markets in singular ways, but ultimately means something of a sizable market crisis internationally. The monetary battle plan by Turkey's Erdogan has been consistently questionable at best, exacerbating an already arduous set of circumstances. 

The main rippling effect is that Turkey is at a rather significant risk of defaulting the way a man who has smoked a pack of cigarettes a day into his forties and never exercises and eats a lot of red meat and processed sugars is at risk for high blood pressure and a stroke. The Turkish financial house of cards is remarkably delicate. A default is hardly inevitable but it is an entirely real potential scenario. What may also occur, and is perhaps likely to happen to some extent in 2019, is a move by the U.S. Federal Reserve to reverse the quantitative restricting we have seen over the past year. The European Central Bank is already arguing on behalf of the U.S. going back to easier quantitative methodologies. 

One of the easiest addictions in banking is to keep piling up the debt and refusing to ever allow bad toxic debt to clear. It is stunningly simple and yet as a phenomenon it just keeps happening. No one wants to grab the broom or vacuum cleaner or simply let nature take its course and watch the bad debt clear.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> You flat out stated that you want the bottom-rung workers to decide who the executives are and the direction the company takes. If you think you meant something different when that's what you explicitly stated then I'd recommend hitting up a community college to further your quite primitive education standards tbh. As anybody who's ACTUALLY in big business/management knows, that's a piss-poor way to run a company. I'll forgive you though, after all, you make grills for a living. Hope you had a great birthday though.


Your projection is showing. Because you can't or are unwilling to understand how a worker coop corporation functions, of which I have provided a very successful example in Mondragon, you insult my intelligence and the line of work I'm using to pay my bills while I finish my bachelor's in accounting.

You couldn't have failed harder if you tried. But thanks for the happy birthday.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/has-bezos-become-more-powerful-in-dc-than-trump


Jedi, space force, someone in the administration must be a big sci-fi geek. Next they'll be asking to reform NATO as the federation.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So Trump's 4D chess is basically to run interference on Besos by shitting on him on Twitter so "intellectuals" like Scott Adams and his ilk will keep their lips firmly on Trump's ass. 

I can hear it now. 

"But Trump Heeeites Besos. Cleeearly this was just cooongress." 

:draper2

I think this is like 8D Chess.

Trump retains his base while Republicans and the lobbyists continue to operate in the background ... not without his blessing. 

Win Win for the authoritarian libertarians. (Yea, I'm coining this now because it really seems to be a new political leaning emerging over the last two years).


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Jedi, space force, someone in the administration must be a big sci-fi geek. Next they'll be asking to reform NATO as the federation.


When Trump announced space force I thought that sounded like some shitty cartoon from the 80's turns out it was a shitty cartoon from the 80's.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> So Trump's 4D chess is basically to run interference on Besos by shitting on him on Twitter so "intellectuals" like Scott Adams and his ilk will keep their lips firmly on Trump's ass.
> 
> I can hear it now.
> 
> ...


Right wing libertarians have always been authoritarian in their own way. They just want to do it on their own without government help. They're perfectly fine with authoritarianism, just so long as it is in the hands of private entities and it's not called "the government", something my friend @CamillePunk has yet to admit about his own philosophy.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Right wing libertarians have always been authoritarian in their own way. They just want to do it on their own without government help. They're perfectly fine with authoritarianism, just so long as it is in the hands of private entities and it's not called "the government", something my friend @CamillePunk has yet to admit about his own philosophy.


Words matter. Authoritarianism refers to a form of government; you're using it incorrectly. 

If you're saying an anarcho-capitalist society would have a lot of rules in it, then yes you're exactly right.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Words matter. Authoritarianism refers to a form of government; you're using it incorrectly.
> 
> If you're saying an anarcho-capitalist society would have a lot of rules in it, then yes you're exactly right.


I agree. Words matter. And I'm not using it incorrectly. By saying that right wing libertarianism is a form of authoritarianism, what I mean is that it is still a concentrated form of power. You've still got a small handful of elite people who own most of the wealth and control all of the power. They just don't have the government to protect them when they fail.

Admittedly, I prefer this to the right wing authoritarianism that is currently running our government but I do not see it as the optimal solution to our problems.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I agree. Words matter. And I'm not using it incorrectly. By saying that right wing libertarianism is a form of authoritarianism, what I mean is that it is still a concentrated form of power. You've still got a small handful of elite people who own most of the wealth and control all of the power. They just don't have the government to protect them when they fail.
> 
> Admittedly, I prefer this to the right wing authoritarianism that is currently running our government but I do not see it as the optimal solution to our problems.


There would be a lot less power to control, and it would be far more difficult to maintain their wealthy elite status. Not impossible though, no. My ideal society isn't one in which there are no rich people and no poor people. I don't seek to wage war against biological reality (which is that some people are far smarter, some are far dumber, and most are about average, and IQ is pretty damn good at predicting life success), and don't view it as a justification to use force against others to even the playing field.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> When Trump announced space force I thought that sounded like some shitty cartoon from the 80's turns out it was a shitty cartoon from the 80's.


Is there something wrong with his idea? 
Trump 2020


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> Is there something wrong with his idea?
> Trump 2020


Yes it's an incredible wash of money and we have NASA.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> There would be a lot less power to control, and it would be far more difficult to maintain their wealthy elite status. Not impossible though, no. My ideal society isn't one in which there are no rich people and no poor people. I don't seek to wage war against biological reality (which is that some people are far smarter, some are far dumber, and most are about average, and IQ is pretty damn good at predicting life success), and don't view it as a justification to use force against others to even the playing field.


Well, you're correct that it wouldn't be as easy to control, which is precisely why most oligarchs prefer to use the Big Government method to maintain their status. Of course, that's not to say it would be impossible to do, just more difficult.

I've never stated that there should be no rich and no poor. I'm not interested in a society where all wealth is distributed equally. What I believe in is a society where wealth is earned fairly in the first place and then after that, people will be free to decide what to do with their wealth.

What I don't believe in is survival of the fittest. We are not beasts living in the jungle. We should not just say fuck you to those who are not born smart enough or physically capable enough to compete with the best. That is a barbaric way to conduct society and I would hope that you understand that on some level.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Yes it's an incredible wash of money and we have NASA.


I'm sure you didn't mind when Obama increased the US debt by $9 trillion when he was in office.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> I'm sure you didn't mind when Obama increased the US debt by $9 trillion when he was in office.


What does Obama have to do with Spaceforce?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I've never stated that there should be no rich and no poor. I'm not interested in a society where all wealth is distributed equally. What I believe in is a society where wealth is earned fairly in the first place and then after that, people will be free to decide what to do with their wealth.


"Equally" is absurd, as you might agree with, but "fairly" is impossible. There is no objective measure for fairness. The single best way we've found to measure who deserves what is by going by what people are willing to pay for certain goods and services, and who can make those things happen (which involves taking on a lot of personal risk, hence the big payoff). 

I'm just not that bothered by wealth inequality. I'm more concerned about raising the floor than lowering the ceiling, and I think the best way to do that is giving people far more economic liberty than they currently have. 



> What I don't believe in is survival of the fittest. We are not beasts living in the jungle. We should not just say fuck you to those who are not born smart enough or physically capable enough to compete with the best. That is a barbaric way to conduct society and I would hope that you understand that on some level.


Rich people give a ton of money to charity (and the government) as it is. I think if we were all giving less to the government we'd have more to give to charity and could actually help a lot more people than we currently are.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> What does Obama have to do with Spaceforce?


If you wouldn't mind me answering this question...

Democrats were put in control of the entire government after how badly Dubya's Republicans failed. Had Obama's Democrats not failed equally as hard, we'd never have been in a position where Trump was president and capable of launching a space force.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> If you wouldn't mind me answering this question...
> 
> Democrats were put in control of the entire government after how badly Dubya's Republicans failed. Had Obama's Democrats not failed equally as hard, we'd never have been in a position where Trump was president and capable of launching a space force.


You have a good point.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Space Force has been in the works for a long time. Trump is basically just taking credit for it without actually having to do much himself. A move that costs him nothing, but does tickle the fancy of typically left-wing space lovers.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> "Equally" is absurd, as you might agree with, but "fairly" is impossible. There is no objective measure for fairness. The single best way we've found to measure who deserves what is by going by what people are willing to pay for certain goods and services, and who can make those things happen (which involves taking on a lot of personal risk, hence the big payoff).
> 
> I'm just not that bothered by wealth inequality. I'm more concerned about raising the floor than lowering the ceiling, and I think the best way to do that is giving people far more economic liberty than they currently have.
> 
> Rich people give a ton of money to charity (and the government) as it is. I think if we were all giving less to the government we'd have more to give to charity and could actually help a lot more people than we currently are.


Look, I'm giving you a fair shake on what you believe to be a desired outcome. I simply believe, through factual evidence and an understanding of history, that it would not work out the way you think it would. I also don't believe fairly is impossible in a democratically run society.

That said, I'd still rather have your libertarian right society over the authoritarian right one we've got now.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/world/europe/nazi-guard-deported.html

Trump deports actual Nazi. :heston


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/world/europe/nazi-guard-deported.html
> 
> Trump deports actual Nazi. :heston


Does that mean the government is going to stop arming Nazis in the Ukraine? Or... did you just find anecdotal evidence of a single instance...

Asking for a friend.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1031952659471892483
I didn't bother reading the Vox article but I find it highly believable that 78% of Dems believe Russia stole the election for Trump. I don't watch MSM but I do check in on Twitter every once in awhile and I watch a lot of Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski, so that 78% number does not shock me in the slightest. Americans are still highly susceptible to propaganda and there are a lot of people out there even after 2 years that refuse to believe that Hillary was so repugnant to the public that Trump got elected.

Yeah, the electoral college is bullshit, but it should never have been even close. This speaks to how badly the Democrats failed during the Obama years more than anything else. Republicans don't run the country right now because a majority of people want Republicans running the country. They are in charge right now because the Dem Establishment fucking sucks donkey ass.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1031952659471892483
> I didn't bother reading the Vox article but I find it highly believable that 78% of Dems believe Russia stole the election for Trump. I don't watch MSM but I do check in on Twitter every once in awhile and I watch a lot of Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski, so that 78% number does not shock me in the slightest. Americans are still highly susceptible to propaganda and there are a lot of people out there even after 2 years that refuse to believe that Hillary was so repugnant to the public that Trump got elected.
> 
> Yeah, the electoral college is bullshit, but it should never have been even close. This speaks to how badly the Democrats failed during the Obama years more than anything else. Republicans don't run the country right now because a majority of people want Republicans running the country. They are in charge right now because the Dem Establishment fucking sucks donkey ass.


If people don't believe Russia tried to interfere in the election then at this point those people just don't listen to facts.

It's debatable if they succeeded, but its a fact they tried.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Truth is, Donald Trump and his rise to the presidency is a Frankenstein Monster of the Democrats own making. 

Between forcing Hillary down people's throats when Bernie did a better job of energizing the base, to the major 24/7 news stations (which lets be honest, outside of Fox News, they are basically just branches of the DNC headquarters) giving Trump nonstop coverage and securing the nomination for him through nonstop free press, to Obama leaving the DNC in debt, to using disgusting and unlikeable people like Lena Dunham as faces for their party, to siding with and emboldening the ever growing obnoxious PC culture, the Democrats dug their own grave in 2016 and they were forced to lay in it. 

To this day, I am still amazed that they didn't realize this was all their fault and are constantly looking for any excuses to explain it all: Large segments of the country are Nazis, the Russians did it, etc. Well, Trump would have never gotten as far as he did in the first place if you people didn't have your heads up your asses and ran a half decent campaign, and if the news media had done their job and reported the news faithfully and without bias, then maybe, just maybe, this wouldn't have blown up in their faces so horribly.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



TripleG said:


> Truth is, Donald Trump and his rise to the presidency is a Frankenstein Monster of the Democrats own making.
> 
> Between forcing Hillary down people's throats when Bernie did a better job of energizing the base, to the major 24/7 news stations (which lets be honest, outside of Fox News, they are basically just branches of the DNC headquarters) giving Trump nonstop coverage and securing the nomination for him through nonstop free press, to Obama leaving the DNC in debt, to using disgusting and unlikeable people like Lena Dunham as faces for their party, to siding with and emboldening the ever growing obnoxious PC culture, the Democrats dug their own grave in 2016 and they were forced to lay in it.
> 
> To this day, I am still amazed that they didn't realize this was all their fault and are constantly looking for any excuses to explain it all: Large segments of the country are Nazis, the Russians did it, etc. Well, Trump would have never gotten as far as he did in the first place if you people didn't have your heads up your asses and ran a half decent campaign, and if the news media had done their job and reported the news faithfully and without bias, then maybe, just maybe, this wouldn't have blown up in their faces so horribly.


It was a joke that most of the news outlets instead of showing Bernies speeches would just show an empty Trump podium. 

The DNC has no one to blame but themselves, they had the person that would have easily beaten Trump but instead rigged the system against Bernie and Hillary went down in flames. 

And now with the rumors they want to push Biden for 2020 LOL They never learn.

the sad thing about the news outlets they still have not learned their less they still can't report the news faithfully and without bias. They just let people lie on TV all the time without even fact checking them or calling them out on their BS.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Does that mean the government is going to stop arming Nazis in the Ukraine? Or... did you just find anecdotal evidence of a single instance...
> 
> Asking for a friend.


Arming Ukraine won't get brought up, contradicts the Russian puppet narrative. Trump can bring up that he deported an ACTUAL NAZI, LIKE FROM NAZI GERMANY though, and I'm just really hoping it happens during a televised debate. :heston


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Arming Ukraine won't get brought up, contradicts the Russian puppet narrative. Trump can bring up that he deported an ACTUAL NAZI, LIKE FROM NAZI GERMANY though, and I'm just really hoping it happens during a televised debate. :heston


*Watching CNN right now on the Manafort stuff and just saw that crawl at the bottom of the screen. I wanna know how this motherfucker was caught lol*


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Mueller fails in the Manafort case. Guilty on 8 counts, hung on 10. :trump pardon likely incoming with Mueller's failure to convict on just more than half the counts. MUH RUSSIA falls on its face yet again :heston

MUH RUSSIA is over. They couldn't get :trump's campaign manager, they couldn't even indict him on anything actually connected to the :trump campaign or the 2016 election.

Mueller will either end his investigation or be fired by the end of the year. So sad for the resistance, they've spent 2 years putting all their chips on ginning up a moral panic over MUH RUSSIA to enable their soft coup, and they've done nothing but fail at it :heyman6


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Arming Ukraine won't get brought up, contradicts the Russian puppet narrative. Trump can bring up that he deported an ACTUAL NAZI, LIKE FROM NAZI GERMANY though, and I'm just really hoping it happens during a televised debate. :heston


You really don't think Trump owes Russia and is doing mostly what they want because he laundered money from them?

You honestly don't think Trump is Putin's bitch?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really don't think Trump owes Russia and is doing mostly what they want because he laundered money from them?
> 
> You honestly don't think Trump is Putin's bitch?


No, I don't see any evidence for that. To be fair I am banned from the Trump-Russia thread. :sad:


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1031952659471892483
> I didn't bother reading the Vox article but I find it highly believable that 78% of Dems believe Russia stole the election for Trump. I don't watch MSM but I do check in on Twitter every once in awhile and I watch a lot of Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski, so that 78% number does not shock me in the slightest. Americans are still highly susceptible to propaganda and there are a lot of people out there even after 2 years that refuse to believe that Hillary was so repugnant to the public that Trump got elected.
> 
> Yeah, the electoral college is bullshit, but it should never have been even close. This speaks to how badly the Democrats failed during the Obama years more than anything else. Republicans don't run the country right now because a majority of people want Republicans running the country. They are in charge right now because the Dem Establishment fucking sucks donkey ass.


Humorously, the 2016 general election is one of the best endorsements of the electoral college system to date. Hillary Clinton never even deigning to visit the state of Wisconsin over the last several months of the campaign, for instance, demonstrates how relevant it remains in spite of her conceited belief that she would win easily. Whatever else one wishes to say about Donald Trump, the man, again and again, campaigned in particular states and spoke to the people of those states, again and again, with one of the most dizzying campaign blitzkriegs in American history. Trump flipped Wisconsin along with Pennsylvania and Michigan, and almost turned Minnesota red for goodness sake. :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Mueller fails in the Manafort case. Guilty on 8 counts, hung on 10. :trump pardon likely incoming with Mueller's failure to convict on just more than half the counts. MUH RUSSIA falls on its face yet again :heston
> 
> MUH RUSSIA is over. They couldn't get :trump's campaign manager, they couldn't even indict him on anything actually connected to the :trump campaign or the 2016 election.
> 
> Mueller will either end his investigation or be fired by the end of the year. So sad for the resistance, they've spent 2 years failing :heyman6


You call that winning LOL He got convicted on 8 charges. You act like he was found not guilty on the rest. 

And Trump pardoning him will just be another obstruction charge added.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> No, I don't see any evidence for that. To be fair I am banned from the Trump-Russia thread. :sad:


They need their safe space where they can fantasize that 2 years of producing nothing, and now failing in the Manafort case, is going to result in their claims somehow - perhaps by magic - being validated.

It's over. Let them have their pathetic little fantasy thread where Bob Mueller has reams of evidence of collusion but nobody except Mueller knows it. :heston


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> No, I don't see any evidence for that. To be fair I am banned from the Trump-Russia thread. :sad:


Trumps own kids admitted they "borrowed" money from the Russians and that a lot of their assets came from Russia.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> You call that winning LOL He got convicted on 8 charges. You act like he was found not guilty on the rest.
> 
> And Trump pardoning him will just be another obstruction charge added.


A hung jury on 10 of 18 charges is a massive failure for the resistance, deal with it. Mueller couldn't prove his case. A pardon is likely incoming and there is nothing you fascists can do about it. Your coup has failed. 

Obstruction of justice for a pardon :bryanlol the grasping at straws is getting quite desperate now.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> Humorously, the 2016 general election is one of the best endorsements of the electoral college system to date. Hillary Clinton never even deigning to visit the state of Wisconsin over the last several months of the campaign, for instance, demonstrates how relevant it remains in spite of her conceited belief that she would win easily. Whatever else one wishes to say about Donald Trump, the man, again and again, campaigned in particular states and spoke to the people of those states, again and again, with one of the most dizzying campaign blitzkriegs in American history. Trump flipped Wisconsin along with Pennsylvania and Michigan, and almost turned Minnesota red for goodness sake. :lmao


*I agree. I'm a fan of the Electoral College. The democrats and Hillary have no one to blame but themselves. *


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trumps own kids admitted they "borrowed" money from the Russians and that a lot of their assets came from Russia.


Not sure how making money off of Russia means one must be in collusion with them, or serve their interests over their own country's. Sounds like Russophobia to me. Didn't take you for a Cold War kid, BM.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Not sure how making money off of Russia means one must be in collusion with them, or serve their interests over their own country's. Sounds like Russophobia to me. Didn't take you for a Cold War kid, BM.


If you want to ignore all the evidence be my guest. Putin could come out and say he and Trump colluted and you still would deny it

Are you also going to deny Trump tried getting dirty on Hillary from the Russians too in that Trump tower meeting?

Trump admitted to that, and FYI that is ILLEGAL.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Not sure how making money off of Russia means one must be in collusion with them, or serve their interests over their own country's. Sounds like Russophobia to me. Didn't take you for a Cold War kid, BM.


The Clintons and Bob Mueller and Barack Obama were all and still are all Putin's puppets according to BM. Huge amounts of Russian money going to the Clintons and huge amounts of Russian bribery in Uranium One, ignored by Bob Mueller at the FBI. 

BM just admitted it. If :trump kids doing business in Russia = proof positive of :trump being Putin's puppet, then actual corruption of the US government by Russia in the Uranium One deal, facilitated by the Clintons, protected by Bob Mueller and Barack Obama's Justice Department = proof double positive that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bob Mueller, and Barack Obama are all even more puppets of Vladimir Putin. 

Now watch BM foam at the mouth :heston


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you want to ignore all the evidence be my guest. Putin could come out and say he and Trump colluted and you still would deny it
> 
> Are you also going to deny Trump tried getting dirty on Hillary from the Russians too in that Trump tower meeting?
> 
> Trump admitted to that, and FYI that is ILLEGAL.


*I don't know about all of that.... but I don't care to admit I would have gotten a little dirty on Hillary back in her younger days.*


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump tried getting dirty on Hillary from the Russians


:andre



> Trump admitted to that, and FYI that is ILLEGAL.


As it should be!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CROFT said:


> *I don't know about all of that.... but I don't care to admit I would have gotten a little dirty on Hillary back in her younger days.*


I am sorry, you don't know about what? I am unclear what you are referring to when saying you don't know about all of that.







CamillePunk said:


> :andre
> 
> As it should be!


So are you admitting Trump and his campaign illegally tried to get info on Clinton from the Russians?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So then the Hillary Clinton campaign and the United States State Department colluding with pro-Russian elements of the Ukrainian government to obtain "dirt" on :trump from Russians in Russia who were most likely working for the FSB means that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should both go to jail, right? These are not allegations, they have been fully admitted to by members of the Clinton campaign, State Department officials, and Ukrainian government employees that there was a channel set up by pro-Russian Ukrainian government officials, through the US embassy in Kiev, that connected Russians claiming to have dirt on :trump to the Clinton campaign, and that information was passed to the Clinton campaign through that channel.

*foaming at the mouth intensifies*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> So then the Hillary Clinton campaign and the United States State Department colluding with pro-Russian elements of the Ukrainian government to obtain "dirt" on :trump from Russians in Russia who were most likely working for the FSB means that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should both go to jail, right? These are not allegations, they have been fully admitted to by members of the Clinton campaign, State Department officials, and Ukrainian government employees that there was a channel set up by pro-Russian Ukrainian government officials, through the US embassy in Kiev, that connected Russians claiming to have dirt on :trump to the Clinton campaign, and that information was passed to the Clinton campaign through that channel.
> 
> *foaming at the mouth intensifies*


If Hilary and Obama illegally tried to get info on Trump from the Russians, then yes throw them in jail with Trump.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> No, I don't see any evidence for that. To be fair I am banned from the Trump-Russia thread. :sad:


What were your sins lol?

Who banned you?

:hogan


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So are you admitting Trump and his campaign illegally tried to get info on Clinton from the Russians?


You're barking up the wrong tree with this. I really don't care if it happened or didn't, or if it was legal or illegal. I don't want there to be a government and don't agree with democracy, you think I care about election laws? :lol I'll bring them up to point out hypocrisy, but that's about it.



Bret “Hitman” Hart;76044090 said:


> What were your sins lol?
> 
> Who banned you?
> 
> :hogan


I don't get details like that for being banned from a thread. I assume I posted something skeptical of the conclusion that Trump is definitely a Russian puppet. If you don't accept that conclusion from the start then you can't post in there. Sad story.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> You're barking up the wrong tree with this. I really don't care if it happened or didn't, or if it was legal or illegal. I don't want there to be a government and don't agree with democracy, you think I care about election laws? :lol I'll bring them up to point out hypocrisy, but that's about it.


So you don't care if Trump had collusion with the Russians and Putin. Got it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ampaign-finance-law-at-direction-of-candidate

Cohen says he violated campaign finance law 'at direction of candidate'

Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal attorney, said Tuesday he violated campaign finance laws at "direction of the candidate," an indirect reference to the president.

Cohen pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax fraud and campaign finance law violations in the Southern District of New York. While reviewing the charges, Cohen told the judge that he made a $130,000 payment at the direction of the candidate for federal office to keep someone quiet, and was later repaid by that same candidate.

At no point did Cohen refer to Trump by name, but the account matches Cohen's payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in October 2016.

Cohen additionally told the judge he made a contribution of $150,000 at the direction of the candidate, which aligns with his payment to secure the rights to former Playboy model Karen McDougal's account of an alleged affair with Trump.

Cohen admits to working “at direction of the candidate” Trump and national enquirer to silence Karen McDougal. He also admits to Stormy Daniels payment that he made “with and at direction of the same candidate.”


Cohen pleaded guilty to one count of making an excessive campaign contribution on Oct. 27, 2016, which is the same date he finalized a payment to Daniels as part of a non-disclosure agreement over an alleged affair with Trump. 

The $130,000 payment to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was completed just weeks before the 2016 election. She is now suing Cohen and the president for defamation and to void a non-disclosure agreement about the affair.

Trump initially denied knowing anything about the payment to Daniels, but later acknowledged that he reimbursed Cohen for the expense, which he insisted had nothing to do with the campaign.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you don't care if Trump had collusion with the Russians and Putin. Got it.


Honestly no, not really. :lol I've told people that for the last two years when they ask. Russia working to make sure the US doesn't elect someone who said they wanted to shoot down Russian planes over the Syrian conflict not only sounds totally acceptable to me, but commendable. I'm anti-WW3, personally. 

Don't see any evidence for Trump's involvement in any such attempt though.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> So you don't care if Trump had collusion with the Russians and Putin. Got it.


Except that after two years of investigation not one shred of evidence has been produced. It is impossible to ignore what isn't there, unless you're #resisting

But the admitted collusion between the Clinton campaign, the State Department, pro-Russian Ukrainian government officials, and shadowy Russian figures who have never been identified, now some people are fine with ignoring that.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Except that after two years of investigation not one shred of evidence has been produced. It is impossible to ignore what isn't there, unless you're #resisting
> 
> But the admitted collusion between the Clinton campaign, the State Department, pro-Russian Ukrainian government officials, and shadowy Russian figures who have never been identified, now some people are fine with ignoring that.


LOL Trmps own words admitted he did, but sure ignore Trump's own tweet about it

I am done with you. You are going on ignore


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't get details like that for being banned from a thread. I assume I posted something skeptical of the conclusion that Trump is definitely a Russian puppet. If you don't accept that conclusion from the start then you can't post in there. Sad story.


Pretty worthless thread in that case tbh


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Pretty worthless thread in that case tbh


Pretty sure he was trying to use a Breitbart article to try and defend Trump, which is a trolling racist website.

I know someone was trying to post Breitbart articles in that thread to troll it.

If I am wrong about this instance it was the case in another.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Pretty sure he was trying to use a Breitbart article to try and defend Trump, which is a trolling racist website.
> 
> I know someone was trying to post Breitbart articles in that thread to troll it.
> 
> If I am wrong about this instance it was the case in another.


I've never read Breitbart myself, but surely in that case it would just merit a "don't link Breitbart" warning. Obviously infractions, bans and such aren't uniform or transparent or anything but it seems harsh.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> Humorously, the 2016 general election is one of the best endorsements of the electoral college system to date. Hillary Clinton never even deigning to visit the state of Wisconsin over the last several months of the campaign, for instance, demonstrates how relevant it remains in spite of her conceited belief that she would win easily. Whatever else one wishes to say about Donald Trump, the man, again and again, campaigned in particular states and spoke to the people of those states, again and again, with one of the most dizzying campaign blitzkriegs in American history. Trump flipped Wisconsin along with Pennsylvania and Michigan, and almost turned Minnesota red for goodness sake. :lmao


Look, don't get me wrong, I will always be happy that Hillary was denied her coronation, but it will always be bullshit that the person receiving fewer votes can win an election. If that happened in a country we don't like, we'd call it a rogue state and overthrow their government. 

You know damned well I ain't wrong about that.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Look, don't get me wrong, I will always be happy that Hillary was denied her coronation, but it will always be bullshit that the person receiving fewer votes can win an election. If that happened in a country we don't like, we'd call it a rogue state and overthrow their government.
> 
> You know damned well I ain't wrong about that.


Like I have said before, its pretty fucked up when you could win the EC by only winning 11 states and 23% of all votes.

You know a system is broken when that is possible.

The funny thing is, if the GOP won the popular vote for the 2nd time in 4 elections but lost because of the EC, the EC would be gone in seconds lol


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Look, don't get me wrong, I will always be happy that Hillary was denied her coronation, but it will always be bullshit that the person receiving fewer votes can win an election. If that happened in a country we don't like, we'd call it a rogue state and overthrow their government.
> 
> You know damned well I ain't wrong about that.


But then you open yourself up to be ruled by the mob. 

Let's not forget that in California of all places gay marriage didn't pass the vote. Getting rid of the EC would put the entire Nation at the mercy of a few states still.

The EC isn't bad, just needs a few revisions. Of course if Trump had won the popular vote and lost the EC, people would be thanking the EC. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> But then you open yourself up to be ruled by the mob.
> 
> Let's not forget that in California of all places gay marriage didn't pass the vote. Getting rid of the EC would put the entire Nation at the mercy of a few states still.
> 
> The EC isn't bad, just needs a few revisions. Of course if Trump had won the popular vote and lost the EC, people would be thanking the EC. :shrug


That is the whole point of democracy. The most votes wins.

The EC is letting the minority rule.

The country should be voting by population not land mass.

And if Trump won the popular vote and lost the EC, the GOP would have abolished the EC by now


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is the whole point of democracy. The most votes wins.
> 
> The EC is letting the minority rule.
> 
> ...


Except that the largest complaints are in general the average person is stupid but yet we should move to a popularity contest to decide things? Sure, that's great. We can leave it up to the people like we did with gay marriage.. oh.. yes forgot how that turned out.

Probably except now it's the Democrats and "Left" trying to get rid of the EC. I guess that doesn't count because.. they're on the side of Truth and Justice correct? :lmao

Good times, "If so and so does this or that, it's evil. If I do it, it's okay." never change American Politics. :x


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Except that the largest complaints are in general the average person is stupid but yet we should move to a popularity contest to decide things? Sure, that's great. We can leave it up to the people like we did with gay marriage.. oh.. yes forgot how that turned out.
> 
> Probably except now it's the Democrats and "Left" trying to get rid of the EC. I guess that doesn't count because.. they're on the side of Truth and Justice correct? :lmao
> 
> Good times, "If so and so does this or that, it's evil. If I do it, it's okay." never change American Politics. :x


62% of US citizens support same-sex marriage per pew research in 2017.

Nice deflection with "Probably except now it's the Democrats and "Left" trying to get rid of the EC. I guess that doesn't count because.. they're on the side of Truth and Justice correct? "

I expected better from you. 

If you don't think that the most votes should win for elections that is fine, just admit you don't believe in democracy.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> 62% of US citizens support same-sex marriage per pew research in 2017.
> 
> Nice deflection with "Probably except now it's the Democrats and "Left" trying to get rid of the EC. I guess that doesn't count because.. they're on the side of Truth and Justice correct? "
> 
> ...


Go look up the vote in California, the most "Liberal" state in the union, I'll wait. 

It's not a deflection, your basis is that the GOP would abolish the EC if they kept losing it but winning the popular vote. I agreed, yet you fail to mention that the Democrats and the "Left" have lost the EC, won the popular vote and now want to abolish it, so why is it bad if one side would abolish it but not the other when both sides are clearly trying to ensure they get total control?

My suggestion is far more simple. Keep the EC but count every vote, no more winner takes all. Simply have it where everyone's voice can be heard within any state they live. EC votes from all states would be based on what % voted for what, regardless of party.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Except that the largest complaints are in general the average person is stupid but yet we should move to* a popularity contest to decide things*? Sure, that's great. We can leave it up to the people like we did with gay marriage.. oh.. yes forgot how that turned out.


An election is a popularity contest to decide things - such as who the nation is ruled by. 

The fact that two of the past three presidents won the election despite getting fewer votes than another candidate is indicative of problems with the voting system.

I have to disagree with @DesolationRow ; that the 2016 election was a great advert for the EC. A candidate who had three million more votes than another shows that democracy has failed for that country.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Go look up the vote in California, the most "Liberal" state in the union, I'll wait.
> 
> It's not a deflection, your basis is that the GOP would abolish the EC if they kept losing it but winning the popular vote. I agreed, yet you fail to mention that the Democrats and the "Left" have lost the EC, won the popular vote and now want to abolish it, so why is it bad if one side would abolish it but not the other when both sides are clearly trying to ensure they get total control?
> 
> My suggestion is far more simple. Keep the EC but count every vote, no more winner takes all. Simply have it where everyone's voice can be heard within any state they live. EC votes from all states would be based on what % voted for what, regardless of party.


Again the country is 62% pro-same-sex marriage. But you can ignore that all you want. 

Where did I say its bad the GOP would want to abolish the Ec if they lost won the popular vote but lost the EC? My point is both sides would want to abolish it if it happened to their side. And the GOP SHOULD want to abolish the EC if they won the popular vote and lost the EC. Not sure of your logic in this one. Seems like you are making a strawman argument.

Your suggestion of using the EC and breaking up the votes based on the % of the vote they got in that state, is better than what we have now, but it still should be most votes win, because again that is how democracy works.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> An election is a popularity contest to decide things - such as who the nation is ruled by.
> 
> The fact that two of the past three presidents won the election despite getting fewer votes than another candidate is indicative of problems with the voting system.
> 
> I have to disagree with @DesolationRow ; that the 2016 election was a great advert for the EC. A candidate who had three million more votes than another shows that democracy has failed for that country.


No it isn't.

It's a sign that the republic is working precisely as designed. The president is not elected by popular vote. Never has been. That is not the law. Never has been. This is one of the very best ideas enshrined in the constitution.

The president is elected by the electoral college and the House of Representatives. The voters of the electoral college used to be elected by state legislatures and could vote any way they pleased regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in their state. Now some of them are bound by law to vote for whoever won the popular vote in their state. Some are still free to vote for whomever they wish. Then the House of Representatives ratifies the election. 

The United States is not a democracy and the constitution of the country was deliberately and wisely designed to contain several barriers to wisely prevent it from becoming a democracy with regards to electing the chief executive. 

The first barrier was the rejection of electing the chief executive by national popular vote.

The next barrier (was) the state legislatures that elected EC voters.

The next barrier is the voters of the EC itself.

The next barrier is the House of Representatives. 

This is all to prevent election of the president by a simple democratic means. 

Electing the president by national popular vote would create a three-tiered country.

California, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Florida would be the first tier.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, Georgia, New Jersey and North Carolina would be the second tier. 

Every other state could fuck off. 

The inevitable result of electing a president via national popular vote would be a political crisis of a magnitude only seen in late 1860/early 1861. The Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, New England, the Southwest, and most of the South and Midwest would be irrelevant and would eventually demand that their irrelevance in the presidential election be remedied.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/duncan-hunter-indicted-790861

GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter and wife indicted on charges of misusing campaign funds
The couple is accused of misusing campaign funds for vacations, dentistry and other personal expenses.
By JOHN BRESNAHAN and RACHAEL BADE 08/21/2018 06:25 PM EDT Updated 08/21/2018 09:02 PM EDT

A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted California GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter and his wife on charges of improperly using hundreds of thousands of campaign funds to pay for personal expenses, including family vacations and dental work.

Hunter is also accused of filing false campaign reports and wire fraud.

The late-August indictment is a huge problem for California Republicans. Unless Hunter were to pass away in the next 10 days - Aug. 31 - there is no way to replace him on the ballot this November, according to the California Secretary of State's office. There is also no write-in option under state law.

While the San Diego-based district is solidly Republican and Hunter was moving toward reelection despite his legal problems, Tuesday's indictment may cost the GOP a badly needed House seat in a potential wave-election year favoring Democrats.

The grand jury indictment paints a picture of the Hunters as a couple with serious financial problems who began dipping into about $250,000 worth of campaign funds to pay their expenses. The Hunters allegedly overdrew their joint checking account more than 1,100 times during a seven-year period, leading to more than $37,000 in overdraft charges, according to the indictment. Their credit cards were also maxed out, leading to more than $24,000 in additional charges.

"By virtue of these delinquencies - as well as notifications of outstanding debts and overdue payments from their children's school, their family dentist, and other creditors - the HUNTERS knew that many of their desired purchases could only be made by using Campaign funds," the indictment alleges. "The goal of the conspiracy was for DUNCAN HUNTER and MARGARET HUNTER to enrich themselves, and others at their direction, by converting Campaign funds for their own personal benefit and enjoyment, and for the personal benefit of others with whom the HUNTERS had personal relationships."

Hunter's attorney, Gregory Vega, claims the prosecution of his client is politically motivated. Vega has sent letters to the Justice Department complaining that two of the federal prosecutors involved in the Hunter case attended a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in Aug. 2015. Hunter, one of the first lawmakers on Capitol Hill who endorsed his candidacy, was a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump's campaign.

Vega wanted the case handled by another federal prosecutor, or the criminal investigation brought to an end without an indictment. The DOJ declined those requests. Vega also wrote to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, on Aug. 6 complaining that the "overt political leanings of two individuals intimately involved in the investigation, combined with, among other things, the Southern District’s sudden, inexplicable rush to indict my client before the general election without affording him sufficient due process, create an actual and/or apparent conflict that cannot be ignored."

Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle
A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.
Email Sign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement Tuesday that Hunter will be removed from his committee assignments pending a resolution to the criminal case.

According to a statement from the Justice Department, during the period from 2009 to 2016, the "Hunters illegally used campaign money to pay for personal expenses that they could not otherwise afford. The purchases included family vacations to Italy, Hawaii, Phoenix, Arizona, and Boise, Idaho; school tuition; dental work; theater tickets; and domestic and international travel for almost a dozen relatives."

Prosecutors allege that the Hunters falsely mislabeled their personal expenses “campaign travel,” “dinner with volunteers/contributors,” “toy drives,” “teacher/parent and supporter events,” “gift cards” for charitable donations, and “gift basket items.” At one point they purchased “personal clothing items at a golf course so that the purchase could be falsely reported to the Treasurer as ‘balls for the wounded warriors,’” the indictment reads. They would also allegedly book vacations using Expedia.com so the campaign records would not disclose locations of destinations.

According to the indictment, Hunter gave his wife, Margaret, a campaign credit card knowing full well she would use it on personal items they could not otherwise afford. Margaret hid some of her expenses by refusing to turn over credit card statements and receipts to the campaign treasurer, prosecutors alleged.

When pressed by campaign staff about improper spending they discovered, prosecutors allege Duncan Hunter “accused [them] of disloyalty” — though he did end up paying his campaign back tens of thousands of dollars.

In the indictment, prosecutors detail how the Hunters lavished their friends and family with gifts and fancy nights out on the town, and how Hunter doted on several unnamed “individuals” in Washington. He spent more than $160, for example, for a one-night stay at the Liaison Capitol Hill hotel with one such individual. He took another on a ski trip in early 2010, and later to Virginia Beach on vacation.

Those charges were made while Hunter’s family account suffered, prosecutors wrote: “On this day [of the ski trip charge], the HUNTER family bank account had a negative balance and incurred six separate insufficient funds fees (totaling $198). Also on this same day, DUNCAN HUNTER withdrew $20 from his personal bank account, leaving a balance of $15.02.”

Meanwhile, Margaret used the credit card to make routine house-hold purchases back in California, where she lived with their children while he was in Washington. Prosecutor alleged the Hunters spent more than $11,000 on Costco, $5,700 on Walmart as well as thousands more at Target and other stores and fast-food restaurants.

Hunter would use his campaign card to treat friends to nice dinners in Washington, prosecutor say, while Margaret used her campaign card to buy airplane tickets for her family members regularly. Once she labelled those tickets as a campaign “flight to Baltimore for [National Republican Congressional Committee] winter meeting." Duncan Hunter would confirm to the treasurer that many of the expenses were “campaign related.”

At one point, Margaret doled out $700 in campaign funds for tickets to see “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” — a charge she called “holiday gift certificates” for the campaign. A few years later she’d spent more than $800 on Riverdance tickets and call the expense "San Diego Civic Center for Republican Women Federated/Fundraising” for the FEC report.

The Hunters in 2010 also are accused of using nearly $2,000 in campaign cash to purchase a Pittsburgh Steeler tickets for a family member’s birthday.



Chris Collins is pictured. | Getty Images
Rep. Chris Collins, fighting prosecution, seeks to end reelection bid
By KYLE CHENEY and JIMMY VIELKIND
Hunter, 41, is a second-generation lawmaker; his father served in the House from 1980 to 2008. The younger Hunter is a former U.S. Marine and serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

Hunter’s indictment endangers a traditionally conservative southern California seat long held by Republicans, including Hunter’s father, Duncan Hunter, Sr., a legend in the San Diego area. Within minutes of the indictment, Cook Political Report announced that it would move Hunter’s seat from “solid” Republican to “likely" Republican, noting that the race suddenly became competitive.

Republicans in the San Diego area and in Washington decided months ago to stick with Hunter rather than force him to retire, taking his word that the matter would go away. It’s why Hunter soundly defeated several Republicans who challenged him for the seat earlier this year — one, a local GOP major who warned that Hunter’s indictment would leave Republicans without a candidate.

Now, the party’s decision is backfiring. Hunter’s name will continue to appear on the ballot this fall next to a progressive Democrat, Ammar-Campa Najjar, rather than another Republican.

In a statement, Campa-Najjar said “The division, chaos and corruption in Washington has gone too far”—and called for San Diego to elect him.

“Today’s indictment confirms just how deep this corruption can reach when someone like Duncan Hunter Jr. is in it for himself instead of representing the people,” he said. “Now is the time to put country over party and rise against this corruption and rise above the divisive politics. Together, we can bring real change and fresh thinking to represent the people of CA-50.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Again the country is 62% pro-same-sex marriage. But you can ignore that all you want.
> 
> Where did I say its bad the GOP would want to abolish the Ec if they lost won the popular vote but lost the EC? My point is both sides would want to abolish it if it happened to their side. And the GOP SHOULD want to abolish the EC if they won the popular vote and lost the EC. Not sure of your logic in this one. Seems like you are making a strawman argument.
> 
> Your suggestion of using the EC and breaking up the votes based on the % of the vote they got in that state, is better than what we have now, but it still should be most votes win, because again that is how democracy works.


Pew doesn't equal to an actual vote. Pew also showed Trump wasn't going to get much support during the elections yet he did, people just tell polls whatever sounds nice then vote how they want when alone. So again, the California vote matters because people vote differently depending if it's a pew poll or an actual election. 

You did not say it would be bad but it's implied. I don't want either party abolishing anything simply because it doesn't suit them. The fact we only have two legit parties is a problem. The fact we have die hards who vote their side regardless of facts is a problem. Anything that gives more power to a few states simply because they have more people is idiotic.

We're a Republic, the EC is needed, America as a full Democracy would be a complete shitshow. Democracy is touted until the vote doesn't go one's way. At least with the EC smaller states can have somewhat of a chance. Though going by popular vote would break up the Union much faster and frature the States beyond repair..

Nevermind I support going by popular vote. >


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Pew doesn't equal to an actual vote. Pew also showed Trump wasn't going to get much support during the elections yet he did, people just tell polls whatever sounds nice then vote how they want when alone. So again, the California vote matters because people vote differently depending if it's a pew poll or an actual election.
> 
> You did not say it would be bad but it's implied. I don't want either party abolishing anything simply because it doesn't suit them. The fact we only have two legit parties is a problem. The fact we have die hards who vote their side regardless of facts is a problem. Anything that gives more power to a few states simply because they have more people is idiotic.
> 
> ...


The EC is not needed, it's an archaic system. And the smaller states should not be able to overrule the majority. Again it should be one person one vote, smaller states votes should not count more than larger states. Everyone's vote should be equal.

And no a complete democracy would not be a shit show, that is how it should be.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



TripleG said:


> Truth is, Donald Trump and his rise to the presidency is a Frankenstein Monster of the Democrats own making.
> 
> Between forcing Hillary down people's throats when Bernie did a better job of energizing the base, to the major 24/7 news stations (which lets be honest, outside of Fox News, they are basically just branches of the DNC headquarters) giving Trump nonstop coverage and securing the nomination for him through nonstop free press, to Obama leaving the DNC in debt, to using disgusting and unlikeable people like Lena Dunham as faces for their party, to siding with and emboldening the ever growing obnoxious PC culture, the Democrats dug their own grave in 2016 and they were forced to lay in it.
> 
> To this day, I am still amazed that they didn't realize this was all their fault and are constantly looking for any excuses to explain it all: Large segments of the country are Nazis, the Russians did it, etc. Well, Trump would have never gotten as far as he did in the first place if you people didn't have your heads up your asses and ran a half decent campaign, and if the news media had done their job and reported the news faithfully and without bias, then maybe, just maybe, this wouldn't have blown up in their faces so horribly.


Apart from this OTT statement that the MSM is basically part of the Democrats I largely agree with you, however I think the other point to consider is the frankly simple yet incredibly effective Trump campaign strategy. I'm not sure he would've won with out it.

3 simple steps:

1. Tell people ad nauseum their country has gone to shit, the USA is no longer number one, the rest of the world is laughing at us. Your country is not the one you grew up with in those golden Reagan etc years. Considering Americans are obsessed with being the best this is super important.

2. Tell them who's to blame: Immigrants, Obama, Democrats, doesn't matter really as long as the message is repeated enough. Step 2.1 - Say over and over you're the man to fix it all.

3. Hulkamania style patriotism dripping from every corner that will appeal to the masses who don't know better. I don't say that as insult either. Simple message - MAGA - bring everyone back to that warm nostalgia. 

Trump's base didn't want details - they want broad messages about what's wrong, who's to blame, who's going to fix it, and that America will be number one again.

Very WWF actually and very brilliant.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> But then you open yourself up to be ruled by the mob.
> 
> Let's not forget that in California of all places gay marriage didn't pass the vote. Getting rid of the EC would put the entire Nation at the mercy of a few states still.
> 
> The EC isn't bad, just needs a few revisions. Of course if Trump had won the popular vote and lost the EC, people would be thanking the EC. :shrug


Every time someone cites mob rule when talking about abolishing the EC, I want to roll up the Constitution and smack them over the head with it. A popular vote is how every other country decides their leader and it's not the same thing as allowing a majority of one group of people to vote to take away the rights of another minority group of people and you know it.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Every time someone cites mob rule when talking about abolishing the EC, I want to roll up the Constitution and smack them over the head with it. A popular vote is how every other country decides their leader and it's not the same thing as allowing a majority of one group of people to vote to take away the rights of another minority group of people and you know it.


Every time someone cites other countries when talking about popular vote electing the executive and pooh-pooh the idea that it would cause some degree of political disenfranchisement that would breed resentment, I want to grab a big thick history book and smack them over the head with it. 

And in my other hand would be a big dictionary.

Great Britain doesn't elect its Prime Minister by popular vote.

Neither does Canada. Or the 4 Scandinavian countries. Or Italy. Or Spain. Or Greece. Japan doesn't. 

Germany doesn't elect its Chancellor by popular vote.

No parliamentary democracy does. The executive is chosen via support of a majority of the lower house of the parliament. Or just the parliament, if it is a unicameral legislature. 

You can't name a British prime minister that was ever elected by popular vote because there have been zero. Today there are 650 House of Commons elections that indirectly determine who is the British Prime Minister, not one national election won by popular vote. 

If the US had such a system it would be 435 separate congressional elections, not one national election won by popular vote.

So no, it is not every other country that uses national popular vote to elect its executive. Far, far from it.

In :fact, in the countries with direct election of the executive via the popular vote... we find more and worse examples of precisely what Tater pooh-poohs than in countries where the executive is indirectly elected. South Korea, France, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, hell all of South and Central America really and much of Africa... elect the executive by popular vote. Their political histories since WW2 (and some from before it) have hardly been examples of stable political functioning with due regard for the political enfranchisement of all classes and groups in society. Certainly they have done worse in those areas than countries with indirect election of the executive.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Meanwhile its killing season here in Australia, odds are up that our PM won't make through the week leaving us with 7 leaders in 10 years. You've had 2.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The UK voting system causes people to not give a fuck about voting. Take my constituency, it's 55% Tory, 30% liberal democrat and like 10% labour. Voting labour is an utter waste of time here. It's a throw away vote. Our democracy is built on a foundation that basically makes voting for your choice irrelevant in a lot of cases. 

We even have websites designed to vote share. So if labour could win in one seat someone there who would vote for liberal democrats votes labour. Likewise I'll vote for liberal democrats instead of labour. 

The first past the post system is a joke.

Popular choice is the only fair system.

We don't even vote for our leader, it's just the figure head of the party that gets the title.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Apparently some people are tweeting that Airlines have raised airfare in anticipation of Hurricane Lane about to hit Hawaii. 

Capitalism is a wonderful thing amirite. 

Oh, and this one doesn't even have anything to do with the government. It's just plain good old evil.



















This flight is usually 350-500 bucks.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Reap; that is reminiscent of the run-up to Hurricane Irma in Florida last September. While some gouging may be occurring the likelihood in many cases is that the prices are higher chiefly because last-minute flight fares tend to be higher. 

George Hobica founded AirfareWatchdog.com and has contended based on data that as with Hurricane Irma the vast majority of the fare changes are due to the computer algorithms changing fare prices due to the nearness of the flights in question. As Hobica noted, "Sure, some are high, but last-minute fares are often more expensive in general... I don't think airlines would be callous or stupid enough to be consciously jacking up fares." 

The investigation opened up by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Edward J. Markey nearly a year ago largely substantiated Hobica's claims. Comparing the hike in prices to normal price hikes due to the closeness in date and time of departure from two weeks earlier, during a normal time, the increases in fare prices are effectively standard operating procedure for the airlines. As Hobica said, "If there's any gouge, it's just the last minute walk-up airfares that are designed for desperate fliers..." Having had to have last-minute flights booked, the scarcity of seats compels the computer program to raise the prices rather dramatically in just about every case where I had to go through that process. 

Having said that, there are probably instances of genuine gouging occurring at the margins of the industry. The airline industry is one considered "too big to fail" in the U.S. and the interlocking governmental and corporate interests have led to commonly substandard quality management and care for customers (which has also opened the door rather widely for off-brand competitors). 

This is a fitting statement coming as it does following a discussion of electoral politics, but something for everyone to remember when we deal with disparate ideologies is that ideology is a blinding security blanket, even for the most well-intended who succumbs to ideological flights (no pun intended) of fancy. Generally free market economics tend to be the most advantageous paradigm for people to live a good life but religiously devout capitalists believe the invisible hand of Adam Smith is unfailingly beneficent thanks to the self-concern and self-interested actions of an individual, and some form of representational condition between population and government tends to behoove a polity but fervent democrats (no relation to the political party) insist that one-man, one-vote popular voting is almost a divinely ordained method. Some humility goes a long way.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Ok. Here's something to think about. Most airlines give away free/cheap tickets to fill flights that aren't fully booked. Just last year my sister saved 2 grand because she took the risk of waiting for a possible cancellation in order to get a good deal. 

They can afford to sell tickets at the same price even for last minute bookings. The entire culture of doing so is gouging even if it is done outside of disaster situations when you really think about it. All they need to do is first come first served for last minute bookings. People will accept the outcome as they do in other areas of life.

They don't need to pretend that increasing ticket prices is due to supply/demand economics. They can increase the number of flights. They can call in additional planes running routes that aren't booked as heavily. Who hasn't been on a plane at some odd time when there only 5% of the seats filled? As a seasoned Traveller, I can tell you that it's not such a big deal for airlines. 

Everyone knows that when something is scarce there are winners and losers. But at the same time a lot of the scarcity imposed by corporations is a result of self interest only.

The consumer doesn't have to be the loser always.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Every time someone cites mob rule when talking about abolishing the EC, I want to roll up the Constitution and smack them over the head with it. A popular vote is how every other country decides their leader and it's not the same thing as allowing a majority of one group of people to vote to take away the rights of another minority group of people and you know it.


Disagree. The EC was designed to spare us from mob rule, that's what it's design was. That's why we're a Republic.

I have no issues with Democracy for most things but for electing our President? I don't agree with that. Besides we're not like other countries, many of our Political base simply cannot or will not separate party affiliation and look at the facts.

I simply do not trust our current Political parties to run a Popular Vote based Presidential election. Especially since they'd fight against recounts, any form of ensuring voter fraud doesn't happen. Not to mention the same exact type of issues the Brexit vote had we're you'd have constant fuckery because "Not everyone voted" or "Voters weren't informed enough!" The country would become even more divided.

@Reap Swear DROW talked about people selling cheap bottles of water for 20 bucks during emergencies. Then again you have people who don't evacuate simply to loot. Scummy people are going to do scummy things.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> It's a sign that the republic is working precisely as designed. The president is not elected by popular vote. Never has been. That is not the law. Never has been. This is one of the very best ideas enshrined in the constitution.
> 
> ...


So democracy has failed as I mentioned. If we are to set arbitrary barriers as to whom can enable the voters choices - the selection choice isn’t democratic.



> Electing the president by national popular vote would create a three-tiered country.
> 
> California, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Florida would be the first tier.
> 
> ...


States which have low electoral votes AND those which decisively vote for the same party “could fuck off” in this system.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.businessinsider.com/lan...rump-has-evidence-of-russia-conspiracy-2018-8

*Cohen's lawyer says he's completely flipped and will give information of Trump-linked conspiracy with Russia
*
Lanny Davis, the attorney representing President Donald Trump's former longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen, said Wednesday that C*ohen knew of efforts by Trump to conspire with Russia to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.*

Davis had previously teased that Cohen had "knowledge on certain subjects that should be of interest to the special counsel," but he came right out and suggested a smoking gun on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Wednesday morning.

Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court on Tuesday to multiple charges, including campaign finance violations that he said he committed on the direction of Trump. While discussing the possible implications for Trump, Davis went on to give some details about information he said Cohen had that relate to the special counsel's investigation into Russian election interference.

Specifically, he said *Cohen was willing to provide the special counsel Robert Mueller with evidence that Trump worked with Russia to sway the election.*

Lanny Davis
MSNBC
"Michael Cohen knows information that would be of interest to the special counsel regarding both knowledge about a conspiracy to corrupt American democracy by the Russians and the failure to report that knowledge to the FBI," Davis said.


It's unclear whether Mueller's team has approached Cohen for information in the special counsel's investigation. Shortly after Cohen pleaded guilty Tuesday without providing information to federal prosecutors, observers began speculating that he might try to "flip" against Trump and work with Mueller's team so that it might recommend leniency in his sentencing. Trump has denied colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Davis went on to plug a fundraiser for Cohen, called the Michael Cohen Truth Fund, to help cover Cohen's legal fees. Davis, as Cohen's legal counsel, may ultimately get the funds donated.

"On August 21, Michael Cohen made the decision to take legal responsibility and to continue his commitment to tell the truth," the fundraiser's description says.

August 21, Tuesday, was the day that Cohen told the court that Trump had directed him to break the law. Cohen had previously displayed a fierce loyalty to Trump but has increasingly signaled a willingness to move against him.

"Cohen is going to be telling the truth to whoever asks him," Davis said on MSNBC.


The FBI raided Cohen's home, hotel room, and office in April, seizing more than 4 million documents. As a self-described fixer, Cohen is believed to have helped cover up various undesirable stories about Trump.

After a brief legal skirmish around Cohen's defense over whether attorney-client privilege protected the documents and taped recordings seized by the FBI, a judge ruled that less than 0.2% of the documents would be spared from FBI scrutiny.

A former federal prosecutor previously told Business Insider that such a quick turnaround from the April raid of Cohen's properties to his being formally charged could signal his cooperation.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart;76048532 said:


> So democracy has failed as I mentioned. If we are to set arbitrary barriers as to whom can enable the voters choices - the selection choice isn’t democratic.


The word arbitrary doesn't apply here. There was nothing arbitrary about it.

Pure national democracy to elect the president hasn't been tried in this country so it cannot be said to have failed. 

Only Nebraska and Maine don't award winner-take-all in the electoral college anyway. Though some of the other states don't compel their EC voters to vote for the winner of the state. It's not one national popular vote election, it's 48 state popular vote elections, 2 states where the votes are awarded proportionally (which could be argued as even MOAR democratic than popular vote winner take all), and DC, which is also popular vote winner take all. The democracy you are so attached to is carried out at the state level.



> States which have low electoral votes AND those which decisively vote for the same party “could fuck off” in this system.


Wrong. The electoral college votes of small states are indispensable to the election of the president under this system. No candidate or president would ever give a fuck about New Hampshire or Nevada ever again in a purely "democratic" presidential election system.


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Ok. Here's something to think about. Most airlines give away free/cheap tickets to fill flights that aren't fully booked. Just last year my sister saved 2 grand because she took the risk of waiting for a possible cancellation in order to get a good deal.
> 
> They can afford to sell tickets at the same price even for last minute bookings. The entire culture of doing so is gouging even if it is done outside of disaster situations when you really think about it. All they need to do is first come first served for last minute bookings. People will accept the outcome as they do in other areas of life.
> 
> ...


Agree. I hate the price gouging that takes place during human suffering. 

Although, I recently had a good flying experience. They paid me to take a later flight. Travel seems overbooked during the summer.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Getting rid of the Electoral College is something I thought was a good idea when I was, like, 18 and barely paid attention in class. The less populated areas should never fear the more populated areas only having a say and vice-versa. There has to be some equalizer between the two.

Plus, eliminating or dividing out the EC needs to be done on a state-by-state basis anyway. There should be a balance between state powers and federal powers. It's, like, the entire premise of the country.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mifune Jackson said:


> Getting rid of the Electoral College is something I thought was a good idea when I was, like, 18 and barely paid attention in class. The less populated areas should never fear the more populated areas only having a say and vice-versa. There has to be some equalizer between the two.
> 
> Plus, eliminating or dividing out the EC needs to be done on a state-by-state basis anyway. There should be a balance between state powers and federal powers. It's, like, the entire premise of the country.


Why shouldn't it be one person = one vote?

it shouldn't make a difference how big or small your state is. Everyone's vote should count equally, with the EC it lets people in smaller states vote count more than people in other states.

That makes zero sense.

People vote, not geography.

All the EC does is take power away from the voters and give it to the GOVT.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Empress said:


> Agree. I hate the price gouging that takes place during human suffering.
> 
> Although, I recently had a good flying experience. *They paid me to take a later flight. *Travel seems overbooked during the summer.


Yah. When you hear about stuff like this, the defense that "well, it's always been like this" doesn't jive. 

It's a cop out to not have to engage in any kind of responsible manner with society and simply exploit it to the max. 

I'm still pro-capitalist, but when companies _artificially _raise prices when they can just as easily increase _supply_, it's not capitalism .. It's hoarding supply in order to influence prices which is actually anti-capitalist.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Reap what is your whole take on the Cohen stuff with saying Trump possibly conspiring with Russia to corrupt the 2016 presidential election?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why shouldn't it be one person = one vote?
> 
> it shouldn't make a difference how big or small your state is. Everyone's vote should count equally, with the EC it lets people in smaller states vote count more than people in other states.
> 
> ...


I can't even fathom the logic that smaller populations can overrule the majority based on the fact they're smaller or more sparsely populated. 

I mean, surely democracy is the will of the majority? 

It sounds very similar to our awful first past the post that renders my vote every election utterly meaningless. Shamocracy.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It's bad for American politics on every single level because all its doing is reinforce the existing power structure on people. It's not good for either party and there is no legit third party left to replace either of these fuckers.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why shouldn't it be one person = one vote?
> 
> it shouldn't make a difference how big or small your state is. Everyone's vote should count equally, with the EC it lets people in smaller states vote count more than people in other states.
> 
> ...


Rural people should have a voice too.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> Rural people should have a voice too.


You are right and it should be the same as someone in a city. and that is one vote. Their votes should count equally.

Do you disagree with that? Or are you saying someones vote in a rural area should be weighted more than a person who lives in a city>


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are right and it should be the same as someone in a city. and that is one vote. Their votes should count equally.
> 
> Do you disagree with that? Or are you saying someones vote in a rural area should be weighted more than a person who lives in a city>


There are less rural people so the electoral college helps them have a voice


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> An election is a popularity contest to decide things - such as who the nation is ruled by.
> 
> The fact that two of the past three presidents won the election despite getting fewer votes than another candidate is indicative of problems with the voting system.
> 
> I have to disagree with @DesolationRow ; that the 2016 election was a great advert for the EC. A candidate who had three million more votes than another shows that democracy has failed for that country.


I'm guessing you are counting all the illegals who voted for Clinton.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> There are less rural people so the electoral college helps them have a voice


Again, what does it matter how many people live in a certain area or region? Everyone's vote should count equally.



IndyTaker said:


> I'm guessing you are counting all the illegals who voted for Clinton.


Now I know to not take you seriously


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Again, what does it matter how many people live in a certain area or region? Everyone's vote should count equally.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know to not take you seriously


You know there is proof. Btw aren't you are the one who blamed the election on the Russians? I can't take you seriously for that.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> You know there is proof. Btw aren't you are the one who blamed the election on the Russians? I can't take you seriously for that.


There is zero evidence of illegals voting LOL Citation, please

Stop reading info wars


https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...illion-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is zero evidence of illegals voting LOL Citation, please
> 
> Stop reading info wars
> 
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> Wow nice liberal source. Btw there is NO proof of Russia interfering with the election.


The FBI has already said Russia tried to interfere and are still trying. are you really going to deny that?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-director-russia-attempted-interfere-election/story?id=56678890

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-di...-continues-to-try-to-meddle-in-u-s-elections/

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/6303...a-still-seeking-to-interfere-in-u-s-democracy

If you are going to debate me bring facts. If you can't show any evidence I am done with you.

Last chance


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The FBI has already said Russia tried to interfere and are still trying. are you really going to deny that?
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-director-russia-attempted-interfere-election/story?id=56678890
> 
> ...


http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/
Those are accusations of Russia interfering. No HARD proof.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/
> Those are accusations of Russia interfering. No HARD proof.


Are you also going to deny Trump colluded with Russia on getting dirt on Hillary with the Russians?


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Are you also going to deny Trump colluded with Russia on getting dirt on Hillary with the Russians?


Trump did not need Russia's help to beat a corrupt politician like Clinton. Liberals always use Russia as a scapegoat. You guys are very prejudice.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> Trump did not need Russia's help to beat a corrupt politician like Clinton. Liberals always use Russia as a scapegoat. You guys are very prejudice.


Answer the question.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/
> Those are accusations of Russia interfering. No HARD proof.


If you're going to discredit him for using a "liberal source", you can't counter that by using a conservative source.

Microsoft just caught some Russians trying it in the mid-terms this year. 
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/russians-attempted-to-hack-2018-elections/

There's absolutely no reason to deny Russian interference. Especially after 25 Russians have been indicted for interference in the 2016 election. The detail (and the amount of detail) in those indictments is concrete and specific. 

Nobody really benefits from denying something that has been research and concluded by multiple intelligence agencies. So it makes the denial pretty pointless.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> The word arbitrary doesn't apply here. There was nothing arbitrary about it.
> 
> Pure national democracy to elect the president hasn't been tried in this country so it cannot be said to have failed.
> 
> Only Nebraska and Maine don't award winner-take-all in the electoral college anyway. Though some of the other states don't compel their EC voters to vote for the winner of the state. It's not one national popular vote election, it's 48 state popular vote elections, 2 states where the votes are awarded proportionally (which could be argued as even MOAR democratic than popular vote winner take all), and DC, which is also popular vote winner take all. The democracy you are so attached to is carried out at the state level


The current system isn't democratic so the voting system is not accurate.



IndyTaker said:


> I'm guessing you are counting all the illegals who voted for Clinton.


I'm purely counting those who voted. Illegals voting is a separate issue.



> Wrong. The electoral college votes of small states are indispensable to the election of the president under this system. No candidate or president would ever give a fuck about New Hampshire or Nevada ever again in a purely "democratic" presidential election system.


New Hampshire and Nevada are dispensable and sans Bush/Gore have been for 50 years (that's all I cared to go back to) - so your notion those votes in small states are indispensable isn't correct.


----------



## BRITLAND (Jun 17, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> I can't even fathom the logic that smaller populations can overrule the majority based on the fact they're smaller or more sparsely populated.
> 
> I mean, surely democracy is the will of the majority?
> 
> It sounds very similar to our awful first past the post that renders my vote every election utterly meaningless. Shamocracy.


The United States does use FPTP for elections to the House of Reps. They could do with some PR voting for the House, like Semi Open Party List or Single Transferable Vote, it would be interesting to see some Libertarians and Greens in Congress.

Just imagine if the US actually were to implement PR voting for Congress before the UK did :lol


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Answer the question.


I did. Obviously we don't agree politically so lets move on.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> I can't even fathom the logic that smaller populations can overrule the majority based on the fact they're smaller or more sparsely populated.
> 
> I mean, surely democracy is the will of the majority?
> 
> It sounds very similar to our awful first past the post that renders my vote every election utterly meaningless. Shamocracy.


That's the UK in a nutshell though, have you ever seen the distribution of seats in Parliament? There are Tory strongholds in the south in low-density areas with more seats than northern areas full of terraced council estates. Sure, there are always lots of seats in the big cities, but a middle class southerner wields a lot more voting power than a working class northerner does on average.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> If you're going to discredit him for using a "liberal source", you can't counter that by using a conservative source.
> 
> Microsoft just caught some Russians trying it in the mid-terms this year.
> https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/russians-attempted-to-hack-2018-elections/
> ...


Indictments are accusations. Still can't find solid proof.


----------



## Trivette (Dec 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

"Russian Interference" means that some one made memes and they were shared on Facebook. This is how desperate these people have gotten in their denial after running the worst possible candidate and getting BTFO. The so called "Troll Farm" workers actually sent representatives to court meet Mueller's bogus indictment, and caught him with his pants down. He didn't expect anyone to actually demand their fair and expedient trial.

Had the DNC had the brains to run someone like Tulsi Gabbard, we wouldn't be having this conversation. All these lefties who can't go a day without crying about Drump should keep that in mind. Grandma Death and her cronies actually ran Gabbard off the trail and withdrew their financial support once she refused to bend the knee after Bernie got robbed.

Bernie's supporters even took the matter to court. The judge told them to fuck off and the DNC can pick whoever they please, despite the voters. So forgive me if I don't take anything you say about "collusion" seriously. Dems still haven't learned anything though; their most serious candidate for 2020 is Warren, Biden, or dare I say, Oprah Winfrey. You are the ones who paved the way for Trump and you deserve everything you get. Choke on your fake self-righteousness and phony outrage. You sure aren't fooling me.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> Indictments are accusations. Still can't find solid proof.


:mj4 The indictments are based on the proof they gathered through months of data collecting.

Did you read the indictments? Simple yes or no answer.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> :mj4 The indictments are based on the proof they gathered through months of data collecting.
> 
> Did you read the indictments? Simple yes or no answer.


They have not proven guilty. Learn law


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Fringe said:


> "Russian Interference" means that some one made memes and they were shared on Facebook. This is how desperate these people have gotten in their denial after running the worst possible candidate and getting BTFO. The so called "Troll Farm" workers actually sent representatives to court meet Mueller's bogus indictment, and caught him with his pants down. He didn't expect anyone to actually demand their fair and expedient trial.
> 
> Had the DNC had the brains to run someone like Tulsi Gabbard, we wouldn't be having this conversation. All these lefties who can't go a day without crying about Drump should keep that in mind. Grandma Death and her cronies actually ran Gabbard off the trail and withdrew their financial support once she refused to bend the knee after Bernie got robbed.
> 
> Bernie's supporters even took the matter to court. The judge told them to fuck off and the DNC can pick whoever they please, despite the voters. So forgive me if I don't take anything you say about "collusion" seriously. Dems still haven't learned anything though; their most serious candidate for 2020 is Warren, Biden, or dare I say, Oprah Winfrey. You are the ones who paved the way for Trump and you deserve everything you get. Choke on your fake self-righteousness and phony outrage. You sure aren't fooling me.


Keep ignoring all the evidence.

Even Trump admitted he colluded with the Russians to get dirty on Hillary but I bet you will deny that too


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> They have not proven guilty. Learn law


:mj4 You keep moving the goal posts in your attempts to spin your argument and it's not working dude. OJ killed his wife but he wasn't found guilty. :lelfold

Read the indictments:

Here's the February indictment for social media influence:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

Here's the July indictment for the DNC and DCCC hack: 
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

They not sitting around, making this shit up and typing it like it's a college assignment.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> :mj4 You keep moving the goal posts in your attempts to spin your argument and it's not working dude. OJ killed his wife but he wasn't found guilty. :lelfold
> 
> Read the indictments:
> 
> ...


It's been 2 years since the election and they still don't have enough evidence to charge these people. Maybe it's because they never actually did anything wrong.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> It's been 2 years since the election and they still don't have enough evidence to charge these people. Maybe it's because they never actually did anything wrong.


So you didn't read the indictment and now you're just making up a bunch of shit that doesn't even make sense.

We're done. :mj4

Dudes here think they smarter than lifetime intelligence officials. :sodone


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> So you didn't read the indictment and now you're just making up a bunch of shit that doesn't even make sense.
> 
> We're done. :mj4
> 
> Dudes here think they smarter than lifetime intelligence officials. :sodone


You are the one making up shit. Tell me what I said was wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> It's been 2 years since the election and they still don't have enough evidence to charge these people. Maybe it's because they never actually did anything wrong.





IndyTaker said:


> You are the one making up shit. Tell me what I said was wrong.



You do know indicted is pretty much the same thing as being charged with right lol


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You do know indicted is pretty much the same thing as being charged with right lol


You do realize indictments are accusations and they need to be proven true by court.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> You do realize indictments are accusations and they need to be proven true by court.


You just claimed people have not been charged yet they have. There are indictments on the books

so you are wrong


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> You are the one making up shit. Tell me what I said was wrong.


Pal I don't make up anything. You didn't say anything wrong. You just spoke alternative facts. :lelfold


IndyTaker said:


> It's been 2 years since the election and they still don't have enough evidence to charge these people. Maybe it's because they never actually did anything wrong.


The indictments are charges. :serious: :serious: :serious: :serious:


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Pal I don't make up anything. You didn't say anything wrong. You just spoke alternative facts. :lelfold
> 
> The indictments are charges. :serious::serious:


Its because of posters like Indy we have an adult Trump thread lol


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

birthday_massacre said:


> You just claimed people have not been charged yet they have. There are indictments on the books
> 
> so you are wrong


So because someone has been indited, they are automatically guilty?



Headliner said:


> Pal I don't make up anything. You didn't say anything wrong. You just spoke alternative facts. :lelfold
> 
> The indictments are charges. :serious: :serious: :serious: :serious:


Since we're just gonna go back and forth. You think they're guilty because of these indictments. I don't think there is enough compelling evidence to call it meddling with the election. There's no need to continue on between us. Cheers.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> So because someone has been indited, they are automatically guilty?


I love how you keep moving the goal posts like headliner said.

You kept saying there is no evidence yet there is evidence thus why there were indictments. Then you keep saying well no one was charged, yet indictments are charges.

Now you are moving on to being guilty.

Dont worry that will come after the trials lol

So are you going to admit there is evidence now and that people have been charged or will you just ignore those facts too?


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you keep moving the goal posts like headliner said.
> 
> You kept saying there is no evidence yet there is evidence thus why there were indictments. Then you keep saying well no one was charged, yet indictments are charges.
> 
> ...


It's not enough evidence to declare them guilty. Get it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> It's not enough evidence to declare them guilty. Get it.


LOL cant even answer a direct question.

You are going on ignore


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL cant even answer a direct question.
> 
> You are going on ignore


Lol. What more do you want? I made my statement clear.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:lmao


----------



## Uncle P (Jul 22, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So now suddenly the right is handwaving paying off prostitutes and the left is now the paragon of marriage integrity and virtue. What fucking bizarro universe did I just step into?


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The left is a paragon of marriage, integrity, and virtue. That must be some kind of joke.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Uncle P said:


> So now suddenly the right is handwaving paying off prostitutes and the left is now the paragon of marriage integrity and virtue. What fucking bizarro universe did I just step into?


UM No, who cares if Trump hooked up with a stripper.

When he paid her off with $130,000 that was illegal, that is the problem since it violated election laws


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> UM No, who cares if Trump hooked up with a stripper.
> 
> When he paid her off with $130,000 that was illegal, that is the problem since it violated election laws


Is what Bill Clinton did alright with you?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1032454567152246785
:wow

A bit disappointing that it took this long to get on his radar, but this is a nice update regardless. Much love to Lauren Southern and others for being the first to spotlight this fuckery.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1032454567152246785
> :wow
> 
> A bit disappointing that it took this long to get on his radar, but this is a nice update regardless. Much love to Lauren Southern and others for being the first to spotlight this fuckery.


Hopefully this will lead to the western countries taking somewhat of a stand against it, I doubt it, but it would be nice if it did.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Hopefully this will lead to the western countries taking somewhat of a stand against it, I doubt it, but it would be nice if it did.


Agreed 100%.

I expect fuck all from the EU, however. If memory serves, Russia has actually looked into assisting the farmers, either by granting them asylum or allowing them to emigrate over.

Since Trump is clearly, obviously, unequivocally and indisputably Putin's gay lover, maybe they can team up and help these poor folks out? :trump


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> Is what Bill Clinton did alright with you?


Can you maybe get off your whataboutism from the Clinton years?

Is what Reagan did alright with you?

Is what Nixon did alright with you?

Is what Abe Lincoln did alright with you?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Lauren Southern would be a good next wife for Trump. Once Melania's contract expires.

:trump


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lauren Southern would be a good next wife for Trump. Once Melania's contract expires.
> 
> :trump


She's legally a man and I don't think him marrying a man (despite one that happens to be a quite attractive) would sit well with his pet goldfish VP. 8*D


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Can you maybe get off your whataboutism from the Clinton years?
> 
> Is what Reagan did alright with you?
> 
> ...


No, no, and No. What's your point?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:HA @ people who still believe Russiagate bullshit. Suckers.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1032282621290704897
Everyone here is panicking. I'm going to work tonight. I'll probably go to work as scheduled tomorrow night too. If the power goes down, I'd be better off at work anyways. They have a generator the size of my kitchen. I might as well have electricity and get some work done until the coast is clear.



Miss Sally said:


> Disagree. The EC was designed to spare us from mob rule, that's what it's design was. That's why we're a Republic.


fpalm

The EC was designed to placate land/slave owners. You use that term "mob rule", it does not mean what you think it means. The person who gets the most votes is who wins the elections in most systems. That's what an election is. Here are your candidates. Vote on who you want to win. The one with the most votes wins. Simple as that. 

What prevents mob rule is having a constitution that gives rights to citizens; rights that cannot be voted away by mob rule. Equating mob rule with one person-one vote to decide on who your leaders are is a very bad understanding of how democracy in a representational republic is supposed to work.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1032454567152246785
> :wow
> 
> A bit disappointing that it took this long to get on his radar, but this is a nice update regardless. Much love to Lauren Southern and others for being the first to spotlight this fuckery.


Much love to Lauren Southern indeed, was because of her that I first heard of what was happening in South Africa. Glad Trump took notice.

I still need to watch the full Farmlands documentary by the way, I did watch all the preview clips.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Everyone here is panicking. I'm going to work tonight. I'll probably go to work as scheduled tomorrow night too. If the power goes down, I'd be better off at work anyways. They have a generator the size of my kitchen. I might as well have electricity and get some work done until the coast is clear.


Best of luck man. I've been through 2 hurricanes now and I can tell you it can get very rough. Also, if it hits, you guys are likely going to be on the Eastern side of the hurricane which is usually rougher so don't underestimate the situation if they claim the eye is on the west. The high wind bands extend dozens of miles beyond the eye as well.

You wanna listen to this guy. His analysis is better than what you see on mainstream TV where they resort to fear mongering (isn't that a typical American Past-time?)

He sticks to the facts and examines dozens of models. Doesn't create his own model like mainstream people do. 

Does live streaming before it hits as well. I used his analysis to make my decisions for both Hurricanes I've been through and he didn't say a thing that didn't happen.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Best of luck man. I've been through 2 hurricanes now and I can tell you it can get very rough. Also, if it hits, you guys are likely going to be on the Eastern side of the hurricane which is usually rougher so don't underestimate the situation if they claim the eye is on the west. The high wind bands extend dozens of miles beyond the eye as well.
> 
> You wanna listen to this guy. His analysis is better than what you see on mainstream TV where they resort to fear mongering (isn't that a typical American Past-time?)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the vid. While he points out that none of the models can agree on an exact course, they pretty much all have it veering west at some point. How hard we get hit directly depends on how far north it gets before it heads west. The worst case scenario would be a direct north path right over the islands but I see chances of that as very slim. My forecast is catching a bit of the northern edge of the hurricane as it heads west but nothing close to a direct hit. The power might get knocked out for a little while but even if it does, it won't be catastrophic and things will be more or less back to normal for most people by Saturday or Sunday.

ETA: Speaking of disaster capitalism, I thought this might be of interest to you.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1032295343847813122


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> ETA: Speaking of disaster capitalism, I thought this might be of interest to you.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1032295343847813122


I saw that ... and I had no idea what to make of it .. except that this is actually a consistent pattern that has been caught by several individuals over the years --- who've been called conspiracy theorists. 

I'm assuming that if you're aware of the term Disaster Capitalism then I don't need to introduce you to my favorite anti-corporatist: Naomi Klein?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Tater stay safe dude, I might not agree with you on politics/business but you're a good guy. Here's hoping you avoid the worst of it.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yes, there was a solid article recently about Verizon's practices, noting that Verizon timed the choking of data speed impeccably so as to compel people to pay as much as they could bear in the price hikes. Verizon representatives to the public stated coolly well after the fact that Verizon was merely "managing" data and were not targeting the specific people who had the unlimited data plan. Only belatedly did Verizon admit to throttling, but that unto itself is a victory and they only conceded that due to the stink made from the general public's reaction which has been fairly angry.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So what do all the Trump supporters have to say about Trump saying flipping to work with prosecutors should be illegal


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1032704206967320576


> The tabloid executive David J. Pecker has been granted immunity by federal prosecutors investigating payments during the 2016 campaign to two women who said they had affairs with Donald J. Trump, a person familiar with the investigation confirmed on Thursday.
> 
> Mr. Pecker is chief executive and chairman of American Media Inc., the nation’s biggest tabloid news publisher, best known for its flagship, The National Enquirer.
> 
> ...


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Is Papa Croft getting a kick out this feller's last name, @CROFT;? hno :lol

Stay safe, @Tater;!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So will Trump even make it to the midterms now lol

I always said he won't make it to 2020, I was wrong he wouldnt make it past the first year, but his time is coming to a close. He is guilty as hell and has broken many laws, he is pretty much done at this point. HIs fox news interview was a disaster for him.

He is done


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://www.businessinsider.com/this...an-war-is-getting-worse-after-17-years-2018-8



> This graphic shows why the Afghanistan War is getting worse after 17 years
> John Haltiwanger 3h
> 
> The war in Afghanistan is nearing its 17th anniversary, and a new graphic suggests the conflict has reached its deadliest point in years.
> ...




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1021332498427588608


> In total, five US troops have been killed in Afghanistan in 2018, according to the casualties-tracking site iCasualties. It's a far cry from America's deadliest year in the war, 2010, when 499 US troops were killed.
> 
> Overall, 2,414 US troops have been killed since the war began in 2001 following the 9/11 terror attacks, according to iCasualties.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-blocks-bill-protect-elections-173459278.html



> *White House blocks bill that would protect elections*
> 
> WASHINGTON — A bill that would have significantly bolstered the nation’s defenses against electoral interference has been held up in the Senate at the behest of the White House, which opposed the proposed legislation, according to congressional sources.
> 
> ...


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Wow, so apparently it's not just the Democrats (as I've been repeatedly told about illegals voting) who don't care about protecting elections from corruption. People should've supported that I think. An illegal simply can't vote in the UK - we have paper elections. It's quite simple, all eligible voters register on the electoral register and on vote day everybody on the list (which illegals can't get on, if you have no documentation in the UK you just get arrested and most of the time deported - I once inadvertently "caught" an illegal immigrant in the UK who was looking for a job, I took him to the job centre and 15 mins later the police showed up and took him away as an undocumented immigrant) gets a ballot. As the list is checked off when you enter to vote you can't add extra votes and anybody who didn't show up has an empty ballot that can be checked. Simple.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Much love to Lauren Southern indeed, was because of her that I first heard of what was happening in South Africa. Glad Trump took notice.
> 
> *I still need to watch the full Farmlands documentary by the way, I did watch all the preview clips.*


Ditto. I intend to give it a watch on my next day off, since the preview clips were quite chilling, particularly the one featuring the murder scene cleaner.

Speaking of that lovely libertarian lass, she posted this just a few hours ago:


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Ditto. I intend to give it a watch on my next day off, since the preview clips were quite chilling, particularly the one featuring the murder scene cleaner.
> 
> Speaking of that lovely libertarian lass, she posted this just a few hours ago:


This looks fantastic and very much needed!

Will be following the progress .


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Wow, so apparently it's not just the Democrats (as I've been repeatedly told about illegals voting) who don't care about protecting elections from corruption. People should've supported that I think. An illegal simply can't vote in the UK - we have paper elections. It's quite simple, all eligible voters register on the electoral register and on vote day everybody on the list (which illegals can't get on, if you have no documentation in the UK you just get arrested and most of the time deported - I once inadvertently "caught" an illegal immigrant in the UK who was looking for a job, I took him to the job centre and 15 mins later the police showed up and took him away as an undocumented immigrant) gets a ballot. As the list is checked off when you enter to vote you can't add extra votes and anybody who didn't show up has an empty ballot that can be checked. Simple.


Illegals don't vote stop making up shit FFS.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Illegals don't vote stop making up shit FFS.


Reread what I wrote, and then apologise for being stupid. Deal?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Wow, so apparently it's not just the Democrats (as I've been repeatedly told about illegals voting) who don't care about protecting elections from corruption. People should've supported that I think. An illegal simply can't vote in the UK - we have paper elections. It's quite simple, all eligible voters register on the electoral register and on vote day everybody on the list (which illegals can't get on, if you have no documentation in the UK you just get arrested and most of the time deported - I once inadvertently "caught" an illegal immigrant in the UK who was looking for a job, I took him to the job centre and 15 mins later the police showed up and took him away as an undocumented immigrant) gets a ballot. As the list is checked off when you enter to vote you can't add extra votes and anybody who didn't show up has an empty ballot that can be checked. Simple.


I talked to a lady on another forum who works at polls and she said that every registered voter is checked. She detailed the whole process out to me and it's almost foolproof hence why there is little evidence of actual voter fraud committed by illegals in America. 

The real voter fraud happens when mysteriously dead people show up to vote. She claimed that that did happen.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So what do all the Trump supporters have to say about Trump saying flipping to work with prosecutors should be illegal





> “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,”


:trump


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> @Tater stay safe dude, I might not agree with you on politics/business but you're a good guy. Here's hoping you avoid the worst of it.


We don't disagree on everything. And thanks.

It's actually not even raining here right now. I plan on going to work tonight as usual.



DesolationRow said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/this...an-war-is-getting-worse-after-17-years-2018-8
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And now there is talk of sending in the mercs from Blackwater.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Reread what I wrote, and then apologise for being stupid. Deal?






RavishingRickRules said:


> Wow, so apparently it's not just the Democrats (*as I've been repeatedly told about illegals voting) who don't care about protecting elections from corruption.* People should've supported that I think. An illegal simply can't vote in the UK - we have paper elections. It's quite simple, all eligible voters register on the electoral register and on vote day everybody on the list (which illegals can't get on, if you have no documentation in the UK you just get arrested and most of the time deported - I once inadvertently "caught" an illegal immigrant in the UK who was looking for a job, I took him to the job centre and 15 mins later the police showed up and took him away as an undocumented immigrant) gets a ballot. As the list is checked off when you enter to vote you can't add extra votes and anybody who didn't show up has an empty ballot that can be checked. Simple.


You are implying unlike in the UK illegals are voting in US elections. Are you not? That is what it sounds like to me. If not your sentence is terribly worded.

You are saying you keep telling democrats they don't care about protecting elections from corruption because they let illegals vote.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are implying unlike in the UK illegals are voting in US elections. Are you not? That is what it sounds like to me. If not your sentence is terribly worded.
> 
> You are saying you keep telling democrats they don't care about protecting elections from corruption because they let illegals vote.


No, I'm saying that's what I've been told, not what I'm making up. I'll take the apology now or just stop quoting me because you're evidently not literate enough for us to converse.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> No, I'm saying that's what I've been told, not what I'm making up. I'll take the apology now or just stop quoting me because you're evidently not literate enough for us to converse.


that is not how your sentence is worded. It's poorly worded. It does not help after your first sentence you wrote People should've supported that I think. Supported what? Illegals voting? Dems not caring about corruption? 

Read what you wrote. You could easily fix your structure instead of trolling to avoid any confusion. You were not clear with the first part of your post.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I talked to a lady on another forum who works at polls and she said that every registered voter is checked. She detailed the whole process out to me and it's almost foolproof hence why there is little evidence of actual voter fraud committed by illegals in America.
> 
> The real voter fraud happens when mysteriously dead people show up to vote. She claimed that that did happen.


The real voter "fraud" is what the GOP does to make it so its difficult for minorities to vote or the whole crosscheck BS that is going on where people get removed for the voter registration for no good reason other than to purge minority voters


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> that is not how your sentence is worded. It's poorly worded. It does not help after your first sentence you wrote People should've supported that I think. Supported what? Illegals voting? Dems not caring about corruption?
> 
> Read what you wrote. You could easily fix your structure instead of trolling to avoid any confusion. You were not clear with the first part of your post.


No, support the bill that seeks to protect elections. Seriously, learn to fucking read.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

An artist's son drew Trump. 

This is hilarious.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Wow, so apparently it's not just the Democrats (as I've been repeatedly told about illegals voting) who don't care about protecting elections from corruption. People should've supported that I think. An illegal simply can't vote in the UK - we have paper elections. It's quite simple, all eligible voters register on the electoral register and on vote day everybody on the list (which illegals can't get on, if you have no documentation in the UK you just get arrested and most of the time deported - I once inadvertently "caught" an illegal immigrant in the UK who was looking for a job, I took him to the job centre and 15 mins later the police showed up and took him away as an undocumented immigrant) gets a ballot. As the list is checked off when you enter to vote you can't add extra votes and anybody who didn't show up has an empty ballot that can be checked. Simple.


There are plenty of simple solutions. Just people are too stupid to understand them, try to make it about morality or they don't want to actually do anything about corruption.

Republicans and Democrats both have a lot to gain by not protecting elections.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> There are plenty of simple solutions. Just people are too stupid to understand them, try to make it about morality or they don't want to actually do anything about corruption.
> 
> Republicans and Democrats both have a lot to gain by not protecting elections.


Thing is you don't even need voter ID in a paper election which is I know a big concern some people have with potentially suppressing some voters. Here it's done simply with address and National Insurance number. I believe that's basically the same as what you call a Social Security number? If it's anything like it is here you can only get one of those if you're fully documented/legal. No ID, impossible to "hack" and plenty of checks are put in place to prevent ballot stuffing or votes going missing etc. I'm sure it's a lot less convenient than digital voting, but at the end of the day it's choosing the people who are going to define the way your country works, I think it's worth the extra effort.

Edit: Also worth adding that we have postal voting as part of our system too, which could go a long way in preventing people from being stuck unable to vote because of location issues or anything like that. I've voted twice by post in my lifetime, and I know plenty who always do it because it's easier than trying to find time to hit a polling station if the election is on a work day.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Thing is you don't even need voter ID in a paper election which is I know a big concern some people have with potentially suppressing some voters. Here it's done simply with address and National Insurance number. I believe that's basically the same as what you call a Social Security number? If it's anything like it is here you can only get one of those if you're fully documented/legal. No ID, impossible to "hack" and plenty of checks are put in place to prevent ballot stuffing or votes going missing etc. I'm sure it's a lot less convenient than digital voting, but at the end of the day it's choosing the people who are going to define the way your country works, I think it's worth the extra effort.
> 
> Edit: Also worth adding that we have postal voting as part of our system too, which could go a long way in preventing people from being stuck unable to vote because of location issues or anything like that. I've voted twice by post in my lifetime, and I know plenty who always do it because it's easier than trying to find time to hit a polling station if the election is on a work day.


My friend from Canada was talking to me about this, she was like "Don't you need ID for pretty much everything?" I'm like yup yup. Think Canada does theirs by a number too. That would be the simplest solution, if a duplicate number/one that doesn't exist shows up then you know something shady is up. 

I think in America we like doing things the hard way simply because we want to be sure nobody else benefits, especially in Politics. It's like a fucking Religion here.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> My friend from Canada was talking to me about this, she was like "Don't you need ID for pretty much everything?" I'm like yup yup. Think Canada does theirs by a number too. That would be the simplest solution, if a duplicate number/one that doesn't exist shows up then you know something shady is up.
> 
> I think in America we like doing things the hard way simply because we want to be sure nobody else benefits, especially in Politics. It's like a fucking Religion here.


Yep that's the beauty of the system. Local government sends out letters to every address and says "fill in this form with all of the adults in the house of voting age and their number" then on vote day one ballot per registered person and all of the unused ones get counted. So you know we have say 2000 voters registered to this polling station, of those 1200 showed up and voted and we have 800 ballots left. If somebody shows up who isn't registered, they don't get to vote.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yep that's the beauty of the system. Local government sends out letters to every address and says "fill in this form with all of the adults in the house of voting age and their number" then on vote day one ballot per registered person and all of the unused ones get counted. So you know we have say 2000 voters registered to this polling station, of those 1200 showed up and voted and we have 800 ballots left. If somebody shows up who isn't registered, they don't get to vote.


the US has something similar to that, its called a census and if you don't send it back, they can take you off the voter registration for your district.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

LOL at Tomi Lahren


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/2020-democrats-biden/index.html



> 5. Bernie Sanders: Perhaps no pick generated as much controversy last month as placing Vermont's junior senator at number five. Some wanted him higher because he retains high favorable ratings nationally and came in second to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Both are fair points, and why he's so high up on the list. *Sanders' problem is he's trailing Biden, has many of Biden's flaws (old, white and male)* and carries a huge additional one: Sanders is not a Democrat. Even after winning the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2018, he declined the nomination and forged ahead with his independent bid. Most of the people who vote in Democratic primaries are Democrats. (Previous ranking: 5)


Haha. In 2018 it is an unmitigated flaw to be "old, white and male" for a Democrat with national aspirations as per CNN. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/2020-democrats-biden/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> Haha. In 2018 it is an unmitigated flaw to be "old, white and male" for a Democrat with national aspirations as per CNN. :lol


They prefer young, some kind of brown, dumb and unqualified like Cortez.. Though she also stands against establishment Democrats..

So basically what they want is someone brown, dumb, unqualified but has the politics of an old white male Democrat. :laugh:


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> They prefer young, some kind of brown, dumb and unqualified like Cortez.. Though she also stands against establishment Democrats..
> 
> So basically what they want is someone brown, dumb, unqualified but has the politics of an old white male Democrat. :laugh:


:lol 

That was a fascinating video, @Tater; thank you for leaving that here.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/2020-democrats-biden/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> Haha. In 2018 it is an unmitigated flaw to be "old, white and male" for a Democrat with national aspirations as per CNN. :lol


Their use of the word definitive is hilarious. There's not a strong argument to make putting him behind both Biden and Warren but the people who wrote this look like complete imbeciles putting him behind Harris and Gillibrand.

If you look at the polls and not CNN fantasy land, it tells quite a different story.






If Bernie runs again and all signs point to yes, it's going to be a lot more difficult to steal it from him like they did last time. They will throw everything they've got at him though.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Their use of the word definitive is hilarious. There's not a strong argument to make putting him behind both Biden and Warren but the people who wrote this look like complete imbeciles putting him behind Harris and Gillibrand.
> 
> If you look at the polls and not CNN fantasy land, it tells quite a different story.
> 
> ...


Bernie floundered when he let those BLM protesters just shut him down.

He needs to not play Identity Politics but I'm sure Democrats will use the BLM trick again as well as the Hillary trick where they disenfranchised him to non-whites. 

He has a good chance if he can shake that weak perception of him.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Bernie floundered when he let those BLM protesters just shut him down.


This is entirely a matter of spin and perspective and which narrative you want to believe. Some will say he was weak by letting them talk. Others will say he was respectful and allowed two black women to have a voice.

Either way, I don't see the incident as having any significant bearing on the next election.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> This is entirely a matter of spin and perspective and which narrative you want to believe. Some will say he was weak by letting them talk. Others will say he was respectful and allowed two black women to have a voice.
> 
> Either way, I don't see the incident as having any significant bearing on the next election.


I thought it made him look weak because those two women were obnoxious, the crowd even booed them. They weren't there for them.

The incident won't have much impact but him being weak is already a perception people have. The Democrats will exploit this, I can also see them using the few attacks committed by Bernie Bros as fuel.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> I thought it made him look weak because those two women were obnoxious, the crowd even booed them. They weren't there for them.


If you've ever seen Killer Mike speak at a Bernie rally, you'd have seen a very different narrative of the events that day.



Miss Sally said:


> The incident won't have much impact but him being weak is already a perception people have. The Democrats will exploit this, I can also see them using the few attacks committed by Bernie Bros as fuel.


Oh, they'll throw everything they've got at him, including the kitchen sink, and even if he does win the most delegates in the primary, it's highly likely that they would use super-delegates to override the will of the people. They'd rather lose to Trump again than win with Bernie.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> If you've ever seen Killer Mike speak at a Bernie rally, you'd have seen a very different narrative of the events that day.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll throw everything they've got at him, including the kitchen sink, and even if he does win the most delegates in the primary, it's highly likely that they would use super-delegates to override the will of the people. They'd rather lose to Trump again than win with Bernie.


I just know it turned a lot of people off and like I said, Bernie cannot play the Identity Politics game, at this stage it's just eating itself.

They will and chances are they'll run someone brown if they can but who is a puppet and use the tactics that Bernie only appeals to white males. The strategy worked as many places had blacks and latinos vote for Hillary over Bernie which helped her win.

Didn't help a few Bernie supporters went on tirade over it. Bernie had lots of white support but that's not enough. I don't think after 2020 Democrats will be able to run a white candidate anymore.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> I just know it turned a lot of people off and like I said, Bernie cannot play the Identity Politics game, at this stage it's just eating itself.
> 
> They will and chances are they'll run someone brown if they can but who is a puppet and use the tactics that Bernie only appeals to white males. The strategy worked as many places had blacks and latinos vote for Hillary over Bernie which helped her win.
> 
> Didn't help a few Bernie supporters went on tirade over it. Bernie had lots of white support but that's not enough. I don't think after 2020 Democrats will be able to run a white candidate anymore.


Just because neoliberals try to paint Bernie's supporters as racist white men, it doesn't make it true. There was a poll done I believe some time last year that showed Bernie with higher support from women and minorities than from white men. They'll probably use the same tactic against him again next time but the polls do not back up the assertions.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## NotGuilty (Apr 6, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It's a shame Dems still refuse to do anything useful. Look at all the illegal immigrant violent crimes in just the past 3 months. He's right, we need better border security. Mexico's problems are not our problems


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> the US has something similar to that, its called a census and if you don't send it back, they can take you off the voter registration for your district.


Yeah we have the census too, this is like a mini version where you only have to tell them who you are. In our census you have to give a lot more info but for registering to vote it's literally just name, age, National Insurance number. I just think simple things like that and allowing postal votes should be able get rid of most of the potential issues I see raised online (like people not being able to get to vote, people worried about there being voter ID, people worrying about undocumented people voting.) Sometimes simple is all you need to get the best solution I think.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*





DNC really don't like winning


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Bernie floundered when he let those BLM protesters just shut him down.
> 
> He needs to not play Identity Politics but I'm sure Democrats will use the BLM trick again as well as the Hillary trick where they disenfranchised him to non-whites.
> 
> He has a good chance if he can shake that weak perception of him.


LOL at you claiming Bernie has a weak perception of him when he is the most popular politician in the country. Seriously, stop listening to propaganda and go with the facts


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



NotGuilty said:


> It's a shame Dems still refuse to do anything useful. Look at all the illegal immigrant violent crimes in just the past 3 months. He's right, we need better border security. Mexico's problems are not our problems


Right while the GOP does nothing about all the mass shootings and gun violence this country has which far outnumber violent crimes by illegal immigrants.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Just because neoliberals try to paint Bernie's supporters as racist white men, it doesn't make it true. There was a poll done I believe some time last year that showed Bernie with higher support from women and minorities than from white men. They'll probably use the same tactic against him again next time but the polls do not back up the assertions.


It worked though. Painting people as racists is very easy to do and is effective. All you have to do is look after the 2016 election. Nobody cares about the facts, they only care about being outraged. They're going to use this tactic because they been using this tactic for like 30 years.



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you claiming Bernie has a weak perception of him when he is the most popular politician in the country. Seriously, stop listening to propaganda and go with the facts


He did look weak and being popular didn't save him did it? He bowed out when he should have fought. He was 100% screwed over but they made him look weak on the MSM which was pretty easy to do considering most of the media were Hillary shills.



birthday_massacre said:


> Right while the GOP does nothing about all the mass shootings and gun violence this country has which far outnumber violent crimes by illegal immigrants.


Because the gun issue isn't a simple one. It also doesn't help much if Politicians won't enforce the gun control they propose. So it's not an issue you can just easily stamp out, illegal crime is. So this well, ignore this because that is worse is silly. You can apply this to everything and we'll get nothing done. I'll remember to use this line of thinking whenever something comes up. "Well your thoughts on this are concerning but _this_ over here is worse so what you're concerned about not a real problem." It should be fun!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> He did look weak and being popular didn't save him did it? He bowed out when he should have fought. He was 100% screwed over but they made him look weak on the MSM which was pretty easy to do considering most of the media were Hillary shills.


We have been over this a million times, it did not make him look weak. He showed them respect and let them speak. 

Did Hillary look strong when she threw out that black lives matter activist from her fundraising event? No, it made her look bad because she wouldn't let her speak and Hillary refused to answer her questions.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> We have been over this a million times, it did not make him look weak. He showed them respect and let them speak.
> 
> Did Hillary look strong when she threw out that black lives matter activist from her fundraising event? No, it made her look bad because she wouldn't let her speak and Hillary refused to answer her questions.


It was the way it happened. Though in his defense those two women were completely obnoxious but it still was a shit show. You can say it didn't make him look weak and yet there are several people that think so and he bowed out like people said he would so.. :shrug






May as well be Bernie's theme song for 2016. :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> He did look weak and being popular didn't save him did it? He bowed out when he should have fought. He was 100% screwed over but they made him look weak on the MSM which was pretty easy to do considering most of the media were Hillary shills.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the gun issue isn't a simple one. It also doesn't help much if Politicians won't enforce the gun control they propose. So it's not an issue you can just easily stamp out, illegal crime is. So this well, ignore this because that is worse is silly. You can apply this to everything and we'll get nothing done. I'll remember to use this line of thinking whenever something comes up. "Well your thoughts on this are concerning but _this_ over here is worse so what you're concerned about not a real problem." It should be fun!


The gun issue is a simple one, better gun laws = less gun violence. It does not get much simpler than that. 

Nice strawman argument where you are claiming I said ignore the illegal immigrants committing violent crimes, seriously, you are better than that.

What I said was it's funny illegals committing violent crimes is a much smaller issue, compared to all the gun violence, it's just funny the GOP seems to focus on the illegals more than they do on gun violence. But we all know why that is, now don't we.






Miss Sally said:


> It was the way it happened. Though in his defense those two women were completely obnoxious but it still was a shit show. You can say it didn't make him look weak and yet there are several people that think so and he bowed out like people said he would so.. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who exactly thought it made Bernie look weak? People that were never going to vote for him, is the answer or the Hillary Clinton propaganda machine and that was all faux oh it looked bad.

Can you imagine if he pushed them off stage like you are suggesting, what do you think would have happened? Oh Bernie Sanders does not give a shit about BLM, and look at how he just treated those women, he is a sexist etc etc.

Please. He handled it perfectly, and any unbiased person knows that.


side note

I also find it funny how all the Trump supporters in here are ignoring all the shit going down in Trumps world that is going to get him impeached or forced to resign, and maybe even put in jail and focusing on meaninless stuff.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The gun issue is a simple one, better gun laws = less gun violence. It does not get much simpler than that.
> 
> Nice strawman argument where you are claiming I said ignore the illegal immigrants committing violent crimes, seriously, you are better than that.
> 
> What I said was it's funny illegals committing violent crimes is a much smaller issue, compared to all the gun violence, its just funny the GOP seems to focus on the illegals than they do on gun violence. But we all know what that is, now don't we.


Sure better gun laws would help but as I said the issue isn't simple, the country is founded with the Second Amendment in play so it makes it harder to do as much as they want about it. Though there is also the lobbying from the weapons manufactures so as I said complex. There's also the fact the country is flooded with guns and weapons are still being ran across the border. 

I didn't say you said to ignore the problem but it's how it comes off, it's dismissive.

Of course, there's always bias, it's the same reason you keep bringing up gun violence and trying to lessen the importance of criminal activity done by illegals. Though if you add in Cartels and illegal gang activity by gangs like MS-13 I'd say it's a bigger problem because they also add to the gun violence statistics. It's just not as theatrical as a school shooting.



birthday_massacre said:


> Who exactly thought it made Bernie look weak? People that were never going to vote for him, is the answer or the Hillary Clinton propaganda machine and that was all faux oh it looked bad.
> 
> Can you imagine if he pushed them off stage like you are suggesting, what do you think would have happened? Oh Bernie Sanders does not give a shit about BLM, and look at how he just treated those women, he is a sexist etc etc.
> 
> ...


Undecideds thought he looked weak. It's simply all about perception. The MSM ran with it and of course people will judge for themselves. 

Sure that's what they'd use but everything is a double edged sword. The crowd was booing them ffs. I'm sure there was a much better way to handle it and Bernie went what he thought was best, either way was going to be some spin. 

What's this have to do with Trump? Me and Tater were discussing stuff about Bernie. No need to deflect off Bernie when me and him were simply discussing ways the MSM would down play him.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Sure better gun laws would help but as I said the issue isn't simple, the country is founded with the Second Amendment in play so it makes it harder to do as much as they want about it. Though there is also the lobbying from the weapons manufactures so as I said complex. There's also the fact the country is flooded with guns and weapons are still being ran across the border.
> 
> I didn't say you said to ignore the problem but it's how it comes off, it's dismissive.
> 
> ...


we have been over this Second Amendment a million times too, stricter gun laws does not infringe upon the Second Amendment. It does not make it harder at it, what makes it harder is the pay offs the NRA gives to politicians so they don't make stricter gun laws. Lets be real. Politicians don't give a shit about saving lives, or the Second Amendment, they just care about the kick backs they get from the NRA.

And NO i don't bring up gun violence to lessen the importance of criminal activity done by illegals, all criminal activity should be the same, that is what I am saying but the racist GOP just focuses on the minotrithy violence that is the problem.


Citation please that undecideds thought Sanders looked weak. And show a legit source/poll for it.

Bernie handled it the best way possible in the moment. 


As for what does this have to do with Trump, we are in the Trump thread and its funny how Trump supporters are ignoring all the news about the people associated with Trump and all his tweets where hs is freaking out because he knows he is pretty much done.

its funny you are discussing Bernie stuff, EC stuff, and other random BS when there is huge news about Trump and his associates that are going ignored.


Everyone is starting to flip on Trump, and Trump is still blatantly obstructing justice and you guys are all ignoring it. I just find that funny


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> we have been over this Second Amendment a million times too, stricter gun laws does not infringe upon the Second Amendment. It does not make it harder at it, what makes it harder is the pay offs the NRA gives to politicians so they don't make stricter gun laws. Lets be real. Politicians don't give a shit about saving lives, or the Second Amendment, they just care about the kick backs they get from the NRA.
> 
> And NO i don't bring up gun violence to lessen the importance of criminal activity done by illegals, all criminal activity should be the same, that is what I am saying but the racist GOP just focuses on the minotrithy violence that is the problem.
> 
> ...


Of course the NRA doesn't care. I knew it when they didn't stand up for Philando Castile, I won't go into that case as it pisses me off to no end. What I mean difficult to tackle is that many Politicians are weary of the whole slippery slope effect. As I stated before I support any well thought out plans on the issue except there are rarely anything well thought out by Politicians that's ever proposed. 

Again, I'm just saying you sounded dismissive. If that isn't the case then I believe you, I'm just saying how it sounded at the time. The GOP focuses on certain things just like the Democrats focus on whatever they want. It's all about biases and whatever topic gets them the most attention to be in power. 

It's what the MSM put out as I said, that Bernie looked weak. People are going to buy into it, it's just how it is. I mean look at the spin the MSM was doing for Hillary and people bought it. :laugh:

You and me were not discussing Trump, me and Tater were not discussing Trump. As for Trump there's already a thread discussing all that. I'm waiting to see what happens. Either way I don't care all that much. No real reason to flood this thread when as I said one discussing that issue exists.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Of course the NRA doesn't care. I knew it when they didn't stand up for Philando Castile, I won't go into that case as it pisses me off to no end. What I mean difficult to tackle is that many Politicians are weary of the whole slippery slope effect. As I stated before I support any well thought out plans on the issue except there are rarely anything well thought out by Politicians that's ever proposed.
> 
> Again, I'm just saying you sounded dismissive. If that isn't the case then I believe you, I'm just saying how it sounded at the time. The GOP focuses on certain things just like the Democrats focus on whatever they want. It's all about biases and whatever topic gets them the most attention to be in power.
> 
> ...


You do realize you are posting in the official TRUMP thread right and not talking about Trump lol

if Trump is not going to be discussed in here this thread should just be closed then or renamed misc politics thread.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You do realize you are posting in the official TRUMP thread right and not talking about Trump lol
> 
> if Trump is not going to be discussed in here this thread should just be closed then.


Headliner has a thread dedicated to the whole Trump legal stuff. That way this thread isn't flooded with it. I'm sure stuff will get brought up as time goes on.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Headliner has a thread dedicated to the whole Trump legal stuff. That way this thread isn't flooded with it. I'm sure stuff will get brought up as time goes on.


Oh so this thread is just for Trump stuff when Trump is trolling people. gotcha.

But again that is how Trump supporters are, they disappear when Trump is in a world of hurt and just show up when he is trolling the libs.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump does not even know the American flags color pattern FFS

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...g-wrong-during-a-photo-op-with-ohio-kids.html











This can't be real, can it?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump does not even know the American flags color pattern FFS
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics...g-wrong-during-a-photo-op-with-ohio-kids.html
> 
> ...


The thing is though is this a case of truth not being truth or is this truth being truth?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> It worked though. Painting people as racists is very easy to do and is effective. All you have to do is look after the 2016 election. Nobody cares about the facts, they only care about being outraged. They're going to use this tactic because they been using this tactic for like 30 years.


Look, you know I have my own issues with Bernie. I consider him to be a weak baby step in a positive direction. But the indisputable fact remains that he is without question the most popular politician in the country. The only reason he didn't win the nomination last time was election fraud. Thing is, there is only so much you can steal in a primary. If they are going to steal it from him a 2nd time, it's going to take a level of election fraud that nobody will be able to ignore. We're talking DNC crushing election fraud. It'll destroy their entire party if they do it again.

Which, of course, is exactly how I expect things to play out. The DNC is owned lock, stock and smoking barrel by it's donors and they ain't letting go. They'll burn down the entire fucking house before ever letting someone else live there. Mark my words.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/2020-democrats-biden/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> Haha. In 2018 it is an unmitigated flaw to be "old, white and male" for a Democrat with national aspirations as per CNN. :lol


Relevant:










8*D


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

john mccain just passed away.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> john mccain just passed away.


Damn RIP to a war hero.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> john mccain just passed away.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


>


Come on, now. He was a war veteran. I'm sure you can at least respect him for the service he gave his country?


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> Come on, now. He was a war veteran. I'm sure you can at least respect him for the service he gave his country?


If that’s where it ended, sure. But the years after proved him to be a heartless war monger who cared little for the thousands of wasted lives in wrongful wars he championed. Doesn’t help he has Keating and walking out on his wife in a bad way on that record. 

It amazes me how so many want to whitewash this man’s past away to shower him in undeserved reverence. But we seem to do that to politicians when they die. I don’t get it. I wasn’t going to speak up, but the near messianic praise he was getting everywhere was disturbing as fuck.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Fuck John McCain. One less bloodthirsty war monger in the world.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033134285476134912

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033570761829695488

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033569676289163264

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033528636664496128

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033554054448865280

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033574068291858432

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033571570025996291

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033565937553825793

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033519881268940806
:lmao at this one. For real watch the video until the end.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Wow, solemn obituary followed by masturbating human/ dolphin hybrid. :frankielol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> Come on, now. He was a war veteran. I'm sure you can at least respect him for the service he gave his country?


His daughter Meghan is pretty cute and has great tits. :trump

However, even she can't override his disgusting levels of hawkishness and neocon hackery. :armfold


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

American Logic:

"We're going to send our men to wage war in a country far, far away to be captured and or killed!"

Followed by:

"OMG, how DARE you DISRESPECT those men who were captured or killed! RESPEK RESPEK muh war mongerers!! THEY KEEP YOU SHO SHAFE!!! " 

Maybe stop sending our men to wage war? I dunno. I mean for most Americans the smell of shit in the morning is the same as the smell of fresh napalm and they need to smell it ... 

But maybe we'd have more respect for one another if we simply didn't wage war on others?


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> American Logic:
> 
> "We're going to send our men to wage war in a country far, far away to be captured and or killed!"
> 
> ...


It seems to me that even while they're alive, Americans always sort of revert back to the beatification of these type of people because they "FOUGHT FOR OUR FREEDUM", as if participating in wars, even if waged by them (and then calling for even more wars), puts them on a higher plane all by itself. It's as if even the most liberal of Americans today just takes these wars as part and parcel of life, evidenced by the fact that there is no great anti-war movement in the US today. "PURE IDEOLOGY", like the other one says.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> It seems to me that even while they're alive, Americans always sort of revert back to the beatification of these type of people because they "FOUGHT FOR OUR FREEDUM", as if participating in wars, even if waged by them (and then calling for even more wars), puts them on a higher plane all by itself. It's as if even the most liberal of Americans today just takes these wars as part and parcel of life, evidenced by the fact that there is no great anti-war movement in the US today. "PURE IDEOLOGY", like the other one says.


Generation Z is now ready to fight in wars Generation X started and Generation Z is a terrible combination of_ pro-government_ conservativism and liberalism on display with little to no knowledge of the sheer amount of wars America is involved in right now.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

McCain died nine years to the day after Ted Kennedy died on August 25, 2009. Two astonishingly destructive forces in their personal orbits, nationally and internationally. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033538876370046977
Who is behind this person and what are they feeding her to say? 

Imagine "learn[ing] a lot about the power of humanity in government" through a friendship between two such fiendish characters as John McCain and Ted Kennedy.

Horrifying. Befitting some dystopian hellscape nightmare. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one scary person.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Democrats who said awful things about John MCain for the invasion of Iraq are now sending their thoughts and prayers. It's truly remarkable.

*#PepperidgeFarmRemembers*

- Vic


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> Horrifying. Befitting some dystopian hellscape nightmare. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one scary person.


With that Tweet ... I'm very concerned as well. 

It sounds like it was 100% written by a professional PR team hired by seasoned lobbyists who know exactly how to create a politician. 

Are the next wave of "socialist democrats" being manufactured to appeal to the disenfranchised millennials as "revolutionaries" :hmmm 

Stay tuned for the future of American politics where "revolutionaries" wear T-shirts of their own slogans! 

PS. I'm sure you are aware of Bumper Sticker Ideology. It's a very important social theory developed in the late 90's and we're seeing its impact on our generation today through 140 characters (now 240) only politics.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

People who adorn their vehicles or what have you with catchy faux-philosophical bumper stickers should be disqualified from voting or having a say in anything meaningful within a polity. 

It is true, though. Soundbites rule. Our political "debates" are highly micro-managed and media-massaged question-and-answer drills with hard time limits for answers. 

Not that succinctly stating policy prescriptions with unfailing alacrity or skewering an opponent with a vicious witticism are not barometers of certain skills judiciously honed but the prevailing trend nevertheless remains largely annoying. 

Though one could perhaps contradict oneself and declare that if we are to be lied to, at least the liars ought to lie fast to get it over with.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Are the next wave of "socialist democrats" being manufactured to appeal to the disenfranchised millennials as "revolutionaries" :hmmm
> 
> Stay tuned for the future of American politics where "revolutionaries" wear T-shirts of their own slogans!


Yes and they already do


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's rambling makes me feel genuine sympathy for the earnest peace-prioritizing leftist like @Tater;. In the end the "revolution" is co-opted. Nothing she has ever said dissuades me from estimating that Ocasio-Cortez would almost doubtless sign off on the forced-liberation of another largely Islamic country ala Libya if the bombs and bullets came with the festooned window-dressing of humanitarian and egalitarian rhetoric.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Even though the Iraq War started in 2004, America had already started bombing Afghanistan in 2001. This means that in the 2020 election, you now have voters that have never known an America that wasn't dropping bombs somewhere daily. I can't put myself in the mindset of a youth that knows nothing but war-time America. 

18 years is a full generation of youth. 18 years of pro-American pro-war propaganda has created a generation that has no concept of what the world would be like without America at war. It's even worse when you realize that America's 18 year old war is ignored by the corporate media. This is a generation that has no concept or understanding of the suffering America is causing around the world ... And in fact, believe that they are the ones under threat from others. What an amazing twist. 

That is a scary thought indeed. We are going to be ruled by warmongers forever at this rate because of how successful they have been at making sure that they can stay at war without Americans openly protesting against it.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's rambling makes me feel genuine sympathy for the earnest peace-prioritizing leftist like @Tater;. In the end the "revolution" is co-opted. Nothing she has ever said dissuades me from estimating that Ocasio-Cortez would almost doubtless sign off on the forced-liberation of another largely Islamic country ala Libya if the bombs and bullets came with the festooned window-dressing of humanitarian and egalitarian rhetoric.


Cases like this do beg the question of whether it was co-opted or if it was never genuine to begin with, and I usually tend to lean towards the second. That is the role of ideological state apparatuses, after all. Didn't take her long at all to start going back on stuff like Palestine once her name started getting out there after her big win, having less of a problem with making a complete fool out of herself on interviews than with trying to show the tiniest bit of nuance to her position, even if that wasn't genuine either, and then start to gradually roll back on it to appease her Party (though they might've been the ones making her do that as well). 

I have great distrust for political figures in America who throw around "SOCIALISM" and especially "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" at every chance they get, mostly because across Europe the bastardization has already been done. Don't know if there's a single European country whose Socialist Party could actually be described as such. People still remember Syriza, too. 

For her supporters, a quote like that should be far more controversial than it will probably turn out to be; but when you're conditioned to being so uncritical of the military actions of your own country, and in a political climate where being slightly standoffish towards Trump seems to be enough to warrant a badge of honor, I don't think that's bound to happen at all.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's rambling makes me feel genuine sympathy for the earnest peace-prioritizing leftist like @Tater;. In the end the "revolution" is co-opted. Nothing she has ever said dissuades me from estimating that Ocasio-Cortez would almost doubtless sign off on the forced-liberation of another largely Islamic country ala Libya if the bombs and bullets came with the festooned window-dressing of humanitarian and egalitarian rhetoric.


It's not the leftist in me that opposes war, as matters of war and peace are not left vs right issues. It's the libertarian in me that is so staunchly opposed to wars of aggression, because this is a libertarian vs authoritarian issue.

I want to like Cortez, I really do, but she's not even in DC yet and she's already playing politics.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033545592092254208
One example being her praise of McCain. Another was her unwillingness in other interviews to fully take aim at Pelosi.

I'm not sure yet if she is purely a fraud or just a novice still trying to figure out what it means to be in her position but what I want is a wrecking ball who sticks to their guns no matter what. Fuck playing politics. She ran as a Justice Democrat and considering that it was Kyle Kulinski who wrote their actual platform, ending the wars was a big part of what they signed up for when getting the JD endorsement. I'm not ready to completely give up on her just yet but she's got a long ways to go if she is going to help create real change.

Still, she does deserve at least some respect for running a corporate cash free campaign and taking out Corrupt Joe Crowley. No matter what she does next, it'd be impossible for her to be worse than that particular lackey. If for no other reason, I'm happy she won because it'll help other, maybe even better, candidates to win in the future. I largely feel the same way about Bernie. He's pretty weak too on a lot of issues that I consider vital but a win by him in 2020 would be less about him and more about showing people that you can win at that level without being bought and owned by donors. A win by an admittedly imperfect messenger would help inspire many more to take on the Establishment, which in the long run is what the USA really needs; people running the government who aren't bought and paid for puppets before they are ever even elected.



Reap said:


> Even though the Iraq War started in 2004, America had already started bombing Afghanistan in 2001. This means that in the 2020 election, you now have voters that have never known an America that wasn't dropping bombs somewhere daily. I can't put myself in the mindset of a youth that knows nothing but war-time America.
> 
> 18 years is a full generation of youth. 18 years of pro-American pro-war propaganda has created a generation that has no concept of what the world would be like without America at war. It's even worse when you realize that America's 18 year old war is ignored by the corporate media. This is a generation that has no concept or understanding of the suffering America is causing around the world ... And in fact, believe that they are the ones under threat from others. What an amazing twist.
> 
> That is a scary thought indeed. We are going to be ruled by warmongers forever at this rate because of how successful they have been at making sure that they can stay at war without Americans openly protesting against it.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1032456218302984197


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> John McCain’s legacy represents an unparalleled example of human decency and American service.


Unless you're a ****.

What a stupid bint. You're representing the social democrats, stop praising a Neocon.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Unless you're a ****.
> 
> What a stupid bint. You're representing the social democrats, stop praising a Neocon.


Social Democrat is no more than a label in america.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Social Democrat is no more than a label in america.


It amazes me how everyone that labels themselves anti-war and corruption in politics, are destroying those very labels by not only “respecting”, but celebrating a career crook and war monger. It just really proves it’s all one party and the people are fucked. Willingly so since so many blindly follow.

You are either part of the family or you are the mooks they bleed dry.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> It amazes me how everyone that labels themselves anti-war and corruption in politics, are destroying those very labels by not only “respecting”, but celebrating a career crook and war monger. It just really proves it’s all one party and the people are fucked. Willingly so since so many blindly follow.


Yup. America is an Oligarchy. 

The next few terms of candidates will all call themselves antiestablishment and none of them will be. They're all trained and controlled by a small group of powerful organizations and conglomerates.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

John was the perfect example of a NeoCon Warmonger. 

Basically most of the are NeoCons and NeoLibs and they all want war, endless war.

Our military force is one big hired gun to be used around the World.

The whole situation makes me laugh when people are scared of the Russians when because of overreaching Globalism we have shady Governments from other countries lobbying and making deals with our own, legally.

We should be scared of our own Government over some Russian boogeymen because it's ran by wealthy tyrannical Globalists.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> John was the perfect example of a NeoCon Warmonger.
> 
> Basically most of the are NeoCons and NeoLibs and they all want war, endless war.
> 
> ...







This video aged well. Thousands of innocent people died because of him.

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033516711201386502
Feel the Bern.

One of the truest statements following McCain's death:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033861632374583297
It is no coincidence that the only occasions on which the U.S.'s mainstream media figureheads have become wholly and unremittingly supportive of the present sitting president is when he authorizing the firing of missiles into Syria against Bashar al Assad regime forces. 







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033515289017835521


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Methinks Deso has a crush on AOC and is masking it with this bashing of her.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Methinks Deso has a crush on AOC and is masking it with this bashing of her.


:lol No, but she is evidence to support your earlier statement that democracy has failed in the U.S.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24...lary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/



> Bombshell: FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million
> 
> The mainstream media took no notice of a federal court filing that exposes a $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> ...



Here is the officially filed complaint from _The Federalist_ in pdf form: http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/feclawsuit.pdf


What we have here is the allegation that Hillary Clinton's campaign comittee rather blatantly and illegally laundered $84 million, which would constitute a rather egregious example of violating federal election guidelines and laws. The case is now before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Based on researching the several different components to this case, a decent case study for this case would be something like the Hillary Victory Fund being given $5 million from various contributors. That sum cannot be transferred, legally, to the Democratic National Committee without violating limits. The Hillary Victory Fund instead has the money washed by transferring the five million dollars to a bunch of smaller state committees. Soon thereafter the funds are transferred to the DNC. The Supreme Court decision _McCutcheon v. FEC_ decided that this is completely illegal.

Will be fun to see what springs forth from this fountain.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24...lary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I highly doubt she'll ever see the inside of a prison or even be prosecuted. The Clintons know where too many of the bodies are buried. Hillary would probably take down half of DC with her; Republicans and Democrats alike.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I highly doubt she'll ever see the inside of a prison or even be prosecuted. The Clintons know where too many of the bodies are buried. Hillary would probably take down half of DC with her; Republicans and Democrats alike.


They don't care about actual election violations. They're busy chasing ghosts. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033537206516772864
The American "left" has as little credibility as the American "right". 

And it's because they're both actually the same.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Oppose the Dems and got pulled apart by the "free" media that definitely has no agenda. Dubya was frequently portrayed as a village idiot but when he opposed Trump he was shown to be the voice of sanity.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

> Huffpo 2012: McCain a racist


"I hate the g**ks. I will hate them as long as I live." - John McCain

He also voted against Martin Luther King Day.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> "I hate the g**ks. I will hate them as long as I live." - John McCain
> 
> He also voted against Martin Luther King Day.
> 
> - Vic


The evidence keeps piling up with regards to how uniform corporate media is in its narratives and people keep ignoring it.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*





Is it considered necrophilia at this point considering how MSM keeps sucking McCain's dick?


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Not sure how much it is to do with hypocrisy as it is just a comparison to Trump. McCain became popular after Trump was listening to all kinds of anti-Obama conspiracy theories. People looked at the video of McCain shutting down that racist idiot woman and people said "wow imagine a Republican having that civility". Same thing with Bush, he appears as more dignified and intelligent in comparison. It's like if you had a strict but fair dad, and he left and your Mom dated an abusive asshole. I don't think these articles or anything run much deeper than that.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034116045391507457
Here they go again...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Sorry ... But I have to rib in the Brits too occasionally.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Oi mate, 'ave you got a loicense for that sharp'ner.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trade talks with Mexico seem to be going quite well.

Justin Trudeau left out in the cold :sadbecky

Will be interesting to see if Mexico's new president attempts to fuck with the deal considering he's a wannabe Hugo Chavez, economically at least. Don't think he's a personal or political tyrant like Hugo was though


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Oppose the Dems and got pulled apart by the "free" media that definitely has no agenda. Dubya was frequently portrayed as a village idiot but when he opposed Trump he was shown to be the voice of sanity.


that is because Trump is one of the few people dumber than Dubya

Trump is by far the lowest IQ president in modern times.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> Not sure how much it is to do with hypocrisy as it is just a comparison to Trump. McCain became popular after Trump was listening to all kinds of anti-Obama conspiracy theories. People looked at the video of McCain shutting down that racist idiot woman and people said "wow imagine a Republican having that civility". Same thing with Bush, he appears as more dignified and intelligent in comparison. It's like if you had a strict but fair dad, and he left and your Mom dated an abusive asshole. I don't think these articles or anything run much deeper than that.


McCain was always popular for his willingness to parrot left-wing smears of Republicans, and to work with Senate Democrats to protect Democrat policy priorities and get nothing in return. Except when he ran for president against Obama, then suddenly he was just another unhinged Republican bigot. As soon as he was no longer the face of opposition to the left wing, he went back to being a "good Republican."

He was a useful idiot. And a blood-soaked warmonger who was incompetent at fulfilling his oversight duties as a US Senator when it came to fighting wars. One of the key men responsible for invading Iraq, and for the highly incompetent strategy that was employed for the bulk of the occupation, and for getting the US in up to its earlobes in Syria, and for pushing the US into turning Libya into an anarchic wasteland. 

He was a narcissistic blowhard who only got paeans because he was always willing to bend himself and his party over for a good Democrat buggering. If he had actually been a Republican who fought for Republican policies, he would be getting hammered by many of the same people praising him today.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> that is because Trump is one of the few people dumber than Dubya
> 
> Trump is by far the lowest IQ president in modern times.


Trump:

• Graduated from Pennsylvania University with a degree in economics.

• Turned an inherited $40-200 million into a $4billion dollar fortune (20-100x the inheritance)

• Successfully revitalised his business – bringing it from $-900million to its current prosperity.

• Turned his name into a brand and earned more than $200million for ‘The Apprentice’.

• Managed to win president having no political experience.

I’m not sure where this narrative of him being an idiot comes from, other than the media which proves my initial point.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart;76073934 said:


> Trump:
> 
> • Graduated from Pennsylvania University with a degree in economics.
> 
> ...


If Trump just invested in his inheritance he would have more money now.
He went bankrupt 6 times.
You don't have to be smart to win the presidency just look at Bush and Trump.

Just listen to Trump speak he rarely puts together coherent sentences. He speaks at a 4th-grade level.

We are talking facts here, its not an opinion

Just listen to him speak and you will see how stupid he is.

If you want to really see how dumb he is, read the transcripts of his speeches, you will see how much worse it really is


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If Trump just invested in his inheritance he would have more money now.
> He went bankrupt 6 times.
> You don't have to be smart to win the presidency just look at Bush and Trump.


The invested his inheritance story is biased and full of assumptions to fill holes it's pointless. Even if you don't believe that, Trump invested his money into his business to generate huge money anyway - either investment would give him money.

The bankruptcies were corporate and a way of minimising his personal losses so that he could restructure his businesses, he just wisely manipulated the system.



> Just listen to Trump speak he rarely puts together coherent sentences. He speaks at a 4th-grade level.
> 
> We are talking facts here, its not an opinion
> 
> ...


Most of his support is from lower educational backgrounds, what is the point in being articulate to the point of DesolationRow for example, when many people will not understand? Why not use simpler lingo so everyone can understand? It's been a winning formula for him in the primaries and the presidential election, why change? There are plenty of clips of him talking articulately in the 70's and 80's.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Most of his support is from lower educational backgrounds, what is the point in being articulate to the point of DesolationRow for example, when many people will not understand? Why not use simpler lingo so everyone can understand? It's been a winning formula for him in the primaries and the presidential election, why change? There are plenty of clips of him talking articulately in the 70's and 80's.


Hillary mysteriously adopting a bit of a twang whenever she would campaign in the South both in 2008 and 2016 was never much remarked upon, as I recall.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> The invested his inheritance story is biased and full of assumptions to fill holes it's pointless. Even if you don't believe that, Trump invested his money into his business to generate huge money anyway - either investment would give him money.
> 
> The bankruptcies were corporate and a way of minimising his personal losses so that he could restructure his businesses, he just wisely manipulated the system.
> 
> ...


Trump didn't make his money, his daddy gave it to him, and bailed him out numerous times. Trump is a huge failure when it comes to business. I didn't even bring up all his failed businesses. Trump couldn't even hvae a successful casino FFS. How do you bankrupt a casino? 

LOL don't even try to pretend Trump is trying to dumb it down for his supporters and talk on their level. Trump is just dumb. Again go watch his speeches and read the transcripts of his interviews. He just ranmbles on and on and most times its incoherent. He talks the same way with leaders of other countries, so why does he talk like a 4th grader wiht them as well?


He didn't even know Isreal was in the middle east FFS and his whole UK, Britain, European thing, also shows how stupid he is. But sure Trump is smart. That is a good one


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033537206516772864
> The American "left" has as little credibility as the American "right".
> 
> And it's because they're both actually the same.


Remember when the thread started and people were actually like "Muh Democrats" and didn't think they were the same and were spinning it so much that they could've made pottery? :laugh:

I'm just glad we have an actual Leftist like Tater in here who can shed light on a lot, especially Identity Politics. :x


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034116045391507457
> Here they go again...


Just make sure Ivanka doesn't hear about it, so that way she doesn't use Fake Tears to hit Trump super effectively in his fee-fees. 8*D


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Another point about the illustrious Senator from Arizona, John McCain:

He was the one Republican involved in one of the most notorious scandals of the past thirty years with four Democratic U.S. Senators. They were rightly accused of corruption in 1989: California Democrat Alan Cranston, Arizona Democrat Dennis DeConcini, Democrat of Ohio John Glenn and Democrat of Michigan Donald W. Riegle, Jr. McCain moved with them like a hand moving in a glove, as they improperly intervened in 1987 to benefit the Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association Charles H. Keating, Jr.; his Lincoln Savings and Loan Association had been investigated by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board or the FHLBB. 

To give McCain a tincture of credit, he would later say that his involvement would be on his tombstone and something for which he would always be remembered. 

Distilled to its barest essentials the scandal was that Keating effectively bribed the five U.S. Senators with a little over $1.3 million and they helped to thwart the investigation into the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. 


@Tater; I am sure you are right about Hillary Clinton. Was just reading some pieces from former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile's excerpts from her memoir _Hacks_, and it's a bit funny to read as she says that the DNC was largely run "from Brooklyn," which is to say managed by Hillary Clinton's campaign. Dan Backer read Brazile's writings and this was shortly after he had won the McCutcheon case. He learned about the moneys "earmarked" to elect Clinton. As the case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia unfurls, it may be wise to return to what Backer wrote recently:



> The DNC, in turn, contributed most of those funds to HFA, made coordinated expenditures with HFA and otherwise transferred control of its money to HFA, as both the DNC's own public filings and former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile's public confessions make clear... In McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1455 (2014), the Supreme Court itself recognized this precise arrangement would flatly violate federal earmarking restrictions,... though the court dismissed the possibility of such a flagrantly illegal scheme as 'unlikely' to occur. Not even the Supreme Court could anticipate the extent to which the Democratic Party and its elite, wealthy donor class would commit willful felonies in a futile attempt to facilitate Clinton's election.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Michael-Cohen-s-lawyer-has-done-real-damage-to-13185791.php

:heston

The clown show that is 'everybody pile on :trump with evermore-sensational unsubstantiated claims that get walked back and disavowed a few days later, that is surely the way we will destroy :trump' continues :ha


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Michael-Cohen-s-lawyer-has-done-real-damage-to-13185791.php
> 
> :heston
> 
> The clown show that is 'everybody pile on :trump with evermore-sensational unsubstantiated claims that get walked back and disavowed a few days later, that is surely the way we will destroy :trump' continues :ha


Yes poor Trump, it's all his former administration and former lawyers all telling lies about him to smear his character. It's all lies. 

It's even a false claim that his current lawyer himself said he shouldn't give evidence in court because truth wasn't truth. Reminiscent of would means wouldn't.

Trump is the clown show all by himself, he shoots himself in the foot all the time, no one else needs to - one day after a scandal Trump can't slither out of, that will bite him in the ass. 

I'm not convinced you're just trolling for the hell of it to be honest BTW.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Lots of terror attacks and militia fighting in Libya this week, as per usual since the toppling of the Gaddafi government in 2011. 

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-08-27/militia-fighting-in-libyas-tripoli-kills-5



> Militia Fighting in Libya's Tripoli Kills 5
> 
> Libya's U.N.-backed government says fierce fighting between rival militias in the capital Tripoli has killed at least five people.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump didn't make his money, his daddy gave it to him, and bailed him out numerous times. Trump is a huge failure when it comes to business. I didn't even bring up all his failed businesses. Trump couldn't even hvae a successful casino FFS. How do you bankrupt a casino?


Yes, some of Trump's businesses failed, but that's an unfortunate part of diversifying. It didn't lose him much in the grand scheme.

Not every millionaire will easily become a billionaire, if that's what you're suggesting.



> LOL don't even try to pretend Trump is trying to dumb it down for his supporters and talk on their level. Trump is just dumb. Again go watch his speeches and read the transcripts of his interviews. He just ranmbles on and on and most times its incoherent. He talks the same way with leaders of other countries, so why does he talk like a 4th grader wiht them as well?


He's possibly just getting old but there are plenty clips of him talking with clarity from the 70s/80s such as here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w47wgdhso



> He didn't even know Isreal was in the middle east FFS and his whole UK, Britain, European thing, also shows how stupid he is. But sure Trump is smart. That is a good one


Most of that shows is that intelligence in some areas don't translate well into other areas. Just because he doesn't know/care about Israel.

If he's an idiot and has all this success, then it makes the rest of the world look very stupid indeed. He feasibly could have just gone to Wall Street and made millions there under the radar of the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart;76077104 said:


> Yes, some of Trump's businesses failed, but that's an unfortunate part of diversifying. It didn't lose him much in the grand scheme.
> 
> Not every millionaire will easily become a billionaire, if that's what you're suggesting.
> 
> ...


Some? You mean most where failures because again Trump is a terrible businessman. 

I really hope you don't believe Trump is worth 10 billion like he claims. 

Trump is an idiot, he was an idiot back then, its also funny you have to go back 30 years to find a clip where you think he sounds halfway coherent 

He does not even sound that intelligent in the clip you provided. 

As for him not knowing or caring about Israel, he should, he is the POTUS FFS. And any 5 graders would know Isreal is in the middle east from geography class

You really don't think its a problem Trump did not know Isreal was in the middle east?


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Some? You mean most where failures because again Trump is a terrible businessman.
> 
> I really hope you don't believe Trump is worth 10 billion like he claims.
> 
> ...


It's were not where. If you're going to rant about a persons intelligence at least make sure you get basic spelling right, otherwise you might come across a bit of an idiot yourself.

1. How are most of his business ventures failures? Surely if that were the case he'd be out of business no? Please provide evidence.

2. If he's an idiot, why is he a billionaire and how did he come the President of the United States? Even if he were an idiot in the academic sense, he surely must be talented in some ways, such as business or persuasion, no?

3. I just watched the video you're referring to for the first time, personally I think he just misspoke, which is why he corrected himself and said 'Saudi Arabia' straight afterwards, but I guess that's just my opinion.

Out of interest what issues do you actually care about, because all I've seen from you are ad hominem and largely irrelevant arguments against Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It's were not where. If you're going to rant about a persons intelligence at least make sure you get basic spelling right, otherwise you might come across a bit of an idiot yourself.
> 
> 1. How are most of his business ventures failures? Surely if that were the case he'd be out of business no? Please provide evidence.
> 
> ...


What exactly did I spell wrong?

A simple google will show you Trumps business failures, but if want them, here ya go. Here is a RS article giving 13 of them https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ld-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-59556/

We have already been over why he is a billionaire, and AGAIN if he just invested his money he got from his daddy he would be worth MORE money. You act like Trump didn't get money from his father. And AGAIN you don't have to be smart to be president, just look at Trump and Bush for examples. Are you going to claim Bush was smart too?

How many times are people going to use the excuse Trump misspoke LOL Seriously. Did he misspeak when he was talking about the EU, UK, Britain, etc?

It's not an ad hominem to call Trump dumb when it's true. You do know what an ad hominem is right? I attack Trump's terrible positions all the time. Saying he is also stupid and showing why is not an ad hominem.

I can't believe anyone can watch Trump as president and think he is intelligent.

This is just one example of how dumb he is.



“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”


It's even worse when you read it in text form.

But as Trump said, he is kinda like a smart person right?

Want more here ya go. From one of his AP interviews.



"You have to love people. And if you love people, such a big responsibility. (unintelligible) You can take any single thing, including even taxes. I mean we’re going to be doing major tax reform. Here’s part of your story, it’s going to be a big (unintelligible). Everybody’s saying, “Oh, he’s delaying.” I’m not delaying anything. I’ll tell you the other thing is (unintelligible). I used to get great press. I get the worst press. I get such dishonest reporting with the media. That’s another thing that really has — I’ve never had anything like it before. It happened during the primaries, and I said, you know, when I won, I said, “Well the one thing good is now I’ll get good press.” And it got worse. (unintelligible) So that was one thing that a little bit of a surprise to me. I thought the press would become better, and it actually, in my opinion, got more nasty."



“I get treated so badly. Yesterday, about the thing, you know when I said it’s a terrorism … it may be. I said it may be a terrorist attack and MSNBC, I heard, went crazy, “He called it a terrorist attack.” They thought it was a bank robbery. By the way, I’m 10-0 for that. I’ve called every one of them. Every time they said I called it way too early and then it turns out I’m … Whatever. Whatever. In the meantime, I’m here and they’re not.”



I don’t know yet. People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the electoral college. Big, big, big advantage. I’ve always said the popular vote would be a lot easier than the electoral college. The electoral college — but it’s a whole different campaign (unintelligible). The electoral college is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall, they want to see security. Now, it just came out that they’re 73 percent down. … That’s a tremendous achievement. …



I could go on and on. you really think those sound intelligent?

He is talking to the AP here, so no one can use an excuse oh he is dumbing it down for his supporters.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> What exactly did I spell wrong?


You typed where instead of were you god damn thicko, how you think you could consider anyone stupid when you make a spelling mistake is beyond me.

In reality, studies prove spelling has absolutely no bearing on intelligence, this is probably exacerbated online by auto correct features which give me massive headaches.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> You typed where instead of were you god damn thicko, how you think you could consider anyone stupid when you make a spelling mistake is beyond me.
> 
> In reality, studies prove spelling has absolutely no bearing on intelligence, this is probably exacerbated online by auto correct features which give me massive headaches.


OH, so it was a typo, lol. 

And did I mention any of Trump's spelling mistakes and claimed that made him stupid? UM, No, I was talking about his incoherent ramblings. But hey nice deflection.

Try to defend Trump not being stupid. I posted a number of his ramblings, hell go look at his twitter. You really think Trump is smart?

if you think Trump is smart, it really makes me wonder about you.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> 1. How are most of his business ventures failures? Surely if that were the case he'd be out of business no? Please provide evidence.


Multiple failures throughout his business empire.




> 2. If he's an idiot, why is he a billionaire and how did he come the President of the United States? Even if he were an idiot in the academic sense, he surely must be talented in some ways, such as business or persuasion, no?
> 
> Lol is this aimed at me? The first part was sarcasm, the second part was my position that spelling and intelligence are not linked as you said.


Fundamentally no one knows what he's worth, he's avoided telling anyone, which is weird for such a braggart, if he had billions you'd have thought he'd let us all see. But I would put a lot of it down to having Daddy fund everything and making sure when he goes bankrupt each time that his own money is not at risk. Just other peoples.

I'm not convinced the word idiot is correct, hes a buffoon, but he has some aptitude for certain things. Lying is waaaaay up there with one of his biggest skills.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> What exactly did I spell wrong?
> 
> A simple google will show you Trumps business failures, but if want them, here ya go. Here is a RS article giving 13 of them https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ld-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-59556/
> 
> ...


Here is your grammatical mistake in your reply to Bret “Hitman” Hart. "You mean most where failures because again Trump is a terrible businessman." Just a typo I'm sure, but a little ironic, that's all.

Thanks for the article, I was pretty aware that he had several failed businesses and whilst some of them are hilarious, such as Trump Steaks and Trump: The Board Game, failed business ventures don't make a person a total failure in business and clearly he isn't or he wouldn't be valued at $2.5 Billion or how ever much it is. Probably his worst business decision was running for president as his brand is now irrevocably tarnished with half the country (rightly or wrongly)

Even if that were the case, which I find difficult to believe, in a way he did invest it in his own business ventures and that in turn built a brand. The Trump brand was probably worth more than anything money can buy and ultimately helped win the presidency for him. 

I'm not from the US so I don't have a party allegiance. I don't like Bush because I can't stand war mongers and the same goes for Obama, although I originally was drawn in by his charisma. I may end up disliking Trump too, we'll see. I'm not going to change my mind based on ridiculous and blatantly false stories like this though https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...sian-twist-us-president-drawing-children-ohio I don't know whether Bush or Trump are academically smart or not, but I do think you have to have a certain something about you to be elected president, or run a multi-billion dollar company. (Even if you disagree.) I know people who are clueless about history/politics/current affairs etc, but they can speak 4 languages, or another who can fix anything. Intelligence comes in many forms.

I think he misspeaks all the time because he's a horrible speaker, effective maybe, but horrible. Your quotes are a prime example of that. I don't think he misspoke regarding Russia in Helsinki, but I'll generally give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they correct themselves. It is by definition ad hominem because you attack the man rather than his policies. Regardless of whether it is true or not, it's a distraction and it's ad hominem. I know the definition, thanks. I also know a lot of smart people who can't articulate their thoughts through speech very well, I'm not saying that's like Trump, but you should perhaps broaden your mind as to what makes a person intelligent.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> if you think Trump is smart, it really makes me wonder about you.


Is this aimed at me lol? My first part was sarcasm, the second part outlined my belief that spelling is not an indicator of intelligence.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Multiple failures throughout his business empire.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah but most implies a majority, can that be proven? 
You might be right, he probably hides it for tax reasons though I imagine? I'll take Forbes estimates over his own or anyone else. 
Buffoon I think is a fair description haha! I think part of being a successful buffoon though, is being smarter than you let on, for example Boris Johnson in the UK.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Is this aimed at me lol? My first part was sarcasm, the second part outlined my belief that spelling is not an indicator of intelligence.


Based on his reply, maybe you should remove that second part lol! :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Here is your grammatical mistake in your reply to Bret “Hitman” Hart. "You mean most where failures because again Trump is a terrible businessman." Just a typo I'm sure, but a little ironic, that's all.
> 
> Thanks for the article, I was pretty aware that he had several failed businesses and whilst some of them are hilarious, such as Trump Steaks and Trump: The Board Game, failed business ventures don't make a person a total failure in business and clearly he isn't or he wouldn't be valued at $2.5 Billion or how ever much it is. Probably his worst business decision was running for president as his brand is now irrevocably tarnished with half the country (rightly or wrongly)
> 
> ...



Not sure how it's ironic pointing out a typo vs all of Trump's ramblings pointing out how stupid he is. Now I if called out how Trump is always using the incorrect spelling of the word counsel vs council on Twitter or all his other spelling mistakes then that would be ironic since I am an awful speller in general.

You do know that Trump is a warmonger right? You have seen all the bombings he has done in his short time as President. 

Again it's not an ad hominem since we were not discussing a Trump policy then I attacked his intelligence. That would be an ad hominem. We are talking about Trump's intelligence in general thus that is why it's not an ad hominem.

I know what makes a person intelligent, and Trump isn't that. You can make excuse after excuse for him but it just proves my point even more.

Trump is soo dumb the WH has to keep his briefing to bullet points and graphs because he is too dumb to understand them.

I would love to see you defend that. If Trump is intelligent why are his intelligent briefings dumbed down for him?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Is this aimed at me lol? My first part was sarcasm, the second part outlined my belief that spelling is not an indicator of intelligence.


No, it's aimed at people who think Trump is smart in general.




Hoolahoop33 said:


> Yeah but most implies a majority, can that be proven?
> You might be right, he probably hides it for tax reasons though I imagine? I'll take Forbes estimates over his own or anyone else.
> Buffoon I think is a fair description haha! I think part of being a successful buffoon though, is being smarter than you let on, for example Boris Johnson in the UK.


Trump is hiding his taxes because it will show all the money he got from Russia.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> No, it's aimed at people who think Trump is smart in general.


Make it clearer, we nearly had our first fight in this relationship.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

What would the Trump thread be without a little lover's quarrel? 

That said, I'm actually pretty satisfied with the fact that I'm not getting into any long-drawn debates anymore. 

I guess apathy has set in. :draper2 

Trump's presidency will go down pretty much the same way as every one of his predecessors and his successors because it's the overall system that's flawed and controlled by forces other than the federal government. The individual's politics are pretty much irrelevant to the state of society. 

This was why I have been an advocate for self-governance since at least the mid-90's. But I'm also aware that it's not going to happen and it's a pipe dream.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@birthday_massacre Sorry, you had just annoyed me a little. You are right though I suppose. 

Well perhaps you can enlighten me? He hasn't started any wars a far as I'm aware, and the only bombings I know of were the ones on some empty air fields in Syria and the long running war in Afghanistan. 

I believe the original discussion was on media bias/ fake news, no? I happen to think there's a real issue at the moment where you basically have Liberal media (CNN, MSNBC, etc) or Conservative Media (Fox..) They should, in my opinion be held accountable by independent watchdogs, and forced to report news accurately and fairly. Either way the discussion on Trumps intelligence is just a distraction, surely. I don't understand Democrats at the moment, clearly his supporters and many independents don't care if he is dumb, or dodgy, or crude at all. They care about the policies such as immigration, losing jobs due to globalism, being anti-war, looking after vets, etc. There is no reason why the Dems couldn't adopt some of these policies if they wanted to, or even come up with some of their own, but instead they make personal attacks which are having no effect other than dividing people.

I actually said he may not be academically intelligent, does't mean he's untalented or stupid in every way. Clearly he isn't because he is President, despite being attacked constantly by most media.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is hiding his taxes because it will show all the money he got from Russia.


You have no evidence for that whatsoever. If you actually think that, and aren't just winding me up, then I'm sorry but you're delusional.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Sorry, you had just annoyed me a little. You are right though I suppose.
> 
> Well perhaps you can enlighten me? He hasn't started any wars a far as I'm aware, and the only bombings I know of were the ones on some empty air fields in Syria and the long running war in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


Trump has already killed more civilians with his strikes than Obama ever did. You may want to look more into that. Trump isn't striking just empty airfields.

Let's be real, CNN and MSNBC are not liberal media. You saw what they did to Bernie Sanders a true liberal during the primaries. They may be left-leaning but its establishment left not liberal.

Trump's intelligence is not a distraction, you don't want someone who is dumb running the country. Trump does not even listen to his own intelligence. Bush didn't either before 9/11 and we all know how that worked out.

I don't know why you think Trump is anti-war he's not. Where did you get that from? His actions show otherwise.

The Democrats do come up with their own policies, maybe you should pay attention a little more especially the progressive wing.
it's also ironic you talk about people attacking Trump, yet that is all Trump ever does is attack people and his base loves that shit. it's just funny when people attack Trump, people like you get all pissy and say they should not be doing that. Which is it?

You keep backtracking on Trump being stupid. The only thing Trump was good at was getting people dumber to him to believe he was for their best interest and of course riling up his racist supporters.




Hoolahoop33 said:


> You have no evidence for that whatsoever. If you actually think that, and aren't just winding me up, then I'm sorry but you're delusional.


His two sons admitted Trump got a lot of money from Russia. FFS do some research, you are so uninformed.

here is just one example

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-said-money-pouring-in-from-russia-2018-2

here is another

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/eric-trump-russia-investment-golf-course

A quick google search would have shown you I was right


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Hoolahoop33 ; - I used to be Trump's second or third biggest supporter on this site during his campaign trail and for at least a year in office, but there is no denying the fact that the man just like Obama and Bush was completely incapable of stopping America's foreign wars. It's not just about him _starting _a war, but when you say you're a non-interventionalist on the campaign trail then you have to back that up with a push to end what interventionalism currently exists. 

I'm not going to say that he's engaged in a policy of escalation (but it can be argued that _Obama_ didn't either, but Obama's _administration_ certainly did) however, to simply limit interventionalism to _escalation _or _new engagement_ is excusing what is being done to the rest of the world in the name of America _currently _and for the foreseeable future. 

3 generations of nothing but war. The men who went to fight in Afghanistan are now in their 40's-50's ... meaning that if they had children around the time of their first deployments, their children are now ready to go continue these wars. The men are being brainwashed to fight in wars started by politicians based on some serious misinformation and the cycle is now entering blood feud territory. Just because America fights with modern technology doesn't mean that they aren't engaged in tribal warfare of the lowest level themselves ... 

I'm not even going speak of the fucking hypocricy of claiming that the American government is too poor for social welfare and the like when each bomb they drop can feed thousands of homeless annually. It's all fucked up priorities. Beef up local security and defense. Defense through offence makes the american government the invading force. 

This is not the kind of America I want to live in. It sounds horrible. And if Trump and the other bureaucrats, politicians cannot see how damaging this kind of warring is to the local population then they can all get fucked as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Some? You mean most where failures because again Trump is a terrible businessman.


You're looking at a few of his "failed" ventures which didn't do much/any harm to him, I'm looking at the business as a whole which has been a massive success from the initial investment. If everyone who "failures" but went onto success was considered a failure, there wouldn't be any successes. It wasn't a huge error, because as mentioned he leveraged them so his personal losses would be reduced. Far from an idiotic move



> I really hope you don't believe Trump is worth 10 billion like he claims.





Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Trump:
> 
> • Turned an inherited $40-200 million into a *$4billion dollar fortune* (20-100x the inheritance)


 :kobe 



> Trump is an idiot, he was an idiot back then, its also funny you have to go back 30 years to find a clip where you think he sounds halfway coherent
> 
> He does not even sound that intelligent in the clip you provided.


I specifically mentioned the 70s and 80s so brought a clip from then, there will be other stuff out there.



> As for him not knowing or caring about Israel, he should, he is the POTUS FFS. And any 5 graders would know Isreal is in the middle east from geography class
> 
> You really don't think its a problem Trump did not know Isreal was in the middle east?


That wasn't part of the discussion on whether he was an idiot or not. Probably a lot of smart people have weak geography. He probably should know. 

It seems like your central point of argument are his speeches are unintelligent - which are dumbed down and you have admitted he sounds intelligent prior to his political ambitions.

His business - some of which have failed, but on the whole he has generated a much larger share.

There are anecdotal comments, but these are pretty negligible in the bigger picture.

However, you haven't refuted how an idiot can get a well regarded degree from a prestigious university.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> What exactly did I spell wrong?
> 
> A simple google will show you Trumps business failures, but if want them, here ya go. Here is a RS article giving 13 of them https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ld-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-59556/
> 
> We have already been over why he is a billionaire, and AGAIN* if he just invested his money he got from his daddy he would be worth MORE money*. You act like Trump didn't get money from his father.


Do you have a link for this?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> You're looking at a few of his "failed" ventures which didn't do much/any harm to him, I'm looking at the business as a whole which has been a massive success from the initial investment. If everyone who "failures" but went onto success was considered a failure, there wouldn't be any successes. It wasn't a huge error, because as mentioned he leveraged them so his personal losses would be reduced. Far from an idiotic move


How is 13 a few? And he went bankrupt 6 times, you don't think that is harmful? Only in Trumpland. Of course, everyone fails from time to time but Trump went bankrupt 6 times, you act like everyone goes bankrupt 6 times. And not everyone has a rich daddy to bail them out after their failures like Trump did





Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Turned an inherited $40-200 million into a $4billion dollar fortune (20-100x the inheritance)


And AGAIN if he would have just invested it he would have way more than that. 




Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> I specifically mentioned the 70s and 80s so brought a clip from then, there will be other stuff out there.


LOL again you are deflecting. Speak to Trump now not being dumb. Speak to why the WH has to keep Trump's briefing to bullet points and graphs because he is too dumb to understand them.




Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> That wasn't part of the discussion on whether he was an idiot or not. Probably a lot of smart people have weak geography. He probably should know.
> 
> It seems like your central point of argument are his speeches are unintelligent - which are dumbed down and you have admitted he sounds intelligent prior to his political ambitions.
> 
> ...


Trump's daddy had money, it's easy to can get a well-regarded degree from a prestigious university. Trump's own classmates said he was not very smart.

He was not even in the top 15% of his class.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart;76077894 said:


> Do you have a link for this?


Are you that lazy you can't simply google it?

http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-could-have-been-five-times-richer-2017-04-06


It took 2 seconds to pull that up.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> The United States and Mexico look close to resolving key differences on the North American Free Trade Agreement and may have a complete deal worked out by as early as Monday, according to sources close to the talks.
> 
> Three people familiar with the progress told Bloomberg that there have been significant breakthroughs over the past few days on issues ranging from automobiles to energy, although it is unclear if any of the progress will be made public as Mexico’s Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo has said the country won’t make an announcement on NAFTA until Canada also signs on to a new deal.
> 
> ...


https://web.archive.org/web/20180827140626/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/26/us-and-mexico-close-to-reaching-nafta-deal-sources-say.html


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Eh, I'm not going to enter the debate on whether Trump is intelligent or not (even though it's obvious where I stand) but you can't use education as a metric. He has a Bachelor's Degree. Clinton has a law degree, a Rhodes Scholarship and was a Governor by 32 years old. Bush Jr has a MBA, and Obama has a law degree. 

Shit I'm more educated than Trump. Education is a nonstarter. The other things such as the success of his businesses provide more stronger arguments.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Eh, I'm not going to enter the debate on whether Trump is intelligent or not (even though it's obvious where I stand) but you can't use education as a metric. He has a Bachelor's Degree. Clinton has a law degree, a Rhodes Scholarship and was a Governor by 32 years old. Bush Jr has a MBA, and Obama has a law degree.
> 
> Shit I'm more educated than Trump. Education is a nonstarter. The other things such as the success of his businesses provide more stronger arguments.


Even in degrees there are people who get degrees if they make a passing grade and then there are those who got theirs with a 4.0 ... On paper they're supposed to be the same, but we know they're not. 

Degrees really mean nothing to me tbh. 

I'm related to a guy who has no degree and heading the risk assessment department for one of the top banks in the world. He made his way up simply through smarts alone. Started off as a paper pusher. I know another guy who's heading the sales department of a multinational insurance company. He used to be a delinquent and never went to college.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Reap said:


> Even in degrees there are people who get degrees if they make a passing grade and then there are those who got theirs with a 4.0 ... On paper they're supposed to be the same, but we know they're not.
> 
> Degrees really mean nothing to me tbh.
> 
> I'm related to a guy who has no degree and heading the risk assessment department for one of the top banks in the world. He made his way up simply through smarts alone. Started off as a paper pusher. I know another guy who's heading the sales department of a multinational insurance company. He used to be a delinquent and never went to college.


Agreed on all of that. I think America has put too much weight on college education being the only standard or main standard of intelligence.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is 13 a few? And he went bankrupt 6 times, you don't think that is harmful? Only in Trumpland. Of course, everyone fails from time to time but Trump went bankrupt 6 times, you act like everyone goes bankrupt 6 times. And not everyone has a rich daddy to bail them out after their failures like Trump did.


Yes but his bankruptcies were corporate and not personal so he was able to leverage them. The point is that the business still thrives in spite of the bankruptcies of the 13 ventures.



> And AGAIN if he would have just invested it he would have way more than that.


Maybe and maybe not



> LOL again you are deflecting. Speak to Trump now not being dumb. Speak to why the WH has to keep Trump's briefing to bullet points and graphs because he is too dumb to understand them.


That's his preference, we don't know that he can't understand them.



birthday_massacre said:


> Are you that lazy you can't simply google it?
> 
> http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
> 
> ...


I don't trust them, which is why I asked you to bring them up. 

Neither are especially trustworthy and rely on hindsight for stock market, as they suggest if he invested at favourable points.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree really at this point as we're both locked in our stances and I don't especially want this to get out of hand. (Y)


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

No president has been dumb.

If you so desperately need to believe that a president is dumb all that says is how insecure and butthurt you are that he beat you and your side to attain the oval office. Just what does it say about you that you couldn't beat such a dumb person in a presidential election, which is essentially a contest of wits? What is my campaign's message. Who is going to be my running mate. Who is going to be the leadership of my campaign. What is my campaign schedule going to be - where will I go and when for rallies and speeches. How often will I directly interact with the media. Where will my campaign money be spent. These are not simple questions, if you answer them wrong you lose.

Richard Nixon had an IQ over 140, he was probably the most intelligent president ever, he was an excellent poker player (another sign of intelligence), and he did the incredibly dumb thing of ordering the cover-up of a crime by his political operatives he had not approved, or even known about until after it happened.

Barack Obama has brains to spare, and he presided over the worst electoral results for the Democratic Party in 150 years through a combination of dumb policies and dumb remarks. Your party doesn't lose over 1000 state legislative seats, a bunch of governorships, and a historic number of House and Senate seats if you as its face and leader are avoiding doing and saying dumb things. 

Intelligence is no barrier to doing or saying dumb things.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034245172308201472
It's Trump's fault we keep rushing to publish every rumor/outright fabrication about him. :banderas

Journalism in the current year. SAD!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart;76078804 said:


> Yes but his bankruptcies were corporate and not personal so he was able to leverage them. The point is that the business still thrives in spite of the bankruptcies of the 13 ventures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



His multiple bankruptcies and business failures show he is not a good businessman.

I showed you evidence that if he just invested he would have more, stop ignoring the facts and evidence. Even when I show the evidence you are like nah I don't believe it. You are acting like a flat earter

Trump own staff he said he can't understand or follow the normal briefings that is why they had to dumb them down for him with charts and bullet points.

You can keep making excuses all you want about Trump not being dumb but it's obvious how stupid he is.





CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034245172308201472
> It's Trump's fault we keep rushing to publish every rumor/outright fabrication about him. :banderas
> 
> Journalism in the current year. SAD!


Trump has said over 4,000 lies in the past two years, so whose fault is that? There is one that tells more "fake news" than Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has said over 4,000 lies in the past two years, so whose fault is that? There is one that tells more "fake news" than Trump.


Trump is responsible for the lies he tells, just as journalists are responsible for any false stories they publish.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Birthday Massacre’s neg on me being foiled by the green he already gave. :cozy


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't want to be disrespectful to a man that has just recently died but the glowing eulogies of John McCain, particularly ones from Democrats who before vehemently opposed him as a warmongering Neo-Con honestly makes me sick.

McCain was portrayed as a political maverick but for the most part he was anything but. He was your typical establishment Republican who supported the war machine which continues plague both American society and the government itself, helping to bleed a country dry which is now in debt to the tune of $21 Trillion and will continue to climb as spending continues to increase and the US continues to pay for wars and interventions overseas. He called for wars, not only in countries the US is currently involved in but also in places like Iran, North Korea, Georgia and many others. He was one of the most ultimate kool-aid drinking politicians when it came to America being the world's policeman and bringing about new democracies by force....and even stating that I think I'm being kind to him. It's more about toppling regimes that he doesn't like. I don't think he and many others even think about the consequences or what actually comes after. Because if they did, they'd think twice about it.

The most disturbing indeed does come from as @DesolationRow mentioned from one Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It's one thing to call him a war hero and to say he served his country honorably, it's quite another thing to say that you learned about humanity in government as an intern through his relationship with Teddy Kennedy, another pro-interventionist war hawk. People are disturbed by the content with what she said, but I'm actually more disturbed by something deeper than that. She's running as outsider with the backing of Justice Democrats who one of their non-negotiable points is ending the current wars yet she interned in the Washington inside for someone who is a warhawk and speaks glowingly about them? That to me is the most disturbing part, because now it brings about two key questions: 1) Was she ever an outsider to begin with? Or has she been playing politics from the start and has used the current fervour of the grass roots to make her way into the inside? and 2) Is she really an anti-war candidate or is she more of the same.

Either way, I've never supported her. I think a number of the policies she stands for are stupid and I think she is even worse at selling those positions. Like way worse than a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren (who I've been critical of). But I thought she was genuine and I could at least respect that. Not anymore maybe...

In any event, who is actually surprised by the hypocrisy of the Democrats and the left in general in their reaction to McCain? I'm certainly not and I just knew someone like Jimmy Dore would pick up on that too. There aren't nearly enough consistent and honest actors in politics from either side of the aisle.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I used to joke a lot about John McCain dying because I always viewed him as a reprehensible war-mongering garbage person and a political reptile of the highest order. Now that he's gone I can't help but feel a certain sense of sadness about the fact I won't be able to make those jokes anymore.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> I don't want to be disrespectful to a man that has just recently died but the glowing eulogies of John McCain, particularly ones from Democrats who before vehemently opposed him as a warmongering Neo-Con honestly makes me sick.
> 
> McCain was portrayed as a political maverick but for the most part he was anything but. He was your typical establishment Republican who supported the war machine which continues plague both American society and the government itself, helping to bleed a country dry which is now in debt to the tune of $21 Trillion and will continue to climb as spending continues to increase and the US continues to pay for wars and interventions overseas. He called for wars, not only in countries the US is currently involved in but also in places like Iran, North Korea, Georgia and many others. He was one of the most ultimate kool-aid drinking politicians when it came to America being the world's policeman and bringing about new democracies by force....and even stating that I think I'm being kind to him. It's more about toppling regimes that he doesn't like. I don't think he and many others even think about the consequences or what actually comes after. Because if they did, they'd think twice about it.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I knew right away that Jimmy was gonna hammer her for it. Another thing Jimmy gets right that his buddy Kyle gets wrong... the Democratic party is unreformable. Something he said in a recent vid when Nick Brana was on the show, which is something I have also been wondering myself, is in regards to how much time and effort these progressives will waste before they figure out that the Democrats cannot and will not ever be reformed.

I've been saying the same thing myself for a long time. They'd rather lose to Trump again than win with Bernie. The sooner progressives figure that out, the sooner their efforts can be put towards worthwhile change outside of the DNC.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has already killed more civilians with his strikes than Obama ever did. You may want to look more into that. Trump isn't striking just empty airfields.
> 
> I find that hard to believe, can you please share with me where you found this information? Genuinely interested. Indirectly though, surely through his intervention and air strikes in Libya/Iraq/Syria/Somalia etc, the numbers must be pretty big (though probably dwarfed by Bush's kill count.)
> 
> ...


.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It's not illegal to have dealt with people from Russia, nor should it be. This doesn't show that you're right either, you have in my opinion jumped to a conclusion that Trump is covering up some sort of connection with Russia (and we both know what that implies) it may have nothing to do with why he his hiding his taxes.


Yes, it is illegal to work with a foreign agent to get dirt on a political opponent for a campaign. 


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...-tower-meeting-conspiracy-20180806-story.html


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

If Russia did save us from Hillary Clinton I might have to look into getting dual citizenship.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes, it is illegal to work with a foreign agent to get dirt on a political opponent for a campaign.
> 
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...-tower-meeting-conspiracy-20180806-story.html


I can't actually access the article due to being outside the U.S. Is there actually a law against that, as surely Don jr would be indicted already?

If so, was Christopher Steele not technically a foreign agent?

Also on a related note, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on foreign donations to politicians. Such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.e2832e910122 
and
https://maplight.org/story/foreign-...-4-5-million-to-candidates-in-2016-elections/


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Only WF would consider a draft dodger more honourable than a vet who was captured and tortured and refused to be released until his fellow prisoners were, you've all lost the plot.

Not that just because he has died doesn't mean we shouldn't call him out for being a hawk. 

But IMO he's a 1000 times better than someone like Bush. I can't help feel its less bad to be a hawk if you've actually fought in an actual war as opposed to it being something you send other people out to die in while avoiding yourself. 

And people who are pro trump critiscing him..... I mean wow. Trump was pro the Iraq war remember? And has been massively interventionist since.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Only WF would consider a draft dodger more honourable than a vet who was captured and tortured and refused to be released until his fellow prisoners were, you've all lost the plot.
> 
> Not that just because he's died doesn't mean we shouldn't call him out for being a hawk.
> 
> ...


If McCain was a Trump supporter, the tone from Trump supporters would be much different. They wouldn't be talking about him being a war monger and other differences to discredit him in death. Since McCain was basically the only Republican in the Senate to have a spine and speak out against Trump, he was considered the enemy. It's all tribalism bullshit. Us verses them. It brings out the deplorables and morally challenged people who are basically clones of their leader.

You notice moderate Republicans, Independents and Democrats are showing respect in death. The citizens, not the politicians. Because it's the honorable thing to do in death. (Unless that person is a racist. My personal opinion)

They'll deny it but it's true. Look at Senator Lindsey Graham. He was a critic of the President last year along with McCain and Trump supporters hated him for it. Every since he switched sides and stated kissing Trump's ass this year (while contradicting himself in the process), those same people who criticized him last year on various websites suddenly like Lindsey Graham now.

It's a cult.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I can't actually access the article due to being outside the U.S. Is there actually a law against that, as surely Don jr would be indicted already?
> 
> If so, was Christopher Steele not technically a foreign agent?
> 
> ...


Its funny you should ask about Don Jr being indicted, Roger Stone a former Trump aide, said he expects at some point will be indicted. Don't be surprised if Kushner is indicated for all the shady shit he ahs done as well.

To answer your question about Steele, this should answer your question https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/doe...on-campaign-can-be-indicted-for-chris-steele/

As for my view on foreign donations to politicians, I am against all lobbyist donations to politicians. I want that kind of money out of politics.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Only WF would consider a draft dodger more honourable than a vet who was captured and tortured and refused to be released until his fellow prisoners were, you've all lost the plot.


Acting honorable for a period while you were younger doesn't make up for being party to truly horrendous stuff later on. 



> And people who are pro trump critiscing him..... I mean wow. Trump was pro the Iraq war remember? And has been massively interventionist since.


No to both of these things. :lol He gave an extremely timid "yeah okay maybe it'll work out" before the war started and then was firmly against it shortly after it started. Saying "HE WAS PRO IRAQ WAR" is just a bald-faced lie. As for being interventionist now, we haven't entered any new wars and even drew back our interventions in Syria, despite the two strikes over the likely hoax gas attacks. I'm quite sure that under Obama or Hillary we'd be heavily invested in the Syrian war by now. 



Headliner said:


> If McCain was a Trump supporter, the tone from Trump supporters would be much different. They wouldn't be talking about him being a war monger and other differences to discredit him in death. Since McCain was basically the only Republican in the Senate to have a spine and speak out against Trump, he was considered the enemy. It's all tribalism bullshit. Us verses them. It brings out the deplorables and morally challenged people who are basically clones of their leader.


Nah I've been making John McCain death jokes since he ran for president in 2008. :lol I hated the guy. I'm glad he's no longer on this Earth. War is evil and heinous and people who cheer at the idea of starting a new war, which is what he did, are truly despicable. I won't ever feel bad about hating evil. 



> They'll deny it but it's true. Look at Senator Lindsey Graham. He was a critic of the President last year along with McCain and Trump supporters hated him for it. Every since he switched sides and stated kissing Trump's ass this year (while contradicting himself in the process), those same people who criticized him last year on various websites suddenly like Lindsey Graham now.
> 
> It's a cult.


Well yeah the major criticism of Lindsey Graham was that he was always against the president. Now he's generally supportive. Why would Trump supporters just harbor a grudge toward a guy doing exactly what they want him to do now? :lol I don't get it. Although tbf there's still a lot of skepticism re: Lindsey in Trump circles. I don't have a kind word to say about him myself, but that's not because he used to go against Trump all the time. I just hate neocons.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@DesolationRow 

Meanwhile there's talk about Trump replacing Sessions after the midterm. I'm conflicted over the idea. Sessions has done a lot of great work along the border and dealing with MS-13, but he's also a drug warrior and has utterly dropped the ball with regards to the Clinton investigation. If he replaces him with someone with the same strong commitment to combating illegal immigration and gangs but without the drug war nonsense and lack of spine, I'd be all for it.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

We all know politicians and private organisations look after their PR closer than anyone - why is anyone surprised that people are saying RIP to McCain rather than 'burn in hell'?


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

CamillePunk said:


> Saying "HE WAS PRO IRAQ WAR" is just a bald-faced lie.


No it isn't lol

He publicly supported it. 

You aren't entitled to your own facts.

You oppose McCain for something Trump supported.

Just deal with your own hypocrisy.

And the stuff with Linday Graham, the cause of the complaint was that he didn't support Trump, but that wasn't what he was attacked by Trump supporters for, he was attacked for x,w,z,w all of which suddenly were no longer issues once he supported Trump.

If McCain had come out praising Trump a week before he died literally all of you would be saying the exact opposite of what you are.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Acting honorable for a period while you were younger doesn't make up for being party to truly horrendous stuff later on.
> 
> No to both of these things. :lol He gave an extremely timid "yeah okay maybe it'll work out" before the war started and then was firmly against it shortly after it started. Saying "HE WAS PRO IRAQ WAR" is just a bald-faced lie. As for being interventionist now, we haven't entered any new wars and even drew back our interventions in Syria, despite the two strikes over the likely hoax gas attacks. I'm quite sure that under Obama or Hillary we'd be heavily invested in the Syrian war by now.
> 
> ...


Ehhhhhhhhhh... Trump is not exactly a non-interventionist. We're still bombing 7 or 8 different countries. The war budget was just increased by over a hundred billion dollars. Regardless of how much Trump may or may not have scaled back in Syria, we're still illegally occupying a portion of their country. Drone strikes are up by over 400%. We're still helping Saudi Arabia commit genocide in Yemen. There's still the whole secret wars in Africa thing going on. There's no telling how many different countries the CIA is meddling with. He pulled out of the Iran deal and we'll most likely end up invading their country at some point.

Oh and John fucking Bolton.

You're not wrong about Syria and Hillary though.



yeahbaby! said:


> We all know politicians and private organisations look after their PR closer than anyone - why is anyone surprised that people are saying RIP to McCain rather than 'burn in hell'?


If hell was real, McCain would be burning there. I'm content with him being a rotting corpse though.



Alkomesh2 said:


> If McCain had come out praising Trump a week before he died literally all of you would be saying the exact opposite of what you are.


Nope, because some of us actually have principles. I don't give a flying fuck if McCain supported Trump or not. I have no tears to shed when a bloodthirsty neocon bites the dust.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

Tater said:


> Nope, because some of us actually have principles. I don't give a flying fuck if McCain supported Trump or not. I have no tears to shed when a bloodthirsty neocon bites the dust.


Let me rephrase that from "all" to the "Trump supporters". Never meant to suggest that would be your stance.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Only WF would consider a draft dodger more honourable than a vet who was captured and tortured and refused to be released until his fellow prisoners were, you've all lost the plot.
> 
> *Not that just because he's died doesn't mean we shouldn't call him out for being a hawk. *
> 
> But IMO he's a 1000 times better than someone like Bush. I can't help feel its less bad to be a hawk if you've actually fought in an actual war as opposed to it being something you send other people out to die in while avoiding yourself.


That this could be considered a minor aspect of his overall personality or political stance, or that it should be in the least bit normalized, is an extremely dangerous position to take. Being a warmongerer should warrant much, *much* more than a "call-out". 

There was no "honour" in anything he did. And to be misled to believe that there was is to minimize to an ungodly amount the suffering of the people who were and are affected by all the wars he gladly supported.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

Martins said:


> There was no "honour" in anything he did.


So someone who refused to be released from prison where he was being tortured until his fellow soldiers were also released is in your eyes not an honuorable person but a draft dogder who cheats on their wife with multiple pornstars is?


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> So someone who refused to be released from prison where he was being tortured until his fellow soldiers were also released is in your eyes not an honuorable person but a draft dogder who cheats on their wife with multiple pornstars is?


You won't find me defending Trump on anything, nor do I find him remotely close to being at all "honourable" in whatever aspect one can imagine, but those are nowhere near the reasons I would point to, *especially* draft-dodging imperialist wars. 

My problem is not solely with Trump or McCain specifically, but with a system that perpetuates these conflicts to continue propping itself up. But then don't expect me to take the time of day to eulogize in the slightest those who give their own faces to represent that very system. My stance is the same for McCains, Trumps, Obamas, Clintons, etc.; you're just a slightly easier target when you've been as publicly deranged in these matters as John McCain was.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Americans are very good at justifying the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Americans. I've lived in a couple of small florida towns over the last 4 years and being around military men, I'd say only 10% or so of them are mentally healthy and have "normal" lives. America's war doesn't just have deaths on the field, but increased death rates at home .. higher rates of suicide than non-veterans, more mental illness, more physical abuse at home etc etc. 

The America Wars aren't just causing great suffering around the world, the suffering is happening right here at home and there's plenty of it. 

Most Americans have a hollywood perception of war. They have no clue what happens after these broken men come back home.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Nah I've been making John McCain death jokes since he ran for president in 2008. :lol I hated the guy. I'm glad he's no longer on this Earth. War is evil and heinous and people who cheer at the idea of starting a new war, which is what he did, are truly despicable. I won't ever feel bad about hating evil.


You're one person. 


> Well yeah the major criticism of Lindsey Graham was that he was always against the president. Now he's generally supportive. Why would Trump supporters just harbor a grudge toward a guy doing exactly what they want him to do now? :lol I don't get it. Although tbf there's still a lot of skepticism re: Lindsey in Trump circles. I don't have a kind word to say about him myself, but that's not because he used to go against Trump all the time. I just hate neocons.


It's called Trump supporters being intolerant of those who show the slightest criticism against Trump even if they are on the same political side. The same way they call the left, "the intolerant left".

That's the main problem on both sides. Too much "intolerance" and attacking instead of listening and understanding. The right accuses the left of doing it and the left accuses the right of doing it.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Acting honorable for a period while you were younger doesn't make up for being party to truly horrendous stuff later on.
> 
> No to both of these things. :lol He gave an extremely timid "yeah okay maybe it'll work out" before the war started and then was firmly against it shortly after it started. Saying "HE WAS PRO IRAQ WAR" is just a bald-faced lie. As for being interventionist now, we haven't entered any new wars and even drew back our interventions in Syria, despite the two strikes over the likely hoax gas attacks. I'm quite sure that under Obama or Hillary we'd be heavily invested in the Syrian war by now.
> 
> ...


You do realize that Trump supported the Iraq War right?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Hey @Reap, what are your thoughts on Gillum winning the D primary in Florida?



Alkomesh2 said:


> So someone who refused to be released from prison where he was being tortured until his fellow soldiers were also released is in your eyes not an honuorable person but a draft dogder who cheats on their wife with multiple pornstars is?


When McCain refused to leave his fellow comrades behind, that was a very honorable thing to do. But then he came home and defended Nixon and Kissinger's bombing campaign in Cambodia that killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Some might say the chicken hawks are worse. Another might argue that McCain was even worse than the chicken hawks, because he saw the horrors of war up close and personal, yet still advocated for every single one of them once returning from Vietnam. Just something to think about.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Hey @Reap, what are your thoughts on Gillum winning the D primary in Florida?


I'm out of touch enough that I didn't even know it happened :lmao 

Florida (that isn't Orlando's theme parks) is already so run down and beat up .. I don't even know what the worst any of these politicians can even do tbh. There are a lot of good things about this state, but most of it is a shithole. 

I'll have my thoughts on him when I read up on his platform. Right now I'm clueless.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Ok. I have no clue why he's being called a "socialist" so far. :mj4 

His policy proposals are centrist at best but his economy seems to be actually leaning right for what I can tell. 

He has no radical platform whatsoever. 

Gonna be a conventional run-by-the-numbers republican/democrat hybrid that is a-typical of Florida politicians since the dawn of time lol. 

Florida is so far removed from leftism that the "democrats" here might as well be republicans.

Ooh. At least he's pro-marijuana so there's that :Shrug


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its funny you should ask about Don Jr being indicted, Roger Stone a former Trump aide, said he expects at some point will be indicted. Don't be surprised if Kushner is indicated for all the shady shit he ahs done as well.
> 
> To answer your question about Steele, this should answer your question https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/doe...on-campaign-can-be-indicted-for-chris-steele/
> 
> As for my view on foreign donations to politicians, I am against all lobbyist donations to politicians. I want that kind of money out of politics.


I'm not too familiar with the US election laws, but from what I can garner the criminality of the Trump Tower meeting would be dependent on whether Don jr actually reached out to the Russians, or whether they actually received information of value at the meeting? That might prove difficult to verify; but I would support any indictment of Don jr, etc if it were proven that they actually broke the law.

Thanks for the interesting article, isn't it a shame that Mueller hasn't gone after both campaigns equally. You'd think it would create a precedent that would make future campaigns think twice about dealing with foreign nations/agents. 

I'm glad we're finally finding common ground :laugh: I couldn't agree more, I really think getting money out of politics is something that could unite the country again, it seems most people are disgusted by it. A ban on members of Congress becoming lobbyists and term limits would be a good start, the obvious issue being that Congress itself would be highly reluctant to amend any laws on the matter. I do think it's possible though with enough pressure. Maybe I'm being optimistic though!


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Americans are very good at justifying the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Americans. I've lived in a couple of small florida towns over the last 4 years and being around military men, I'd say only 10% or so of them are mentally healthy and have "normal" lives. America's war doesn't just have deaths on the field, but increased death rates at home .. higher rates of suicide than non-veterans, more mental illness, more physical abuse at home etc etc.
> 
> The America Wars aren't just causing great suffering around the world, the suffering is happening right here at home and there's plenty of it.
> 
> Most Americans have a hollywood perception of war. They have no clue what happens after these broken men come back home.


This isn't surprising, Vets are ignored just like the millions of Americans living in poverty and going hungry. Yet nobody wants to talk about it because it means actually doing something. They're not the right kind of people, too American or the wrong skin color so therefore not worth the time to talk about. 

We have so many issues to work out here yet people would rather pretend we have none and act like we have no suffering and everyone needs our help. How about helping our own people before failing to help anyone else?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Florida is already so run down and beat up .. most of it is a shithole.


I lived in Tampa for nearly 2 years. Can confirm.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Thanks for the interesting article, isn't it a shame that Mueller hasn't gone after both campaigns equally. You'd think it would create a precedent that would make future campaigns think twice about dealing with foreign nations/agents.


Mueller's mandate isn't to look at the Clinton campaign. It's spelled out in the memo from the Duputy AG to look at Russia, the Trump campaign possible conspiracy and anything else that comes from it. That's what his critics who keep claiming "what about the other side" don't understand.

As for the Clinton campaign, Sessions already kicked the email thing to a U.S attorney to look at.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I lived in Tampa for nearly 2 years. Can confirm.


It's a third world state that has the money of a first world state and has no clue how to do anything with anything at all. And this goes beyond the "Florida Man" stereotype. None of the politicians here know anything either - and this goes for both republicans and democrats.

The more I read about Gillum, the more I'm convinced that he is an ultra establishment puppet. Hillary supporter too .. and involved in a massive FBI scandal of his own. :mj4


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> It's a third world state that has the money of a first world state and has no clue how to do anything with anything at all. And this goes beyond the "Florida Man" stereotype. None of the politicians here know anything either - and this goes for both republicans and democrats.


Come on, let's not totally over-exaggerate, Florida is like paradise compared to a lot of places (Michigan comes to mind.) I've been to Miami, Orlando, Lakeland, Jacksonville, Fort Lauterdale and Gainsville (and small places in between, there's been more than one trip lol) and if that's what y'all consider "bad" then good must be amazing. It's a stunning place to go to when you're used to the cobbled streets, industrial revolution moulded landscape of the North of England. :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Mueller's mandate isn't to look at the Clinton campaign. It's spelled out in the memo from the Duputy AG to look at Russia, the Trump campaign possible conspiracy and anything else that comes from it. That's what his critics who keep claiming "what about the other side" don't understand.
> 
> As for the Clinton campaign, Sessions already kicked the email thing to a U.S attorney to look at.


Your drinking of the Russiagate koolaid has reached embarrassing levels. Like, flat earther/creationist levels of embarrassing. You must be a Rachel Madcow fan. :lol



Reap said:


> It's a third world state that has the money of a first world state and has no clue how to do anything with anything at all. And this goes beyond the "Florida Man" stereotype. None of the politicians here know anything either - and this goes for both republicans and democrats.


What, you're not proud to have Debbie Riggedherelection Schultz represent your state? :lmao



Reap said:


> The more I read about Gillum, the more I'm convinced that he is an ultra establishment puppet. Hillary supporter too .. and involved in a massive FBI scandal of his own. :mj4


I'd never even heard his name before last night. I saw it trending worldwide and people like Kyle Kulinski and Glenn Greenwald were hailing it as a huge victory for the left. I thought you might know more than I do.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Tater said:


> Your drinking of the Russiagate koolaid has reached embarrassing levels. Like, flat earther/creationist levels of embarrassing. You must be a Rachel Madcow fan. .


All I did was state facts that anyone with a brain could look up. You're being extra for no reason at all.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> All I did was state facts that anyone with a brain could look up. You're being extra for no reason at all.


Okay, let's talk facts. It's a proven fact that Russia didn't hack the DNC servers to steal the emails. That was an inside job, as proven by Bill Binney and VIPS. It's a proven fact that Russians didn't hack the vote either. So what are you still whining about? A dozen troll farmers? If you believe some internet trolls spending a few thousand dollars defeated the BILLIONS Hillary spent to buy the election... dude, stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Tater said:


> Okay, let's talk facts. It's a proven fact that Russia didn't hack the DNC servers to steal the emails. That was an inside job, as proven by Bill Binney and VIPS. It's a proven fact that Russians didn't hack the vote either. So what are you still whining about? A dozen troll farmers? If you believe some internet trolls spending a few thousand dollars defeated the BILLIONS Hillary spent to buy the election... dude, stop embarrassing yourself.


Who said I was whining? I'm not going to waste my time on that fake conspiracy theory post. :mj4

Stop trying to get my attention with senseless posts.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Okay, let's talk facts. It's a proven fact that Russia didn't hack the DNC servers to steal the emails. That was an inside job, as proven by Bill Binney and VIPS. It's a proven fact that Russians didn't hack the vote either. So what are you still whining about? A dozen troll farmers? If you believe some internet trolls spending a few thousand dollars defeated the BILLIONS Hillary spent to buy the election... dude, stop embarrassing yourself.


Do you admit Russia TRIED to hack the US election?

And again Trump ADMITTED to trying to get dirty on Hillary from RUSSIA.

Lets also not forget about all the Russian bots on facebook with their BS propaganda to influence voters

if you can't admit that Russia influenced the election then you are delusional.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Who said I was whining? I'm not going to waste my time on that fake conspiracy theory post. :mj4
> 
> Stop trying to get my attention with senseless posts.


I don't give two shits about your attention. What I do care about is brainwashed sheep who are blaming their problems on anything but themselves.

NEWSFLASH: the Democrats were already wiped out nationally before the Hildacunt lost to a con man. Blaming Russia is a Democrat Establishment ploy to divert all attention from their own failures.

People like you are why the Republicans control nearly the entire fucking country right now. Or did you forget about the thousand seats they lost under your hero Obama? 

Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats fucking suck donkey balls and your efforts would be better spent trying to address the actual issues instead of placing the blame on an imaginary boogeyman.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I don't give two shits about your attention. What I do care about is brainwashed sheep who are blaming their problems on anything but themselves.
> 
> NEWSFLASH: the Democrats were already wiped out nationally before the Hildacunt lost to a con man. Blaming Russia is a Democrat Establishment ploy to divert all attention from their own failures.
> 
> ...


The only one brainwashed here is you since you ignore all the evidence.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

^^^Headliner, if you needed any more proof of your lunacy, you sound like BM. 

I shouldn't need to explain that any further.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> ^^^Headliner, if you needed any more proof of your lunacy, you sound like BM.
> 
> I shouldn't need to explain that any further.


You sound like the delusional Trump supporters who ignore all the facts and evidence. You should be proud of yourself.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This thread is always way more entertaining with BM around. :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> This thread is always way more entertaining with BM around. :lol


Entertaining in an Alex Jones kind of way. :lmao


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Entertaining in an Alex Jones kind of way. :lmao


No, just in a watching the conflict way. It often becomes a bit of a circle jerk and that's boring tbh.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Entertaining in an Alex Jones kind of way. :lmao


Yeah, with you being the Alex Jones. But keep deflecting and ignoring my questions.

here it is again

Do you admit Russia TRIED to hack the US election?

Do you agree Trump ADMITTED his campaign tried o get dirty on Hillary from RUSSIA?

Do you agree the Russian bots on facebook tried to influence the voters with their BS propaganda?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> No, just in a watching the conflict way. It often becomes a bit of a circle jerk and that's boring tbh.


Calling people out when they say delusional shit will always be entertaining to me.

ositivity


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Comparing @Tater to Trump supporters.

I've heard it all now :HA :lmao.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Comparing @Tater to Trump supporters.
> 
> I've heard it all now :HA :lmao.


Funny how he still dodges my questions on Russia, because he knows they are all true and if he admits they are true his whole Russia denials will show he is wrong.

Sorry but anyone that claims Russia did not influence and try to hack the election are just delusional and that is why he is as bad as Trump supporters.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You sound like the delusional Trump supporters who ignore all the facts and evidence. You should be proud of yourself.


Tater is a smart man, thank you for comparing me with him. :yas


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Tater is a smart man, thank you for comparing me with him. :yas


At least you admit you ignore facts and evidence like Tater

that is refreshing to see.

Do you want to answer the questions I asked since Tater is ignoring them?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

See. Entertainment. :lol


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> At least you admit you ignore facts and evidence like Tater
> 
> that is refreshing to see.
> 
> Do you want to answer the questions I asked since Tater is ignoring them?


For me to look through them and see if I can answer them, you have to do three things:

a) Ask me nicely

b) Apologise for the red rep you gave me

c) Use the words _cuck_ and _libtard_ in a sentence

:vader


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> For me to look through them and see if I can answer them, you have to do two things:
> 
> a) Ask me nicely
> 
> ...


Just answer the question and stop trolling


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just answer the question and stop trolling


You have to fulfil the requirements first

:trump3


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I don't give two shits about your attention. What I do care about is brainwashed sheep who are blaming their problems on anything but themselves.
> 
> NEWSFLASH: the Democrats were already wiped out nationally before the Hildacunt lost to a con man. Blaming Russia is a Democrat Establishment ploy to divert all attention from their own failures.
> 
> ...


:mj4 at you putting words in my mouth like I said any of that shit. Please stop making shit up. Sorry but I'm going to believe our intelligence agencies over some guy on the internet that views random sources that doesn't measure up to the intelligence agencies. 

You've been following me around baiting me with dumbass aggressive posts for the last week or so. I've tried to warn you before on this. Argue your dumb points with birthday_massacre in that tone I'm not the one to try this with.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> :mj4 at you putting words in my mouth like I said any of that shit. Please stop making shit up. Sorry but I'm going to believe our intelligence agencies over some guy on the internet that views random sources that doesn't measure up to the intelligence agencies.
> 
> You've been following me around baiting me with dumbass aggressive posts for the last week or so. I've tried to warn you before on this. Argue your dumb points with birthday_massacre in that tone I'm not the one to try this with.


He thinks intelligence agencies can't be trusted and are a part of the deep state.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Triggered!!1!1!!1!!1 

I’ll be in the red once BM is done with me :cena4


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



The Hardcore Show said:


> He thinks intelligence agencies can't be trusted and are a part of the deep state.


Given their history, I think he and anyone else have good reason not to trust the intelligence agencies. Iraq and the weapons of mass destuction, for example.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Triggered!!1!1!!1!!1


You know you are just proving my point about how most Trump supporters are just trolls right?

When you say things like triggered!!!! it just makes you look bad because it shows you can't debate the facts.

So again, answer the questions I posed. Spoiler alert, the answer was yes to all of them


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You know you are just proving my point about how most Trump supporters are just trolls right?
> 
> When you say things like triggered!!!! it just makes you look bad because it shows you can't debate the facts.
> 
> So again, answer the questions I posed. Spoiler alert, the answer was yes to all of them


I haven't looked at those questions really in enough detail to give a comprehensive response to all of them, my knowledge is more centred around my native UK politics.

I am not sure why I'm obligated to answer those questions, when I never discussed any election conspiracies.

By the same token - when you resort to red reps, you could just say you prove the point that liberals are easily riled up about nothing. Just a pointless stereotype really.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I love how this thread turns into limp-dick posturing so often :heston


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

All this talk of red reps, I've been on here forever and don't even know how to do that......... gronk.

I MUST BE A TRUMP SUPPORTER IN SECRET TO BE THAT STUPID. SAD!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Rumor has it White House ethics lawyer Stefan Passantino will be stepping down tomorrow. Looks like Trump forcing out yet another lawyer so he can fire Mueller because Trump knows Mueller is getting close to taking him down.

And the GOP is supposed to be the law and order party .


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> :mj4 at you putting words in my mouth like I said any of that shit. Please stop making shit up. Sorry but I'm going to believe our intelligence agencies over some guy on the internet that views random sources that doesn't measure up to the intelligence agencies.
> 
> You've been following me around baiting me with dumbass aggressive posts for the last week or so. I've tried to warn you before on this. Argue your dumb points with birthday_massacre in that tone I'm not the one to try this with.


I've been posting in the Trump thread for _years_ on a consistent basis. You randomly pop in and post about your fantasies of Russia stealing the election for Trump. But I'm the one following you around. Riiiiiight.

Sorry but when you say you're going to trust our intelligence agencies, people who lie professionally for a living, when they have offered up no proof whatsoever, is it any wonder why you're getting mocked?

I've posted the evidence for my conclusions many times. You're giving blind faith to proven liars. Here, I'll post it again.






That was the original interview debunking the idea that Russia hacked the emails. Here is a newer one with new information.






You can trust the professional liars from the intelligence agencies who offer up no proof. I'm going to trust in Bill Binney, who offers up proof for his claims.

Here's the reality. Russia didn't hack the DNC and give the emails to Wikileaks. Whoever did it had physical access to the DNC server. The proof is in the transfer rates. It's impossible to transfer files that fast over the internet. The only way to get transfer rates that fast is a physical connection to the server, such as a thumb drive (the same server that the DNC refused to let the FBI have access to). So unless you believe Russians physically infiltrated the DNC, that part of Russiagate falls apart. Beyond that, all you've got is a handful of internet memes from click bait trolls. If you believe that's enough to take down the behemoth Clinton machine, that's just... sad.

Face facts. Clinton didn't lose because of Russians. She lost because she really was just that disgusting to so many Americans; namely, those who live in the Rust Belt. Maybe you will recall, there were quite a lot of them who voted for Obama twice but voted for Trump the last time around. You can't blame that on the Russians. It wasn't the Russians who bailed out the big banks while millions lost their homes. It's not the Russians' fault that over half the country is living paycheck to paycheck for increasingly shitty jobs with little to no benefits. It's not the Russians' fault the Democrats gave us a right wing healthcare plan that had no public option. It's not the Russians' fault Obama took Bush's 2 wars and turned them into 7, wasting trillions on war abroad while our infrastructure crumbles at home. Americans have a lot of reasons to be pissed off at the DC Establishment. Blaming Russia is a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from their own failures.

But if you want to continue to allow yourself to be propagandized by the very same people who fucked up the country so badly to begin with, be my guest. I'll continue living in the land of reality. It's not as pretty over here but the truth is often ugly.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

opcorn

Just watching from the sidelines.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Given their history, I think he and anyone else have good reason not to trust the intelligence agencies. Iraq and the weapons of mass destuction, for example.


He is right not to trust them. His error is in openly voicing this whilst leaving them empowered to harm him and his Presidency. It won't end well for him. Especially not when he is seen as either being weak on the Russia issue, or as an active agent of the Russian government attempting to corrupt American democracy.

Basically, the CIA and FBI probably distrusted him from the start, and rather than put out the fire, he has repeatedly antagonized these agencies, but done nothing to curb their power. This is very dangerous when talking about groups who believe themselves to be autonomous entities, not beholden to the wider United States government.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Tater throwing out some red pills :trips8


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> He is right not to trust them. His error is in openly voicing this whilst leaving them empowered to harm him and his Presidency. It won't end well for him. Especially not when he is seen as either being weak on the Russia issue, or as an active agent of the Russian government attempting to corrupt American democracy.
> 
> Basically, the CIA and FBI probably distrusted him from the start, and rather than put out the fire,* he has repeatedly antagonized these agencies, but done nothing to curb their power. This is very dangerous when talking about groups who believe themselves to be autonomous entities, not beholden to the wider United States governmen*t.


wait, are you saying Trump should have put out the fire meaning the FBI and CIA? Like fire anyone that Trump thinks is going to take him down? Are you really implying Trump should be above the law?

Trump is the one that thinks he is above the law, the reason why he is acting like a madman right now, and bashing everyone from the FBI to Muller to Hillary is because Trump is guilty as hell



And of course Tater still refusing to answer my questions because he knows it would refute his narrative. Typical tater for you, ignore the questions that prove him wrong


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> He is right not to trust them. His error is in openly voicing this whilst leaving them empowered to harm him and his Presidency. It won't end well for him. Especially not when he is seen as either being weak on the Russia issue, or as an active agent of the Russian government attempting to corrupt American democracy.
> 
> Basically, the CIA and FBI probably distrusted him from the start, and rather than put out the fire, he has repeatedly antagonized these agencies, but done nothing to curb their power. This is very dangerous when talking about groups who believe themselves to be autonomous entities, not beholden to the wider United States government.


American's "intelligence" agencies have toppled governments world over and have been doing so consistently since WWII. This at this point is not conspiracy theory, it is about as factual as you can possibly get. If covert measures didn't work, they used direct invasion to do so and the intelligence agencies were always there to make it happen pushing the right buttons and manipulating the power structure in America itself to accomplish their goals. 

To think that they're incapable of doing the same at home and have some noble intentions towards _public interest _is pretty delusional at this point.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> wait, are you saying Trump should have put out the fire meaning the FBI and CIA? Like fire anyone that Trump thinks is going to take him down? Are you really implying Trump should be above the law?


Not really, no. I am just observing that making enemies out of your own intelligence agencies, when they have a proven history of immoral and illegal behaviour, is not a good idea.
Trump ran as an outsider, but running as an outsider is easier than governing as one. And, sure enough, his administration has been hobbled by constant resignations and sniping between the White House and the institutions of government.
Like Andrew Jackson demanding the resignation of his cabinet over a meaningless domestic squabble, Trump shows the same lack of judgement and an inability to compromise which makes him enemies.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I've been posting in the Trump thread for _years_ on a consistent basis. You randomly pop in and post about your fantasies of Russia stealing the election for Trump. But I'm the one following you around. Riiiiiight.
> 
> Sorry but when you say you're going to trust our intelligence agencies, people who lie professionally for a living, when they have offered up no proof whatsoever, is it any wonder why you're getting mocked?
> 
> ...


Yes I can't trust people who put their life's work into this and have pretty much unlimited research methods but I can trust you and some dumb conspiracy theory diet coke drinking slobs on the internet.

:mj4. Keep that dumb shit to yourself or to the other gullible people who believe that shit. Every single word of it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Yes I can't trust people who put their life's work into this and have pretty much unlimited research methods but I can trust you and some dumb conspiracy theory diet coke drinking slobs on the internet.
> 
> :mj4. Keep that dumb shit to yourself or to the other gullible people who believe that shit. Every single word of it.


I back up my claims with evidence. If you want to believe the claims of proven liars when they offer up no proof whatsoever for their claims, that's your own prerogative. But don't come in this thread threatening people to not challenge your posts because you hold a position of authority. This thread is not the echo chamber you are looking for. We have a vastly different array of political opinions in here. We've got everything from liberals to conservatives to anarcho-capitalists to libertarian leftists to centrists to moderates and everything else in between. I've gotten into heated arguments with many of them that I still consider to be a friend. That's just how we roll in this thread. If you can't handle having your position contested, maybe this is not the thread for you.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

I have no problem debating people. If CamillePunk or Reap made similar points, I probably would have engaged in a debate. It's not happening with you though. So for the 184848th time please stop putting words in my mouth, being extra for no reason, saying shit that isn't true or believable and expecting me to be cordial with you.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Here's the reality. Russia didn't hack the DNC and give the emails to Wikileaks. Whoever did it had physical access to the DNC server. The proof is in the transfer rates. It's impossible to transfer files that fast over the internet. The only way to get transfer rates that fast is a physical connection to the server, such as a thumb drive (the same server that the DNC refused to let the FBI have access to). So unless you believe Russians physically infiltrated the DNC, that part of Russiagate falls apart. Beyond that, all you've got is a handful of internet memes from click bait trolls. If you believe that's enough to take down the behemoth Clinton machine, that's just... sad.


Actually, you realise he's talking out of his ass about the transfer speeds right? He says it's impossible to get 49.1 Megabytes per second? Many homes in the UK have that and more right this moment. 

1 Mbps = 0.125 MB/s 

So to get 49.1 MB/s you only need to have a connection of 500mbps, I currently get that with ease. I have a 1 Gigabit connection. And I'm far from the only person in the UK. Now, bearing in mind that the UK is massively behind many other countries in even getting to the 1Gb connections and until recently the highest was around 250Mbps (or 25 MB/s) how exactly is it impossible when many countries have had 1Gbps (or 125 MB/s) for literally years now?

Basically, he either doesn't know what he's talking about (unlikely considering his position) or he's straight up lying because he knows the audience actually doesn't have a clue most of the time when it comes to network jargon. Unfortunately, for anybody who DOES know, it makes him look extremely deceitful.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


>


I got as far as the whole did Trump know about the meeting in Trump tower thing.

I love how everyone is saying well did Trump know or is he lying he didn't know. 

the fact is his campaign had an ILLEGAL meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary. So how is that not the Russians trying to influence the election for Trump? Putin even admitted he wanted Trump to win.

Also, Trumps own story on this meeting has changed a number of times, of course, Trump knew about the meeting, anyone claiming he didn't is delusional.

I just think its funny there is tons of evidence about the Russians trying to influence and hack the election but people are still denying it. 

The most ironic thing is how people are saying well CNN lied about or that, which they do, but always fail to point out how much Trump lies especially his supporters. Trump has lied over 4,000 times over the past two years


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035334044698009600
I believe I've died and woken up in some bizarro world. Tucker Carlson of Fox News just called out Amazon and Wal-Mart for crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

:sodone


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035283277433724940
I .. wat .. ?



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035334044698009600
> I believe I've died and woken up in some bizarro world. Tucker Carlson of Fox News just called out Amazon and Wal-Mart for crony capitalism and corporate welfare.
> 
> :sodone


Lol. Don't mean to burst your bubble, but he's only doing this because at least with Amazon, Trump has been riding Bezos ass for several years. So Tucker is just being a sheep in this particular case.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Nope, Tucker is a principled libertarian-minded guy and his criticisms of Amazon are consistent with stuff he's said in the past. He also isn't a Trump sheep. He went against him on the Syrian strikes as you would expect him to if you actually were familiar with his work instead of just trying to sound like you know what you're talking about on the internet while actually having no clue. 

Meanwhile some Canadian reporters leaked the fact that Trump has Canada in a completely cuckolded position right now over trade talks. :lol 

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop

Of course it's being reported as a Trump snafu that is gonna hurt our country somehow. :lol Yeah, I seriously doubt it.

Man, imagine how great things could be if the media wasn't so completely agenda-driven and actually wanted the best for our country no matter who got credit or what other political views they have? Trump is right when he calls large parts of the media the Enemy of the People. They really are. They care more about themselves and their ideology than our country.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Tucker is a clown with most of his views. Can't believe he called out Amazon.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Nope, Tucker is a principled libertarian-minded guy and his criticisms of Amazon are consistent with stuff he's said in the past. He also isn't a Trump sheep. He went against him on the Syrian strikes as you would expect him to if you actually were familiar with his work instead of just trying to sound like you know what you're talking about on the internet while actually having no clue.


While I still disagree with Tucker on most issues, he has earned my respect by being honest about the bullshit in Syria and calling out the crony capitalism/corporate welfare of corporations like Amazon and Wal-Mart.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

CP acting like he has amnesia with regards to my earlier viewing of all things Tucker Carlson. 

Carlson had his lips firmly tucked into Trump's ass at that time. If he's shifted since then I don't know because I'm not keeping up but him talking about Amazon when dozens of other corporations are involved in even worse activities does not inspirec confidence in me about the purity of his motivations.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There's been no shift because he's consistent and principled, unlike you whose views change with the wind.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035283277433724940
> I .. wat .. ?
> 
> 
> ...


I really hope they add that dance to fortnite.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> I really hope they add that dance to fortnite.


Why is it that some white people simply cannot resist the urge to try to act "cool" when surrounded by minorities. "Oh black people like to dance, lemme bust a move" ... Fucking hag. 

It just seems really fucking desperate. 

For example: 










This guy is the laughing stock in the entire indo-pak region and now even leftist immigrants are turning on him. 

What even is this stuff? 

Why do they feel it necessary to do it? 

Maybe a white person who wants to appear all cool and hip in front of a minority can help me understand :hmmm


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Why is it that some white people simply cannot resist the urge to try to act "cool" when surrounded by minorities. "Oh black people like to dance, lemme bust a move" ... Fucking hag.
> 
> It just seems really fucking desperate.
> 
> ...


You know what ******* and weeaboos are right? Pretty much the same thing, I wager


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> You know what ******* and weeaboos are right? Pretty much the same thing, I wager


Weeaboos I know ... but w------ ? ?? You learn something new :lmao 

I suppose this just shows the strength of the cultural appropriation argument to a great extent, doesn't it. 

Because some white people's entire breadth of association with minorities is that of simply consuming their products, their entire impression of what minorities are like when they find themselves amongst them is that minorities are entertainers, dancers, musicians, cooks, movie stars etc. Right? 

Trudeau was criticized pretty heavily for dressing up worse than a bollywood star lol. But that's all his impression of Indians is. He watched a bunch of Indian movies and thought that that's the entirety of Indian culture.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Weeaboos I know ... but w------ ? ?? You learn something new :lmao
> 
> I suppose this just shows the strength of the cultural appropriation argument to a great extent, doesn't it.
> 
> ...


Take you missed much of the 90s.

But yeah. Trudeau strikes me as a guy who barely knows his own culture, let alone someone else's. He is a pampered rich boy after all.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> Take you missed much of the 90s.


No idea what you mean. Can you elaborate?



> But yeah. Trudeau strikes me as a guy who barely knows his own culture, let alone someone else's. He is a pampered rich boy after all.


Well, I am only a decade removed from Trudeau in terms of age and raised in Canada so I can tell you with 100% knowledge that they convince Canadians that _Canada _has no culture. When discussions around "culture" are brought it, they usually just default to jokes. 

Minorities are raised within the culture of their families that they brought over from their home countries. But whites are told that they have no culture.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It’s an attempt to show themselves to be cultured to the “Diversity is our strength” crowd.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> No idea what you mean. Can you elaborate?


Wi---rs were common place in the early to mid 90s. At least in the US.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> It’s an attempt to show themselves to be cultured to the “Diversity is our strength” crowd.


Is it just that? Don't you think on some level they kinda feel like they have no identity of their own, so they want to usurp an identity to fill some empty void left by being raise to believe that whites have no cultural heritage?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Anthony Grigore is a Democrat. But as he waited Thursday at an In-N-Out Burger in El Segundo for his meal, Grigore made it clear party loyalty would only go so far.
> 
> Just hours earlier, the head of the California Democratic Party called for a boycott of the famed burger chain after a public filing revealed that the company had recently donated $25,000 to the state’s Republican Party.
> 
> ...


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-in-and-out-donations-20180830-story.html


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Is it just that? Don't you think on some level they kinda feel like they have no identity of their own, so they want to usurp an identity to fill some empty void left by being raise to believe that whites have no cultural heritage?


I do feel it is just trying to appeal to the "woke" demographic, yes.

In terms of "white culture" it exists, it is just the predominant culture. You have religious celebrations like Christmas, Easter, Hallowe'en, Thanksgiving, Bonfire Night, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day which are celebrated by all. EDIT: I will also add that whites are discouraged from others' cultures because of cultural appopriation, for instance in the past week, we've seen Megan Barton-Hanson and Jamie Oliver attacked for having braids and adding jerk seasoning to rice and not chicken respectively.

You cannot celebrate white culture in isolation, but you can celebrate specific things inherited from white cultures such as Oktoberfest, St Patrick's Day and other stuff.

I'm English, but I guess people would associate fish and chips with us for instance.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

RE: Cultural appropriation

I think the entire concept is fucking retarded. Just because a majority of people who share the same skin pigmentation with you does it, it doesn't mean other people with differing skin pigmentation shouldn't do it. If you like something, go for it. I live in Hawai'i and I love the fuck out of some poke. Am I not allowed to love poke because I wasn't born here? GTFO with that bullshit.

I've also never understood why it's somehow considered a bad thing. As the old saying goes, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Maybe instead of being mad because someone "appropriated" "your" culture, you should appreciate that "your" culture is awesome because people who don't share superficial similarities with you like it as well.



virus21 said:


> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-in-and-out-donations-20180830-story.html


Oh for fuck's sake. Can we not boycott fast food because that shit is nasty and bad for your health? Does is have to involve tribalism politics? Goddamn. fpalm


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Some leftists love to virtue signal and claim that minorities are opposed in every conceivable situation and some of the people among those minorities will see an opportunity to play the victim.

Anyone who disagrees with any of it is a raysist


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Some leftists love to virtue signal and claim that minorities are opposed in every conceivable situation and some of the people among those minorities will see an opportunity to play the victim.
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with any of it is a raysist


I don't see leftists doing it. I see identity politics liberals doing it.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There are some aspect to cultural appropriation that are bad. The way Trudeau did it was exactly the perfect representative of how not to do it. 

Go ahead assimilate cultures. I don't care. But education overall is never a bad thing.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I don't see leftists doing it. I see identity politics liberals doing it.


An identity politics liberal is a leftist. Perhaps leftist is a broad way to refer to them if you don't like it but it doesn't make my comment incorrect.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> An identity politics liberal is a leftist. Perhaps leftist is a broad way to refer to them if you don't like it but it doesn't make my comment incorrect.


I'd say that identity politics are neither left, right nor center. They exist outside of conventional left/right politics.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> An identity politics liberal is a leftist. Perhaps leftist is a broad way to refer to them if you don't like it but it doesn't make my comment incorrect.


Well, you're not wrong in the sense that the common usage of the term leftist in the USA refers to these people. They're not actually leftists though. I mean, Obama was called everything from a leftist to a socialist when the reality is he was a center right authoritarian. Education sucks in this country and most people have no basic understanding of what the political spectrum means.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> RE: Cultural appropriation
> 
> I think the entire concept is fucking retarded. Just because a majority of people who share the same skin pigmentation with you does it, it doesn't mean other people with differing skin pigmentation shouldn't do it. If you like something, go for it. I live in Hawai'i and I love the fuck out of some poke. Am I not allowed to love poke because I wasn't born here? GTFO with that bullshit.
> 
> I've also never understood why it's somehow considered a bad thing. As the old saying goes, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Maybe instead of being mad because someone "appropriated" "your" culture, you should appreciate that "your" culture is awesome because people who don't share superficial similarities with you like it as well.


Its a nonsense term. If two cultures are in close approximation to each other, cultural overlap is inevitable. Its been the way since civilization left the Fertile Crescent and diversified culturally. 
This segregation is only going to lead to resentment and suspicion, especially as space becomes more the premium. Cultures will start seeing each other as "The Other", and may turn into the rival and finally the enemy. 



> Oh for fuck's sake. Can we not boycott fast food because that shit is nasty and bad for your health? Does is have to involve tribalism politics? Goddamn. fpalm


Its a California Democrat. Not surprising.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/w-samuel-patten-plea-russia-ukraine/index.html

Lobbyist pleads guilty, says he helped steer foreign money to Trump inaugural and lied to Congress


Lobbyist pleads guilty, says he helped steer foreign money to Trump inaugural and lied to Congress
CNN Digital Expansion 2018 Katelyn Polantz
By Katelyn Polantz, CNN
Updated 5:16 PM ET, Fri August 31, 2018
WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 31: Sam Patten (L), a former associate of Paul Manafort, leaves U.S. District Court August 31, 2018 in Washington, DC. Patten pleaded guilty to failing to register in the U.S. as a foreign agent and has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in the case. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 31: Sam Patten (L), a former associate of Paul Manafort, leaves U.S. District Court August 31, 2018 in Washington, DC. Patten pleaded guilty to failing to register in the U.S. as a foreign agent and has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in the case. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Washington (CNN)Washington lobbyist W. Samuel Patten pleaded guilty Friday to acting as an unregistered foreign lobbyist, and admitted to lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee and funneling a Ukrainian oligarch's money to Donald Trump's Presidential Inaugural Committee.

Patten's plea and cooperation agreement is connected to special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the election and coordination with the Trump campaign -- even apparently reaching into former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's inner circle in Ukraine.
Two prosecutors leave Mueller's office
Two prosecutors leave Mueller's office
This is the first time the Justice Department has publicly charged a person for helping a foreigner secretly funnel money into a Trump campaign-related event. Under his deal with prosecutors, Patten is charged only with one criminal count. He faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the felony charge. A sentencing date has not been set.
Patten sought tickets to Trump's inauguration on behalf of an unnamed prominent Ukrainian oligarch, according to court documents released Friday, ultimately paying $50,000 for four tickets. Patten used another American as a "straw purchaser," funneling the Ukrainian's money secretly to the inaugural committee through a Cypriot bank account.
"Patten was aware at the time that the Presidential Inauguration Committee could not accept money from foreign nationals," prosecutors wrote in the filing.
CNN previously reported that Russian oligarchs have also been questioned about donations to the Trump campaign and inauguration.
Guilty for Lobbying
Overall, Patten, 47, was paid more than $1 million for his Ukrainian opposition bloc work including meeting with members of the executive branch, Senate Foreign Relations Committee members and members of Congress, according to a charging document filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday. He also worked with an unnamed Russian -- believed to be former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's close associate Konstantin Kilimnik -- to place op-ed articles in US media in 2017, the Justice Department says.
DC judge and Manafort team already clashing in court
DC judge and Manafort team already clashing in court
The plea deal was handled by the DC US Attorney's Office and the Justice Department's National Security Division, not Mueller's team, which is about to take former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to trial on a similar charge.
The criminal charging document does not name Manafort or any of his colleagues in the US and Ukraine, though Patten's efforts from 2014 on may be connected to those efforts.
Kilimnik, a Russian national with ties to the Russian military intelligence group accused of interfering in the presidential election, has close professional ties to both Patten and Manafort as they worked for the same Ukrainian political interests.
Kilimnik was among the alleged co-conspirators that helped Manafort hide his Ukrainian consulting income in foreign bank accounts, according to documents revealed at Manafort's trial for financial crimes earlier this month. Mueller's prosecutors charged Kilimnik and Manafort in June in a separate federal court with witness tampering, after Kilimnik reached out to potential witnesses in Manafort foreign lobbying case. Kilimnik has not entered a plea in his case, because he is living in Moscow, prosecutors say. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to the foreign lobbying charges, and those criminal allegations do not reach past 2015.
Kilimnik co-ran a company with Patten, called Begemot Ventures International, according to business records. According to the court filing in the Patten case Friday, Patten and Foreigner A "formed a company in the United States and were 50-50 partners. Beginning in or around 2015, Company A, among other things, advised the Opposition Bloc and members of that part."
As part of his plea, Patten agreed to cooperate with both Mueller's office and prosecutors from the DC US Attorney's Office going forward, including turning over documents and testifying at future grand jury hearings or criminal trials.
Lying to Congress
Patten admitted to lying to the US Senate Intelligence Committee in January this year about the inauguration tickets. While testifying, he attempted to hide his connections to the Ukrainian oligarch and the Russian national with whom he worked, prosecutors said.
Patten "intentionally did not provide" the committee documents related to the Ukrainian oligarch's purchase of four Trump inaugural tickets and lied to the Senate Committee about his foreign lobbying work. He also deleted documents "pertinent to his relationships" with the foreign political interests, according to the Justice Department prosecutors.
Senate intelligence Chairman Richard Burr and Vice Chairman Mark Warner said they referred Patten to the Justice Department.
"We can confirm that Mr. Patten produced documents to the Committee and was interviewed by Committee staff," the senators said in a statement. "Due to concerns about certain statements made by Mr. Patten, the Committee made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. While the charge, and resultant plea, do not appear to directly involve our referral, we appreciate their review of this matter."
Court appearance
Patten appeared in court Friday morning before Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the same judge who is handling Manafort's trial that is scheduled to begin next month.
In court, Patten conveyed the air of a solemn man aware of what he had done.
As Berman Jackson asked him several questions about his willfulness to plead guilty and the rights he will waive, Patten answered her slowly and clearly each time: "Yes, your honor," "I understand, your honor," "I do, your honor."
In a blue shirt and navy suit and tie, the lifelong Washingtonian stood before the judge, nodding often as she spoke to him.
Patten only appeared to stumble in his speech when asked for his plea.
"I would -- I plead guilty to the charge," Patten said to the judge.
Berman Jackson confirmed that he had signed every page of his plea agreement and charging documents with "a squiggle."
A prosecutor from the DC US Attorney's Office read the charging document made public Friday before the hearing, almost word for word. He added no new details when describing Patten's criminal offense, though he added the words more than once that Patten "was working as a foreign agent of the Opposition Bloc."
The Ukrainian political party, called the Opposition Bloc, had deep ties to Russia in the period in which Patten represented them, including many allies of the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. The political party formed from the remnants of Yanukovych's base after he was driven out of Ukraine in 2014 and fled to Russia.
Patten's defense attorney declined to comment following the hearing.
The 35-minute court proceeding was sparsely attended by members of the press and court employees, yet members of Mueller's special counsel's office filled a front row of seats. They were lead Manafort prosecutor Andrew Weissmann and FBI agents Omer Meisel and Brock Domin.
After the hearing ended, Weissmann spent several minutes greeting Patten's defense attorney, Stuart Sears, and two prosecutors from other Justice Department offices on the case. Patten stood waiting with his hands crossed in front of him without a smile, and he shook Meisel's hand.
Spokesmen from the special counsel's office and DC US Attorney's Office declined to comment further about the case.
Patten will not be detained until his sentencing. But he will need to give up his passport and must ask the judge for permission to travel outside the Washington metro area. He also must continue to see a psychiatrist or therapist, which he said he currently does regularly for depression and anxiety treatment, and he must avoid alcohol, the judge ordered.
Berman Jackson also spoke on the rarity of a foreign lobbying prosecution. There is no sentencing guideline for this type of case and no analogous guidelines the court can use to determine Patten's sentence.
"That's a little complicated," Berman Jackson said when discussing his potential sentence. "I don't usually have to go into all that."
The prosecutors and defense will give the court a status update in 60 days on Patten's case.
CNN's Jeremy Herb, Sara Murray, Caroline Kelly and Evan Perez contributed to this report


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035334044698009600
> I believe I've died and woken up in some bizarro world. Tucker Carlson of Fox News just called out Amazon and Wal-Mart for crony capitalism and corporate welfare.
> 
> :sodone


Absolutely brilliant segment. Completely agreed. These companies should not be given any sort of corporate welfare.



Reap said:


> Lol. Don't mean to burst your bubble, but he's only doing this because at least with Amazon, Trump has been riding Bezos ass for several years. So Tucker is just being a sheep in this particular case.


Sorry but I cannot agree with you on this.

Tucker was one of only two people in the MSM to break with Trump over the issue of Syria. Virtually every Fox News anchor fell in line in regards to Trump on this issue and parroted the war propaganda but Tucker stayed true to his non-interventionist principles and was willing to be slandered by both the left and the right over it. A Trump partisan would not stick his neck out like that and step out of line with the network he's representing and party that he largely supports. That's a nonsensical argument, this isn't Sean Hannity we are talking about here. He's even gone as far as to question Trump's cabinet picks in regards to foreign policy and more than once went after John Bolton on air whilst he had him on as a guest.

I think he is more principled than what you are willing to give him credit for.




Reap said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035283277433724940
> I .. wat .. ?



This was absolutely embarrassing and on par with the disgusting virtue signalling that I've criticized Justin Trudeau for in the past. I'm embarrassed that she's Prime Minister of the UK.

What is even worse is she's made it clear that she is going to support and back the current South African government....the regime that has repeatedly called for the land of white farmers to be expropriated and redistributed under the guise of government policy. A move that is extremely authoritarian and completely race driven.

This is exactly the same situation as the various former British leaders who backed and supported Robert Mugabe who also pushed forward these same sorts of policies. The cowards only denounced him once the damage was already done and the results of his policies were plain for the world to see. Every British user who lurks and posts in this thread should know what I am talking about.

And of course the Daily Express or should be known as the Maypress tried to spin it as though she went there to try and talk the South African leaders out of the policy :HA. Complete and utter horseshit.

@RavishingRickRules We had a discussion a while ago about the British press and newspapers, the Express has recently fallen down even lower on the totem pole for me. Not that it was high to begin with as it was clear that it is a Brexit biased paper but since the white paper was introduced I've realized what the Express has actually become which is the propaganda arm for Theresa May. It is actually embarrassing how obviously biased they are in favour of her. It is absolutely nauseating. They are quickly are becoming as hated for me as the Mail and the Guardian.

This for the worst Conservative leader of my lifetime. I'll never vote for them whilst she's leader. She takes too many positions which are against my principles ( @Captain Utero knows about this more than anyone) and has proven to be an utterly weak and spineless PM. I think everyone other than partisan Tories and May supporters can see that now.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

He can be principled all he wants and I haven't criticized that but why Amazon when there are dozens of other cronies to criticize? I want an answer to that. 

I think Amazon is shit. I've seen a lot of documentaries about it. But there are many, many similar organizations with similarly bad practices. Why Amazon in particular?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> He can be principled all he wants and I haven't criticized that but why Amazon when there are dozens of other cronies to criticize? I want an answer to that.
> 
> I think Amazon is shit. I've seen a lot of documentaries about it. But there are many, many similar organizations with similarly bad practices. Why Amazon in particular?


Amazon is one of the biggest and highest profile?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Absolutely brilliant segment. Completely agreed. These companies should not be given any sort of corporate welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah the Express seems to be taking one side of the Tory shilling whilst the Mail takes the other. And of course both lying through their teeth that Brexit and even a no deal Brexit are a positive thing. The sad thing is that their readers have proven to be the gullible type so many will believe it regardless of all of the facts and evidence staring them in the face that 1. Every Brexit is a loss for the UK, and will take around 50 years for us to even get to a position where we'd even be able to look at seeing a positive outcome. 2. A no deal Brexit would be an absolute catastrophe and would severely damage our position on the world stage whilst also hitting our economy hard enough that even in 50 years we wouldn't see a positive and we'd be way behind the pack in advancing as a nation. Frankly, anybody who still believe in Brexit being a "win" is a retard or wilfully ignorant at this point. It'd be better if people stopped sugar coating it and flat out lying about what's going to happen so everybody (including those who voted for and support it) is actually aware of what they're getting into. 

P.S. Theresa May is a bigger disaster than literally every other Prime Minister in my life time. Fuck that silly bitch.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Theresa May has still won an election - albeit very unconvincingly and hasn't got a no deal as it stands, I still think we'll get something. A bit premature to write her off. I don't think she's that bad. SAVE_US...REES-MOGG


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> Amazon is one of the biggest and highest profile?


That could be one reason. Why can't he be following Trump's lead on it as well?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Theresa May has still won an election - albeit very unconvincingly and hasn't got a no deal as it stands, I still think we'll get something. A bit premature to write her off. I don't think she's that bad. SAVE_US...REES-MOGG


Rees-Mogg? Really? :lol

The chief Brexiter who's moved all of his investment holdings into Europe so that he can continue to operate in the single market and admitted last month that it'll take at least 50 years before we'd see anything like a positive from Brexit? That's your saviour? :lmao


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> That could be one reason. Why can't he be following Trump's lead on it as well?


I don't know. I stopped trying to understand the world a long time ago.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> He can be principled all he wants and I haven't criticized that but why Amazon when there are dozens of other cronies to criticize? I want an answer to that.
> 
> I think Amazon is shit. I've seen a lot of documentaries about it. But there are many, many similar organizations with similarly bad practices. Why Amazon in particular?





Reap said:


> That could be one reason. Why can't he be following Trump's lead on it as well?


I'm as shocked as anyone on the left that Tucker Carlson on Fox News has been more of a voice of sanity than anyone on CNN or MSDNC, so the only conclusion I can come to is that he is actually taking a principled stand on these issues. What's most shocking of all is that Fox is actually letting him do it, considering that basically every other person on that channel is licking Trump's taint.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I'm as shocked as anyone on the left that Tucker Carlson on Fox News has been more of a voice of sanity than anyone on CNN or MSDNC, so the only conclusion I can come to is that he is actually taking a principled stand on these issues. What's most shocking of all is that Fox is actually letting him do it, considering that basically every other person on that channel is licking Trump's taint.


I think I'll remain skeptical for now. I want to see if Tucker goes beyond Amazon and actually starts questioning more crony capitalism. 

If he does. Point it out to me. I don't watch him anymore but if evidence can swing me off my current position then nothing like it.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Boycotting In-N-Out is stupid because the owner is Right leaning, shockingly owners of companies have Political leanings and if we're going to get enraged over donations how about the tech giants that donated to Clinton? Or the large major corporations sponsoring the Democrats?

It's simply mind boggling to boycott something over a donation, unless that company is doing wrong and should be called out. Though last I checked In-N-Out actually pays it's employees well and offers them benefits.. for a fast food place...


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I think I'll remain skeptical for now. I want to see if Tucker goes beyond Amazon and actually starts questioning more crony capitalism.
> 
> If he does. Point it out to me. I don't watch him anymore but if evidence can swing me off my current position then nothing like it.


Did you watch the video? He went after Wal-Mart and the Walton family as well as Uber. It wasn't just Amazon.

And now you can go ahead and just kill me because I've found myself in the position of defending someone from Fox News.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@DesolationRow


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035663074735345664


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Did you watch the video? He went after Wal-Mart and the Walton family as well as Uber. It wasn't just Amazon.
> 
> And now you can go ahead and just kill me because I've found myself in the position of defending someone from Fox News.


Uber is a favorite right wing bash company as well. They bash them because most Uber drivers are immigrants. If I dig deep I'll find reasons to explain why each company was specifically bashed. 

Anyways. I could probably argue against every point but it's a very unnecessary one. 

I'm glad for your optimism though. Unfortunately I'm past having any kind of optimism from American corporate media or corporations anymore.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035663074735345664


War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I was just wondering. We are so divided that we don't even realize that if every single one of us wanted we could sink the fucking government whenever we wanted.

If every american decided that they will not pay taxes. Or even if 100 million of us did so. There is no amount of power in this country that could stop that from happening. What are they gonna do? Erect jail for 100 million people? Lmao. Bomb us? Send the military? Lol. 

Just a random ass thought. Do with it what you will.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I was just wondering. We are so divided that we don't even realize that if every single one of us wanted we could sink the fucking government whenever we wanted.
> 
> If every american decided that they will not pay taxes. Or even if 100 million of us did so. There is no amount of power in this country that could stop that from happening. What are they gonna do? Erect jail for 100 million people? Lmao. Bomb us? Send the military? Lol.
> 
> Just a random ass thought. Do with it what you will.


It's like prison. There are way more prisoners than there are guards in any prison. They, with a few exceptions, don't rise up and take over the prison. Why? Because they don't want to be the ones to get in trouble for it. Sure a 100 million could bring everything to a stand still, it's just no one wants to be the first ones on the line. I mean the French revolution didn't happen until people were literally starving to death. That's pretty much the level of desperation needed for a coup, bloody or bloodless.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson


(THREAD) BREAKING: Trump national security adviser George Papadopoulos' sentencing memo has been released, and it has some startling elements in it. I go through all of them in this thread. I hope you'll read on and share.



More   2/ The memo confirms that working for Trump was Papadopoulos' dream job; he was hired in "early" March 2016; and within a week he was "traveling in Italy." I think we are very close to confirming here that the *campaign* sent him to Italy, where Mifsud "happened" to find him. 

 

  
 More   3/ No one gets their dream job, then immediately goes on vacation. And Simona Mangiante has said Papadopoulos' position is that everything he did was campaign-sanctioned. So who sent Papadopoulos to Italy to be "found" by Mifsud? I don't think it was Clovis. I think it was Flynn. 

  
   4/ Clovis has no national security expertise; that was his big defense, in fact, for hiring Page and Papadopoulos. But Trump had *one* (only one) NatSec adviser on the day he hired Papadopoulos, and it was *Flynn*. And they'd both been doing work on energy issues with Ben Carson. 


  
 More   5/ The memo confirms what we already know: Clovis surprised Papadopoulos by saying Russia was going to be a major issue in the campaign. Again I ask, who came up with that? Not Clovis. So who? Once again it seems clear that it was Flynn in conjunction with Trump who decided that. 
 

  
 More   6/ Is it possible Papadopoulos got his dream job, said "Later, going on vacation!" and then was by total coincidence stumbled upon by a Kremlin agent while traipsing about Italy? Sure, anything is possible. But that doesn't comport with common sense or *any* of the facts we have. 

 

  
More   7/ The bombshell: Papadopoulos says Trump "nodded with approval" when he was told Papadopoulos was a Kremlin intermediary. And Sessions "liked the idea." That means Sessions lied to Congress. Gordon lied to media. Schmitz lied. A lot of people in that March 31, 2016 meeting lied. 


  
 More   8/ Now another bombshell: we knew Papadopoulos knew Sergei Millian, but we didn't know that when the FBI came to see Papadopoulos he *assumed they wanted to talk about Millian*. This adds a wrinkle to the question of how Papadopoulos got his job and how Mifsud found him in Italy. 

 

  
More   9/ Understand that there were *very* few methods for Papadopoulos to get the job he did, for a *host* of reasons. Something has to explain him being hired and going to Italy. The memo emphasizes *both* possible reasons—a connection to Michael Flynn and/or a connection to Millian. 
 

  
10/ The memo confirms Papadopoulos was asked by the FBI to try to procure additional information from his compatriots through clandestine means. Wow—when I think of all the garbage I took when I said that it was plausible to think the FBI would ask him to do that! Well, they did. 

 

  
/ Now here is where I get flummoxed: the memo appears to *maintain* the charade that Papadopoulos never told *anyone* on the campaign about the emails, even though he told them everything else. The feds have already said they don't believe him, and do you blame them? Would you? 


  
   12/ Case-in-point: Papadopoulos appears say (get this) that he told the *Greek Foreign Minister* about the emails but *not* anyone on the Trump campaign. He *worked* for the Trump campaign, and they *sent* him to Greece to *meet* the Foreign Minister! So how does that make sense? 
 

  
13/ I've known many judges, and I can tell you they *won't* like Papadopoulos and his lawyer arguing that Van der Zwaan was more culpable than Papadopoulos because he "destroyed evidence." Bad move by Papadopoulos' attorney, because guess what—Papadopoulos destroyed evidence too. 

 

  
 More   14/ Here's what I think, based on my experience as a criminal defense attorney: I think George Papadopoulos knows (and told the FBI) *far* more than what we see here, even though we've got some bombshells. I think his attorney carefully determined what facts he could reveal here. 

 

  
 More   15/ So this memo has a bombshell that should be and *will* be national news. The March 31, 2016 meeting I argued was critical long before that was accepted by the media has turned out to be critical—deeply inculpatory for Trump. But there's a whole iceberg beneath this memo. /end 

 

  
 More   PS/ Trump's first move will be to call Papadopoulos a liar about what happened on March 31, 2016. Most likely, Sessions stays quiet. Why? Well, we know from major-media reports at least *three* attendees at the March 31, 2016 meeting concur with Papadopoulos—and told Mueller so.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> War is Peace
> Freedom is Slavery
> Ignorance is Strength


Truth isn't truth



Reap said:


> I was just wondering. We are so divided that we don't even realize that if every single one of us wanted we could sink the fucking government whenever we wanted.
> 
> If every american decided that they will not pay taxes. Or even if 100 million of us did so. There is no amount of power in this country that could stop that from happening. What are they gonna do? Erect jail for 100 million people? Lmao. Bomb us? Send the military? Lol.
> 
> Just a random ass thought. Do with it what you will.


My wife served in the Peace Corps in Peru, where there aren't taxes and subsequently isn't a functioning government. I don't have a problem paying taxes as long as they go towards things that help society function (i.e. roads, sewers, police, firefighters, a reasonable national defense, etc). The alternative is much, much worse.



Reap said:


> He can be principled all he wants and I haven't criticized that but why Amazon when there are dozens of other cronies to criticize? I want an answer to that.
> 
> I think Amazon is shit. I've seen a lot of documentaries about it. But there are many, many similar organizations with similarly bad practices. Why Amazon in particular?


A couple reasons:

1. Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, which publishes poorly written pieces that criticize Trump.

2. Amazon is this decade's Wal Mart, and is paying/treating their employees worse than Wal Mart somehow.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



dele said:


> My wife served in the Peace Corps in Peru, where there aren't taxes and subsequently isn't a functioning government. I don't have a problem paying taxes as long as they go towards things that help society function (i.e. roads, sewers, police, firefighters, a reasonable national defense, etc). The alternative is much, much worse.


Dubai and KSA are tax free states as well (for their citizens anyways). Of course, you can criticise those two countries for their cultural and social shit, but you can't complain about their infrastructure.

You don't need taxes to have a functional government as long as the government owns and operates a revenue generation system of its own. In a sanction free environment, there are states that prove that they can remain functional without taxation. 



> A couple reasons:
> 
> 1. Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, which publishes poorly written pieces that criticize Trump.


This then suggests what I was saying that he's still being pro-Trump. 



> 2. Amazon is this decade's Wal Mart, and is paying/treating their employees worse than Wal Mart somehow.


Amazon is a sweatshop. I have no problems criticizing it. In fact, Amazon is exactly why labor revolutions happen. I even made a thread about how Amazon is using the power of the State in Spain to oppress labor rights organizations. 

However, I'm questioning Tucker's motive and part of it is that it's a company often criticized by Trump therefore he inserted it into his program for the ratings.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035663074735345664


:no:

Rubio is such a predictable little neocon. :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Uber is a favorite right wing bash company as well. They bash them because most Uber drivers are immigrants. If I dig deep I'll find reasons to explain why each company was specifically bashed.
> 
> Anyways. I could probably argue against every point but it's a very unnecessary one.
> 
> I'm glad for your optimism though. Unfortunately I'm past having any kind of optimism from American corporate media or corporations anymore.


Methinks you're missing the point here. Instead of focusing on which companies Tucker was bashing, you should be focusing on the fact that he called them out for crony capitalism and corporate welfare, which are Bernie talking points. He even pointed out in his tweet that Bernie was the only one talking about it. Regardless of what Tucker's motivations may or may not have been, it was still a segment on Fox News calling out crony capitalism and corporate welfare and that qualifies as a holy shit moment.

Tucker's other holy shit moment was when he told the truth about Syria and the fake chemical weapons attack. You certainly can't say he was sucking up to Trump on that one because it went directly against the narrative coming from the WH.



virus21 said:


> War is Peace
> Freedom is Slavery
> Ignorance is Strength


2+2=5



Reap said:


> I was just wondering. We are so divided that we don't even realize that if every single one of us wanted we could sink the fucking government whenever we wanted.
> 
> If every american decided that they will not pay taxes. Or even if 100 million of us did so. There is no amount of power in this country that could stop that from happening. What are they gonna do? Erect jail for 100 million people? Lmao. Bomb us? Send the military? Lol.
> 
> Just a random ass thought. Do with it what you will.


This is precisely why the Establishment works so tirelessly to keep Americans hating everyone who doesn't line up with their exact political beliefs. Divide and conquer.



2 Ton 21 said:


> It's like prison. There are way more prisoners than there are guards in any prison. They, with a few exceptions, don't rise up and take over the prison. Why? Because they don't want to be the ones to get in trouble for it. Sure a 100 million could bring everything to a stand still, it's just no one wants to be the first ones on the line. I mean the French revolution didn't happen until people were literally starving to death. That's pretty much the level of desperation needed for a coup, bloody or bloodless.


When capitalism collapses and the owners of society cannot put it back together again, that's when real change will happen.



DesolationRow said:


> :no:
> 
> Rubio is such a predictable little neocon. :lol


The USA has been trying to topple the government in Venezuela ever since Chavez rose to power. Regardless of how you feel about how they are trying to do things there, between the CIA constantly meddling with their affairs and the crippling sanctions put on them, they've never had a fair chance to run their own country the way they want to. And yet, somehow they are still hanging on. A majority of the people still want Maduro in power. Now people like Rubio want to outright use the military to invade Venezuela and do what the CIA and sanctions have yet to be able to do so far. This is about the oil and it has always been about the oil. The USA wants a puppet dictator in power who will give the oil companies access to the oil there. The notion that Venezuela is somehow a national security threat to the USA is preposterous and you've got to be an extra special kind of stupid to believe that nonsense.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

John Stossel is someone who was on FOX News who was always bashing crony capitalism and needless wars and Government programs.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Rees-Mogg? Really? :lol
> 
> The chief Brexiter who's moved all of his investment holdings into Europe so that he can continue to operate in the single market and admitted last month that it'll take at least 50 years before we'd see anything like a positive from Brexit? That's your saviour? :lmao


I agree with the Conservatives more than the current form of Labour.

If May goes, most likely a Brexiteer will replace her. Do you want Gove or Johnson?

Fwiw I did support remain in the referendum


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Maybe there's a middle ground but I'm not sure how someone goes from being against regulations and employee rights, then turns around and acts surprised when greedy companies treat workers like shit, destroy the environment and stockpile at the top. Like, yeah, you've been voting against things that would have stopped this for years. Corporations are not people and won't suddenly "give back" with no purpose. They'll give to charity for PR, and do the basics for their workers within the law and even then they'll skirt loopholes. They're not designed to do good.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035663074735345664



Oh get fucked Rubio you dirty war mongering slimeball.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Anyone see the Bush/Obama candy exchange at McCain's funeral and go 

Americans are fucked because every four years they're told that these politicians are racist, fascist, Nazi, socialists while all they are is best friends who all move around in the same circles who've been paid to fuck americans' over.

Once Trump's reign is over democrats will love him as well even though right now they are convinced he's some demagogue. 

That's the only truth about American politics.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Anyone see the Bush/Obama candy exchange at McCain's funeral and go
> 
> Americans are fucked because every four years they're told that these politicians are racist, fascist, Nazi, socialists while all they are is best friends who all move around in the same circles who've been paid to fuck americans' over.
> 
> ...


It's a big club and we ain't in it.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't see Trump joining the big ol' club of previous presidents. None of the previous primary winners voted for him, even George Bush Sr voted for Hillary - not the first time he's been on the losing side where there's a Clinton involved. :brodgers

Bush and Obama have been pals for quite a while.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump is never going to be welcomed back into the good graces of the political elite or the non-conservative mainstream media. :lol They fucking hate him. The GOP politicians would dump him in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump is never going to be welcomed back into the good graces of the political elite or the non-conservative mainstream media. :lol They fucking hate him. The GOP politicians would dump him in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.


What do you think his agenda was in his presidency run, if there was one?

Pretty odd he’d leave being generally well-liked to being hated in many quarters.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> What do you think his agenda was in his presidency run, if there was one?
> 
> Pretty odd he’d leave being generally well-liked to being hated in many quarters.


The stuff he actually cares about and has been talking about for decades. Better trade deals for the US, meritocratic immigration laws that also put the safety of Americans first, a stronger military (sigh), better healthcare, more business freedom, and more infrastructure spending here rather than rebuilding other countries. It's a mostly good agenda.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The stuff he actually cares about and has been talking about for decades. Better trade deals for the US, meritocratic immigration laws that also put the safety of Americans first, a stronger military (sigh), better healthcare, more business freedom, and more infrastructure spending here rather than rebuilding other countries. It's a mostly good agenda.


Trump has been a disaster at pretty much everything. He presented to care about most of the things you mentioned yet has made most of them worst.

His so-called better trade deals have been a disaster for the US. Some of which has cost Americans jobs and even more jobs going over seas or to Mexico, something Trump claimed wouldn't happen. 

As for Trumps immigration policy, he and his cabinet are also focusing on legal US citizens which is causing Americans to be arrested, detained or not let back into the country.
Better healthcare is a joke, healthcare is way worse now than it was under Obama, Trump claimed he wanted Medicare for all, yet does nothing to get that put in place. All he cares about is undoing whatever Obama did

All more business freedom means is legally taking away the rights of workers, labor unions and repealing regulations that protected the environment and workers safety. 

Trump's agenda has good ideas but the way he is doing is terrible and has been a disaster because Trump is incompetent.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

That McCain funeral was embarrassing on many different levels. :lol


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> That McCain funeral was embarrassing on many different levels. :lol


I always thought having funerals on TV was a stupid idea anyway.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

DesolationRow said:


> That McCain funeral was embarrassing on many different levels. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />


Why because his daughter made comments on your President? Because the other Presidents made comments about the current social and political climate that your President is primarily responsible for? Or was it because they chose to remember him in a positive light like people normally do when someone dies out of respect? There was nothing wrong with that funeral. Only defensive Trump supporters are offended.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Why because his daughter made comments on your President? Because the other Presidents made comments about the current social and political climate that your President is primarily responsible for? Or was it because they chose to remember him in a positive light like people normally do when someone dies out of respect? There wIn a sas nothing wrong with that funeral. Only defensive Trump supporters are offended.


In a sane world, the people at McCain's funeral would be shackled and sent off to the Hague like the war criminals that they are.

Although when you blamed Trump as the primarily responsible reason for our current social and political climate, that shit right there was a gut buster. :monkey


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> In a sane world, the people at McCain's funeral would be shackled and sent off to the Hague like the war criminals that they are.
> 
> Although when you blamed Trump as the primarily responsible reason for our current social and political climate, that shit right there was a gut buster. :monkey


How is Trump not one of the huge reasons for our current social and political climate? Trump is openly racist and empowers racists with his rhetoric. He even said some of them are good people. But sure pretend Trump isn't a part of the problem. 

Trump is a huge part of why racist don't think they need to hide or dog whistle their racism anymore


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...l-team-may-block-mueller-from-releasing-final

Giuliani: Trump legal team may try to block Mueller from releasing final report

President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani is claiming that the president's legal team may invoke executive privilege to stop special counsel Robert Mueller's final report on the Russia investigation from being released to the public. 

Giuliani told The New Yorker that it's likely the Trump administration would object to the memo being made public information. 

“I’m sure we will,” he said, before adding that Trump would make the final call on a decision like that. 

Giuliani made the comments in reference to the impending report that Mueller will file to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the conclusion of his investigation into Russian election interference. 

The New Yorker notes that Rosenstein will then have the ability to release the report to Congress and the public. But Giuliani has signaled that the president may move to stop that from happening — a development that could lead to a battle over whether Rosenstein is allowed to disclose the report.

Giuliani told The New Yorker that Trump's original legal counsel struck a deal with the special counsel reserving the White House the right to object to the public disclosure of information covered by executive privilege.

He also told the magazine that the Trump team is planning to release a report of its own to refute Mueller's findings.

The comments are a part of a larger profile from the magazine on Giuliani's work for the president. 

It also comes days after Giuliani told the Daily Beast that Trump's legal team is almost finished with a “voluminous” report aimed at discrediting Mueller. 

“The first half of it is 58 pages, and second half isn't done yet. … It needs an executive summary if it goes over a hundred,” Giuliani told the Beast.

Giuliani and Trump have consistently bashed the credibility of Mueller's probe into Russia's election interference and potential collusion between the Kremlin and the 2016 Trump campaign. 

Trump has continually asserted that the investigation is a "witch hunt."


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Why because his daughter made comments on your President? Because the other Presidents made comments about the current social and political climate that your President is primarily responsible for? Or was it because they chose to remember him in a positive light like people normally do when someone dies out of respect? There was nothing wrong with that funeral. Only defensive Trump supporters are offended.


John McCain's repulsiveness has nary a thing to do with Donald Trump; in 2008 I did not vote for either the warmongering Senator from Arizona nor the Senator from Illinois in Barack Obama in large part because I knew Obama was going to win California with remarkable ease, but I was thoroughly pleased to see Obama defeat McCain and hoped he would since McCain never saw a single conflict on this globe that he did not want the U.S. to directly intervene in, including with Russia over the fate of ex-Soviet state and homeland to Joseph Stalin Georgia ("Today we are all Georgians," as McCain stated).

The reason the funeral was embarrassing was because it was a parade of people lying about McCain, just as the funeral for Edward Kennedy nine years ago was an embarrassment. One can be respectful without being outright deceitful about someone and their legacy. Yet one speaker after another poured the syrupy silliness all over the ceremony. Probably the single biggest "whopper" of the day--which puts it into astonishing context--was ex-U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman saying McCain was "irreplaceable," in part because the globally imperial foreign policy McCain championed was "moral, engaged and strong" as the whole of the political upper-most-crust solemnly nodded. That was either hilarious or deeply depressing depending upon one's mood. George W. Bush likened the vicious primary battles of early 2000 between he and McCain as a big game they would remember like football players. Somewhat humorously Obama buttressed Bush's sports team analogy, saying that ultimately he and McCain were on the same team. 

Beyond that most of the media coverage of the funeral and honestly the whole past week was underlined by one comparison between McCain and Trump after another. Now Trump's reputation as a vulgarian is well-earned but it was just overdone, and obscured the vastly more critical point that McCain's most lasting legacy, aside from saving Obamacare, is playing the part of America's chief purveyor of U.S. hegemonism.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Upon reflection I realize I omitted something in my last post, which was perhaps the apex of embarrassment over the week-long almost constant promotion of McCain's agenda, which was Jennifer Rubin's column for the _Washington Post_ several days ago. Rubin lavished praise upon McCain's purported commitment to what she termed "human rights." As she wrote, losing McCain from the earth meant that there was now a "lost champion" of human rights and someone who established a "model for others the behavior of a free society." As Rubin continued, "With the possible exception of the U.S. military... no group was more indebted to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) than the human rights community." 

The _Washington Post_ hilariously had a photograph of McCain speaking next to Ukrainian neo-Nazi and fascist Oleh Tyahnybok. Indeed a litany of neo-Nazis in Ukraine were provided aid by McCain, just as brutal jihadists in Syria were gifted with arms and variegated forms of support by the U.S. government, a government enthusiastically personified by the presence of Senator John McCain.


----------



## Continuum (Sep 14, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

why would trump wanna stop mueller report if theres nothing there(as he says)


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> Upon reflection I realize I omitted something in my last post, which was perhaps the apex of embarrassment over the week-long almost constant promotion of McCain's agenda, which was Jennifer Rubin's column for the _Washington Post_ several days ago. Rubin lavished praise upon McCain's purported commitment to what she termed "human rights." As she wrote, losing McCain from the earth meant that there was now a "lost champion" of human rights and someone who established a "model for others the behavior of a free society." As Rubin continued, "With the possible exception of the U.S. military... no group was more indebted to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) than the human rights community."
> 
> The _Washington Post_ hilariously had a photograph of McCain speaking next to Ukrainian neo-Nazi and fascist Oleh Tyahnybok. Indeed a litany of neo-Nazis in Ukraine were provided aid by McCain, just as brutal jihadists in Syria were gifted with arms and variegated forms of support by the U.S. government, a government enthusiastically personified by the presence of Senator John McCain.


Now thats funny


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> John McCain's repulsiveness has nary a thing to do with Donald Trump; in 2008 I did not vote for either the warmongering Senator from Arizona nor the Senator from Illinois in Barack Obama in large part because I knew Obama was going to win California with remarkable ease, but I was thoroughly pleased to see Obama defeat McCain and hoped he would since McCain never saw a single conflict on this globe that he did not want the U.S. to directly intervene in, including with Russia over the fate of ex-Soviet state and homeland to Joseph Stalin Georgia ("Today we are all Georgians," as McCain stated).
> 
> The reason the funeral was embarrassing was because it was a parade of people lying about McCain, just as the funeral for Edward Kennedy nine years ago was an embarrassment. One can be respectful without being outright deceitful about someone and their legacy. Yet one speaker after another poured the syrupy silliness all over the ceremony. Probably the single biggest "whopper" of the day--which puts it into astonishing context--was ex-U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman saying McCain was "irreplaceable," in part because the globally imperial foreign policy McCain championed was "moral, engaged and strong" as the whole of the political upper-most-crust solemnly nodded. That was either hilarious or deeply depressing depending upon one's mood. George W. Bush likened the vicious primary battles of early 2000 between he and McCain as a big game they would remember like football players. Somewhat humorously Obama buttressed Bush's sports team analogy, saying that ultimately he and McCain were on the same team.
> 
> Beyond that most of the media coverage of the funeral and honestly the whole past week was underlined by one comparison between McCain and Trump after another. Now Trump's reputation as a vulgarian is well-earned but it was just overdone, and obscured the vastly more critical point that McCain's most lasting legacy, aside from saving Obamacare, is playing the part of America's chief purveyor of U.S. hegemonism.


why are you acting like this is the first time something like this has happened?

Whenever anyone dies, the friends and family always talk about all the good things the person did and ignores the bad things. The only thing that is embarrassing is posts like yours acting like this is something new.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> John McCain's repulsiveness has nary a thing to do with Donald Trump; in 2008 I did not vote for either the warmongering Senator from Arizona nor the Senator from Illinois in Barack Obama in large part because I knew Obama was going to win California with remarkable ease, but I was thoroughly pleased to see Obama defeat McCain and hoped he would since McCain never saw a single conflict on this globe that he did not want the U.S. to directly intervene in, including with Russia over the fate of ex-Soviet state and homeland to Joseph Stalin Georgia ("Today we are all Georgians," as McCain stated).
> 
> The reason the funeral was embarrassing was because it was a parade of people lying about McCain, just as the funeral for Edward Kennedy nine years ago was an embarrassment. One can be respectful without being outright deceitful about someone and their legacy. Yet one speaker after another poured the syrupy silliness all over the ceremony. Probably the single biggest "whopper" of the day--which puts it into astonishing context--was ex-U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman saying McCain was "irreplaceable," in part because the globally imperial foreign policy McCain championed was "moral, engaged and strong" as the whole of the political upper-most-crust solemnly nodded. That was either hilarious or deeply depressing depending upon one's mood. George W. Bush likened the vicious primary battles of early 2000 between he and McCain as a big game they would remember like football players. Somewhat humorously Obama buttressed Bush's sports team analogy, saying that ultimately he and McCain were on the same team.
> 
> Beyond that most of the media coverage of the funeral and honestly the whole past week was underlined by one comparison between McCain and Trump after another. Now Trump's reputation as a vulgarian is well-earned but it was just overdone, and obscured the vastly more critical point that McCain's most lasting legacy, aside from saving Obamacare, is playing the part of America's chief purveyor of U.S. hegemonism.


Oh ok. So they should have said he was a war mongering piece of shit and they shouldn't have did or said any honorable thing that you would normally do at any funeral out of respect for the dead person and his or her family. 

Got it.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Oh ok. So they should have said he was a war mongering piece of shit and they shouldn't have did or said any honorable thing that you would normally do at any funeral out of respect for the dead person and his or her family.
> 
> Got it.


Or maybe we don’t wash away the evil a man did simply because he died. Seriously, should I have had quiet respect when Bin Ladwn died? Or McVey? Because that is the company a sociopathic warlord like McCain keeps. The bullshit spewed this past week to deify that man has been disgusting.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> Or maybe we don’t wash away the evil a man did simply because he died. Seriously, should I have had quiet respect when Bin Ladwn died? Or McVey? Because that is the company a sociopathic warlord like McCain keeps. The bullshit spewed this past week to deify that man has been disgusting.


Comparing Bin Laden or McVey to McCain.:mj4 :done

I don't care about people's problems with the media's coverage. But there was absolutely nothing wrong with the funeral.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> Or maybe we don’t wash away the evil a man did simply because he died. Seriously, should I have had quiet respect when Bin Ladwn died? Or McVey? Because that is the company a sociopathic warlord like McCain keeps. The bullshit spewed this past week to deify that man has been disgusting.


You are not even making sense.

You don't have to stay quiet about your feelings on John McCain, but don't get all pissy with how his friends and family remember him at HIS funeral. Not sure why some people can't understand the difference.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Comparing Bin Laden or McVey to McCain.:mj4 :done
> 
> I don't care about people's problems with the media's coverage. But there was absolutely nothing wrong with the funeral.


Complicit in arms deals with extremists and terrorists, probably millions dead in the wars he pushed for, he wanted millions more dead with wars he failed to get backed, joked about bombing an entire country, abandoned his first family when it became an inconvenience, spoke of supporting vets but his votes almost always did the opposite.... yeah, if that is the kind of man you wish to defend, that speaks more of who you are than those decrying him for what he was.

His public and damn near saintly funeral was an offense to decency. If one doean’t want facts being brought up during a funeral, then one should not have such a public invitation to challenge the false and sickening facade people painted him with. Use the funeral as a pulpit for political grandstanding, then you better expect the harsh truths to come out about the peice of shit you are publically entombing and using for that pulpit.


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

He has every right to have a funeral where people talk about all the good he has done, and one where he is treated with respect. However, that doesn't mean we need to lie about many aspects of his life and career as a politician, and paint that negativity in a good light. I feel sympathy towards his family and friends, but that's really where the buck stops.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> Complicit in arms deals with extremists and terrorists, probably millions dead in the wars he pushed for, he wanted millions more dead with wars he failed to get backed, joked about bombing an entire country, abandoned his first family when it became an inconvenience, spoke of supporting vets but his votes almost always did the opposite.... yeah, if that is the kind of man you wish to defend, that speaks more of who you are than those decrying him for what he was.
> 
> His public and damn near saintly funeral was an offense to decency. If one doean’t want facts being brought up during a funeral, then one should not have such a public invitation to challenge the false and sickening facade people painted him with. Use the funeral as a pulpit for political grandstanding, then you better expect the harsh truths to come out about the peice of shit you are publically entombing and using for that pulpit.


Comparing a war monger to Bin fucking Laden is not a fair comparison. POINT BLANK.

The fuck is wrong with some of you in here? You don't have a funeral where you shit on someone in front of his family. For all of McClain's flaws, there were many moments of decency and basic civility that he shared with people behind the scenes who ended up speaking about it at his funeral.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> *Comparing a war monger to Bin fucking Laden is not a fair comparison. POINT BLANK.*
> 
> The fuck is wrong with some of you in here? You don't have a funeral where you shit on someone in front of his family. For all of McClain's flaws, there were many moments of decency and basic civility that he shared with people behind the scenes who ended up speaking about it at his funeral.
> 
> This isn't a hard concept to grasp.


You're absolutely sure you don't wanna give that another go?


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> You're absolutely sure you don't wanna give that another go?


Absolutely not. Not when you compare the flawed intentions of the two.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Such dishonest replies to DesolationRow's completely fair and correct points. :lol He outlined specifically what they LIED about when they talked about him. That's different than thinking they should've said negative things, or that they shouldn't have said anything positive at all, neither of which Deso contended. The "positive" things they said were lies. They created a picture that was opposite from the truth. They broadcasted it nationwide and used their lies to push their political views. That's a totally valid thing to criticize.

Fuck John McCain. He was a war-mongering, terrorist-supporting piece of shit. I have a lot of respect for a lot of people who actively and strongly dislike Trump. I voted for Obama in '08 because I didn't want McCain's war-mongering ass anywhere near the Oval Office. Despite all of my grievances with Obama and particularly his foreign policy (which was a lot different than what he promised on the campaign trail), I still believe McCain would've been far worse. My disdain for McCain has very, very little to do with any differences he had with Trump.

My condolences go out to his family for their loss.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Such dishonest replies to DesolationRow's completely fair and correct points. :lol He outlined specifically what they LIED about when they talked about him. That's different than thinking they should've said negative things, or that they shouldn't have said anything positive at all, neither of which Deso contended. The "positive" things they said were lies. They created a picture that was opposite from the truth. They broadcasted it nationwide and used their lies to push their political views. That's a totally valid thing to criticize.
> 
> Fuck John McCain. He was a war-mongering, terrorist-supporting piece of shit. I have a lot of respect for a lot of people who actively and strongly dislike Trump. I voted for Obama in '08 because I didn't want McCain's war-mongering ass anywhere near the Oval Office. Despite all of my grievances with Obama and particularly his foreign policy (which was a lot different than what he promised on the campaign trail), I still believe McCain would've been far worse. My disdain for McCain has very, very little to do with any differences he had with Trump.
> 
> My condolences go out to his family for their loss.


Again that happens all the time at peoples funerals, stop acting like this is anything new.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

No one said it's new, feel free not to comment on the topic if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Absolutely not. Not when you compare the flawed intentions of the two.


The amount of propaganda one has to swallow to be able to excuse the acts of these people on the basis of "flawed intentions", implying there was any positive aspect to John McCain's, is unreal. Any positive aspect to the man's "intentions" for your country according to his vision ceased being "positive" when he pushed for the indiscriminate destruction of other countries to achieve them.

Whatever basic decency or civility the man showed for even a split-second in life, for anyone that's not his family or those he sided with to achieve his warmongering goals, deserves to be buried under the weight of all the atrocities he supported. People are flawed, and those with great flaws can be deserving of respect nonetheless; John McCain, a maniac constantly starving for war, is not one of those people.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

People are ignorant about just how much damage we've actually caused in Afghanistan and Iraq and the larger region, thanks to war-mongers like McCain who wanted to cause even more damage there. It goes far deeper than anyone talks about or most people realize. It's horrific to contemplate.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> No one said it's new, feel free not to comment on the topic if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.


You are not contributing shit, you are just bitching about friends and family talking nice about someone that died. If you don't like it, don't listen to what they said

you are such a snowflake


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> The amount of propaganda one has to swallow to be able to excuse the acts of these people on the basis of "flawed intentions", implying there was any positive aspect to John McCain's, is unreal. Any positive aspect to the man's "intentions" for your country according to his vision ceased being "positive" when he pushed for the indiscriminate destruction of other countries to achieve them.
> 
> Whatever basic decency or civility the man showed for even a split-second in life, for anyone that's not his family or those he sided with to achieve his warmongering goals, deserves to be buried under the weight of all the atrocities he supported. People are flawed, and those with great flaws can be deserving of respect nonetheless; John McCain, a maniac constantly starving for war, is not one of those people.


Intentionally murdering thousands of lives and wanting to essentially tear the world down for your own sick hatred & pleasure > Being a war mongering piece of shit who's decisions will ruin countries and lives because he doesn't know any other peaceful way to solve our national security & world problems. One case is a seriously flawed decision thought process, the other is much more intentionally heinous in human nature.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> why are you acting like this is the first time something like this has happened?
> 
> Whenever anyone dies, the friends and family always talk about all the good things the person did and ignores the bad things. The only thing that is embarrassing is posts like yours acting like this is something new.


Talking about the good things the person did and ignoring the bad things, yes. 

Perhaps you should reread my previous posts. Meghan McCain saying her father loved her and she loved him and expressing anecdotes concerning their relationship would be beyond reproach. The most despised people on earth typically have someone grieving for them. Since the funeral took place at the National Cathedral and was ultimately a synthesis of a Protestant Christian service and a kind of stately ceremony it made perfect sense to see Christian and religious leaders presiding. 

Where the ceremony became embarrassing was the almost constant barrage of lies spouted by an eclectic range of U.S. political superstars. As some observers have pointed out the event was made more into a defense of the vaguely shared philosophy of "American exceptionalism" as stated by several speakers, a direct conflating of a plethora of exceedingly aggressive militaristic and intelligence policies and American greatness, etc.



Headliner said:


> Oh ok. So they should have said he was a war mongering piece of shit and they shouldn't have did or said any honorable thing that you would normally do at any funeral out of respect for the dead person and his or her family.
> 
> Got it.


Never said anything remotely like that. 

From Vinson Cunningham at the _New Yorker_ online to Bill Kristol on television and others have said that the ceremony was rhetorically an attack on the current president by endeavoring to defend the policy positions of the deceased. 

It is one thing to be honorable and to pray for McCain's everlasting soul from a Christian perspective. His family merit unmitigated sympathy, and anyone who attempts to disrupt their grieving is behaving monstrously. Ultimately the political arrow-shooting at the present administration from most of the elite political class at McCain's funeral is not so much disturbing as it may be considered something else. It was the wholesale manufacturing of something resembling a political apologia on behalf of McCain's most fervent positions, most indelibly and pointedly his hyper-interventionist foreign policy, which unfortunately made what should have been a solemn event dedicated to laying a fallen man to rest into a torrent of propaganda more about McCain's failed interventionist projects than the man himself.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm not interested in sugarcoating the negative bits of John McCain's political legacy, and I find his reinvention as a symbol of bipartisanship by those opposed to the current administration amusing, but are some of you dense or just completely gone over the edge of sanity in your Trump support? Decent people don't trash their friends and loved ones at funerals. Hell, decent people don't trash anyone, funeral or otherwise. 

John McCain was a good man with flaws. He was well liked by his peers. He also happened to despise Donald Trump and the antagonistic, classless decent he and his supporters have taken American politics into. I didn't often agree with his foreign policy opinions but McCain put facts and country before party. When making decisions he listened to colleagues from both sides of the aisle, researched, then made up his own mind and that is why he and Trump were incompatible. That those who knew him brought up the stark contrast between the men in eulogies shouldn't make you angry at McCain or the media but instead make you see a severe flaw in Trump. And it does, doesn't it? Otherwise no one would be complaining. 

A lot of folks itt seem not to mind Trump's style, in fact I get the impression many of you love it, but the majority of people, including current and former political players, don't. It isn't because he's challenging the system or some silliness but because he's ushered in blatant disregard for what holds a diverse society together. America is now a country where the president calls the media an enemy of the people. If I were American that would terrify me.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Intentionally murdering thousands of lives and wanting to essentially tear the world down for your own sick hatred & pleasure > Being a war mongering piece of shit who's decisions will ruin countries and lives* because he doesn't know any other peaceful way to solve our national security & world problems. One case is a seriously flawed decision thought process*, the other is much more intentionally heinous in human nature.


Jesus fucking Christ, how naive can you be?! "Doesn't know any other way" for what?! "Another way" besides invading other countries is NOT to invade other countries. *OF COURSE* he knew there were other ways, that simply doesn't matter when you're so entrenched in the machinations of imperialism that the deliberate destruction of entire nations seems like a small pay-off for the propping up of your own country as the world's leading hegemonic power!

This is what I'm talking about, the fact that this type of shit seems to be so thoroughly normalized in American minds is dangerous to unimaginable degrees. It's exactly what ensures that someone like Trump could order Syria to be razed to the ground without being even a bit more hated than he already is, and why Obama managed to fuck up Libya to the point that slaves are openly bought and sold in the streets now and people still clamour for his return. It only further consolidates the already obvious point that it matters very little who your President is as long as the interests they serve worldwide are those of the ruling classes who benefit from these never-ending conflicts.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035956234631823360
Jon Stewart used to be interesting from time to time. :lol


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> Jesus fucking Christ, how naive can you be?! "Doesn't know any other way" for what?! "Another way" besides invading other countries is NOT to invade other countries. *OF COURSE* he knew there were other ways, that simply doesn't matter when you're so entrenched in the machinations of imperialism that the deliberate destruction of entire nations seems like a small pay-off for the propping up of your own country as the world's leading hegemonic power!
> 
> This is what I'm talking about, the fact that this type of shit seems to be so thoroughly normalized in American minds is dangerous to unimaginable degrees. It's exactly what ensures that someone like Trump could order Syria to be razed to the ground without being even a bit more hated than he already is, and why Obama managed to fuck up Libya to the point that slaves are openly bought and sold in the streets now and people still clamour for his return. It only further consolidates the already obvious point that it matters very little who your President is as long as the interests they serve worldwide are those of the ruling classes who benefit from these never-ending conflicts.


My point has been made. Everything else you're saying at this point is just jibberish. No need to continue. 


DesolationRow said:


> Talking about the good things the person did and ignoring the bad things, yes.
> 
> Perhaps you should reread my previous posts. Meghan McCain saying her father loved her and she loved him and expressing anecdotes concerning their relationship would be beyond reproach. The most despised people on earth typically have someone grieving for them. Since the funeral took place at the National Cathedral and was ultimately a synthesis of a Protestant Christian service and a kind of stately ceremony it made perfect sense to see Christian and religious leaders presiding.
> 
> ...


Maybe if your President didn't say the things he said about McCain and showed more respect in regards to his passing, his daughter would not have taken an emotional aim at him. I probably would have done the same thing if I was in her position. And maybe if he wasn't one of the primary people behind the current political and social discourse, maybe other Presidents wouldn't have spoke out about it and used McCain's viewpoint on the matter as a way of honoring human dignity. 

I see nothing wrong with the Presidents asking to be better than the current public discourse. I see nothing wrong with his daughter taking out her emotion in whatever she felt was necessary at *her *father's funeral. 

A positive message urging people to be better is a bad thing because it's against the person you favor. Point blank.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> My point has been made. Everything else you're saying at this point is just jibberish. *No need to continue.*


Sure; I probably sounded a bit harsh, but that's just partly the way I discuss politics in casual settings, which is one of the reasons I don't post too often in this thread :lol All I meant was that a proper critique of the current political climate should warrant a much broader view than simply "Drumpf bad", which seems to be the default American liberal position that is bound to bring nothing but disappointment to those who espouse it.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Y'all sure do love to respond in a grandstanding way to *shit nobody said*, don't you? My goodness. :lol Well whatever makes you feel good I suppose.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> My point has been made. Everything else you're saying at this point is just jibberish. No need to continue.
> 
> Maybe if your President didn't say the things he said about McCain and showed more respect in regards to his passing, his daughter would not have taken an emotional aim at him. I probably would have done the same thing if I was in her position. And maybe if he wasn't one of the primary people behind the current political and social discourse, maybe other Presidents wouldn't have spoke out about it and used McCain's viewpoint on the matter as a way of honoring human dignity.
> 
> ...


There's no point in furthering this dialogue since you have your mind made up over why someone is criticizing the funeral. My immediately previous post delineated the point that the attacks on the Trump administration, whether launched by Meghan McCain or someone else, were not what made the event disturbing, but rather the preposterous propaganda on behalf of a U.S.-hegemonic world order John McCain championed. So let us leave it at that because you clearly think some of us are defending Trump when Trump himself being attacked is beside the point to I suspect the majority of those of us finding the funeral a nauseating embarrassment.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:bahgawd

That record has been broken in half


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



GothicBohemian said:


> I'm not interested in sugarcoating the negative bits of John McCain's political legacy, and I find his reinvention as a symbol of bipartisanship by those opposed to the current administration amusing, but are some of you dense or just completely gone over the edge of sanity in your Trump support? Decent people don't trash their friends and loved ones at funerals. Hell, decent people don't trash anyone, funeral or otherwise.
> 
> John McCain was a good man with flaws. He was well liked by his peers. He also happened to despise Donald Trump and the antagonistic, classless decent he and his supporters have taken American politics into. I didn't often agree with his foreign policy opinions but McCain put facts and country before party. When making decisions he listened to colleagues from both sides of the aisle, researched, then made up his own mind and that is why he and Trump were incompatible. That those who knew him brought up the stark contrast between the men in eulogies shouldn't make you angry at McCain or the media but instead make you see a severe flaw in Trump. And it does, doesn't it? Otherwise no one would be complaining.
> 
> A lot of folks itt seem not to mind Trump's style, in fact I get the impression many of you love it, but the majority of people, including current and former political players, don't. It isn't because he's challenging the system or some silliness but because he's ushered in blatant disregard for what holds a diverse society together. America is now a country where the president calls the media an enemy of the people. If I were American that would terrify me.


I have no problems with not respecting someone who was involved in propagating and pushing wars that killed millions. It has nothing to do with Trump. You cannot ignore his war mongering and love of death simply because he got involved in some political grandstanding for the democrats during Trump's reign either. 

Fuck Trump. I have no love for him either. But I have no respect for _any _butcher. Anyone. I have more respect for people who refused to fight in the US military than those who gave up their bodies to the military machine. I don't disrespect the average soldier who joined the military and served because he found himself inside a death cult where deserting is seen as a crime and they're brainwashed. 

But a man that repeatedly advocated for war after war after war? Sorry. Don't care to respect. I save my respect for people who live peacefully and die peacefully.

PS. I'm really, really struggling with the idea that someone so pro-war gets so much respect these days. Is this a victory for American imperialism?

List of wars McCain supported 100%: 

1. Afghanistan
2. Iraq
3. Syria
4. Libya
5. Western and Central Africa
6. Iran
7. Bosnia and Kosovo
8. Ukraine
9. Russia (lol)
10. North Korea
11. China 
12. Booster for KSA vs Yemen

The world is a safer place today after this powerful neocon has been buried. The left needs to remember itself and its anti-war past for it to be associated with progress again.


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

* Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency *

Full article

highlights...



> - John Dowd was convinced that President Trump would commit perjury if he talked to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. So, on Jan. 27, the president’s then-personal attorney staged a practice session to try to make his point.
> 
> In the White House residence, Dowd peppered Trump with questions about the Russia investigation, provoking stumbles, contradictions and lies until the president eventually lost his cool.
> 
> ...


our president, ladies and gentleman. a very stable genius indeed.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

In before all the Trump supporters claim Trump is playing 8545512222D chess.

Ive said from the beginning what a dumass Trump is, and how corrupt he is. Its all coming out faster and faster now. It's so great being right

Its very telling how all the pro-Trump people are just ignoring the shit show of the past week or two and instead just trying to distract with nonsense in this thread about meaningless BS like about McCain or airlines or what ever other stuff they have been talking about to no admit what a disaster Trump is


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

From the CNN article...



> Then, in an even more remarkable move, Dowd and Trump's current personal attorney Jay Sekulow went to Mueller's office and re-enacted the mock interview. Their goal: *to argue that Trump couldn't possibly testify because he was incapable of telling the truth.*
> 
> "He just made something up. That's his nature," Dowd said to Mueller.


:lmao

best defense lawyers ever.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Another book that reinforces everything the anti-Trumpers have been saying for years? Will this one be proven to be fiction just like the last two? :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Another book that reinforces everything the anti-Trumpers have been saying for years? Will this one be proven to be fiction just like the last two? :mj


Yet pretty much everything said about Trump is true, and Trump even admits it in his tweets. But keep denying it lol but in your Trump world, truth isn't the truth.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> * Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency *
> 
> Full article
> 
> ...


Such a non-interventionist. Thank goodness he's in the White House and not a bomb-dropping, regime changing madman of John McCain's ilk. Or Hilary. Or Obama. 
:wink2:
_(For the sarcasm detection impaired; yes, the above was sarcasm)_

What a stupid man he is.
_(This, however, is not sarcasm; this is a fact)_


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Hmm, his actual demonstrated policy toward Syria/North Korea, or unreliable second-hand accounts of the same ilk that have been debunked in the past...nah, let's go ahead and assume the latter is fact. Because that's how a rational person thinks.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I hadn't even considered Jon Kyl to be McCain's replacement. Good call, but this obviously isn't a long term proposition.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



















:mj


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yeah sure Kelly didn't say that, just like Katrina Pierson denied the phone call about Trump using the N-word and what they should do about it, then we had a tape of that very phone call verifying it happened.

Also just like Trump makes all these denials, that we all know are true.

This story goes back to April where staffers even admitted Kelly said it even back then.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...-he-s-saving-u-s-disaster-calls-trump-n868961


You can believe all the denials you want about Trump and his admin, even though its usually turns out to be true, don't be surprised it Omarosa has a tape of Kelly saying it


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> :mj


"Surely, _this time_ Drumpf will be destroyed!"

:Trump


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Why would I trust denials from inner circle politicians and spokespeople for a president who, based on his Twitter, thinks the American judicial system and intelligence agencies should be his partisan protectors and who openly calls journalists, and other media critical of his words, "enemies of the America people" and "fake news"? I'm not that gullible. 

Any statement from the White House will be damage control. The administration has a job to do and that's to balance protecting American interests while furthering their shared agendas; they have to shoot down and deflect negatives coming from a respected investigative journalist in order to maintain at least a semblance of control at home, not to mention salvage America's reputation overseas. They can't let Trump make a laughing stock of the Presidency outside the country. These people, like Mattis and Kelly, are linked to Trump now; it doesn't matter what they may think of him in private, they have to support him in public for their reputations, that of the Republican party and America itself.

If I worked for Trump - which I wouldn't since I don't tolerate personal attacks or ignorance from my employers nor do I work to further the causes of people I don't agree with - I would be doing my damnedest to deny whatever made me, and him, look worst while leaving enough unsaid to later lay claim to whichever opinion would preserve my professional reputation post-Trump. Just like Trump's people are doing now.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



GothicBohemian said:


> Why would I trust denials from inner circle politicians and spokespeople for a president who, based on his Twitter, thinks the American judicial system and intelligence agencies should be his partisan protectors and who openly calls journalists, and other media critical of his words, "enemies of the America people" and "fake news"? I'm not that gullible.
> 
> Any statement from the White House will be damage control. The administration has a job to do and that's to balance protecting American interests while furthering their shared agendas; they have to shoot down and deflect negatives coming from a respected investigative journalist in order to maintain at least a semblance of control at home, not to mention salvage America's reputation overseas. They can't let Trump make a laughing stock of the Presidency outside the country. These people, like Mattis and Kelly, are linked to Trump now; it doesn't matter what they may think of him in private, they have to support him in public for their reputations, that of the Republican party and America itself.
> 
> If I worked for Trump - which I wouldn't since I don't tolerate personal attacks or ignorance from my employers nor do I work to further the causes of people I don't agree with - I would be doing my damnedest to deny whatever made me, and him, look worst while leaving enough unsaid to later lay claim to whichever opinion would preserve my professional reputation post-Trump. Just like Trump's people are doing now.


The same WH that said truth isn't truth.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



GothicBohemian said:


> Why would I trust denials from inner circle politicians and spokespeople for a president who, based on his Twitter, thinks the American judicial system and intelligence agencies should be his partisan protectors and who openly calls journalists, and other media critical of his words, "enemies of the America people" and "fake news"? I'm not that gullible.
> 
> Any statement from the White House will be damage control. The administration has a job to do and that's to balance protecting American interests while furthering their shared agendas; they have to shoot down and deflect negatives coming from a respected investigative journalist in order to maintain at least a semblance of control at home, not to mention salvage America's reputation overseas. They can't let Trump make a laughing stock of the Presidency outside the country. These people, like Mattis and Kelly, are linked to Trump now; it doesn't matter what they may think of him in private, they have to support him in public for their reputations, that of the Republican party and America itself.
> 
> If I worked for Trump - which I wouldn't since I don't tolerate personal attacks or ignorance from my employers nor do I work to further the causes of people I don't agree with - I would be doing my damnedest to deny whatever made me, and him, look worst while leaving enough unsaid to later lay claim to whichever opinion would preserve my professional reputation post-Trump. Just like Trump's people are doing now.


So... because you're a self-admitted opportunist who would lack integrity if it were personally and professionally advantageous, that means these other people are too? :hmm: I don't think you're necessarily wrong but you're not necessarily right either.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1036931902593224704
When the facts so obviously go against your narrative but you forge ahead anyway. :lol Jesus Christ.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



GothicBohemian said:


> Why would I trust denials from inner circle politicians and spokespeople for a president who, based on his Twitter, thinks the American judicial system and intelligence agencies should be his partisan protectors and who openly calls journalists, and other media critical of his words, "enemies of the America people" and "fake news"? I'm not that gullible.
> 
> Any statement from the White House will be damage control. The administration has a job to do and that's to balance protecting American interests while furthering their shared agendas; they have to shoot down and deflect negatives coming from a respected investigative journalist in order to maintain at least a semblance of control at home, not to mention salvage America's reputation overseas. They can't let Trump make a laughing stock of the Presidency outside the country. These people, like Mattis and Kelly, are linked to Trump now; it doesn't matter what they may think of him in private, they have to support him in public for their reputations, that of the Republican party and America itself.
> 
> If I worked for Trump - which I wouldn't since I don't tolerate personal attacks or ignorance from my employers nor do I work to further the causes of people I don't agree with - I would be doing my damnedest to deny whatever made me, and him, look worst while leaving enough unsaid to later lay claim to whichever opinion would preserve my professional reputation post-Trump. Just like Trump's people are doing now.


Yes, better to trust second-hand stories from "anonymous sources" by actual political operatives. :lol Stop pretending you have any standard of objectivity, please. You love to show up when shit like this gets published and then when it's all debunked you slink away and aren't heard from on the issue again.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Yes, better to trust second-hand stories from "anonymous sources" by actual political operatives. :lol Stop pretending you have any standard of objectivity, please. You love to show up when shit like this gets published and then when it's all debunked you slink away and aren't heard from on the issue again.


You are the one not being objective here when Trump and the WH constantly lie and you take their word over someone that has credibility. 

Also, just because Kelly claims he never said it, does not mean it's been debunked. Only in Trump world would you think that.

And again this goes back to April when it was first reported and now its coming up again. Its pretty safe to say, he said it. Especially because Trump is an idiot.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1036931902593224704
> When the facts so obviously go against your narrative but you forge ahead anyway. :lol Jesus Christ.


I'm a little confused by the Proud Boys mention, they fight with the Alt Right all the time. In fact it's weird that they keep lumping groups together that absolutely hate each other yet they're supposedly in cahoots with each other.

And they wonder why nobody trusts what the media says. 

It's a good tactic though, name every group you don't like racist in order to make it seem like your side is the only one that isn't. Clever but obvious!


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ly-complaining-about-fbi-director-wray-report

Trump privately complaining about FBI director: report

President Trump has reportedly been privately criticizing FBI Director Christopher Wray, his own pick to replace former Director James Comey.

Three sources close to the president told NBC News that Trump now includes Wray in his complaints about administration figures whom he suspects of undermining him.

One person told NBC that complaints about Wray often come along with those of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been the focus of some of Trump's harshest criticism.

“[Trump is] in the worst mood of his presidency and calling friends and allies to vent about his selection of Sessions and Wray," the source said.

Since the launch last year of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, Trump has repeatedly criticized the FBI, the Justice Department and Sessions himself, calling the investigation a “witch hunt.”

Trump fired Comey in May 2017 and has consistently accused the agency of being biased against him, but he has not publicly spoken out against Wray.

Wray has pushed back against Trump’s attacks on the bureau. The president said the FBI’s reputation was “in tatters” last December, after which McCabe called its employees “decent people committed to the highest principles of integrity and respect.”





Trump thinks anyone that will not cover up his lies and corruption and illegal acts is out to get him lol

Come on now, no one really thinks Trump is innocent do they? Not even the strongest Trump supporters can really believe he is innocent can they? An innocent person does not act this way.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm a little confused by the Proud Boys mention, they fight with the Alt Right all the time. In fact it's weird that they keep lumping groups together that absolutely hate each other yet they're supposedly in cahoots with each other.
> 
> And they wonder why nobody trusts what the media says.
> 
> It's a good tactic though, name every group you don't like racist in order to make it seem like your side is the only one that isn't. Clever but obvious!


Especially when you side is the biggest ones of all


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Especially because Trump is an idiot.


An _idiot_ who was very successful in the media, literature, business and politics.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










This bugs the crap out of me. 

These "conservatives" cry and whine and bitch about the authoritative state crushing them, but they use every opportunity to use it to their advantage. 

Two sides of the same coin. Those who have power will wield it unjustly. It's the only universal truth in politics.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> An _idiot_ who was very successful in the media, literature, business and politics.


You already lost this debate on these issues, LOL at you trying to bring them up again.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> People are ignorant about just how much damage we've actually caused in Afghanistan and Iraq and the larger region, thanks to war-mongers like McCain who wanted to cause even more damage there. It goes far deeper than anyone talks about or most people realize. It's horrific to contemplate.


*This is true... and the left used to loath him *and others like him* for it. And rightfully so. 

It's funny how things change.*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CROFT said:


> *This is true... and the left used to loath him *and others like him* for it. And rightfully so.
> 
> It's funny how things change.*


Why are you acting like the left all of a sudden loves McCain? Just because the left says a few nice things about the good things he did after he died during his funeral, does not mean they now all of a sudden are ok with all the bad things he did


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037430689644400640
got em


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why are you acting like the left all of a sudden loves McCain? Just because the left says a few nice things about the good things he did after he died during his funeral, does not mean they now all of a sudden are ok with all the bad things he did


*It's not what the Left are saying about him it's how the Left are using him. It's disingenuous and quite frankly disgusting to me...someone that is liberal and anti-war. *


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

When Ocasio-Cortez rode McCains dick after he died I wanted to vomit, fucking idiot. You can expect idiot neocons like Shapiro to gush over the warmonger but the social democrats and the left should be nowhere near that.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037456816601485316
Trump is so cool. :lol I wish we were more politically aligned but alas.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037456816601485316
> Trump is so cool. :lol I wish we were more politically aligned but alas.


You think that was cool LOL

wow, what a low bar you have. Trump just showing once again what a child he is.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You think that was cool LOL
> 
> wow, what a low bar you have. Trump just showing once again what a child he is.


Has CP overtaken me in most delusional Trump fan yet?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart;76118774 said:


> Has CP overtaken me in most delusional Trump fan yet?


Woodwards book and now this op-ed, just confirm even more what I have been saying about Trump.

Not sure how any Trump fan cannot see how dumb and insane he is.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure how any Trump fan cannot see how dumb and insane he is.


Answer the question :mitch3

It doesn’t take a man as smart as The Donald to answer it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Answer the question :mitch3
> 
> It doesn’t take a man as smart as The Donald to answer it.


Nah you still take the cake


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nah you still take the cake


:hb


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> :hb


So tell me how you still ignore and deny all the evidence against Trump?


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So tell me how you still ignore and deny all the evidence against Trump?


Would you expect a delusional Trump supporter to acknowledge and accept the evidence?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Would you expect a delusional Trump supporter to acknowledge and accept the evidence?


Instead of trolling, try having a debate like an adult. But you know you can't defend Trump , so all you can do is troll.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037470687638605825
oh no I'm dying :lmao


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Instead of trolling, try having a debate like an adult. But you know you can't defend Trump , so all you can do is troll.


The problem is that the Woodward book and the NY Times anonymous source are basically unverifiable. That may change in the coming weeks of course. However, previous publications such as 'fire and fury' and Omarosa's leaks were in many instances proven to be fabrications, and we're still waiting for tapes with any substance to be released. I understand Woodward has a pretty good pedigree and so I could yet be proven wrong, but even you must admit this is not really to the same standard as his previous work, the tape that was released by the Washington Post basically showed that he didn't try very hard to get access to the President. So it's not exactly 'all-access.' Also, I believe General Mattis is a man of honour, so I'd be surprised if the allegations against him were true. (though I wouldn't be surprised if Trump did call Jeff Session 'mentally retarded' lol) The press clearly have an agenda against Trump, that must be clear to you whether you like him or not? Does it not seem likely that this op-ed was published to create discord within the administration, and weaken support for the President? It does to me, but if I see actual, verifiable evidence I may change my mind. Obviously you will believe anything negative about Trump at this point, but it is that sort of attitude (on both sides) which has led to a massive decline in the standards of journalism. If a university student wrote an essay with the same amount of verifiable sources and evidence as the vast majority of articles published nowadays, they would be failed.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> The problem is that the Woodward book and the NY Times anonymous source are basically unverifiable. That may change in the coming weeks of course. However, previous publications such as 'fire and fury' and Omarosa's leaks were in many instances proven to be fabrications, and we're still waiting for tapes with any substance to be released. I understand Woodward has a pretty good pedigree and so I could yet be proven wrong, but even you must admit this is not really to the same standard as his previous work, the tape that was released by the Washington Post basically showed that he didn't try very hard to get access to the President. So it's not exactly 'all-access.' Also, I believe General Mattis is a man of honour, so I'd be surprised if the allegations against him were true. (though I wouldn't be surprised if Trump did call Jeff Session 'mentally retarded' lol) The press clearly have an agenda against Trump, that must be clear to you whether you like him or not? Does it not seem likely that this op-ed was published to create discord within the administration, and weaken support for the President? It does to me, but if I see actual, verifiable evidence I may change my mind. Obviously you will believe anything negative about Trump at this point, but it is that sort of attitude (on both sides) which has led to a massive decline in the standards of journalism. If a university student wrote an essay with the same amount of verifiable sources and evidence as the vast majority of articles published nowadays, they would be failed.


The Woodward book is very verifiable since he was in the WH collecting all this info, a lot of it was first-hand knowledge on thing he saw happen. He is also a very credible source. Omarosa's leaks were verified LOL WTF are you talking about. She played tapes on stuff she claimed and she was proven right. And she said she has even more tapes. Also just because someone in the WH claims the did not say something, does not mean it did not happen, so its been proven over and over how much they lie, even when its on tape or video and they still deny saying it. So a deny is not something being proven wrong. 

The reason why the media has an "agenda" against Trump is because Trump attacks them for telling the truth. Trump is always trying to silence the media when he does not like what they are saying about him even when its true. 

How is it so hard to believe the op-ed when look at all the people that Trump has fired or that has left his admin. You don't think its a shit show behind the scenes? Trump is a shit show out in the open as well. Trump just shows how clueless he is about everything when he speaks.

Trump has lied about 4,000 times in the past two years, so his word when claiming something or denying it, its pretty much shit. 

And sorry but pretty much everything that has been said about Trump has been true. Again just because he denies something does not mean it was not true.

How many times have you seen something been said about what Trump did or said, then the WH will deny it, then Trump tweets out the exact opposite of the WH denials that shows what the person said was in fact correct. That shit happens all the time

You know Trump and the WH are lying non-stop when they are not even on the same page with what Trump tweets and the official WH statement on an issue is.

But sure, they are the ones telling the truth and not all these sources that pretty much always turn out to to be correct. Over 70% of the things Trump says are lies.
Trump will even contradict himself in the same sentence sometimes. FFS


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> This bugs the crap out of me.
> 
> These "conservatives" cry and whine and bitch about the authoritative state crushing them, but they use every opportunity to use it to their advantage.
> 
> Two sides of the same coin. Those who have power will wield it unjustly. It's the only universal truth in politics.


Well the point of double standards would require cases of people like Michelle Malkin arguing on behalf of disruptions of Senate confirmation hearings. Preferably were there rabid "right to life" (awful term) agitators disrupting, say, Elena Kagan confirmation hearings, and, now, rabid "right to choose" (another awful term!), the same standard should apply. Reducing and restricting the scope of the government's authority (it is true that a fair number of right-wingers bemoaning the "authoritative state" or what have you are being far too liberal in their descriptions of governmental interference or control with which they disagree) is desirable but realistically the single most fundamental act of sovereignty of a government is the protection of its own property. People raucously protesting beyond the point of disruption at such a hearing have to understand that their actions carry consequences. Even if the government were reduced to an 1850s equivalent size there are some functions which will have to be performed simply for the sake of the state's form of continuity, however troubled. 

Saying this as someone who was threatened with going to jail and incurring massive fines for daring to tell sub-literate TSA goons and their slightly more intelligent masters off. :lol None of that happened but I was still isolated and detained for several hours. On a practical level, while the imperiousness and overreach of the U.S. government is regularly infuriating, my advice is to not stick your hand in that machinery. Thomas Jefferson's pompous declaration from 1787 of the tree of liberty being refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants sounds bold and admirable when you are moving through your prepubescent rebellious phase, not so glorious when you encounter even the less virulent forms of that scabrous wall that is ultimately force. 

Marcus Tullius Cicero sagaciously contended that the function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil. Some disruptive protesters may be good, others wicked, but it is not the role of the government to distinguish. 


On another point, while I am grateful that Donald Trump is president rather than Hillary Clinton in part because hers was an unreconstructed foreign policy of toppling the Assad regime, Trump's recent statements about the Idlib Province are disconcerting and unwarranted. As Brett H. McGurk noted, the Idlib Province is the greatest safe haven for al-Qaeda since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Almost humorously Trump is once again directly opposing Russian interests, so perhaps the political calculations are in play. It would be nice to live in a world where the president professing a policy of leaving Syria to the Syrians would be politically acceptable but obviously we live in a fallen world instead. :lol It is easy to mock the "500D chess" memes (although half of them seem to be pointedly sarcastic memes; is anyone keeping count of the memes and their inflections?) but moments like this one seem to keep those embers burning.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The Woodward book is very verifiable since he was in the WH collecting all this info, a lot of it was first-hand knowledge on thing he saw happen. He is also a very credible source. Omarosa's leaks were verified LOL WTF are you talking about. She played tapes on stuff she claimed and she was proven right. And she said she has even more tapes. Also just because someone in the WH claims the did not say something, does not mean it did not happen, so its been proven over and over how much they lie, even when its on tape or video and they still deny saying it. So a deny is not something being proven wrong.
> 
> The reason why the media has an "agenda" against Trump is because Trump attacks them for telling the truth. Trump is always trying to silence the media when he does not like what they are saying about him even when its true.
> 
> ...


He has been credible in the past and like I say, I will wait to see actual evidence but, right now it's nothing more than hearsay. There may be some truth in it, but I'm positive that he had an agenda to try to show the Trump administration in a bad light from day one. Oh come on, Omarosa leaked some tapes that didn't really tell us anything, then claimed a load of bs which she hasn't yet released. I'm still waiting. Where's the tape of Trump using the N-word, you'd think that would be released straight away, not Trump telling her that he didn't know she would be fired (which told us nothing.) There may be some truth in it, who doesn't think their boss is an idiot :laugh: but where is the actual, tangible evidence? An author with a grudge against Trump who clearly didn't have full access to me is not, at this time, reliable. It is on the accuser to prove something, not the defendant to prove it is not true.

The media was biased way before Trump started to attack them. Look at how they treated Bernie for example, that had nothing to do with Trump and yet the media showed a clear bias towards the establishment neo-liberal. 

The op-ed is hard to believe because it's from the NY Times which has a clear bias. It is hard to believe because it is an anonymous source. It is hard to believe because the anonymous source in the biased publication, greatly benefits the agenda of the media in sowing discourse within the administration and the country as a whole. 

Trump clearly isn't clueless, because he struck an accord with many Americans and how they were feeling. He managed to win the presidency despite being vastly outspent, having most media against him and being hit by scandal after scandal. 

He probably does lie, such is the nature of politics (sadly), but he is at the same time extremely transparent in some ways (with often caustic results.) For example his criticism of NATO, Jeff Sessions etc, would normally be something behind closed doors. In that sense he is often quite open. Trump is really no worse than any other politician when it comes to lying, he just doesn't articulate himself well and talks quite vaguely sometimes (and as you may well know, fact checking websites tend to nitpick)


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Also the press generally lie all the time, I can't believe you're even defending them at this point.
Look at the Iraq war.
Look at claims about Brexit in the run up to the referendum (on both sides).
Look at the hilarious way they covered John McCain in this last couple of week in comparison to the 2008 election.
I'm sure some other posters can come up with even more examples of why you shouldn't trust the press!


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1037063912896643072

Some of these people are just deranged. Unless I'm missing something, I just assumed the international symbol for ok meant.... ok? :rockwut


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> He has been credible in the past and like I say, I will wait to see actual evidence but, right now it's nothing more than hearsay. There may be some truth in it, but I'm positive that he had an agenda to try to show the Trump administration in a bad light from day one. Oh come on, Omarosa leaked some tapes that didn't really tell us anything, then claimed a load of bs which she hasn't yet released. I'm still waiting. Where's the tape of Trump using the N-word, you'd think that would be released straight away, not Trump telling her that he didn't know she would be fired (which told us nothing.) There may be some truth in it, who doesn't think their boss is an idiot but where is the actual, tangible evidence? An author with a grudge against Trump who clearly didn't have full access to me is not, at this time, reliable. It is on the accuser to prove something, not the defendant to prove it is not true.


Here has been credible in the past so there is no reason to not believe what he said in this book. You are just making up excuses not to believe what he said. As for him having an agenda, where exactly did you get that from? 

Omarosa leaked some tapes that said exactly what she said happened that the Trump admin denied. But once again you are proving even with taped evidence you don't accept the truth. 

Do you really think Trump didn't use the N word? Be honest and don't dodge the question. 

There are numerous different articles on different people from the Trump admin that have said he is an idiot. You really don't think Trump is stupid? You think he is smart?




Hoolahoop33 said:


> The media was biased way before Trump started to attack them. Look at how they treated Bernie for example, that had nothing to do with Trump and yet the media showed a clear bias towards the establishment neo-liberal.



The media has been honest about Trump, it's not biased when what they say about him is true especially when they print exactly what Trump says and Trump claims he never said that, even though there are tweets of his or interviews of him saying it. Don't even try to compare Trump to Sanders lol Its not even remotely the same thing. 





Hoolahoop33 said:


> The op-ed is hard to believe because it's from the NY Times which has a clear bias. It is hard to believe because it is an anonymous source. It is hard to believe because the anonymous source in the biased publication, greatly benefits the agenda of the media in sowing discourse within the administration and the country as a whole.


its not hard to believe at all, when we have heard a lot of that stuff from different sources in the past. And how can you claim there isn't discourse within the administration? Are you even paying attention? How many people hae Trump fired or has left his admin? How many people does Trump attack in his own admin? How many times will the WH say one thing then Trump says the exact opposite. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Trump clearly isn't clueless, because he struck an accord with many Americans and how they were feeling. He managed to win the presidency despite being vastly outspent, having most media against him and being hit by scandal after scandal.


Trump is clueless when it comes to being president. The only reason he won is because he ran against someone less popular than him. we have been over this a million times. If he ran against Sanders, Sanders woudl have destroyed him. All the evidence and Trumps speeches how how clueless he is. 




Hoolahoop33 said:


> He probably does lie, such is the nature of politics (sadly), but he is at the same time extremely transparent in some ways (with often caustic results.) For example his criticism of NATO, Jeff Sessions etc, would normally be something behind closed doors. In that sense he is often quite open. Trump is really no worse than any other politician when it comes to lying, he just doesn't articulate himself well and talks quite vaguely sometimes (and as you may well know, fact checking websites tend to nitpick)


He probably does lie LOL Nothing Trump says is ever the truth. And yes Trump is open with his racism and ignorance and his racist base loves that because it means they can be open with it as well. 

Trump is a million times worse when it comes to lying than other politicians, it's not even close. Its a joke you would even claim that. Trump is just so dumb, he cants even be consistent with his lying. 

And Trump talks vaguely because he has no idea what he is talking about and just talks out of his ass.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Also the press generally lie all the time, I can't believe you're even defending them at this point.
> Look at the Iraq war.
> Look at claims about Brexit in the run up to the referendum (on both sides).
> Look at the hilarious way they covered John McCain in this last couple of week in comparison to the 2008 election.
> I'm sure some other posters can come up with even more examples of why you shouldn't trust the press!


well, fox news does generally lie all the time, it all depends on what news you are watching.

But try and keep on track here, if you are going to claim the media is lying about Trump all the time what lies are they telling about Trump


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

Bob Woodward has a credibility problem is not gonna be a hugely successful line of attack.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Here has been credible in the past so there is no reason to not believe what he said in this book. You are just making up excuses not to believe what he said. As for him having an agenda, where exactly did you get that from?
> 
> Omarosa leaked some tapes that said exactly what she said happened that the Trump admin denied. But once again you are proving even with taped evidence you don't accept the truth.
> 
> ...


You really need to teach me how to split the quotes up haha! Woodward himself has been relatively credible in the past, and I could be wrong. However, the issue is often that access journalism doesn't really show the reality of what is happening. This old article by the late Christopher Hitchens on Woodward was a good read https://www.salon.com/1996/07/01/woodward960701/ It's just my own personal observation from the phone conversation they had, Woodward was very standoffish with the president. Also does it not strike you as strange that he made such a half-hearted attempt to get access to the president. I feel like that would have given his book much more credibility. Seems as though the release date of the book is also quite convenient.

Omarosa has no credibility and her "leaks" were a joke. She revealed nothing of worth, and has proven nothing of worth. What did she leak that they denied? 

When have I ever dodged one of your questions? It depends on the context, but I would be very, very surprised if he had used it in a derogatory manner. (It's impossible to answer a question like that and be fully sure don't you think? Like I couldn't possibly know if you had ever used the term, though I'd assume not.) If he had done then obviously he'd be finished. Still waiting for that tape though...

The media is biased, it really really is. They misrepresent things all the time, and never have fair debate. I will stick on topic to Trump but it does go deeper than that. Maybe you can't see the comparison because you like one and hate the other, I quite like both so I see how the establishment have tried to damage them. Here is an opinion piece which I thought articulated things pretty well. http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/393553-the-media-just-cant-stop-lying-about-trump They lie about all sorts of stuff, from Russia, to Medicare4all anything to support their establishment and corporate agenda. Their is no journalistic integrity, where is the evidence? I guess it's not needed nowadays, when there are people who still don't think the mainstream media are biased! Give me a break! Just look at their hilarious sad reactions when Clinton lost and Trump won, then tell me they're impartial. 

It is indeed possible, but where is the actual proof? tangible, real evidence? If it were true, is it not quite worrying that there is a group of people in the administration, working to disrupt the agenda of the president. They are there to advise, if they don't like a policy and can't convince the president from going through with it, then they should just resign. How undemocratic is that situation? I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot you would be outraged. Another anonymous source, with an incredible story, no surprise there I guess. I didn't say that there isn't discord in the administration, most administrations have resignations etc, this one more than most perhaps, but it isn't aided by articles like this and the fact the entire establishment in DC it seems is against Trump (why would you want to side with them?)

Sanders may well have won. 

His supporters on the whole aren't racist though, they're ordinary hard working Americans who are suffering. I thought that's who liberals (not fake ones like we often see today) and thus the dems were supposed to care about, yet all I see are derogatory comments about their education or calling them racists. It's pretty sad really. Most people voted for Trump because they were sick of endless wars, sick of working in shitty unrewarding jobs and sick of the condescending attitude of the media/celebrities. Oh and being against mass, uncontrolled immigration, especially undocumented immigration doesn't make a person a racist. There are many reasons why that is a totally reasonable policy.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> well, fox news does generally lie all the time, it all depends on what news you are watching.
> 
> But try and keep on track here, if you are going to claim the media is lying about Trump all the time what lies are they telling about Trump


I don't watch Fox News. Generally I stick with the BBC, though they are by no means impartial. I also try to look at the actual evidence when I can. I actually used to go on the Fox News Facebook page and laugh at all their followers and their deluded comments. Now I go on CNN and do the same thing. Life's funny eh?


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

The US media being terrible isn't reason to support Trump when he's worse.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> You really need to teach me how to split the quotes up haha!


I split quotes the hard way. I just quote your post then take out everything in the quotes, so I just have the quote HTML and nothing inside, then copy and paste the part I want to quote into it each time. I just keep the blank HTML in word/notepad 




Hoolahoop33 said:


> Woodward himself has been relatively credible in the past, and I could be wrong. However, the issue is often that access journalism doesn't really show the reality of what is happening. This old article by the late Christopher Hitchens on Woodward was a good read https://www.salon.com/1996/07/01/woodward960701/ It's just my own personal observation from the phone conversation they had, Woodward was very standoffish with the president. Also does it not strike you as strange that he made such a half-hearted attempt to get access to the president. I feel like that would have given his book much more credibility. Seems as though the release date of the book is also quite convenient.


You admit that he has been credible in the past, so there is no reason to doubt what he says in this book now. Whereas like I said the WH and Trump lie over and over again. It's pretty easy to figure out who to believe on this issue. Woodward did what he could with the access he was given. if he tried to push hard to get time with the President over and over after being rejected they could have taken away his access. You are not basing not believing him on anything substantive. 




Hoolahoop33 said:


> Omarosa has no credibility and her "leaks" were a joke. She revealed nothing of worth, and has proven nothing of worth. What did she leak that they denied?


So far, when it comes to what she has on tape, she has been spot on. I agree she isn't very credible overall, that is why anything she says, I would take with a grain of salt, unless she can back it up on tape. 

As for what was denied so far that Omarosa had on tape, well for one about the WH staff discussing what to do if the tape leaks with Trump using the N-word, and that Trump staffer (her name escapes me, but i posted about it a few pages back) saying that phone call never happened, then Omarosa produced the tape where they did discuss it.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> When have I ever dodged one of your questions? It depends on the context, but I would be very, very surprised if he had used it in a derogatory manner. (It's impossible to answer a question like that and be fully sure don't you think? Like I couldn't possibly know if you had ever used the term, though I'd assume not.) If he had done then obviously he'd be finished. Still waiting for that tape though...


How would you be surprised that Trump used the N-word after all the racist stuff Trump has said and a number of people who have said they have heard Trump use it. You are really going to claim it would surprise you if a tape came out of him using the word more than wouldn't be suprised?




Hoolahoop33 said:


> The media is biased, it really really is. They misrepresent things all the time, and never have fair debate. I will stick on topic to Trump but it does go deeper than that. Maybe you can't see the comparison because you like one and hate the other, I quite like both so I see how the establishment have tried to damage them. Here is an opinion piece which I thought articulated things pretty well. http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/393553-the-media-just-cant-stop-lying-about-trump They lie about all sorts of stuff, from Russia, to Medicare4all anything to support their establishment and corporate agenda. Their is no journalistic integrity, where is the evidence? I guess it's not needed nowadays, when there are people who still don't think the mainstream media are biased! Give me a break! Just look at their hilarious sad reactions when Clinton lost and Trump won, then tell me they're impartial.


the media is biased to which way they lean for sure, like how fox is right leaning and CNN is left leaning, but you act like the media makes up things about Trump which they don't do. As for your link, that is an opinion piece. Also Trump contracts himself all the time. Just take the whole Iraq war thing. Trump first said he was for the Iraq war, then later after it was a disaster he said he was against it.

So if someone says Trump was for the Iraq war but another person plays an interview of Trump talking against it, are you going to claim the media is lying about Trump? For almost everything Trump claims now, you can usually find a tweet or interview where he says the exact opposite before.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> t is indeed possible, but where is the actual proof? tangible, real evidence? If it were true, is it not quite worrying that there is a group of people in the administration, working to disrupt the agenda of the president. They are there to advise, if they don't like a policy and can't convince the president from going through with it, then they should just resign. How undemocratic is that situation? I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot you would be outraged. Another anonymous source, with an incredible story, no surprise there I guess. I didn't say that there isn't discord in the administration, most administrations have resignations etc, this one more than most perhaps, but it isn't aided by articles like this and the fact the entire establishment in DC it seems is against Trump (why would you want to side with them?)


You do understand what they are talking about when they say they are trying to to disrupt the agenda of the president right? They are talking about when Trump wants to do things that is against democracy, or like oh go kill those bad guys, they have to make sure he does not do those things. Did you read the whole ad op? It goes into that a bit, if you have not, read the whole thing , you make look at it differently.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Sanders may well have won.
> 
> His supporters on the whole aren't racist though, they're ordinary hard working Americans who are suffering. I thought that's who liberals (not fake ones like we often see today) and thus the dems were supposed to care about, yet all I see are derogatory comments about their education or calling them racists. It's pretty sad really. Most people voted for Trump because they were sick of endless wars, sick of working in shitty unrewarding jobs and sick of the condescending attitude of the media/celebrities. Oh and being against mass, uncontrolled immigration, especially undocumented immigration doesn't make a person a racist. There are many reasons why that is a totally reasonable policy


Sanders would have easily beat Trump and Sanders would have embarrassed Trump in the debates showing how dumb Trump is. 

A huge number of Trump supporters are totally racist. You really can't deny that. If people voted for Trump were sick of the condescending attitude of the media/celebrities why did they vote for a condescending celebrity. 

Trump is a racist because he and his admin go after US citizens on the border and claim they are illegal just because of their skin color. Trump thinks anyone that is brown is an illegal, that is why he is a racist.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The US media being terrible isn't reason to support Trump when he's worse.


Well, Trump as President is temporary, but the media is permanent.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...progress-on-denuclearization-north-korea-says



> Kim Jong Un said he’s open to accepting “stronger” denuclearization measures if the U.S. takes steps that acknowledge measures he’s already taken to suspend weapons testing, according to South Korean officials who met the North Korean leader in Pyongyang.
> 
> Kim “expressed strong willingness that he can take even stronger measures for North Korea’s denuclearization, if there is reciprocation to the North’s earlier measures,” South Korean National Security Office head Chung Eui-yong told reporters Thursday in Seoul after returning from Pyongyang. Kim stressed the need for a declaration to formally end the Korean War, and said that such a step wouldn’t require the withdrawal of U.S. troops, Chung said.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It's kind of odd that Trump and Sarah Sanders seem to be hedging their bets on the anonymous NYT op-ed being real. They're leaving a little wiggle room in their denials. I mean it is anonymous so it would be simpler to just call it a straight hoax. The way they're responding seems to keep the story going instead of trying to put it to bed.

"Treason?"

"Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source?* If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!*"

"Probably who's failing and here for all the wrong reasons"

"The coward should do the right thing and resign"


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037464177269514240

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037485664433070080

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037455032533364737

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037452576533434373


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...progress-on-denuclearization-north-korea-says


Didn't Trump already claim credit for saying NK agreed to denuclearize LOL Just another Trump lie when he didn't do anything at all,


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> It's kind of odd that Trump and Sarah Sanders seem to be hedging their bets on the anonymous NYT op-ed being real. They're leaving a little wiggle room in their denials. I mean it is anonymous so it would be simpler to just call it a straight hoax. The way they're responding seems to keep the story going instead of trying to put it to bed.
> 
> "Treason?"
> 
> ...


They know its true that is why they are not fullying denying it. Plus how could it be "TREASON" if it was just made up. Trump knows its true because everything in the op-ed is true.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...progress-on-denuclearization-north-korea-says


Does all this say basically that Kim says he's broken some weapons already and he wants US to openly acknowledge that and send him some apple pie, and if it's nice pie he'll play better with South Korea, but the US is unsure he's done anything so no pie has been sent yet?

I'm just not 100% on this message as I'm late on my Scott Adams' subscription payments and don't have his analysis.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/realD1037664539284844545


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I split quotes the hard way. I just quote your post then take out everything in the quotes, so I just have the quote HTML and nothing inside, then copy and paste the part I want to quote into it each time. I just keep the blank HTML in word/notepad


I'll give it a go, please forgive me if I fail massively though :laugh:



birthday_massacre said:


> You admit that he has been credible in the past, so there is no reason to doubt what he says in this book now. Whereas like I said the WH and Trump lie over and over again. It's pretty easy to figure out who to believe on this issue. Woodward did what he could with the access he was given. if he tried to push hard to get time with the President over and over after being rejected they could have taken away his access. You are not basing not believing him on anything substantive.


He's certainly more credible than other sources which have come forward in the past, that's for sure. However, as I say access journalism can be a bit dodgy. For example, if you didn't get on with John Kelly you might say he called the President an idiot for example, possibly hoping to place Kelly in a bad light or even get him fired. It may be all true, but it's just very hard to tell, as at the end of the day you're just taking peoples words for it. On the other hand it may be totally accurate, it's just worth taking with a pinch of salt that's all. Nah, come on it's his literal job. He knows that the book really requires an interview with/ access to the President, since his administration is the topic of the book. In his others he had access so it is just a bit strange.




birthday_massacre said:


> So far, when it comes to what she has on tape, she has been spot on. I agree she isn't very credible overall, that is why anything she says, I would take with a grain of salt, unless she can back it up on tape.
> 
> As for what was denied so far that Omarosa had on tape, well for one about the WH staff discussing what to do if the tape leaks with Trump using the N-word, and that Trump staffer (her name escapes me, but i posted about it a few pages back) saying that phone call never happened, then Omarosa produced the tape where they did discuss it.


Yeah, but the issue is that her proving some irrelevant things on tape, doesn't really prove what she hasn't yet produced. Ah yes I do vaguely remember that, thanks for reminding me. That's pretty funny really :laugh: I guess it's their jobs to speculate and fix things which might possibly occur (and as I say, you can't really guarantee what someone may/ may not have said.) 




birthday_massacre said:


> How would you be surprised that Trump used the N-word after all the racist stuff Trump has said and a number of people who have said they have heard Trump use it. You are really going to claim it would surprise you if a tape came out of him using the word more than wouldn't be suprised?


I would genuinely be surprised. I don't think he is racist, and I wouldn't support him in any way if I thought he were. 



birthday_massacre said:


> the media is biased to which way they lean for sure, like how fox is right leaning and CNN is left leaning, but you act like the media makes up things about Trump which they don't do. As for your link, that is an opinion piece. Also Trump contracts himself all the time. Just take the whole Iraq war thing. Trump first said he was for the Iraq war, then later after it was a disaster he said he was against it.


But shouldn't the media be as unbiased as possible? Maybe I'm deluded, it just really annoys me whenever I see a clearly biased article, on either side. They don't usually make thing up, though they do sometimes https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/08/cnn-trump-error-journalism-287914 Most of the time, it's just they manipulate things that happened, and present them as something that they aren't. A good example is the article I posted a few days ago https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...sian-twist-us-president-drawing-children-ohio So Trump did actually colour an American flag with a red stripe and a blue stripe. That's a fact. But the context was he was colouring with some young children. What's more likely that he doesn't know the colours of the flag, even though he wears a USA pin every single day, or that he asked a kid what colour to do or something along those lines? They painted it as if he actually didn't know, which is pretty wrong. Then they made some connection to Russia. If anything the flag represents the Netherlands, it's just pretty gross how the situation has been manipulated, and it happens quite a lot. 



birthday_massacre said:


> So if someone says Trump was for the Iraq war but another person plays an interview of Trump talking against it, are you going to claim the media is lying about Trump? For almost everything Trump claims now, you can usually find a tweet or interview where he says the exact opposite before.


He does flip-flop on issues quite a bit I won't deny that! On the Iraq War though, the difference between him and say Clinton on this issue is that Trump was a private citizen and so didn't have access to intelligence reports etc. So I think he can be forgiven on that one, especially since he did go against it fairly early on. 



birthday_massacre said:


> You do understand what they are talking about when they say they are trying to to disrupt the agenda of the president right? They are talking about when Trump wants to do things that is against democracy, or like oh go kill those bad guys, they have to make sure he does not do those things. Did you read the whole ad op? It goes into that a bit, if you have not, read the whole thing , you make look at it differently.


Yeah, I understand what they are saying. The thing is, if it is real, which it may not be given the journalistic standards of the paper in question, then the aide is not in the right. Trump is president, and this person works for him. He is allowed to disagree with Trump. If he is doing things that the aide believes is undemocratic and can't stop him from doing those things, then he should resign. By remaining in the administration and 'resisting' they are actually working against the will of the people. They aren't elected, but Trump was, even if you disagree with what he is doing, as long as it isn't illegal, he has more of a mandate than this aide will ever have. I have seen posts calling him brave, if he were brave he would resign and blow the whistle if he thinks there are things awry. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Sanders would have easily beat Trump and Sanders would have embarrassed Trump in the debates showing how dumb Trump is.
> 
> A huge number of Trump supporters are totally racist. You really can't deny that. If people voted for Trump were sick of the condescending attitude of the media/celebrities why did they vote for a condescending celebrity.
> 
> Trump is a racist because he and his admin go after US citizens on the border and claim they are illegal just because of their skin color. Trump thinks anyone that is brown is an illegal, that is why he is a racist.


Maybe, but you'd also think he would beat Clinton, even despite the media bias against him. Out of interest who do you think/ would you like to represent the democrats in 2020? 

Is it not a fact that there are many illegal immigrants in the United States? Not because they are 'brown', but literally because they don't have the documents to be in the country legally. A immigration based on merit is the fairest system don't you think. I'm sure there are some, I have no doubt, but I also imagine there are a lot fewer than you think. In my experience most conservatives treat people as equals no matter their skin colour, but don't necessarily believe in affirmative action etc. Maybe your experience is different, if so I'm sorry. Touche on the celebrity thing hahaha, but I think you know what I mean.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> He's certainly more credible than other sources which have come forward in the past, that's for sure. However, as I say access journalism can be a bit dodgy. For example, if you didn't get on with John Kelly you might say he called the President an idiot for example, possibly hoping to place Kelly in a bad light or even get him fired. It may be all true, but it's just very hard to tell, as at the end of the day you're just taking peoples words for it. On the other hand it may be totally accurate, it's just worth taking with a pinch of salt that's all. Nah, come on it's his literal job. He knows that the book really requires an interview with/ access to the President, since his administration is the topic of the book. In his others he had access so it is just a bit strange.


When you are someone like Woodward, with his rep. you don't just print something in a book unless you know it to be true to be best of your knowledge. Someone like him won't just print something, he is not so should about. That is why he is so credible. So keep that in mind when it comes to the things he put in his book. It's also not really that hard to tell, because the more Trump tweets about something, the more you know it's probably true. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Yeah, but the issue is that her proving some irrelevant things on tape, doesn't really prove what she hasn't yet produced. Ah yes I do vaguely remember that, thanks for reminding me. That's pretty funny really I guess it's their jobs to speculate and fix things which might possibly occur (and as I say, you can't really guarantee what someone may/ may not have said.)


That is why I said when it comes to her, take what she says with a grain of salt until she produces the tape. But so far, when it comes to the things she claims she has on tape, she has had them. That being said, with her, I would still want to hear the actual tape before I believe anything she claims 100% since she is not credible, unlike Woodward who has been credible for his whole career.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I would genuinely be surprised. I don't think he is racist, and I wouldn't support him in any way if I thought he were.


With all the stuff Trump has did and said, not sure how you still don't think he is racist. How did the some of the white nationalists are good people did not give it away for you? Or how he refused to rent to black tenets back in like the 80s, something he got fined for. or his constant calling some non-white Americans illegals, like Obama for example. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> But shouldn't the media be as unbiased as possible? Maybe I'm deluded, it just really annoys me whenever I see a clearly biased article, on either side. They don't usually make thing up, though they do sometimes https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...rnalism-287914 Most of the time, it's just they manipulate things that happened, and present them as something that they aren't. A good example is the article I posted a few days ago https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-children-ohio So Trump did actually colour an American flag with a red stripe and a blue stripe. That's a fact. But the context was he was colouring with some young children. What's more likely that he doesn't know the colours of the flag, even though he wears a USA pin every single day, or that he asked a kid what colour to do or something along those lines? They painted it as if he actually didn't know, which is pretty wrong. Then they made some connection to Russia. If anything the flag represents the Netherlands, it's just pretty gross how the situation has been manipulated, and it happens quite a lot.


The medai should be truth tellers. Even them being "unbaised" is a bad thing. Them being unbiased in certain situations is a bad thing. Like when someone claims something and they know its wrong but won't call them out because they don't want to be viewed as biased for correcting someone that is wrong if it happens to be the same side all the time.

it's more likely Trump is mentally ill and did not know the colors of the flag. Even all those kids knew the colors of the flag, they all got it right but Trump. You cant seriously think some kid told Trump to make it blue. Come on dude.

Also the connection to Russia thing was a joke to poke fun at Trump and his connections to Russia. You didnt really take those comments about that seriously did you. It was people being sarcastic





Hoolahoop33 said:


> e does flip-flop on issues quite a bit I won't deny that! On the Iraq War though, the difference between him and say Clinton on this issue is that Trump was a private citizen and so didn't have access to intelligence reports etc. So I think he can be forgiven on that one, especially since he did go against it fairly early on.


I didn't have ave access to intelligence reports and I knew going into Iraq back then was a bad idea. It has nothing to do with that. it has Trump lying about it. If he said, well back then I didn't have all the info, but once I got it, i changed my mind, but he does not do that. he just pretends he never said it. See the difference?



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Yeah, I understand what they are saying. The thing is, if it is real, which it may not be given the journalistic standards of the paper in question, then the aide is not in the right. Trump is president, and this person works for him. He is allowed to disagree with Trump. If he is doing things that the aide believes is undemocratic and can't stop him from doing those things, then he should resign. By remaining in the administration and 'resisting' they are actually working against the will of the people. They aren't elected, but Trump was, even if you disagree with what he is doing, as long as it isn't illegal, he has more of a mandate than this aide will ever have. I have seen posts calling him brave, if he were brave he would resign and blow the whistle if he thinks there are things awry.


That is where you have it wrong. They don't work for the president to do his bidding, they work for the US people and to uphold the constitution and democracy. If Trump tries to get them to go against those things, they don't have to. And no if they are trying to stop Trump for doing those things, they are protecting the will of the people. That is the thing you are not getting. Trump is tryinfg to do things that are illega or again aginst democracy that is why they are against those things. 

If it was just a policy thing, then yes you are right they should just quit but it goes far beyond that, and that article speaks to that. Like I said, if you have not read the whole op-ed, please do so, you will come around to my side on this most likely.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Maybe, but you'd also think he would beat Clinton, even despite the media bias against him. Out of interest who do you think/ would you like to represent the democrats in 2020?
> 
> Is it not a fact that there are many illegal immigrants in the United States? Not because they are 'brown', but literally because they don't have the documents to be in the country legally. A immigration based on merit is the fairest system don't you think. I'm sure there are some, I have no doubt, but I also imagine there are a lot fewer than you think. In my experience most conservatives treat people as equals no matter their skin colour, but don't necessarily believe in affirmative action etc. Maybe your experience is different, if so I'm sorry. Touche on the celebrity thing hahaha, but I think you know what I mean.


The general election is different than the primary. If the DNC didnt screw over Sanders he would have beaten Hillary. I won't rehash all of that again.

As for who is going to represent the democrats in 2020, it will probably be Bernie Sanders. Could also be Liz Warren as well. A ticket of Bernie and Warren would be great. or even Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard.

LOL at you thinking most conservatives treat people as equals no matter their skin color, you can't honestly believe that, come on dude. I am talking about the party as a whole, not the few you may know personally

Because its pretty much a fact, if you see someone that is a racist, it's a good chance they are conservative. 

Also it does not matter how many illegals there are in the country, Trump and his admin are treating Hispanic people near the people that are US citizens like they are illegals and detaining them and denying them passports.

Bur sure Trump and conservatives aren't racist right?


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

liberals are the most racist people in the world. they promote white genocide.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So apparently, a video about journalists getting restricted in Myanmar got restricted on Youtube. 










And Defranco of all people too .. one of the most objective people I've come across on youtube in years.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> So apparently, a video about journalists getting restricted in Myanmar got restricted on Youtube.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They fuck with him a lot, striking him, demonetization etc.

YouTube has gone after lots of channels for covering the News while leaving alone CNN, FOX and other major news organizations channels.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> They fuck with him a lot, striking him, demonetization etc.
> 
> YouTube has gone after lots of channels for covering the News while leaving alone CNN, FOX and other major news organizations channels.


That is why a lot of the bigger streamers and content creators have left youtube.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> liberals


Define 'liberals'



IndyTaker said:


> are the most racist people in the world.


Define 'racist'

Also the MOST racist? You can't come up with more racist people than 'all liberals'?



IndyTaker said:


> they


All of them?



IndyTaker said:


> promote white genocide.


Define white genocide

Like, literally the mass slaughter of white people and their removal from the whole planet? How do you think 'liberals' want to achieve this mass slaughter? Is this a cross-governmental thing? How is this going to be funded? 

Because that's just absurd.

You know you can disagree with group of people without them being evil, don't you?

Statements like this, whether intended as some kind of parody or shitposting or not, are the reason why the standard of discourse is in the state its in today.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

ipickthiswhiterose there is a reason why I put him on ignore lol Good to see from you quoting him, its confirming I made the right call


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is why a lot of the bigger streamers and content creators have left youtube.


I hope that Patreon using its money literally starts a streaming service like YouTube. They could BURY them if they did. The vast majority of content creators now have Patreon anyways, so integration would be painless and they will all gladly move over.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I hope that Patreon using its money literally starts a streaming service like YouTube. They could BURY them if they did. The vast majority of content creators now have Patreon anyways, so integration would be painless and they will all gladly move over.


A lot of them are going to twitch and mixer. both are way better than youtube , at least for live streaming. Youtube is still better just for videos.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> A lot of them are going to twitch and mixer. both are way better than youtube , at least for live streaming. Youtube is still better just for videos.


I don't like Twitch because Twitch is pretty much chaturbate-lite and it's niche. 

Youtube is killing itself though. I will be surprised if it survives the next 5 or so years unless they change their ridiculous policies.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Define 'liberals'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are really naive and crazy.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I don't like Twitch because Twitch is pretty much chaturbate-lite and it's niche.
> 
> Youtube is killing itself though. I will be surprised if it survives the next 5 or so years unless they change their ridiculous policies.


Twitch is getting rid of the boob streamers, they made new rules

There are a lot of good streamers on youtube that dont do that stuff. Kitboga is one of the biggest ones and he is hilarious. He prank calls scammers.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> You are really naive and crazy.


Wow.

Really took my argument to pieces there.

Seriously though, what's a 'liberal'? In your words. Just tell me what you think a 'liberal' is.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Wow.
> 
> Really took my argument to pieces there.
> 
> Seriously though, what's a 'liberal'? In your words. Just tell me what you think a 'liberal' is.


You don't know what a modern liberal is? You're obviously not intellectual enough to debate.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

There's always one nut job that takes the place of the last banned one.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

what do conseratives think about Bernies plan that would tax Amazon, Walmart and other big companies whose workers collect public assistance instead of tax payers?

Basically saying if any of their workers don't make enough money and they need to collect welfare the company will have to pay for those benefits and not tax payers? It will never pass, i am more curious about if you think its a good idea.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/te...-sanders-amazon-walmart-worker-pay/index.html


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> You don't know what a modern liberal is? You're obviously not intellectual enough to debate.


I know what my working definition of a liberal is

I know what the general parameters of how the word 'liberal' gets defined online. These vary wildly. I want to know what yours is. Especially seeing as you seem to think they advocate for white genocide. As a white person I want to know who to be worried about. 

I'm not asking for a debate. Not initially anyway. I want you to be clear about what you said seeing as it is a spectacularly aggressive and alarmist assertion that doesn't seem to be backed up by even the slightest amount of evidence.

What's your definition of a liberal?


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ipickthiswhiterose said:


> I know what my working definition of a liberal is
> 
> I know what the general parameters of how the word 'liberal' gets defined online. These vary wildly. I want to know what yours is. Especially seeing as you seem to think they advocate for white genocide. As a white person I want to know who to be worried about.
> 
> ...


If you vote left wing


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> If you vote left wing


Ok so to me Left Wing means, more than anything else, the prioritisation of collective worker's rights being enshrined strongly in law. A robust social structure that includes at the very least a nationally funded armed forces, police, education, arts programme and healthcare system alongside some form of significant welfare programme. It means businesses are regulated, if in no other area, to prevent worker exploitation both at home and abroad and to prevent deliberate acts of collusion/market manipulation. Voting left wing means committing to generally higher taxes on the whole, for generally more investment into state structures on the whole.

These policies I would say would be the base level of voting left wing, or at least policies that move in this direction if I'm being generous. 


Can you inform me how this promotes white genocide?


(Or alternatively how this definition of 'left wing' is wrong. Bearing in mind that I identify as left wing and this is my rough casual working definition.)


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> When you are someone like Woodward, with his rep. you don't just print something in a book unless you know it to be true to be best of your knowledge. Someone like him won't just print something, he is not so should about. That is why he is so credible. So keep that in mind when it comes to the things he put in his book. It's also not really that hard to tell, because the more Trump tweets about something, the more you know it's probably true.


I'm sure that he didn't just make it all up, but it would be very hard for him to have verified anything beyond just taking someone's word for it. As I have conceded already though it may all be true, there's just no way of telling yet (in my opinion.)



birthday_massacre said:


> That is why I said when it comes to her, take what she says with a grain of salt until she produces the tape. But so far, when it comes to the things she claims she has on tape, she has had them. That being said, with her, I would still want to hear the actual tape before I believe anything she claims 100% since she is not credible, unlike Woodward who has been credible for his whole career.


I think we agree 100% on this one then, just in my opinion she hasn't really shown anything of substance yet, which makes me question whether she ever will. 



birthday_massacre said:


> With all the stuff Trump has did and said, not sure how you still don't think he is racist. How did the some of the white nationalists are good people did not give it away for you? Or how he refused to rent to black tenets back in like the 80s, something he got fined for. or his constant calling some non-white Americans illegals, like Obama for example.


I could be misremembering the whole thing, but I do believe that the initial march was about the flying of the confederate flag etc. I too would wager that not all the people marching in that were horrible racists, just southerners that are proud of their history (maybe they shouldn't but it doesn't make them racist to do so.) Obviously the whole event was hijacked by a load of disgusting racists and antifa, so it's hard not to remember the event as just that, a white nationalist march. See how few turned up for the march this year! He also won an award in the 80's alongside Rosa Parks and Mohammad Ali for diversity https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-received-ellis-island-award-in-1986/ Yeah, the whole birther movement was highly embarassing. Like I say I used to go Fox News pages to laugh at those kind of people. It wasn't inherently racist (though there was a tinge maybe from some people) but it was more a conspiracy theory which sought to undermine the legitimacy of Obama. The fact that Obama had one obviously foreign parent clearly didn't help the matter.



birthday_massacre said:


> The medai should be truth tellers. Even them being "unbaised" is a bad thing. Them being unbiased in certain situations is a bad thing. Like when someone claims something and they know its wrong but won't call them out because they don't want to be viewed as biased for correcting someone that is wrong if it happens to be the same side all the time.


Yeah I see your point, there's nothing wrong with holding the administration to account, or anyone for that matter. But you also have to do the same for the other side, that's the difference. I'm not asking them to not challenge Trump, because that's their job, but they don't need to lie or manipulate anything he says, and they also should be prepared to challenge the other side when they act up. For example, how do you think the press would have done if say, Trump had received the questions to the primary debates in the same way Hillary did? They would hammer him for it.



birthday_massacre said:


> it's more likely Trump is mentally ill and did not know the colors of the flag. Even all those kids knew the colors of the flag, they all got it right but Trump. You cant seriously think some kid told Trump to make it blue. Come on dude.
> 
> Also the connection to Russia thing was a joke to poke fun at Trump and his connections to Russia. You didnt really take those comments about that seriously did you. It was people being sarcastic


That seems much more realistic to me. There's being dumb or mentally ill, and then there's being literally mentally disabled. He was literally wearing the pin lol! Even you must think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's that dumb. It might be a joke, but it's in the title which is a bit dangerous especially considering that its not even the flag of Russia at all, so a pretty lazy, bad joke. Now what would have been funny, was if they had linked the video 'America First, Netherlands Second' :laugh:



birthday_massacre said:


> I didn't have ave access to intelligence reports and I knew going into Iraq back then was a bad idea. It has nothing to do with that. it has Trump lying about it. If he said, well back then I didn't have all the info, but once I got it, i changed my mind, but he does not do that. he just pretends he never said it. See the difference?


I was about 7 so I didn't have much of an opinion on it haha! I'd like to think I'd be against it though. He did say, in one of the debates I believe, that he was initially supportive of the war, but had changed his mind and debated the issue against Sean Hannity (then he went on a rant about how nobody calls Sean Hannity if you remember) so I'm not sure it's fair to pretend that he never admitted it. He was a private citizen though, which I think is important on that issue!



birthday_massacre said:


> That is where you have it wrong. They don't work for the president to do his bidding, they work for the US people and to uphold the constitution and democracy. If Trump tries to get them to go against those things, they don't have to. And no if they are trying to stop Trump for doing those things, they are protecting the will of the people. That is the thing you are not getting. Trump is tryinfg to do things that are illega or again aginst democracy that is why they are against those things.
> 
> If it was just a policy thing, then yes you are right they should just quit but it goes far beyond that, and that article speaks to that. Like I said, if you have not read the whole op-ed, please do so, you will come around to my side on this most likely.


I just read the entire op-ed (I hope that's appreciated :x ) It was more insightful obviously than the snippets I had seen on the news up to now. The thing is in the campaign Trump ran on having a better relationship with Russia and making sure NATO countries pay their fair share. You might not agree with that, and I personally, though not advocating for war by any means, do not think Russia deserves better relations at this time. However, he does have a mandate and so some faceless bureaucrat going against that isn't working on behalf of the American people at all, they just think they are. It's ok to try to coax the president into making what they view as the correct approach, and that's what they should continue to do, and it seems that is what they claim has been happening. Going to the press and calling yourself the resistance is pretty lame though,as is claiming you are protecting the country (massive hyperbole) and democracy, when you're a bureaucrat. I still can't help but think that it's fake though. 



birthday_massacre said:


> The general election is different than the primary. If the DNC didnt screw over Sanders he would have beaten Hillary. I won't rehash all of that again.
> 
> As for who is going to represent the democrats in 2020, it will probably be Bernie Sanders. Could also be Liz Warren as well. A ticket of Bernie and Warren would be great. or even Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard.


Yeah you could well be right. I still can't believe that happened and nobody has faced any consequences for it, quite sad really. I would like to see Bernie in 2020, he will be quite old by then though obviously. I think a genuine progressive like him probably would have the best chance of winning. If someone who's only policy is 'f Trump, vote for us because we're not him' like last time, then the result would perhaps be the same. I can't help but think Kamela Harris might run.



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you thinking most conservatives treat people as equals no matter their skin color, you can't honestly believe that, come on dude. I am talking about the party as a whole, not the few you may know personally
> 
> Because its pretty much a fact, if you see someone that is a racist, it's a good chance they are conservative.


I have never actually been to America so perhaps I'm not the right person to weigh in on this topic though. In my experience though, the left attach a lot more importance to skin colour than conservatives. That's not to say they're racists obviously, just that most conservatives don't seem to care. You're probably right in that most genuine racists are probably 'conservative.'



birthday_massacre said:


> Also it does not matter how many illegals there are in the country, Trump and his admin are treating Hispanic people near the people that are US citizens like they are illegals and detaining them and denying them passports.
> 
> Bur sure Trump and conservatives aren't racist right?


Obviously it's a disgrace if Hispanic US citizens are being treated in that way and I hope that isn't true on a large scale. I'm sure there are isolated cases, but the administration has been clear that it's against illegal immigration/sanctuary cities etc, rather than it being anything to do with race. You shouldn't be so fast to tar all conservatives with the same brush. Most people generally are good and kind people, they may just have different opinions to you!


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> That's always one nut job that takes the place of the last banned one.


Or one of the banned ones takes the time off to re-evaluate his ideologies and comes back a changed man


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Ok so to me Left Wing means, more than anything else, the prioritisation of collective worker's rights being enshrined strongly in law. A robust social structure that includes at the very least a nationally funded armed forces, police, education, arts programme and healthcare system alongside some form of significant welfare programme. It means businesses are regulated, if in no other area, to prevent worker exploitation both at home and abroad and to prevent deliberate acts of collusion/market manipulation. Voting left wing means committing to generally higher taxes on the whole, for generally more investment into state structures on the whole.
> 
> These policies I would say would be the base level of voting left wing, or at least policies that move in this direction if I'm being generous.
> 
> ...


Left wing parties constantly promote diversity in white countries while no other countries are expected to take in millions of "refugees" who are really economic migrants looking for a handout.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> Left wing parties constantly promote diversity in white countries while no other countries are expected to take in millions of "refugees" who are really economic migrants looking for a handout.


1. Even if I were to accept that all this was true, what you describe here isn't white genocide. Or even vaguely close. Remotely. 

2. Your assertion here seems to imply that the only left-wing movements in existence are in white-majority countries. Which is so self-evidently ridiculous it doesn't merit answering. 

3. You make no link really between my definition of left wing and white genocide. You simply speak generally of 'current left wing parties'.

-----(I could stop here, since that is enough to refute your initial preposterous bold assertive statement, but let's carry on for now)--------------------------------

4. What's a white country? People ethnically from the United States, the country it seems you live in (I may be wrong) aren't white. 

5. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are all countries that have taken in far more refugees than any white-majority country. As they are expected to. The reason the most obvious countries that are best equipped (Saudi Arabia and UAE) to take in these refugees aren't under more pressure is because of multinational corporate interests, not 'liberals'. A genuine left-wing regime would prioritise the reduction of reliance on countries like this over the corporate interests that assure their continued barbarity. Regimes that don't have this priority have little claim to actually being left wing. 

6. The country that has taken the most refugees in terms of white-majority countries in recent years is Germany, which has a government that on the basis of the standard left-right definition is Centrist at best, leaning towards Centre-Right.

7. What a vague and woolly term "actively promote diversity' is. Good or bad, loads of institutions - including multinational corporations - do this, not just left wing governments. 

8. What is it about the different type of white cultures that make them more similar to each other than any non-white cultures? My country is made up of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Romanies among others, all of whom fall within the bracket of white. Are they the same kind of whiteness?

9. I would suggest that your simplistic notion that all refugees are the same people with the same motivation is rather inaccurate, and ponder whether you are aware of what the general life of a refugee in a western country is like, and if you have ever spent time establishing with them what their motivations are, to speak so confidently and broadly about their states of mind.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I'm sure that he didn't just make it all up, but it would be very hard for him to have verified anything beyond just taking someone's word for it. As I have conceded already though it may all be true, there's just no way of telling yet (in my opinion.)



it's not very hard at all, that is his job and what he is good at. Not to mention he was there around a lot of it and heard them all talking to each other about Trump. Also, that ad-op falls inline with a lot about what he had in his book. 





Hoolahoop33 said:


> I could be misremembering the whole thing, but I do believe that the initial march was about the flying of the confederate flag etc. I too would wager that not all the people marching in that were horrible racists, just southerners that are proud of their history (maybe they shouldn't but it doesn't make them racist to do so.) Obviously the whole event was hijacked by a load of disgusting racists and antifa, so it's hard not to remember the event as just that, a white nationalist march. See how few turned up for the march this year! He also won an award in the 80's alongside Rosa Parks and Mohammad Ali for diversity https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tr...award-in-1986/ Yeah, the whole birther movement was highly embarassing. Like I say I used to go Fox News pages to laugh at those kind of people. It wasn't inherently racist (though there was a tinge maybe from some people) but it was more a conspiracy theory which sought to undermine the legitimacy of Obama. The fact that Obama had one obviously foreign parent clearly didn't help the matter.



If you are for the Confederate flag, you are for racism. The Confederate flag was all about being able to keep slaves. If you don't know that (meaning the people marching) they should know what they are marching for. Awards like that are meaningless and it still does not change the fact Trump was fined for discriminating against black people when he would not rent to them in the 70s not to mention all the racist things he has said and done since then. Here is a list that vox put together https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history Not sure how anyone can deny Trump is a racist. The cenrel park five statement by Trump is all you really need. 






Hoolahoop33 said:


> Yeah I see your point, there's nothing wrong with holding the administration to account, or anyone for that matter. But you also have to do the same for the other side, that's the difference. I'm not asking them to not challenge Trump, because that's their job, but they don't need to lie or manipulate anything he says, and they also should be prepared to challenge the other side when they act up. For example, how do you think the press would have done if say, Trump had received the questions to the primary debates in the same way Hillary did? They would hammer him for it.



No one lies more than Trump. You do agree with that right? The WH has to lie all the time to cover for Trump because he is a disaster. That is why their stories change all the time. 

As for holding the other side accountable, the real liberals how the corporate democrats accountable all the time. I destroyed Hilary and Donna Brazile for what they did. Also look at online news like TYT, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kunliski and David Pakman they all hold the corp. democrats to the shit they pull. 




Hoolahoop33 said:


> That seems much more realistic to me. There's being dumb or mentally ill, and then there's being literally mentally disabled. He was literally wearing the pin lol! Even you must think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's that dumb. It might be a joke, but it's in the title which is a bit dangerous especially considering that its not even the flag of Russia at all, so a pretty lazy, bad joke. Now what would have been funny, was if they had linked the video 'America First, Netherlands Second'


I think Trump is that dumb. Just listen to him talk. You think he is smart? If you really want to see how dumb he is, read the text of his speeches, you will see how much worse it really is. He is dumber than GW and that is saying a lot. Trump didn't even know Isreal was in the middle east. Any middle school kid knows that. Trump didn't even know that he was the President of the US Virgin Islands. He is that dumb, how you can not see it?



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I was about 7 so I didn't have much of an opinion on it haha! I'd like to think I'd be against it though. He did say, in one of the debates I believe, that he was initially supportive of the war, but had changed his mind and debated the issue against Sean Hannity (then he went on a rant about how nobody calls Sean Hannity if you remember) so I'm not sure it's fair to pretend that he never admitted it. He was a private citizen though, which I think is important on that issue!


Trump always said he was always against the Iraq War. it also does not matter that he was a private ciziten and your age at the time does not matter, we are talking about Trumps age. And if you were the age Trump before it happened, you would probably say its a bad idea right? You are a private ciziten.




Hoolahoop33 said:


> I just read the entire op-ed (I hope that's appreciated ) It was more insightful obviously than the snippets I had seen on the news up to now. The thing is in the campaign Trump ran on having a better relationship with Russia and making sure NATO countries pay their fair share. You might not agree with that, and I personally, though not advocating for war by any means, do not think Russia deserves better relations at this time. However, he does have a mandate and so some faceless bureaucrat going against that isn't working on behalf of the American people at all, they just think they are. It's ok to try to coax the president into making what they view as the correct approach, and that's what they should continue to do, and it seems that is what they claim has been happening. Going to the press and calling yourself the resistance is pretty lame though,as is claiming you are protecting the country (massive hyperbole) and democracy, when you're a bureaucrat. I still can't help but think that it's fake though.



I am glad you read the whole thing, because it puts it all in better context. Again if they are trying to prevent Trump from having a better relationship with Russia and making sure NATO countries pay their fair share then that is wrong and they should not being doing that but that is not what they are doing. They are preventing Trump from trying to infringe upon our democracy (like Trump trying to censor the news or break laws) or just bomb countries willy nilly. 









Hoolahoop33 said:


> Yeah you could well be right. I still can't believe that happened and nobody has faced any consequences for it, quite sad really. I would like to see Bernie in 2020, he will be quite old by then though obviously. I think a genuine progressive like him probably would have the best chance of winning. If someone who's only policy is 'f Trump, vote for us because we're not him' like last time, then the result would perhaps be the same. I can't help but think Kamela Harris might run.


Sure Bernie will be old so is Biden the one who the corp. dems want. And Biden would be a disaster. Not to mention, he seems like a pedo. Real progressives are not just about fuck Trump, they actually have policies most of the country agrees with, even some Republicans.




Hoolahoop33 said:


> I have never actually been to America so perhaps I'm not the right person to weigh in on this topic though. In my experience though, the left attach a lot more importance to skin colour than conservatives. That's not to say they're racists obviously, just that most conservatives don't seem to care. You're probably right in that most genuine racists are probably 'conservative.'



You are right in a sense, conservatives don't seem to care about any skin color but white. Whereas libs fight for minorities the conservatives try to oppress. Just look at all the rules the GOP tries to put in that hurt minorities especially when it comes to voting. 






Hoolahoop33 said:


> Obviously it's a disgrace if Hispanic US citizens are being treated in that way and I hope that isn't true on a large scale. I'm sure there are isolated cases, but the administration has been clear that it's against illegal immigration/sanctuary cities etc, rather than it being anything to do with race. You shouldn't be so fast to tar all conservatives with the same brush. Most people generally are good and kind people, they may just have different opinions to you!



Sadly, it's not isolated cases. Also let me be clear, when I say conservatives in a general sense, I am talking about their platform not everyone that is conservative.

That being said, most times when you see someone that is racist or is bigoted against LBGT community, they are more times than not a conservative. That is not to say that all conservatives are racist or that all libs are not. But you rarely ever see libs or progressives being racist or against the LBGT community, that is usually a conservative thing.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> what do conseratives think about Bernies plan that would tax Amazon, Walmart and other big companies whose workers collect public assistance instead of tax payers?
> 
> Basically saying if any of their workers don't make enough money and they need to collect welfare the company will have to pay for those benefits and not tax payers? It will never pass, i am more curious about if you think its a good idea.
> 
> https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/te...-sanders-amazon-walmart-worker-pay/index.html


It’s a good idea


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The problem with pro tax ideas is always that the government itself acts like the mega corporations they tax. Once they have the money from every single source imaginable they spend it just like corporations do.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/realD1037664539284844545


Trump openly and publicly supports a murderous madman dictator who starves his terrified population and feeds them nothing but propaganda. The silence is deafening.

In the Colin thread he wears a Castro shirt and is immediately labelled a piece of shit.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Ok. So which one of you did this? 

:mj4


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump said he would not testify to Mueller even in writing LOL,

That's because Trump knows he is guilty and can't stop lying.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037876249996083203
lmao this nonserious buttplug

His presidential primary campaign (and that's as far as he'll get, I'll give Democrats that much credit) is gonna be a hilarious disaster. Fucking hyped for 2020.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035911501360635905
Posting the above simply because something genuinely amusing occurred today. I have known a German businessman who is fairly nondescript with his political stances for the better part of a decade now. He's in his late fifties now. In any event, one issue he liked to dredge up whenever conducting business deals with Americans was the incredible amount of gun violence in the U.S. A number of the points he made were reasonable, but he could be a bit overbearing about it. "It's not the wild west days anymore," he said to me on the phone more times than I count over the years I have known him and have had dinner with him twice. "America must do better. All of these guns, it's awful." On and on. Not exactly controversial; the way he would drone on about it was a bit tedious, though. I figured I was doing right by my business interests to let him have his say, and would have approached the matter similarly no matter what opinions he espoused. :lol

Well today we are talking on the phone for the better part of half an hour. And before he hangs up he says that he has to tell me something. "I'm arming up," he said. "I'm still against guns but the amount of crime from the migrants in my area is out of control! I am getting all of the guns I can!"

I could not stop myself. I cracked up. 

"Yeah, yeah," he said. "Laugh it up." Good sport. :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Germans getting angry because their impossibly stupid government let over a million Arabs in to live on the taxpayer dime while actively suppressing reports of migrant crime because politics is more important than the state's duty to its citizens.

I'm sure it'll be fine. Clearly they just gotta work on being less racist.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Germans getting angry because their impossibly stupid government let over a million Arabs in to live on the taxpayer dime while actively suppressing reports of migrant crime because politics is more important than the state's duty to its citizens.
> 
> I'm sure it'll be fine. Clearly they just gotta work on being less racist.


Merkel is a moron, she has very little time left in power.

The german language sounds soooo good when they're angry.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035911501360635905
> Posting the above simply because something genuinely amusing occurred today. I have known a German businessman who is fairly nondescript with his political stances for the better part of a decade now. He's in his late fifties now. In any event, one issue he liked to dredge up whenever conducting business deals with Americans was the incredible amount of gun violence in the U.S. A number of the points he made were reasonable, but he could be a bit overbearing about it. "It's not the wild west days anymore," he said to me on the phone more times than I count over the years I have known him and have had dinner with him twice. "America must do better. All of these guns, it's awful." On and on. Not exactly controversial; the way he would drone on about it was a bit tedious, though. I figured I was doing right by my business interests to let him have his say, and would have approached the matter similarly no matter what opinions he espoused. :lol
> 
> Well today we are talking on the phone for the better part of half an hour. And before he hangs up he says that he has to tell me something. "I'm arming up," he said. "I'm still against guns but the amount of crime from the migrants in my area is out of control! I am getting all of the guns I can!"
> ...


The biggest test for any choice or deed is having to live with it. It's easy to make decisions when you don't have to see the impacts of it, nor sacrifice anything for it in any real way. 

When something impacts the person or their family.. they tend to show how they really feel when faced with that reality.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-officials-contacted-me-because-president-was

Psychiatrist: Trump admin officials contacted me because president was ‘scaring’ them


Officials from the Trump administration reportedly contacted a Yale University psychiatrist last year because President Trump was "scaring" them. 

Dr. Bandy Lee told Salon and the New York Daily News on Thursday that two White House officials flagged Trump's behavior last October. 

"[They] said that Trump was 'scaring' them, that he was 'unraveling,'" Lee, who wrote the book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” told Salon. 

"Not wishing to confuse the role I chose, as an educator of the public, and a potential treatment role, I referred them to the local emergency room without inquiring much further," Lee added to Salon.

Lee also wrote an op-ed declaring that Trump is a "dangerous leader."

Lee repeated to the Daily News that she did not mention this development before because she "did not want to confuse my role an an educator to the public."

"I thought I would be more effective by retaining my public role than getting involved in either the treatment of those who were feeling scared or in the actual intervention with the President," she added. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill. 

The claim from Lee comes during a week in which scrutiny increased on both the president and administration staffers who might be working against him.

On Wednesday, The New York Times published an op-ed from an anonymous senior Trump administration official who argued that the president's actions are "detrimental" to the health of the nation. 

"The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making," the official wrote, adding that aides work around Trump to make sure his desires are not enforced. 

In addition, excerpts from a new book written by journalist Bob Woodward detail several scenarios in which frustrated officials have allegedly sought to block Trump's decisions.

For example, former top economic adviser Gary Cohn is reported to have removed paperwork, unnoticed, from Trump’s desk that the president intended to sign to withdraw the United States from trade agreements. 

Trump and the White House have pushed back hard against the validity of Woodward's reporting and the New York Times op-ed. 

"I’m draining the Swamp, and the Swamp is trying to fight back," Trump tweeted Wednesday night. "Don’t worry, we will win!"


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> it's not very hard at all, that is his job and what he is good at. Not to mention he was there around a lot of it and heard them all talking to each other about Trump. Also, that ad-op falls inline with a lot about what he had in his book.


It's pretty difficult, how can statements by disgruntled aides be verified? It just depends if you're inclined to believe them or not I guess. It does fall in line you're right, but to me that makes it even more suspicious. If it had been released a week before the book for example, I'd perhaps find it more believable. 



birthday_massacre said:


> If you are for the Confederate flag, you are for racism. The Confederate flag was all about being able to keep slaves. If you don't know that (meaning the people marching) they should know what they are marching for. Awards like that are meaningless and it still does not change the fact Trump was fined for discriminating against black people when he would not rent to them in the 70s not to mention all the racist things he has said and done since then. Here is a list that vox put together https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history Not sure how anyone can deny Trump is a racist. The cenrel park five statement by Trump is all you really need.


So I actual wrote an essay in my first year of University, regarding what exactly caused the US Civil War (or something along those lines) and yeah obviously the war was about slavery to a large degree, but you have to remember that there were a lot of Southerners who fought, not necessarily because they were for slavery, but because they wanted to support their state and the South. The flag to the rest of the world then, and the confederacy as a whole, became representative of slavery, which is obviously a very evil and wrong institution. But to Southerners the flag came to represent the South and their ancestors who had died fighting in the war (ordinary civilians) I can relate to some degree in that I am from the UK, and I love my country and its flag etc.. but to many countries across the world, such as India, that flag represents oppression and imperialism. So its hard for us to weigh in on what those people were thinking, do you get what I'm saying? There are obviously too white supremacists who like the flag for wrong reasons, which too complicates the issue, but I wouldn't say every person who wants to defend the confederate flag or even *some* confederate statues are necessarily racist or bad people. 

Thanks for the article. A lot of those things in the list are a bit of a joke, for example it was prompted by him calling some countries "shit holes", which was then connected to race 'The implication is clear: The people coming from predominantly black countries are bad, while the people coming from predominantly white countries are good.' That's just bs, not everything has to do with race (in fact since it generally doesn't matter to most normal, good people, it generally doesn't) Surely the implication, perhaps much more clearly is the higher levels of education, standards of living, gdp etc. The Central Park 5 is an interesting one, it would seem that the charges themselves brought against them were implicitly racial (maybe explicitly, I don't know the case) and so maybe too were Trumps comments. However, it could be that he, weighing in as a private citizen believes that they really were guilty, even if he were ill-informed. A lot of the things on the list though are not actually racial (like him firing a black guy on the apprentice lol), or are unverified comments by former employees. 



birthday_massacre said:


> No one lies more than Trump. You do agree with that right? The WH has to lie all the time to cover for Trump because he is a disaster. That is why their stories change all the time.
> 
> As for holding the other side accountable, the real liberals how the corporate democrats accountable all the time. I destroyed Hilary and Donna Brazile for what they did. Also look at online news like TYT, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kunliski and David Pakman they all hold the corp. democrats to the shit they pull.


I think he generally lies as much as any other politician, but he does exaggerate things a lot, which I guess are technically lies, but you can usually see the message he's trying to put across. Yeah unfortunately not in the mainstream media though :'( Yeah I have been subscribed to Jimmy Dore for a really long time, and I usually find myself agreeing with him. I sometime watch Kulinski too, I'll check out David Pakman though, I don't think I've watched him before.



birthday_massacre said:


> I think Trump is that dumb. Just listen to him talk. You think he is smart? If you really want to see how dumb he is, read the text of his speeches, you will see how much worse it really is. He is dumber than GW and that is saying a lot. Trump didn't even know Isreal was in the middle east. Any middle school kid knows that. Trump didn't even know that he was the President of the US Virgin Islands. He is that dumb, how you can not see it?


I don't doubt that you do haha, but I think that goes too far. He might not be academically the smartest guy, but he is talented in some ways. He also isn't so dumb that he doesn't know what the US flag looks like despite the fact he wears it every day lol. Admitting that doesn't mean you have to think he smart, you could even maintain that he's the dumbest president of all time, just maybe reign it in from calling him fully mentally disabled. :laugh:



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump always said he was always against the Iraq War. it also does not matter that he was a private ciziten and your age at the time does not matter, we are talking about Trumps age. And if you were the age Trump before it happened, you would probably say its a bad idea right? You are a private ciziten.


I personally probably wouldn't just because of how I am opposed to war now, but a large percentage of the population were probably initially supportive of it. At least he changed his mind fairly quickly, Tony Blair still thinks they were right to go in and they did a god thing by removing Saddam! 



birthday_massacre said:


> I am glad you read the whole thing, because it puts it all in better context. Again if they are trying to prevent Trump from having a better relationship with Russia and making sure NATO countries pay their fair share then that is wrong and they should not being doing that but that is not what they are doing. They are preventing Trump from trying to infringe upon our democracy (like Trump trying to censor the news or break laws) or just bomb countries willy nilly.


I hope that's true, that's the job of any person working in the administration, to stop any reckless/ illegal behaviour. But this does go further than that 
*"The result is a two-track presidency. Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals."*
It is ok to guide the president back from policies you disagree with, but to call yourself the resistance and basically stating that you are frustrating the foreign policy goals of the President, who was partly elected on that platform, it's pretty wrong and undemocratic. How would you feel if you found out for example, that there was an aide who was against Obama's plan for healthcare and so sought to frustrate it. It's undemocratic and wrong.



birthday_massacre said:


> Sure Bernie will be old so is Biden the one who the corp. dems want. And Biden would be a disaster. Not to mention, he seems like a pedo. Real progressives are not just about fuck Trump, they actually have policies most of the country agrees with, even some Republicans.


He does doesn't he lol :laugh: I think a progressive would have a good chance of winning, especially now its come to a point where moderate Dems are so against Trump, they'd rather vote for a progressive/socialist than Republican.



birthday_massacre said:


> You are right in a sense, conservatives don't seem to care about any skin color but white. Whereas libs fight for minorities the conservatives try to oppress. Just look at all the rules the GOP tries to put in that hurt minorities especially when it comes to voting.
> 
> Sadly, it's not isolated cases. Also let me be clear, when I say conservatives in a general sense, I am talking about their platform not everyone that is conservative.
> 
> That being said, most times when you see someone that is racist or is bigoted against LBGT community, they are more times than not a conservative. That is not to say that all conservatives are racist or that all libs are not. But you rarely ever see libs or progressives being racist or against the LBGT community, that is usually a conservative thing.


I don't think they seek to oppress anyone. Can you explain to me because I don't really understand. Why are voter ID laws discriminatory? I genuinely don't understand! But maybe that's because I'm in the UK and most people have some form of ID, and there's nothing to really stop a person from acquiring one either. Yeah that's very true, by nature unfortunately. Thankfully I believe the last 10 years or so, you see fewer and fewer people against Gay marriage, etc. There are still some obviously, but they're a dying breed. (Just my experience) I think another change has occurred to where Liberals are becoming more 'racial', for example the Vox article you sent mentioned a lot of things which really had very little to do with race, but yet pointed towards them being racist. I don't think it's a good thing, though I am sure their hearts are in the right places, as you have to pick your battles, and while there is still real discrimination ongoing, all it serves to do is turn people away from that real discrimination when it happens.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It's pretty difficult, how can statements by disgruntled aides be verified? It just depends if you're inclined to believe them or not I guess. It does fall in line you're right, but to me that makes it even more suspicious. If it had been released a week before the book for example, I'd perhaps find it more believable.
> 
> 
> .


They still work from Trump, it's not like he fired them and they started to speak badly about him, they are doing it while working for him because they are worried about his mental health because he is unstable. And you know its true because of how Trump is getting so upset about it and saying it is treasonous the person spoke out about it. The book and the op-ed both confirm the same thing and again Trump with his tweets and speeches the past few days, show its true.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> So I actual wrote an essay in my first year of University, regarding what exactly caused the US Civil War (or something along those lines) and yeah obviously the war was about slavery to a large degree, but you have to remember that there were a lot of Southerners who fought, not necessarily because they were for slavery, but because they wanted to support their state and the South. The flag to the rest of the world then, and the confederacy as a whole, became representative of slavery, which is obviously a very evil and wrong institution. But to Southerners the flag came to represent the South and their ancestors who had died fighting in the war (ordinary civilians) I can relate to some degree in that I am from the UK, and I love my country and its flag etc.. but to many countries across the world, such as India, that flag represents oppression and imperialism. So its hard for us to weigh in on what those people were thinking, do you get what I'm saying? There are obviously too white supremacists who like the flag for wrong reasons, which too complicates the issue, but I wouldn't say every person who wants to defend the confederate flag or even *some* confederate statues are necessarily racist or bad people.
> 
> 
> .


What did they fight for? They fought for their states right to own slaves. They fought to support slavery and supported the Confederate soldiers that were traitors and died to support slavery. You do understand that right? And we know exactly what they were thinking because they said it. And they admitted it was about keeping slavery.

here are just some of the quotes

SC

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery....."

Miss. 

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth......."


Louisiana:
"The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery."

Texas

"in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator,"


Here is a "great" quote to prove it was about slavery

"The people of the South,’ says a contemporary, ‘are not fighting for slavery but for independence.’ Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy — a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork."


Let's not pretend the confederate flag and the civil war was not about anything other than being pro-slavery.




Hoolahoop33 said:


> Thanks for the article. A lot of those things in the list are a bit of a joke, for example it was prompted by him calling some countries "shit holes", which was then connected to race 'The implication is clear: The people coming from predominantly black countries are bad, while the people coming from predominantly white countries are good.' That's just bs, not everything has to do with race (in fact since it generally doesn't matter to most normal, good people, it generally doesn't) Surely the implication, perhaps much more clearly is the higher levels of education, standards of living, gdp etc. The Central Park 5 is an interesting one, it would seem that the charges themselves brought against them were implicitly racial (maybe explicitly, I don't know the case) and so maybe too were Trumps comments. However, it could be that he, weighing in as a private citizen believes that they really were guilty, even if he were ill-informed. A lot of the things on the list though are not actually racial (like him firing a black guy on the apprentice lol), or are unverified comments by former employees.
> 
> .



When it comes to Trump it does. He is a racist and just listen to him talk about anyone or country that is not white. As for the Central Park 5 they didn't do it, it was a fact they didn't and it was proven they didn't but since they were black, Trump thought they should still be kept in jail because he said they probably did some other crime and why is that? Because they were black That is totally racist, and you can't even try to defend that.

And yes everything on that list is racist. Just because some of them are used coded words or dog whislting, does not mean itw not racist. 




Hoolahoop33 said:


> I think he generally lies as much as any other politician, but he does exaggerate things a lot, which I guess are technically lies, but you can usually see the message he's trying to put across. Yeah unfortunately not in the mainstream media though :'( Yeah I have been subscribed to Jimmy Dore for a really long time, and I usually find myself agreeing with him. I sometime watch Kulinski too, I'll check out David Pakman though, I don't think I've watched him before.
> 
> 
> .


Trump lies way more than any other politician. It's not even close. Like I said Trump will even contradict himself in the same thought sometimes. Trump is beyond delusinal and is mentally ill for sure that is why he lies so much. And def. check out Pakman, I think you will like him. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I don't doubt that you do haha, but I think that goes too far. He might not be academically the smartest guy, but he is talented in some ways. He also isn't so dumb that he doesn't know what the US flag looks like despite the fact he wears it every day lol. Admitting that doesn't mean you have to think he smart, you could even maintain that he's the dumbest president of all time, just maybe reign it in from calling him fully mentally disabled
> 
> 
> .


He didn't color the US flag correctly, so to me that means he does not know. I also gave numerous other reasons why he is dumb, stop harping on the US flag thing. How can he not know he is the president of the US Virgin Islands? I did not say he is mentally disabled, I said he is mentally ill. Those are two different things. Mentally disabled means like down syndrome whereas mentally ill means like dementia. I have been saying this for well over a year and now people in his own administration are saying the same thing. Don't be suprised if the 25th is invoked at some point, like I said they should have done a year ago.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> personally probably wouldn't just because of how I am opposed to war now, but a large percentage of the population were probably initially supportive of it. At least he changed his mind fairly quickly, Tony Blair still thinks they were right to go in and they did a god thing by removing Saddam!
> 
> 
> .


The point isn't he changed his mind to the right answer, which is good. The point is, he lies and said he was never for it. That is the problem. Its because Trump is a compuslive liar.




Hoolahoop33 said:


> I hope that's true, that's the job of any person working in the administration, to stop any reckless/ illegal behaviour. But this does go further than that
> "The result is a two-track presidency. Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals."
> It is ok to guide the president back from policies you disagree with, but to call yourself the resistance and basically stating that you are frustrating the foreign policy goals of the President, who was partly elected on that platform, it's pretty wrong and undemocratic. How would you feel if you found out for example, that there was an aide who was against Obama's plan for healthcare and so sought to frustrate it. It's undemocratic and wrong.
> 
> .


If Trump is working with Putin in an illegal way like to rig the election then Trump should be impeached since that is against the law.

if it's just policy, its fine to give you two cents to try and change his mind, but Trump has the final word and if he gives you an order to do something policy-wise, then you have to do it and if you don't, then you should resign or be fired.

If Trump is trying to declare war, illegally, (not notify Congress bypassing them) then yes its ok to refuse that order since that is illegal.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I don't think they seek to oppress anyone. Can you explain to me because I don't really understand. Why are voter ID laws discriminatory? I genuinely don't understand! But maybe that's because I'm in the UK and most people have some form of ID, and there's nothing to really stop a person from acquiring one either. Yeah that's very true, by nature unfortunately. Thankfully I believe the last 10 years or so, you see fewer and fewer people against Gay marriage, etc. There are still some obviously, but they're a dying breed. (Just my experience) I think another change has occurred to where Liberals are becoming more 'racial', for example the Vox article you sent mentioned a lot of things which really had very little to do with race, but yet pointed towards them being racist. I don't think it's a good thing, though I am sure their hearts are in the right places, as you have to pick your battles, and while there is still real discrimination ongoing, all it serves to do is turn people away from that real discrimination when it happens.
> 
> .


Conservatives by trying to enforce voter IDS or close polling stations are trying to oppress the black or minority vote. 

Voter ID laws are discriminatory because a lot of minorities don't have them, they can also be hard to get depending on where you live and if you have easy access to transportation to a place that will issue you an id. There have been a number of threads on this forum about voter IDs before. If you want more indept debate on that, it may be worth it for you to look up that thread.

Not to mention there is virtually no voter fraud in the US so there is no need for them, and the funny thing is, in the few cases there is, most of them are from conservatives. 

If you want to go step by step over the vox article to point out why you don't think some of those things are racist, il be fine to go over it with you. But even if you only agree with a couple being racist, it shows how Trump is a racist. 

Yes we need to put our battles and Trump is a racist that is president. Its a battle worth fighting. Again Trump is locking up latino Americans and claiming they are illegals, how is that not racist? And for years Trump claimed Obama was not an american, how is that not racist?

Finally, remember when Trump said that one judge was biased becasue he was a Mexican. How was that not racist?


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Why do liberals call everything racist?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> Why do liberals call everything racist?


It isn't liberals, its SJW's


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> They still work from Trump, it's not like he fired them and they started to speak badly about him, they are doing it while working for him because they are worried about his mental health because he is unstable. And you know its true because of how Trump is getting so upset about it and saying it is treasonous the person spoke out about it. The book and the op-ed both confirm the same thing and again Trump with his tweets and speeches the past few days, show its true.


It might be true, but it is speculation at this point to say that is or not based on Trumps paranoid ramblings. He doesn't know either, and I don't imagine anyone other that the authors know the full truth.



birthday_massacre said:


> What did they fight for? They fought for their states right to own slaves. They fought to support slavery and supported the Confederate soldiers that were traitors and died to support slavery. You do understand that right? And we know exactly what they were thinking because they said it. And they admitted it was about keeping slavery.
> 
> here are just some of the quotes
> 
> ...


I'm not pretending anything, I said that the Civil War was about slavery (pretty much exclusively) but my point was there were a lot of ordinary people who fought for the confederacy, who wouldn't have owned slaves, but were simply fighting for their state. To us the flag represents slavery, because it did to a large extent. But to Southerners it represents the South, and its history, both good and bad. 



birthday_massacre said:


> When it comes to Trump it does. He is a racist and just listen to him talk about anyone or country that is not white. As for the Central Park 5 they didn't do it, it was a fact they didn't and it was proven they didn't but since they were black, Trump thought they should still be kept in jail because he said they probably did some other crime and why is that? Because they were black That is totally racist, and you can't even try to defend that.
> 
> And yes everything on that list is racist. Just because some of them are used coded words or dog whislting, does not mean itw not racist.


The issue is you're presuming to read his mind, when you yourself I'm sure would freely admit that you don't think like him. I don't either and so it's hard to discern his motivations, but I would be surprised if it were because they were black, but rather because he believed they were guilty. OJ Simpson was found innocent for example, but many people believed he was guilty, without having seen all the evidence. (It seems probable he was guilty, but people weighed in, in a similar way to trump did in this situation, without having full knowledge of the situation) That doesn't make them racist necessarily, but perhaps just innocent. 

I have to disagree, most of that stuff is not racist. If you advocate for equality, that has to mean treating each other equally in all situations, both good and bad.



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump lies way more than any other politician. It's not even close. Like I said Trump will even contradict himself in the same thought sometimes. Trump is beyond delusinal and is mentally ill for sure that is why he lies so much. And def. check out Pakman, I think you will like him.


Many of the 'lies' though are just a matter of perspective, or nitpicking at Trump's exaggerations. I will definitely give him a watch, if he's anything like Jimmy Dore or Kyle Kulinski then I'm sure I'll enjoy his content.



birthday_massacre said:


> He didn't color the US flag correctly, so to me that means he does not know. I also gave numerous other reasons why he is dumb, stop harping on the US flag thing. How can he not know he is the president of the US Virgin Islands? I did not say he is mentally disabled, I said he is mentally ill. Those are two different things. Mentally disabled means like down syndrome whereas mentally ill means like dementia. I have been saying this for well over a year and now people in his own administration are saying the same thing. Don't be suprised if the 25th is invoked at some point, like I said they should have done a year ago.


He was colouring with children though? Well when he mentioned the 'president' of the virgin islands, it was after a list of all the other US territories he had visited. So more likely it was a case of not knowing the position of the representative of the islands. To tell you the truth I don't know off the top of my head. Well mental illnesses can be very debilitating, but I see your point. I have said he probably is not academically smart, and probably isn't great at geography etc. Most people aren't sadly.



birthday_massacre said:


> The point isn't he changed his mind to the right answer, which is good. The point is, he lies and said he was never for it. That is the problem. Its because Trump is a compuslive liar.


He was wrong on this so I won't argue with you, like you say, the important thing is that once he became more informed on the matter he went against it.



birthday_massacre said:


> If Trump is working with Putin in an illegal way like to rig the election then Trump should be impeached since that is against the law.
> 
> if it's just policy, its fine to give you two cents to try and change his mind, but Trump has the final word and if he gives you an order to do something policy-wise, then you have to do it and if you don't, then you should resign or be fired.
> 
> If Trump is trying to declare war, illegally, (not notify Congress bypassing them) then yes its ok to refuse that order since that is illegal.


We totally agree on everything here. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Conservatives by trying to enforce voter IDS or close polling stations are trying to oppress the black or minority vote.
> 
> Voter ID laws are discriminatory because a lot of minorities don't have them, they can also be hard to get depending on where you live and if you have easy access to transportation to a place that will issue you an id. There have been a number of threads on this forum about voter IDs before. If you want more indept debate on that, it may be worth it for you to look up that thread.
> 
> Not to mention there is virtually no voter fraud in the US so there is no need for them, and the funny thing is, in the few cases there is, most of them are from conservatives.


I see, would it not then be repressing the vote of poor people then rather than minorities? It just so happens that a higher proportion of minorities are low income. It would I suppose also be argued that voter repression is just an unintended consequence of tackling voter fraud. I don't necessarily agree with that, as it is clearly beneficial to repress the vote of low income people if you were a conservative candidate. Genuine question, if you did fear voter fraud, which I do believe many conservatives do (though if what you say is true, then it's a bit of a conspiracy.) what law would you implement to tackle it? Off the top of my head I can't think of anything other than ID laws. In a sense it's a win-win for Republicans in that it's more likely to stop your opponent gaining as many votes, and that if they were worried about voter fraud, then that's settled too. I guess conversely a lose-lose for Dems. For the record I'm not for it if it is hard for people to obtain ID's, every citizen should have a vote. At the same time I don't think it's inherently racist, it is just 'good' politics.



birthday_massacre said:


> If you want to go step by step over the vox article to point out why you don't think some of those things are racist, il be fine to go over it with you. But even if you only agree with a couple being racist, it shows how Trump is a racist.


I actually will at some point, but I'm too tired right now, and it's a super long list. Just remind me in your next reply or something.



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes we need to put our battles and Trump is a racist that is president. Its a battle worth fighting. Again Trump is locking up latino Americans and claiming they are illegals, how is that not racist? And for years Trump claimed Obama was not an american, how is that not racist?
> 
> Finally, remember when Trump said that one judge was biased becasue he was a Mexican. How was that not racist?


There are many illegal immigrants from Latin America in the United States. I'm sure Trump hasn't personally accused or had arrested any legal citizen and accused them of being illegals.

I said before the birther movement did have an implicit racist element behind it, but I do think some people did have genuine questions about Obama's birthplace, as well as hoping to damage the legitimacy a president they disagreed with politically. It didn't serve any purpose other than to embarrass Trump and other birthers, as exposing them as being idiots on the issue. He has endorsed black Republicans in their races against white republicans, so that would suggest that he treats people based on their merit/ respect etc.

Yeah. He was wrong on that one. I understand the point he was making, that the judge might have some sort of conflict of interests, based on the fact that the case was for the building of the wall on the Mexican border, you have to trust the judge to be impartial. Again, it comes across more as just bad logic than actual racism. Political judges seem like a really bizarre and wrong idea btw, surely it should just be the best person for the job who gets promoted, not based on their political stance.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It might be true, but it is speculation at this point to say that is or not based on Trumps paranoid ramblings. He doesn't know either, and I don't imagine anyone other that the authors know the full truth.


The people in the book and the person who wrote the op-ed are all eyewitnesses to what Trump is doing and how he acts. it's not speculation on what is going on in Trump's cabinet. They have first-hand knowledge of it. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I'm not pretending anything, I said that the Civil War was about slavery (pretty much exclusively) but my point was there were a lot of ordinary people who fought for the confederacy, who wouldn't have owned slaves, but were simply fighting for their state. To us the flag represents slavery, because it did to a large extent. But to Southerners it represents the South, and its history, both good and bad.


Everyone that fought in the civil war did it because they wanted to own slaves. That is why they were on the side of the Confederates. There is no point debating this anyways since this is the Trump thread. 




Hoolahoop33 said:


> The issue is you're presuming to read his mind, when you yourself I'm sure would freely admit that you don't think like him. I don't either and so it's hard to discern his motivations, but I would be surprised if it were because they were black, but rather because he believed they were guilty. OJ Simpson was found innocent for example, but many people believed he was guilty, without having seen all the evidence. (It seems probable he was guilty, but people weighed in, in a similar way to trump did in this situation, without having full knowledge of the situation) That doesn't make them racist necessarily, but perhaps just innocent.
> 
> I have to disagree, most of that stuff is not racist. If you advocate for equality, that has to mean treating each other equally in all situations, both good and bad.


I dont need to read his mind, just listen to his words, and look at his actions. Trump is a racist and does not even hide it. And AGAIN with the Central Park 5, there was DNA evidence, and the person who did it confessed, yet Trump still say he does not care and they should stay locked up. it does not get more racist than that. 

Also, OJ was not found innocent. he was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt because the lead investigator was a racist. It's not even remotely the same thing since DNA evidence and someone else admitting to the killing did not happen in the OJ case. 

As for most of that not being racist. So saying that judge is biased because he is Mexican isnt racist? You can't seriously be claiming that. And saying oh some people on the KKK side are good people, that doesn't show he is racist either? Trump could call someone the N word on tape, and some people would claim oh that doesn't mean he is racist even thought it would prove even more that he is.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Many of the 'lies' though are just a matter of perspective, or nitpicking at Trump's exaggerations. I will definitely give him a watch, if he's anything like Jimmy Dore or Kyle Kulinski then I'm sure I'll enjoy his content.



We are not talking about Trump's exaggerations, we are talking about his flat out lying when he claims he never said something or never did something yet he did. Or how he lies about things other people have done etc.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> He was colouring with children though? Well when he mentioned the 'president' of the virgin islands, it was after a list of all the other US territories he had visited. So more likely it was a case of not knowing the position of the representative of the islands. To tell you the truth I don't know off the top of my head. Well mental illnesses can be very debilitating, but I see your point. I have said he probably is not academically smart, and probably isn't great at geography etc. Most people aren't sadly.


 
When you color with children, you would color your flag the the wrong color? You can't be serious. Is that really going to be your excuse?
It makes it even worst it was after all the other US territories because Trump is still president of those too. Trump is also president he should know who the person is he is talking to and what their offical title is. Trump is just a dumbass and does not know. And you dont have to know off the top of your head, you are not the president.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I see, would it not then be repressing the vote of poor people then rather than minorities? It just so happens that a higher proportion of minorities are low income. It would I suppose also be argued that voter repression is just an unintended consequence of tackling voter fraud. I don't necessarily agree with that, as it is clearly beneficial to repress the vote of low income people if you were a conservative candidate. Genuine question, if you did fear voter fraud, which I do believe many conservatives do (though if what you say is true, then it's a bit of a conspiracy.) what law would you implement to tackle it? Off the top of my head I can't think of anything other than ID laws. In a sense it's a win-win for Republicans in that it's more likely to stop your opponent gaining as many votes, and that if they were worried about voter fraud, then that's settled too. I guess conversely a lose-lose for Dems. For the record I'm not for it if it is hard for people to obtain ID's, every citizen should have a vote. At the same time I don't think it's inherently racist, it is just 'good' politics.



The GOP does it in areas that are mostly poor minotiries. Look at this for example https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/us/randolph-county-polling-closures-vote/index.html 

it has nothing to do with unintended consequence the GOP does it to supress the minortiy vote. And again there is vitrually zero voter fraud in the US, it pretty much never happens. And its not a conspiracy the GOP does that stuff all the time. Hell go google crosscheck to see the dirty tricks the GOP does to not let minotires vote. Its not a conspiracy. Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Uey_jekNY&frags=pl,wn Then tell me if you think its a conspiracy.




Hoolahoop33 said:


> There are many illegal immigrants from Latin America in the United States. I'm sure Trump hasn't personally accused or had arrested any legal citizen and accused them of being illegals.
> 
> I said before the birther movement did have an implicit racist element behind it, but I do think some people did have genuine questions about Obama's birthplace, as well as hoping to damage the legitimacy a president they disagreed with politically. It didn't serve any purpose other than to embarrass Trump and other birthers, as exposing them as being idiots on the issue. He has endorsed black Republicans in their races against white republicans, so that would suggest that he treats people based on their merit/ respect etc.
> 
> Yeah. He was wrong on that one. I understand the point he was making, that the judge might have some sort of conflict of interests, based on the fact that the case was for the building of the wall on the Mexican border, you have to trust the judge to be impartial. Again, it comes across more as just bad logic than actual racism. Political judges seem like a really bizarre and wrong idea btw, surely it should just be the best person for the job who gets promoted, not based on their political stance.




Trump is the one ordering them to arrest Latino Americans and acuse them of being illegal. Even after Obama proved he was born in the US , Trump still claimed he was not. Come on dude. 

We all know what Trump bases on who he likes and who he does. Anyone that kisses his ass, he likes, it has nothing to do with their merit.

That is why one day , when someone says something nice about Trump he will speak highly of them, then if a week later a year later, they say something about Trump he does not like, he talks shit about them.

We have seen that over and over again. 

And LOL at what Trump said comes across as bad logic and not racist LOL You will make up any excuse to not call Trump a racist. Like I said, he could call someone the N word and you would find a way to claim he is not racist and you would probably say oh he used bad judgument calling peopel teh N word but it dosnt mean he is racist. I can just see the excuses you would be makig now






.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> Why do liberals call everything racist?





> NY Times is racist. They hired a writer who hated white people. I don't trust what they write.





> liberals are the most racist people in the world. they promote white genocide.





> You don't think some Kaepernick supporters are racist. Keep lying to yourself.


:hoganjam


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:buried


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

You liberals forgot to mention how you call Trump and conservatives racist in every post.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Your lazy digs at liberals are the kind of pointless identity politics that gets people nowhere. You realise when you took the red pill you're not supposed to take the whole bag?


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Thought this was a funny little breakdown criticism of the left. Have noticed a few lefties like myself have been sharing it on Facebook. Hopefully the tide is turning on outrage news.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


>


Trump admitted to colluding with Russia in a tweet lol

That is why he said collusion is not illegal. 

But yeah let's keep ignoring that


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1038374515338891264
:mj


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Figured my first post in this thread since my recent ban should be helpful, and so it shall be. To anyone who deals with people (regardless of political affiliation) online that can do nothing but regurgitate buzzwords and tired / ineffective talking points, counter with this handy dandy forum weapon:










:trump3


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Figured my first post in this thread since my recent ban should be helpful, and so it shall be. To anyone who deals with people (regardless of political affiliation) online that can do nothing but regurgitate buzzwords and tired / ineffective talking points, counter with this handy dandy forum weapon:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Screw Trump you alt-right conservative nazi.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-...testimony-may-help-demonstrate-trump-campaign

Papadopoulos: My testimony could help demonstrate collusion between Trump campaign and Russia

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos suggested Sunday that his testimony could help special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation demonstrate collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

"Do you think when the entire Mueller investigation is finished that they will demonstrate that there was collusion between the Trump campaign, Trump advisers and the Russians?" ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Papadopoulos on "This Week."

"I have no idea," the former Trump campaign adviser responded. "All I can say is my testimony might have helped move something towards that."

George Papadopoulos on if he believes collusion will be demonstrated between the Trump campaign and Russia once the special counsel investigation concludes: "I have no idea. All I can say is that my testimony might have helped move something towards that." http://abcn.ws/2NtisSx 


Papadopoulos insisted that he could not comment on further details of his conversations with Justice Department officials, given Mueller's special counsel investigation is ongoing. 

Papadopoulos was sentenced on Friday to fourteen days in federal prison and one year supervised release for lying to FBI investigators about his Russia contacts during the 2016 election. He pleaded guilty in October to lying to FBI agents and is the first Trump campaign official to be sentenced as part of Mueller's probe.

Papadopoulos told ABC that he did not believe he incriminated President Trump in cooperating with Mueller's probe. 

"Of course I'm remorseful, I'm contrite and I did lie [to the FBI] but you know you're just taken off guard, I guess, in such a momentous occasion where you're potentially sitting there incriminating the president. Even though, of course, I don't think I did," he said.

"That was probably in the back of my mind, of what exactly am I doing here talking about Russian hacking or election interference with a candidate that I just worked for," he added.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1038374515338891264


Interesting documentary.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1038374515338891264
> :mj


Short of "I voted for Hillary" that video is basically me. (I wrote in "None of the Above")

I don't like Trump. I don't support Trump. 

But the people that are passionate in hating him that I deal with on a daily basis come across like paranoid crazy people.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Screw Trump you *alt-right conservative nazi*.












:trump2


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Guess who's back... back again... Tater's back... back again... guess who's back... guess who's back... guess who's back...

So the HDL won't let me be, or let me be me, they try to shut me down on TWF, but it feels so empty without me.

Now this looks like a job for me so everybody just follow me, cause we need a little controversy, cause it feels so empty without me.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1038846496643280896
Corporate profits are still on a meteoric rise while the working class continues getting fucked. Even many Trump supporters will figure out how badly they are getting screwed.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :trump2


Incorrect. I have at least two tired cliches in my bag of tricks...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Not sure if this was posted in here or not:

http://fortune.com/2018/08/29/leaked-emails-ian-m-smith/



> *Leaked Emails Reveal Another Trump Staffer With Ties to White Nationalism*
> 
> Another Trump administration official has been outed for his ties to white nationalism. According to leaked emails obtained by The Atlantic, a policy analyst working for the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security, who has since resigned, was included in emails with known white supremacist leaders.
> 
> ...


From Heavy which I know is pretty much always objective. 

https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/ian-m-smith/



> Ian M. Smith was, until recently, a policy analyst working for the Department of Homeland Security. Smith resigned from his job after leaked emails indicated that he had been in contact with a group of white nationalists, including, among others, Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor.
> 
> In a statement released this week, the Department of Homeland Security said that it is “committed to combating all forms of violent extremism, especially movements that espouse racial supremacy or bigotry.” The statement added, “This type of radical ideology runs counter to the Department’s mission of keeping America safe.”
> 
> ...


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Well, I guess it's a good thing that the white nationalists are leaving/being ousted...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Well, I guess it's a good thing that the white nationalists are leaving/being ousted...


We're led to believe that they don't/can't hold any positions of power. 

Guess not.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> We're led to believe that they don't/can't hold any positions of power.
> 
> Guess not.


I think many people probably believe that, others believe the President is a white supremacist, others believe that he's not but he associates a bit too closely with them. I dunno. I've always considered Trump more of an incompetent buffoon than an out and out racist if I'm honest but he does have some very suspect history, comments, actions and now multiple white supremacists in his organisation? It doesn't look good if we're being honest about it. Perhaps his support from white supremacists isn't as coincidental as it's made out to be, perhaps it is and some of these people are just getting involved and being circumspect about their true beliefs, I dunno. What I do know is that as a manager I think I have a very good handle on who the people I work with are, their beliefs and ideals. If Trump wasn't aware of these people in his organisation it reflects badly on him as a manager, if he was badly on him as a person.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I think many people probably believe that, others believe the President is a white supremacist, others believe that he's not but he associates a bit too closely with them. I dunno. I've always considered Trump more of an incompetent buffoon than an out and out racist if I'm honest but he does have some very suspect history, comments, actions and now multiple white supremacists in his organisation? It doesn't look good if we're being honest about it. Perhaps his support from white supremacists isn't as coincidental as it's made out to be, perhaps it is and some of these people are just getting involved and being circumspect about their true beliefs, I dunno. What I do know is that as a manager I think I have a very good handle on who the people I work with are, their beliefs and ideals. If Trump wasn't aware of these people in his organisation it reflects badly on him as a manager, if he was badly on him as a person.


The President is very much irrelevant when it comes to the bureaucracy. This is why if you noticed while I criticize presidents for the things they have direct control over, they don't have any control over the minutia where the bureaucracy comes in. 

Smith is a bureaucrat. His association with Trump is minimal. It is the nature of politics and systems as a whole that allows doors to open for the corrupt and racist types to gain power. The only thing a political party can do is provide such people a cover that they can operate under. Both parties do this. And it's because these two parties are owned and run by oligarchs and the bureaucrats are trained for decades to get the positions they do. 

People don't vote beyond the surface 1% of government. 99% of it is unelected and run through a word of mouth selection process. Many outlast several governments. The real power is always in the hands of the bureaucrats. The president is merely a ceremonial head. He has *no *power in the federal government. What he has is the *illusion *of power.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> The President is very much irrelevant when it comes to the bureaucracy. This is why if you noticed while I criticize presidents for the things they have direct control over, they don't have any control over the minutia where the bureaucracy comes in.
> 
> Smith is a bureaucrat. His association with Trump is minimal. It is the nature of politics and systems as a whole that allows doors to open for the corrupt and racist types to gain power. The only thing a political party can do is provide such people a cover that they can operate under. Both parties do this. And it's because these two parties are owned and run by oligarchs and the bureaucrats are trained for decades to get the positions they do.
> 
> People don't vote beyond the surface 1% of government. 99% of it is unelected and run through a word of mouth selection process. Many outlast several governments. The real power is always in the hands of the bureaucrats. The president is merely a ceremonial head. He has *no *power in the federal government. What he has is the *illusion *of power.


Pretty sure he has control over who writes his speeches though, no? Smith might have been somebody he's not connected to but the guy writing his speeches I'm not so convinced about. I'll readily accept that some random person working in a department would easily slip through the cracks, not somebody who actually works as a speechwriter and policy aide to the top guy if I'm honest.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Pretty sure he has control over who writes his speeches though, no? Smith might have been somebody he's not connected to but the guy writing his speeches I'm not so convinced about. I'll readily accept that some random person working in a department would easily slip through the cracks, not somebody who actually works as a speechwriter and policy aide to the top guy if I'm honest.


Do you really and sincerely believe that a president hires or even knows his own speech writers?

I've worked as a copywriter before. My company's CEO who would approve the copy with his signature to represent his company didn't know where the copy came from. This extends to all operations. A writer is a small fry in a big operation.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Oh don't look now. Just tyrants doing tyrannical things. Not a big deal. Let's just keep worrying about the NFL ratings and Nike spokespeople though. 

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/07/house-passes-bill-that-would-reclassify



> *House Passes Bill to Reclassify Dozens of Offenses as 'Crimes of Violence'*
> 
> Opponents say the bill, rushed to the floor without a hearing, would dangerously expand what's considered an "aggravated offense."
> 
> ...


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Do you really and sincerely believe that a president hires or even knows his own speech writers?
> 
> I've worked as a copywriter before. My company's CEO who would approve the copy with his signature to represent his company didn't know where the copy came from. This extends to all operations. A writer is a small fry in a big operation.


There's a big difference between a copywriter and a speechwriter during campaigns who would be part of the process alongside campaign managers and everybody else who actually interacts with the candidate though. One of the very few friends I kept from high school is a PR executive and worked with David Cameron's campaigns and speeches for many years. He has pictures of him and the Camerons all over his Facebook, so yeah I don't really consider it a rare thing for a politician to know the people who write their speeches at all if I'm honest.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> There's a big difference between a copywriter and a speechwriter during campaigns who would be part of the process alongside campaign managers and everybody else who actually interacts with the candidate though. One of the very few friends I kept from high school is a PR executive and worked with David Cameron's campaigns and speeches for many years. He has pictures of him and the Camerons all over his Facebook, so yeah I don't really consider it a rare thing for a politician to know the people who write their speeches at all if I'm honest.


Pretty sure it can and does happen. I brought in the CEO analogy specifically for Trump because he's a CEO first, campaigner second -- Therefore it's much, much easier for speech writers to be seen as unimportant for him. They may have shaken hands or something once or twice, but I doubt they were chummy or close.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Oh don't look now. Just tyrants doing tyrannical things. Not a big deal. Let's just keep worrying about the NFL ratings and Nike spokespeople though.
> 
> https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/07/house-passes-bill-that-would-reclassify


This is part of the reason UK violent crime is higher than the US. 

The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

The term violent crime should at least have the act of violence in it.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Oh don't look now. Just tyrants doing tyrannical things. Not a big deal. Let's just keep worrying about the NFL ratings and Nike spokespeople though.
> 
> https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/07/house-passes-bill-that-would-reclassify


This worries me because it's shady, now there are a ton of people that need to be deported. Yet you can do that without expanding the laws, just enforce the existing ones and if the person has a history of offenses just boot them.

This is a slight of hand though, definitely suspicious.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Among the crimes that it would make violent offenses are burglary, *fleeing*, and coercion through fraud.


_Running away_ is now a violent crime? fpalm


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> _Running away_ is now a violent crime? fpalm


I figured it always was in America, that's why cops always shoot people doing it....right? >


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I figured it always was in America, that's why cops always shoot people doing it....right? >


There you go. 

That law was basically put in there specifically to pretty much completely eradicate any opposition cops had left when it came to shooting blacks.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> _Running away_ is now a violent crime? fpalm


Now cops when they shoot an unarmed black person in the back can claim well it was self-defense because they were committing a violent crime, so I feared for my life


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> *Moscow Has Upped the Ante in Syria*
> September 9, 2018
> 
> As Syrian forces backed by Russia launch the final showdown in Syria against jihadist extremists in Idlib province, the potential for a U.S.-Russia confrontation has never been greater, as VIPS warns in this memo to the president. September 9, 2018
> ...


This is a very interesting interview with Republican Virginia Senator Richard Black:



> *Staged Gas Attacks & US Shortcomings: US Senator Tells Sputnik About Syria Trip*
> 
> US Senator Richard Black in an exclusive interview with Sputnik, revealed how the Syrian people see their president, what went wrong with the US policy in the Mideast and also expressed his admiration for the state of human rights in the country, as "Syria has the greatest women’s rights and the greatest religious freedoms of any Arab country."
> 
> ...


You can see it coming from a mile away. The Syrian army with the help of Russia are going to try to liberate Idlib, the CIA/MI6 and their terrorist buddies are going to stage a chemical attack, then the USA/UK/France will use it as an excuse to start bombing to prevent the jihadists from losing their final stronghold. That's the plan anyways. Who knows if they will be successful or not. The absolute last thing these people want is the final defeat of terrorists in Syria because they would lose the last remaining justification for illegally occupying the country.

The one thing that I've always thought was the best indicator that the MSM narrative about "Assad the butcher" is complete and total horseshit is the fact that hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees have returned to the country now that he is back in control of most of it. If Assad was the person they claim him to be, those Syrians wouldn't be returning in droves to Assad held territory.

If/when the "chemical weapons attack" happens, know that you are being lied to. What I'd like to see is all of America wake up one day and realize that their tax dollars are going to support the terrorists we claim to be fighting. That'd be a sight to behold.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> What I'd like to see is all of America wake up one day and realize that their tax dollars are going to support the terrorists we claim to be fighting. That'd be a sight to behold.


Sadly, America, much like Britain is far too concerned with reality TV stars, social media and doing their utmost to think as little as possible for any of that to happen. It's why we're all fucked and will remain fucked, the idiot masses outnumber the critical thinkers by a significant margin.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Sadly, America, much like Britain is far too concerned with reality TV stars, social media and doing their utmost to think as little as possible for any of that to happen. It's why we're all fucked and will remain fucked, the idiot masses outnumber the critical thinkers by a significant margin.


This is why we need full Democracy. Give those idiots the power over us all. :agree:


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> This is why we need full Democracy. Give those idiots the power over us all. :agree:


Nah, that's why we need proportional representation, so that even though the idiot masses are represented, so are the intelligentsia to temper the stupidity. 0


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Nah, that's why we need proportional representation, so that even though the idiot masses are represented, so are the intelligentsia to temper the stupidity. 0


That will never happen as long as money is in politics since most of them care more about the money they get put in their pockets that what is best for the American people


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> That will never happen as long as money is in politics since most of them care more about the money they get put in their pockets that what is best for the American people


Yeah you're right, which is why I said to Tater that we're all fucked tbh. I'm just saying that's what we actually need to make democracy at least somewhat representative of an entire nation. It could be worse though, you could live in the UK on the fast track to economic and political irrelevance on the world stage. Can't wait til this beautiful baby of mine is a little bigger and we can complete the move to Portugal. It's going to be bliss in our little villa away from all the Brexit bullshit growing our olives and spending our days in the sunshine surrounded by stunning views. (That last bit is a HUGE deal for somebody from the north of the UK tbh, I grew up in grey streets under grey skies with houses packed close together in industrial revolution housing :lol )


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Glad to hear you're alive and well after that storm situation, @Tater; :sk



yeahbaby! said:


> Incorrect. I have *at least two* tired cliches in my bag of tricks...


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> This is a very interesting interview with Republican Virginia Senator Richard Black:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Welcome back. 

Thanks for posting these articles. Extraordinarily interesting. It is distressing that the U.S. is once again actively "falling for" the same old Syrian shtick. 

I liked how the Israeli government was just finally admitting that they have been aiding and arming the "rebels" since who knows when the other day. :lmao The biggest non-surprise of 2018. :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Glad to hear you're alive and well after that storm situation, @Tater;


Pfft, I knew when Trump said to be worried, I didn't need to be worried at all. :lol

The Big Island and Maui both got pounded pretty hard with rain but it barely touched us here. It has something to do with our latitude and the trade winds. It's very difficult for a hurricane to keep it's strength and give us a direct hit. Once it started heading north and hit those high level winds, the bottom of the storm went west and the rain got blown east. The only time I'd ever be worried is if one was headed directly north and there was no high altitude wind to break it up. It's happened but it's still pretty rare.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Pfft, I knew when Trump said to be worried, I didn't need to be worried at all. :lol
> 
> The Big Island and Maui both got pounded pretty hard with rain but it barely touched us here. It has something to do with our latitude and the trade winds. It's very difficult for a hurricane to keep it's strength and give us a direct hit. Once it started heading north and hit those high level winds, the bottom of the storm went west and the rain got blown east. The only time I'd ever be worried is if one was headed directly north and there was no high altitude wind to break it up. It's happened but it's still pretty rare.


Well excuse him for caring too damn much, you big meanie. :trump3

I heard Lane claimed 1 life, sadly. Regardless, it's good to hear that your neck of the woods isn't as susceptible to hurricanes like us folks in Florida.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> Welcome back.
> 
> Thanks for posting these articles. Extraordinarily interesting. It is distressing that the U.S. is once again actively "falling for" the same old Syrian shtick.
> 
> I liked how the Israeli government was just finally admitting that they have been aiding and arming the "rebels" since who knows when the other day. :lmao The biggest non-surprise of 2018. :lol




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039303295041462273
I often wonder the same thing...



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Well excuse him for caring too damn much, you big meanie. :trump3
> 
> I heard Lane claimed 1 life, sadly. Regardless, it's good to hear that your neck of the woods isn't as susceptible to hurricanes like us folks in Florida.


I used to live in Tampa. I was there the year Florida got hit by 4 hurricanes in one season.

Besides, who needs Florida anyways? Bugs had the right idea.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yeah man Assad has the support of the Russian Federation and his own people and is on the verge of kicking ISIS the hell out of his country so AYYYY WHY NOT JUST GAS RANDOM FOLKS 

Totally what's going on. 

John McCain is (thankfully) dead and rotting in the ground. Time to leave his foreign policy of playing God (of War) with Muslim countries behind.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039356166969614336


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039266899895312384
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya, that the Russiagate story continues to fall apart.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah man Assad has the support of the Russian Federation and his own people and is on the verge of kicking ISIS the hell out of his country so AYYYY WHY NOT JUST GAS RANDOM FOLKS
> 
> Totally what's going on.
> 
> ...


I wonder if Trump regrets making a big deal when Obama did it now he's likely just realised it's the polite thing to do when visiting a foreign nation? (Even if said nation can go fuck themselves)


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I wonder if Trump regrets making a big deal when Obama did it now he's likely just realised it's the polite thing to do when visiting a foreign nation? (Even if said nation can go fuck themselves)


Trump doesn't have the intelligence to realize his own hypocrisy for doing many of the things Obama did that he ripped Obama to shreds for at the time. And his ego is so huge that I doubt he even knows how to regret. Did it work out great? I'm tremendous. Did it fail hard? It was somebody else's fault and I'm still tremendous.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Trump doesn't have the intelligence to realize his own hypocrisy for doing many of the things Obama did that he ripped Obama to shreds for at the time. And his ego is so huge that I doubt he even knows how to regret. Did it work out great? I'm tremendous. Did it fail hard? It was somebody else's fault and I'm still tremendous.


Seems like a pretty fair evaluation based on what I've seen of him. I guess I'm an optimist who likes to believe people can evolve through life, even when the majority of evidence points to the contrary. But then I suppose that's often the actual position of those "anti-progressives" right? Actually developing and improving and PROGRESSING is evil and must be stamped out in favour of cultural stagnation and outdated ideals. Sad.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Welcome back Tater! Glad you're okay, was going to mount an expedition and go find you!

I'm expecting a "gas attack" or some unverified massacre soon. 

Anything to get the tears flowing to help arm those terrorists! 

Pulling on heart strings is such a good tactic, nobody even bothers to check if it's accurate because they don't want to seem heartless. Must be why the MSM uses it so much!

This whole russiagate is a disaster. x.x



RavishingRickRules said:


> Seems like a pretty fair evaluation based on what I've seen of him. I guess I'm an optimist who likes to believe people can evolve through life, even when the majority of evidence points to the contrary. But then I suppose that's often the actual position of those "anti-progressives" right? Actually developing and improving and PROGRESSING is evil and must be stamped out in favour of cultural stagnation and outdated ideals. Sad.


I'd argue that most of the "progressives" are not progressive but authoritarians disguising their machinations as progress and being on the right side of history. There's a reason why many Liberals oppose many "progressives". Their idea of progress is stagnation of pretty much everything unless they approve it or it pays homage to them. They act like moral nobility and us, the people are their serfs who must pay fealty.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Seems like a pretty fair evaluation based on what I've seen of him. I guess I'm an optimist who likes to believe people can evolve through life, even when the majority of evidence points to the contrary. But then I suppose that's often the actual position of those "anti-progressives" right? Actually developing and improving and PROGRESSING is evil and must be stamped out in favour of cultural stagnation and outdated ideals. Sad.


Some people can evolve through life. Some cannot. The sad fact of reality is that most people are a product of their upbringing. Religion is the most striking example of this. Christians raise Christian kids to be Christian adults. Same for Muslims and Jews and Hindus and every other religion. And they all believe their particular mythology is the correct one and everyone else's is wrong because that's what their parents brainwashed them with from youth.

I'm proof that some can evolve. I was raised in uber far right wing conservative Christian Alabama. My parents are still as such. I'm now a far left libertarian atheist. Whether or not you agree with the philosophy I have evolved to, you certainly can't argue that it came from my parents. :lol

There's a series of ads for Progressive insurance with the theme that we can't stop you from turning into your parents but we can save you money on insurance. They've always struck me as particularly funny because of how different I am from my parents and also because it's pretty true about a lot of people.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> I'd argue that most of the "progressives" are not progressive but authoritarians disguising their machinations as progress and being on the right side of history. There's a reason why many Liberals oppose many "progressives". Their idea of progress is stagnation of pretty much everything unless they approve it or it pays homage to them. They act like moral nobility and us, the people are their serfs who must pay fealty.


No offence meant but I'd say your opinion is very much coloured by the right-wing circles you often associate in. Progressives are doing more to improve this world than every single right-winger combined, who are trying to regress our societies, not progress them. There's a massive difference between the American Left and Progressives. Progressive doesn't mean "left wing" either for a start. And the American Left are squarely right wing with the far-left actually being centrists (like Bernie Sanders.) Ever heard of Stephen Hawking? Yeah, that's a progressive. Elon Musk? Progressive. Your description of the American left is literally a description of the right-wing parties in the vast majority of other countries in the world - most of whom line up politically with the Democrats. Your "right wing" verges on the fringe before far-right when you put it on the global axes and not your localised one that's shifted heavily to the right. The Republicans line up closer with UKIP (total joke party in the UK) than they do our Conservative party and most other right-wing parties in the world. What you're using as "left" is actually "right of centre neocons" when you actually look at the majority of their policies and politics. So respectfully (because I like you as a person,) I'd say you're 100% dead wrong in that assertion you just made.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Some people can evolve through life. Some cannot. The sad fact of reality is that most people are a product of their upbringing. Religion is the most striking example of this. Christians raise Christian kids to be Christian adults. Same for Muslims and Jews and Hindus and every other religion. And they all believe their particular mythology is the correct one and everyone else's is wrong because that's what their parents brainwashed them with from youth.
> 
> I'm proof that some can evolve. I was raised in uber far right wing conservative Christian Alabama. My parents are still as such. I'm now a far left libertarian atheist. Whether or not you agree with the philosophy I have evolved to, you certainly can't argue that it came from my parents. :lol
> 
> There's a series of ads for Progressive insurance with the theme that we can't stop you from turning into your parents but we can save you money on insurance. They've always struck me as particularly funny because of how different I am from my parents and also because it's pretty true about a lot of people.


I don't think all religions raise religious kids though either tbh dude, maybe they do in America I dunno. In the UK thought religion is mostly just a box to tick on an official form for most people. I grew up with more Muslims than anything else, half my family is Jewish and the other half Catholic, and none of us particular gave a fuck about religion in any real terms. When I visited the US and saw some of those super-churches I was pretty blown away by the sheer level of religious devotion you guys have out there compared to here. Even at University with many "well to do" people and actual formal chapel services and everything else I doubt there was more than 10% of the student body who were remotely religious.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@DesolationRow @Tater






Fascinating interview, Tulsi Gabbard speaking truth about our awful foreign policy.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> No offence meant but I'd say your opinion is very much coloured by the right-wing circles you often associate in. Progressives are doing more to improve this world than every single right-winger combined, who are trying to regress our societies, not progress them. There's a massive difference between the American Left and Progressives. Progressive doesn't mean "left wing" either for a start. And the American Left are squarely right wing with the far-left actually being centrists (like Bernie Sanders.) Ever heard of Stephen Hawking? Yeah, that's a progressive. Elon Musk? Progressive. Your description of the American left is literally a description of the right-wing parties in the vast majority of other countries in the world - most of whom line up politically with the Democrats. Your "right wing" verges on the fringe before far-right when you put it on the global axes and not your localised one that's shifted heavily to the right. The Republicans line up closer with UKIP (total joke party in the UK) than they do our Conservative party and most other right-wing parties in the world. What you're using as "left" is actually "right of centre neocons" when you actually look at the majority of their policies and politics. So respectfully (because I like you as a person,) I'd say you're 100% dead wrong in that assertion you just made.


There is a lot of truth in this post and it's something I've ranted about many times in this thread. Most Americans have been so thoroughly brainwashed by MSM propaganda that they actually believe a centrist like Bernie is the far left.



RavishingRickRules said:


> I don't think all religions raise religious kids though either tbh dude, maybe they do in America I dunno. In the UK thought religion is mostly just a box to tick on an official form for most people. I grew up with more Muslims than anything else, half my family is Jewish and the other half Catholic, and none of us particular gave a fuck about religion in any real terms. When I visited the US and saw some of those super-churches I was pretty blown away by the sheer level of religious devotion you guys have out there compared to here. Even at University with many "well to do" people and actual formal chapel services and everything else I doubt there was more than 10% of the student body who were remotely religious.


I wasn't saying it's true in all cases but it is true that a majority of religious adults have the same religious beliefs they were raised to believe by their parents. The one bit of good news, at least here in the USA, is that younger generations are trending away from religion. We have the internet to thank for that. It was a lot easier for the town elders to control all the information back in the days of yore and that control allowed them to raise little clones. It's a lot more difficult now when younger people can pull out their smart phones and fact check some of these ridiculous religious claims.

It's going to be a long, slow process but I believe the USA will look a lot different in terms of religion in another few more decades. It's also the reason why I believe the religious fanatics are so desperate now to put their religion into law because they know they are losing control of the narrative. If they can't willingly convince people to believe their bullshit, they'll try using force. Sounds like a certain other religion, if you know what I mean.

It's common propaganda that Muslim jihadists are the biggest terrorists in the world and one of the main reasons the USA is in the Middle East is because of fossil fuels but that shit with Israel? There's a lot of dead people in that area of the world because Christians are using the USA military to bring about their mythological apocalypse. They believe once Israel holds all of a certain amount of land, Jesus will return and take them all to heaven. Not that they would ever admit it out loud but that has a lot to do with why the USA puts so much support into Israel.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Tater
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hot diggity damn! I know what I'm going to be listening to tonight at work. Thanks for the mention.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> It's common propaganda that Muslim jihadists are the biggest terrorists in the world and one of the main reasons the USA is in the Middle East is because of fossil fuels but that shit with Israel? There's a lot of dead people in that area of the world because Christians are using the USA military to bring about their mythological apocalypse. They believe once Israel holds all of a certain amount of land, Jesus will return and take them all to heaven. Not that they would ever admit it out loud but that has a lot to do with why the USA puts so much support into Israel.


I'm so going have to show this to my Jewish relatives because they'll laugh so hard. Imagine being of one religion and putting your faith in the notion that supporting a country whose religion believes your religion is utter nonsense will bring back your saviour? My Mum is going to die laughing over this one for real. I think my Nana would probably just throw something at me and tell me to stop being foolish though, nobody needs an angry 90 yr old Italian lady throwing her shoes at their head tbh. :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm so going have to show this to my Jewish relatives because they'll laugh so hard. Imagine being of one religion and putting your faith in the notion that supporting a country whose religion believes your religion is utter nonsense will bring back your saviour? My Mum is going to die laughing over this one for real. I think my Nana would probably just throw something at me and tell me to stop being foolish though, nobody needs an angry 90 yr old Italian lady throwing her shoes at their head tbh. :lol


You know what makes it even more hilarious? The Christians and Jews who want Israel to have all the land for their own very different reasons are in bed with Saudi Arabia, which is a Wahhabi Muslim state. This particular trio takes the term unholy alliance to an entirely new level.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You know what makes it even more hilarious? The Christians and Jews who want Israel to have all the land for their own very different reasons are in bed with Saudi Arabia, which is a Wahhabi Muslim state. This particular trio takes the term unholy alliance to an entirely new level.


Weirdly, my family are actually anti-Isreal for the most part. My Nana especially really hates everything involving the conflict with Palestine and gets really upset by all of it. I'm not sure if there's anything specific to do with the type of Judaism or anything like that because my parents didn't really raise me to be religious, I learned about all the different religions as standard in school and they always just said to me to "look around, see what you like and make your own mind up when you grow up." I guess that was their way of not having to choose which religion we'd be or something but it means though I know a lot of the vague stuff and general principles of Judaism and have followed some conventions in my life to accommodate family, I don't really know the details. 

All I know is that my family aren't supportive in the slightest of Israel as a nation (or really Palestine either, but the prevailing opinion is that it was Palestine's country I guess) and don't appear to feel any connection to them. Of course, there's also the whole element of many family members being taken by the Nazis, so it could simply be that they're very aggressively against religious intolerance/violence . It's one of those things though where I don't even know how I'd approach that shit. It's one thing to be told stories about old family members or see the few surviving pictures or even hear about what it was like. It's another thing to bring up the religious intolerance stuff and try and get more in depth perspectives. I'm not sure I'd want to bring up all the bad memories and shit like that for my Nana to be honest.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> No offence meant but I'd say your opinion is very much coloured by the right-wing circles you often associate in. Progressives are doing more to improve this world than every single right-winger combined, who are trying to regress our societies, not progress them. There's a massive difference between the American Left and Progressives. Progressive doesn't mean "left wing" either for a start. And the American Left are squarely right wing with the far-left actually being centrists (like Bernie Sanders.) Ever heard of Stephen Hawking? Yeah, that's a progressive. Elon Musk? Progressive. Your description of the American left is literally a description of the right-wing parties in the vast majority of other countries in the world - most of whom line up politically with the Democrats. Your "right wing" verges on the fringe before far-right when you put it on the global axes and not your localised one that's shifted heavily to the right. The Republicans line up closer with UKIP (total joke party in the UK) than they do our Conservative party and most other right-wing parties in the world. What you're using as "left" is actually "right of centre neocons" when you actually look at the majority of their policies and politics. So respectfully (because I like you as a person,) I'd say you're 100% dead wrong in that assertion you just made.


While I understand what you're saying I disagree. I'm talking about fake progressives who have hijacked the progressive movement much like SJWs have hijacked Liberialism for their own agendas.

As I've talked to Tater about before, society needs Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives. They work as ying and yang and are beneficial for society as a whole. American Republicans aren't true Conservatives anymore than Democrats are Liberals. They've just simply bamboozled the moronic masses into thinking such. 

As for "Cultural Stagnation" that's just another mostly nonsensical gathering of words like "They took our jobs" or "They're going to breed us out!" that's used by people to try and scare people into doing what they want. Cultural stagnation takes years and years and usually it's the result of lack of intellectual progress over anything social. I think that's the only issue I have with what you said.

Maybe I missed your point but I was stating that many anti-progressives are ones who fight against the sneaky authoritarian fuckfaces that have wormed their way into these respected groups. There are certainly people who fight progress and they tend to come from the far sides of their respective spectrum. Overall "progressives" (Regressives) need to be stamped out so the true progressives can better society. 

If I did miss your point I apologize, I'm half asleep


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Should have tagged me in that post @CamillePunk

Watching it now .


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> While I understand what you're saying I disagree. I'm talking about fake progressives who have hijacked the progressive movement much like SJWs have hijacked Liberialism for their own agendas.
> 
> As I've talked to Tater about before, society needs Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives. They work as ying and yang and are beneficial for society as a whole. American Republicans aren't true Conservatives anymore than Democrats are Liberals. They've just simply bamboozled the moronic masses into thinking such.
> 
> ...


That's the problem though, everything you just said sounds like a bizarre alt-right fantasy world, it's not remotely based on the real world. Who are these "regressives" you're talking about? You mean the ones who support political correctness? Do you even know what that actually means? It means stopping people being bigots. That's it. It's got fuck all to do with the faux outrage shit you all like to label as "PC" it's simply "stop being being offensive bigots." So who's regressive? The people trying to stop bigotry, or the people trying to stop the people trying to stop bigotry? I'm gonna go with the latter. What's regressive, the people trying to save the environment and the planet for future generations or the people trying to ignore science and increase pollution for profit? I'm going to go with the latter. 

This is the problem I have with your entire perspective, it's about as grounded in reality as the phrase "Donald Trump is an eloquent, debonair individual with a calm temperament and an intellectual mind." (ie, it's not at all.) Sorry, but I'm sick of the bullshit. Cultural Stagnation means trying to force society to a place of zero change - that's EXACTLY what conservatives are doing all across the globe, or in the case of the UK they're taking us back to the 1970's - utterly and indisputably regressive. As you just said, you're talking about "fake progressives" so they don't fucking count when we;re talking about ACTUAL progressives, you see? You realise the vast majority of those "fake progressives" like the American Left are right wing though right? You all wouldn't know left wing if it slapped you in the face and said "hello Comrade."


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> While I understand what you're saying I disagree. I'm talking about fake progressives who have hijacked the progressive movement much like SJWs have hijacked Liberialism for their own agendas.
> 
> As I've talked to Tater about before, society needs Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives. They work as ying and yang and are beneficial for society as a whole. American Republicans aren't true Conservatives anymore than Democrats are Liberals. They've just simply bamboozled the moronic masses into thinking such.
> 
> ...





RavishingRickRules said:


> That's the problem though, everything you just said sounds like a bizarre alt-right fantasy world, it's not remotely based on the real world. Who are these "regressives" you're talking about? You mean the ones who support political correctness? Do you even know what that actually means? It means stopping people being bigots. That's it. It's got fuck all to do with the faux outrage shit you all like to label as "PC" it's simply "stop being being offensive bigots." So who's regressive? The people trying to stop bigotry, or the people trying to stop the people trying to stop bigotry? I'm gonna go with the latter. What's regressive, the people trying to save the environment and the planet for future generations or the people trying to ignore science and increase pollution for profit? I'm going to go with the latter.
> 
> This is the problem I have with your entire perspective, it's about as grounded in reality as the phrase "Donald Trump is an eloquent, debonair individual with a calm temperament and an intellectual mind." (ie, it's not at all.) Sorry, but I'm sick of the bullshit. Cultural Stagnation means trying to force society to a place of zero change - that's EXACTLY what conservatives are doing all across the globe, or in the case of the UK they're taking us back to the 1970's - utterly and indisputably regressive. As you just said, you're talking about "fake progressives" so they don't fucking count when we;re talking about ACTUAL progressives, you see? You realise the vast majority of those "fake progressives" like the American Left are right wing though right? You all wouldn't know left wing if it slapped you in the face and said "hello Comrade."


Forgive me if I am out line by stepping into the middle of this but I don't think you two are all that far off from what you're trying to say. You're just using different words to say it and it's causing a breakdown in communication. I believe the gist of what both of you are trying to say is essentially the same.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Forgive me if I am out line by stepping into the middle of this but I don't think you two are all that far off from what you're trying to say. You're just using different words to say it and it's causing a breakdown in communication. I believe the gist of what both of you are trying to say is essentially the same.


Unfortunately it's not. Sally want to blame things on progressives and then says it's because they're "fake progressives." I'm flat out stating that fake progressives are irrelevant to the fact that actual progressives are by far the group doing the most to improve society for everybody, especially when compared to the regressive and damaging populist right-wing nonsense that's running rampant these days.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There's a thread of progressives that are authoritarian which is why they come across as _fake_. They're not fake. They're just the ones that want to increase the power of the state because they believe that if you give power to a select group of people, they will always govern with the best interests of everyone at heart. But of course, that is not true because ultimately those with power always use power to favor their chosen ones, or those who paid to put them in power.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

What a piece of garbage Trump is, doing a double fist pump going to a 9/11 service.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> There's a thread of progressives that are authoritarian which is why they come across as _fake_. They're not fake. They're just the ones that want to increase the power of the state because they believe that if you give power to a select group of people, they will always govern with the best interests of everyone at heart. But of course, that is not true because ultimately those with power always use power to favor their chosen ones, or those who paid to put them in power.


I'd counter that with the statement that they're hardly being progressive in using that power to favour their "chosen ones" and maintain the status quo. They're simply being conservatives. (As is the case for 99.999999999% of all American politicians.)


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'd counter that with the statement that they're hardly being progressive in using that power to favour their "chosen ones" and maintain the status quo. They're simply being conservatives. (As is the case for 99.999999999% of all American politicians.)


But there are authoritarian conservatives whose politics fundamentally disagree with those of progressives. 

It's fine to have a well defined political compass and know where everything belongs. 
@Tater ; is probably one of the more knowledgable people on this subject than most anyone on WF so I'll let him take the lead on this.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> What a piece of garbage Trump is, doing a double fist pump going to a 9/11 service.


Thank you Business Insider for this news report. 

I believe that it resulted in feeding a 1000 homeless people and paid for the surgery of millions of Americans.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> But there are authoritarian conservatives whose politics fundamentally disagree with those of progressives.
> 
> It's fine to have a well defined political compass and know where everything belongs.
> 
> @Tater ; is probably one of the more knowledgable people on this subject than most anyone on WF so I'll let him take the lead on this.


"Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform." By definition, using the money and power to maintain the status quo is anti-progressive.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> "Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform." By definition, using the money and power to maintain the status quo is anti-progressive.


Except what kind of reform and how is the reform to be implemented if not through supporting those who would implement the reform?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Thank you Business Insider for this news report.
> 
> I believe that it resulted in feeding a 1000 homeless people and paid for the surgery of millions of Americans.


You are not defending Trump for doing this, are you?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are not defending Trump for doing this, are you?


Am I?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039555418551410695
So scandalous. Begin impeachment proceedings NOW. Nobody show any happiness or enthusiasm in any context whatsoever on 9/11. Everyone be depressed all day and make sure you depress others with your demeanor.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Except what kind of reform and how is the reform to be implemented if not through supporting those who would implement the reform?


Which contradicts the idea that they're "ultimately those with power always use power to favor their chosen ones, or those who paid to put them in power" which isn't reform at all is it? That's what's been happening since long before either of us graced the Earth with our presence. So what's progressive about it? Nothing. Calling yourself a progressive and actually being one are massively different things. I judge people based on their actions, not whatever lip-service they'll pay to get themselves elected. If you're not actually working to improve things with societal reform, you're not a progressive. Simple as that really.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Looks like Ivanka scored a super effective hit on her dad by using a combo of Fake Tears and Tearful Look:

https://web.archive.org/web/2018091...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fa84676a7a32


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Looks like Ivanka scored a super effective hit on her dad by using a combo of Fake Tears and Tearful Look:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/2018091...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fa84676a7a32


Where does it say Ivanka did anything in that article? I couldn't see it at all.

Edit: Also who the fuck cares that Trump did a fucking fist pump? It's beyond petty to be bothered by inconsequential nonsense like that.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Looks like Ivanka scored a super effective hit on her dad by using a combo of Fake Tears and Tearful Look:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/2018091...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fa84676a7a32


No need to blame Ivanka for this. Trump has been surrounding himself with war mongerers over the last year. We all knew that this was going to happen. 

I guess now the left can be happy that they basically have Hillary in power.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> No need to blame Ivanka for this. Trump has been surrounding himself with war mongerers over the last year. We all knew that this was going to happen.
> 
> I guess now the left can be happy that they basically have Hillary in power.


I'm sure everybody's totally stunned that a long time Clinton donor functions much as Clinton would in power... :serious:


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039555418551410695
> So scandalous. Begin impeachment proceedings NOW. Nobody show any happiness or enthusiasm in any context whatsoever on 9/11. Everyone be depressed all day and make sure you depress others with your demeanor.


Only on WF would people defend Trump for this. Why am I not surprised


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@RavishingRickRules and @Reap : It's something of a running joke that was born from the infamous rumor of how Ivanka (who we all know is daddy's girl to the Nth degree) basically crying crocodile tears over the Syrian chemical attack = what led to Trump greenlighting the Syria airstrike months ago.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Only on WF would people defend Trump for this. Why am I not surprised


Honestly though, and you know I'm FAR from a Trump supporter as I've shown for literally years now. What is there even to defend or condemn in the firstplace? It's an utterly irrelevant and petty thing to even give the tiniest shit about in all honesty. What's next, let's defend or condemn the way he puts his pants on in the morning or something?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Honestly though, and you know I'm FAR from a Trump supporter as I've shown for literally years now. What is there even to defend or condemn in the firstplace? It's an utterly irrelevant and petty thing to even give the tiniest shit about in all honesty. What's next, let's defend or condemn the way he puts his pants on in the morning or something?


How is it petty? You are supposed to be showing your respects to the people who died on 9/11, it would be like going to a memorial for someone who died and walking in going WOOOOHOOOO and fist pumping. You really think anyone in that memorial would think it was ok to do that?

Its totally disrespectful


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is it petty? You are supposed to be showing your respects to the people who died on 9/11, it would be like going to a memorial for someone who died and walking in going WOOOOHOOOO and fist pumping. You really think anyone in that memorial would think it was ok to do that?
> 
> Its totally disrespectful


Bullshit straw man so you can stop with that crap right now. He was on his way TO something, not stood in the middle of a memorial service doing it. I've been to numerous funerals and laughed and joked and (god forbid!) taken shitloads of drugs on my way there. It didn't mean I was being disrespectful to the person who's funeral I was going to, I wasn't even fucking there yet. Seriously, can you not see how utterly over-the-top and ultimately silly you're being here?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Bullshit straw man so you can stop with that crap right now. He was on his way TO something, not stood in the middle of a memorial service doing it. I've been to numerous funerals and laughed and joked and (god forbid!) taken shitloads of drugs on my way there. It didn't mean I was being disrespectful to the person who's funeral I was going to, I wasn't even fucking there yet. Seriously, can you not see how utterly over-the-top and ultimately silly you're being here?


It's not a strawman its exactly the same thing. But keep defending this kind of behavior. Did you defend Trump when he bragged he once again has the tallest building in NYC after the powers fell too?

Oh and look Trump giving a thumbs up AT THE memorial 











But yeah I bet you think that is ok too


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Reap @Tater @RavishingRickRules






The Democrats will deserve to lose if they keep associating themselves with the old guard and the Corporatists. We may as well have 4 more years of Trump in this scenario.

As far as what else is on my mind right now: One of the only things that the US president and government effects me and the UK is foreign policy and the majority of both parties are interventionist war mongers. So there isn't many politicians right now I could get behind. If you're for the war machine, you're for potentially getting my country also involved in more pointless and costly conflicts. I can't support any American politician who is for war. That is a red line for me.

Because of this I've come to the realization that if Tulsi Gabbard actually runs in 2020 (which is doubtful but not impossible), I will support her not only for the nomination but currently at this time against Trump. That might shock some people but it's something I've actually thought for a while because clearly we have the status quo as far as foreign policy goes.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> @Reap @Tater @RavishingRickRules
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tulsi is my first pick for Sanders running mate if he runs in 2020 with LIz Warren a close 2nd but IMO Warren would be better served as Treasury if Sanders ran and won. Tulsi would also be a great pick to run if Sanders does not.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's not a strawman its exactly the same thing. But keep defending this kind of behavior. Did you defend Trump when he bragged he once again has the tallest building in NYC after the powers fell too?
> 
> Oh and look Trump giving a thumbs up AT THE memorial
> 
> ...


Wow they hold memorial services whilst people are still walking to the actual memorial to attend now? Who knew? Seriously though, you're so full of crap, he's still not THERE YET, he's on his way. I can't remotely take you seriously whilst you continue to be so utterly clueless at best or dishonest at worst. Detail to me how it's the same doing things before you arrive at a memorial or after you've left as it is whilst you're AT a memorial that is ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE? Actually, you know what, fuck that question. I don't even care about the answer. Since I became a parent I have no more patience or tolerance left for unadulterated idiocy.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Wow they hold memorial services whilst people are still walking to the actual memorial to attend now? Who knew? Seriously though, you're so full of crap, he's still not THERE YET, he's on his way. I can't remotely take you seriously whilst you continue to be so utterly clueless at best or dishonest at worst. Detail to me how it's the same doing things before you arrive at a memorial or after you've left as it is whilst you're AT a memorial that is ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE? Actually, you know what, fuck that question. I don't even care about the answer. Since I became a parent I have no more patience or tolerance left for unadulterated idiocy.


I can't take you seriously because you are defending Trump acting like a clown when he should be respectful. But keep defending this type of shit.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I have no more patience or tolerance left for unadulterated idiocy.





birthday_massacre said:


> I can't take you seriously because you are defending Trump acting like a clown when he should be respectful. But keep defending this type of shit.


Take the fucking hint or you can go on the ignore list with deepelem as somebody else who requires ignoring because I'm getting notifications for worthless posts.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Take the fucking hint or you can go on the ignore list with deepelem as somebody else who requires ignoring because I'm getting notifications for worthless posts.


If you are going to defend Trump for being a clown on 9/11, by all means, put me on ignore. You should be embarrassed defending Trump for this.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Aww, the deepelem/RRR bromance is over? :sad:

BM is funny. Why would you want to put him on ignore?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039636324322402304
:clap


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Wow they hold memorial services whilst people are still walking to the actual memorial to attend now? Who knew? Seriously though, you're so full of crap, he's still not THERE YET, he's on his way. I can't remotely take you seriously whilst you continue to be so utterly clueless at best or dishonest at worst. Detail to me how it's the same doing things before you arrive at a memorial or after you've left as it is whilst you're AT a memorial that is ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE? Actually, you know what, fuck that question. I don't even care about the answer. Since I became a parent I have no more patience or tolerance left for unadulterated idiocy.





CamillePunk said:


> Aww, the deepelem/RRR bromance is over? :sad:
> 
> BM is funny. Why would you want to put him on ignore?



It comes down to a very simple factor: Do I want to continue to get notifications for utterly worthless posts by people who are unable to discuss things rationally and instead live in some bizarro crazy fantasy land? The answer is pretty much always no. deepelem fit that bill, now bm does too. I've got better things to do with my time tbh.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> It comes down to a very simple factor: Do I want to continue to get notifications for utterly worthless posts by people who are unable to discuss things rationally and instead live in some bizarro crazy fantasy land? The answer is pretty much always no. deepelem fit that bill, now bm does too. I've got better things to do with my time tbh.


I love getting notifications from BM. They're always worth the read. :heston


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I guess now the left can be happy that they basically have Hillary in power.



To be fair I don't think Clinton is a good person but the last two years would've been a lot quieter. I'm not sure if I can deal with another six years of Trump-noise and I don't even live in the US. If we're going to get the same war mongering result I can see why people would prefer Hillary.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> It comes down to a very simple factor: Do I want to continue to get notifications for utterly worthless posts by people who are unable to discuss things rationally and instead live in some bizarro crazy fantasy land? The answer is pretty much always no. deepelem fit that bill, now bm does too. I've got better things to do with my time tbh.


You are the one living in bizarro world thinking what Trump did was ok and appropriate.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I love getting notifications from BM. They're always worth the read. :heston


Beg to differ tbh. Idiocy doesn't entertain me much the majority of the time. Since my little 'un was born I've had somewhat of a light go off in my head and now I'm less willing to suffer fools and even less willing to hold my tongue when I see people being/supporting discrimination and idiotic values. You may have noticed me being more combative against the "anti-PC" sentiments recently? That's part of the reason why. I'm no longer willing to let it slide, if people want to be anti-PC cool, I'll confront them and ask them exactly what it is about not being allowed to be offensive to marginalised groups that hurts them so much and what it is they feel they can't say any more that's totally ok. So far 3 "anti-PC" people actually turned out to be pro-PC they just didn't understand what it meant and another for some INEXPLICABLE reason won't list the things he wishes it was ok to say despite his claims to be non-bigoted. Funny that. Like I say, my patience has gone right out of the window and I don't give a fuck any more, I'm going to call everybody out on their dumb bullshit.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I might have to support a Sanders/Gabbard ticket or something in 2020. I'll put up with a little socialism if we can put an end to these freaking wars.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Aww, the deepelem/RRR bromance is over? :sad:
> 
> BM is funny. Why would you want to put him on ignore?
> 
> ...


The baiting and angry tearful masturbation about how the common folk should be disenfranchised politically because they're dumb - the refrain of tyrants for 6000 years - from Rick has become most tiresome. He's an authoritarian driven by emotion - the worst kind. 

As for displaying anything but grim solemnity in the context of september 11th being taboo, being rah rah and spunky about engaging in war with no strategic political vision has always been most acceptable.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I might have to support a Sanders/Gabbard ticket or something in 2020. I'll put up with a little socialism if we can put an end to these freaking wars.


That was the main reason I saw Corbyn as a better option than Theresa May tbh. I never ended up voting for him because it'd be an irrelevant vote in my constituency as Labour are irrelevant here. Now that Vince Cable is a party leader (somebody more capable than almost the entire Labour and Conservative parties combined) I'll probably support them even though they have no real chance of election. At the very least they're competitive where I live so the support won't mean totally nothing. I think I get to carry on voting once I move to Portugal so I'll be throwing him my support as long as he's around. Shame really that he's in the "third party" as he's the only person smart enough to say "why don't we see how shit Brexit is and if it really sucks just call it off before we fuck up the entire country" in control of a political party in the UK. Probably because he has a phd in Economics I'd imagine.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Beg to differ tbh. Idiocy doesn't entertain me much the majority of the time. Since my little 'un was born I've had somewhat of a light go off in my head and now I'm less willing to suffer fools and even less willing to hold my tongue when I see people being/supporting discrimination and idiotic values. You may have noticed me being more combative against the "anti-PC" sentiments recently? That's part of the reason why. I'm no longer willing to let it slide, if people want to be anti-PC cool, I'll confront them and ask them exactly what it is about not being allowed to be offensive to marginalised groups that hurts them so much and what it is they feel they can't say any more that's totally ok. So far 3 "anti-PC" people actually turned out to be pro-PC they just didn't understand what it meant and another for some INEXPLICABLE reason won't list the things he wishes it was ok to say despite his claims to be non-bigoted. Funny that. Like I say, my patience has gone right out of the window and I don't give a fuck any more, I'm going to call everybody out on their dumb bullshit.


You are a piece of work saying its idiotic to bash Trump for being a clown on 9/11 when it's a remembrance and Trump is acting like it's a rally. I didn't even bring up his tweets this morning which show even more how fucked in the head he is. But if you want to defend that by all means.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm ok with BM posting ITT because he keeps me from falling towards the hard left :Shrug

He would actually accomplish something if he realized that many of his posts serve as a reminder for why Trump won and why Trumpism exists and why America can never break the endless cycle of the two parties switching ever few years.

Man, we need a third independent party so bad.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump thumbs up or waving is a non-starter, it's petty and a non issue BM, not the hill to die on. There's nothing wrong with celebrating the lives of the lost as well as being solemn, how people deal with death is their own prerogative. I lost a beloved cousin to suicide when I was younger and the service in parts was quite jovial.

It's akin to anti-Hillary's going on and on about her supposed laughing in court when someone got off or got convicted or some shit, total pointless beatup.

Also lol at Ravishing Rick talking about going to funerals taking drugs on the way. Fist pumping on ecstacy and shit.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I'm ok with BM posting ITT because he keeps me from falling towards the hard left :Shrug
> 
> He would actually accomplish something if he realized that many of his posts serve as a reminder for why Trump won and why Trumpism exists and why America can never break the endless cycle of the two parties switching ever few years.
> 
> Man, we need a third independent party so bad.


We have independents but the problem remains because they're still massively subservient to the main two. I'm starting to think that my "ideal" situation would be a political landscape where there are more than 2 parties (preferable 4-5 but I'd take 3 if I could get it) who all had enough support to prevent a true majority in seats in a proportionally representative system. Even if that meant that you might end up with a small number of nutjobs (because lets face it, actual extremist parties like UKIP and the BNP in the UK get very little support all told) getting more seats, I think the idea of even a large left party and a large right party with neither holding a majority and a smaller party of centrists holding enough votes to swing it either way might actually work. Something needs to be introduced into the system to temper either side I know that much. None of us are going to get much better in a perpetual cycle of opposing sides getting in power and spending most of their time removing everything done by the previous government. It's just a repetitive cycle of stagnation.



yeahbaby! said:


> Trump thumbs up or waving is a non-starter, it's petty and a non issue BM, not the hill to die on. There's nothing wrong with celebrating the lives of the lost as well as being solemn, how people deal with death is their own prerogative. I lost a beloved cousin to suicide when I was younger and the service in parts was quite jovial.
> 
> It's akin to anti-Hillary's going on and on about her supposed laughing in court when someone got off or got convicted or some shit, total pointless beatup.
> 
> Also lol at Ravishing Rick talking about going to funerals taking drugs on the way. Fist pumping on ecstacy and shit.


It's usually acid, 2c-b/p/i, 4-aco-dmt or other similar compounds tbh. The ecstasy mostly comes out at the after-party.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I remember SD happened close to 9/11 and I remember watching it and being inspired by them continuing on with their show. They still had jokes and they still ran the show the way it was written. It was incredibly inspiring. Even as a non American at the time I was deeply inspired by the American spirit at the time.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Going on at length about wishing that less people would express their opinions because they are allegedly dumb opinions, as Rick recently did, says something and what it says is not good. If they are that upsetting, don't expose yourself to them! It's that simple really. No one is forcing Rick to expose himself to opinions he finds so dumb as to be that upsetting

If he wants to express such a manifestly shitty opinion as that he wishes people would shut up so he doesn't get upset, he can go right ahead. But it is still a manifestly shitty opinion. The man constantly seethes with resentment and frustration. What I wish is he would do something to feel better instead of wallowing in his bitter dregs :draper2


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Unfortunately it's not. Sally want to blame things on progressives and then says it's because they're "fake progressives." I'm flat out stating that fake progressives are irrelevant to the fact that actual progressives are by far the group doing the most to improve society for everybody, especially when compared to the regressive and damaging populist right-wing nonsense that's running rampant these days.





RavishingRickRules said:


> "Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform." By definition, using the money and power to maintain the status quo is anti-progressive.


Okay, so this is the video I was watching earlier that your argument with Sally reminded me of:






You've got this Pressley bitch who was arguing that Hillary is a progressive and started whining about "mansplaining" to the reporter when he started pointing out decidedly non-progressive about Hillary facts to her. Hillary and those of her ilk who parade around calling themselves progressives are the kind of fake progressives Sally is talking about, what you would call regressive or conservative. The type of people we are talking about here try to trade in superficial "progressive" change while doing everything within their power to retain the status quo. 

Sadly, that's what a lot of Americans believe progressives are; center right corporatist neo/neos putting on a fake veneer of progressivism while herding the sheep into the slaughterhouse using a different door with a sign that says access to all men, women, LGBTQ and other minorities.

You yourself have acknowledged that Bernie is a the most centrist politician ever but he is what get's called far left here in the USA. We've got a lot of brainwashed morons over here who have little to no understanding of what the actual political spectrum looks like.



DOPA said:


> @Reap @Tater @RavishingRickRules
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is zero chance in hell that I would vote for anyone who is pro-war. I don't give a fuck if that means 4 more years of Trump. And if the Democrats don't run screaming like a bat out of hell as far away as they can get from Hillary, that's probably what will happen.



DOPA said:


> Because of this I've come to the realization that if Tulsi Gabbard actually runs in 2020 (which is doubtful but not impossible), I will support her not only for the nomination but currently at this time against Trump. That might shock some people but it's something I've actually thought for a while because clearly we have the status quo as far as foreign policy goes.





CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039636324322402304
> :clap





CamillePunk said:


> I might have to support a Sanders/Gabbard ticket or something in 2020. I'll put up with a little socialism if we can put an end to these freaking wars.


As much as I would LOVE to have Tulsi as president, I worry that a 2020 run might be a bit premature. Those of us who are political junkies have known about her for awhile (BTW, CP, I freakin' loved listening to her on the JRE last night), she might not be as well know nationally as she needs to be. Plus, she carries herself and talks with such gravitas, it's easy to forget just how young she is. She's only 37 now. If she were our next president, she'd be done in DC by her mid-40s. Maybe I'm being selfish here but we need Tulsi for a lot longer than that. 

If the Dems don't find a way to screw Bernie out of the nomination again, TBH, I wouldn't want her as VP either. Where I'd rather have her is Secretary of State, which is a lot more powerful position than VP. From the SoS role, she would have a larger influence on Bernie's foreign policy, helping to keep the neocons at bay, and would be a brilliant voice on the international stage to try to get us out of some of these conflicts. A role like that would give her the name recognition and experience for a successful run at the WH herself, so when old man Bernie dodders off into retirement, give me Gabbard as president in 2028. That's what I would consider the best case scenario.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Trump thumbs up or waving is a non-starter, it's petty and a non issue BM, not the hill to die on. There's nothing wrong with celebrating the lives of the lost as well as being solemn, how people deal with death is their own prerogative. I lost a beloved cousin to suicide when I was younger and the service in parts was quite jovial.
> 
> It's akin to anti-Hillary's going on and on about her supposed laughing in court when someone got off or got convicted or some shit, total pointless beatup.
> 
> Also lol at Ravishing Rick talking about going to funerals taking drugs on the way. Fist pumping on ecstacy and shit.


Again only in WF do people think Trumps kind of behavior is ok. But I come to expect that on WF so it's not surprising at all. You have just been so used to Trump acting like a clown, it does not even phase you anymore and that is a problem.



Reap said:


> I'm ok with BM posting ITT because he keeps me from falling towards the hard left :Shrug
> 
> He would actually accomplish something if he realized that many of his posts serve as a reminder for why Trump won and why Trumpism exists and why America can never break the endless cycle of the two parties switching ever few years.
> 
> Man, we need a third independent party so bad.


LOL Trump won because he was a fake populist during the election and he ran against he one person less popular than him. We all know if he would have face Sanders, Sanders would have landed slided him. But keep telling yourself that is why Trump won when people claim Trump "calling out people" is one of the reasons why he won. You can't have it both ways.

And Trumpist exist because Trump is openly racist and his racist supports see oh they can be openly racist too and they love that 



yeahbaby! said:


> Trump thumbs up or waving is a non-starter, it's petty and a non issue BM, not the hill to die on. There's nothing wrong with celebrating the lives of the lost as well as being solemn, how people deal with death is their own prerogative. I lost a beloved cousin to suicide when I was younger and the service in parts was quite jovial.
> 
> It's akin to anti-Hillary's going on and on about her supposed laughing in court when someone got off or got convicted or some shit, total pointless beatup.
> 
> Also lol at Ravishing Rick talking about going to funerals taking drugs on the way. Fist pumping on ecstacy and shit.


Again only in WF do people think Trumps kind of behavior is ok. But I come to expect that on WF so it's not surprising at all. You have just been so used to Trump acting like a clown, it does not even phase you anymore and that is a problem. You are normalized to Trumps bullshit and that is a huge problem. 

Can you imagine the shit Hillary would get if she would have done something like that, or if Obama did.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Okay, so this is the video I was watching earlier that your argument with Sally reminded me of:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, i guess my problem is that people seem to think that because these false-progressives give themselves the label that "all progressives are bad and should be banned." Which is retarded. So because you don't like what the fake progressives do you're going to side with their opposition who do the same shit but worse and discount the ACTUAL progressives pushing for real reform that'll benefit anybody who's not lucky enough to be in the top 1 percent? I dunno. It's hard to reconcile myself with that opinion if I'm honest.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah, i guess my problem is that people seem to think that because these false-progressives give themselves the label that "all progressives are bad and should be banned." Which is retarded. So because you don't like what the fake progressives do you're going to side with their opposition who do the same shit but worse and discount the ACTUAL progressives pushing for real reform that'll benefit anybody who's not lucky enough to be in the top 1 percent? I dunno. It's hard to reconcile myself with that opinion if I'm honest.


I don't believe in banning all Progressives or anything like that. We need Progressives/Liberals and Conservatives to get back to their true meaning. I was just arguing that not everyone who is "anti-progressive" is so just to stop all progressives but specifically fight a certain group of them.

These fake progressives etc hide behind their labels and try to use it as a shield from getting their bullshit called out on. They've pretty much inserted themselves into every form of entertainment, politics and academia. Neocons/NeoLibs are the worst thing going on in America right now. 

Sorry if it came off I was saying all progressives were bad, I was talking about a very specific group. :laugh:


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't believe in banning all Progressives or anything like that. We need Progressives/Liberals and Conservatives to get back to their true meaning. I was just arguing that not everyone who is "anti-progressive" is so just to stop all progressives but specifically fight a certain group of them.
> 
> These fake progressives etc hide behind their labels and try to use it as a shield from getting their bullshit called out on. They've pretty much inserted themselves into every form of entertainment, politics and academia. Neocons/NeoLibs are the worst thing going on in America right now.
> 
> Sorry if it came off I was saying all progressives were bad, I was talking about a very specific group. :laugh:


Yeah it's cool, I guess my main issue was that that specific group aren't remotely progressive, they're just inexplicably able to give themselves that label because they're slightly less right-wing than their opponents. If somebody is "the establishment" and they're not actually reforming anything they're totally the opposite of that - pretty much describes what I've seen of these people. That's my main problem with the anti-progressive stance, if you're anti-progressive, you're anti-improvement. I believe we should never stop trying to make things better and progress as a species whether culturally, socially, intellectually or anything else. It's why I find the notion of "the good old days" so stupid, there were no good old days just rose-tinted memories of those days because people aren't good at keeping up with progress.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Sorry if it came off I was saying all progressives were bad, I was talking about a very specific group. :laugh:


Sorry luv kinda comes off as a bit of a back pedal now IMO... you originally said progressives as a generality with no hint of what you're saying now. I think it's important to clarify these things when you first say them, otherwise you can't blame people for picking you up on it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah, i guess my problem is that people seem to think that because these false-progressives give themselves the label that "all progressives are bad and should be banned." Which is retarded. So because you don't like what the fake progressives do you're going to side with their opposition who do the same shit but worse and discount the ACTUAL progressives pushing for real reform that'll benefit anybody who's not lucky enough to be in the top 1 percent? I dunno. It's hard to reconcile myself with that opinion if I'm honest.


Sadly, using social issues to scare people into voting for you is quite an effective tool. Both sides do it. Democrats tell their voters you gotta vote for us or Republicans will turn everyone into racist homophobes and Republicans tell their voters you gotta vote for us or Democrats will turn everyone into gay atheists. Meanwhile, the Republicans and Democrats continue marching in lock step on all the major, important issues, such as the economy and foreign policy.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Sadly, using social issues to scare people into voting for you is quite an effective tool. Both sides do it. Democrats tell their voters you gotta vote for us or Republicans will turn everyone into racist homophobes and Republicans tell their voters you gotta vote for us or Democrats will turn everyone into gay atheists. Meanwhile, the Republicans and Democrats continue marching in lock step on all the major, important issues, such as the economy and foreign policy.


Is it wrong that the Republicans saying the Democrats would turn everybody into gay atheists makes the Democrats look better? Gay atheists are cool as fuck in my experience of them :lmao

I must admit, some of those elements of your politics are just totally alien to ours. Most of our right-wing is pretty much pro-gay now, in fact though I'm not a fan of David Cameron at all, he made a fantastic speech which I always thought was a perfect explanation as to why conservatives should be pro Gay marriage: 

"I stood before a Conservative conference once and I said it shouldn't matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a man and another man or a woman and a woman. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we're consulting on legalising gay marriage. And to anyone who has reservations, I say this: Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative." :applause

Similarly with religion, I think regardless of political leanings if any of the parties in the UK really used religion as a campaigning point they'd get laughed at in all honesty. I find it quite surreal, because in many ways we're extremely similar countries with similar backgrounds. We share a ton of pop culture and because of the shared language and political alliance we share a lot of development too. On the flip-side there are some areas where we're just leagues apart from each other. 

A real strange one for me is that through discussing politics and other things with Americans here and elsewhere, it seems we're somewhat of a more progressive country than the US is. However, when growing up I watched American kids tv as much as British kids tv and it's full of progressive thought, and this goes back to the 80's and 90's. The perception I had as a child and younger teenager of America was this super nice, super progressive place where truth, justice and freedom reigned. It was a serious shock when I'd gotten older and visited so many times and then been faced with some of the much more conservative ideals than we have here and the sheer level of murder and gang warfare. It's not at all what I would've expected going from the opinion I'd been given through the cultural osmosis as a youth.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah it's cool, I guess my main issue was that that specific group aren't remotely progressive, they're just inexplicably able to give themselves that label because they're slightly less right-wing than their opponents. If somebody is "the establishment" and they're not actually reforming anything they're totally the opposite of that - pretty much describes what I've seen of these people. That's my main problem with the anti-progressive stance, if you're anti-progressive, you're anti-improvement. I believe we should never stop trying to make things better and progress as a species whether culturally, socially, intellectually or anything else. It's why I find the notion of "the good old days" so stupid, there were no good old days just rose-tinted memories of those days because people aren't good at keeping up with progress.


They're not progressive but label themselves as such, it's a smart tactic. You actually have to look into them because they say a few things that are progressive but their overall core values aren't.

Then you have some that are so progressive that they're regressive. That horseshoe effect. 

The problem is that with America Politics everything is muddy, you don't know what is what or who is who because so many stand for the same shit. Me and Tater have discussed this many times.

We need to be progressive but not naive.



yeahbaby! said:


> Sorry luv kinda comes off as a bit of a back pedal now IMO... you originally said progressives as a generality with no hint of what you're saying now. I think it's important to clarify these things when you first say them, otherwise you can't blame people for picking you up on it.


In my second response I was pretty specific but it's happened to me before where I've not been specific enough and it's come off as a generalization, that's why I apologized if I missed his point. I was talking about the group of fake progressives, kind of like when I mention "Left" I'm referring to the fake American "Left". Sometimes I just assume people know -exactly- what I'm speaking off and forget that not everyone does, because they're not mind readers.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> They're not progressive but label themselves as such, it's a smart tactic. You actually have to look into them because they say a few things that are progressive but their overall core values aren't.
> 
> Then you have some that are so progressive that they're regressive. That horseshoe effect.
> 
> ...


How exactly do you become so progressive that it's regressive? You know that's a literal oxymoron right? It's also an impossibility. Regressive means "moving things backwards to what they were before" it's not actually possible to be regressive and progressive at the same time, they're antithesis to each other. It's like saying "he went so far up in the sky he hit the floor" it's nonsensical and again sounds like a silly alt/far-right statement with no actual meaning. If you're progressive, you're pushing to improve society through reform, that doesn't move things backwards to a worse state. Regressive would be for example, oh we've made all this progress in equal rights, now lets take them away again. Regressive is the anti-PC movement. You see?


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

American citizens getting their passports taken away. FEMA funding getting taken away and given to ICE; bad move by them, because the piss poor response in Puerto Rico only made more brown people come to the mainland. Awful couple of weeks it's been.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



samizayn said:


> American citizens getting their passports taken away. FEMA funding getting taken away and given to ICE; bad move by them, because the piss poor response in Puerto Rico only made more brown people come to the mainland. Awful couple of weeks it's been.


Wow for real, they're taking citizens passports away? I didn't hear that one. What's the reason/justification.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> How exactly do you become so progressive that it's regressive? You know that's a literal oxymoron right? It's also an impossibility. Regressive means "moving things backwards to what they were before" it's not actually possible to be regressive and progressive at the same time, they're antithesis to each other. It's like saying "he went so far up in the sky he hit the floor" it's nonsensical and again sounds like a silly alt/far-right statement with no actual meaning. If you're progressive, you're pushing to improve society through reform, that doesn't move things backwards to a worse state. Regressive would be for example, oh we've made all this progress in equal rights, now lets take them away again. Regressive is the anti-PC movement. You see?


The horseshoe effect happens with everything, when someone becomes to far in their ideologies they tend to take on aspects of the ideologies they stand against. Think of all the people with good intentions who ended up doing more harm than good. One step forward, two steps back. 

Again I'm with you on progressiveness. I'm just against fake progressives and those who'd use the tactics of those they'd oppose who end up unwittingly becoming exactly like the people they're trying to push against. :shrug


----------



## Mr. Rogers (Aug 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



samizayn said:


> American citizens getting their passports taken away. FEMA funding getting taken away and given to ICE; bad move by them, because the piss poor response in Puerto Rico only made more brown people come to the mainland. Awful couple of weeks it's been.


It's fake news being spread by fake news propagandists. 



p.s., Assume everything RavishingRickRules says is a lie. Because it is.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Wow for real, they're taking citizens passports away? I didn't hear that one. What's the reason/justification.


Woah yeah that's my bad. Tbh I have a latent assumption that people just know but don't actually care. 

I think WaPo were first on it, great little article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4af9ef7054b8



> On paper, he’s a devoted U.S. citizen.
> 
> His official American birth certificate shows he was delivered by a midwife in Brownsville, at the southern tip of Texas. He spent his life wearing American uniforms: three years as a private in the Army, then as a cadet in the Border Patrol and now as a state prison guard.
> 
> ...


I think the whole thing is ridiculous and outrageous.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> The horseshoe effect happens with everything, when someone becomes to far in their ideologies they tend to take on aspects of the ideologies they stand against. Think of all the people with good intentions who ended up doing more harm than good. One step forward, two steps back.
> 
> Again I'm with you on progressiveness. I'm just against fake progressives and those who'd use the tactics of those they'd oppose who end up unwittingly becoming exactly like the people they're trying to push against. :shrug


You can't horseshoe progressiveness that's the point, it's a linear scale going in opposite directions. I'm not sure you really understand what the term means with what you're saying here in all honesty. Progressive isn't an ideology, and you can be progressive as both a conservative or a liberal, a capitalist or a socialist. Progressive simply means "reforming things to make them better." Regressive means "winding things back to the way they were and making them worse." Nothing more, nothing less. 

You can't say "you're with me on progressiveness" and then make silly statements like "so progressive it becomes regressive" because it makes zero sense. You can't "reform things to make them better to the point you rewind things back and make them worse" how nonsensical does that sound? What you're describing with "use the tactics of those they'd oppose who end up unwittingly becoming exactly like the people they're trying to push against" has no correlation at all to how progressive/regressive something is, that's more to do with how liberal/conservative something is or libertarian/authoritarian something is, those are political ideals/directions. 

If for example, your country is a socialist country with a collapsing economy and everything's chaos and you're a conservative pushing for a free market to stimulate that economy and improve the conditions - you're a progressive. A regressive would be somebody who then tried to take things back to the previous socialism and put the country back in the mess. 

If your country is a capitalist country where workers have no rights and are exploited for the owner class on low wages who can barely feed their families and you're somebody who wants to introduce worker rights and higher wages to improve conditions - you're a progressive. A regressive would be somebody who wanted to take those rights back again and put the workers back in the mess. 

So you're literally suggesting that the people pushing for reform are reforming to the point that they then roll back all of their work to the time before their reform took place. That's what your "so progressive they become regressive" actually means. fpalm 

It's just nonsense.



samizayn said:


> Woah yeah that's my bad. Tbh I have a latent assumption that people just know but don't actually care.
> 
> I think the whole thing is ridiculous and outrageous.


Wow. And no I just didn't know about it, I'm British so I don't particular live on US news. That's actually crazy if that's true. And at the risk of being attacked by everybody for saying it, that's exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews in WWII. I'm not saying the US government are Nazis at all, but that's a move straight out of the playbook.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> You can't horseshoe progressiveness that's the point, it's a linear scale going in opposite directions. I'm not sure you really understand what the term means with what you're saying here in all honesty. Progressive isn't an ideology, and you can be progressive as both a conservative or a liberal, a capitalist or a socialist. Progressive simply means "reforming things to make them better." Regressive means "winding things back to the way they were and making them worse." Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> You can't say "you're with me on progressiveness" and then make silly statements like "so progressive it becomes regressive" because it makes zero sense. You can't "reform things to make them better to the point you rewind things back and make them worse" how nonsensical does that sound? What you're describing with "use the tactics of those they'd oppose who end up unwittingly becoming exactly like the people they're trying to push against" has no correlation at all to how progressive/regressive something is, that's more to do with how liberal/conservative something is or libertarian/authoritarian something is, those are political ideals/directions.
> 
> ...


Social progressiveness can horseshoe, it can become regressive by picking up habits and tactics used by those that oppose it. All you have to do is look at some of the social progressives nowadays.

If we're talking about progressiveness as in tech or economic wise, then I'd suggest looking at the corn gas that got millions of dollars from the Government, was pushed as the next big thing that would help the environment and nobody bothered to check if the claims for it were true. It turns out that it's worse for the environment than regular gas is. 

What do you call something that's pushed as progressive but ends up failing or being worse or as bad as to what it's supposed to fix or replace? Regressive. 

All I'm saying is when it comes to social or societal progressiveness we ensure that fake progressives don't get a foothold and that any progressive matter is looked enough to not cause regression. That's it, question everything and look for balance in all things and fight to make society a better place.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Social progressiveness can horseshoe, it can become regressive by picking up habits and tactics used by those that oppose it. All you have to do is look at some of the social progressives nowadays.
> 
> If we're talking about progressiveness as in tech or economic wise, then I'd suggest looking at the corn gas that got millions of dollars from the Government, was pushed as the next big thing that would help the environment and nobody bothered to check if the claims for it were true. It turns out that it's worse for the environment than regular gas is.
> 
> ...


The problem here is you're still not understanding that you can't be "so progressive it's regressive." You're either progressive or regressive, you can't be both at the same time. You can stop being progressive and then become regressive, but the minute you do that you're no longer a progressive. You can't be both at the same time it's not possible because they're literal opposites. If you consider the American Left regressive, then they're not progressive PERIOD. They can't be "so progressive they're regressive" it's nonsensical. So stop calling them progressives. 

There is no such thing in "balance in progressiveness" there's just progressiveness. Whether that comes from left, right, centre, up or down. Being a progressive means working towards improvement, as soon as you work towards regression you stopped being a progressive. Brexit for example is a regressive movement that seeks to rewind the clock 40 years, the result is going to be a HUGE disaster for the UK. Trump's opinions on the environment are regressive, they're working against progress that was already made in the environment. 

Political correctness isn't regressive. It's simply "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." That's it. That's an improvement on society, that's not a regression. 

A BYPRODUCT of some of the things that lead to political correctness is people getting offended over tiny little things whether they're politically incorrect or not, that's not regression, that's a new problem to deal with. 

Going back to a time where racism, sexism and homophobia are considered socially acceptable would be regression. 

That's an example I think you should be able to understand. The cure to the pussy outrage isn't regression from political correctness, it's MORE progression to now counter-act the silly over-the-top reactions to things that have nothing to do with political correctness - and also to educate people on what political correctness actually means because the people screaming "pc gone mad, argh feminism are there's a black man getting good things" is another problem as a result of that culture. 

As I've said, you can't be both progressive and regressive at the same time, there is no horseshoe, the more progressive something is the more things improve that's built into the entire concept. An improvement never becomes a regression. People can (and do) change from progressive to regressive all the time, progress however literally can not be regression it's built into the fundamental meanings of the terms.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't know why we keep allowing this to happen? 

I'm sorry I'm not shitting on this man's memory at all. He sacrificed himself believing he was doing the right thing... 

But war is just misery. Die protecting hour loved ones at home. That's what the military was all about. 

These men are giving up their lives in a massive political game ... 

Fuck this. It makes me miserable.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I don't know why we keep allowing this to happen?
> 
> I'm sorry I'm not shitting on this man's memory at all. He sacrificed himself believing he was doing the right thing...
> 
> ...


That's actually heartbreaking. Such a powerful image to me. The sooner we all switch to "defence only" military actions the better. It's not the middle ages any more, we're not all running around trying to conquer each other so there's no need to be doing what we're doing. We can trade for anything we don't produce and we can actually produce an awful lot. Same with natural resources, we don't need to attack other people to get them. It saddens me every time I see anything related to death in war, never mind unnecessary war.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's actually heartbreaking. Such a powerful image to me. The sooner we all switch to "defence only" military actions the better. It's not the middle ages any more, we're not all running around trying to conquer each other so there's no need to be doing what we're doing. We can trade for anything we don't produce and we can actually produce an awful lot. Same with natural resources, we don't need to attack other people to get them. It saddens me every time I see anything related to death in war, never mind unnecessary war.


I see an image like this every day. 

America has done far, far more damage to itself by falsely believing that we're under massive threat since 9/11 than 9/11 itself ever did.

It has to be said. We've pedestalized the suffering of 9/11 to the point where subsequent suffering has been erased. Completely erased from public conscience.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I see an image like this every day.
> 
> America has done far, far more damage to itself by falsely believing that we're under massive threat since 9/11 than 9/11 itself ever did.
> 
> It has to be said. We've pedestalized the suffering of 9/11 to the point where subsequent suffering has been erased. Completely erased from public conscience.


It's all part of the same hysteria we see all over the place too. Look at how so many Americans legitimately think that Europe is a wasteland torn apart by Muslim immigrants and a place they wouldn't visit. It's insanity. You can walk through vast swathes of Europe and never meet a single Muslim, but apparently "we're all fucked" and that's all part of the same narrative. I struggle with it all tbh. I literally get a "keep inviting Muslims in and look at how fucked it's getting you" type insult thrown at me weekly by Americans in various places - it's utterly ridiculous. 

Fear is a very powerful tool in swaying minds, and I'm sorry to say it but America especially right now seems VERY swayed. Americans are seemingly more terrified by the threat of Muslim terrorists than they are the insane amount of shootings and killings simply between Americans which is a massively higher number of occurrences. Hell, the police kill more Americans than Muslim terrorists do by a significant margin.

It's things like this that have made me oppose pure trash peddlers like Brietbart all this time. Their blatant lies, falsehoods and misinterpretations of things are adding to the hysteria and convincing people that it's a constant attack at high levels and everybody's in danger all the time, and it's just not right. To think that Europe of all places is particularly dangerous when in most countries people have never even seen a gun or bomb never mind an attack with one is just pure insanity. 

We all need to find some way of breaking through the clouds of propaganda bullshit to look at things clearly again. For our sake, and to get a real movement together to stop bombing the absolute shit out of everywhere and creating more and more of the dangerous terrorist arseholes. That's the biggest thing we could do to fight terrorism, stop destroying countries and giving the extremists a constant influx of new recruits baying for our blood.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Trump showing how stupid he truly is once again when talking about the hurricane that will hit the east coast.

"It’s tremendously big and tremendously wet, Tremendous amounts of water.”

How can anyone claim he is intelligent?

Then he goes on to say that Puerto Rico was a success? Then he claims it was the best job they did? WTF he is talking about? FFS over 3,000 people died and a lot of them still don't even have power almost a year later.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*







More info on people speaking out how dumb Trump is from Woodward's book.


----------



## Mr. Rogers (Aug 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

You don't get a net worth in the billions by not being brilliant. It's terrifying that I have to repeatedly point this common sense reality out for people, yet here we are once again.

In fact, I'll take it a leap further. When you combine his financial success (self-made billionaire), his celebrity success (self-made A lister), and now his political success (self-made president), it's reasonable to conclude that Donald Trump is one of the 10 most-successful people in the history of Western civilization.

Meanwhile, his haters remain losers, completely void of any sense of self-awareness.

(hint: when you're a bum with 32,000 posts on a wrestling message board, you're probably not in a position to call a self-made billionaire an idiot.)

Trump has succeeded by being smarter and craftier this his opposition, and that includes the entire democratic party and the entire main stream media.

Trump owns your soul. Get used to it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mr. Rogers said:


> You don't get a net worth in the billions by not being brilliant. It's terrifying that I have to repeatedly point this common sense reality out for people, yet here we are once again.
> 
> In fact, I'll take it a leap further. When you combine his financial success (self-made billionaire), his celebrity success (self-made A lister), and now his political success (self-made president), it's reasonable to conclude that Donald Trump is one of the 10 most-successful people in the history of Western civilization.
> 
> ...


He went bankrupt 6 times and had a ton of failed businesses. His father had to keep bailing him out. Not to mention he failed at a casino, how the hell does that happen? We have been over this a million times, and all teh evidence shows how dumb Trump he. Please try to defend that clip of him talking about the hurricane and tell me how that is intelligent? His daddy gave him the money, and like I have said before, Trump would have more money now, if he just invested it. 

And no Trump isn't even close to being one of the 10 most successful people in the history of Western civilization. 

Just more proof how delusional Trump supporters are. 

It's always funny how when its brought up how dumb Trump is, his supporters have to bring up how much money he has, instead of trying to show that he is not dumb. Its because you know you can't.

Just listen to him speak, he can't even put together a coherent sentence, and he speaks like a 5 grader. He is so dumb, he has to get his briefings in picture form and they can't be more than one page. 

But keep pretending Trump is smart.


----------



## Carter84 (Feb 4, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump ain't one of the top 10 richest people in western history not by a long stretch has or ever will be many failed buisness and where I live in the U.K. His golf course is losing a lot each year, dumb trump supporters have a shake of your head that's it, now tell me coherent that he's smart again while I smh and laugh , @birthday_massacre is spot on well said they will never learn lol smh again , laugh , oh I think they get a wiff of the hairspray off his Tupee and there high whilst writing comments , Europe is safer than the USA now as most places don't spend most of there money on defense they invest in education, hospitals etc whilst cutting taxes for the richest in society in the USA and putting up taxes for the poorest , Every state in the USA should be prosperous given it's one of the richest countries in the world but there not it's a travesty to support a racial, homophobic prick like that and it has to be said and I'm not saying this to anyone but the person who said trump owned your soul, how old are you ? That's the sort of crap kids come out with it's pathetic.

Peace to all NON Trump supporters.


----------



## Mr. Rogers (Aug 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> He went bankrupt 6 times and had a ton of failed businesses. His father had to keep bailing him out. Not to mention he failed at a casino, how the hell does that happen? We have been over this a million times, and all teh evidence shows how dumb Trump he. Please try to defend that clip of him talking about the hurricane and tell me how that is intelligent? His daddy gave him the money, and like I have said before, Trump would have more money now, if he just invested it.


You wouldn't know this, as you're just a guy with a Spider-Man avatar and 32,000 posts on a wrestling message board, but entrepreneurs tend to invest in dozens, if not hundreds of businesses. Some succeed; some do not. The key is that they position themselves to where *their successes more than cover for their losses* (this is called asymmetric payoff).

This is what Trump has done, and it's how he's managed to become a multi-billionaire. Just take a look at his successful business investments:










Funny how those who claim Trump is a business failure by citing a small handful of failed ventures always forget to bring those up, isn't it?




birthday_massacre said:


> And no Trump isn't even close to being one of the 10 most successful people in the history of Western civilization.


Let's look at the facts, shall we?

- Self-made multi-billionaire from dominating the New York real estate market.
- Self-made A-list celebrity from being charismatic and fascinating.
- Self-made president, with nearly all of the media, Hollywood, and big tech, and many from his own party fighting against him.

In other words, he's . . .

- Dominated the world of business.
- Dominated the world of celebrity.
- Dominated the world of politics.

I'll even throw in a bonus fourth domination: he's dominated in his personal life. He's raised four highly-successful children, including one of the world's great female role models in Ivanka, with one more future success story on the way in Barron. He's has failed marriages, yet his ex-wives remain friendly, a testament to Trump's charm.

Not only is he one of the top-10 most-successful men in the history of Western civilization, looking back over his successes, an argument could be made that he's #1.

You, as an anti-Trump leftard, are absolutely torn up over these facts, and are psychologically incapable of accepting them. You hate Trump with every fiber of your being because he crushed your chosen one during the election (Hillary), he's crushing your previous chosen one's legacy (Obama), and he's crushing your leftist ideology, exposing it all as hate-filled ignorance.




birthday_massacre said:


> It's always funny how when its brought up how dumb Trump is, his supporters have to bring up how much money he has, instead of trying to show that he is not dumb. Its because you know you can't.


Trump's success in the world of business and politics, two areas in which it's impossible to succeed without brains, speaks more to his abundance of intelligence than your shallow claim about his speech patterns and grammar speaks to an absence of intelligence.

It's as simple as that.




birthday_massacre said:


> Just listen to him speak, he can't even put together a coherent sentence, and he speaks like a 5 grader. He is so dumb, he has to get his briefings in picture form and they can't be more than one page.


You write much worse than Trump speaks. If we're using communication skills to measure intelligence, I dare say you qualify as retarded.

As someone who writes high-dollar sales copy for a living, I can tell you I'm always forced to "dumb down" my writing.

Why? Because the goal is to be clear and concise, and to persuade, not to impress with big words. By writing in "single" language, your words are more easily understood by a wider range of readers, which ultimate leads to more revenue. Makes sense, right?

Trump, who's almost certainly skilled in the art of persuasion (hence his massive success), knows this technique, and applies it to his speech.

What his simpleton adversaries see as a weakness, and a testament to his "dumbness," is in fact a strength, and a testament to his craftiness. That is why he keeps on winning, and his opponents . . . well, they just keep on losing, don't they? :x




birthday_massacre said:


> But keep pretending Trump is smart.


Common Sense Fact of the Day: It's not possible to have even one-tenth of Trump's success without being brilliant.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> How exactly do you become so progressive that it's regressive?


I'm hesitant to speak for others here but when I've heard conservatives use the "regressive" label previously, it's intended to mean progressive politics that push for, say, minority rights and higher taxation to fund social programs at the expense of majority privilege and the liberty to keep your own money and pay your own way. It's seen as authoritarian, 'the regressive left' pushing their values on everyone in the same way as conservatives maintaining the status quo. Many folks also find it hard to believe others genuinely care about anyone beyond themselves, hence any socialistic or "social justice" talk is phony, intended only to shame and frighten voters into line. 

* I suppose the majority of posters itt, perhaps you included to some lesser extent, would see me as a leftist authoritarian (aka "regressive left" in conservative lingo), as I'm pro taxation and pro putting legal measures in place to ensure protection from discrimination and to respect our planet's fragility. I advocate for socialized health care, education, infrastructure, essential services, minimum necessary housing, affordable quality nutrition and child/elder care. Environmental protection and human rights top my list of concerns. I'm willing to be interventionist for human rights reasons but not economic ones. (Sadly, many wars begin disguised as rights driven when they're really about money. It's not hard to see that if only the average person would look but people would rather not as it's easier on the conscience to think invasions are justified). 





Mr. Rogers said:


> You don't get a net worth in the billions by not being brilliant. It's terrifying that I have to repeatedly point this common sense reality out for people, yet here we are once again.
> 
> In fact, I'll take it a leap further. When you combine his financial success (self-made billionaire), *his celebrity success (self-made A lister)*, and now his political success (self-made president), it's reasonable to conclude that Donald Trump is one of the 10 most-successful people in the history of Western civilization.


"his celebrity success (self-made A lister)"

:chlol


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mr. Rogers said:


> Y
> 
> - Self-made multi-billionaire from dominating the New York real estate market.


Self made :chlol

Which rejoiner are you?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> How exactly do you become so progressive that it's regressive? You know that's a literal oxymoron right? It's also an impossibility. Regressive means "moving things backwards to what they were before" it's not actually possible to be regressive and progressive at the same time, they're antithesis to each other. It's like saying "he went so far up in the sky he hit the floor" it's nonsensical and again sounds like a silly alt/far-right statement with no actual meaning. If you're progressive, you're pushing to improve society through reform, that doesn't move things backwards to a worse state. Regressive would be for example, oh we've made all this progress in equal rights, now lets take them away again. Regressive is the anti-PC movement. You see?


They let perfect stand in the way of good. Like preaching tolerance isn't enough, there have to acceptance even when there is legitimate objection to certain beliefs. Like it or not, if we want to live in a diverse society, there will be major differences among the various groups of people. Progressives can push back progress when they insist on perfection right now instead of allowing society comes to terms with progress at its own pace.

You can't tell me forcing legalised gay marriages in conservative parts of America when they aren't ready yet but the other side of America is has been good for them. They elected crazier and crazier people over time for that and spending stupid amount of money arguing over silly cases due to the resentment created.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog (Mar 22, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mr. Rogers said:


> You wouldn't know this, as you're just a guy with a Spider-Man avatar and 32,000 posts on a wrestling message board, but entrepreneurs tend to invest in dozens, if not hundreds of businesses. Some succeed; some do not. The key is that they position themselves to where *their successes more than cover for their losses* (this is called asymmetric payoff).
> 
> This is what Trump has done, and it's how he's managed to become a multi-billionaire. Just take a look at his successful business investments:
> 
> ...


:applause :applause :applause :applause :applause :applause :applause :applause :applause











































Hands down one of the funniest posts I have read this year. Congrats!!


Oh, you were serious?

:deanfpalm


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't understand the worship of the wealthy. I also don't understand the hatred directed at them for being wealthy. 

It just seems like a projection of people's own extremism.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> The problem here is you're still not understanding that you can't be "so progressive it's regressive." You're either progressive or regressive, you can't be both at the same time. *You can stop being progressive and then become regressive, but the minute you do that you're no longer a progressive.* You can't be both at the same time it's not possible because they're literal opposites. If you consider the American Left regressive, then they're not progressive PERIOD. They can't be "so progressive they're regressive" it's nonsensical. So stop calling them progressives.
> 
> There is no such thing in "balance in progressiveness" there's just progressiveness. Whether that comes from left, right, centre, up or down. Being a progressive means working towards improvement, as soon as you work towards regression you stopped being a progressive. Brexit for example is a regressive movement that seeks to rewind the clock 40 years, the result is going to be a HUGE disaster for the UK. Trump's opinions on the environment are regressive, they're working against progress that was already made in the environment.
> 
> ...


Exactly what I was saying fake progressives and people who are progressive to such an extent that they don't see that using tactics or using power to oppress people are something to watch out for. That's what I been saying, people can get caught up in something - believing what they're doing is right and then end up doing more harm than good or turning into what they were fighting against. It's the plot for many movies because it happens so easily.

I'd say Political Correctness regardless of it's definition has a lot to do with regressive and constricting ideas that are getting tossed around. You have perpetual butthurt people who cannot take jokes or don't want people enjoying things infesting Politics, Business, Entertainment and Academia. They're using Political Correctness to push their nefarious agendas, it doesn't matter if their definition isn't the right one, they're still using it as a weapon.

Besides Political Correctness was started by or used a lot by the "Think of the children" Uptight Religious busybodies who wanted to control every aspect of everyone's lives. Now you have people pushing the same crap except it comes in other forms besides "Think of the children." You have people who claim to be Progressive using the same outrage tactics and messages as the Religious people. 

You can 100% find balance in all things, it's simple. If people who are fake progressive as saying stupid shit, call them out. If fellow progressives are on a path which will end up doing more harm than good, it's your job to tell them this. Progressives can keep themselves on track without going off the rails with nonsense that shouldn't even be a talking point. Thinking that Progressiveness as an absolute no matter the cost is WHY there are so many fake Progressives, they see it as a vehicle to hijack.

It's like people who say they're Liberal but don't believe in free speech and want to push authoritative bullshit. Well, you're not a fucking Liberal, stop calling yourself that. Progress is great, we need it but we also need to ensure Progress is focused on things that will actually benefit people, not derailed by authoritative asshats.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> The problem is that with America Politics everything is muddy, you don't know what is what or who is who because so many stand for the same shit. Me and Tater have discussed this many times.


An easy rule in American politics is follow the money. Where it came from will tell you more than anything else about a politicians intentions.



RavishingRickRules said:


> How exactly do you become so progressive that it's regressive?


Allow me to take a crack at this. What people are trying to describe when they say this or call something the horseshoe effect, an example...

Say you've got a majority of one group of people who have more rights than a minority group of people who have historically been treated unequally. Along comes a group of "progressives" who say they want this traditionally mistreated minority group to have equal rights as the majority group has had all along. But equality is not what they really want. What they actually want is special treatment in the future because they got unequal treatment in the past. Basically, they the oppressed want to become the oppressors. 

That's the best explanation I can offer for when when someone describes a group of people as so progressive they are regressive.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Special treatment doesn't work imo. An organic shift won't work either because racism is very deeply ingrained in American society and if it was going to change it would have by now. Almost all other countries (at least western) do not have the kind of racism problems America does so the progressives here are right about what they're saying but not about their solutions. 

The solution is to change attitudes at a fundamental level and the only way to do that is to expose the experience of those who face racism because human empathy has a way of working in establishing real change over time.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> An easy rule in American politics is follow the money. Where it came from will tell you more than anything else about a politicians intentions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not even being progressive in the first place though, that's just being a different version of the status quo. There's no ACTUAL reform happening, there's no actual progression. That's the big problem I have with this concept, for it to happen then you have to basically ignore what the words even mean. If you call a cow a duck, it's still a bloody cow. Whether you call yourself a progressive or a martian, if you're not being progressive, you're simply not a progressive - you're not "so progressive you're regressive." Similarly, "negative utility" isn't regression, regression is taking things BACK to the way they were before, not making things worse. I guess my big issue is people are just using a whole bunch of terms they don't actually seem to understand.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's not even being progressive in the first place though, that's just being a different version of the status quo. There's no ACTUAL reform happening, there's no actual progression. That's the big problem I have with this concept, for it to happen then you have to basically ignore what the words even mean. If you call a cow a duck, it's still a bloody cow. Whether you call yourself a progressive or a martian, if you're not being progressive, you're simply not a progressive - you're not "so progressive you're regressive." Similarly, "negative utility" isn't regression, regression is taking things BACK to the way they were before, not making things worse. I guess my big issue is people are just using a whole bunch of terms they don't actually seem to understand.


Hey man, you've seen how much I rant about how people misuse left/right/libertarian/authoritarian. I was just trying to explain to you what people mean when they say some people are so progressive they are regressive. I wasn't trying to justify it. :shrug


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Hey man, you've seen how much I rant about how people misuse left/right/libertarian/authoritarian. I was just trying to explain to you what people mean when they say some people are so progressive they are regressive. I wasn't trying to justify it. :shrug


Oh I know. It just gets tiring seeing people throw around all the words they don't understand and using them to make either silly or completely nonsensical assertions. I'd rather people just used words they DO understand the meaning of to explain their viewpoint. If you think "socially liberal people are often harmful to society" then just say that, don't say "sometimes you get so progressive it becomes regressive" because that doesn't remotely mean the same thing and sounds completely idiotic. Progressive simply means "pushing to make things better through reform" and regressive simply means "returning to a former or lesser state." When people use regressive to mean "makes things worse" then they just scream "I don't know what the word means" so I can't take them seriously at all. I just wish people would either learn the meanings to words they use, or simply only use words they actually understand I guess.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Oh I know. It just gets tiring seeing people throw around all the words they don't understand and using them to make either silly or completely nonsensical assertions. I'd rather people just used words they DO understand the meaning of to explain their viewpoint. If you think "socially liberal people are often harmful to society" then just say that, don't say "sometimes you get so progressive it becomes regressive" because that doesn't remotely mean the same thing and sounds completely idiotic. *Progressive simply means "pushing to make things better through reform" and regressive simply means "returning to a former or lesser state." When people use regressive to mean "makes things worse" then they just scream "I don't know what the word means" so I can't take them seriously at all. *I just wish people would either learn the meanings to words they use, or simply only use words they actually understand I guess.


It seems to me you are the one that does not understand what regressive means LOL

You admit that progressive means pushing things to make BETTER, so of course that would mean regressive means making things worse because you are going back to the way it used to be before you made progress.

For example, it was progressive to give women the right to vote, if we regressed to take away their voting rights, going back to the way it used to be, it would make things worse. 

You are the one that does not know what the word means lol You need to take your own advice.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

RRR completely rekt by BM, too bad he has him on ignore! :heston


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039851370583674880
From WaPo's editorial board. :heston


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ower-meeting-suspicious-transactions-agalarov

A Series Of Suspicious Money Transfers Followed The Trump Tower Meeting

The June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower has become one of the most famous gatherings in American political history: a flashpoint for allegations of collusion, the subject of shifting explanations by the president and his son, countless hair-on-fire tweets, and boundless speculation by the press.

But secret documents reviewed by BuzzFeed News reveal a previously undisclosed aspect of the meeting: a complex web of financial transactions among some of the planners and participants who moved money from Russia and Switzerland to the British Virgin Islands, Bangkok, and a small office park in New Jersey.

The documents show Aras Agalarov, a billionaire real estate developer close to both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, at the center of this vast network and how he used accounts overseas to filter money to himself, his son, and at least two people who attended the Trump Tower meeting. The records also offer new insight into the murky financial world inhabited by many of Trump’s associates, who use shell companies and secret bank accounts to quickly and quietly move money across the globe.

Aras Agalarov
Mikhail Svetlov / Getty Images
Aras Agalarov
Now, four federal law enforcement officials told BuzzFeed News, investigators are focused on two bursts of transactions that bank examiners deemed suspicious: one a short time after the meeting and another immediately after the November 2016 presidential election.

The first set came just 11 days after the June 9 meeting, when an offshore company controlled by Agalarov wired more than $19.5 million to his account at a bank in New York.

The second flurry began shortly after Trump was elected. The Agalarov family started sending what would amount to $1.2 million from their bank in Russia to an account in New Jersey controlled by the billionaire’s son, pop singer Emin Agalarov, and two of his friends. The account had been virtually dormant since the summer of 2015, according to records reviewed by BuzzFeed News, and bankers found it strange that activity in Emin Agalarov’s checking account surged after Trump’s victory.

After the election, that New Jersey account sent money to a company controlled by Irakly “Ike” Kaveladze, a longtime business associate of the Agalarovs and their representative at the Trump Tower meeting. Kaveladze’s company, meanwhile, had long funded a music business set up by the person who first proposed the meeting to the Trump camp, Emin Agalarov’s brash British publicist, Rob Goldstone.

Ike Kaveladze (left) spoke to congressional investigators in November 2017.
Mark Wilson / Getty Images
Ike Kaveladze (left) spoke to congressional investigators in November 2017.
Scott Balber, an attorney representing the Agalarovs and Kaveladze, said their transactions were wholly above board. “I’m actually perplexed why anybody is interested in this or why anybody in their right mind would treat this as suspicious,” he said. “These are all transactions either between one of Mr. Agalarov’s accounts and another of Mr. Agalarov’s accounts or one of Mr. Agalarov’s accounts and an account in the name of one of his employees.”

Goldstone’s spokesperson, David Wilson, dismissed the notion that his client’s transactions were suspicious as “ridiculous.” Prosecutors have not charged the Agalarovs, Kaveladze, or Goldstone with any wrongdoing.

The transactions came to light after law enforcement officials instructed financial institutions in mid-2017 to go back through their records to look for suspicious behavior by people connected to the broader Trump-Russia investigation. The bankers filed “suspicious activity reports” to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which in turn shared them with the FBI, the IRS, congressional committees investigating Russian interference, and members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

Suspicious activity reports are not evidence of wrongdoing, but they can provide clues to investigators looking into possible money laundering, tax evasion, or other misconduct. In the case of the Agalarovs and their associates, bankers raised red flags about the transactions but were unable to definitively say how the funds were used.

Federal prosecutors have used suspicious activity reports not only to investigate possible election interference and collusion, but also to charge people, such as Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, with financial and other white-collar crimes. Manafort was convicted last month of bank and tax fraud, and Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his communications with Russia.

Over the past nine months, BuzzFeed News has reported on the financial behavior of Manafort, former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, accused foreign agent Maria Butina, GOP operative Peter W. Smith, and others.

In the case of the Agalarovs and their associates, the documents show funds moving quickly between accounts across the globe, often, bankers said, with no clear reason and with no clear purpose for how the money was supposed to be used. By collecting such detailed banking records, US law enforcement officials are trying to figure out how Russia’s interference campaign was financed — but in doing so, they are also pulling back the curtain on an opaque financial system controlled by the world’s wealthiest people.

From left: Donald Trump, Aras Agalarov, Miss Universe 2012 Olivia Culpo, and Emin Agalarov
Ethan Miller / Getty Images
From left: Donald Trump, Aras Agalarov, Miss Universe 2012 Olivia Culpo, and Emin Agalarov
A Swiss account and an offshore company

When Donald Trump hosted the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, Aras Agalarov was his host. The two men toured the capital and hatched plans to build the tallest building in Russia together, a gleaming new Trump Tower in Moscow. The Agalarovs spent about $20 million to host the pageant at Crocus City Hall, their glitzy mega-mall, and Emin Agalarov, a part-time pop singer, scored a coup when Trump agreed to film a cameo for one of his music videos.

Given these close ties, it wasn’t difficult for Goldstone, Emin’s publicist, to line up a meeting in the midst of the presidential campaign. On June 3, 2016, Goldstone sent Donald Trump Jr. an email asking to get together. Goldstone was explicit: A top Russian prosecutor had given Aras Agalarov damning information about Hillary Clinton — “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” he wrote.

Agalarov is one of the Kremlin’s favored developers, having tackled complicated and costly projects, such as a superhighway ringing the capital and two soccer stadiums built for the 2018 World Cup. In 2013, Putin awarded Aras Agalarov the Order of Honor, one of Russia’s highest civilian awards.

After Trump Jr. spoke by phone with Emin Agalarov, the meeting was set. At about 4 p.m. on June 9, Goldstone, Kaveladze, a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, and at least two others arrived at Trump Tower. In a conference room on the 25th floor with sweeping views of Midtown Manhattan, they met with Trump Jr., Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Manafort, then an adviser to the campaign.

By most accounts, the 40-minute meeting, during which Manafort checked his phone and Kushner emailed his assistant, didn’t result in usable information on Trump’s rival. In fact, the Kremlin-connected attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, pivoted off Clinton and spoke at length about overturning US laws meant to stop Russian financial misconduct.

“Look,” Trump Jr. reportedly told the group, “we’re not in power. When we win, come back and see us again.”

Eleven days later — on June 20, the day Trump fired campaign chief Corey Lewandowski and put Manafort in charge — Aras Agalarov used a company called Silver Valley Consulting to move millions that bankers flagged as suspicious.


BuzzFeed News; Getty Images
Silver Valley’s only address is a post office box in the capital of the British Virgin Islands, a country seen as a haven for money laundering and tax evasion. On June 20, Silver Valley sent through its Zurich-based account at Societe Generale Suisse a wire transfer for a little more than $19.5 million to Agalarov’s account at Morgan Stanley in the US.

That same day, another entity controlled by Agalarov — ZAO Crocus International, an arm of his business empire — sent a wire transfer through Societe Generale Suisse for about $43,000 to the same Morgan Stanley account.

In mid-2017, after US banks and law enforcement officials had already begun scrutinizing the financial records of dozens of individuals connected to the Trump-Russia probe, bankers at Societe Generale in New York tried to learn more about the Silver Valley transactions — but got nowhere.

Swiss employees of the bank told their American colleagues that the account was closed in May 2017, but that “due to Swiss confidentiality laws the requested information cannot be provided.” Switzerland is known to have some of the strictest bank secrecy laws in the world; it is a crime for bankers to release the identity of account holders.

Between 2006 and 2016, Silver Valley made nearly 200 transactions for $190 million. Bankers believed that most were legitimate and were part of Agalarov’s global construction business. But some of the transactions raised red flags.

Bank officials said they found high, round-dollar amounts sent to or received from shell companies. Round-dollar wire transfers often trigger alarm bells because most transactions are not that clean. Bankers also noted that some of the transactions passed through multiple companies, a process that can indicate “layering,” a way to hide the original source of funds.

US bank examiners also found that Silver Valley received nearly $900,000 in 2012 from a Russian investigated in the past for tax evasion and embezzlement. Balber, the Agalarovs’ attorney, said that the company wasn't immediately able to find a record of a transaction with that individual.

The following year, Silver Valley received two payments from an aviation firm that were flagged by bankers because they learned that a shareholder was involved with a suspected Russian money laundering scheme. Balber said the payments were for a land purchase and that it was “crazy” that bank examiners would label a transaction as suspicious because of a shareholder’s involvement.

“I have spoken to all kinds of investigators in all kinds of agencies about” the Trump Tower meeting, said Balber. “And I have never heard anybody ask me a single question or say a single word about one of these transactions.”

A dormant account comes alive

As the brutal presidential campaign hurtled toward Election Day, it was clear that even Trump’s own camp didn’t think he would win. Top advisers planned their postelection careers. The candidate reportedly didn’t have a victory speech written. Even pro-Kremlin forces were ready for a loss — they prepped a #DemocracyRIP Twitter campaign to cast doubt on Clinton’s legitimacy.

After Trump won, as people scrambled for jobs, influence, and riches, a chain reaction of bank transfers started among the Agalarovs and their associates.

Beginning 13 days after the election, the Agalarovs’ bank account in Russia made 19 separate wire transfers to a New Jersey personal checking account belonging to Emin Agalarov and two friends from high school. That checking account, held at TD Bank, had been opened in 2012. Bank examiners thought it was unusual that the account had never before received a Russian wire transfer and that its only deposit since the summer of 2015 was for $200, in January 2016.


BuzzFeed News; Getty Images
The postelection transfers to the checking account were in large, round-dollar amounts ranging from $15,000 to $175,000. Between November 2016 and July 2017, the sum topped $1.2 million.

But what triggered alarms wasn’t just that activity in the account had jumped since Trump’s election. It was also how the checking account handled the money. While some of it went toward credit card bills, mortgage installments, and other run-of-the-mill payments, TD Bank officials also saw the checking account quickly pass funds to an account controlled by another participant in the Trump Tower meeting.

On Nov. 21, 2016, Emin Agalarov’s checking account received $165,000 from an account based in Russia belonging to his family. The following day, the account sent $107,000 to Corsy International, a company run by Kaveladze, the longtime Agalarov associate who attended the Trump Tower meeting.

Bankers were suspicious for a number of reasons. For one, Kaveladze was an employee of the Agalarovs’ Crocus Group, their sprawling construction and real estate empire based in Russia. Why, bankers wondered, would the funds start in Russia, briefly make a pit stop in Emin Agalarov’s New Jersey account, and finally be sent to Corsy International? Balber, the attorney for Kaveladze and the Agalarovs, would not address questions about specific transactions, but said they were all legitimate.

Second, bankers noted that Kaveladze — who after the election pushed for an additional get-together with the Trumps and some of the original Tower meeting participants — had previously been investigated for money laundering. According to a Government Accountability Office report published in 2000, Kaveladze established more than 2,000 corporations in Delaware for Russian real estate brokers, then set up bank accounts for them in the US. The brokers used these accounts to launder about $1.4 billion, the report found. Kaveladze was never charged with a crime and he referred to the GAO’s probe as a “witch hunt.”

Finally, bankers focused on the New Jersey address of Corsy International: a small, windowless office in an unremarkable building near the Hudson River. It was suspicious, officials reported, that such large sums flowed through such a nondescript location. When examiners began investigating this address, they discovered at least eight other companies located there, all of them controlled by Kaveladze, Emin Agalarov, or their associates.

The headquarters for these companies is Suite 309. There is no sign on the door. When a reporter visited last month, a man refused to open the door and said he was unable to talk or even accept a business card.

Left: The lobby of the office building housing Corsy International. Right: Suite 309, where eight companies connected to Kaveladze, Emin Agalarov, or their associates are based.
Anthony Cormier / BuzzFeed News
Left: The lobby of the office building housing Corsy International. Right: Suite 309, where eight companies connected to Kaveladze, Emin Agalarov, or their associates are based.
Cashing out in Bangkok

In the earliest days of Trump’s presidency, the Agalarovs and their associates managed to remain out of the spotlight. Even as money changed hands behind the scenes, it took about seven months for their roles to become public.

But in July 2017, after the New York Times broke the news of the Trump Tower meeting, there was another flurry of financial activity. This time, it centered around the man who first reached out to the Trump campaign — Rob Goldstone, Emin Agalarov’s publicist.

Goldstone, a former journalist who found his niche in the music world, had helped guide Agalarov’s pop career and was on hand when Trump visited Moscow in 2013 for the Miss Universe pageant. He was the main point of contact for the Trump Tower meeting, though he complained afterward to the Agalarovs that the get-together was one of the most “embarrassing” things they had asked him to do.

Rob Goldstone testified before congressional investigators in December 2017.
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Rob Goldstone testified before congressional investigators in December 2017.
During his congressional testimony, Goldstone said that Emin Agalarov was his only client. But he said he didn’t know the “chain of command” of who paid him.

The documents reviewed by BuzzFeed News show that most of the funds flowing into Goldstone’s music business, Oui 2 Entertainment, and his personal checking account came from Corsy International, Kaveladze’s company. Between July 2015 and January 2017, Oui 2 received more than half a million dollars from Corsy International. Bank examiners found this suspicious because Corsy was an import-export business, while Oui 2 was involved with music. It didn’t make sense, bankers reported, for these two companies to conduct transactions with one another.

Bankers were also concerned that Goldstone set up the meeting and received money through Kaveladze, who had previously been investigated for money laundering involving Russians.

While they couldn’t explain these transfers, bankers flagged additional suspicious behavior in Goldstone’s account shortly after the Trump Tower meeting came to light.

By July 24, 2017, about two weeks after the New York Times broke the story about the meeting, Goldstone had left for Bangkok. He told congressional investigators that he wanted to take time off, equating it to a college student’s “gap year,” so he could write a book. But bank officials questioned his financial behavior there, particularly a series of 37 ATM withdrawals totaling about $8,400. The last of those withdrawals was made in November 2017. His business partner, David Tominello, appears to have traveled to Bangkok as well, making 51 withdrawals during the same period for about $7,600. Bankers noted that the withdrawals came shortly after news broke about Goldstone’s role in the Trump Tower meeting.

On Aug. 31, 2017, while they were still overseas, Goldstone and Tominello tapped into a home equity line of credit to withdraw money. The two received the loan on an apartment in New Jersey and used the funds to transfer about $32,000 to Oui 2. Examiners said the two men were essentially using a loan to make “payroll,” which bankers thought was unusual, especially when they had such a lucrative source of income through Kaveladze’s company. They also found it “concerning” that the home equity line of credit funded ATM cash withdrawals in Bangkok.

After calling it ridiculous that any of the financial behavior would be flagged as suspicious, Goldstone’s public relations representative referred further questions to his attorney, who did not return detailed messages. Tominello also did not return detailed messages seeking comment. ●


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It seems to me you are the one that does not understand what regressive means LOL
> 
> You admit that progressive means pushing things to make BETTER, so of course that would mean regressive means making things worse because you are going back to the way it used to be before you made progress.
> 
> ...


Except for the fact you literally just agreed with my explanation earlier in the thread. The point I was making is that simply "making things worse" isn't regression. Regression is taking things BACK to a position where they were worse. You really need to learn to READ.



CamillePunk said:


> RRR completely rekt by BM, too bad he has him on ignore! :heston
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039851370583674880
> From WaPo's editorial board. :heston


And you need to try not jumping the gun and making yourself look foolish. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Except for the fact you literally just agreed with my explanation earlier in the thread. The point I was making is that simply *"making things worse" isn't regression.* *Regression is *taking things BACK to a position *where they were worse*. You really need to learn to READ.


You are not making any sense. You are contradicting yourself in your own post.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are not making any sense. You are contradicting yourself in your own post.


No, you're just not particularly intelligent. Regression makes things worse, but it isn't synonymous with making things worse. Regression always makes things worse, but you can make things worse without regressing. For something to be regression it has to include an element of taking things back to an earlier, worse state. If you introduce something negative that is NEW, it is not regression.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> And you need to try not jumping the gun and making yourself look foolish. :lol


LOL of course you would say that typical trump defender, cant even admit when you are wrong. 

But keep pretending Trump didn't personally dig up, miraculously revive and then re-murder all those 9/11 victims when he double fist pumped LOL bernie can still win


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> LOL of course you would say that typical trump defender, cant even admit when you are wrong.
> 
> But keep pretending Trump didn't personally dig up, miraculously revive and then re-murder all those 9/11 victims when he double fist pumped LOL bernie can still win


:lmao I can't even...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> No, you're just not particularly intelligent. Regression makes things worse, but it isn't synonymous with making things worse. Regression always makes things worse, but you can make things worse without regressing. For something to be regression it has to include an element of taking things back to an earlier, worse state. If you introduce something negative that is NEW, it is not regression.


You are not even making any sense with anything you are saying. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

You keep contracting yourself. Instead of trolling, just admit you misspoke and were wrong before you embarrass yourself anymore.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are not even making any sense with anything you are saying. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
> 
> You keep contracting yourself.


That made perfect sense, if you weren't illiterate you'd realise that. There was no contradiction in that post at all. You might want to learn what the word contradiction means.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Oh I know. It just gets tiring seeing people throw around all the words they don't understand and using them to make either silly or completely nonsensical assertions. I'd rather people just used words they DO understand the meaning of to explain their viewpoint. If you think "socially liberal people are often harmful to society" then just say that, don't say "sometimes you get so progressive it becomes regressive" because that doesn't remotely mean the same thing and sounds completely idiotic. Progressive simply means "pushing to make things better through reform" and regressive simply means "returning to a former or lesser state." When people use regressive to mean "makes things worse" then they just scream "I don't know what the word means" so I can't take them seriously at all. I just wish people would either learn the meanings to words they use, or simply only use words they actually understand I guess.


It makes me want to smash my head through a brick wall every time I hear center right authoritarian Democrats referred to as the left. 

My personal pet peeve is against two guys I'm big fans of, Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore, when they say Democrats are attacking Trump from the right when he is not being hawkish enough. Being more or less hawkish on foreign policy is a libertarian vs authoritarian issue and has nothing to do with left vs right politics. And if anyone thinks I'm wrong, go try explaining to Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams how they are far leftists because they so strongly oppose war.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> It makes me want to smash my head through a brick wall every time I hear center right authoritarian Democrats referred to as the left.
> 
> My personal pet peeve is against two guys I'm big fans of, Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore, when they say Democrats are attacking Trump from the right when he is not being hawkish enough. Being more or less hawkish on foreign policy is a libertarian vs authoritarian issue and has nothing to do with left vs right politics. And if anyone thinks I'm wrong, go try explaining to Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams how they are far leftists because they so strongly oppose war.


Smashing your head through a brick wall sounds like engaging with BM on pretty much anything. You can't educate stupid.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That made perfect sense, if you weren't illiterate you'd realise that. There was no contradiction in that post at all. You might want to learn what the word contradiction means.


No wonder you think Trump is smart LOL

Keep embarrassing yourself on this dude.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> No wonder you think Trump is smart LOL
> 
> Keep embarrassing yourself on this dude.


Yes, that's what's happening. Go get your reading and writing to at least high school graduate level and then we'll talk. The best is where you said "no wonder you think Trump is smart" when I've spent almost 2 years saying the exact opposite you clown.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yes, that's what's happening. Go get your reading and writing to at least high school graduate level and then we'll talk.





RavishingRickRules said:


> Except for the fact you literally just agreed with my explanation earlier in the thread. The point I was making is that simply *"making things worse" isn't regression.* *Regression is *taking things BACK to a position *where they were worse*. You really need to learn to READ.


Here is your quote again.

You say that regression ISN'T making things worse then in your very next sentence you say regression is going back to when things were WORSE

So how is regression not making things worse?

You don't even make sense. You have no clue how logic and reason even work.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Here is your quote again.
> 
> You say that regression ISN'T making things worse then in your very next sentence you say regression is going back to when things were WORSE
> 
> ...


fpalm

Learn. To. Read.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> fpalm
> 
> Learn. To. Read.


Your projection is hilarious on this. You are like Rudy, truth isn't the truth. so regression isn't regression.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> fpalm
> 
> Learn. To. Read.





birthday_massacre said:


> Your projection is hilarious on this.


kay


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Loving the entertainment guys.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Loving the entertainment guys.


Glad someone is, I get more intelligent conversation from my newborn tbh.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your projection is hilarious on this. You are like Rudy, truth isn't the truth. so regression isn't regression.


Has RRR overtaken me in dumb delusional Trump support yet?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Has RRR overtaken me in dumb delusional Trump support yet?


I'm not a Trump supporter, that's the most retarded thing about his statements. I've been consistently anti-Trump for years.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not a Trump supporter, that's the most retarded thing about his statements. I've been consistently anti-Trump for years.


Oh sure now that he is throwing hurricanes at the east coast of the USA you want to disavow typical Trump supporter


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Glad someone is, I get more intelligent conversation from my newborn tbh.


LOL, you are wrong on this, its just funny you think you are making an intelligent point, that is what makes it even more hilarious.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Oh sure now that he is throwing hurricanes at the east coast of the USA you want to disavow typical Trump supporter


STOP.

Everybody knows Hillary's responsible for the hurricanes.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't mind hurricanes normally, its just these really wet ones we're getting nowadays.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> I don't mind hurricanes normally, its just these really wet ones we're getting nowadays.


Because it’s tremendously big and tremendously wet, there will be tremendous amounts of water


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog (Mar 22, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because it’s tremendously big and tremendously wet, there will be tremendous amounts of water


Look at him drink that all on his own. Like a big boy.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Look at him drink that all on his own. Like a big boy.


That's a weird way of drinking though right, it's not just me? Like he's gotta take care to line it up with his mouth or something before tipping it back. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It was a subtle call-back to this great moment:






I hate fake fans. :no: I was into The Donald before he became The Storm God.


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's a weird way of drinking though right, it's not just me? Like he's gotta take care to line it up with his mouth or something before tipping it back. :lol


I assume he did that so he wouldn't get any on his suit. That or he needs 2 hands to pick up a water bottle. :lol

NVM Camille answered it.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog (Mar 22, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's a weird way of drinking though right, it's not just me? Like he's gotta take care to line it up with his mouth or something before tipping it back. :lol


He seems to lack basic hand eye coordination. He should take up golf


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It was a subtle call-back to this great moment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He kinda looks a little drunk in that video. It's surreal sometimes watching his speeches because it comes across a bit like a comedy sketch. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> He kinda looks a little drunk in that video. It's surreal sometimes watching his speeches because it comes across a bit like a comedy sketch. :lol


That's because it literally was a comedy sketch. :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> That's because it literally was a comedy sketch. :lol


Makes sense, I guess he does that a lot because the vast majority of his speeches I see leave me with the same impression?


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's a weird way of drinking though right, it's not just me? Like he's gotta take care to line it up with his mouth or something before tipping it back. :lol


Trump has some really strange idiosyncrasies that people simply take too seriously. I don't know how people take these things so seriously considering that he is basically a big MTV created cartoon come to live. I'm not taking about serious issues like P----y grabbing. Just to make that clear.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> As much as I would LOVE to have Tulsi as president, I worry that a 2020 run might be a bit premature. Those of us who are political junkies have known about her for awhile (BTW, CP, I freakin' loved listening to her on the JRE last night), she might not be as well know nationally as she needs to be. Plus, she carries herself and talks with such gravitas, it's easy to forget just how young she is. She's only 37 now. If she were our next president, she'd be done in DC by her mid-40s. Maybe I'm being selfish here but we need Tulsi for a lot longer than that.
> 
> If the Dems don't find a way to screw Bernie out of the nomination again, TBH, I wouldn't want her as VP either. Where I'd rather have her is Secretary of State, which is a lot more powerful position than VP. From the SoS role, she would have a larger influence on Bernie's foreign policy, helping to keep the neocons at bay, and would be a brilliant voice on the international stage to try to get us out of some of these conflicts. A role like that would give her the name recognition and experience for a successful run at the WH herself, so when old man Bernie dodders off into retirement, give me Gabbard as president in 2028. That's what I would consider the best case scenario.


Oh don't get me wrong, I qualified it by stating I doubt she's going to run anyway but out of all the Dem's for me personally, she is definitely the best one that I know anyway.

There's a good chance Bernie runs because 2020 would without a doubt be now or never for him. He'd be too old afterwards....hell some people think he's too old now which I think is a pretty silly argument because Trump is the oldest President in history but that's how it is.

To be fair, Elizabeth Warren is also more likely than Tulsi to run in 2020 unfortunately. Whilst I'm not a big fan of Bernie as you know, he'd still be better than Warren who is undoubtedly the worst of the three in my opinion. She says all the right things for the progressive base but when it comes down to it, there's been times where she's shown she is a career politician....she's smarter about it than most but I've noticed it. Two great examples are:

* Backing Hillary instead of Bernie hoping she'd get picked for the VP spot. That backfired on her and made her look silly.

* Going back on stating that the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie because she calculated that it wasn't politically good for her.....even though everyone who follows politics closely knew for a long time even at that stage that the DNC screwed Bernie.

There's a chance also that Warren runs as well as Bernie....which would be a disaster for the progressives as it would ultimately split the vote.....or that Warren is so determined to run that Bernie decides for the "good of the cause" to drop out. We have already seen Bernie is prone to cowering when the pressure is on him, most recent example being towing the Democratic party line on Russia even though through Wikileaks it was shown that he was screwed out of the nomination by his own party. I think Warren is more ruthless and politically ambitious than Bernie is, so it could happen. I do not trust that she's an honest actor for a second. She reminds me of Obama who says the right things but their actions tell a different story at times.

This conversation might be all for nothing anyway as we witness the DNC nominate yet another corportatist and get their asses handed to them again by Trump :lol.



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's a weird way of drinking though right, it's not just me? Like he's gotta take care to line it up with his mouth or something before tipping it back. :lol



Speaking of weird ways to drink water:







I mean who the fuck drinks water like that? :lmao. It's like he's trying to act human. Zuckerberg is a weird dude.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Speaking of weird ways to drink water:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lmao

Yeah that's pretty uncomfortable to watch. It's like he's not even drinking it, just letting it quickly wet his lips and tongue before putting the glass down again.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Trump has some really strange idiosyncrasies that people simply take too seriously. I don't know how people take these things so seriously considering that he is basically a big MTV created cartoon come to live. I'm not taking about serious issues like P----y grabbing. Just to make that clear.


In what way was I "taking it seriously?" All I did is say it was a weird way of drinking water...because it's a fucking weird way of drinking water. :lol


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> In what way was I "taking it seriously?" All I did is say it was a weird way of drinking water...because it's a fucking weird way of drinking water. :lol


I wasn't talking about you specifically. Just a lot of people tend to take these thing seriously. Especially people on facebook.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> I wasn't talking about you specifically. Just a lot of people tend to take these thing seriously. Especially people on facebook.


So why let it bother you? Seems a little ironic to be taking them seriously enough to be annoyed that they take trivial things so seriously, no?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Look at him drink that all on his own. Like a big boy.


Yeah, he doesn't use a sippy cup in public, so it can be tough for him.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> So why let it bother you? Seems a little ironic to be taking them seriously enough to be annoyed that they take trivial things so seriously, no?


I didn't say that it bothered me. The meltdowns over petty BS are funny.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Oh don't get me wrong, I qualified it by stating I doubt she's going to run anyway but out of all the Dem's for me personally, she is definitely the best one that I know anyway.
> 
> There's a good chance Bernie runs because 2020 would without a doubt be now or never for him. He'd be too old afterwards....hell some people think he's too old now which I think is a pretty silly argument because Trump is the oldest President in history but that's how it is.
> 
> ...


Warren voted for the monstrous increase in the war budget recently, so that makes her an immediate no-go for me. She might be decent against the banks but that's about it. She'd do absolutely nothing to stand in the way of the neocons continuing to run foreign policy. I really hope she stays her ass in the Senate and out of the presidential race.

Outside of Bernie, the only other one in the field who I think would beat Trump is Biden. God help us all if they manage to get Booker or Harris the nomination. I'm not a big fan of Biden either but I'd prefer another 4 more years of Trump to those 2 particular lackeys.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I know it's the thing atm to say 4 years more of Trump is preferable to voting for an establishment Democrat but that's not a stand I'd make. I voted Liberal in Canada, even though I'm not a Justin Trudeau fan (his dad was pure awesome though), because I didn't want the Conservatives to win. I'll pick the lesser of two evils every time. Sometimes it's best to vote strategically rather than for your ideal candidate. Of course, politics in the US is a bit odd with no real left leaning party as a viable option (the Dems are centre right.). 

(please excuse typos; I'm very, very, er, happy right now  )


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



GothicBohemian said:


> I know it's the thing atm to say 4 years more of Trump is preferable to voting for an establishment Democrat but that's not a stand I'd make. I voted Liberal in Canada, even though I'm not a Justin Trudeau fan (his dad was pure awesome though), because I didn't want the Conservatives to win. I'll pick the lesser of two evils every time. Sometimes it's best to vote strategically rather than for your ideal candidate. Of course, politics in the US is a bit odd with no real left leaning party as a viable option (the Dems are centre right.).
> 
> (please excuse typos; I'm very, very, er, happy right now  )


Voting for the lesser of two evils is what got us Trump in the WH and Republicans in control of Congress. If you call that voting strategically, I'd reconsider your strategy. Replacing them with the very same losers who allowed for their rise in the first place will only lead to a much worse Trump in the future. We got lucky this time because Trump is such a bumbling fucking moron. You don't want to see what would happen with a Ted Cruz or a Mike Pence in the WH with a GOP controlled Congress. Those mother fuckers are true blue kool-aid drinkers and a helluva lot more politically conniving. They'd be able to do much more damage than the orange buffoon.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Oh, I'd never consider Pence, or Cruz, the lesser of evils - he's worse than Trump; less stupid and more true conservative. In terms of social policies, Pence scares me more than Trump does, in part because I feel he could accomplish more in forwarding his agenda. Were I American, I'd never vote Republican, not unless they unveil someone genuinely anti-war, pro worker (as opposed to pro industry) and socially progressive, which they won't.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Special treatment doesn't work imo. An organic shift won't work either because racism is very deeply ingrained in American society and if it was going to change it would have by now. Almost all other countries (at least western) do not have the kind of racism problems America does so the progressives here are right about what they're saying but not about their solutions.
> 
> The solution is to change attitudes at a fundamental level and the only way to do that is to expose the experience of those who face racism because human empathy has a way of working in establishing real change over time.


It works when you do it to people who are causing it, when you do it to average people who haven't done anything wrong it just makes them spiteful and angry. How many people actually care about this stuff anyways? Most people are busy with their own lives to care enough about someone's skin color etc. The Twitter trolls and small gatherings of alt right retards don't count as the majority yet the media would have you believe otherwise.

Chances are there is no solution because everything they've been trying has made things worse, it seemed to get better when people just left other people alone. :laugh:

@RRR We'll have to agree to disagree to a degree! I do like debating with you though and still <3 you.



GothicBohemian said:


> Oh, I'd never consider Pence, or Cruz, the lesser of evils - he's worse than Trump; less stupid and more true conservative. In terms of social policies, Pence scares me more than Trump does, in part because I feel he could accomplish more in forwarding his agenda. Were I American, I'd never vote Republican, not unless they unveil someone genuinely anti-war, pro worker (as opposed to pro industry) and socially progressive, which they won't.


What else can you vote for besides Democrat? They're pro-war, socially progressive in name only and are anti-worker. Their biggest donators are companies trying to get rid of workers for cheaper ones. When it comes to American politics you're fucked. One side is evil, the other side is as evil just more secretive about it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039731755404718080
:lmao


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> What else can you vote for besides Democrat? They're pro-war, socially progressive in name only and are anti-worker. Their biggest donators are companies trying to get rid of workers for cheaper ones. When it comes to American politics you're fucked. One side is evil, the other side is as evil just more secretive about it.


Honestly, if I were American, I'd vote Democrat in a lesser of two evils way. You just don't have a viable left leaning party. I'm not one to throw away my vote if I can contribute to keeping my worst nightmare out of power.

I have a choice to make in my local election soon; my heart says vote Green or NDP, but my mind says be logical and vote Liberal to keep the Conservative Party and People's Alliance out of office. See, in Canada we have multiple choices but, in a tight race, only two or three of them are viable.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



GothicBohemian said:


> I'm not one to throw away my vote if I can contribute to keeping my worst nightmare out of power.


This is the precise logic that led us to the place we're at now. Until people figure out that lesser evil voting causes the thing they are trying to prevent, shit's just gonna keep getting worse.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> This is the precise logic that led us to the place we're at now. Until people figure out that lesser evil voting causes the thing they are trying to prevent, shit's just gonna keep getting worse.


So what should people do? I might put my vote behind Tulsi Gabbard if I though she had a hope in hell of winning but she doesn't, not in America. You guys are conservative with a capital C. You're fucked, the repressives who want to roll back rights and regulation won, bar revolution it's over.

I'm just fucking proud and glad that Canada hasn't rolled over and played dead for Trump - yet - like Mexico did; corporate tagline and all - We The North!

btw, my landlord has made using cannabis grounds for eviction despite it soon being legal in Canada . I am beyond pissed, this should not be an issue now.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Start at 8:57


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



GothicBohemian said:


> So what should people do? I might put my vote behind Tulsi Gabbard if I though she had a hope in hell of winning but she doesn't, not in America. You guys are conservative with a capital C. You're fucked, the repressives who want to roll back rights and regulation won, bar revolution it's over.


Trump's election opened a lot of people's eyes. That's why the Establishment hates him so much, even though he's mostly doing what they want him to do. He puts an ugly face on all of the same shit that was already in motion. The government is owned and run by conservatives with a capital C right now but the majority of Americans don't think that way. Now more than ever are paying attention to how badly they are getting fucked. 

When the economy collapses, and it will, that's when real change is going to happen. Whether that change is for the better will be up to the people. If enough of them decide to fight back, maybe things will get better. If they roll over and let the neoliberal Dems back in charge, things won't. Time will tell.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Regardless of how anyone feels about Trump, his victory rocked the establishment to the core.

It doesn't matter if he works with them or against them, they're going to hate him. 

He beat out establishment candidates left and right, he went to states Democrats ignored and took for granted, his demeanor regardless of how anyone feels about it spoke to people because he didn't seem like a robot. He also brought trucks full of supplies to victims of the flooding etc. He did what establishment candidates didn't do.

Trump not matter how bad or good of a President some might consider him is a monkey wrench in the establishment machine. 

If Trump can bully his way into being President, think of what someone who could be a great leader could do!

That has the establishment worried, they're losing control and their big businesses don't like it. 

The MSM, Establishment Politicians, CIA/FBI and the rest of the cronies have lots and lots of money and manpower sunk into the Government going the way they want, now it's threatened.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> He also brought trucks full of supplies to victims of the flooding


Wait, what? The fuck are you talking about here? The photo op in Puerto Rico when he was tossing paper towels into a crowd?


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> *Warren voted for the monstrous increase in the war budget recently, so that makes her an immediate no-go for me. *She might be decent against the banks but that's about it. She'd do absolutely nothing to stand in the way of the neocons continuing to run foreign policy. I really hope she stays her ass in the Senate and out of the presidential race.
> 
> Outside of Bernie, the only other one in the field who I think would beat Trump is Biden. God help us all if they manage to get Booker or Harris the nomination. I'm not a big fan of Biden either but I'd prefer another 4 more years of Trump to those 2 particular lackeys.


Wow I did not know about the Warren vote for defence budget, that's actually shocking. Even worse than I thought.

Agreed with your analysis, if Booker or Harris gets nominated then it's 4 more years of Trump.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Wow I did not know about the Warren vote for defence budget, that's actually shocking. Even worse than I thought.


I remembered Kyle and/or Jimmy ripping her for it. According to the quick search I just did, she voted for the increase last year but against the one this year. I was going off memory with my first comment. Still, she has never given me any indication that she would seriously stand up against the military industrial complex.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Wow I did not know about the Warren vote for defence budget, that's actually shocking. Even worse than I thought.
> 
> Agreed with your analysis, if Booker or Harris gets nominated then it's 4 more years of Trump.


You mean you couldn't tell that a fake Indian wouldn't also lie about her politics? C'mon Dopa. You're smarter than that.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You mean you couldn't tell that a fake Indian wouldn't also lie about her politics? C'mon Dopa. You're smarter than that.


No of course she would, already demonstrated that she's a career politician. I just didn't know about the defence bill vote.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> No of course she would, already demonstrated that she's a career politician. I just didn't know about the defence bill vote.


I think every single indicator repeatedly proves over and over again that Americans are permanently screwed. 

Whether people want to accept it or not we're already in a dystopian nightmare.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I think every single indicator repeatedly proves over and over again that Americans are permanently screwed.
> 
> Whether people want to accept it or not we're already in a dystopian nightmare.


People think we're fucked now. Just wait until the bottom falls out of the economy. Trump is really tying his own noose by taking so much credit for how "great" things are right now. It's like people have fucking amnesia in this country and can't see cause and effect correlation. History education is so bad, it can be somewhat forgiven that people don't understand the events leading up to the Great Depression but the last mega crash was only a decade ago for fuck's sake.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> People think we're fucked now. Just wait until the bottom falls out of the economy. Trump is really tying his own noose by taking so much credit for how "great" things are right now. It's like people have fucking amnesia in this country and can't see cause and effect correlation. History education is so bad, it can be somewhat forgiven that people don't understand the events leading up to the Great Depression but the last mega crash was only a decade ago for fuck's sake.


War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength.

It has never been truer than it is today. 

There are other signs too. 

The authoritarian state controls massive amounts of resources to have complete control over public and private life's.

When in discussing guns our useful idiots now admit without realizing that the military is powerful enough to destroy its pwj citizenry if it wanted to. I mean that's one of their favorite arguments for giving up guns.

The disdain for the poor is real.

There's so much more. I could go on but I'm tired.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Wait, what? The fuck are you talking about here? The photo op in Puerto Rico when he was tossing paper towels into a crowd?


It was either Texas or Louisiana. It was during his campaign, he got some shit for it by the Hillary side but it backfired on them.



Reap said:


> War is peace
> Freedom is slavery
> Ignorance is strength.
> 
> ...


This 100x! Even among the "anti-racist" crowd they don't hold back when talking about their disdain for the poor, especially poor from certain parts of the country. 

The hatred of the poor from the Government and upper class who preach from on high is quite troubling.



Tater said:


> *I remembered Kyle and/or Jimmy ripping her for it.* According to the quick search I just did, she voted for the increase last year but against the one this year. I was going off memory with my first comment. Still, she has never given me any indication that she would seriously stand up against the military industrial complex.


If Booker or Harris became President prepare for Kyle and Jimmy to suddenly be racists.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> The hatred of the poor the Government and upper class who preach from on high is quite troubling.


In a classic Dystopia, those who benefit from the system _always _consider those who don't to be inferior in _some _way or the other. It's always _their _fault. It could be the color of their skin, it could be the _choices _they made. They're druggies, deadbeats, refuse to work hard etc etc.

America isn't as dystopian as some other parts of the world but it is slowly creeping up to those levels and most people are refusing to acknowledge it. But again, that's also true for dystopias. Those who continue to benefit from the unbalanced system refuse to acknowledge its existence primarily because they continue to see the benefits they have as a result of their personal choices and accomplishments but are unaware of the advantage they had being born rich - and then sell the "rags to riches" dream to everyone else thinking that they themselves are somehow "self-made men". The actual percentage of the truly self-made men is extremely low in society.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

With regards to the "disdain for the poor" one thing I've noticed is that Americans almost never even talk about the Working Class. The focus is always squarely on what benefits the Middle Class, which I've always found quite interesting as they're usually much better off in general. I've often wondered if this is partially to do with how right-wing everything is that nobody even considers those who are literally living on the bread-line as if they're completely irrelevant in society.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> With regards to the "disdain for the poor" one thing I've noticed is that Americans almost never even talk about the Working Class. The focus is always squarely on what benefits the Middle Class, which I've always found quite interesting as they're usually much better off in general. I've often wondered if this is partially to do with how right-wing everything is that nobody even considers those who are literally living on the bread-line as if they're completely irrelevant in society.


Animals and Prols are free.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> Animals and Prols are free.


Huh?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> With regards to the "disdain for the poor" one thing I've noticed is that Americans almost never even talk about the Working Class. The focus is always squarely on what benefits the Middle Class, which I've always found quite interesting as they're usually much better off in general. I've often wondered if this is partially to do with how right-wing everything is that nobody even considers those who are literally living on the bread-line as if they're completely irrelevant in society.


America's middle class and working class are blurred. What was once considered Working Class classically now earns enough money to be considered middle class in terms of income earned. 

The working class model is outdated because in the past it used to include manufacturing but manufacturing payscales are now higher than even the middle class. 

America being a largely service based economy means that the poorest workers are now in service industries, restaurants and retail ... Main industries where the majority of unskilled labor exists and is working at, or less than minimum wage. The worse thing is that people assume that if you can "pay the bills" you are not poor, but that's ridiculous. America's poor has learned to live in shitty conditions but are constantly told that if they have a TV, a Car, a roof over their heads they have no right to complain or expect more. 

Skilled labor is well above middle class (at least here in florida). 

Then again, you can go to Bay Area and can't find a decent home if you make even 100,000 a year. There have been reports of highly paid tech workers living in communes and rooming in tiny ass houses. 

Basically, they've got a system where no matter what you earn in some parts of the country, you will have pretty much the same lifestyle across the board. It's quite interesting how they've managed to achieve this.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Huh?


Its a quote from 1984. It states that the working class (Prols or Proletariat) are free to do as they please as long as work for the state. They are usually kept in line with cheap entertainment and the like.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> Its a quote from 1984. It states that the working class (Prols or Proletariat) are free to do as they please as long as work for the state. They are usually kept in line with cheap entertainment and the like.


I'd say that George Orwell is an amateur compared to the corporate think tanks. 

He would never have been able to predict that instead of a single endless authoritarian state, the oligarchs would be able to give people the illusion of choice by having regular "democratic" elections. 

The American elections are nothing more than a horse and pony show. They trot out "politicians" and give people the illusion that the "politicians" are the ones with power ... It would be like thinking that the dog is the master when the dog is merely performing for his master.

Think of our ability and freedom to converse with one another in terms of impact and you'll realize that we're also as much a part of the system. We're the dissenters/revolutionaries that also allow people to think that there is some sort of change possible. It's not.

Trump's failure and ineffectiveness as President is pretty much the final nail in the coffin.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> America's middle class and working class are blurred. What was once considered Working Class classically now earns enough money to be considered middle class in terms of income earned.
> 
> The working class model is outdated because in the past it used to include manufacturing but manufacturing payscales are now higher than even the middle class.
> 
> ...


Oh, I'm well aware that the true "working class poor" are in service industries, I have friends out there earning next to nothing as waiters and bar staff in restaurants. There's no way in hell they'd qualify as "middle class" though tbh. Living in the ghetto and working 4 jobs because not a single one of them pays close to a living wage and STILL struggling to keep a roof over your head is not a good situation to be in. How some of my friends refrain from just saying "fuck this, I'll join a gang" I have no idea tbh. I have another friend from Englewood in Chicago who now does 70 hour weeks driving a truck long haul because it's the only way as an unskilled worker he'd have any glimmer of hope in affording his own house when he's also supporting his grandmother. I'm sure you're well aware how low the life expectancy is in that line of work - so he's literally killing himself simply to afford a place to live, it's sad. Whilst I'm sure there are some elements of blurred lines, at the bottom end people are still clearly working class and struggling to remotely make ends meat. I know friends who can't afford any kind of insurance - medical, property, anything. One of my friends in Boston has Lyme disease and doesn't even go to the doctor because he can afford neither insurance nor paying out of pocket in order to get treatment. His neighbourhood is essentially one big smack den with junkies and needles everywhere and it looks like something out of a post-apocalyptic movie in photos.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I'd say that George Orwell is an amateur compared to the corporate think tanks.
> 
> He would never have been able to predict that instead of a single endless authoritarian state, the oligarchs would be able to give people the illusion of choice by having regular "democratic" elections.
> 
> ...


True. Though its looking more likely that William Gibson's vision of the future might be more plausible.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> His neighbourhood is essentially one big smack den with junkies and needles everywhere and it looks like something out of a post-apocalyptic movie in photos.


The imagery for our dystopias obviously comes from reality. 

Look up Tent cities. It's even worse than some people think.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I'd say that George Orwell is an amateur compared to the corporate think tanks.
> 
> He would never have been able to predict that instead of a single endless authoritarian state, the oligarchs would be able to give people the illusion of choice by having regular "democratic" elections.
> 
> ...


That freedom and ability to converse, at least on the internet, is being censored away. Between Bernie and Trump, the Establishment lost control of the narrative in 2016 and they didn't like that. Now they are coercing the major platforms like Facebook/Twitter/YouTube into censoring non-conformist opinions and promoting their own agenda. There's still a lot of people who refuse to admit it but this is government censorship and a trashing of the 1st amendment. The way we talk in this thread and the shit we talk about? If we had large audiences on major platforms, we'd have been censored already.

Speaking of 1984, a glimmer of hope in the darkness...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040204470280441858


RavishingRickRules said:


> Oh, I'm well aware that the true "working class poor" are in service industries, I have friends out there earning next to nothing as waiters and bar staff in restaurants. There's no way in hell they'd qualify as "middle class" though tbh. Living in the ghetto and working 4 jobs because not a single one of them pays close to a living wage and STILL struggling to keep a roof over your head is not a good situation to be in. How some of my friends refrain from just saying "fuck this, I'll join a gang" I have no idea tbh. I have another friend from Englewood in Chicago who now does 70 hour weeks driving a truck long haul because it's the only way as an unskilled worker he'd have any glimmer of hope in affording his own house when he's also supporting his grandmother. I'm sure you're well aware how low the life expectancy is in that line of work - so he's literally killing himself simply to afford a place to live, it's sad. Whilst I'm sure there are some elements of blurred lines, at the bottom end people are still clearly working class and struggling to remotely make ends meat. I know friends who can't afford any kind of insurance - medical, property, anything. One of my friends in Boston has Lyme disease and doesn't even go to the doctor because he can afford neither insurance nor paying out of pocket in order to get treatment. His neighbourhood is essentially one big smack den with junkies and needles everywhere and it looks like something out of a post-apocalyptic movie in photos.


I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here, but you seem to be recognizing the symptoms of the disease of capitalism while remaining blind to it's systemic root cause. As long as there are concentrations of wealth and power, said wealth and power will be used by a small handful of people to create extravagantly lavish lives for themselves whilst the vast majority suffer in poverty. Until humanity recognizes the need to break up those concentrations of wealth and power, to decentralize, this is a problem that will never be solved.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040217897703026689

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040220855400386560


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The politicians don't care about poor people because they generally don't vote. They only care about power and how they can keep it. That's why the wealthy have so much influence and the poor don't; the wealthy can actually influence elections disproportionately through their donations, while the poor, since they don't vote, have no influence. It's actually pretty sad that so few people in power seem to genuinely care about the poor.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here, but you seem to be recognizing the symptoms of the disease of capitalism while remaining blind to it's systemic root cause. As long as there are concentrations of wealth and power, said wealth and power will be used by a small handful of people to create extravagantly lavish lives for themselves whilst the vast majority suffer in poverty. Until humanity recognizes the need to break up those concentrations of wealth and power, to decentralize, this is a problem that will never be solved.


No, you just have a different take on what the solution is. Show me one single successful socialist country? They don't exist. In my opinion, capitalism isn't the problem, the way capitalism is IMPLEMENTED is the problem. You want a socialist revolution like that's going to fix anything - every single country that's had one has ended up worse until they've brought back capitalism. My belief is that you need to use capitalism the RIGHT way to deliver the best society for everybody. 

Rather than using it to funnel money to the top, it should be used to funnel money the other way. Instead of corporate tax breaks, give them to small businesses so they have a chance to grow and compete. Rather than nationalising everything and having it all fuck up, use a stimulated economy to provide a comprehensive welfare state for those in need of it - including a basic universal income for everybody regardless of whether they work or not. Use the money from taxing big corporations to fund healthcare at a high level, care for the elderly and mentally ill. Invest money into people in disadvantaged communities, not comfortable ones. Socialism has never once proven to generate the amount of money required to fund it, you know what generates a fuck ton of money? Capitalism. 

You've never actually asked me what I think the solution is, you've just tried to lecture me on what YOU think it is. Sorry, but your way has never worked so far so why should I believe it'd work now? You know what does work? Social-capitalism. Greed is something that will always exist in human nature, so why not use the money generated by that greed to get what we need? No revolution needed, just a change of perspective. You can be as radical as you like, I'm a realist. I'm a not remotely radical centrist, I believe in taking the best from both sides of the spectrum, frankly neither side has enough by itself to deliver a satisfactory solution.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040217897703026689
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040220855400386560


Put yourself beyond petty partisan politics here (Trump's reaction is terrible), but there is something very shady about the corporate media trending this story just before a Hurricane hits the Carolinas. Its timing is too perfect. Too calculated. 

Stop thinking in terms of what the politicians are doing, but the forces behind them driving public attention in specifically chosen directions. 

When you are compelled to think/talk about trending topics, question why those particular topics are trending and you'll rise above the partisanship. You're almost there man. Almost. You see the machinations of the oligarchs, you just haven't identified the real culprits imo.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Put yourself beyond petty partisan politics here (Trump's reaction is terrible), but there is something very shady about the corporate media trending this story just before a Hurricane hits the Carolinas. Its timing is too perfect. Too calculated.
> 
> Stop thinking in terms of what the politicians are doing, but the forces behind them driving public attention in specifically chosen directions.
> 
> When you are compelled to think/talk about trending topics, question why those particular topics are trending and you'll rise above the partisanship. You're almost there man. Almost. You see the machinations of the oligarchs, you just haven't identified the real culprits imo.


I understand the media does not give the slightest of fucks about the dead in PR. Those corpses are just a tool for them to use, but those corpses do exist.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040217897703026689
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040220855400386560


Democrats control hurricanes now to make Trump look bad. This is either an extremely stupid thing for Trump to say or a brilliant way to take blame off himself when he fails to do shit for the Carolinas after they get wrecked too. It's the goddamned Democrats!



RavishingRickRules said:


> No, you just have a different take on what the solution is. Show me one single successful socialist country?


I can just go ahead and cut off the rest of your right wing parrot reply right here. A: I'm not a socialist, at least not in the terms that you're implying, and I've never claimed to be. It's not my fault you cannot or will not understand my ideology and you strawman it into something else. B: If I were at all socialist, I could point to many successful *democratic*-socialist countries with ease. C: China is what capitalists would call socialist or communist and they are poised to overtake the USA as the largest economy in the world. I'd say they are more state capitalists than communist or socialist but the point remains the same.

Don't get me wrong, I do not suggest B or C as an ideal solution, but it's you who refuse to acknowledge that the system causing the misery and suffering that you speak about is the very same system that you support. Claiming that it hasn't been implemented correctly is a bullshit response and hopefully one day you will figure that out. Implementing it in a different way does not change the fundamental fact that the concentrated wealth and power structure would remain. And as long as _that_ remains, the problem of a majority of people suffering in poverty will also remain.

Think back to your argument with Sally about regressive progressives. I know you know what an oxymoron is. Now apply that same logic to the idea that capitalism in any form can work for the many and not the few. Think real hard about it. It's also an oxymoron.

Concentrated wealth and power is the problem. It doesn't matter if it's concentrated in the hands of a socialist state or a handful of private citizen billionaires. The end result for the majority of people living under a system with such concentrated wealth and power remains largely the same.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Democrats control hurricanes now to make Trump look bad. This is either an extremely stupid thing for Trump to say or a brilliant way to take blame off himself when he fails to do shit for the Carolinas after they get wrecked too. It's the goddamned Democrats!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just told you exactly how capitalism can work for everybody, you didn't address any of it. Wonder why?

Also, do you know the difference between my solution and yours? Mine's actually possible in the real world and not just your cloud-cuckoo fantasy land. You want a revolution? Are you serious? Do you know what happens in a country like yours when armed citizens have a revolution? The same thing that causes your police to be in the news a lot more than ours are. You can't win that revolution, your army would FLATTEN every single dissident without breaking a sweat. Conversely, my solution is already BEING implemented in countries in some way - it's not much different than the nordic model. But sure, keep trying to talk down to me when you sound like a crazy person living in a fantasy. I'll continue to live in reality and laugh at how idiotic you sound.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

What about 10 years of socialism to balance everyone out then go full libertarian? I don't believe in the latter because people weren't born equal. I think at most it'll benefit white middle to upper class men (seems to be the majority that want it fit into that net) just now. Socialism would even the scales, then there'd be no excuses when everyones left to their own devices. 

Is this whole concept of opposing parties not that one takes control of the country and shifts it towards their own, while the other takes over after 8 years and shifts if back their way?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> What about 10 years of socialism to balance everyone out then go full libertarian?


The state never gives up power.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The state never gives up power.


Which is the reason why the easiest, most realistic and most effective reform would be to use the existing system and change the way it works. Instead of trying to make the citizens afford everything out of their income and struggling to fund everything you make the companies all of whom have substantial money to spare do it with their taxes. By doing so you don't have to worry about the rise of automation - everybody receives a basic income regardless of whether they work or not, the ones who want more - get a job. You could work a part time job and still have a great income. There'd also be more jobs to go around because people wouldn't have to work as many hours to support themselves. No more need to pay for healthcare in insurance, it's covered. No more need to pay for care for the elderly or rely on charities for the homeless - it's covered. Rather than large companies receiving the state assistance and having the advantage, you give it to the start-ups and small businesses and help turn them into larger companies - more jobs, more income, more money moving, better tax income to fund even more projects. 

Or we could try and have a revolution and thousands of people can die when they try and defeat a state with so much power they could destroy the planet by pushing a few buttons. That'll work.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I understand the media does not give the slightest of fucks about the dead in PR. Those corpses are just a tool for them to use, but those corpses do exist.


The methodology behind the collection of these figures is overly simplistic. They simply went "X number of people died in 2016 in the same period" and compared it to "X number of people died in 2017 in the same period" and said "Ok, Trump caused this increase". There are so many factors that go into population death rates and rises. Then you have to convince yourself that Florida (which is actually not 100% pro trump) somehow magically gained Trump's favor while Puerto Rico didn't. And you're in the rabbit hole of extremely irrational thinking (not you, but others pushing this idea that the Feds control relief efforts). This is pure agenda/partisan politics at play. 

This is bullshit science and please don't put me in a position to defend Trump because of someone's agenda.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I just told you exactly how capitalism can work for everybody, you didn't address any of it. Wonder why?


My previous responses to why it can't work for everybody haven't sunk in yet. I don't see why this time would have been any different. You really are an odd duck at times. I don't mean that as an insult. I'll see you talking about the masses of people suffering in poverty like you're a lefty and I believe you genuinely care but when I confront you on the causes of it, you revert to right wing talking points. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> Also, do you know the difference between my solution and yours? Mine's actually possible in the real world and not just your cloud-cuckoo fantasy land. You want a revolution? Are you serious? Do you know what happens in a country like yours when armed citizens have a revolution? The same thing that causes your police to be in the news a lot more than ours are. You can't win that revolution, your army would FLATTEN every single dissident without breaking a sweat. Conversely, my solution is already BEING implemented in countries in some way - it's not much different than the nordic model. But sure, keep trying to talk down to me when you sound like a crazy person living in a fantasy. I'll continue to live in reality and laugh at how idiotic you sound.


Again, right from the very start, your entire premise is wrong. You clearly do not have any understanding of what my solutions would be, so everything you say after that first question is based on a false premise.

Also, stop with the accusations of talking down to you. I'm not. We get along fine when we're in agreement on topics. I don't all of sudden start talking down to you when we're in disagreement. You don't have to get defensive every time we discuss a difference of opinions.

You know what's actually cloud-cuckoo fantasy land? A belief that a consumer based capitalist economy will be sustainable in a future filled with AI and automation. For capitalism to function, people have to have jobs to earn money to buy things to make the whole thing work. When technology starts making most forms of human labor obsolete, then what? Capitalism has no answer for that. Our entire economy right now is full of massive bubbles that will eventually pop. When the collapses keep happening, it will become increasingly more difficult to put it back together because the jobs will continue becoming more and more scarce. Which will in turn cause people to take jobs for lesser and lesser pay, which will speed up the next collapse. It's a downward death spiral and eventually society will have to start doing things a different way because they will have no other choice in the matter. It'll be evolve or die time.

The whole revolution bit is more strawmanning from you. Yeah, you're right, suggesting an armed revolution would be fucking retarded. You haven't seen me calling for it either. When I confront you over the problems of capitalism, you respond to me like I'm an authoritarian leftist. I'm a *libertarian* leftist. Hell, I'm a borderline anarchist but not quite all the way there. That you do not understand this is why you respond to me the way you do. All this stuff about socialism and armed revolution is not stuff you've ever heard me talking about. It's binary thought. A lot of people in western society are propagandized from birth to believe that if you don't have capitalism, the only other thing is evil communism. Well, there's more than just 2 ideologies out there. There's a whole range of political beliefs spanning the 4 corners of the spectrum.

Of course, a revolution, a real one, would be bloody and unsuccessful and I would not nor have I ever called for it. I don't have to. The system we have now is going to collapse on it's own. That outcome is inevitable. What I am talking about are the ways society is going to have to change if they are going to survive in a post-capitalism world.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> My previous responses to why it can't work for everybody haven't sunk in yet. I don't see why this time would have been any different. You really are an odd duck at times. I don't mean that as an insult. I'll see you talking about the masses of people suffering in poverty like you're a lefty and I believe you genuinely care but when I confront you on the causes of it, you revert to right wing talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I literally addressed automation already, did you conveniently ignore that or did you just not even read what I wrote? When you've actually read my explanation, then we'll talk. Until then what's the point? You're not holding up your end of the implicit bargain in a conversation and just talking to yourself without hearing the other side. When you've ACTUALLY read my solution you'll realise how idiotic you're being.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Put yourself beyond petty partisan politics here (Trump's reaction is terrible), but there is something very shady about the corporate media trending this story just before a Hurricane hits the Carolinas. Its timing is too perfect. Too calculated.
> 
> Stop thinking in terms of what the politicians are doing, but the forces behind them driving public attention in specifically chosen directions.
> 
> When you are compelled to think/talk about trending topics, question why those particular topics are trending and you'll rise above the partisanship. You're almost there man. Almost. You see the machinations of the oligarchs, you just haven't identified the real culprits imo.


The whole reason why the media brought up the 3,000 number was in reply to Trump saying he did a better than A Plus job in how they did with the hurricane in PR. It was to show once again what a pathological liar he is and how he was ill-prepared on how to handle the aftermaths of the storms. And that number is not overly simplistic, and it was done by an independent study.

Also, there is this that I don't think I have seen anyone talk about. So right before these new hurricanes hitting Trump moved 10 million from FEMA to ICE.



http://fortune.com/2018/09/12/fema-ice-hurricane-florence-trump/


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> My previous responses to why it can't work for everybody haven't sunk in yet. I don't see why this time would have been any different. You really are an odd duck at times. I don't mean that as an insult. I'll see you talking about the masses of people suffering in poverty like you're a lefty and I believe you genuinely care but when I confront you on the causes of it, you revert to right wing talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ive just tuned in on the last couple pages but something in this post has me wondering...do you mean a metaphorical collapse or a true collapse?? If a true collapse, when do you see that happening? 50 years? 100? 1000? Im not trying to start anything or jump in the middle of yalls debate, Im just genuinely curious.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> The methodology behind the collection of these figures is overly simplistic. They simply went "X number of people died in 2016 in the same period" and compared it to "X number of people died in 2017 in the same period" and said "Ok, Trump caused this increase". There are so many factors that go into population death rates and rises. Then you have to convince yourself that Florida (which is actually not 100% pro trump) somehow magically gained Trump's favor while Puerto Rico didn't. And you're in the rabbit hole of extremely irrational thinking (not you, but others pushing this idea that the Feds control relief efforts). This is pure agenda/partisan politics at play.
> 
> This is bullshit science and please don't put me in a position to defend Trump because of someone's agenda.


Fair enough, the number may not be 2997, but I do not think it was somewhere between 16 and 64 either. CNN polled some PR funeral homes a month after the hurricane and got 499 dead from them.

Even without the study and the PR government now backing those numbers, what are the odds that a giant hurricane hitting an island with crumbling infrastructure that has been mismanaged for 50 years didn't lead to a larger than 16-64 death toll in the months following the hurricane? They were without power, clean water, medicine, communications, and other necessary supplies in parts of the island for a long time. Also, the Puerto Rico Vital Statistics System that was in charge of deaths being reported was without power and unable to operate for some time, so the jump in deaths reported in understandable.

I'm not trying to lay all that at Trump's feet. The local govt. failed spectacularly just like with New Orleans and Katrina. A few days ago they found bottled water sent to aid. It had been on the tarmac in the hot sun for a year. Trump can't be blamed for that one. I do think with some investigating they would find mistakes made by the feds in their response. Like this for example.

The media is using the dead as a weapon against him. That's callous. Trump is responding how he always does to it. He's lashing out and the byproduct of it is him saying those deaths didn't happen. That is also callous.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I'm not trying to lay all that at Trump's feet.


Then we're in agreement basically. No, 3000 people did not die because of the federal government's response or lack of response to Maria. That number is indeterminable because of the hypothesis itself. The claim is flawed. The methodology of the study is flawed .. This wouldn't be the first such ridiculous "study". I have the link to the actual study if you want it. You'll see the flaws yourself. I was gonna go into a whole deconstruction of it, but then I figured that it would be wasted effort. 

I will say though that Trump is a moron when it comes to arguing his own case even when he's in the right.

@Tater ; --- Just a small example of corporate media takeover of YouTube:

Anyone who thinks that these results are not manipulated and are automated through algorithims is just fooling themselves. They went through a phase a few months ago where they were pushing corporate media sources in my recommendations, taking spots away from my preferred subscriptions, forcing boxes that had all the really low subscribed Buzzfeed channels etc. 

They've been manipulating what "casual" youtubers are exposed to for months now. 










These are the top results for something as generic as Hurricane Florence.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Fair enough, the number may not be 2997, but I do not think it was somewhere between 16 and 64 either. CNN polled some PR funeral homes a month after the hurricane and got 499 dead from them.
> 
> Even without the study and the PR government now backing those numbers, what are the odds that a giant hurricane hitting an island with crumbling infrastructure that has been mismanaged for 50 years didn't lead to a larger than 16-64 death toll in the months following the hurricane? They were without power, clean water, medicine, communications, and other necessary supplies in parts of the island for a long time. Also, the Puerto Rico Vital Statistics System that was in charge of deaths being reported was without power and unable to operate for some time, so the jump in deaths reported in understandable.
> 
> ...


Again the whole reason why the media brought up the 3,000 dead number was because Trump bragged how he handled PR when he was a disaster at handling it. If Trump never made these comments, the media never would have said anything. It waas just them pointing out once again what a liar he is. 

And the local govt failed because Trump failed them at preparing them for the aftermath of the storm. That is all on Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> This is the precise logic that led us to the place we're at now. Until people figure out that lesser evil voting causes the thing they are trying to prevent, shit's just gonna keep getting worse.


It's your logic to not vote for the place we are at now for not voting for the lesser of two evils. Trump has been a disaster for the US, setting us back decades with all the progress we have made. Not to mention his awful SCOTUS picks that will fuck over progress for the next 50 years and all of Trump's undoing of regulations that protect us from corporations, as well as protecting the environment like endangered species, lakes, and rivers, Trumps idiotic deny of climate change and doing nothing to help mitigate it but doing things to make it worse Not to mention Trump constantly embarrasses the US on twitter every day.

Oh yeah but your logic of not voting the lesser of two evils is really working out great.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> You're not holding up your end of the implicit bargain in a conversation and just talking to yourself without hearing the other side.


Pot, meet kettle.

:draper2



blaird said:


> Ive just tuned in on the last couple pages but something in this post has me wondering...do you mean a metaphorical collapse or a true collapse?? If a true collapse, when do you see that happening? 50 years? 100? 1000? Im not trying to start anything or jump in the middle of yalls debate, Im just genuinely curious.


It's impossible to predict an exact date and time that economic crashes happen but you call ball park figure it. We're on very shaky ground right now and a bit overdue. I can't see us making it another year or two before the next mega crash happens. People are very resistant to change, so they'll continue to try to put capitalism back together. They'll continue to fail. Eventually, in probably about 10-20 years, people will have no other choice but to start doing things differently because there simply won't be enough jobs to go around anymore to sustain capitalism.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> :draper2
> 
> ...


When you actually read my response (which you evidently didn't judging by your response) then I'll address yours. It's pointless to do so beforehand because I already addressed a lot of what you replied with when you didn't ACTUALLY read my response/solution in the first place.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> :draper2
> 
> ...


So in the next couple years you see a recession similar to what we had 5-10 years ago? Or do you think it will be worse?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> So in the next couple years you see a recession similar to what we had 5-10 years ago? Or do you think it will be worse?


It will happen within the next year, and it will be way worse.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@CamillePunk

You liked a post advocating for a big government high tax welfare state. I've seen it all now.

:sodone



RavishingRickRules said:


> When you actually read my response (which you evidently didn't judging by your response) then I'll address yours. It's pointless to do so beforehand because I already addressed a lot of what you replied with when you didn't ACTUALLY read my response/solution in the first place.


I've read your response. Methinks not only do you not understand my ideology, you don't quite understand the definition of capitalism either, because a lot of your solutions fall in the democratic socialism area. But as far as the things you advocate for, a big government high tax welfare state, is exactly what FDR did after the Great Depression. And now we're right back where we started, on the verge of another mega collapse. Your solution has been tried and it has failed. The reason it failed is because the capitalists were still left in a position of concentrated wealth and power. They're not going to sit idly by and allow themselves to be taxed like that to support your welfare state. Even if you do get it instituted, they'll chip away and chip away and eventually they'll get it all back. You act like this hasn't been tried before.

The reason we're so fucked right now is precisely because your solutions have already been tried.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Haha Im confused who said what now...who was in favor of a universal income??


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The media is using the dead as a weapon against him. That's callous. Trump is responding how he always does to it. He's lashing out and the byproduct of it is him saying those deaths didn't happen. That is also callous.


Beg pardon, but this post is absurd. There's no equivalence to be made here.



Reap said:


> The methodology behind the collection of these figures is overly simplistic. T*hey simply went "X number of people died in 2016 in the same period" and compared it to "X number of people died in 2017 in the same period"* and said "Ok, Trump caused this increase". There are so many factors that go into population death rates and rises. Then you have to convince yourself that Florida (which is actually not 100% pro trump) somehow magically gained Trump's favor while Puerto Rico didn't. And you're in the rabbit hole of extremely irrational thinking (not you, but others pushing this idea that the Feds control relief efforts). This is pure agenda/partisan politics at play.
> 
> This is bullshit science and please don't put me in a position to defend Trump because of someone's agenda.


They didn't just do that. Excess mortality was merely a starting point, the rest of it is here in plain English.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> So in the next couple years you see a recession similar to what we had 5-10 years ago? Or do you think it will be worse?


The one from 10 years ago will look tame by comparison. A majority of people still haven't recovered from that one. The next one will hit them even harder.

I can point you in the direction of economists from the left, Richard Wolff, and economists from the right, David Stockman, who are saying the same thing.



blaird said:


> Haha Im confused who said what now...who was in favor of a universal income??


RRR.

I'm not specifically opposed to it but I'm not in favor of his high tax on corporations to fund it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Haha Im confused who said what now...who was in favor of a universal income??


A universal income would be great, as long as they get rid of things like welfare, food stamps, unemployment etc.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> @CamillePunk
> 
> You liked a post advocating for a big government high tax welfare state. I've seen it all now.
> 
> ...


And yet, the Nordic model is producing a much better society than the one you live in, so it didn't fail did it? It's really quite simple. Automation is no longer a problem if everybody is receiving a basic income regardless of whether they work or not. Especially if they no longer have to pay for healthcare. By giving the assistance to small businesses rather than big businesses you create more jobs, more companies making money which stimulates the economy and generates even more tax revenue. You think large companies are going to leave a market the size of America because they're paying higher tax? Are you mental? So a corporation is going to give up ALL of their profits instead of just a small portion? Really though? Do you even business? 

Because everybody gets paid whether they work or not but not a luxury amount people are able to have a great income working part time. For those who want even better they can continue to work full time in high paid jobs. You put the tax burden on the employer rather than the employee to fund the welfare state. Whilst also stimulating the economy by injecting cash into start-ups so that eventually you have a whole bunch of companies competing with each other, that will force everybody to be competitive so prices drop and the cost of living becomes cheaper - this is offset in the tax revenue by there being significantly more companies operating in the market. 

The people are allowed to earn as much as they want with their own businesses and be aggressive in a competitive market (capitalism) but they're not being propped up by the government in order to become monopolies any more (fairness.) The larger the company becomes the more tax they pay, the individual however is relieved of the tax burden. 

Because cost of living has been significantly reduced and we've also given everybody an income whether they work or not more money gets spent which generates more profit for companies which generates more tax revenue to pay for the welfare state. That's how economics works, keep the cash moving, don't let it stagnate. You're still rewarded for hard work and dedication and talent, yet the playing field has been levelled with regards to unfair advantages given by the system to those who're generating the most income. 

So, how exactly is that solution not viable? Compared to your "workers co-ops" that completely ignores the fact that the "have nots" don't have the money to even start said co-ops unless you give it to them by wealth redistribution which you say you're against?

And if you think creating more privately owned businesses doesn't fall under the definition of capitalism, then I'd suggest it's you who doesn't know what capitalism is. Here's the basic definition for you:

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

That's exactly what I'm advocating for. The only difference is that the corporations actually pay a fair amount of tax and then you use said tax to assist those who are the worst off in society.

Also, it's hardly "big government" when the only industries/services performed by the state would be civil servants, emergency services, armed forces and healthcare. Basic amenities that all societies require to function. Everything else is owned by private citizens.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> @CamillePunk
> 
> You liked a post advocating for a big government high tax welfare state. I've seen it all now.


I'm pretty generous with my likes. :mj

I actually think having UBI would lead to a much smaller government. Replacing the vast web of welfare programs with a simple "everyone gets x dollars" system would mean a LOT less bureaucracy. Not to mention the likely reduction in crime and general civil strife that can also prove costly in a myriad of ways. Ideally we could transition to having a system where we have no government and the people who can't be productive in a heavily automated society are taken care of voluntarily through charity by everyone else, but that's admittedly idealistic.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



samizayn said:


> Beg pardon, but this post is absurd. There's no equivalence to be made here.
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't just do that. Excess mortality was merely a starting point, the rest of it is here in plain English.


Please Ms So well Versed in English ... Break this study down for me so I can see why these 3000 deaths were Trump's fault in simple english if you can because I guess I can't read english myself. 

Yes it is and I read it before I drew the conclusion I did. They account for factors, but they also create their own model and when scientists create their own models, they find ways to make the data work for them in their favor. Go ahead and read the study and see if you can find out why any of this was Trump's or the feds fault. Please enlighten us. 

But I'll keep it short. The study actually does not answer this question at all. Nor can it even justify why they needed to craft their own model in order to determine that there were indeed excess death. If I'm not able to see it, I'll be pleased if you could break down this study for me to make me see what I'm not seeing and everyone else is supposedly seeing in their data. 

The conclusion that it's one man's fault is however sheer partisan politics to ignore 50 years worth of local government corruption as well as corruption that was on display during the hurricane and after it as well. 

Lastly, every single storm or natural disaster in the US or in the history of the US has recorded deaths that were directly attributable to the storm. The post storm recovery period does not track an further deaths because of the passage of time. The original claims around the number of storm attributable deaths is perfectly accurate and properly conextualized. Further deaths that happened over a period of the following 6 months are not directly attributable to the storm. They may have occured as a consequence of poor government response (but you can't actually account for something like that and the study cannot and does not account for it either). 

It simply only even assumes that more people died but never establishes a cause and effect directly related to the storm. It does a good job of creating an implied corelation though. 

But it would be the same as saying that if I ever die of Heart Disease, that since my father has heart trouble, therefore my father killed me. That's the kind of correlation anti-Trumpers are drawing with this study. 

To bring this all back to one man is ridiculous. But then, I think people would feel empty if they didn't think that they were Wonder Women and Supermen fighting against Luther or something.



CamillePunk said:


> I'm pretty generous with my likes. :mj
> 
> I actually think having UBI would lead to a much smaller government. Replacing the vast web of welfare programs with a simple "everyone gets x dollars" system would mean a LOT less bureaucracy. Not to mention the likely reduction in crime and general civil strife that can also prove costly in a myriad of ways. Ideally we could transition to having a system where we have no government and the people who can't be productive in a heavily automated society are taken care of voluntarily through charity by everyone else, but that's admittedly idealistic.


Canada has a sort of UBI for mothers - and the system works. Most people are not overburdened by it and it helps a lot of poor mothers raise their kids.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It should be a flat amount for everyone. If you just give extra free stuff to single moms who chose bad guys to have kids with (most likely scenario, exceptions exist blah blah), then you're incentivizing bad choices. Which is what we have now in the US. The worse decisions you make, the more free stuff you get. It's really dumb. Everyone should get the same.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm pretty generous with my likes. :mj
> 
> I actually think having UBI would lead to a much smaller government. Replacing the vast web of welfare programs with a simple "everyone gets x dollars" system would mean a LOT less bureaucracy. Not to mention the likely reduction in crime and general civil strife that can also prove costly in a myriad of ways. Ideally we could transition to having a system where we have no government and the people who can't be productive in a heavily automated society are taken care of voluntarily through charity by everyone else, but that's admittedly idealistic.


Yeah the money saved in cutting down all of the bureaucracy would be significant if every other country is anything at all like the UK is. You also improve conditions across the board without restriction (to citizens at least) with no chance of somebody losing their job or having a medical issue that causes them to not work and suddenly end up left with no money to support themselves between that time and the time when the government finally gets round to processing their application for assistance. People having more money in general is a good thing, it means they spend more which means companies bring in more which means more jobs etc etc etc. It's replacing a never-ending cycle of poverty and struggle with a system where everybody is taken care of for less money than it costs doing what we do already. Apparently though "left wing" Tater thinks that's a bad thing, and that giving people at the bottom the chance to earn for themselves and control their own destiny in life by giving them the tax break or the injection of cash to start their own business rather than huge multi-national corporations is a bad thing...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It should be a flat amount for everyone. If you just give extra free stuff to single moms who chose bad guys to have kids with (most likely scenario, exceptions exist blah blah), then you're incentivizing bad choices. Which is what we have now in the US. The worse decisions you make, the more free stuff you get. It's really dumb. Everyone should get the same.


I agree, just give it to everyone, because if they only gave it to certain people, it would incentivize people to get into that group just to get the money.

Plus single moms, get child support, so it would not make sense to give it to just them.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I agree, just give it to everyone, because if they only gave it to certain people, it would incentivize people to get into that group just to get the money.
> 
> Plus single moms, get child support, so it would not make sense to give it to just them.


No free stuff for the illegal immigrants though. They still gotta go back. :trump


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Did everyone just agree with one thing ITT?

hope i read it right :sundin


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It should be a flat amount for everyone. If you just give extra free stuff to single moms who chose bad guys to have kids with (most likely scenario, exceptions exist blah blah), then you're incentivizing bad choices. Which is what we have now in the US. The worse decisions you make, the more free stuff you get. It's really dumb. Everyone should get the same.


It used to be a flat amount for all moms in Canada (single or otherwise). I can't seem to find info on it .. they may have ended the program. That's bad if they did.

Edit: It's Ontario only and for low income families. Around 1400 a year. 

But I see your point.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It should be a flat amount for everyone. If you just give extra free stuff to single moms who chose bad guys to have kids with (most likely scenario, exceptions exist blah blah), then you're incentivizing bad choices. Which is what we have now in the US. The worse decisions you make, the more free stuff you get. It's really dumb. Everyone should get the same.





birthday_massacre said:


> I agree, just give it to everyone, because if they only gave it to certain people, it would incentivize people to get into that group just to get the money.
> 
> Plus single moms, get child support, so it would not make sense to give it to just them.


That's why it's UNIVERSAL basic income. Regardless of your background, your home situation, your gender, anything. Everybody gets x amount of money just for being a citizen of the country and over 18. That's the only requirements. Imagine the sheer amount of money saved if there was no longer any need for the myriad of different benefits most countries have and all the useless bureaucracy involved in administering it all? 

And @CamillePunk ; Illegal immigrants would be treated the same way they are in the UK, deported. You can't even attempt to apply for welfare or assistance for anything without documents here, and as you'd only get Universal Income as a citizen (or at the very least, if you are an immigrant, a documented one in the process of becoming a citizen, I'm sure that could be worked out as there's a need for immigration wherever you are in the world to fill certain roles that you're not producing as well yourself) then there's no exploitation of the system. 

The incentive to work is to live a life with luxury as opposed to a basic one where only your core needs are met which is what the Universal Income covers. So if you're happy with a totally basic existence, you don't work. If you want a bit better, work part time. If you want a lot better then work full time or apply for a start-up grant to start your own business - and that becomes a lot easier because you've only got to worry about making your business work finance wise - not covering your rent, basic food and utilities.

I'd also add that as somebody in the energy sector another thing I'd do is invest in renewable energy for the most disadvantaged. If the poorest people were provided with solar panels for electricity, solar thermal heating/MCHP boilers and small wind turbines shared between units you're not only doing a lot for the environment (yay, good!) but you're also further cutting that cost of living and giving people more freedom, but more importantly a lot more dignity. 

You'll soon see what happens to the poorest neighborhoods when you give people their dignity back. (hint - it's not the catastrophe Tater would have you believe it is.)


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MrMister said:


> Did everyone just agree with one thing ITT?
> 
> hope i read it right :sundin


Almost everybody. I think the prophet of doom Tater is too tied up in his fantasy that the world is going to end unless we all become workers co-ops where unskilled people have more power over the direction of a company than the people who actually have the skills to make the decisions. :mj4


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's why it's UNIVERSAL basic income. Regardless of your background, your home situation, your gender, anything. Everybody gets x amount of money just for being a citizen of the country and over 18. That's the only requirements. Imagine the sheer amount of money saved if there was no longer any need for the myriad of different benefits most countries have and all the useless bureaucracy involved in administering it all?
> 
> 
> The incentive to work is to live a life with luxury as opposed to a basic one where only your core needs are met which is what the Universal Income covers. So if you're happy with a totally basic existence, you don't work. If you want a bit better, work part time. If you want a lot better then work full time or apply for a start-up grant to start your own business - and that becomes a lot easier because you've only got to worry about making your business work finance wise - not covering your rent, basic food and utilities.
> ...


Not to mention, we wouldn't have to worry about trying to get the min. wage to $15 an hour since giving everyone $12,000 a year would pretty much do that. Since the fed. min. wage is $7.25 an hour which is about 15,000 per year, that would bring anyone on min. wage up to 27,000 which is close to $15 an hour which is about 30k per year.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Not to mention, we wouldn't have to worry about trying to get the min. wage to $15 an hour since giving everyone $12,000 a year would pretty much do that. Since the fed. min. wage is $7.25 an hour which is about 15,000 per year, that would bring anyone on min. wage up to 27,000 which is close to $15 an hour which is about 30k per year.


And not only that, you'd enforce the minimum wage properly. Get rid of this nonsense of restaurants counting tips as part of a wage - that's bullshit. Put everybody on an actual minimum wage and let people tip for good service/great food and not make it a requirement and again - people will have more money to spend, eating out will be cheaper so more people would do it etc etc more tax revenue etc etc. Capitalism CAN work, you just have to stop giving all the help to the richest few and just give the help you give to them to the poorest many instead. It's really not rocket science. No revolution needed, no "ermagerd there's computers and robots so everybody's going to die and the world will collapse" just a simple change in direction whilst stimulating the economy and you'd fix an AWFUL lot of the problems most of us in the west have in our society. People having more money in general means the economy is going to be a much better place than it is right now.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> No free stuff for the illegal immigrants though. They still gotta go back. :trump


Will legal Americans take up all the 'lowly' jerbs that the illegals will have to leave though?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Will legal Americans take up all the 'lowly' jerbs that the illegals will have to leave though?


That's really not a valid argument to justify illegal immigrants in all honesty. If that was in the UK those illegal immigrants aren't the only criminals, so are the people employing them. Those jobs SHOULD be going to legal citizens, and if they were paying a fair wage and not the exploitative wages most illegal immigrants receive plenty of people would do the jobs. If people are happy to be garbage men, sewer maintenance and other forms of waste disposal (which in many places are government jobs that illegals literally CAN'T do) then they'll do anything.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's really not a valid argument to justify illegal immigrants in all honesty. If that was in the UK those illegal immigrants aren't the only criminals, so are the people employing them. Those jobs SHOULD be going to legal citizens, and if they were paying a fair wage and not the exploitative wages most illegal immigrants receive plenty of people would do the jobs. If people are happy to be garbage men, sewer maintenance and other forms of waste disposal (which in many places are government jobs that illegals literally CAN'T do) then they'll do anything.


There are farmers that claim they offer $15 an hour plus benefits and legal Americans still don't want to do those jobs.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> There are farmers that claim they offer $15 an hour plus benefits and legal Americans still don't want to do those jobs.


It's still no justification for illegals though. It's more an indictment of the American people than it is something in favour of illegals. I honestly can't see any justification for illegal immigration, if Americans don't want to do the jobs whilst complaining there's not enough jobs then perhaps those particular Americans need to grow up and learn to act as responsible adults?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Goddamn, there is an astounding amount of bullshit here to respond to.



RavishingRickRules said:


> And yet, the Nordic model is producing a much better society than the one you live in, so it didn't fail did it?


The Nordic model that is working now is remarkably similar to FDR's New Deal, which also produced a much better society for a time. It's not a long term solution though. I keep making this point and you keep responding to things you imagine that I say. Sure, you might set up a big government high tax welfare state and sure, it might produce a much better society for awhile, but as long as you leave that concentration of wealth and power at the top, they will eventually take it all back. It happened here and there are European countries where it is happening now as well. Give it time, it'll make it's way to the Nordic countries too.

The idea you have that capitalism can be run in reverse to it's very nature is pure lunacy. The basic fundamental structure of capitalism is designed to funnel money to the top. Every time someone in some country has tried to keep the system in place but use that system to benefit all, it slowly but surely always reverts to form. Every. Single. Time. Instead of treating the symptoms, you must cure the disease.



> It's really quite simple. Automation is no longer a problem if everybody is receiving a basic income regardless of whether they work or not. Especially if they no longer have to pay for healthcare. By giving the assistance to small businesses rather than big businesses you create more jobs, more companies making money which stimulates the economy and generates even more tax revenue. *You think large companies are going to leave a market the size of America because they're paying higher tax?* Are you mental? So a corporation is going to give up ALL of their profits instead of just a small portion? Really though? Do you even business?


Nope. I do not think that. Once again, you are responding to something I have not said. I didn't say they would leave. I said they would eventually take it all back. I have the past 70 years of USA history to prove my point. They didn't leave. They got to work taking it all back. And they have. We're at levels of inequality not seen since the 1920s. I shouldn't have to explain what comes next. 



> Because everybody gets paid whether they work or not but not a luxury amount people are able to have a great income working part time. For those who want even better they can continue to work full time in high paid jobs. You put the tax burden on the employer rather than the employee to fund the welfare state. Whilst also stimulating the economy by injecting cash into start-ups so that eventually you have a whole bunch of companies competing with each other, that will force everybody to be competitive so prices drop and the cost of living becomes cheaper - this is offset in the tax revenue by there being significantly more companies operating in the market.


And then the more successful companies buy out the less successful ones and capitalism reverts to form. You've done nothing to change the system that leads to power and wealth concentration. You've only reset the game board and started us back down the same path.



> The people are allowed to earn as much as they want with their own businesses and be aggressive in a competitive market (capitalism) but they're not being propped up by the government in order to become monopolies any more (fairness.) The larger the company becomes the more tax they pay, the individual however is relieved of the tax burden.


The larger the company becomes, the more wealth and power concentration they get, the more government influence they buy, the fewer taxes they pay. And once again, capitalism reverts to form.



> Because cost of living has been significantly reduced and we've also given everybody an income whether they work or not more money gets spent which generates more profit for companies which generates more tax revenue to pay for the welfare state. That's how economics works, keep the cash moving, don't let it stagnate. You're still rewarded for hard work and dedication and talent, yet the playing field has been levelled with regards to unfair advantages given by the system to those who're generating the most income.


Work the hardest, generate the most income, receive the fewest advantages. Yeah, because that's totally how capitalism works. The most successful companies are going to be perfectly fine with the government propping up their weaker competitors. Who's the one living in a fantasy land again?



> So, how exactly is that solution not viable? Compared to your "workers co-ops" that completely ignores the fact that the "have nots" don't have the money to even start said co-ops unless you give it to them by wealth redistribution which you say you're against?


Part of your problem here is trying to envision worker coops existing within the capitalistic framework. It still makes the assumption that the only way to start coops are from wealth taken from a bank who is trying to make a profit or from government wealth redistribution. 

Also, I'm not against all forms of wealth redistribution. What I am against and what is a proven failure over time is allowing concentration of wealth at the top and expecting to take from the rich to give to the poor. It's not a sustainable model.



> And if you think creating more privately owned businesses doesn't fall under the definition of capitalism, then I'd suggest it's you who doesn't know what capitalism is. Here's the basic definition for you:
> 
> "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."


This explains how you can claim to be pro-capitalism but advocate for democratic socialism models. You base your entire understanding of economics on a one sentence definition of capitalism.

In a right wing capitalist business, there is a worker/owner relationship. In a left wing worker coop, the workers and the owners are the same people. One is left wing. One is right wing. One is capitalist. One is not. There's a lot more to the definition of capitalism than the simple notion that it's privately owned businesses instead of government owned businesses. A more accurate description would be an owner class who uses capital (hence the name capitalists) to own, control and operate all the important industries in society, forcing the majority of people to be laborers for them instead of working for themselves.



> That's exactly what I'm advocating for. The only difference is that the corporations actually pay a fair amount of tax and then you use said tax to assist those who are the worst off in society.


I've responded to this above. The biggest and most successful corporations are not going to sit idly by and allow the government to tax them more to create a welfare state. They never have and they never will. Even if you set it up that way, they will inevitably use their power and influence to shift the advantages back to themselves.



> Also, it's hardly "big government" when the only industries/services performed by the state would be civil servants, emergency services, armed forces and healthcare. Basic amenities that all societies require to function. Everything else is owned by private citizens.


This is something that I actually agree with. I also advocate for a small government with only the above mentioned basic services and all other businesses owned by private citizens. Although, in my model, it would be set up more on a local level instead of a federal one and it would involve direct democracy plus local production of goods.

But, once again, this is a model that will not work in a capitalist system. Do you know why capitalists buy government influence? Because it makes maintaining their wealth and power easier. You believe that you can take that power away from them, to stop them from using the government to give themselves advantages. You are wrong in that belief. When you allow an elite ruling class to exist, they will always eventually abuse their power to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. All you have to do is check the entire history of human society if you don't believe me. The only way to prevent the abuse of power from a ruling class is to not allow that much power to concentrate in the first place.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah the money saved in cutting down all of the bureaucracy would be significant if every other country is anything at all like the UK is. You also improve conditions across the board without restriction (to citizens at least) with no chance of somebody losing their job or having a medical issue that causes them to not work and suddenly end up left with no money to support themselves between that time and the time when the government finally gets round to processing their application for assistance. People having more money in general is a good thing, it means they spend more which means companies bring in more which means more jobs etc etc etc. It's replacing a never-ending cycle of poverty and struggle with a system where everybody is taken care of for less money than it costs doing what we do already. *Apparently though "left wing" Tater thinks that's a bad thing, and that giving people at the bottom the chance to earn for themselves and control their own destiny in life by giving them the tax break or the injection of cash to start their own business rather than huge multi-national corporations is a bad thing...*


You have consistently proven time and time again that you have no basic understanding of my ideology. You making statements about what I think is about like asking a creationist to explain the geological history of the planet.



RavishingRickRules said:


> You'll soon see what happens to the poorest neighborhoods when you give people their dignity back. (hint - it's not the catastrophe Tater would have you believe it is.)


People like being self-reliant. Going to poor neighborhoods, telling them that they're still going to be on the bottom rung of the ladder and have no power nor any say over how society is run but here's some money to buy what the capitalists produce so your life doesn't suck as bad is not my definition of giving them their dignity back.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Almost everybody. I think the prophet of doom Tater is too tied up in his fantasy that the world is going to end unless we all become workers co-ops where unskilled people have more power over the direction of a company than the people who actually have the skills to make the decisions. :mj4


And of course, this ends with you strawmanning and replying to something I have not said. You just can't help yourself. Show me where I said people with no knowledge of business should make the decisions for a business instead of those who know what they're doing. I'll wait.

What's that? Oh, you can't find it? It's because I never said it. I've pointed you to the worker coop Mondragon corporation as an example of what I'm talking about but apparently you either didn't look at their business structure or didn't understand it. There are still skilled people making the decisions. There are still managers and janitors and everyone in between. They don't call the secretaries and mail room workers to a board meeting meeting every time a decision needs to be made. Those with the skill to make those decisions are in that position and they make a higher wage than everyone else as a reward for those skills. What they don't make are the insane levels of income disparity as a capitalist CEO, where you regularly see them making hundreds of times as much as their average worker. It's more along the lines of 7 or 8 times as much. Shocking, I know, that some skilled people are willing to work for *only 7 or 8 times as much as their average worker.

I know you're coming from a good place and you want a more equal society where the masses don't have to suffer in poverty so those at the top can be obscenely rich. You're simply wrong that your ideas on how to change things creates a sustainable model. It's like Democrats who only want to blame "deplorables" for the election of Trump instead of the neoliberalism that led to his election. As with everything else in life, if you are only dealing with the symptoms of a problem instead of addressing it's root cause, then you're not actually solving the problem. The same can be said about Big Pharma in a capitalist society. The profit isn't in curing the patient. The profit is in getting them hooked on your drugs that they have to keep coming back to buy. If you cure them, they don't need to buy your drugs anymore and your profit goes down. If that profit motive is taken out of the equation, you end up with a lot more healthy people. The same logic applies to capitalism. If you take the capitalists and their goal of wealth and power concentration out of the equation, you end up with a much healthier society.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> It's still no justification for illegals though. It's more an indictment of the American people than it is something in favour of illegals. I honestly can't see any justification for illegal immigration, if Americans don't want to do the jobs whilst complaining there's not enough jobs then perhaps those particular Americans need to grow up and learn to act as responsible adults?


I am just saying why they feel the need to use illegals. When most people are talking about there not being enough jobs they are talking about well-paying jobs and ones where someone is not working under their qualifications.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Goddamn, there is an astounding amount of bullshit here to respond to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I personally think your way is wrong and entirely unrealistic in the real world. You think my way won't work even though it'd be a damn sight easier to implement (as people are already doing it on a national level.) I believe we've reached an impasse where neither is ever going to change the other's minds because of a fundamental difference in ideals. Perhaps some of it is a difference in the societies we live in, where I'm from "Big Pharma" is a foreign concept in terms of their extortionate prices and everything else. If you're poor and on welfare you literally pay nothing for any healthcare or medication where I'm from. If you're a low wage earner beneath the tax threshold you don't pay into the system, you simply pay around £9 for any prescription regardless of how long it's for. Maybe that's the difference, I don't live in this cut-throat world where everybody's being gouged at every turn, I don't know. Either way, it's clear we're never going to agree.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Captialist will always take the money because in a capitalist society money goes from consumer to capitalist therefore all the capitalist needs to do is shift their entire cost burden onto the consumer. In a system where a government interferes in anyway (socialists that raise taxes) the capitalist raises prices to shift the burden of the taxes onto the consumer. The consumer can never have enough in this system. It's simply impossible economics. I kinda always knew this but I forgot because I overlooked the nature of cost transferring from capitalist to consumer. 

The capitalist never pays for anything. He produces for free and lives for free without producing. He's the ONLY member of society that has everything while he produces nothing. Him and the government bureaucracy i.e.
@Tater ; I understand now. 100%. I get it.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's really not a valid argument to justify illegal immigrants in all honesty. If that was in the UK those illegal immigrants aren't the only criminals, so are the people employing them. Those jobs SHOULD be going to legal citizens, and if they were paying a fair wage and not the exploitative wages most illegal immigrants receive plenty of people would do the jobs. If people are happy to be garbage men, sewer maintenance and other forms of waste disposal (which in many places are government jobs that illegals literally CAN'T do) then they'll do anything.


It's the justification of "Well Americans won't do those jobs" that let's large companies fuck over people, paying illegals slave wages, no benefits and deporting them if they get hurt. How is there any incentive for companies to get better when illegal labor is tolerated and nobody stops them from abusing people?

Another excuse I hear is that illegals keep the prices of things down, so what do people want? Cheap stuff at the expense of others and more loss of jobs for Legal workers or holding Americans and the companies responsible?

You cannot have both.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I personally think your way is wrong and entirely unrealistic in the real world. You think my way won't work even though it'd be a damn sight easier to implement (as people are already doing it on a national level.) I believe we've reached an impasse where neither is ever going to change the other's minds because of a fundamental difference in ideals. Perhaps some of it is a difference in the societies we live in, where I'm from "Big Pharma" is a foreign concept in terms of their extortionate prices and everything else. If you're poor and on welfare you literally pay nothing for any healthcare or medication where I'm from. If you're a low wage earner beneath the tax threshold you don't pay into the system, you simply pay around £9 for any prescription regardless of how long it's for. Maybe that's the difference, I don't live in this cut-throat world where everybody's being gouged at every turn, I don't know. Either way, it's clear we're never going to agree.


This is a valid point you raise. It's not just that capitalism operates differently in your area of the world than mine, it's that people think about it differently as well. I could point to where capitalism is starting to fail Western Europe as well but it is nowhere near the extremes of the USA at this time.

Yes, it's entirely cut-throat here and that's a societal issue. If there is any revolution I would want, it's not an armed revolution against the government but instead, a revolution of thought on how people view society, it's goals and how people should be treated in it. I know you think market competition is a good thing and at times it can be. At other times, people are better off working together than competing against one another. As the old saying goes, if you want to go fast, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together.

The argument you make about your way being easier to implement is the same argument that lefties make about taking over the Democrats instead of building a third party. In theory, that's true. I get the point you are making. I do. It's easier to build within the existing structure than start from scratch. But theories don't always pan out. Look at how many decades progressives have been trying to take over the Democrats and the party is in the clutches of it's donors now more than ever. Even back in FDR's day, he had to fight corporatists in his own party and once almost didn't run for reelection because they tried to force a VP on him that he didn't want. Sometimes, when a foundation is so thoroughly crumbled, there is no amount of new paint you can put on a house to save it. Sometimes, you just gotta build a new house.



Reap said:


> Captialist will always take the money because in a capitalist society money goes from consumer to capitalist therefore all the capitalist needs to do is shift their entire cost burden onto the consumer. In a system where a government interferes in anyway (socialists that raise taxes) the capitalist raises prices to shift the burden of the taxes onto the consumer. The consumer can never have enough in this system. It's simply impossible economics. I kinda always knew this but I forgot because I overlooked the nature of cost transferring from capitalist to consumer.
> 
> The capitalist never pays for anything. He produces for free and lives for free without producing. He's the ONLY member of society that has everything while he produces nothing. Him and the government bureaucracy i.e.
> @Tater ; I understand now. 100%. I get it.


Well said.

:applause


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Am I the only person who thinks that a Universal Basic Income is unrealistic?

1. It would massively decrease the motivation of many citizens to work. This would be highly damaging to the productivity and economy of any country.

2. How could such a programme be funded? If you say raising taxes on corporations, then there is no way that there wouldn't also be a corresponding rise in prices, so the situation of the poor would barely be ameliorated. I'm also sure such a programme would take away from other federal agencies of the government, such as Police, infrastructure, etc. 

3. It would lead to a massive, and undesirable increase in immigration. This would lead to the programme costing even more, while also potentially having unintended consequences on society.

4. Some here have suggested that funding should simultaneously be taken away from single mothers, etc. How would this be a fair system, it would in essence punish those who are poor and *unable* to work, while rewarding those who are perfectly able to do so.

5. I'm also sure that it would lead to a massive growth of a black market economy in any country this scheme is implemented in, due to the high tax on goods etc.

6. Does this programme give a base salary to those who are wealthy in society? If so this is more wasted money. If not, then where is the cut off? There would be a huge gap between those who are under and above this cut off.

A better solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to give those who cannot work in society welfare, while basically guaranteeing a job to any person who is able to work. This could be done through the nationalising of key industries such as Energy, Transport, Health, Building of infrastructure, etc. This would have the dual effect of both making sure that all citizens have enough money to provide for themselves and their families (welfare could be given to those with children too, up to say 2-4 children), while also preventing capitalists from ripping off both consumers with regular price hikes, (such as we have seen in the UK with energy companies) which hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest, while also allowing the Government of the country to raise revenue much more effectively. Doesn't that system sound a lot better than a Universal Base Income, which rewards the lazy and would cripple any countries economy?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Am I the only person who thinks that a Universal Basic Income is unrealistic?
> 
> 1. It would massively decrease the motivation of many citizens to work. This would be highly damaging to the productivity and economy of any country.


It would, in fact, do the exact opposite, it would actually increase the motivation to work. Not sure why you think it would cause a decrease, please explain your reasoning on that.

People making minimum wage which is about 7.25 cannot live on that, that is about 15k per year, so why would someone just not work and only make 12k per year, your reasoning does not make sense. It would increase because people making minimum wage would go to almost 30k per year which is the bare min. for a living wage. So a lot of people would be able to take a lesser paying job like 7-12 an hour and add in that 12k per year and it would let them actually have a living wage. If they didn't work like you claim would happen, they would only be making 12k and no one can live on that.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> 2. How could such a programme be funded? If you say raising taxes on corporations, then there is no way that there wouldn't also be a corresponding rise in prices, so the situation of the poor would barely be ameliorated. I'm also sure such a programme would take away from other federal agencies of the government, such as Police, infrastructure, etc.


It would be funded because there would be no more unemployment, food stamps, welfare, or any other things like that. And lets stop this nonsense oh if we raise taxes on corps it will be a corresponding rise in prices, even when they get tax cuts teh the same thing happens, just like with the current tax cuts, the average salary did not go up, and they also still sent jobs over seas and laid people off. They wouldn't even have to raise tax's on corporations, just cut the military budget which is already way too inflated and like I said a lot of programs would not be around anymore, so a lot of the money would come from there as well. Not to mention even if they had to raise taxes on the corps. a litle bit they would not be paying into unemployment anymore, so that would help offset that.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It would lead to a massive, and undesirable increase in immigration. This would lead to the programme costing even more, while also potentially having unintended consequences on society.



Do you have any evidence of this? Did immigration increase in other countries after implementing a UBI? Not to mention, illegals would not even be able to get a UBI. As for legal immigration, you would just set it up so only US citizens get it.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Some here have suggested that funding should simultaneously be taken away from single mothers, etc. How would this be a fair system, it would in essence punish those who are poor and unable to work, while rewarding those who are perfectly able to do so.


Single mothers already get child support, and instead of getting welfare or food stamps they would be getting this 12k a year. They would be getting more than htey are not, so not sure how you think its not fair. You are not making any sense with this logic.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I'm also sure that it would lead to a massive growth of a black market economy in any country this scheme is implemented in, due to the high tax on goods etc.



citation please




Hoolahoop33 said:


> Does this programme give a base salary to those who are wealthy in society? If so this is more wasted money. If not, then where is the cut off? There would be a huge gap between those who are under and above this cut off.


Give it to everyone, because even someone making lets say 250k or more per year, still get laid off for their job. If you want to put a cut off then put the cut off at 250k per year, and if they dip below that, then it would kick in. That is something that could be worked out to see if there should be a cut off and what they cut off should be. 




Hoolahoop33 said:


> A better solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to give those who cannot work in society welfare, while basically guaranteeing a job to any person who is able to work. This could be done through the nationalising of key industries such as Energy, Transport, Health, Building of infrastructure, etc. This would have the dual effect of both making sure that all citizens have enough money to provide for themselves and their families (welfare could be given to those with children too, up to say 2-4 children), while also preventing capitalists from ripping off both consumers with regular price hikes, (such as we have seen in the UK with energy companies) which hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest, while also allowing the Government of the country to raise revenue much more effectively. Doesn't that system sound a lot better than a Universal Base Income, which rewards the lazy and would cripple any countries economy?


How exactly are you going to guaranteeing a job to any person who is able to work? And what is the salary going to be? you can't force companies to hire people just to give them a job. A UBI is a way better way of doing it, plus it would end things like UE, welfare, etc. 

And no your system does not sound better than a UBI, your system would be impossible to implement since you can't just magically create jobs for everyone that wants one and you can't force companies to hire people that are not qualified for a job or force them to create jobs that may nto be needed just so people can have a job.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It would, in fact, do the exact opposite, it would actually increase the motivation to work. Not sure why you think it would cause a decrease, please explain your reasoning on that.
> 
> People making minimum wage which is about 7.25 cannot live on that, that is about 15k per year, so why would someone just not work and only make 12k per year, your reasoning does not make sense. It would increase because people making minimum wage would go to almost 30k per year which is the bare min. for a living wage. So a lot of people would be able to take a lesser paying job like 7-12 an hour and add in that 12k per year and it would let them actually have a living wage. If they didn't work like you claim would happen, they would only be making 12k and no one can live on that.


I think you underestimate the laziness of a lot of people. There are people who abuse the welfare system (in the Uk anyway) already; I have no doubt that a system by which every citizen receives $12,000 for nothing too would be open to abuse.



birthday_massacre said:


> It would be funded because there would be no more unemployment, food stamps, welfare, or any other things like that. And lets stop this nonsense oh if we raise taxes on corps it will be a corresponding rise in prices, even when they get tax cuts teh the same thing happens, just like with the current tax cuts, the average salary did not go up, and they also still sent jobs over seas and laid people off. They wouldn't even have to raise tax's on corporations, just cut the military budget which is already way too inflated and like I said a lot of programs would not be around anymore, so a lot of the money would come from there as well. Not to mention even if they had to raise taxes on the corps. a litle bit they would not be paying into unemployment anymore, so that would help offset that.


The military budget is obviously massive and I support any effort to reduce in favour of social programmes. However, it's $610 Billion per year. The basic income you're proposing, at $12k for all citizens, would cost roughly *$3.9 Trillion* That's without the costs of changing overhauling the entire tax system.



birthday_massacre said:


> Do you have any evidence of this? Did immigration increase in other countries after implementing a UBI? Not to mention, illegals would not even be able to get a UBI. As for legal immigration, you would just set it up so only US citizens get it.


No country has ever implemented UBI, because they know it would destroy their economy. It's logical though that if you're from a poor country, where $12,000 is a lot of money that you would go to a place where it is guaranteed for doing nothing. Seems unfair to not give it to immigrants don't you think, that they automatically earn $12,000 less than any given person. How would they be able to afford the inevitably inflated prices?



birthday_massacre said:


> Single mothers already get child support, and instead of getting welfare or food stamps they would be getting this 12k a year. They would be getting more than htey are not, so not sure how you think its not fair. You are not making any sense with this logic.


So a single mother who actually can't work because they actually need to look after their child or a disabled person who can't work due to said disability, will receive the same amount of support as a lazy layabout who lives in his mum's basement... Seems like a great system.




birthday_massacre said:


> citation please.


Inevitably to raise the money for such an expensive programme, the government will have to raise VAT on goods. Artificially expensive goods, when in Canada/ Mexico etc, they are cheap will lead to a black market economy. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Give it to everyone, because even someone making lets say 250k or more per year, still get laid off for their job. If you want to put a cut off then put the cut off at 250k per year, and if they dip below that, then it would kick in. That is something that could be worked out to see if there should be a cut off and what they cut off should be.


Is it a pretty wasteful policy though to give someone, say, earning $200,000 per year an additional $12,000? Does it even help poor people too, if basically 95% of the population gets an extra $12k? It would also give money to people who are unemployed due to their addictions sadly, so that wouldn't help them and only boost the black market which currently exists.



birthday_massacre said:


> How exactly are you going to guaranteeing a job to any person who is able to work? And what is the salary going to be? you can't force companies to hire people just to give them a job. A UBI is a way better way of doing it, plus it would end things like UE, welfare, etc.
> 
> And no your system does not sound better than a UBI, your system would be impossible to implement since you can't just magically create jobs for everyone that wants one and you can't force companies to hire people that are not qualified for a job or force them to create jobs that may nto be needed just so people can have a job.


You can't guarantee companies to hire people, but you could subsidise them. The easiest way of implementing a job guarantee programme would be to employ them through the public sector. If they aren't qualified then give them free training so that they're able too. Welfare is a good thing even if it is open to abuse, it actually helps people who need it. UBI is an absolute fantasy, it's unworkable.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@RavishingRickRules @CamillePunk @birthday_massacre @Tater @DesolationRow @Reap

Seeing as we are on the subject, Universal Basic Income does indeed have some potential benefits which I could see unfolding. In particular as it has been mentioned, it could very well streamline the welfare state by cutting a lot of the bureaucracy and different social programs and instead replace them with a single universal basic income across the board. This isn't a new idea by the way, Friedrich Hayek proposed such an idea in the 60's as a replacement to the welfare state in his book _*The Constitution of Liberty.*_ Milton Friedman also proposed an idea called the *Negative Income Tax* which is another version of the UBI which is funded through the rebation of Income Tax to help those who are find themselves unemployed. For me personally, knowing these ideas and the writers, it is actually pretty amusing now seeing that Friedman and Hayek who were and still are hated by a portion of the left are now actually having ideas of theirs being advocated by some of the very same people. That's more of a funny observation than anything.

To understand why UBI has become an idea which has been seen as an alternative for the future, one has to understand the cause of this thinking. People will point to the growing of automation as the reason for UBI coming up as an idea and whilst I agree it's certainly a reason that people are contemplating such an idea, I see it more as a symptom rather than a cause. There is a much deeper cause for the UBI idea to become more popular and that is essentially the failing of the welfare state as a method of a safety net for those who are unemployed or are falling on hard times. Simply put, if the welfare state was a competent way to address the issues of poverty and unemployment then there would be no need to talk of it's replacement this soon. The prospect of automation certainly one can argue has sped up the process of UBI being a real future prospect and with countries now considering pilot schemes for the idea, but one must question why UBI as I stated earlier was an idea thought about as early as the 60's, long before the question of automation even came up.

This is revealed actually in the writings of UBI advocates even among those who are left wing. People are have realized and understood the drawbacks and negative aspects of the current welfare state, particularly when it comes to the idea of it being a poverty trap. Unfortunately there are many scenarios where what is being offered to stay on the benefits ends up being more than what is being offered by what jobs that people on benefits can actually get. Simply put, even with the prospect of potentially moving up the job ladder in the future, in the present many rightfully see that if they are being offered more by the state than what they could get by actually working that they may as well stay on benefits. I wouldn't say everyone who does this by the way are naturally lazy either, some are for sure but for many they recognize that they would have an easier time not working and collecting the welfare check than working 40 hours a week or more and not getting as much. It's understandable but it's a problem. One that left wing UBI activists if you read their writings are now understanding themselves.

One could argue well what if companies just raised their wages or better yet why not just increase the minimum wage? Well even if you advocate for something to that degree, it's still only a short term fix that doesn't address the issue of the poverty trap. Not to mention the impact of raising the minimum wage has in the form of inflation and the raising of prices of goods and services. It's all well and good being paid more but if you also have to pay more for goods and services, the standard of living still remains around about the same, maybe slightly better or worse depending on the state of the economy. Not to mention if companies don't recoup the losses through raising the prices on everybody else, they will do it in the form of either cutting jobs, reducing hours or just not hiring as many people. The raising of the minimum wage because of this naturally picks winners and losers and unfortunately you have individuals who companies do not think are worth hiring because they don't think they are worth the amount of money they are offering and this of course can be for a variety of reasons. This is what is also recognized by UBI advocates for what could potentially happen also with the rise of automation. Simply put, there's more efficiency and lower costs by having a machine doing the work if possible than a human being.

So there are in my opinion more reasons, deeper reasons for this move than just simply automation. It's certainly a factor, and a big one potentially going into the future but there is a long term cause through the failings of the welfare state which has been there for decades and some people on both sides of the aisle are beginning to see it and are trying to address it.

Another thing that needs to also be considered is that UBI certainly does not have a concrete model and that there are different versions of it being advocated. Some for example completely do away with the universal part of the idea and simply add it to the existing welfare state. This is probably what will happen if the SNP test this idea out in Scotland (because they are idiots, sorry Scots :lol.). I think pretty much everyone in this thread has already worked out this isn't going to work.

Others have gone for a completely libertarian version and not only include the welfare state but also getting rid of the minimum wage and universal healthcare in order to pay for the program. It would definitely be more fiscally viable but how many are willing to do that? Probably very few.

Now as far as the two main criticisms of UBI:

*UBI will cause people to be lazy and not look for work:* The main argument is similar to the now proven poverty trap of the welfare state that being if you offer certain people enough money to live on comfortably that there would be no need for them to be productive and look for work or a career. I understand this argument but actually the evidence thus far shows a mixed picture. There has been studies actually showing it's had no effect on motivation to work or on being productive. So I don't see this as a particularly strong argument. I don't think there is going to be a strong correlation either way across the board, so I think the UBI's arguments on it being a way to free up people to live their dreams and follow the careers or hobbies they've always wanted are being utopian about it. I think most likely it'll be dependent from individual to individual.

*UBI will cost too much and not be fiscally viable:* This is where I tend to agree, at least for now. It is true that UBI will cut out a lot of the costly programs right now and would at least cut the bureaucratic nonsense of the current welfare state but the costs of implementing a UBI for an entire country if you were to implement it universally like the name suggests would be monstrous. Studies from the OCED for example have shown that to implement a workable UBI that would at least cover basic standards of living for everyone that you have to pay out around 4 times more than what the current European countries are paying in terms of current welfare benefits....which are generally more generous than the United States for example. If the European countries are only paying out 1/4 of what a feasible UBI would look like now there is a genuine concern that in the long run the UBI module would not be fiscally feasible to maintain. I tend to agree with what I have seen thus far.

I am willing to be proven wrong though and I'm certainly not against countries piloting the scheme....I wouldn't use Scotland and SNP as a case study though if they go through with it :lol.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Please Ms So well Versed in English ... Break this study down for me so I can see why these 3000 deaths were Trump's fault in simple english if you can because I guess I can't read english myself.
> 
> Yes it is and I read it before I drew the conclusion I did. They account for factors, but they also create their own model and when scientists create their own models, they find ways to make the data work for them in their favor. Go ahead and read the study and see if you can find out why any of this was Trump's or the feds fault. Please enlighten us.
> 
> ...


Right, my charitable assumption was that you had read some article about the thing that just hadn't gotten the details correct. Turns out you actually had seen the document itself but chose instead to willfully misrepresent what was done. Why? 

I was initially agnostic about the blame-worthiness of Trump himself (blame is traditionally assigned to political leaders in scenarios like this for better or worse; it's likely a fair assessment to say that tradition is misguided, but that doesn't go to say Trump should have special exemption) but the more I read, the more legitimate blame I begin to attribute to the man himself. This report isn't where you want to look for that though, as it was rather solicited to assess the impact/death toll attributable to the hurricane.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. They use models because they have to account for multiple factors to come to an accurate figure. A bit like saying it's not clear why they've used calculations here - it's following established CDC guidelines, as is normal. Same goes for cause of death attributions, not at all akin to your heart problem analogy.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Argh, sleeping all day because you're ill is a nightmare when you come back to like 30 notifications. :lol

I will try and address everything everybody's said but that's a lot of text when you're down with the flu and have a baby to look after.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Anybody think this would have an effect on the mid level jobs? People making around 40k or so now? They could have the option of skipping college and saving that money, and working something lower paying maybe less stressful and getting about to that salary with the 12K income. 

I would love an extra 12K on top of my paycheck now I just dont know where the funds would come from and how much of an effect it would have on everyday, middle paying jobs.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



samizayn said:


> Right, my charitable assumption was that you had read some article about the thing that just hadn't gotten the details correct. Turns out you actually had seen the document itself but chose instead to willfully misrepresent what was done. Why?
> 
> I was initially agnostic about the blame-worthiness of Trump himself (blame is traditionally assigned to political leaders in scenarios like this for better or worse; it's likely a fair assessment to say that tradition is misguided, but that doesn't go to say Trump should have special exemption) but the more I read, the more legitimate blame I begin to attribute to the man himself. This report isn't where you want to look for that though, as it was rather solicited to assess the impact/death toll attributable to the hurricane.
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're saying here. They use models because they have to account for multiple factors to come to an accurate figure. A bit like saying it's not clear why they've used calculations here - it's following established CDC guidelines, as is normal. Same goes for cause of death attributions, not at all akin to your heart problem analogy.


You really are grossly unaware of your own confirmation bias here. This conversation is a waste of time. I say that not in defence of Trump, but in defence of those who are not completely swayed by the sheer level of TDS you are.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> One could argue well what if companies just raised their wages or better yet why not just increase the minimum wage? Well even if you advocate for something to that degree, it's still only a short term fix that doesn't address the issue of the poverty trap. Not to mention the impact of raising the minimum wage has in the form of inflation and the raising of prices of goods and services. It's all well and good being paid more but if you also have to pay more for goods and services, the standard of living still remains around about the same, maybe slightly better or worse depending on the state of the economy. Not to mention if companies don't recoup the losses through raising the prices on everybody else, they will do it in the form of either cutting jobs, reducing hours or just not hiring as many people. The raising of the minimum wage because of this naturally picks winners and losers and unfortunately you have individuals who companies do not think are worth hiring because they don't think they are worth the amount of money they are offering and this of course can be for a variety of reasons. This is what is also recognized by UBI advocates for what could potentially happen also with the rise of automation. Simply put, there's more efficiency and lower costs by having a machine doing the work if possible than a human being.


I'm opposed to the minimum wage but with a caveat: under the current model of capitalism, wages shouldn't be decided on hourly rates but on a ratio between the highest paid worker (generally the CEO) and the lowest paid worker. It's the rising tide lifts all boats theory in actual practice. If wages were decided upon a negotiated ratio, if a company makes more profits, everyone who works for the company makes more money, and if the company makes less profits, everyone makes less money. I can tell you with certainty that it will give every employee an incentive to work harder, instead of riding the clock and working as little as possible to earn an hourly paycheck. If people actually see an incentive in working harder, they will. If they make the same hourly rate regardless of how hard they work, it doesn't provide them with any incentive at all to do but the bare minimum.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I'm opposed to the minimum wage but with a caveat: under the current model of capitalism, wages shouldn't be decided on hourly rates but on a ratio between the highest paid worker (generally the CEO) and the lowest paid worker. It's the rising tide lifts all boats theory in actual practice. If wages were decided upon a negotiated ratio, if a company makes more profits, everyone who works for the company makes more money, and if the company makes less profits, everyone makes less money. I can tell you with certainty that it will give every employee an incentive to work harder, instead of riding the clock and working as little as possible to earn an hourly paycheck. If people actually see an incentive in working harder, they will. If they make the same hourly rate regardless of how hard they work, it doesn't provide them with any incentive at all to do but the bare minimum.


Since it's such a great idea that will make businesses inherently more productive and therefore more competitive I'm not sure what is stopping people from having this pay structure in their business already. Surely all the people who are in the know will implement it and out-compete all the clueless capitalists and the problem will solve itself.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Since it's such a great idea that will make businesses inherently more productive and therefore more competitive I'm *not sure what is stopping people from having this pay structure in their business already*. Surely all the people who are in the know will implement it and out-compete all the clueless capitalists and the problem will solve itself.


You are joking, right? Like the CEOs and the shareholders really want to give the lower tier workers their fair share of pay.

Just take Amazon or Walmart as perfect examples.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> *UBI will cost too much and not be fiscally viable:* This is where I tend to agree, at least for now. It is true that UBI will cut out a lot of the costly programs right now and would at least cut the bureaucratic nonsense of the current welfare state but the costs of implementing a UBI for an entire country if you were to implement it universally like the name suggests would be monstrous. Studies from the OCED for example have shown that to implement a workable UBI that would at least cover basic standards of living for everyone that you have to pay out around 4 times more than what the current European countries are paying in terms of current welfare benefits....which are generally more generous than the United States for example. If the European countries are only paying out 1/4 of what a feasible UBI would look like now there is a genuine concern that in the long run the UBI module would not be fiscally feasible to maintain. I tend to agree with what I have seen thus far.


I'd be very curious to know what is being considered a "basic standard of living" in these studies. My suspicion is that is much more than say what I was accustomed to growing up or as a younger adult, just based on what your typical Democrat bandies about as "basic human rights".

I think a harsh truth people are going to have to face is that as long as bad decisions are subsidized, people are going to keep making bad decisions. There have to be consequences for having kids you can't afford, or buying drugs or alcohol instead of food or presentable clothing so that you might be able to get a job. You can't protect people from their own bad decisions all the time and have a functioning society.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I'd be very curious to know what is being considered a "basic standard of living" in these studies. My suspicion is that is much more than say what I was accustomed to growing up or as a younger adult, just based on what your typical Democrat bandies about as "basic human rights".


a "basic standard of living" should be, being able to pay all your bills (like heat, electric and water), pay your rent and be able to put food on your table.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> a "basic standard of living" should be, being able to pay all your bills (like heat, electric and water), pay your rent and be able to put food on your table.


Pay your rent for what? A house? An apt? How big of an apt or house? Do you need an entire house or apt to yourself to have a "basic standard of living"?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are joking, right? Like the CEOs and the shareholders really want to give the lower tier workers their fair share of pay.
> 
> Just take Amazon or Walmart as perfect examples.


Then their businesses won't be as productive or attractive to talent as the businesses that would adopt that pay structure and they'd be out-competed. All the best workers would go to the companies where they get paid more and with their superior products and services they'd out-compete the companies with the greedy CEOs who pay their workers scraps.

It'd be that easy. Yet I don't see it happening.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> a "basic standard of living" should be, being able to pay all your bills (like heat, electric and water), pay your rent and be able to put food on your table.


Exactly. It doesn't cover internet, cable television, widescreen tv's, iPhones and Air Jordans. It covers the BASICS. It's not going to pay for people to have the luxuries of modern life, but it WILL be enough for homeless people for example to have a roof over their head, heating, a shower and a meal without having to worry about it. 

I just can't face reading through walls of text today, but I will get back to everybody else. Just tough when every time the baby cries or the dog next door starts barking it feels like somebody's ramming a needle between my eyes lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Pay your rent for what? A house? An apt? How big of an apt or house? Do you need an entire house or apt to yourself to have a "basic standard of living"?


whatever the medium rent rate is for the state they are living in.




CamillePunk said:


> Then their businesses won't be as productive or attractive to talent as the businesses that would adopt that pay structure and they'd be out-competed. All the best workers would go to the companies where they get paid more and with their superior products and services they'd out-compete the companies with the greedy CEOs who pay their workers scraps.
> 
> It'd be that easy. Yet I don't see it happening.


You are missing the point, no business would want to do that because it would mean their business is making less profit.

This whole BS Tax cut to businesses was supposed to be so they can hire more people and keeps jobs in the US and did that happen? NO workers wages stayed the same, and they still laid people off and moved jobs overseas.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Exactly. It doesn't cover internet, cable television, widescreen tv's, iPhones and Air Jordans. It covers the BASICS. It's not going to pay for people to have the luxuries of modern life, but it WILL be enough for homeless people for example to have a roof over their head, heating, a shower and a meal without having to worry about it.
> 
> I just can't face reading through walls of text today, but I will get back to everybody else. Just tough when every time the baby cries or the dog next door starts barking it feels like somebody's ramming a needle between my eyes lol.


Yeah, exactly what is why it's called basic, all that other stuff are luxuries and should not be included. Just something where someone has a roof over their head and food to eat.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Since it's such a great idea that will make businesses inherently more productive and therefore more competitive I'm not sure what is stopping people from having this pay structure in their business already. Surely all the people who are in the know will implement it and out-compete all the clueless capitalists and the problem will solve itself.


It doesn't matter how productive and competitive you are when mega corporations like Wal-Mart and Amazon buy politicians and use Big Government to write laws protecting their interests while sucking the taxpayer dry to subsidize their underpaid workers. That's not something you can out-compete. And if you ever did start cutting into their shares, they can simply use the size of their monopoly to operate at a loss until your business goes under. Then they jack the prices back up and go about counting all the billions they have made while continuing to crush anyone who gets in their way.

I dunno about you but that's not what I would call a healthy economy.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> whatever the medium rent rate is for the state they are living in.


Medium rent rate for what though? A house? An apt? How big of a house or apt?



> You are missing the point, no business would want to do that because it would mean their business is making less profit.


I thought some businesses already do it? Why haven't they taken over the market with the best employees/products/services? Not everyone who ever starts a business is motivated by profit so you'd think it'd be done a lot more and these companies would be wildly successful. 



Tater said:


> It doesn't matter how productive and competitive you are when mega corporations like Wal-Mart and Amazon buy politicians and use Big Government to write laws protecting their interests while sucking the taxpayer dry to subsidize their underpaid workers. That's not something you can out-compete. And if you ever did start cutting into their shares, they can simply use the size of their monopoly to operate at a loss until your business goes under. Then they jack the prices back up and go about counting all the billions they have made while continuing to crush anyone who gets in their way.
> 
> I dunno about you but that's not what I would call a healthy economy.


Then we arrive at the same conclusion: Big government and its market interference is the problem. Welcome to real libertarianism.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I'd be very curious to know what is being considered a "basic standard of living" in these studies. My suspicion is that is much more than say what I was accustomed to growing up or as a younger adult, just based on what your typical Democrat bandies about as "basic human rights".
> 
> I think a harsh truth people are going to have to face is that as long as bad decisions are subsidized, people are going to keep making bad decisions. There have to be consequences for having kids you can't afford, or buying drugs or alcohol instead of food or presentable clothing so that you might be able to get a job. You can't protect people from their own bad decisions all the time and have a functioning society.


I interact with a lot of people that are at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. Nothing is ever going to get them from making bad decisions. There was a guy that committed a felony and caused $900 in damage. He was told felony probation if he paid the damage back or 6 months in jail and probation if he didn't. Family wired him the money. Time for his court appearance. He doesn't have the money. He bought a piece of shit truck. He went to jail. 

I don't like saying this but some people are stupid to the point where the average person can't understand their level of stupidity. If they make a correct decision it's dumb luck. They cannot grasp the idea that some actions have consequences.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FITZ said:


> I interact with a lot of people that are at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. Nothing is ever going to get them from making bad decisions. There was a guy that committed a felony and caused $900 in damage. He was told felony probation if he paid the damage back or 6 months in jail and probation if he didn't. Family wired him the money. Time for his court appearance. He doesn't have the money. He bought a piece of shit truck. He went to jail.
> 
> I don't like saying this but some people are stupid to the point where the average person can't understand their level of stupidity. If they make a correct decision it's dumb luck. They cannot grasp the idea that some actions have consequences.


I agree. Which is why we need to do _nothing_ for those people until they figure it out. People like that will never change until they are left with literally no choice. And if they still don't change, well, why is that anyone else's problem?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Medium rent rate for what though? A house? An apt? How big of a house or apt?


I thought some businesses already do it? Why haven't they taken over the market with the best employees/products/services? Not everyone who ever starts a business is motivated by profit so you'd think it'd be done a lot more and these companies would be wildly successful. 

Then we arrive at the same conclusion: Big government and its market interference is the problem. Welcome to real libertarianism.[/QUOTE]

just an FYI I mean median, not medium, stupid autocorrect. As for your question, just go with a median one-bedroom apartment since it's just based on you as an individual. And it would probably be best do it for the whole state since living in the city will be double in some states than living outside the city


As for your second point, all the most profitable companies fuck over their employees, like I said Amazon and Walmart are two of the top companies in the US for profit and their fuck over their workers big time. 

So I am sure of the point you are trying to make here. It would be great if all companies wanted to share their profit with the employees and pay them well but that isn't true for the majority of them


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> just an FYI I mean median, not medium, stupid autocorrect. As for your question, just go with a median one-bedroom apartment since it's just based on you as an individual. And it would probably be best do it for the whole state since living in the city will be double in some states than living outside the city


Why is a one-bedroom apartment the "basic living standard"? I wasn't able to afford that until I was in my mid-20s. I know college students who share that with 3 other people and to say they don't have a basic standard of living would be absurd. They're well-fed, healthy, and enjoying life. In the coastal regions of California you're looking at 2k/mo+ for a one-bedroom apt, more in SF. If this is the standard then UBI will *never* work. 

The truth is people can get by sharing apartments and even rooms and be just fine. It's not great, of course, but there's your incentive for people working to make more money than they get through UBI. If everyone is able to just live in a one-bedroom apt by themselves and not have to work, that's fairly luxurious. A lot of people will be satisfied with that. This means less tax income to pay for UBI. 



> As for your second point, all the most profitable companies fuck over their employees, like I said Amazon and Walmart are two of the top companies in the US for profit and their fuck over their workers big time.
> 
> So I am sure of the point you are trying to make here. It would be great if all companies wanted to share their profit with the employees and pay them well but that isn't true for the majority of them


You didn't understand my point. I'm saying that clearly if you're a company with a pay structure where your employees make a lot more than they would in a company where the CEOs make most of the profits, then you're going to attract the best employees. Having the best employees will make it more likely you have the best products and services. Having the best products and services will get you more customers than your competitors, a larger part of the market. This means companies that *don't* use that pay structure will lose out and thus be replaced by companies that do.

This is fairly straightforward economics. The only way things don't play out that way is if 1) that pay structure isn't actually the most productive, or 2) some external force (i.e government) prevents that pay structure from being most productive. If we're in case 2, then the answer isn't to force everyone to use that pay structure anyway, it's to limit the ability of the government to interfere in the market. Which is what right-wing libertarianism, or actual libertarianism, is all about.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I agree. Which is why we need to do _nothing_ for those people until they figure it out. People like that will never change until they are left with literally no choice. And if they still don't change, well, why is that anyone else's problem?


Because it would become someone else's problem when they decide to break into your house/car/business to steal your shit. 




CamillePunk said:


> Why is a one-bedroom apartment the "basic living standard"? I wasn't able to afford that until I was in my mid-20s. I know college students who share that with 3 other people and to say they don't have a basic standard of living would be absurd. They're well-fed, healthy, and enjoying life. In the coastal regions of California you're looking at 2k/mo+ for a one-bedroom apt, more in SF. If this is the standard then UBI will *never* work.
> 
> The truth is people can get by sharing apartments and even rooms and be just fine. It's not great, of course, but there's your incentive for people working to make more money than they get through UBI. If everyone is able to just live in a one-bedroom apt by themselves and not have to work, that's fairly luxurious. A lot of people will be satisfied with that. This means less tax income to pay for UBI.
> 
> ...


This makes me feel really good about myself for having a *2 bedroom* apartment.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FITZ said:


> Because it would become someone else's problem when they decide to break into your house/car/business to steal your shit.


Then they end up in prison or dead, either of which is fine with me. Being held hostage by pieces of shit who do nothing for themselves and can't keep their hands out of your wallet is no dignified way to live in my view.


> This makes me feel really good about myself for having a *2 bedroom* apartment.


Yeah you're looking at close to 3k/mo for that where I live. No way is that shit anywhere close to a "basic standard of living". :lol Share a room, get a job and save money until you can get something better. Giving people a free apartment is absurd.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Why is a one-bedroom apartment the "basic living standard"? I wasn't able to afford that until I was in my mid-20s. I know college students who share that with 3 other people and to say they don't have a basic standard of living would be absurd. They're well-fed, healthy, and enjoying life. In the coastal regions of California you're looking at 2k/mo+ for a one-bedroom apt, more in SF. If this is the standard then UBI will never work.
> 
> The truth is people can get by sharing apartments and even rooms and be just fine. It's not great, of course, but there's your incentive for people working to make more money than they get through UBI. If everyone is able to just live in a one-bedroom apt by themselves and not have to work, that's fairly luxurious. A lot of people will be satisfied with that. This means less tax income to pay for UBI.
> 
> ...


Why are you acting like this is mostly for people that are just out of high school? We are not talking about college students here, we are talking about adults and most of them will be over 30 or 40. You want people in their 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s sharing a room? You have to be kidding me. You are the one being aburb here with your excuses. 

But yeah i get it you would rather have people living on the streets hungry. 










CamillePunk said:


> You didn't understand my point. I'm saying that clearly if you're a company with a pay structure where your employees make a lot more than they would in a company where the CEOs make most of the profits, then you're going to attract the best employees. Having the best employees will make it more likely you have the best products and services. Having the best products and services will get you more customers than your competitors, a larger part of the market. This means companies that *don't* use that pay structure will lose out and thus be replaced by companies that do.
> 
> This is fairly straightforward economics. The only way things don't play out that way is if 1) that pay structure isn't actually the most productive, or 2) some external force (i.e government) prevents that pay structure from being most productive. If we're in case 2, then the answer isn't to force everyone to use that pay structure anyway, it's to limit the ability of the government to interfere in the market. Which is what right-wing libertarianism, or actual libertarianism, is all about.
> 
> ...


You are the one missing the point. Companies are not going to do what you are talking about if it will into their profits. Some of the biggest companies won't even pay a living wage and you want them to get profit sharing to their whole company LMAO. What dream world are you living in?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why are you acting like this is mostly for people that are just out of high school? We are not talking about college students here, we are talking about adults and most of them will be over 30 or 40. You want people in their 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s sharing a room? You have to be kidding me. You are the one being aburb here with your excuses.
> 
> But yeah i get it you would rather have people living on the streets hungry.


Why does their age matter?  If you're 30/40/50/60/70 and can't afford your own apartment, why do you deserve one for free? Because it might be awkward or uncomfortable? Too bad. Get a job and earn more money then. Living on UBI SHOULD be uncomfortable, otherwise a lot of people will just live off of UBI and not do anything else to improve their station in life. This means no tax income from them. This means UBI overall is less viable. 

I don't want people living on the streets hungry. I'm on your side in this thought exercise - we should have UBI. Everyone should have a roof over their heads and not starve. But to get there it needs to be viable, aka possible. If you're saying everyone should have a one bedroom apartment, then it won't be possible. That's close to 2 grand a month where I live. That's 24 grand a year just for one person to have an apartment. That won't work, sorry. 



> You are the one missing the point. Companies are not going to do what you are talking about if it will into their profits. Some of the biggest companies won't even pay a living wage and you want them to get profit sharing to their whole company LMAO. What dream world are you living in?


I'm going to drop that topic because you aren't understanding my position at all and I don't want to re-state it again. I think Tater would be more capable of having that discussion than you are.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I'm opposed to the minimum wage but with a caveat: under the current model of capitalism, wages shouldn't be decided on hourly rates but on a ratio between the highest paid worker (generally the CEO) and the lowest paid worker. It's the rising tide lifts all boats theory in actual practice. If wages were decided upon a negotiated ratio, if a company makes more profits, everyone who works for the company makes more money, and if the company makes less profits, everyone makes less money. I can tell you with certainty that it will give every employee an incentive to work harder, instead of riding the clock and working as little as possible to earn an hourly paycheck. If people actually see an incentive in working harder, they will. If they make the same hourly rate regardless of how hard they work, it doesn't provide them with any incentive at all to do but the bare minimum.


Considering what you have said, I wonder how you feel about the five developed countries who don't have a mandated minimum wage laws. The general consensus is pay is worked out by unions and collective bargaining. I think it's something to look into myself as an alternative, I would prefer it to what we have in the UK right now. Would like to read your thoughts:

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp



> There is much debate in the United States about the minimum wage. Many people feel it should be higher, since those who earn the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour are often just barely making it. Others feel any minimum wage discourages businesses from hiring more employees, so the issue of how much employees are paid should be left to the free market to determine.
> 
> Advocates of both options often cite the minimum wage laws of other nations as evidence of the validity of their views. One oft-cited fact is many developed nations without minimum wages have drastically lower unemployment rates. Proponents of repealing the minimum wage in the U.S. believe this points to the fact that countries that abolish baseline salary requirements have thereby encouraged companies to increase hiring.
> 
> ...


I think the sentence I bolded is the key point here considering it would account more for job losses. Individual industries are far more likely to take that into account rather than the top down state driven set minimum wage. They would have a much better knowledge of their individual industries (obviously) and would have policies more geared both towards their workers and businesses. Like with a lot of things, decentralization is the key. This is why I advocate for it as far as humanely possible. Localism is good .




CamillePunk said:


> I'd be very curious to know what is being considered a "basic standard of living" in these studies. My suspicion is that is much more than say what I was accustomed to growing up or as a younger adult, just based on what your typical Democrat bandies about as "basic human rights".


These are good points to make. It's been a while so I had a look back at the study I was referencing. It'll be easier to link the relevant parts of both the article and the study it's talking about and then I'll give some reaction to it:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ning-support-but-could-it-make-poverty-worse/



> *Can we afford it?*
> 
> The OECD’s recent report on UBI compares the costs in four OECD countries – Finland, France, Italy and the UK – and concludes that it is no magic bullet for poverty.
> 
> ...


http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/Basic-Income-Policy-Option-2017.pdf

There's more information here, unfortunately I can't seem to copy it which is annoying.

The general argument seems to be without a significant amount of raising taxes, a UBI which is funded above the poverty line won't be possible. A budget-neutral UBI would be very far from eradicting poverty like those in favour of UBI claim. Of course the study itself goes into different versions of how you implement it but that seems to be the general consensus.

There are two questions I would ask myself in response to this:

1) What is the actual figure we are talking about per year in terms of implementing such a program. Unfortunately they don't seem to be providing the numbers but the study itself is a European wide based one rather than one on a single nation like the UK or US for example. So my guess would be that the amount needed would vary from nation to nation based on the currency and living standards of that said nation. Which would make sense. If there is a hole in this argument please feel free to point it out as it's not like I'm totally against UBI as an idea at all.

2) When we talk about the poverty line, are we talking about absolute poverty or relative poverty? This is key because relative poverty relates to the living standards in comparison to the average living standards of the citizens of a country whereas absolute poverty is based on world standards. @RavishingRickRules should know about this too with how UK governments both past and present manipulate figures by conflating the two things to make it look like they are doing better on the poverty front than they actually are.

There's no actual basis for this as far as what I've skimmed through on the study. The closest I've gotten to an answer is the note below the chart shown for UBI in regards to the poverty line:



> Note: *Poverty thresholds are 50% of median disposable household income.* _Per-capita spending is in gross terms and refers to total cash transfer except old-age
> and survivor pensions, but including early-retirement benefits where these can be identified, divided by the number of residents aged below 65 (62 in France). Where
> receipt of old-age pensions among working-age individuals is relatively common (e.g. in France), true per-capita amounts of all “non-elderly” benefits is significantly
> higher. Some countries (e.g. Luxembourg) pay significant amounts of benefits to non-residents; dividing total expenditure by the resident populations only
> ...


Again, there's variations due to it being a European wide study. The key points from that seem to be that they are talking about 50% of the median income of a country and not including additional housing benefits. But again with median income, it depends on how much it is and how it relates to living standards. The lack of housing assistance indicates that it could be absolute poverty rather than relative but it's not concrete. It's guess work on my part.

I think it's a good study and indicator of where this could go but it brings about too many questions and could be more concrete. Now that I've had another look at this study myself, it's definitely made me question my own conclusion. One thing is for certain though is that it is going to be entirely dependent on how a country implements UBI and I think you would agree with me that they are more likely to go the higher end of the scale rather than the lower and in that case it would almost certainly not be feasible from a fiscal standpoint



CamillePunk said:


> I think a harsh truth people are going to have to face is that as long as bad decisions are subsidized, people are going to keep making bad decisions. There have to be consequences for having kids you can't afford, or buying drugs or alcohol instead of food or presentable clothing so that you might be able to get a job. You can't protect people from their own bad decisions all the time and have a functioning society.


Yep, completely agree with this point.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Why does their age matter?  If you're 30/40/50/60/70 and can't afford your own apartment, why do you deserve one for free? Because it might be awkward or uncomfortable? Too bad. Get a job and earn more money then. Living on UBI SHOULD be uncomfortable, otherwise a lot of people will just live off of UBI and not do anything else to improve their station in life. This means no tax income from them. This means UBI overall is less viable.
> 
> I don't want people living on the streets hungry. I'm on your side in this thought exercise - we should have UBI. Everyone should have a roof over their heads and not starve. But to get there it needs to be viable, aka possible. If you're saying everyone should have a one bedroom apartment, then it won't be possible. That's close to 2 grand a month where I live. That's 24 grand a year just for one person to have an apartment. That won't work, sorry.
> 
> I'm going to drop that topic because you aren't understanding my position at all and I don't want to re-state it again. I think Tater would be more capable of having that discussion than you are.


You are the one that brought up age first when you talked about you or others in their 20s. 

Also there are tons of people that are working a full-time job and cannot afford all those basic living expenses that is the whole point of this conversation. If the min. wage was $15 this wouldn't even be an issue. 

Its a joke the federal min. wage is $7.25. 

And again you can't live off UBI if it was 12,000 per year, we have already been over this. Like I said we wouldn't even need a UBI if min, wage was $15, so would you be all for $15 min wage instead?

Your position does not make any sense logic wise because it would never happen across the board especially for huge companies like Amazon or Walmart.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one that brought up age first when you talked about you or others in their 20s.


Not in any kind of prescriptive context. 



> Also there are tons of people that are working a full-time job and cannot afford all those basic living expenses that is the whole point of this conversation. If the min. wage was $15 this wouldn't even be an issue.


A $15 min wage carries other issues with it. The fact is not everyone can provide enough value to earn $15 an hour, so they'll just be fired or unable to get those jobs. What happens to those people? I think UBI makes more sense and helps far more people than a minimum wage.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Then they end up in prison or dead, either of which is fine with me. Being held hostage by pieces of shit who do nothing for themselves and can't keep their hands out of your wallet is no dignified way to live in my view.Yeah you're looking at close to 3k/mo for that where I live. No way is that shit anywhere close to a "basic standard of living". :lol Share a room, get a job and save money until you can get something better. Giving people a free apartment is absurd.


I pay under $850 a month. There are some good things about living in upstate New York. I don't make an impressive amount of money on paper but it gets me really far where I live. Like if you told me $125,000 in New York City or what I make now I might be better taking my current pay.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Just to interject, though as I say, I'm not reading huge walls of text right now I just caught a glimpse of conversation about housing costs etc and whether that's viable with a UBI. There's actually a VERY simple solution to that problem. Now, I can't talk for the US on this only the UK so this might not work out there I don't know, however it would here. We have absolutely TONS of land filled with derelict mills, factories and left overs from the industrial revolution and industry in general. Currently, most of those are being bought by developers and turned into high-end properties and apartments or simply bulldozed and redeveloped into new-build housing estates for the middle classes. Instead, why not build affordable/social housing in those areas? It's very easy to provide housing for everybody, especially when that also means you'll be essentially creating a rebate on the UBI by receiving it as the rent for said housing. Again, this wouldn't be luxury homes, it'd be clean and functional though. A couple living on UBI could afford better than a single person, but it still wouldn't be a house of luxury by any means. Also worth mentioning that if a UBI is implemented EVERY OTHER FORM OF WELFARE would be abolished - otherwise there's no point in doing it. I'll do all of the figure properly when I'm better to illustrate how much could actually be saved doing this but frankly I'm not up to it right now and it's bad enough being ill without your beautiful child who seems to have inherited his singer father's lungs wailing his bloody arse off all night. :lol

I just want some god damn sleep.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Just to interject, though as I say, I'm not reading huge walls of text right now I just caught a glimpse of conversation about housing costs etc and whether that's viable with a UBI. There's actually a VERY simple solution to that problem. Now, I can't talk for the US on this only the UK so this might not work out there I don't know, however it would here. We have absolutely TONS of land filled with derelict mills, factories and left overs from the industrial revolution and industry in general. Currently, most of those are being bought by developers and turned into high-end properties and apartments or simply bulldozed and redeveloped into new-build housing estates for the middle classes. Instead, why not build affordable/social housing in those areas? It's very easy to provide housing for everybody, especially when that also means you'll be essentially creating a rebate on the UBI by receiving it as the rent for said housing. Again, this wouldn't be luxury homes, it'd be clean and functional though. A couple living on UBI could afford better than a single person, but it still wouldn't be a house of luxury by any means. Also worth mentioning that if a UBI is implemented EVERY OTHER FORM OF WELFARE would be abolished - otherwise there's no point in doing it. I'll do all of the figure properly when I'm better to illustrate how much could actually be saved doing this but frankly I'm not up to it right now and it's bad enough being ill without your beautiful child who seems to have inherited his singer father's lungs wailing his bloody arse off all night. :lol
> 
> I just want some god damn sleep.


Dude just go to sleep, get some rest and come back when you feel better :lol. This thread isn't going anywhere. I tagged you in my 2nd UBI post so you'll be able to come back to all of this after .


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't think making people live in the projects is a good solution to anything. We have those already. They suck.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Not in any kind of prescriptive context.
> 
> A $15 min wage carries other issues with it. The fact is not everyone can provide enough value to earn $15 an hour, so they'll just be fired or unable to get those jobs. What happens to those people? I think UBI makes more sense and helps far more people than a minimum wage.


I thought you didn't want a UBI


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Dude just go to sleep, get some rest and come back when you feel better :lol. This thread isn't going anywhere. I tagged you in my 2nd UBI post so you'll be able to come back to all of this after .


If only it were that simple mate. I'm contending with a baby who's doing his very best to ensure I feel progressively worse with this flu by exercising his vocal chords regardless of what I do to calm him down. Fiance's going mental too because we're supposed to be off to an antique book fair tomorrow to try and find some treasures but he just won't go to sleep so we're taking it in turns trying to get him down. This is my distraction tbh.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FITZ said:


> I don't think making people live in the projects is a good solution to anything. We have those already. They suck.


Yeah we don't have those here. Not all social housing has to be highrise hellholes to be honest. The majority of properties here are just regular houses and small apartments.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> If only it were that simple mate. I'm contending with a baby who's doing his very best to ensure I feel progressively worse with this flu by exercising his vocal chords regardless of what I do to calm him down. Fiance's going mental too because we're supposed to be off to an antique book fair tomorrow to try and find some treasures but he just won't go to sleep so we're taking it in turns trying to get him down. This is my distraction tbh.


Ahh man that sucks mate . I get you.

I won't respond to your points about social housing yet until you feel better. Don't think it's fair to make you have to read my points and respond to them at this time. It's not like I'm shitposting or trying to prove I'm right anyway :lol. I think in regards to UBI it's a worthwhile discussion to have.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Ahh man that sucks mate . I get you.
> 
> I won't respond to your points about social housing yet until you feel better. Don't think it's fair to make you have to read my points and respond to them at this time. It's not like I'm shitposting or trying to prove I'm right anyway :lol. I think in regards to UBI it's a worthwhile discussion to have.


That's much appreciated. The one thing I will say is that I grew up in a council house so I'm not particularly against them, without council housing my family wouldn't have survived at all. I can't believe it's it's half bloody 2, I wanted an early night for the fair tomorrow. Last year I spent an absolute fortune on hand drawn maps of Europe from various different time periods (the most modern one being the early 1800's) and I'm hoping to get a few more because I find them both fascinating and incredibly pretty, but it means getting there early to try and get the best ones before they go.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I thought you didn't want a UBI


Literally nobody else in the thread got that impression from my posts about it, and you even liked and replied to one of my posts about it saying you agree. 



CamillePunk said:


> I actually think having UBI would lead to a much smaller government. Replacing the vast web of welfare programs with a simple "everyone gets x dollars" system would mean a LOT less bureaucracy. Not to mention the likely reduction in crime and general civil strife that can also prove costly in a myriad of ways. Ideally we could transition to having a system where we have no government and the people who can't be productive in a heavily automated society are taken care of voluntarily through charity by everyone else, but that's admittedly idealistic.





CamillePunk said:


> It should be a flat amount for everyone. If you just give extra free stuff to single moms who chose bad guys to have kids with (most likely scenario, exceptions exist blah blah), then you're incentivizing bad choices. Which is what we have now in the US. The worse decisions you make, the more free stuff you get. It's really dumb. Everyone should get the same.





birthday_massacre said:


> I agree, just give it to everyone, because if they only gave it to certain people, it would incentivize people to get into that group just to get the money.
> 
> Plus single moms, get child support, so it would not make sense to give it to just them.


:done


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's much appreciated. The one thing I will say is that I grew up in a council house so I'm not particularly against them, without council housing my family wouldn't have survived at all. I can't believe it's it's half bloody 2, I wanted an early night for the fair tomorrow. Last year I spent an absolute fortune on hand drawn maps of Europe from various different time periods (the most modern one being the early 1800's) and I'm hoping to get a few more because I find them both fascinating and incredibly pretty, but it means getting there early to try and get the best ones before they go.


I have no excuse to be up this late other than I don't have to go out till late and I got some new beers to try out . The new Brewdog Pilsner to be exact, quite a good beer too .

Those maps do sound fascinating especially considering I'm a historian at heart. Sucks you are up this late because of the illness and the child. You going to give it a miss now?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> I have no excuse to be up this late other than I don't have to go out till late and I got some new beers to try out . The new Brewdog Pilsner to be exact, quite a good beer too .
> 
> Those maps do sound fascinating especially considering I'm a historian at heart. Sucks you are up this late because of the illness and the child. You going to give it a miss now?


Nah I'm going or my fiance will probably stab me, she's a HUGE book collector and this is like Christmas for her tbh. The maps are AMAZING actually, because they look nothing like what the real world actually looks like and I just love that. I'll ask the map people tomorrow if they're ok to scan, I was told last year to avoid too much light on them as it can damage them but I'm not sure if that just meant direct sunlight or light period. If scanning is ok I'll upload some. It's one of those things as well where they should appreciate in value the more I keep them so I can justify the spend (they run from between 1200-5000 ish depending on the quality, age and detail) and my fiance can't say shit because she'll be spending more on books. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein had a pretty interesting conversation about UBI on the Joe Rogan podcast last year:


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Nah I'm going or my fiance will probably stab me, she's a HUGE book collector and this is like Christmas for her tbh. The maps are AMAZING actually, because they look nothing like what the real world actually looks like and I just love that. I'll ask the map people tomorrow if they're ok to scan, I was told last year to avoid too much light on them as it can damage them but I'm not sure if that just meant direct sunlight or light period. If scanning is ok I'll upload some. It's one of those things as well where they should appreciate in value the more I keep them so I can justify the spend (they run from between 1200-5000 ish depending on the quality, age and detail) and my fiance can't say shit because she'll be spending more on books. :lol


Fucking hell, that's a lot of money :lol. I'm not surprised though because they are of historical importance and are essentially antiques. If you have a vested interest in them, it's certainly worth the money as it will appreciate in value like you said. Especially if they become a collectors item in the future if they aren't already (I obviously don't know the ins and outs, you'd have a lot more of an idea than I would).

What sort of books does your fiance like to read/collect?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Fucking hell, that's a lot of money :lol. I'm not surprised though because they are of historical importance and are essentially antiques. If you have a vested interest in them, it's certainly worth the money as it will appreciate in value like you said. Especially if they become a collectors item in the future if they aren't already (I obviously don't know the ins and outs, you'd have a lot more of an idea than I would).
> 
> What sort of books does your fiance like to read/collect?


Yeah these things don't come cheap sadly. And she'll collect pretty much anything tbh, she has a preference for Victorian era British fiction first editions but she's bought everything from medical texts to religious texts to wildlife books. It usually comes down to how good a condition it is and what the binding etc looks like, she's a sucker for books that look like they belong in a library in an old country manor with leather bindings and gold leaf. I think the most she spent was like 4-5 grand on something from the 1700's but I'm not sure - and that's even assuming she's telling me the real cost of these things which I'm not totally convinced of if I'm honest. And yeah I think the maps are fairly collectable, after all, there's only going to be so many still around in good condition and that number will get smaller as time goes on.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah these things don't come cheap sadly. And she'll collect pretty much anything tbh, she has a preference for Victorian era British fiction first editions but she's bought everything from medical texts to religious texts to wildlife books. It usually comes down to how good a condition it is and what the binding etc looks like, she's a sucker for books that look like they belong in a library in an old country manor with leather bindings and gold leaf. I think the most she spent was like 4-5 grand on something from the 1700's but I'm not sure - and that's even assuming she's telling me the real cost of these things which I'm not totally convinced of if I'm honest. And yeah I think the maps are fairly collectable, after all, there's only going to be so many still around in good condition and that number will get smaller as time goes on.


That's very interesting. I don't think I've come across anyone personally who has an affinity for books in that way. Probably unsurprising but if I buy or read a book it tends to be historical or political unless it's fiction of course. I was and still am fascinated by religious history. Especially a number of years ago where I really went down the rabbit hole and looked at all the religious institutions and orders during the medieval/middle ages period :lol.

Your point about the maps makes a lot of sense especially because as time would have passed and has gone on, the amount that are well maintained will decrease. That only will increase their value further. No wonder you are getting a hold of them :lol.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Tater @RavishingRickRules @CamillePunk







I'll give W credit that he stayed away for a long while but honestly I wish his ilk would just fuck off for good :lol. Republicans in this case seem to be making the same mistake as the Democrats.

It's actually depressing that his approval ratings are now in the 50's when you consider the Iraq war and even more importantly the torture that happened under his administration.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> That's very interesting. I don't think I've come across anyone personally who has an affinity for books in that way. Probably unsurprising but if I buy or read a book it tends to be historical or political unless it's fiction of course. I was and still am fascinated by religious history. Especially a number of years ago where I really went down the rabbit hole and looked at all the religious institutions and orders during the medieval/middle ages period :lol.
> 
> Your point about the maps makes a lot of sense especially because as time would have passed and has gone on, the amount that are well maintained will decrease. That only will increase their value further. No wonder you are getting a hold of them :lol.


Well it's half investment half just that I think they're really bloody cool I guess. She's weird though that's for sure, I've never met anybody who not only enjoys reading books but is obsessed with the books themselves like she is before. I think again though, she takes care of them so it's a good investment. I'm not really one for playing with my money in the stock market or anything like that so I prefer to get something physical I can enjoy rather than just throw it into savings accounts. I did think buying the house would be a good investment but I'm not as sure now with Brexit, now I'm more worried about getting it sold before we move so that I'm not having to deal with it when I'm in another country. 

In general though I live a fairly frugal lifestyle for somebody with my income, I don't drink and rarely go clubbing these days and though we'll go to expensive restaurants we also go to supper clubs to get the same quality food at a fraction of the price. Similarly once I've got my meat from the butcher I'll get my staples from Lidl, why not? Good value is good value. I don't even own a personal smartphone tbh, I use my work one because it's just calls and texts, I'm not really into social media or any of that and I tend to work from home unless I'm abroad so I don't really have much use for the internet on the fly.

edit: Oh my days, Bush returns. Can't he piss off and take Blair with him? The only remote chance of something good coming from this is if we get more George W Bush satire because that shit NEVER gets old :lol


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Well it's half investment half just that I think they're really bloody cool I guess. She's weird though that's for sure, I've never met anybody who not only enjoys reading books but is obsessed with the books themselves like she is before. I think again though, she takes care of them so it's a good investment. I'm not really one for playing with my money in the stock market or anything like that so I prefer to get something physical I can enjoy rather than just throw it into savings accounts. I did think buying the house would be a good investment but I'm not as sure now with Brexit, now I'm more worried about getting it sold before we move so that I'm not having to deal with it when I'm in another country.
> 
> In general though I live a fairly frugal lifestyle for somebody with my income, I don't drink and rarely go clubbing these days and though we'll go to expensive restaurants we also go to supper clubs to get the same quality food at a fraction of the price. Similarly once I've got my meat from the butcher I'll get my staples from Lidl, why not? Good value is good value. I don't even own a personal smartphone tbh, I use my work one because it's just calls and texts, I'm not really into social media or any of that and I tend to work from home unless I'm abroad so I don't really have much use for the internet on the fly.


I rarely go clubbing now unless it's a special occasion, it's not something I like doing unless I'm surrounded with people that I enjoy hanging out with. Otherwise it's worthless to me. Paying entrance money to listen to shitty pop music dressed as club music whilst potentially paying for over priced drinks? No thanks, I'd rather go to a bar or a pub . Especially where you can a good selection of different craft beer, that's really my thing .

Dude, it's all about the value of money. If something is a good price, good quality and saves money then it makes all the sense in the world. Why pay the extra price if you aren't getting much out of it? It's a waste. As much as I hate shopping there's value to it. I've never invested in the stock market either honestly, I know there are good investments to make in it and ones which are risky but I've never felt the need to get involved with it.

I honestly only view Facebook out of habit. I've never used twitter, never gotten on with it. I don't blame you for abstaining, Facebook is good for groups and events but there's a lot of bullshit that comes with it too.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to house prices once Brexit actually happens (it might honestly be if it happens with the way this useless government is handling it). There is a good chance that prices go down, that much I'll give you. They have been rather inflated to begin with, the housing market has been in a bubble for a long while, particularly in London (I don't know where in the UK you are from but I'd assume at the moment your property is worth a decent amount of money).


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> I rarely go clubbing now unless it's a special occasion, it's not something I like doing unless I'm surrounded with people that I enjoy hanging out with. Otherwise it's worthless to me. Paying entrance money to listen to shitty pop music dressed as club music whilst potentially paying for over priced drinks? No thanks, I'd rather go to a bar or a pub . Especially where you can a good selection of different craft beer, that's really my thing .
> 
> Dude, it's all about the value of money. If something is a good price, good quality and saves money then it makes all the sense in the world. Why pay the extra price if you aren't getting much out of it? It's a waste. As much as I hate shopping there's value to it. I've never invested in the stock market either honestly, I know there are good investments to make in it and ones which are risky but I've never felt the need to get involved with it.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I mean, it's not worth London money :lol

I'm originally from Bradford but I live in York which is expensive as far as the North goes (though again, not Cheshire expensive.) It's a 4 bedroom detached house so it's nice enough without being ostentatious (I'm not going to actually say how much I paid for it) and we paid outright rather than a mortgage. We've done a few improvements and it's fitted with both solar voltaic and solar thermal panels so that adds a bit of value and whoever bought it would also get the Feed In Tariff payments from the solar and the MCHP boiler. If it wasn't for Brexit I was going to get the Tesla Solar Roof but I don't think it's going to be ready before we move and it just seems like a hassle to get it done now. I did consider renting it out if we don't get it sold in time and then the prices drop dramatically post-Brexit at least to accrue some of that lost value before we finally offload it but I'd have to look into that because I'm not sure exactly what you have to do to become a landlord and dealing with any problems the tenants have would probably be a pain from Portugal. 

Just a shame because we did buy it to be "the family home" but when so many economists and the government themselves have confirmed there is no such thing as a positive Brexit scenario I just can't bring my son up here when I have an easy alternative. My parents move to Ireland next month and apart from my youngest brother who works as a nuclear engineer on a Trident sub the majority of my family is moving out. It's a weird situation for us though because the majority of the family is from outside the UK originally so Brexit felt like somewhat of a slap in the face to a lot of the older generation. It's frustrating but it is what it is, nobody in the 2 main parties has the balls to actually push for another vote once we know the terms (which would actually be very democratic of them) so everybody has to find their own way to make the best of a bad situation because even though no Brexit is a good Brexit, there are a lot of Brexits than would've been better than whatever the fuck the Maybot's going to deliver - or god forbid a no deal scenario.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Then we arrive at the same conclusion: Big government and its market interference is the problem.


Yep. Big Government should never interfere in the economy at all. Ever. There should be no rules and regulations or anything. So when a construction company builds a high rise apartment building and they use cheap materials and hire unqualified electricians to increase their profits and then the place burns down and people die because there was no building inspector nor rules on materials used, it's the people's fault for renting apartments in a place that was built by a shitty construction company. Fuck 'em, they should have known better.



CamillePunk said:


> Welcome to real libertarianism.


There's a lot more to libertarianism than shitty right wing libertarianism economics. But I suspect you know that already.



DOPA said:


> Considering what you have said, I wonder how you feel about the five developed countries who don't have a mandated minimum wage laws. The general consensus is pay is worked out by unions and collective bargaining. I think it's something to look into myself as an alternative, I would prefer it to what we have in the UK right now. Would like to read your thoughts:
> 
> https://www.investopedia.com/articl...developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp
> 
> ...


Strong unions and negotiated rates make much more sense to me than a minimum wage. Too bad unions have been destroyed in the USA. 

As far as that goes, a national minimum wage doesn't make sense either. It doesn't cost the same to live in all places and all places don't generate the same kind of income. One of the reasons why I advocate for being paid by ratio instead of hourly is that it would solve the problem of hurting small businesses with an hourly minimum wage that they cannot afford to pay. So small businesses in small towns where the rent is cheap wouldn't be run out of business. You don't need to earn the same kind of money to live in small town Nebraska as you do NYC and conversely, businesses in NYC generate a lot more income than those in small town Nebraska. It would be a system set up so people get paid fairly for the profit they helped generate but also allows employers to pay what they can afford. It would also keep the mega corporations from treating their employees like wage slaves.



CamillePunk said:


> Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein had a pretty interesting conversation about UBI on the Joe Rogan podcast last year:


Jordan Peterson is a jackass. His beasts of burden comment is retarded. What he's doing here is taking the need most people have for a sense of purpose in life and turning it into an argument that they must toil away at meaningless jobs they hate or they will wither away and die. There are good arguments against UBI but this is not one of them.

The idea that people would just sit on their ass eating cheetos and playing video games all day if they were provided with food and a roof over their head is stupid right wing mythology that is not based on any real facts. I did a search for "what percentage of people hate their jobs" and numerous results popped up in the 70-85% range. There is a very strong majority of people who have the jobs that they do not because they want to do them or as Jackass Peterson would have you believe because they have a need to be beasts of burden but because the choice is between doing something they hate or living on the streets. 

Not only are most jobs hated by the people that do them, ever increasingly so, most of them are unnecessary jobs as well. In older human history, work was done because it needed to be done. Houses were built because people needed a place to live. Food was grown because people needed to eat. Nowadays, thanks to advances in technology, most jobs aren't done because they need to be done, they are done because people need to earn money to simply survive. There is no consideration whatsoever put into the mental and physical health and well being of a person or if they are given an opportunity to live a fulfilling life. Nope, it's fuck you, get a job or fuck off and die.

That mentality is why we need a revolution of thought more than anything.

If Peterson weren't such a jackass, instead of calling people beasts of burden who need to be worked to death or they will wither to death, he would have said that people need to be given the opportunity at living a more fulfilling life where they get to choose what they want to do instead of what they are forced to do. This touches on Dopa's decentralization and localism comment from above. A healthy local community where people have the means of self sustainability is much more fulfilling than having to rely upon some nameless faceless corporate executive to decide he wants to send some jobs to your town.

That's why things that can be produced locally, should be produced locally. We shouldn't be buying clothes made by some kid in a sweat shop in some third world hell hole. We should be buying clothes made by Martha who lives down the street. We shouldn't be buying genetically modified freak plants from Monsanto. We should be buying fresh veggies from a local farmer's market. When you live in a thriving community like that, not only it is more healthy for them economically, it is more healthy for them mentally. It is a more fulfilling life than working for shit wages so some privileged millionaire born into their fortunes can buy a 4th mansion.



DOPA said:


> @Tater @RavishingRickRules @CamillePunk
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only place Dubya should be is in an international prison for war criminals alongside the Clintons and Obama and Cheney and every other major war criminal from the United States. They can get the place ready for when Trump arrives.



Now we can get to what I've been wanting to talk about...






@DesolationRow @Reap @RavishingRickRules and you too, CP and Dopa.

Elon Musk hitting a blunt (but not even inhaling) has been getting all the attention but this discussion on AI is what people should be talking about. I've got the video set to start right around when they get to the AI topic and it goes on for a good 25 mins or so before they start talking about chimps and monkeys. When someone like Elon has a fatalistic we're all fucked attitude on the topic, it should get your attention. I've been talking about AI making human labor obsolete. The shit he's talking about takes it to a whole other level. And it's going to happen a lot sooner than people realize. We're not ready for it as a society either. Not even close. I try to wrap my head around it and incorporate these kinds of technological advances into my ideology but really, none of us are ready for the kinds of technological leaps we'll be seeing in such a short amount of time.

I hate to break it to my pro-capitalist friends in here but you are monumentally wrong if you believe the old capitalist system of getting jobs and earning money to pay your way through life is still going to be functional when AI starts taking over. You've never been more wrong about anything in your entire life. Sooner or later, all our arguments about economics will become obsolete. Then it'll be an argument over whether or not we are going to get wiped out by AI or get transformed into cyborgs by it. Even I realize my ideas on economics are just to try to make life a little better until Skynet goes online and the shit really hits the fan. I may just be a dumb chimp like Joe Rogan but Elon Musk is an alien magnet or some shit. If you won't listen to me, you should definitely listen to him. The government wouldn't listen to him. I would assume all of my fine friends in here are smarter than the government.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah, I mean, it's not worth London money :lol
> 
> I'm originally from Bradford but I live in York which is expensive as far as the North goes (though again, not Cheshire expensive.) It's a 4 bedroom detached house so it's nice enough without being ostentatious (I'm not going to actually say how much I paid for it) and we paid outright rather than a mortgage. We've done a few improvements and it's fitted with both solar voltaic and solar thermal panels so that adds a bit of value and whoever bought it would also get the Feed In Tariff payments from the solar and the MCHP boiler. If it wasn't for Brexit I was going to get the Tesla Solar Roof but I don't think it's going to be ready before we move and it just seems like a hassle to get it done now. I did consider renting it out if we don't get it sold in time and then the prices drop dramatically post-Brexit at least to accrue some of that lost value before we finally offload it but I'd have to look into that because I'm not sure exactly what you have to do to become a landlord and dealing with any problems the tenants have would probably be a pain from Portugal.
> 
> Just a shame because we did buy it to be "the family home" but when so many economists and the government themselves have confirmed there is no such thing as a positive Brexit scenario I just can't bring my son up here when I have an easy alternative. My parents move to Ireland next month and apart from my youngest brother who works as a nuclear engineer on a Trident sub the majority of my family is moving out. It's a weird situation for us though because the majority of the family is from outside the UK originally so Brexit felt like somewhat of a slap in the face to a lot of the older generation. It's frustrating but it is what it is, nobody in the 2 main parties has the balls to actually push for another vote once we know the terms (which would actually be very democratic of them) so everybody has to find their own way to make the best of a bad situation because even though no Brexit is a good Brexit, there are a lot of Brexits than would've been better than whatever the fuck the Maybot's going to deliver - or god forbid a no deal scenario.



I'm going to sound patriotic as fuck but have you ever considered Edinburgh for living? I always say Edinburgh is for English people who don't want to take the full dive into Scotland :grin2: Feels like half the people I meet are English. If you want real Scotland you'd go to Glasgow. Edinburgh's the most expensive city but much much less than London. It's also just incredibly...safe I guess. I'd be happy walking anywhere at 3am in a drunken state. 

Scotland leans further left than England too. What powers we'll have over Scotland in five years who knows but I enjoy little benefits you get in Scotland that don't exist down south.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The fantasy continues. Trump is Thanos. Elon Musk is Iron Man. 

I don't really care for either or anyone that puts people on a pedestal. 

Suffice to say. I disagree with the Terminator 2 view of the world. Tater. We agree with a great many things but I won't agree with an apocalypse scenario happening anywhere near our lifetime.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> The fantasy continues. Trump is Thanos. Elon Musk is Iron Man.
> 
> I don't really care for either or anyone that puts people on a pedestal.
> 
> Suffice to say. I disagree with the Terminator 2 view of the world. Tater. We agree with a great many things but I won't agree with an apocalypse scenario happening anywhere near our lifetime.


Who the fuck said anything about Trump is Thanos and Elon Musk is Iron Man? Cause that is retarded. Tell that guy to fuck off. 

No one is putting anyone on a pedestal and I didn't even mention Trump in that post in regards to Musk. I don't have any personal feelings towards the guy one way or the other but I do recognize that he knows what he's talking about on this particular topic. The Skynet line was in jest. This isn't a movie and there isn't a robot apocalypse on the way. The fact that AI is going to drastically alter how society functions is no joke though. It's something people need to start taking seriously.

The tech industries have some pretty crazy shit in development right now. Most people don't even know about it much less understand it and are hardly ready for when that stuff starts going into mass production. When millions of people suddenly find themselves automated out of job, they'll take notice.

ETA: I didn't even know before your reply that some people compared Elon Musk to Tony Stark but apparently that's a thing. :lol It never occurred to me because I don't blur fantasy and real life like some do.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> I'm going to sound patriotic as fuck but have you ever considered Edinburgh for living? I always say Edinburgh is for English people who don't want to take the full dive into Scotland :grin2: Feels like half the people I meet are English. If you want real Scotland you'd go to Glasgow. Edinburgh's the most expensive city but much much less than London. It's also just incredibly...safe I guess. I'd be happy walking anywhere at 3am in a drunken state.
> 
> Scotland leans further left than England too. What powers we'll have over Scotland in five years who knows but I enjoy little benefits you get in Scotland that don't exist down south.


I'm heading to Edinburgh for my 10 year anniversary, it was where I proposed. Its absolutely one of my favourite cities. Always been cold as fuck mind ><.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Tater ; I was ribbing lol. Automation is going to expose capitalism for sure. This I agree with. When it happens is something that's too unpredictable so I tend not to think about it. 

But yeah, Elon Musk has created a cult of Personality and most of it geeky comic neckbeards who genuinely suck his cock to the point of even annoyng my sexuality.


----------



## Carter84 (Feb 4, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Lumpy Mcrighteous shows you lost the debate when u give me a red rep , haha mad my day

:smile2:


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> @Tater ; I was ribbing lol. Automation is going to expose capitalism for sure. This I agree with. When it happens is something that's too unpredictable so I tend not to think about it.


It's already happening. Millions of good paying jobs have already been automated out of existence. That's why so many people are working in the service industry now for shit wages. This is a trend that will only speed up as technology advances and production of these advances broadens.



Reap said:


> But yeah, Elon Musk has created a cult of Personality and most of it geeky comic neckbeards who genuinely suck his cock to the point of even annoyng my sexuality.


I don't really run in those circles. There are still groups of people I come across on the internet that surprise me. When I read Twitter, it's a very small group of people I have on a list. Jimmy and Kyle. Daniel McAdams. Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden. Tulsi Gabbard. The list is only a dozen in total. Occasionally I'll click on notifications to see what's trending ww but I don't normally wander around the place reading replies. Holy shit when I do though... it's like, what in the actual fuck is wrong with these people?! I mean, I have my fair share of arguments and ideological differences with the people in this thread but even during the most heated arguments, I don't feel like I am conversing with a retarded troglodyte. Reading some of the replies on Twitter makes me believe some people have the cognitive function of the apes we evolved from before we became modern humans.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Looks like Jimmy has finished dropping his entire interview with Tulsi. I :mark:ed like hell when she name dropped him on Rogan's show and then shortly thereafter I heard Jimmy say in a different clip that she would be on his show. She knew of him because she had seen him on Rogan, so while she was in LA to do JRE, she drove over to Pasadena and Jimmy actually got to interview her in his own studio. This is an amazing get for him. I very much look forward to watching them all.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Tater said:


> Looks like Jimmy has finished dropping his entire interview with Tulsi. I <img src="http://i.imgur.com/GkHkVKq.gif?1" border="0" alt="" title=":mark:" class="inlineimg" />ed like hell when she name dropped him on Rogan's show and then shortly thereafter I heard Jimmy say in a different clip that she would be on his show. She knew of him because she had seen him on Rogan, so while she was in LA to do JRE, she drove over to Pasadena and Jimmy actually got to interview her in his own studio. This is an amazing get for him. I very much look forward to watching them all.


Watched that this morning. She could run against Trump if she keeps this up.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Watched that this morning. She could run against Trump if she keeps this up.


She'd have to run as a independent


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

virus21 said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Watched that this morning. She could run against Trump if she keeps this up.
> ...


Yeah the DNC won't let her anywhere near.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> She'd have to run as a independent


Maybe we'd get an independent worth voting for over what the Libertarians put out last election, what a joke.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






this fucking guy


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MrMister said:


> this fucking guy


You know what? As bad as that seems, it was still preferable to Clinton or Trump.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Yeah the DNC won't let her anywhere near.


The new rules will make it easier for someone with almost no establishment backing. Assuming Bernie doesnt' run I think she could position herself to get a lot of his voter's which is nothing to sneeze at. Even with MSDNC and CNN in her pocket the biggest advantage Hilary had in the 2016 primaries was she was a defacto incumbent(an advantage that is highly underestimated in both parties) Even if the establishment rallied behind Harris that is not the same as defacto incumbency and she is relatively unknown to the public.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> I'm going to sound patriotic as fuck but have you ever considered Edinburgh for living? I always say Edinburgh is for English people who don't want to take the full dive into Scotland :grin2: Feels like half the people I meet are English. If you want real Scotland you'd go to Glasgow. Edinburgh's the most expensive city but much much less than London. It's also just incredibly...safe I guess. I'd be happy walking anywhere at 3am in a drunken state.
> 
> Scotland leans further left than England too. What powers we'll have over Scotland in five years who knows but I enjoy little benefits you get in Scotland that don't exist down south.


Edingburgh's in the UK, so Brexit still applies. I've already purchased property in Portugal because I want to LEAVE the UK haha.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You really are grossly unaware of your own confirmation bias here. This conversation is a waste of time. I say that not in defence of Trump, but in defence of those who are not completely swayed by the sheer level of TDS you are.


Sure lol. You don't have to talk about anything you don't want to, but it's a bare minimum to ask you make sure the things you say that happened, actually happened in the manner you claim.


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

* California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault *



> Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.
> 
> Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.
> 
> ...


Full article

oh, look. another shitbag republican accused of sexual assault, and about to be confirmed to the highest court in the land. will the GOP speak out? lol of course not. limp dick cowards.

donald trump, roy moore, jim jordan, brett kavanaugh. the PARTY OF FAMILY VALUES, folks.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I was talking to my mother today and the subject of politics came up. Long story short, she told me if I wanted the truth, I should listen to Mike Huckabee.

I laughed so hard and couldn't stop laughing, so she hung up on me.

ETA: Mike Huckabee :lmao


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Carter84 said:


> @Lumpy Mcrighteous shows you lost the debate when u give me a red rep , haha mad my day
> 
> :smile2:


Was there a debate?

Because I simply red repped you because I thought your comment was retarded tripe.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yeah, Red rep from Lumpy doesn't mean anything, negged me for not being 'mature' about a debate because I called Trump fans Trumptons then negged me 2 days later with 'try harder ******'.










:confused


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I've been going pretty hard towards the left and I have said some very mean things about Trump, but I haven't gotten any negs from any Trump supporters for saying mean things about Trump. :Shrug


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I've been going pretty hard towards the left and I have said some very mean things about Trump, but I haven't gotten any negs from any Trump supporters for saying mean things about Trump. :Shrug


Tbf I don't get any outside of that and the obvious trolls Ultron and Indytaker, most Trump supporters are beyond insulting via Negs, they'll just quote you. Negs are meaningless anyway, just a bit of fun to fire a few off occasionally.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I was talking to my mother today and the subject of politics came up. Long story short, she told me if I wanted the truth, I should listen to Mike Huckabee.
> 
> I laughed so hard and couldn't stop laughing, so she hung up on me.
> 
> ETA: Mike Huckabee :lmao


I have no idea who that is but since your mom recommended him I'm assuming that he's some sort of a religious leaders or something. 

I don't want to look him up. I bet he probably thinks dem gays are destroying Murica.

---

So apparently the media hates Kavanaugh because he is a frat boy and Mike Pence because he wasn't. And the sheep are bleeding all over Twitter about both at the same time and hating on them for the opposite reason.

And then the sheep pretend that their views should be taken seriously [emoji38]

Media overlords say hate. So they hate. They're no better than sheep. Bah bah bah.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> So apparently the media hates Kavanaugh because he is a frat boy and Mike Pence because he wasn't. And the sheep are bleeding all over Twitter about both at the same time and hating on them for the opposite reason.
> 
> And then the sheep pretend that their views should be taken seriously [emoji38]
> 
> Media overlords say hate. So they hate. They're no better than sheep. Bah bah bah.


It's the same people who love and defend Bill Clinton too :laugh:


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It's the same people who love and defend Bill Clinton too :laugh:


Trump was one of his biggest defenders and backers as well :cudi 

I'm beginning to think that there might have been something to the original conspiracy theory that some people came up with when they said that Trump may have been a democrat plant :mj4 

Man, American politics are still very much third world. Just a little more sophisticated in how they hide the truth from people.

Edit: If you want a very nice history lesson in American propaganda, go watch Private SNAFU instructional videos!


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.gazettenet.com/Layoffs-hit-prices-lag-as-tariff-pinches-lobster-industry-20184316



> *Layoffs hit, prices lag as tariff pinches lobster industry*
> 
> PORTLAND, Maine — The American lobster industry is starting to feel the pinch of China’s tariff on U.S. seafood as exporters and dealers cope with sagging prices, new financial pressures and difficulty sending lobsters overseas.
> 
> ...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Yep. Big Government should never interfere in the economy at all. Ever.


Shouldn't even exist in the first place.



> There should be no rules and regulations or anything.


We should self-regulate via consumer choices and ostracism/boycott. 



> So when a construction company builds a high rise apartment building and they use cheap materials and hire unqualified electricians to increase their profits and then the place burns down and people die because there was no building inspector nor rules on materials used, it's the people's fault for renting apartments in a place that was built by a shitty construction company. Fuck 'em, they should have known better.


There's not a huge financial incentive to have a company that builds one shitty building and is then never trusted to do anything again. Nor are entrepreneurs so evil and short-sighted that they just wanna build shitty buildings on purpose. 




> Jordan Peterson is a jackass. His beasts of burden comment is retarded. What he's doing here is taking the need most people have for a sense of purpose in life and turning it into an argument that they must toil away at meaningless jobs they hate or they will wither away and die. There are good arguments against UBI but this is not one of them.


Going straight for personal attacks is bad form, just discredits yourself. I don't think that's a fair assessment of his argument either. He seemed pretty favorable to UBI overall in that discussion so I'm not sure what the issue is. 



> The idea that people would just sit on their ass eating cheetos and playing video games all day if they were provided with food and a roof over their head is stupid right wing mythology


Not really. Don't you know any lazy people in your life? Seems to me the biological standard is to maximize resources for minimal effort. It's the truly special people who go above and beyond that. If you're not skilled or confident enough to pursue meaningful work why *wouldn't* you just take the free food and shelter and enjoy yourself? I've lived in and around neighborhoods where people live entirely off welfare and don't try to do anything more than that. It's fairly common. 



> Not only are most jobs hated by the people that do them, ever increasingly so, most of them are unnecessary jobs as well. In older human history, work was done because it needed to be done. Houses were built because people needed a place to live. Food was grown because people needed to eat. Nowadays, thanks to advances in technology, most jobs aren't done because they need to be done, they are done because people need to earn money to simply survive. There is no consideration whatsoever put into the mental and physical health and well being of a person or if they are given an opportunity to live a fulfilling life. Nope, it's fuck you, get a job or fuck off and die.


No, it's "fuck you, provide value or fuck off", and that's how it should be. If you want to be a part of civilization which was built with blood, sweat, and tears, you need to do your part. Or go live in the woods or something. You aren't OWED a place in society just for being born. Pitch in. 



> That mentality is why we need a revolution of thought more than anything.


I feel pretty confident that lazy people aren't about to start any kind of revolution. :lol 



> That's why things that can be produced locally, should be produced locally. We shouldn't be buying clothes made by some kid in a sweat shop in some third world hell hole. We should be buying clothes made by Martha who lives down the street. We shouldn't be buying genetically modified freak plants from Monsanto. We should be buying fresh veggies from a local farmer's market. When you live in a thriving community like that, not only it is more healthy for them economically, it is more healthy for them mentally. It is a more fulfilling life than working for shit wages so some privileged millionaire born into their fortunes can buy a 4th mansion.


This can be done by consumers choosing to buy locally, which many people do. The farmer's markets in the towns I've lived in have always been thriving.


Tater said:


> Then it'll be an argument over whether or not we are going to get wiped out by AI or get transformed into cyborgs by it.


Getting transformed into a cyborg is _my _endgame. :draper2 Sounds pretty amazing to me. 



> Even I realize my ideas on economics are just to try to make life a little better until Skynet goes online and the shit really hits the fan. I may just be a dumb chimp like Joe Rogan but Elon Musk is an alien magnet or some shit. If you won't listen to me, you should definitely listen to him. The government wouldn't listen to him. I would assume all of my fine friends in here are smarter than the government.


I love Elon Musk, but I do find it funny that you of all people are telling us to listen to a notorious crony capitalist. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Elon Musk :heston :sodone

Dude is out to lunch

Running Tesla into the ground 18 different ways

Got sued today in district court in California for repeatedly calling that guy in Thailand a pedo. Gonna get sued in London too. He's gonna lose both cases

Elon's judgment is extremely questionable on any subject except spacerockets


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I love Elon Musk, but I do find it funny that you of all people are telling us to listen to a notorious crony capitalist. :lol


I didn't realize there was such a stigma surrounding Musk. There's a lot of shit I just don't pay attention to. If there is a problem with using Musk as a reference to warn about the dangers of AI, what about Stephen Hawking? Anybody got a problem with him?



> *Stephen Hawking - will AI kill or save humankind?*
> 20 October 2016
> 
> Two years ago Stephen Hawking told the BBC that the development of full artificial intelligence, could spell the end of the human race.
> ...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Elon is good enough for me. I think he's a fantastic guy.  In our economic system you're either working the system or getting beat with it.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Elon is good enough for me. I think he's a fantastic guy.  In our economic system you're either working the system or getting beat with it.


I was a little surprised to see you disengage your lips from a rich dude's heiny for a bit. 

Now that appears to have been a momentary lapse all is right in the Trump thread once again.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041825777216638976

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041825940739973120

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041826108474310657

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041828738592333824

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041829611762352128

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041833243153117184

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041833879626285056
Israel and/or France may have shot down a Russian plane over Syria. How long should we expect Putin to be the cool head in the room and not retaliate?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I was a little surprised to see you disengage your lips from a rich dude's heiny for a bit.
> 
> Now that appears to have been a momentary lapse all is right in the Trump thread once again.


you should re-roll again, your new build is shitty. I'd advise thinking for yourself but I know that's beyond your capabilities.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> you should re-roll again, your new build is shitty. I'd advise thinking for yourself but I know that's beyond your capabilities.


There is irony laced in this post. 

The fact that I'm capable of changing my mind when new ideas present themselves is a strength not a weakness. Staying stuck in dogmatic prisons is something I've always shirked once I've found myself in them. 

You should try it sometimes


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041825777216638976
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041825940739973120
> 
> ...


Was it really a spy plane? Why was Russia playing a plane into Syria airspace, especially if it was a spy plane? Were they attacking Russia? If so, wasn't Syria just defending itself?


----------



## Buster Baxter (Mar 30, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Was it really a spy plane? Why was Russia playing a plane into Syria airspace, especially if it was a spy plane? Were they attacking Russia? If so, wasn't Syria just defending itself?


Do you know anything about this war at all? These questions indicate that you don't.


----------



## SomewhereElse (Sep 27, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> There's not a huge financial incentive to have a company that builds one shitty building and is then never trusted to do anything again. Nor are entrepreneurs so evil and short-sighted that they just wanna build shitty buildings on purpose


Fuck meee. The naiveté of the libertarian brain knows no bounds. 

Apparently, shitty buildings are only built shitty through evil purposefulness? Managers who cut corners to look good to their superior by bringing a job in under budget or under time - not a concern! Simply incredible.

I'd bet my artery that you've never spent a day working on a construction site in your life. Lots of days spent in digital echo chambers with other Atlas Society aspies, I'm sure.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Do you know anything about this war at all? These questions indicate that you don't.


No, I have not been following it.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



SomewhereElse said:


> Fuck meee. The naiveté of the libertarian brain knows no bounds.
> 
> Apparently, shitty buildings are only built shitty through evil purposefulness? Managers who cut corners to look good to their superior by bringing a job in under budget or under time - not a concern! Simply incredible.
> 
> I'd bet my artery that you've never spent a day working on a construction site in your life. Lots of days spent in digital echo chambers with other Atlas Society aspies, I'm sure.


cool strawman bro


birthday_massacre said:


> No, I have not been following it.


Well you should probably know that we're on opposite sides from Russia (but the same side as Al-Qaeda lmao wtf is wrong with this country's foreign policy). Trump is a very rebellious puppet it would seem.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> No, I have not been following it.


That makes me a little sad BM. You need to read up on it. This Syrian military soap opera is one of the biggest drivers of global upheaval right now.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> That makes me a little sad BM. You need to read up on it. This Syrian military soap opera is one of the biggest drivers of global upheaval right now.


I should pay more attention to world events I know, but its tiring enough following all of the US shit show right now ha ha ha


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I should pay more attention to world events I know, but its tiring enough following all of the US shit show right now ha ha ha


It's something caused by the US so it's just one small part of how our governments have been fucking everything up since the second world war *shrug*


----------



## SomewhereElse (Sep 27, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> cool strawman bro


Cool hit and run, bro

How is it a straw man? You very much appear to think free market reputations of private construction companies should replace government-issued building safety codes and standard inspections. The framing of that opinion isn't absurd. The opinion itself is.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Shouldn't even exist in the first place.
> 
> We should self-regulate via consumer choices and ostracism/boycott.
> 
> There's not a huge financial incentive to have a company that builds one shitty building and is then never trusted to do anything again. Nor are entrepreneurs so evil and short-sighted that they just wanna build shitty buildings on purpose.


Firstly, I would argue self regulation via consumer choice etc doesn't matter if there is already a disaster that takes lives or causes damage because there was no regulations in the first place. It only takes one initial disaster that could've been avoided if proper codes and rules were there already. I wouldn't be happy with your ethos if my house burned down because of shoddy materials or something due to no guidelines.

Secondly, what if there basically is no consumer choice because a huge company has swallowed all it's competition up? Monopolies tend to happen a lot if there is no legislation stopping companies from doing so.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



SomewhereElse said:


> Cool hit and run, bro
> 
> How is it a straw man? You very much appear to think free market reputations of private construction companies should replace government-issued building safety codes and standard inspections. The framing of that opinion isn't absurd. The opinion itself is.


China's entrance into the free market. 

This is what an economy without adeqiate labor regulations creates:



















Installed at Foxconn to keep workers from jumping to their deaths. 










These are nets that can be found across Chinese factories ... They are the free market response to worker suicides.

The "West" loves to uphold itself as the "standard bearers of human evolution" ... but they've only achieved some modicum of decent lifestyles for themselves by exporting exploitation. Pretty cool term I learnt in college.

Capitalism simply *cannot *function without exploitation and suffering. The only reason why people think that capitalism works in the west is because almost all of this suffering and exploitation has been shifted from their countries to other countries where the government, military and even non-governmental militants operate these export processing zones. When you look up what makes up EPZ's (read: deregulated zones which normally have lower taxes and less regulatory environments), you'll find the sweatshops. 

Every single country that has a deregulated area where they've allowed industrial development with minmial labor standards (because ya know, labor rights impede economic growth), you'll find nothing but suffering, death, disease and extreme human poverty. The 1800's model of "western excellence" created orphans, child labor, sweatshops ... It all still exists but in different parts of the world. Every country that introduced labor rights over the years found its "economic advantage" stripped as the factories moved wherever there were fewer labor rights. 

This is the new form of western colonization. They don't send in the uniforms. They send in the suits. We're actually still living the legacy of the "success" of British Raj because that was the model they implemented and perfected.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> China's entrance into the free market.
> 
> This is what an economy without adeqiate labor regulations creates:
> 
> ...


And Trump's goal is to get rid of all labor regulations.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

As September accounting figures correlate to the numbers revealed by the Congressional Budget Office's figures from June, it's become painfully apparent that once again the Republicans' stewardship of the U.S.'s financial house is as astoundingly irresponsible as their Democrat counterparts and in some ways much more so. The latest baseline incorporating the modifications and changes in tax law demonstrate that the national debt is set to reach $99 trillion in twenty years, 2048, by which time it would be, in terms of estimations, the equivalent of 152% of GDP. By the time the tax laws likely change again in the mid-2020s most of the burden will shift toward individuals as the tax cuts for them are set to expire while the tax cuts for corporate entities do not. Will be interesting to see how this is reflected in political races beginning this fall and spanning a number of years as it is beyond evident that no one in Washington is going to raise a finger to cut spending. Perhaps in a hypothetical second Trump administration we may hear of defaulting on the debt one day as obviously even today there is no way it can be feasibly paid down. Will be intriguing to see how the situation continues internationally with more and more nations and regions seeking greater degrees of financial self-determination as seen with the present ascent of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank spearheaded by the Chinese.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> And Trump's goal is to get rid of all labor regulations.


There are some regulations that impact economies negatively too but not the ones that protect labor. Capitalists continue to show growth world over irrespective of regulations so I have begun to concede that point. There are very few industries that were destroyed by labor rights but one can argue that it's poor management to negotiate labor CBAs that are not mutually beneficial. In many, many cases capitalists have blamed their own mismanagement on "regulations" even though their own competitors did well in a similar regulatory environment. This was fully apparent in the Auto industry.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> As September accounting figures correlate to the numbers revealed by the Congressional Budget Office's figures from June, it's become painfully apparent that once again the Republicans' stewardship of the U.S.'s financial house is as astoundingly irresponsible as their Democrat counterparts and in some ways much more so. The latest baseline incorporating the modifications and changes in tax law demonstrate that the national debt is set to reach $99 trillion in twenty years, 2048, by which time it would be, in terms of estimations, the equivalent of 152% of GDP. By the time the tax laws likely change again in the mid-2020s most of the burden will shift toward individuals as the tax cuts for them are set to expire while the tax cuts for corporate entities do not. Will be interesting to see how this is reflected in political races beginning this fall and spanning a number of years as it is beyond evident that no one in Washington is going to raise a finger to cut spending. Perhaps in a hypothetical second Trump administration we may hear of defaulting on the debt one day as obviously even today there is no way it can be feasibly paid down. Will be intriguing to see how the situation continues internationally with more and more nations and regions seeking greater degrees of financial self-determination as seen with the present ascent of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank spearheaded by the Chinese.


But what about football players not kneeling and gay wedding cakes man?


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I like Reap's new build. You should never hold the same beliefs for longer than 6 months at most, I think (personal opinion on the specificity of the timespan).

"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Relevant meme is relevant


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Goku said:


> I like Reap's new build. You should never hold the same beliefs for longer than 6 months at most, I think (personal opinion on the specificity of the timespan).
> 
> "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"


This is nonsense, sorry. You can fulfill this condition by arbitrarily changing your beliefs (which is what Reap does). That's not enlightenment. That's not even thinking.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't think things would work out very well if everyone changed their opinions every 6 months.



CamillePunk said:


> This is nonsense, sorry. You can fulfill this condition by arbitrarily changing your beliefs (which is what Reap does). That's not enlightenment. That's not even thinking.


It doesn't much matter which way your winds are blowing if the course you set sail on is crystal ball gazing, generalizations and slandering people re: their wives :draper2


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Changing one's mind when presented with new information is a good thing. Changing one's mind solely for the sake of change is a bit absurd.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> This is nonsense, sorry. You can fulfill this condition by arbitrarily changing your beliefs (which is what Reap does). That's not enlightenment. That's not even thinking.


But is there even thinking?

What a twist.

The longer you think the same things, the higher the chances of you identifying with it. And the moment you identify with an idea, you are lost.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

People who can't / won't change their minds tend to be afraid of the change itself as well as the perception that comes with it. They fear being discredited simply for changing their opinion but the thing is 7 years ago I decided to leave one of the biggest cults in the world. I've experienced what social ostracization feels like so for me views are more flexible and I constantly re-examine what I believe in. 

Ultimately I've realized that belief itself will keep you hopping from group to group but in my case it's not my desire to belong to a group that gets me embraced by one. I'm mostly a loner when it comes to the views I hold. I also make arguments externally to measure their strength against the arguments of others. Just as I can spot weaker arguments put forth by other people I can see the weaknesses and flaws in my own arguments - so I adjust. Sometimes that adjustment can mean abandoning some beliefs and ideologies entirely and adopting new ones. 

I did do a sociology degree and then an MBA right after. Both degrees gave me opposite information regarding the same subject. I found myself in the middle ground. I go extreme to see which arguments I can accept and which I can trim. I adopt a persona to immerse myself into and eventually I decide to strip away at the weakest arguments.

As I said before. There is a method to my madness. It's just not entirely apparent.

Also, it's not like I've turned into some war mongering neocon :lol I'm still anti war, pro-self governance, pro charity. I just changed my mind on fully deregulated free market capitalism (but that's only because in the current short term that increases suffering) and Trump as an effective leader. Trump is a bad leader. We could have worse but constantly thinking that "it could be worse" is the reason why we keep getting worse leaders every cycle. 

We need to break the cycle and the only way to break this cycle is vote third party. But I'm aware that that's not going to happen in America because America is an Oligarchy and the oligarchs need be exposed and brought down for any meaningful change to occur. 

None of this means I've changed my mind to the point of holding irrational beliefs.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I was a Jeremy Corbyn fan when he first got elected, now I can't wait till he goes. Always happy to change my mind.

Except Trump.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Goku said:


> I like Reap's new build. You should never hold the same beliefs for longer than 6 months at most, I think (personal opinion on the specificity of the timespan).
> 
> "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"


I guess because of that I can change my opinion in 6 months from you being cool to being an absolute asshat 8*D

(I'm joking moderators, don't infract me for insulting please  ).


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> People who can't / won't change their minds tend to be afraid of the change itself as well as the perception that comes with it. They fear being discredited simply for changing their opinion but the thing is 7 years ago I decided to leave one of the biggest cults in the world. I've experienced what social ostracization feels like so for me views are more flexible and I constantly re-examine what I believe in.
> 
> Ultimately I've realized that belief itself will keep you hopping from group to group but in my case it's not my desire to belong to a group that gets me embraced by one. I'm mostly a loner when it comes to the views I hold. I also make arguments externally to measure their strength against the arguments of others. Just as I can spot weaker arguments put forth by other people I can see the weaknesses and flaws in my own arguments - so I adjust. Sometimes that adjustment can mean abandoning some beliefs and ideologies entirely and adopting new ones.
> 
> ...


Is belief necessary at all?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Goku said:


> Is belief necessary at all?


I think it really depends. In some cases there is enough uncertainty and chaos that in order to satisfy ones own desire and need to be certain a degree of "faith" is required to fill those gaps. 

But it's a little harder in my case at times because I think my disordered BPD (which is essentially a splitting disorder) needs the black and white because it's there as a compulsion. The way I've learned to deal with it is by exploring the extreme externally in order to allow others to help me find the shades of grey.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Matt Walsh is often wrong and very hard and fast when it comes to religion and some other views I don't agree with. But his logic here makes a heck of a lot of sense. 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36016/walsh-what-credible-rape-allegations-look-matt-walsh



> WALSH: What A Credible Rape Allegation Looks Like
> Bill Clinton on a visit to Juanita Broaddrick's (right) nursing home. Getty Images
> 
> ByMATT WALSH
> ...


The only problem here is that no one's listening. The fact that several candidates are now regularly sabotaged in much the same way repeatedly means that at this point this strategy is reaping rewards for the political partisan hacks involved.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*Russian aircrew deaths: Putin and Netanyahu defuse tension*

Glad to see this. No need for even more tension in the region.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> *Russian aircrew deaths: Putin and Netanyahu defuse tension*
> 
> Glad to see this. No need for even more tension in the region.


Meanwhile the American media:


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Meanwhile the American media:


They do like to push a narrative, don't they. TBF Russian military did blame Israel. Putin went against them. Putin and Netanyahu coming to a peaceful resolution should be the story. That and Syrian forces are really fucking inept.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Matt Walsh is often wrong and very hard and fast when it comes to religion and some other views I don't agree with. But his logic here makes a heck of a lot of sense.
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/36016/walsh-what-credible-rape-allegations-look-matt-walsh
> 
> ...


Matt Walsh is a joke, in some sentence he says "I see a politically partisan accuser who never told anyone her story for 30 years" then goes on to say "between the first time she brought it up in 2012 and now"

So which is it Matt, she did never told anyone her story until now or did she tell someone in 2012?

As for her not remembering the date of the alleged crime, or even the exact year, he has to be kidding me with that bullshit. Can anyone remember the exact date of a party they went to in HS ? Give me a break. I remember the first time getting laid but I couldn't give you the exact date, I bet pretty much no one could. And if she went to a lot of parties in HS, how exactly is she supposed to remember the exact date. Please


Not to mention she said told a therapist about it in 2012, that is why its labeled as credible so no one can claim she is just making it up now, like the GOP was trying to do before it came out, she told a therapist in 2012.

But its assholes like Walsh why women are afraid to come forward. Fuck that guy.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Matt Walsh is a joke, in some sentence he says "I see a politically partisan accuser who never told anyone her story for 30 years" then goes on to say "between the first time she brought it up in 2012 and now"
> 
> So which is it Matt, she did never told anyone her story until now or did she tell someone in 2012?
> 
> ...


"You raped me. I don't know when it happened. This is the first time I brought this up. Everyone has to believe me. I'm serious BTW. I was raped by BM." See how silly this is. 

*shrug* 

There have been plenty of accusations that have also been proven to be false. I think that's also one of the reasons why women don't come forward but how come you don't mention that. 

But since you're very partisan yourself, you're obviously going to believe the woman who screams rape against someone who you perceive as a threat to your politics. For you in particular this isn't about the truth or the fact that a woman was raped. For you this is about being able to smear and drag anyone associated with Trump down. This is your confirmation bias and how your own confirmation bias is being used to pull your strings.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> "You raped me. I don't know when it happened. This is the first time I brought this up. Everyone has to believe me. I'm serious BTW. I was raped by BM." See how silly this is.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> ...


Joke sexual assault about it all you want, she talked about this sexual assault in 2012 in therapy. So you are going to claim she made it up way back then, just to use it now to keep someone off the SCOTUS? Come on, dude.

And LOL at using an excuse it has to do with someone I see as a perceived threat to my politics. It's all about the truth. I love your projection about it's my confirmation biased with the bullshit you just spewed

Also when it came out that Al Franken was a sexual assaulter, I said he needed to step down, and when someone said that Keith Ellison was accused of sexual assault, I said if that is true he needs to step down.

So nice try .


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042035755038781440
I stand with Rand.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> They do like to push a narrative, don't they. TBF Russian military did blame Israel. Putin went against them. Putin and Netanyahu coming to a peaceful resolution should be the story. That and Syrian forces are really fucking inept.


Yeah, they won't be satisfied until World War 3 happens. Thinks of ratings!


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042093657250136064
Jimmy Dore tweeting a clip of Ron Paul... because opposing neocons is not a left vs right issue.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042033116695670786

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042034269374361600https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-administration-slaps-tariffs-on-roughly-200-billion-more-in-chinese-goods--a-move-almost-certain-to-trigger-retaliation/2018/09/17/15ded2f0-b215-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e12c81f02242



> At the White House, Trump wrongly said that “China is now paying us billions of dollars in tariffs” and he celebrated the Treasury Department collecting “tremendous amounts of money, which is great for our country.”
> 
> In fact, tariffs are taxes that are paid by Americans who import goods from abroad. Through the end of August, the administration had collected nearly $22 billion in revenue because of its new tariffs, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.


So, to recap, prices rising won't affect Americans. China is paying billions in tariffs instead of those importing from China, and farmers, ranchers, and industrial workers are patriots that will gladly take the hit for Trump.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump's ecnomics is worse than socialist economics tbh.


----------



## Miced2 (Aug 13, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Is anyone surprised by the US backing Al-Qaeda against Assad? It's what they've always done.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump's economics is based on the variables in the GDP equation being independent of each other so reducing deficits is his main goal to increase GDP. :lol

At least everyone get to enjoy the dumping of quality American produce from those hit by China tariffs for the year while farmers take the hit. Next year will be dicey though.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The haters getting triggered about the Presidential emergency broadcast system is another peak of Trump Derangement Syndrome. :lol

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Trump's ecnomics is worse than socialist economics tbh.


Not even close. My goodness.







JUSTICE DEMOCRATS :lol Sellouts. Just like their idol Bernie.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> JUSTICE DEMOCRATS :lol Sellouts. Just like their idol Bernie.


I've been saying this from the beginning. Trying to take over the DNC is a fool's errand. They will never win enough significant seats to take over and those that do win will fold into the machine. It's wasted effort all around. Jimmy has understood this from the start. Kyle, not so much.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I've been saying this from the beginning. Trying to take over the DNC is a fool's errand. They will never win enough significant seats to take over and those that do win will fold into the machine. It's wasted effort all around. Jimmy has understood this from the start. Kyle, not so much.



Oh that is total bullshit lol Its people like you and your thinking that would make it not happen.

It does not have to all happen at once, they just need to pick up enough seats over time to reform the DNC, even if it takes 8-12 years to happen is still better than your logic, dont even bother to try. If people thought like you blacks never would have gotten equal rights and women never would have gotten the ability to vote

The country is also getting more and more progressive, so its only a matter of time before the progressives take over. Change isn't easy.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> China's entrance into the free market.
> 
> This is what an economy without adeqiate labor regulations creates:
> 
> ...


I talked about this a lot a few years ago when I was mentioning suicide nets etc for factories who make things for large American corporations. It's how people buy into corporate virtue signaling, because you cannot just hop in your car and drive down to their factories filled with enslaved brown children making pennies to produce your stuff that you buy. Well sorta, we ignore the illegal slave labor in the US and write it off as "Muricans don't want dem dere jerbs!"

As a society we're addicted to having stuff and having it cheap! Doesn't matter how it happens, it just needs to happen and you fucking better have my goods _or else!_

Capitalism is exploitation which isn't always bad when both parties benefit, where it gets gross is when you combine it with Globalism and you introduce Capitalism to a society that lacks regulations and rights and you effectively turn that nation into your very own plantation. Many third world countries exploited will either A. never develop as long as the Globalist elites run stuff behind the scenes because not going to lose that cheap labor! B. Because the rich of that area exploit the people along with the Globalists. Either way the people are fucked. 

The funniest part will be when Automation, A.I and 3D printing replace this cheap labor and entire Nations fall apart because now the meager source of money from the rich Corporations is now gone. :crying:

You're correct, Western Society does like to virtue signal, it's better than most Societies but it has it's flaws. The West wouldn't virtue signal so much you know, if it actually focused on their own hungry and exploited people that get ignored because, pretending there is no problem and it's all elsewhere is great? :laugh:

PS seen some of your likes and some of them are huge Globalists if I recall. :laugh:


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Christine Blasey Ford's lawyer has proclaimed that she will not testify before Congress until and unless the FBI completes a "full investigation."

This hack fraud can't remember how she got home, can't remember how many boys were allegedly in the room (the therapist wrote down 4 instead of 2, for some reason!), can't remember what the house it allegedly took place in looked like much less its location other than it was _somewhere_ near a country club (of course! what a convenient detail to hit all the right victimology buttons) in Montgomery County, Maryland, _can't even remember what year it was_ (1982 or 1983). 

Now she's saying she'll refuse to testify before Congress until and unless the FBI investigates her half-baked slanders. The obvious reason is that an FBI investigation will push the confirmation vote past the first week of November. And Kavanaugh will be relentlessly smeared with leaks regarding instances of youthful drinking, as if 95% of the populace didn't get shitfaced on a regular basis in between the ages of 16 and 23. 

Time to go full steam ahead, confirm Kavanaugh and send a strong message against this kind of despicable scummy attempt at character assassination on the cheap. Nothing has to be proved. Nothing has to be consistent. Just say some right-wing man attacked you 30 years ago and he's destroyed. That's the standard whose imposition is currently being attempted. These pieces of shit like Feinstein, Hizono and Ford herself need crushed, for the health of the Republic.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Not even close. My goodness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Justice Democrats selling out?! No way!

Oh the shock, trying to break away from the establishment by getting in bed with pro-establishment players and bowing down to special interest groups. Who didn't see that failing?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Justice Democrats selling out?! No way!
> 
> Oh the shock, trying to break away from the establishment by getting in bed with pro-establishment players and bowing down to special interest groups. Who didn't see that failing?


So how exactly did she sellout, I would love to hear your logic on this?

Did you expect her to back the Republican instead in Nov? And the justice democrats are not failing they won about 50% of the primary they were in, that is great for a new wing fo the DNC.

How exactly did she bow down to special interest groups? Is she taking pac money now? If you are going to claim something show evidence.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042033116695670786
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042034269374361600https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-administration-slaps-tariffs-on-roughly-200-billion-more-in-chinese-goods--a-move-almost-certain-to-trigger-retaliation/2018/09/17/15ded2f0-b215-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e12c81f02242
> 
> ...



Remember now, this is how tariffs and economics in general work.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> The haters getting triggered about the Presidential emergency broadcast system is another peak of Trump Derangement Syndrome. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Lol sounds like another smokescreen to distract from actual issues wouldn't you agree? Old fashioned as if it's an airhorn when the Nazis were bombing London.

The main problem I see with it is:



> the President has sole responsibility for determining when the national-level EAS will be activated,” according to FEMA.


http://time.com/5397524/fema-emergency-system-trump-text/

I wouldn't trust the guy to walk my dog, let alone being able to warn of disasters.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The only way we'll know for sure if Daniels is telling the truth is if Trump gets his cock out. If it looks like a deformed mushroom then we'll know she's telling the truth.

Show us your cock Donald!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> The only way we'll know for sure if Daniels is telling the truth is if Trump gets his cock out. If it looks like a deformed mushroom then we'll know she's telling the truth.
> 
> Show us your cock Donald!


Imagine Trump suing her for defamation, and a judge saying, ok Trump come to my chambers and whip out your dick, to see if she is lying or not lol


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

My favourite Stormy Daniels revelation isn't the Mario mushroom penis one, or even that when Hilary called to talk during the republican primary that they discussed "our plan", it's that during said phone call Trump kept losing focus and getting distracted by the sharks in a shark week documentary.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> The only way we'll know for sure if Daniels is telling the truth is if Trump gets his cock out. If it looks like a deformed mushroom then we'll know she's telling the truth.
> 
> Show us your cock Donald!


I'll settle for Trump showing us his tax returns. Thank you very much. Maybe he should hire better auditors to speed things up.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Did you expect her to back the Republican instead in Nov?



How about not endorsing either? It's not like she has to endorse every single Democrat nominee. Could very easily endorse all the ones running on a progressive agenda and just stay silent on the others. Instead, she openly endorsed a Corporate Democrat. People have every right to criticize her for it.

I'm not going to go as far as that she's a sellout at the moment but she's said a number of things that are disconcerting and not all of them happen to be policy issues I disagree with her on.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Like the establishment democrats are not smart enough to intentionally put out candidates that appeal to the socialists simply to get their votes and then put a puppet in congress :mj4

These are the same people that led 3 wars and bombing campaigns in 7 countries during Obama's 8 years and democrat voters have no fucking clue that those wars even happened :mj4


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## SomewhereElse (Sep 27, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> This is nonsense, sorry. You can fulfill this condition by arbitrarily changing your beliefs (which is what Reap does). That's not enlightenment. That's not even thinking.


It's so funny that you (erroneously) claim straw men and preach against ad hominem as if you operate on a high intellectual plane, yet this is pretty much all you've got in the chamber when it comes to taking on what Reap and others are saying about the unfettered free market capitalism you endorse. 

I see nothing persuasive being argued against his actual points. It's just more faux intellect from your political kiddie table.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> How about not endorsing either? It's not like she has to endorse every single Democrat nominee.


This is exactly what I said to some youtube comments. Just don't endorse either. Really simple. I agree about not being a sell out YET, but this is really really poor form.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042431774091968512
Gillum hasn't even won and he's already folding. :lmao


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042431774091968512
> Gillum hasn't even won and he's already folding. :lmao


This is why people should go third party


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> How about not endorsing either? It's not like she has to endorse every single Democrat nominee. Could very easily endorse all the ones running on a progressive agenda and just stay silent on the others. Instead, she openly endorsed a Corporate Democrat. People have every right to criticize her for it.
> 
> I'm not going to go as far as that she's a sellout at the moment but she's said a number of things that are disconcerting and not all of them happen to be policy issues I disagree with her on.


So by not endorsing either, you run the risk of the Republican winning, which is way worse than helping a corp. a democrat win by giving an endorsement. And she is endorsing all the other ones running on a progressive agenda as well, don't act like she isn't. 


At least you admit she is not selling out. If she drops her platform then that would make her a sell out and I would be the first to call her out on that. 

Also whenever anyone asks her how are they going to cover the cost of that 38 trillion, she needs to start pointing out that number is not on top of what it costs now, and she needs to ask the person, well what is the cost now for healthcare and put them on the spot or know what the answer is, then say it will only cost this much more (which is like 2-4 trillion over ten years)


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042480570348044288
#TheResistance

@DOPA Another yes vote from Warren on the military budget.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> The haters getting triggered about the Presidential emergency broadcast system is another peak of Trump Derangement Syndrome. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Dude are you in love with Trump?


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Dude are you in love with Trump?


No he’s mine


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ls-hearing-alleged-kavanaugh-incident-n911111

Accuser's schoolmate says she recalls hearing of alleged Kavanaugh incident
Cristina King Miranda says she recalls it being discussed at their school, but has no first-hand knowledge of the alleged assault by Brett Kavanaugh.


WASHINGTON — A former schoolmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wrote a Facebook post saying she recalls hearing about the alleged assault involving Kavanaugh, though she says she has no first-hand information to corroborate the accuser’s claims.

"Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me," wrote the woman, Cristina Miranda King, who now works as a performing arts curator in Mexico City. "I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen."

She added, "Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine's vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true."

Cristina King MirandaCristina King Mirandavia Twitter
Ford, a research psychologist in Northern California, has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her more than 30 years ago at a drunken high school party. He denies the allegation.

The assertion that other people heard about and discussed an incident between Ford and Kavanaugh at the time it is alleged to have happened could loom as an important factor in any investigation of the claim.

Democrats are calling for the FBI to investigate, but the bureau cannot do so unless the White House asks it to. There is no allegation of a federal crime, so the bureau's role would be to examine the matter as part of its background check into the fitness and character of a Supreme Court nominee.

King has since taken down her Facebook post, which NBC News verified as having appeared on her account. She said on Twitter that she deleted it "because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews … Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading."




How the FBI could investigate the Brett Kavanaugh allegation
SEP.19.201801:33
She later posted on Facebook: "To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus for me. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That's it. I don't have more to say on the subject. Please don't contact me further."

NBC News confirmed that the statements were hers, but did not confirm her allegation. King has also been critical of Trump administration policy on social media.

Ford's lawyer has said she wants the FBI to conduct an inquiry before she testifies in a public hearing. Republicans have scheduled a hearing for Monday at which they want to hear from her and Kavanaugh.

Blasey Ford told The Washington Post that she told no one of the incident "in any detail" until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.




Friend of Kavanaugh accuser speaks in her defense
SEP.19.201805:19
In her original post, King said she knew Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, the man Ford says was present during the alleged assault. Judge has said through his attorney he remembers no such incident.

Recommended

Monday's Kavanaugh-Ford hearing presents peril for both parties

Democrats warn that Republicans are creating another Anita Hill moment
King graduated in 1983 from Holton-Arms, the elite all-female private school that Ford also attended, according to an open letter King and many other alumnae signed in support of Ford.

King's post described a culture of heavy drinking among the students of the elite male and female private schools of Washington, D.C., including her own Holton-Arms and also Georgetown Preparatory School, which Judge and Kavanaugh attended.

Judge has written two memoirs acknowledging his heavy drinking during that period. In his 1997 memoir, "Wasted," Judge writes about a "Bart O'Kavanaugh," who passes out drunk and throws up in a car.




Trump: It would be unfortunate if Kavanaugh accuser doesn't show up for hearing
SEP.19.201801:37
Holton-Arms did not return a call seeking verification of King's attendance. But a 1982 yearbook lists "Cristina King" as a student, and member of the Holton-Arms Athletic Association, an honor society. In her senior year, she led the school chorus as president, according to the 1983 yearbook. "Cristina King was able to keep the chorus members in tune as they trooped up to Hill and Lawrenceville to dazzle the boys with their talent and good looks," the club's yearbook page reads.

Ford appears in both yearbooks as well. She graduated in 1984.

King's LinkedIn page says she attended Brown University and worked for a decade in Washington, D.C. before moving to Mexico.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Can you paraphrase that BM, plz?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042480570348044288
> #TheResistance
> 
> @DOPA Another yes vote from Warren on the military budget.





Bret “Hitman” Hart said:


> Can you paraphrase that BM, plz?



The title does it best


Accuser's schoolmate says she recalls hearing of alleged Kavanaugh incident
Cristina King Miranda says she recalls it being discussed at their school, but has no first-hand knowledge of the alleged assault by Brett Kavanaugh.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042480570348044288
> #TheResistance
> 
> @DOPA Another yes vote from Warren on the military budget.


It's as if you can't get into the congress position without a little dirt on you because otherwise no one will trust you, so then when it comes to military budget votes everyone knows everyone else will vote yes otherwise the skeletons in the closet will dance their way out and career basically over.

It's like an initiation to the mob or something. 'Getting made'. How depressing.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Presented without comment.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042345910993346560
I guess we've heard all this before too, right? :heston

Good job President Trump (both North and South Korea's leaders have heaped praise and credit on Trump for his role in making this happen). Now take that peace-making attitude to the Middle East why don't ya.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042345910993346560
> I guess we've heard all this before too, right? :heston
> 
> Good job President Trump (both North and South Korea's leaders have heaped praise and credit on Trump for his role in making this happen). Now take that peace-making attitude to the Middle East why don't ya.


Better if he took nothing to the Middle East.

They're quite capable of killing each other for the next hundred - or thousand - years without anyone outside getting involved at all. 

If Russia wants to sink up to its thighs in the sand dunes, let it.

If China wants to do the same, let it. 

The only country worth anything is Israel and all the US needs to do there is protect it from the Nazi brigade of countries at the UN, past that Israel is quite capable of protecting itself.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Better if he took nothing to the Middle East.
> 
> They're quite capable of killing each other for the next hundred - or thousand - years without anyone outside getting involved at all.
> 
> ...


Just meant getting us the fuck out rather than prolonging the Syrian civil war by siding with Al-Qaeda :draper2


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Just meant getting us the fuck out rather than prolonging the Syrian civil war by siding with Al-Qaeda :draper2


Then what about Yemen where the CIA is running wild just like in Syria, brotherrr
Then what about Libya where the CIA is running wild just like in Syria and Yemen, BROTHERRR
Then what about Egypt which only isn't Syria because the generals don't fuck around there
Then what about...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Then what about Yemen where the CIA is running wild just like in Syria, brotherrr
> Then what about Libya where the CIA is running wild just like in Syria and Yemen, BROTHERRR
> Then what about Egypt which only isn't Syria because the generals don't fuck around there
> Then what about...


we should make like an under-40 female democrat and abort them all


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042542377519337472
I didn't want to get involved... but I called the Washington Post tip line and sent a letter to my congresswoman who passed it on to Senator Feinstein. At no point did I object to that.

I'm not an active leftist, I'm quite nonpolitical. I just went to an anti-:trump rally in my pussy hat. Nonpolitical people do things like that.

The vote of the Judiciary committee on Kavanaugh's nomination should be delayed until there is a new hearing on the matter by the Judiciary committee. But I won't testify at any such hearing unless there is an FBI investigation (of an alleged non-federal crime) first. 

Oh, and guess what even if there is an investigation, I won't testify at a hearing (under oath) unless the hearing is set up and run in accordance with whatever demands I make today and whatever new demands I'll make tomorrow. And the day after. 

A gal has the right to change her mind, after all!

Also, a hearing where those testifying will do so under oath is simply an unacceptable way to try to discover THE TRUTH of an allegation entirely bereft of physical evidence (i.e, all that there is to go on is the word of the involved parties). Because reasons. 

Fuck this loathsome cunt Christine Blasey Ford.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The US should not give $4 billion to Israel each year. That is a waste of US tax payers money and one of my criticisms of Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042542377519337472
> I didn't want to get involved... but I called the Washington Post tip line and sent a letter to my congresswoman who passed it on to Senator Feinstein. At no point did I object to that.
> 
> I'm not an active leftist, I'm quite nonpolitical. I just went to an anti-:trump rally in my pussy hat. Nonpolitical people do things like that.
> ...


Did they have to begin the statement by saying she was "reluctantly thrust" :done


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Did they have to begin the statement by saying she was "reluctantly thrust" :done


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Did they have to begin the statement by saying she was "reluctantly thrust" :done


"What difference, at this point, does it make?!" - Harridan Hillary

It's all a fucking game to these scum, a game where they decide all the rules. And none of the rules matter anyway because the outcome is already determined - by them - in advance. 

Thankfully, it looks like even Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski are refusing to play. This time.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Rare archival footage from Trump's youth:






Trumpy, you can do stupid things! :lmao


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:mj4


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041681764144410624
:lol


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So by not endorsing either, you run the risk of the Republican winning, which is way worse than helping a corp. a democrat win by giving an endorsement.


If the goal is to simply oppose and beat Trump and the Republicans at all costs then you won't get the change you are supposedly for. Those in charge of the DNC will never support the progressive agenda if you keep propping them. The idea that a Republican is way worse than an establishment Dem. is exactly what they want you to think so you stay in line.



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042480570348044288
> #TheResistance
> 
> @DOPA Another yes vote from Warren on the military budget.


Only 7 people voted against this abomination?! And 6 of them were fucking Republicans :lmao.

Isn't Bernie technically still an Independent too? So basically no Democrats voted against this bill.

#Resistance


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










*Today's scandal*: President Trump hugs child! IMPEACH!!!

- Vic


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> If the goal is to simply oppose and beat Trump and the Republicans at all costs then you won't get the change you are supposedly for. Those in charge of the DNC will never support the progressive agenda if you keep propping them. The idea that a Republican is way worse than an establishment Dem. is exactly what they want you to think so you stay in line.


If the people who replace Trump are the very same losers who allowed for his rise in the first place, another Trump will get elected and the next time he probably won't be an incompetent buffoon. That this concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend is astounding to me.



> Only 7 people voted against this abomination?! And 6 of them were fucking Republicans :lmao.
> 
> Isn't Bernie technically still an Independent too? So basically no Democrats voted against this bill.
> 
> #Resistance


Not a goddamned one of them. And if they were in control right now...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042749252009635842
...the only thing different in this scenario would be the name of the SOS. Dead Yemenis? Fuck 'em. We can't let the MIC lose out on 2b in weapons sales.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> If the people who replace Trump are the very same losers who allowed for his rise in the first place, another Trump will get elected and the next time he probably won't be an incompetent buffoon. That this concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend is astounding to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You make zero sense if you let republicans replace a corp. democrats, it would be even worse, that is why we are in the situation we are now. Using your logic, you would rather have the full Senate be all republicans than have any corp. democrats on it. Oh yeah that would be a great thing, your whole thing of biting off your nose to spite your face has been a huge failure. Trump is a disaster and its because people like you claimed we would be better off with him than Hillary LOL You keep proving over and over again how clueless you are. It's thinking like yours why Trump won and now look at the disaster the country is in and how most countries don't trust the US anymore and look at the US like its a joke


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Mike Pompeo needs to get brain cancer yesterday.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You make zero sense if you let republicans replace a corp. democrats, it would be even worse, that is why we are in the situation we are now. Using your logic, you would rather have the full Senate be all republicans than have any corp. democrats on it. Oh yeah that would be a great thing, your whole thing of biting off your nose to spite your face has been a huge failure. Trump is a disaster and its because people like you claimed we would be better off with him than Hillary LOL You keep proving over and over again how clueless you are. It's thinking like yours why Trump won and now look at the disaster the country is in and how most countries don't trust the US anymore and look at the US like its a joke


The Dems are WORSE than the Republicans. At least you know that the GOP represent conservative values, nearly every democratic country in the world has a conservative party which those who are so inclined can vote for if they lean that way (around 50% of people.) The corporate Dems pretend to be Liberal but aren't, therefore while they are propped up the USA has no party to represent the Liberal minded in their country. They are simply Conservative lite. Why would they change though when they continue to gain support (despite their failure to act according to the liberal values they espouse) and while they continue to rake in $$$ from special interests and Billionaire donors, whom they truly represent.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Also, out of interest, would anybody here be willing to support Rand Paul in a presidential election? I disagree with him on a number of topics, but he seems to be an honest and principled guy, which is rare in politics.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> The Dems are WORSE than the Republicans. At least you know that the GOP represent conservative values, nearly every democratic country in the world has a conservative party which those who are so inclined can vote for if they lean that way (around 50% of people.) The corporate Dems pretend to be Liberal but aren't, therefore while they are propped up the USA has no party to represent the Liberal minded in their country. They are simply Conservative lite. Why would they change though when they continue to gain support (despite their failure to act according to the liberal values they espouse) and while they continue to rake in $$$ from special interests and Billionaire donors, whom they truly represent.


Conservative values as in against gays, women, and minorities, you are right and how is that a good thing?



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Also, out of interest, would anybody here be willing to support Rand Paul in a presidential election? I disagree with him on a number of topics, but he seems to be an honest and principled guy, which is rare in politics.


God no, why would you support him.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Yeah I'm confused how it's worse to be neocon than to be Gop. I mean theyre both shitty but gop are basically neocon AND hate gays, woman's sexual health, contraception etc.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Yeah I'm confused how it's worse to be neocon than to be Gop. I mean theyre both shitty but gop are basically neocon AND hate gays, woman's sexual health, contraception etc.


Not really what conservatism stands for. Nice try kid.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Conservative values as in against gays, women, and minorities, you are right and how is that a good thing?


That's obviously not what I meant, conservative aren't evil, just believe in tackling issues in a different manner... 

Conservative are typically a little slow to adapt to change, as compared to progressives, for example. But I think they are starting to come round on the issues, for instance in the UK it was the Conservative Party (Who I don't support) who legalised Gay marriage (which I do support.) What Conservative values are against Women exactly? I noticed "feminists" recently caused 'Grid girls'/ 'ring girls' /'walk on girls' to lose employment. Is that really a pro-women value, or rather stopping the empowerment of women who have different talents. As for the treatment of minorities, obviously the US is perhaps a more racist country naturally, due to their history etc, but just in my observation their has been a change in recent times, where it seems minorities are more willing to identify themselves as being conservative, and conservatives are at least more willing to espouse their support for pro-minority policy. We've come a long way from the 60's, and we have a long way still to go. Those who support identity politics are taking us in the wrong direction however; their values go totally against the dream of MLK. We should treat each other by the content of our character and not by the colour of our skin. (If as a white male I'm allowed an opinion haha)



birthday_massacre said:


> God no, why would you support him.


I didn't say I would, I was just interested to see if anybody liked him. He's obviously staunchly anti-war, so that's something in his favour.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Yeah I'm confused how it's worse to be neocon than to be Gop. I mean theyre both shitty but gop are basically neocon AND hate gays, woman's sexual health, contraception etc.


As I explained, the existence of the Democratic Party in its current state, means that there will NEVER be a progressive party / President in power. Is that not worse than the existence of a conservative party, something which exists in nearly every democracy in the world?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

IndyTaker said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I'm confused how it's worse to be neocon than to be Gop. I mean theyre both shitty but gop are basically neocon AND hate gays, woman's sexual health, contraception etc.
> ...


That's what the GOP stand for, which is why I said GOP. Get out of the conversation, we don't need you here.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I'm confused how it's worse to be neocon than to be Gop. I mean theyre both shitty but gop are basically neocon AND hate gays, woman's sexual health, contraception etc.
> ...


The democrats need a massive change but I don't buy in to the idea they're worse than the kind of conservatism we see now. Trump is just another fiscally irresponsible warmongerer neocon. We have fake progressives and fake conservatives.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> That's what the GOP stand for, which is why I said GOP. Get out of the conversation, we don't need you here.


You're implying that neocons hate gays, etc.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative values as in against gays, women, and minorities, you are right and how is that a good thing?
> ...


The liberal democrats put that through not the conservatives, there was 127 conservatives who voted for and 136 who voted against.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

IndyTaker said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > That's what the GOP stand for, which is why I said GOP. Get out of the conversation, we don't need you here.
> ...


No. Neocons are interventionist and free market capitalists.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Also, out of interest, would anybody here be willing to support Rand Paul in a presidential election? I disagree with him on a number of topics, but he seems to be an honest and principled guy, which is rare in politics.


I supported Rand Paul in the 2016 race.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> The democrats need a massive change but I don't buy in to the idea they're worse than the kind of conservatism we see now. Trump is just another fiscally irresponsible warmongerer neocon. We have fake progressives and fake conservatives.


That's fair, I disagree, but I can see your point of view. The fake progressives and fake conservatives make it very difficult to truly see what each movement represent. 

Another point though is that you wouldn't have Trump or even the GOP in power in all branches of Government if it weren't for the unpopularity of the corporate Dems. Their existence also pushes the GOP and politics in general to the right. The massive change you desire will never happen though, I'm sorry to say, until Dem voters support a third party such as the Greens (or a new, real Liberal party?) The leaders simply only care about money and power. The same goes for the GOP but that's what you expect, it is somehow even more distasteful when the liberal name is besmirched in such a way.



draykorinee said:


> The liberal democrats put that through not the conservatives, there was 127 conservatives who voted for and 136 who voted against.


Very true, I actually voted Lib Dems in 2015, I felt they did a good job in moderating the Conservatives. (They came last in my constituency though lol) However, 127 voting for gay marriage is huge progress. Without those votes it would not have been passed. As more and more of the_ dinosaurs _ go extinct, 'conservatives' will continue to be more forward thinking on social issues. It will be interesting to see how the left reacts.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> I supported Rand Paul in the 2016 race.


I never understood why he had such a low percentage of the vote, compared to other primary candidates, he always comes across as a really principled guy.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> That's obviously not what I meant, conservative aren't evil, just believe in tackling issues in a different manner...
> 
> Conservative are typically a little slow to adapt to change, as compared to progressives, for example. But I think they are starting to come round on the issues, for instance in the UK it was the Conservative Party (Who I don't support) who legalised Gay marriage (which I do support.) What Conservative values are against Women exactly? I noticed "feminists" recently caused 'Grid girls'/ 'ring girls' /'walk on girls' to lose employment. Is that really a pro-women value, or rather stopping the empowerment of women who have different talents. As for the treatment of minorities, obviously the US is perhaps a more racist country naturally, due to their history etc, but just in my observation their has been a change in recent times, where it seems minorities are more willing to identify themselves as being conservative, and conservatives are at least more willing to espouse their support for pro-minority policy. We've come a long way from the 60's, and we have a long way still to go. Those who support identity politics are taking us in the wrong direction however; their values go totally against the dream of MLK. We should treat each other by the content of our character and not by the colour of our skin. (If as a white male I'm allowed an opinion haha)
> 
> ...


You said the dems are worse than the reps, which is what I was speaking to with my post. How is slowly adapting to change better? You are contracting your point that dems are worse. 

We are talking about the US here not UK and conservatives are against LGBT rights.

What conservative values are against women? Conservatives are against a women's right to choose, they are against planned parenthood, they are against maternity leave. Do I need to go on?

And conservatives are totally against minorities, it's even worse now under Trump. All you have to do is look at how they try to suppress the minority vote as one example.







Hoolahoop33 said:


> As I explained, the existence of the Democratic Party in its current state, means that there will NEVER be a progressive party / President in power. Is that not worse than the existence of a conservative party, something which exists in nearly every democracy in the world?


There will be a progressive party like I said just look at the justice democrats, they won about 50% of the primaries they were in. Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. The country is also getting more and more progressive. If Bernie Sanders runs again, he is going to win and he is a progressive. If Tulis Gabbard runs, she has a great chance at winning the Dem Nomination and both will wipe the floor with Trump (if he even makes it that far) or Pence.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I never understood why he had such a low percentage of the vote, compared to other primary candidates, he always comes across as a really principled guy.


Early on I don't think he was fully being himself, he was trying to appeal to the base of the party which really didn't work out. Once he said fuck it and went all in, his numbers starting going up, the last two debates he was in he came in 2nd behind Trump (one of which Trump wasn't there so really he won that one). But by then it was too late.

To add to the conservative topic: There's really two forms of conservatism we are talking about here.

There's *social conservatism* which is the more traditional viewpoint on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, drug laws etc. That's one part of the GOP which truth be told is shrinking year on year. The evangelical bloc of the party does not hold nearly as much power as they used to. You can't just rely on them to win the nomination. Huckabee and Santorum found that out and that was before gay marriage became federal law and the party was still hugely against it. The US in terms of the Republican party though is still pretty socially conservative compared to European Conservatives who tend to shelve those ideas. But this is just *one part* of conservatism and it doesn't even apply to all Conservatives to be honest, which is why it's disingenuous when people argue all Conservatives hate gays or women or whatever the case may be. It's an extremely redundant argument anyway which actually doesn't address or debunk the arguments made for social conservatism to begin with. Attack their arguments, not their character.

Then there is *fiscal conservatism* which is an adherence to free market economics, the private sector, balanced budgets etc. This one is interesting because in the US's case especially, Conservatives in terms of the politicians fail when it comes to the 3rd part of the equation which is balanced budgets. They don't have the wherewithal to actually stick to their word and cut spending and shrink the size of government which annoys me to no end. Then you have so called Conservatives in the UK who are for a nationalized healthcare service. You'll have claims that the Tories are for private healthcare and have scare stories from the media and from left wingers but in reality those in the Tories who are against the NHS like Daniel Hannan for example are in the minority of the party. The last two leaders of the party those being David Cameron and Theresa May are very much for the NHS. They and the respective health secretaries have done a terrible job handling the health service but they aren't going to dismantle it any time soon. I'm actually to the right of the Tories and UKIP when it comes to healthcare because I want us to have more of a social insurance model like Switzerland, Holland or Germany. 

The healthcare debate is fucked both in the US and the UK, if you are for universal healthcare in the US you are lunatic leftist but if you are against nationalized healthcare in the UK you are a far right asshole. You can't have a reasoned debate about healthcare in the public square, especially in the UK.

The biggest aspect of Conservatism however is something I've wanted to talk about for a while now and addresses why *I don't see myself as a Conservative* despite being called one by some people (not that it offends me but just to put the record straight). Conservatives tend to want to maintain and preserve political systems as they are and ward off and guard against what they perceive as radical change. When it comes to the UK for example, there is a lot I want to change in our political system especially when it comes to the role of Westminster and Central government. I would say that's antithetical to Conservative thought.

Not to mention I reject social conservatism, am against the drug war, for criminal justice reform, and am a non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. I consider myself more a *Classical Liberal* than a Conservative. So Rand Paul, being more libertarian leaning has views which more align with my worldview.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Early on I don't think he was fully being himself, he was trying to appeal to the base of the party which really didn't work out. Once he said fuck it and went all in, his numbers starting going up, the last two debates he was in he came in 2nd behind Trump (one of which Trump wasn't there so really he won that one). But by then it was too late.
> 
> To add to the conservative topic: There's really two forms of conservatism we are talking about here.
> 
> ...


This is a strawman argument, no one says all conservatives hate gays or women. Its the conservative platform that does and that is what people are talking about when they say conservatives hate women or gays.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> This is a strawman argument, *no one says all conservatives hate gays or women.* Its the conservative platform that does and that is what people are talking about when they say conservatives hate women or gays.


Oh trust me, you'll find people who think this way. I've even come across them in the UK.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Oh trust me, you'll find people who think this way. I've even come across them in the UK.


They are not talking in hyperbole? Because if anyone thinks that is true of 100% of any group on any issue, is just dumb.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are not talking in hyperbole? Because if anyone thinks that is true of 100% of any group on any issue, is just dumb.


I wish that was true but in some cases they aren't :lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> I wish that was true but in some cases they aren't :lol.


those people can't be taken seriously and are not even worth debating


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You said the dems are worse than the reps, which is what I was speaking to with my post. How is slowly adapting to change better? You are contracting your point that dems are worse.
> 
> We are talking about the US here not UK and conservatives are against LGBT rights.
> 
> ...


If you believe that having the only major 'liberal' party in the country headed by neo-cons, is not totally counter productive to furthering your agenda, then that's fine. Personally I'd rather have a monster outside of my house, than inside of it but each to their own. In my opinion though, an opposition party is not a bad thing, it's part of democracy, having a party which espouses Liberal views and acts otherwise on the other hand, is dangerous for democracy, as it stifles the votes of the many genuine liberals and progressives across the country. (Perhaps it also explains why the Dems don't control a single branch of Government.

1. Some are but many aren't
2. Being Anti-abortion (which is a debate I stay out of, since I don't believe the decision of others should have anything to do with me) is not anti-woman. It is simply the belief that aborting a fetus is morally wrong. That's not a view a subscribe to, but I can easily understand it. Many Women are against abortion. This view that being against abortion is primarily a crusade against women is just incorrect. They're against maternity leave? Wat?
3. We've had this debate and I think you misconstrued my argument, where I said if it was difficult to obtain an ID then I was against voter ID laws, but that the laws itself weren't racist. 



birthday_massacre said:


> There will be a progressive party like I said just look at the justice democrats, they won about 50% of the primaries they were in. Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. The country is also getting more and more progressive. If Bernie Sanders runs again, he is going to win and he is a progressive. If Tulis Gabbard runs, she has a great chance at winning the Dem Nomination and both will wipe the floor with Trump (if he even makes it that far) or Pence.


Despite this though Bernie lost the primary. The Corporate Dems won't give up without a fight, that's for sure. A new Progressive Party would, I believe, would capture most Democrat voters and eventually (it may take time) become the biggest party in the country. It would be aided by defectors such as Bernie, Gabbard etc.

Trump will run in the 2020 election, believe me :trump:


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> If you believe that having the only major 'liberal' party in the country headed by neo-cons, is not totally counter productive to furthering your agenda, then that's fine. Personally I'd rather have a monster outside of my house, than inside of it but each to their own. In my opinion though, an opposition party is not a bad thing, it's part of democracy, having a party which espouses Liberal views and acts otherwise on the other hand, is dangerous for democracy, as it stifles the votes of the many genuine liberals and progressives across the country. (Perhaps it also explains why the Dems don't control a single branch of Government.
> 
> 1. Some are but many aren't
> 2. Being Anti-abortion (which is a debate I stay out of, since I don't believe the decision of others should have anything to do with me) is not anti-woman. It is simply the belief that aborting a fetus is morally wrong. That's not a view a subscribe to, but I can easily understand it. Many Women are against abortion. This view that being against abortion is primarily a crusade against women is just incorrect. They're against maternity leave? Wat?
> 3. We've had this debate and I think you misconstrued my argument, where I said if it was difficult to obtain an ID then I was against voter ID laws, but that the laws itself weren't racist.



You are not even making sense. Nothing in this post is even what we were talking about, which was your claim Dems are worse than Republicans. So tell me again how Dems are worse than Reps.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Despite this though Bernie lost the primary. The Corporate Dems won't give up without a fight, that's for sure. A new Progressive Party would, I believe, would capture most Democrat voters and eventually (it may take time) become the biggest party in the country. It would be aided by defectors such as Bernie, Gabbard etc.
> 
> Trump will run in the 2020 election, believe me


Sure Bernie lost the primary but that was with almost no name recognition when he started this is now 4 years later where he is the most popular politician int the country, Again you are not making any sense. So do you or do you not believe a progressive party will rise up in the dem. party? 

As for Trump running in 2020, he will be impeached by then.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Early on I don't think he was fully being himself, he was trying to appeal to the base of the party which really didn't work out. Once he said fuck it and went all in, his numbers starting going up, the last two debates he was in he came in 2nd behind Trump (one of which Trump wasn't there so really he won that one). But by then it was too late.
> 
> To add to the conservative topic: There's really two forms of conservatism we are talking about here.
> 
> ...


What a brilliant post! 

I didn't realise that about RP, I'd like to think he could get a pretty decent level of support if he ran in 2024. (If not 2020) Hopefully he will stick by his principles.

You're bang on concerning the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, and you're right in that there are genuinely people out there who think all conservatives hate women, gays, minorities etc.

Interesting point concerning the healthcare debate, especially in the UK. There is clearly a problem with the current system, yet it seems any sort of privatisation is completely off the table. (Including I must admit for me) While I haven't yet looked into it in any great detail, I do feel a universal healthcare system in the UK is still the most desirable, and I think under certain circumstances it can be made *Great Again *  However, I would be open to a privatised system, if the results showed a better level of healthcare and availability/ affordability to all UK citizens. US is just screwed.

I have also been labeled a conservative (and worse lol) and though it doesn't offend me either, I don't really feel as though it represents my views. I haven't really defined myself as belonging to any group, though I suppose I have some right wing view (I favour a merit based immigration system for example) and left wing views (Pro-workers rights, non interventionism, etc.) Mostly, as sad as it is, I just try to recognise who actually cares about the people they are supposed to represent. Rand Paul for instance is clearly a very principled guy who cares about Americans and the constitution. Hillary clearly only cared about being elected.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are not even making sense. Nothing in this post is even what we were talking about, which was your claim Dems are worse than Republicans. So tell me again how Dems are worse than Reps.


It made sense you're just not understanding the point.

The GOP generally represent conservatism right? You don't like conservatism. However, from an objective point of view, every democratic country has a conservative party to represent that viewpoint. Roughly 50% of the population, is therefore represented by the GOP.

The Dems do not represent liberalism, they say they do, but they don't. You like liberalism right? It is not represented right now in US politics. That's bad. It has also meant politics in the US has been shifted to the right of every country in the Western World. From your point of view again, that's bad. It means a large proportion of the population is not represented by the Democratic party (in its current state.) It is therefore worse than the GOP (even though you may prefer the Dem policies) as they do not represent their members views. They suck, which is why they aren't in power.



birthday_massacre said:


> Sure Bernie lost the primary but that was with almost no name recognition when he started this is now 4 years later where he is the most popular politician int the country, Again you are not making any sense. So do you or do you not believe a progressive party will rise up in the dem. party?
> 
> As for Trump running in 2020, he will be impeached by then.


I'm saying that a progressive party cannot rise within the Dem party, 2016 showed that. It needs to come from the outside. If you believe in progressiveness as I believe you do, then you would not vote Dem, but Greens or some other party instead.

How exactly will that happen? There is 0% chance (literally) that the Dems gain enough control of the senate to force impeachment before the 2020 election.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It made sense you're just not understanding the point.
> 
> The GOP generally represent conservatism right? You don't like conservatism. However, from an objective point of view, every democratic country has a conservative party to represent that viewpoint. Roughly 50% of the population, is therefore represented by the GOP.
> 
> ...


Your post did not make sense because you started to talk about something totally different from what you said which is what my reply was speaking to. 

This current post again is not speaking to why Dems are worse than reps which is what you claimed. And yes liberalism is represented in the US by people like Sanders and Gabbard. Just because the corp. dems are not liberal like Clinton, Obama, Booker, Feinstein does not mean no Democrats are. The justice democrat wing are all liberals. 

And even the corp Dems still are way better than the conservatives, it's not even close. At least the corp dems are still somewhat for the middle class, poor, planned parenthood, women's rights, LBGT rights etc etc unlike the GOP.






Hoolahoop33 said:


> I'm saying that a progressive party cannot rise within the Dem party, 2016 showed that. It needs to come from the outside. If you believe in progressiveness as I believe you do, then you would not vote Dem, but Greens or some other party instead.
> 
> How exactly will that happen? There is 0% chance (literally) that the Dems gain enough control of the senate to force impeachment before the 2020 election.
> 
> ...



The progressives are rising up LOL The country is getting more and more progressive and again the justice democrats won 50% of their primaries. It won't happen overnight, but the progressives will take over the DNC in the next decade.

The GOP is going to have to impeach Trump by the time Mueller is done. If you notice more and more reps are slowly turning against Trump. Trump is a criminal and the GOP will have no choice. Plus he is mentally ill. If the GOP wants to save some of their seats in 2020 they will impeach Trump to do so.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Also, out of interest, would anybody here be willing to support Rand Paul in a presidential election? I disagree with him on a number of topics, but he seems to be an honest and principled guy, which is rare in politics.


Rand isn't as principled as his dad and I strongly disagree with him on certain issues, especially when it relates to the economy, but I'd take him over Hillary or any other neocon Dem without a 2nd thought because ending the wars is my top issue. I'll take whoever I can get to start us down a path of non-interventionism, then I can get a lefty later to start fixing things at home.


----------



## Punk_316 (Sep 9, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Punk_316 said:


>




LOL No one projects more than Trump.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL No one projects more than Trump.


Yeah, but Hilary though.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Yeah, but Hilary though.


But usually projecting means what you are projecting about yourself is not true of the other person. In this case, both are guilty of what is being said. So a better term would have been irony, to which I would 100% agree with.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Mike Pompeo lying on behalf of the $2 billion arms sale to the Saudis as well as his duplicitous certification earlier in this month that the Saudi coalition was endeavoring to at least mitigate and preferably decrease harm to Yemeni civilians is genuinely scandalous and he should be fired as soon as possible. _The Wall Street Journal_'s latest piece analyzing the chain of events is both fascinating to read and thoroughly disturbing. This was not some kind of bureaucratic misunderstanding or slip-up: Pompeo made the conscious decision to lie on behalf of the Saudis and Emiratis for fear that arms sales would fall through. Pompeo chose to overrule legitimate concerns from State Department officials who had the temerity to note the ever-escalating civilian death toll in Yemen. Military experts as well as State Department specialists argued that the arms deal should not go through. As the _Journal_'s story contends at risk was the objective of selling over 120,000 precision-guided missiles to the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, corresponding to a State Department memo, significant swaths of text from which became available to the _Journal_. 

At the center of the argument was the concept of cutting off all support including refueling to the Saudi coalition, something which would have made selling weapons to the Saudis and Emiratis a highly arduous task going forward. Interestingly Pompeo's decision only further damages the position of those who seek to sell even more weapons used by governments using them with little, if any, regard to the fate of the civilian population in the middle of the war. 

A majority of State Department officials argued that Pompeo should not execute that which he executed--by itself nothing to be alarmed about but Pompeo's mendacious methods are nevertheless revealing. As the _Journal_ reports,



> The experts argued that certification would "provide no incentive for Saudi leadership to take our diplomatic messaging seriously," and "damage the Department's credibility with Congress," according to portions of the memo shared with The Wall Street Journal.


The State Department may have a sordid history over the past one hundred years but in this instance the majority of its experts were correct, and on both counts. Sadly most State Department officials still argue on behalf of continuing to support the war, just more narrowly. 

On numerous occasions before the 2016 election I said that I would at least strongly consider voting for Jill Stein if she had a chance to win (of course she did not) simply because at least she seemed to be earnest in her opposition to the many wars in which the U.S. is perpetually engaged to varying degrees. Donald Trump will be nearing the two-year mark of his presidency before too long. While his work in certain regions such as the Korean peninsula has been outstanding his foreign policy record to date is deeply uneven and that is being as charitable as possible. At the very least firing Pompeo and ceasing with all of the appointments of George W. Bush retreads (the first great error of his post-election, pre-inauguration stage of gestating, embryonic presidency) would demonstrate that he retains some of the "dangerous" qualities many voters found attractive. It cannot be overstated that most of the U.S.'s corporate media arms have been at their most obsequious and unquestioning--even fleetingly glowing, if only for a few days--of him only when he has positioned himself to look like an international gunslinger with cruise missiles lighting up a nighttime sky. War is the constant toast of the town for those who celebrate the regime.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> Sadly most State Department officials still argue on behalf of continuing to support the war, just more narrowly.


This is a Establishment Democrat response if I've ever seen one. They still want to do the same shit as Republicans, just not quite to the same extremes.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> This is a Establishment Democrat response if I've ever seen one. They still want to do the same shit as Republicans, *just not quite to the same extremes.*


I don't think that there are any degrees of separation between the two parties except those that we are convinced to believe intentionally based on our own sensibilities. 

All they are up there are actors performing for us. Like we empathise with characters on-screen, the politicians are also just acting characters that people will empathize with and be drawn to support. 

The only thing I don't understand is why the illusion even needs to be maintained in the first place.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I don't think that there are any degrees of separation between the two parties except those that we are convinced to believe intentionally based on our own sensibilities.
> 
> All they are up there are actors performing for us. Like we empathise with characters on-screen, the politicians are also just acting characters that people will empathize with and be drawn to support.
> 
> *The only thing I don't understand is why the illusion even needs to be maintained in the first place.*


Maybe the illusion is for them. Most people want to believe they are the hero of their story. Most want to believe they're a good person, or at least not a bad one. Hard to look in a mirror and see a monster staring back.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> *Maybe the illusion is for them.* Most people want to believe they are the hero of their story. Most want to believe they're a good person, or at least not a bad one. Hard to look in a mirror and see a monster staring back.


That is one of the more profound things I've read all day. 

Man I love his thread.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I don't think that there are any degrees of separation between the two parties except those that we are convinced to believe intentionally based on our own sensibilities.
> 
> All they are up there are actors performing for us. Like we empathise with characters on-screen, the politicians are also just acting characters that people will empathize with and be drawn to support.
> 
> The only thing I don't understand is why the illusion even needs to be maintained in the first place.


There are still degrees of separation. One uses lube when they rape you. The other goes in dry.

They put in the effort to maintain the illusion because they still need the consent of the people. The absolute last thing they want is all Americans waking up to the reality of the country we live in. That's kinda why they hate Trump so much. It's not because of his policies. They love his policies. No, they hate Trump because he breaks the illusion. He draws attention to things the rulers of this country would rather keep away from public scrutiny.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> There are still degrees of separation. One uses lube when they rape you. The other goes in dry.
> 
> They put in the effort to maintain the illusion because they still need the consent of the people. The absolute last thing they want is all Americans waking up to the reality of the country we live in. That's kinda why they hate Trump so much. It's not because of his policies. They love his policies. No, they hate Trump because he breaks the illusion. He draws attention to things the rulers of this country would rather keep away from public scrutiny.


What that this country is a shithole and has no future and should not be viewed as a civilized first world country?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

virus21 said:


>


What a game that is though.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

These conservatives... Why in the blue hell everytime Donald Trump does something you all feel the need to deflect from it by covering Trump stupidity with post like But-But Hillary But-But Obama waaaah!

Listen up if Obama and Hillary made so much mistakes why in the fuck conservatives are making even worse mistakes and refuse to learn from liberals mistakes. 

I don't understand. Stop defending Trump's garbage if the man is wrong then the man is wrong stop deflecting and placing the blame on someone else. He's a fucking incompetent buffoon and a con artist stop with the bullshit and gas lighting already.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



God Of Anger Juno said:


> These conservatives... Why in the blue hell everytime Donald Trump does something you all feel the need to deflect from it by covering Trump stupidity with post like But-But Hillary But-But Obama waaaah!
> 
> *Listen up if Obama and Hillary made so much mistakes why in the fuck conservatives are making even worse mistakes and refuse to learn from liberals mistakes. *
> 
> I don't understand. Stop defending Trump's garbage if the man is wrong then the man is wrong stop deflecting and placing the blame on someone else. He's a fucking incompetent buffoon and a con artist stop with the bullshit and gas lighting already.


Because neither side thinks they make mistakes and because they always think one side is worse than the other when they're two sides to the same shit stained coin.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Because neither side thinks they make mistakes and because they always think one side is worse than the other when they're two sides to the same shit stained coin.


Understandable. 

There's a reason as to why I'm neither a republican or a liberal. In my honest opinion I believe both parties are completely toxic and have lost sight of what's really important. Power corrupts but corrupted power corrupts absolute. For every dumb decision these two parties make or disagree with, is the poor and the middle class population that suffers the consequences. 

People like that, shouldn't be in high positions that affect others at all. Politics is just bullshit. Politics only suits those with power and money.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Because neither side thinks they make mistakes and because they always think one side is worse than the other when they're two sides to the same shit stained coin.


But one side (GOP) is worse than the other and its not even close. The GOP are a bunch of monsters when it comes to women, children, minorities, poor etc

let's not kid ourselves here


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

An awkward reminder that when people are given the freedom to choose freely they don't always choose wisely.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> But one side (GOP) is worse than the other and its not even close. The GOP are a bunch of monsters when it comes to women, children, minorities, poor etc
> 
> let's not kid ourselves here


You spend your entire day hating on conservatives while acting like liberals have it right on everything. You remind me of those brainwashed Party members in 1984. I'm socially conservative but I *don't *support aiding Israel, tax cuts for the rich and big military spending. I also believe in background checks for gun ownership.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Another sold out crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada!

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> Another sold out crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada!
> 
> - Vic


How many people did he pay to fill out the crowd this time


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






:bjpenn

All 6 of your siblings turning against you, savage. Must be a real scumbag.

MY favourite bit is the Brill at the end saying I approve this message, I bet you fucking do lol.

(I have no idea who either of these guys are and who I would support FWIW)


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Pratchett - You retweeted this on Twitter. I hope you don't mind if I use this as a launching pad to enlighten people of something else: 










This is just one of the many devilish experiments the US government has run on its own citizens over the years. They have done everything from torturing psychiatric patients in order to create CIA torture manuals to impacts of nuclear fallout on its own citizens (these are facts, not conspiracies). 

Currently, the US government is still engaged in heinous experimentation using psychiatric drugs on foster children that are still in the system where its show that foster kids have been given psychiatric drugs at significantly higher rates than exist in normal pediatric populations. Something that people simply do not know. 

There were programs run all over the country where children were screened for mental illnesses and put on drugs on the recommendation of State run schools based on these government sanctioned programs which are lobbied for by Pharmaceutical funds as well as individuals in government with direct financial ties to pharmaceutical funding. 

You also need to realize that the DSM V itself is a pile of unscientific crap (anyone who's interested should go an look at how they create the DSM to see how unscientific it actually is) and then put it all together you'll finally figure out what the heck is going on with regards to today's children's social and mental problems. It's not that mental illness has suddenly become a major issue, it's partly that the drugs themselves being given to these children are directly causing the symptoms of the very diseases those drugs are pretending to treat. 

So yah .. point is that this human experimentation never really stopped. Instead of just experimenting even, they're now simply directly administring drugs that most kids do not even need because they've listed 100's of normal behaviors as mental disorders in the DSM.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042156417577365505What planet am I on?


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Tide Pod World.

- Vic


----------



## BringHoganBack (May 27, 2018)

*What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*

I think it's a combination of these 3

1- Moving the embassy to Jerusalem. After eight years of dumbama treating Israel like garbage, President Trump showed he wasn't afraid to do the right thing and recognized Jerusalem as the true capitol of Israel. Thank God we have a President that will protect Israel again.

2-Ending dumbama's regulations that prevented economic growth. The economy is booming under President Trump because he ended the stupid regulations that dumbama put in place. Those regulations were designed to shut down mills and common jobs so more people would depend on the government thus giving dumbama and his demons more power.

3- The tax cut which has fueled the American economy even more. We have not had this much growth and good times since the great tax cut that was given to the American people by President Reagan. Jobs are coming back that dumbama claimed was gone forever.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*

1 - Convincing a decent section of the American public that the previous administration, including things that the previous administration wasn't even vaguely responsible for, was an unmitigated disaster. See above.

2 - Managing to balance convincing the faux-objectivists who have been convinced to buy into an anti-PC narrative to vote for him while simultaneously maintaining the votes of the Evangelicals, despite the fact that the two philosophies are literally unreconcilable. 

3 - Convincing both his supporters and his enemies that anything about his base level economic policies are particularly radical, as opposed to entirely standard right-leaning fare that will always return some short term benefits while being very likely to cause long term negative consequences.


----------



## BringHoganBack (May 27, 2018)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



ipickthiswhiterose said:


> 1 - Convincing a decent section of the American public that the previous administration, including things that the previous administration wasn't even vaguely responsible for, was an unmitigated disaster. See above.
> 
> 2 - Managing to balance convincing the faux-objectivists who have been convinced to buy into an anti-PC narrative to vote for him while simultaneously maintaining the votes of the Evangelicals, despite the fact that the two philosophies are literally unreconcilable.
> 
> 3 - Convincing both his supporters and his enemies that anything about his base level economic policies are particularly radical, as opposed to entirely standard right-leaning fare that will always return some short term benefits while being very likely to cause long term negative consequences.


LOL Thanks for the comedic reading. By the way, right leaning policies are always BEST for the short and long term. Just ask clinton how he used the 1977 community reinvestment act to cause the great recession while Bush was in office.


----------



## V. Skybox (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



ipickthiswhiterose said:


> 1 - Convincing a decent section of the American public that the previous administration, including things that the previous administration wasn't even vaguely responsible for, was an unmitigated disaster. See above.
> 
> 2 - Managing to balance convincing the faux-objectivists who have been convinced to buy into an anti-PC narrative to vote for him while simultaneously maintaining the votes of the Evangelicals, despite the fact that the two philosophies are literally unreconcilable.
> 
> 3 - Convincing both his supporters and his enemies that anything about his base level economic policies are particularly radical, as opposed to entirely standard right-leaning fare that will always return some short term benefits while being very likely to cause long term negative consequences.


You forgot 4. Lowered levels of national and international confidence in the office of POTUS in ways that Bush, Nixon, etc. could only dream of.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



BringHoganBack said:


> I think it's a combination of these 3
> 
> 1- Moving the embassy to Jerusalem. After eight years of dumbama treating Israel like garbage, President Trump showed he wasn't afraid to do the right thing and recognized Jerusalem as the true capitol of Israel. Thank God we have a President that will protect Israel again.
> 
> ...


2. You mean the regulations that protect consumers, workers and the environment? What regulations do you think were dumb?

3. The tax cuts are going to crash in the economy just like they did under Bush, and every other time the rich gets huge tax cuts. Its going to kill us.


----------



## Bliss World Order (Jul 25, 2018)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*

He's given us record low unemployment rates and is protecting our country from terrorists. He's doing wonders to fix and maintain relationships with other countries, doing what many have tried and failed before in working things out with North Korea. All things considered, Trump is easily the best president we've had since Clinton.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



Bliss World Order said:


> He's given us record low unemployment rates and is protecting our country from terrorists. He's doing wonders to fix and maintain relationships with other countries, doing what many have tried and failed before in working things out with North Korea. All things considered, Trump is easily the best president we've had since Clinton.


LOL Unemployment was already going down under Obama at record lows, unemployment (job growth) has slowed under Trump as well has their pay. 

And Trump is the biggest disaster as president, its a joke anyone would claim he is better than Obama. And Trump is ruining the US relationship with almost every country in the world, except the ones with dictators IE Russia and N. Korea and that is because they are playing Trump like the idiot he is.


----------



## BringHoganBack (May 27, 2018)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



birthday_massacre said:


> 2. You mean the regulations that protect consumers, workers and the environment? What regulations do you think were dumb?
> 
> 3. The tax cuts are going to crash in the economy just like they did under Bush, and every other time the rich gets huge tax cuts. Its going to kill us.


Those regulations didn't do any of those things genius. They hurt consumers and workers, the liberal elite do not want jobs for the common person, they want everyone to lean on the government so they can have absolute power. The environment is just another boogeyman topic the loony left use to control people with no common sense. Isn't Florida already supposed to be under water by now??? You do know that records go back over a hundred years and those same records prove that weather moves in cycles? Reagan's tax cuts brought us the booming late 80's and 90's which clinton benefited from and now President Trump's tax cuts are providing another boom. Educate yourself. God Bless President Trump for cleaning up dumbama's mess.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*

Worked millions of marks like OP to vote for him. He definitely learned it from Vince.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



BringHoganBack said:


> Those regulations didn't do any of those things genius. They hurt consumers and workers, the liberal elite do not want jobs for the common person, they want everyone to lean on the government so they can have absolute power. The environment is just another boogeyman topic the loony left use to control people with no common sense. Isn't Florida already supposed to be under water by now??? You do know that records go back over a hundred years and those same records that weather moves in cycles? Reagan's tax cuts brought us the booming late 80's and 90's which clinton benefited from and now President Trump's tax cuts are providing another boom. Educate yourself. God Bless President Trump for cleaning up dumbama's mess.


Yes the regulations did help workers and safety. Here is just one example of Trump killing a regulation that helped worker safety https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/03/trumps-worker-safety-regulations-protections-unions-806008 

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about since you don't even know the difference between climate and weather. But why am I not surprised. 

LOL at saying Clinton benefited from Regans tax cuts, you really are clueless, the GOP put us in a recession because of all their tax cuts and Clinton is the one who pulled us out. You really don't know what you are talking about on anything, do you? Trumps tax cuts are not providing a boom, all that is happening is all the rich CEOs are doing stock buybacks to artificially inflate the stockmarket, and it's going to burst and put us in a recession. That is what always happens. The only one here that needs to educated themselves is you.




PrettyLush said:


> Worked millions of marks like OP to vote for him. He definitely learned it from Vince.


Like Trump said, he loves the uneducated.


----------



## Nolo King (Aug 22, 2006)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*

The biggest accomplishment is temporarily halting America from losing it's national identity by having a leader that embodies Americana. Going against a globalist agenda which ignores the principles that got America to the level it is currently at will only lead to the nation's uprise. 

Liberal ideology goes against American principles such as the family unit, inviting only migrants that will contribute positively, and looking at ALL legal citizens as nothing more than Americans. Trump took a class of people that are snickered at by elitist liberals and gave them a voice because these "lower class" people understand better than most what it means to be a TRUE patriot. As oppose to a pompous metropolitan citizen more concerned about running out of overpriced coffee than being out in the fields harvesting products that will feed families or working tirelessly in coal mines that produce clean burning energy to millions. 

Having a platform based on results rather than identity is very crucial to a productive society, something that the Republic party in its current state understands. Unfortunately, a lot of people still fall for this liberal mindset of not looking at the behaviours of individuals, but by dividing them based on irrelevant physical characteristics. 

Yes, Trump does break down his administrations economic success into demographics, but it's a result of some groups only digesting this information when it pertains to their "people." Too many citizens fall into the trap of a focusing primarily on a politicians physical appearance or "coolness" instead of the long-term effects of certain policies. 

Finally, following a foreign policy that is welcoming and stern where appropriate. Guys like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin may be argued to be vile people, but it's still important to have a healthy dialogue. The alternative is war and bickering that only leads to destruction. It's the reason why I can't respect influential people who refuse to have discussions with the very people that can implement the changes they claim to want, in a vain attempt to get brownie points from the media. 

Then you have the stern approach towards countries such as Canada who have been getting a much better benefit from past agreements. This administration is doing an amazing job of securing trade deals that benefit the American people, first and foremost.

Bonus: Replacing Spicer with the vivacious, often seductive, Sarah Huckabee Sanders.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



Nolo King said:


> The biggest accomplishment is temporary halting America from losing it's national identity by having a leader that embodies Americana. Going against a globalist agenda which ignores the principles that got America to the level it is currently at will only lead to the nation's downfall. Liberal ideology goes against American principles such as the family unit, inviting only migrants that will contribute positively, and looking at ALL legal citizens as nothing more than Americans.
> 
> )


But he does not embody most amercans. Just the racists. And no liberal ideology does not against American principles LOL Not to mention the country is becoming more and more liberal. Where do you come up with this nonsense? Fox News? InfoWars?




Nolo King said:


> Having a platform based on results rather than identity is very crucial to a productive society, something that the Republic party in its current state understands. Unfortunately, a lot of people still fall for this liberal mindset of not looking at the behaviours of individuals, but by dividing them based on irrelevant physical characteristics. Yes, Trump does break down his administrations economic success into demographics, but it's a result of some groups only digesting this information when it pertains to their "people." Too many citizens fall into the trap of a politicians physical appearance or "coolness" instead of the long-term effects of certain policies.
> 
> 
> )


Trump has barely gotten any results and none of them have been helped the US be more productive, it's doing the exact opposite. What Trump is doing is going to crash the economy, and just make the middle class and poor, even worse off.



Nolo King said:


> Finally, following a foreign policy that is welcoming and stern where appropriate. Guys like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin may be argued to be vile people, but it's still important to have a healthy dialogue. The alternative is war and bickering that only leads to destruction. It's the reason why I can't respect influential people who refuse to have discussions with the very people that can implement the changes they claim to want in order to get brownie points from the media. Then you have the stern approach towards countries such as Canada who have been getting a much better benefit from past agreements. This administration is doing an amazing job of securing trade deals that benefit the American people, first and foremost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How is Trump's foreign policy welcoming? What world are you living in? He is alienating the US from the rest of the world. Its trade wars have already been a disaster, not to mention most countries don't even trust the US anymore because of Trump

You need to stop listening to the fox news propaganda, nothing you said is even remotely true


----------



## WalkingInMemphis (Jul 7, 2014)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



Bliss World Order said:


> He's given us record low unemployment rates and is protecting our country from terrorists.


You mean the terrorists that are born and raised here that manage to shoot up schools and workplaces every other week? Great job.



Bliss World Order said:


> He's doing wonders to fix and maintain relationships with other countries, doing what many have tried and failed before in working things out with North Korea.


World leaders are laughing at him behind his back. He seeks adoration from dictators because he wants to be like them. His palms must be chafed from the non-stop hand jobs to Putin. Besides that, we manage to alienate fucking Canada of all countries with made-up trade wars. Kim Jong Un is playing Trump like a fiddle and has no intentions on getting rid of their nuclear program.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



Nolo King said:


> The biggest accomplishment is temporarily halting America from losing it's national identity by having a leader that embodies Americana.


Uncle Sam embodies Americana. Superman embodies Americana. Donald Trump embodies the tycoon archetype. 



Nolo King said:


> Going against a globalist agenda


Absolutely nothing contained in Trump's short-term protectionist strategy is designed to do anything about globalisation. 



Nolo King said:


> which ignores the principles that got America to the level it is currently at


The chief principle that got America to where it's at is "Give me your huddled masses....". There are over 200 nations in the world and America is the ONLY one that SPECIFICALLY is based on the principle of globalisation and melting pot cultural dynamics.




Nolo King said:


> Liberal ideology goes against American principles such as the family unit,


Divorce rates are no lower in left leaning countries than right. Donald Trump has been divorced multiple times. Your statement here comes with no facts or figures whatsoever.



Nolo King said:


> inviting only migrants that will contribute positively, and looking at ALL legal citizens as nothing more than Americans.


Donald Trump can be attributed with many qualities, but foresight is one that I'm pretty sure has eluded him. There are no laws that afford more rights to one group than another.



Nolo King said:


> Trump took a class of people that are snickered at by elitist liberals and gave them a voice because these "lower class" people understand better than most what it means to be a TRUE patriot.


Trump believes that these people should work in relatively unregulated conditions with uncapped pay restrictions. He has a track record abroad of doing whatever he can to maintain the cheapest labour costs. Coercing desperate people that they have false hope isn't what it takes to be a patriot. 




Nolo King said:


> As oppose to a pompous metropolitan citizen more concerned about running out of overpriced coffee


We'll keep this for later*



Nolo King said:


> than being out in the fields harvesting products that will feed families or working tirelessly in coal mines that produce clean burning energy to millions.


Donald Trump facilitates, and has worked all his life, in a system that treats blue collar workers as pawns. 



Nolo King said:


> Having a platform based on results rather than identity


That's literally the opposite to what you were saying at the top of this argument.



Nolo King said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of people still fall for this liberal mindset of not looking at the behaviours of individuals, but by dividing them based on irrelevant physical characteristics.


I'm not even sure what you are talking about here. The 'liberal mindset' is to improve worker conditions, regulate industries to a safe standard, and mostly ensure that everyone has an opportunity for education, health, protection and transport, rather than dividing them based on irrelevant (when it comes to fundamental human decency) economic characteristics. 



Nolo King said:


> Too many citizens fall into the trap of a focusing primarily on a politicians physical appearance or "coolness"


But you claim that Trump embodies Americana. Your first point was literally entirely based around style rather than substance. 



Nolo King said:


> instead of the long-term effects of certain policies.


We're ten years removed from a massive economic crash that was caused by deregulation, corporate greed and hucksterism. Those are the same 'certain policies' that you are praising now just because of the short-term gains, which are also the same short term gains as happened last time. 



Nolo King said:


> Finally, following a foreign policy that is welcoming and stern where appropriate.


'Appropriate' being defined by whether you are nice to the president or not. Forgive me, but the idea of a person as easy to butter up as Trump is isn't someone that I would want on foreign policy.




Nolo King said:


> Guys like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin may be argued to be vile people, but it's still important to have a healthy dialogue. The alternative is war and bickering that only leads to destruction.


Agreed. But there is literally nobody taking a political position against this statement. 

Also your desire to emphasise healthy dialogue goes against your entire demonising and straw manning of liberals over the course of this entire post, as tagged * above.




Nolo King said:


> Then you have the stern approach towards countries such as Canada who have been getting a much better benefit from past agreements. This administration is doing an amazing job of securing trade deals that benefit the American people, first and foremost.


Any trade deal that Trump has negotiated is way, way, way too recent to start assessing the efficacy of. You actually indicated that you understood this above.


----------



## BringHoganBack (May 27, 2018)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



birthday_massacre said:


> But he does not embody most amercans. Just the racists. And no liberal ideology does not against American principles LOL Not to mention the country is becoming more and more liberal. Where do you come up with this nonsense? Fox News? InfoWars?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just those darn racists amrite liberal? LOL LOL LOL Keep drinking the fake news from cnn LOL Actually, I meet more young people now from age 18 to 26 that lean more conservative than liberal and it really has nothing to do with President Trump. They are turned off just how batshit crazy you guys have became after the election. 

You guys keep saying the economy is going to crash, the economy is going to crash, the economy is going to crash. LOL I guess if you wish it enough it may happen amrite liberal? LOL I actually know people that have an actual clue about this sort of stuff without any political slant and this is the strongest economy since......well....since President Reagan. You're right about one thing...the rest of the world doesn't like President Trump...because they don't have a pansy piece of trash in office anymore they can boss around. 

Say what you want about us. Call us racists. Call us deplorable. Call us stupid. Regardless of your stupidity we ARE one thing. We are American voters and we are not afraid of the great liberal lie and we will stand up against it.


----------



## Nolo King (Aug 22, 2006)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



birthday_massacre said:


> But he does not embody most amercans. Just the racists. And no liberal ideology does not against American principles LOL Not to mention the country is becoming more and more liberal. Where do you come up with this nonsense? Fox News? InfoWars?


There is nothing about Trump's cabinet that endorses racism. Who am I racist towards for being a Trump supporter? Trump supporters aren't just one group of people, his base represents a wide array of ethnicities. More importantly, Trump's base represents AMERICA.

Are there racist Trump supporters? Of course, but there are also racist liberal voters as well. In fact, if I were racist towards chocolate people I'd love the Democrats since they encourage those people to be dependent on the government and blame the white man for their bad decision making. To label every Trump supporter as evil is a childish way to look at things. 

Tell me a Trump policy that is inherently racist. I have a good idea what you're going to say since I've had many debates with liberals, but I hope you would have valid proof instead. 

Liberal ideology in its current state does go against American principles because it is teaching the majority (caucasian) to be ashamed of their heritage to avoid being labelled as racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc. It goes back to my point about identity politics over individual contributions. 

It's acceptable now for the media to tell white people how evil they are, or for colleges to implement days where white people can't show up to campus. A major newspaper hired an openly evil Asian woman because her offensive tweets were directed to white people. 

We are even seeing CEO's of huge corporations being shunned for merely uttering a slur in a completely innocent context because of their melanin levels. That's not really an America people should be striving towards. 

America had a very strong identity until it became too left leaning. There is no issue with having people migrate, but they must be willing to adopt the basic principles of the land they are migrating to. Paris is an excellent example of a place I visited in 2010 and really felt like I was in France. Currently, their immigration policy has changed the entire landscape negatively. You can't even enjoy the Eiffel Tower the way you could previously because of terrible immigration policies.



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has barely gotten any results and none of them have been helped the US be more productive, it's doing the exact opposite. What Trump is doing is going to crash the economy, and just make the middle class and poor, even worse off.


The job growth, rise in wages and lowering of unemployment can not be denied. It's understandable that people are fearful of a crash occurring, but I'm sure the Trump administration will learn from the mistakes of Bush's cabinet. Neither of us can honestly predict that a crash is certain as there are many factors in play. 

People rag on the higher class, but they got there for a reason. They create jobs and innovate. You and I are having this discussion from different parts of the globe because somebody developed the technology and is now higher class as a result. It's basic economics. 

Individuals that are poor and middle class can move up in classes. If they are willing to put the work, make wise decisions and have something to add to the market they will see a spike in income. 

If you want to push out more children with different partners despite having a low wage job or don't want to work in general, don't be surprised if you end up with a dire financial status.



birthday_massacre said:


> How is Trump's foreign policy welcoming? What world are you living in? He is alienating the US from the rest of the world. Its trade wars have already been a disaster, not to mention most countries don't even trust the US anymore because of Trump


Trump has made better progress than any other American leader with North Korean by being open to dialogue and having an agreement. The long term result is unknown, but that very act is miles ahead of others. 

There is a difference between alienating and being a respected ally. Trump is showing other nations he will not be toyed around with. These countries need America much more than America needs them. America has a desirable enough leverage to play hardball. Other countries may not like the idea of no longer having their feet pampered by an American president, but they will respect America if they have any sense.



birthday_massacre said:


> You need to stop listening to the fox news propaganda, nothing you said is even remotely true


I watch and read news whether it is left or right leaning, focusing only on the factual results of Trump's policies. I don't care about who he slept with or the rantings of some obese contributor who only gets invited for a network discussion to checkmark it's diversity criteria. 

Every network peddles propaganda, it's up to the viewer to filter the information and deal with the facts. I don't need any news outlet to confirm my values, I just want the facts. Hopefully I've made that clear.  

Do I find myself more inclined to watch the likes of Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Greg Gutfield, Owen Shroyer, David Menzies or Laura Ingraham? Of course. However, I am willing to watch other left leaning hosts to see things from their perspective.

There are some things about conservatism I don't completely agree with, but I can not dispute that it's a much better way to run an economy. Neither of us truly know for sure when a crash is happening, but shit's doing quite well right now.


----------



## BringHoganBack (May 27, 2018)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



Nolo King said:


> There is nothing about Trump's cabinet that endorses racism. Who am I racist towards for being a Trump supporter? Trump supporters aren't just one group of people, his base represents a wide array of ethnicities. More importantly, Trump's base represents AMERICA.
> 
> Are there racist Trump supporters? Of course, but there are also racist liberal voters as well. In fact, if I were racist towards chocolate people I'd love the Democrats since they encourage those people to be dependent on the government and blame the white man for their bad decision making. To label every Trump supporter as evil is a childish way to look at things.
> 
> ...


You are my hero...right behind President Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



BringHoganBack said:


> Just those darn racists amrite liberal? LOL LOL LOL Keep drinking the fake news from cnn LOL Actually, I meet more young people now from age 18 to 26 that lean more conservative than liberal and it really has nothing to do with President Trump. They are turned off just how batshit crazy you guys have became after the election.
> 
> You guys keep saying the economy is going to crash, the economy is going to crash, the economy is going to crash. LOL I guess if you wish it enough it may happen amrite liberal? LOL I actually know people that have an actual clue about this sort of stuff without any political slant and this is the strongest economy since......well....since President Reagan. You're right about one thing...the rest of the world doesn't like President Trump...because they don't have a pansy piece of trash in office anymore they can boss around.
> 
> Say what you want about us. Call us racists. Call us deplorable. Call us stupid. Regardless of your stupidity we ARE one thing. We are American voters and we are not afraid of the great liberal lie and we will stand up against it.


I dont watch CNN LOL nice try. And sorry to break it to you but way more young people are liberal than conservative, but don't let the facts get in the way of your ignorance.

Trump just gave his tax cuts not even a couple of months ago, and every time the rich get huge tax cuts, we get a crash. It's not the best economy since Reagan, stop going by GDP its a flawed number. If they actually knew anything they would tell you that.

Trump is a joke to the rest of the world, and he Putins bitch, Putin is bossing Trump around. Its cute you think Trump isn't a pansy when he is crying on twitter every day about someone that said anything bad about him. I have never seen a bigger snowflake than Trump. And that is your hero lol

What exactly is the great liberal lie? I would love to hear this one


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



Nolo King said:


> There is nothing about Trump's cabinet that endorses racism. Who am I racist towards for being a Trump supporter? Trump supporters aren't just one group of people, his base represents a wide array of ethnicities. More importantly, Trump's base represents AMERICA.
> 
> Are there racist Trump supporters? Of course, but there are also racist liberal voters as well. In fact, if I were racist towards chocolate people I'd love the Democrats since they encourage those people to be dependent on the government and blame the white man for their bad decision making. To label every Trump supporter as evil is a childish way to look at things.
> 
> ...


You have to be kidding me, Trump, Sessions and Pence are three of the biggest racists there are. We have been over all this before, go back and read this thread, you will find plenty of examples





Nolo King said:


> Liberal ideology in its current state does go against American principles because it is teaching the majority (caucasian) to be ashamed of their heritage to avoid being labelled as racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc. It goes back to my point about identity politics over individual contributions.
> 
> It's acceptable now for the media to tell white people how evil they are, or for colleges to implement days where white people can't show up to campus. A major newspaper hired an openly evil Asian woman because her offensive tweets were directed to white people.
> 
> ...


No it does lol You are just making a strawman argument. As for all the other BS you are saying, you really do watch way too much fox news and Infowars. I can't even take you seriously when you say things like this lol




Nolo King said:


> We are even seeing CEO's of huge corporations being shunned for merely uttering a slur in a completely innocent context because of their melanin levels. That's not really an America people should be striving towards.
> 
> America had a very strong identity until it became too left leaning. There is no issue with having people migrate, but they must be willing to adopt the basic principles of the land they are migrating to. Paris is an excellent example of a place I visited in 2010 and really felt like I was in France. Currently, their immigration policy has changed the entire landscape negatively. You can't even enjoy the Eiffel Tower the way you could previously because of terrible immigration policies.
> 
> .


So you think someone saying a racial slur is innocent lol And OHHH I see what you are mad about now, you mean America had a WHITE identity until it got too left-leaning which includes everyone. Now I see why you are so upset lol




Nolo King said:


> The job growth, rise in wages and lowering of unemployment can not be denied. It's understandable that people are fearful of a crash occurring, but I'm sure the Trump administration will learn from the mistakes of Bush's cabinet. Neither of us can honestly predict that a crash is certain as there are many factors in play.
> 
> People rag on the higher class, but they got there for a reason. They create jobs and innovate. You and I are having this discussion from different parts of the globe because somebody developed the technology and is now higher class as a result. It's basic economics.
> 
> ...


You can't even be honest. Job grown is slowing down, and wages are down, you really do need to start using the facts because you keep destroying your credibility when you are lying. Trumps tax cuts did NOTHING for the middle class nor did it give anyone raises. Not to mention most of the jobs being added are shitty part time jobs.

And dont give me that bullshit people in the poor and middle class can move up if they work hard. a lot of people in the middle class and working poor are working 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. 

YOu are not even living in reality



Nolo King said:


> Trump has made better progress than any other American leader with North Korean by being open to dialogue and having an agreement. The long term result is unknown, but that very act is miles ahead of others.
> 
> There is a difference between alienating and being a respected ally. Trump is showing other nations he will not be toyed around with. These countries need America much more than America needs them. America has a desirable enough leverage to play hardball. Other countries may not like the idea of no longer having their feet pampered by an American president, but they will respect America if they have any sense.
> 
> ...


NK is playing Trump like a fiddle and Trump is too stupid to see it. They were supposed to have denuked NK months ago then Trump again just a week ago said oh this time they really are lol 

No one respects Trump, you don't honestly think world leaders respect Trump do you? They view him as a joke. And you are wrong if you think they need America more than America needs them. ONce again you show you hae no clue what you are talking about You really need to stop watching fox news and infowars



Nolo King said:


> I watch and read news whether it is left or right leaning, focusing only on the factual results of Trump's policies. I don't care about who he slept with or the rantings of some obese contributor who only gets invited for a network discussion to checkmark it's diversity criteria.
> 
> Every network peddles propaganda, it's up to the viewer to filter the information and deal with the facts. I don't need any news outlet to confirm my values, I just want the facts. Hopefully I've made that clear.
> 
> ...


You admitting this shows you have zero crediblity in anything you say. 


If you really did just pay attention to the facts then you wouldn't be claiming 90% of what you have claimed since they go against the facts. But like your hero's lawyer says truth isn't the truth to you guys

At least I know not to even bother with you anymore since you get your info from people like Alex Jones


----------



## BringHoganBack (May 27, 2018)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



birthday_massacre said:


> I dont watch CNN LOL nice try. And sorry to break it to you but way more young people are liberal than conservative, but don't let the facts get in the way of your ignorance.
> 
> Trump just gave his tax cuts not even a couple of months ago, and every time the rich get huge tax cuts, we get a crash. It's not the best economy since Reagan, stop going by GDP its a flawed number. If they actually knew anything they would tell you that.
> 
> ...


You do realize that dumbama based the health of the economy on GDP don't you??? After reading this and several other of your remarks it's obvious you're just not that smart so I won't be wasting anymore time with. Just remember that at the end of the day it's people like me that hire people like you. Pitching a fit to get your way doesn't work in the real world. Better straighten up.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



BringHoganBack said:


> You do realize that dumbama based the health of the economy on GDP don't you??? After reading this and several other of your remarks it's obvious you're just not that smart so I won't be wasting anymore time with. Just remember that at the end of the day it's people like me that hire people like you. Pitching a fit to get your way doesn't work in the real world. Better straighten up.


Obama's economy is not based on GDP for how well he did. Don't get the facts get in the way of your ignorance. And are you going to disagree with me that GPD is a flawed number to use for how well the economy is doing? 

You really don't like facts very much do you.
Also when you use childish terms like dumbama, you just prove you really have no leg to stand on since all you really do is call Obama names but can't back up your points with anything relevant. 

I also love how you ignored my question what is the great liberal lie.


----------



## IndyTaker (Aug 14, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

SJWs are the reason more and more people are becoming conservative.


----------



## BringHoganBack (May 27, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IndyTaker said:


> SJWs are the reason more and more people are becoming conservative.


You my friend are exactly right. I've always considered myself left leaning, I remember having a conversation with my dad whom was always extremely religious, I told him many years ago that I thought some republicans just used Christian people to get their votes and he agreed with. It really opened my eyes that I could talk to conservative people and yet we disagreed we were still able to have a conversation. Flash forward many years when I told my ultra liberal friend that I thought the iran deal was horrible and obamacare was a disaster that the main stream media was hiding and he called me every name in the book. The guy was my best friend for years, did all kinds of favors for him and was there for his wife cheating on him and just because we have a political disagreement he goes absolute batshit crazy calling me every name in the book. He was also fired from several jobs for being lazy and always blamed it on the old white guys even though he is also white.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Okay... who left the barn door open? The sheep are wandering around.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*Re: What are President Trump's greatest accomplishments so far?*



WalkingInMemphis said:


> You mean the terrorists that are born and raised here that manage to shoot up schools and workplaces every other week? Great job.


Stop. School and workplace shootings have absolutely nothing political about them at all so don't even bring them up in a political discussion AT all. 

If anything most high school shootings are directly linked to violent impulses brought about by psychotropic drugs that are administered to children at an extremely young age. 

Almost all shooters were on drugs or quit them recently before going on a rampage ... The psychiatric community still hasn't admitted it, but wathdogs and independent researchers have consistently shown that the impulses that their drugs were supposed to treat were actually causing those impulses in the first place including violence. 

https://www.cchrint.org/2015/09/22/new-study-confirms-cchr-antidepressants-cause-violence/

http://www.ssristories.net/school-shootings/

(Unfortunately they stopped tracking after 2011 for some reason, but the data speaks for itself). 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372359 <--- Swedish study found a link between young men on SSRI's and violence, but the study was never replicated.

No one is being "raised" to be a shooter. There is a system in place that has spent decades convincing people that there is no cure for any sort of mental deviancy except popping pills but those pills are causing the very things they're supposed to be treating.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm gonna talk about another favorite Capitalist myth: Chinese are no longer in poverty. 

This is a completely BS claim that pro-capitalists have been spouting since the World Bank (lol) made the announcement. But, here are the facts:

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/china-is-still-really-poor/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosm...2/china-is-still-a-poor-country/#48b85dd34eef

Basically, apparently for The World Bank (lol), an average income per day of $4 odd dollars (this also includes those who earn a heck of a lot more and those who earn a heck of a lot less) means that everyone is somehow no longer poor. They've fudged the data to the point where it's incredibly dishonest. 

Basically, China has followed the model of other capitalist countries where a small majority are earning a lot more than the vast majority which is earning peanuts into the data. But including the wealth of the few into the data has skewed it above an arbitrary "poverty line" the World Bank established and then they used that number to extrapolate how many people have supposedly been elevated from poverty status .. They need to remove the richest few from the data in order to determine how many people are actually still poor which is something they're refusing to reveal, or even study. 

So no, most chinese are still dirt poor and living in substandard conditions. Capitalism has not worked for the majority. A small minority living in cities are doing nearly .5 times better than those who are not and that skewed data is being used to claim that there are only a handful of chinese that are poor. 

First you arbitrarily define what's poor and what's not, then skew the data and then pretend that the majority is no longer poor. 

Perfect scam data.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BringHoganBack said:


> Flash forward many years when I told my ultra liberal friend that I thought the iran deal was horrible and obamacare was a disaster that the main stream media was hiding and he called me every name in the book.


Ok so there's not point in me going back over everything I've missed in this discussion but this is an interesting nugget right here.

It highlights an absolutely bizarre assumption in American political discourse that seems to conflate 'right' and 'left' with Republican and Democrat.

Let's be perfectly clear about this: If you friend is pro-Obamacare, then there is no way he even comes close to 'ultra-liberal'.

I'd say that being a proponent of an universal healthcare system of some kind is an absolute prerequisite to being left of centre in any capacity, never mind 'ultra-liberal'. Obamacare is not even close to that. Obamacare carries as a prerequisite that the healthcare market is lead by the private sector in all areas. It barely even scratches into the surface of Centre Right by most standards.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Ok so there's not point in me going back over everything I've missed in this discussion but this is an interesting nugget right here.
> 
> It highlights an absolutely bizarre assumption in American political discourse that seems to conflate 'right' and 'left' with Republican and Democrat.
> 
> ...


It's better to state that Obamacare is just an abomination .. a scam .. a racket. It's neither left nor right. It's basically the ultimate expression of government and capitalist collusion and it's impossible to identify it with respect to conventional politics. 

It's literally using the power of the state to force individuals to buy insurance from the private sector under threat of punishment. This is neither left nor right imo.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I don't know what's worse, the caliber of these new posters, I mean one says they legit watch Alex Jones and the other calls Obama Dumbama, or is it BM even engaging with them...


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Not even hiding it anymore


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> I don't know what's worse, the caliber of these new posters, I mean one says they legit watch Alex Jones and the other calls Obama Dumbama, or is it BM even engaging with them...


Ha yeah, I shouldn't feed the trolls. But at least they were exposed, like the one dude admitting he legit watches Alex Jones


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Dumbama is a great phrase though


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FITZ said:


> Dumbama is a great phrase though


It does not even make sense.


----------



## AustinRockHulk (Dec 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> *Donald Trump Cuts Cancer Research*
> 
> *HHS to cut funds from Head Start, cancer research to pay for the detention of immigrant children*
> 
> ...


https://thinkprogress.org/hhs-cuts-cancer-research-child-detention-210dbb16cc32/


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It does not even make sense.


If you thought that was a serious post you're the Dumbama


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1043696941526405120
Seems pretty clear cut that the allegations are nonsense. A desperate ploy by the Democrats to prevent the inevitable confirmation of Trump's SCOTUS pick. Pretty reprehensible, really.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> President Donald Trump holds up an executive order that he signed during a meeting of the National Space Council at the East Room of the White House June 18, 2018 in Washington, DC. President Trump signed an executive order to establish the Space Force, an independent and co-equal military branch, as the sixth branch of the U.S. armed forces.
> Alex Wong | Getty Images
> President Donald Trump holds up an executive order that he signed during a meeting of the National Space Council at the East Room of the White House June 18, 2018 in Washington, DC. President Trump signed an executive order to establish the Space Force, an independent and co-equal military branch, as the sixth branch of the U.S. armed forces.
> 
> ...


https://web.archive.org/web/20180922160120/https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/22/white-house-prepares-order-directing-antitrust-probe-of-tech-companies-report.html


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1043696941526405120
> Seems pretty clear cut that the allegations are nonsense. A desperate ploy by the Democrats to prevent the inevitable confirmation of Trump's SCOTUS pick. Pretty reprehensible, really.


The guy will get in say Trump is above the law as long as he's the President and will begin to allow men to have say over a woman's body.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



The Hardcore Show said:


> The guy will get in say Trump is above the law as long as he's the President and will begin to allow men to have say over a woman's body.


that's not really how any of this works


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> that's not really how any of this works


STOP TELLING ME WHUT TO DO WITH MUH BODY CP!!!11

:x


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> that's not really how any of this works


Trump picked him to try and get a 5-4 ruling making him untouchable to any type of investigation until he's out of office. Plus the list he picked this guy from pretty much feels men own women's bodies and have no respect for employees rights.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Trump picked him to try and get a 5-4 ruling making him untouchable to any type of investigation until he's out of office. Plus the list he picked this guy from pretty much feels men own women's bodies and have no respect for employees rights.


nah man Trump is just a Republican trying to appoint the conservative judge he promised when he ran for office

Nobody (except Muslims) think men own women's bodies, they just have a different view of abortion than you do.


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044006928416825344
because of course there's another woman.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

That's Stormy Daniels' lawyer btw. :banderas

This is our political world now. "The other team are a bunch of rapists".


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> nah man Trump is just a Republican trying to appoint the conservative judge he promised when he ran for office
> 
> Nobody (except Muslims) think men own women's bodies, they just have a different view of abortion than you do.


You don't think it's odd that the guy he picked has the most radical view on not even allowing someone to have an investigation on a president until he leaves office? He changed his stance after the whole thing with Bill Clinton


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years*



> As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanagh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”
> 
> The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was also conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.
> 
> ...


Full Article

republicans are so fucking dumb. they could easily, EASILY, have gotten a conservative judge on the court before the midterms, had they not chosen the one person with a fuckton of skeletons in his closet.

edit: also...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044013350873489409


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

False accusations provided with no evidence where the people named to corroborate say it never happened aren't skeletons in your closet.

Definitely think he should've went with Amy Barrett though. Better on the issues and harder to bog down with these kinds of allegations since she's a woman.


The Hardcore Show said:


> You don't think it's odd that the guy he picked has the most radical view on not even allowing someone to have an investigation on a president until he leaves office? He changed his stance after the whole thing with Bill Clinton


Seems to me that view has been vindicated by the obstructionist Mueller probe.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that there is a "bureaucratic coup" against President Trump.
> 
> The South Carolina senator made the comments while speaking on "Fox News Sunday" after host Chris Wallace asked if Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be fired for allegedly trying to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from the White House.
> Donald Trump wearing a suit and tie© Provided by The Hill
> ...


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/graham-theres-a-bureaucratic-coup-taking-place-against-trump/ar-AAAwsrF


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

lol another "accusation" where everyone else said to be there denies it ever happened

deborah ramirez and christine ford should both face serious professional and personal consequences for their scurrilous behavior, as a deterrent to others who would try to destroy a man with serious lies simply because of political disagreement, but of course they won't. they'll be applauded and rewarded

this is nothing more than an attempt to impose a standard whereby anyone can be destroyed by mere allegation. it's totalitarian. ethical norms and moral principles - presumption of innocence, burden of proof, importance of corroboration - subverted or tossed aside for political ends. 2000+ years of ethical teachings are being flung in the dumpster by people who should know better. fuck them and their myopia


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I think Obstructionism is the new things to do in the federal government. The Democrats are doing it now and when the tide eventually shifts it's going to be just as bad. I think we're in the process of the federal government becoming less and less functional. I'm pretty sure once we get a split on president and Congress no judge will ever be confirmed no matter what. I think that's the path we're heading towards.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FITZ said:


> I think Obstructionism is the new things to do in the federal government. The Democrats are doing it now and when the tide eventually shifts it's going to be just as bad. I think we're in the process of the federal government becoming less and less functional. I'm pretty sure once we get a split on president and Congress no judge will ever be confirmed no matter what. I think that's the path we're heading towards.


Except for when it comes to arms dealing and warmongering. There we'll still have near perfect unity from our elected officials.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FITZ said:


> I think Obstructionism is the new things to do in the federal government. The Democrats are doing it now and when the tide eventually shifts it's going to be just as bad. I think we're in the process of the federal government becoming less and less functional. I'm pretty sure once we get a split on president and Congress no judge will ever be confirmed no matter what. I think that's the path we're heading towards.


The GOP did it to Obama for 6 years, and held up his SCOTUS pick for over a year. How is this something new? 




CamillePunk said:


> False accusations provided with no evidence where the people named to corroborate say it never happened aren't skeletons in your closet.
> 
> Definitely think he should've went with Amy Barrett though. Better on the issues and harder to bog down with these kinds of allegations since she's a woman.Seems to me that view has been vindicated by the obstructionist Mueller probe.


Oh yeah its such a false allegation she talked about this back in 2012 in therapy, Mitch told Trump not to pick him because of things that could come out in his past, so the GOP knew about this possibly coming out, which is why they had that 65 sigs ready to go to try and defend Kavanaugh.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Except for when it comes to arms dealing and warmongering. There we'll still have near perfect unity from our elected officials.


So you're completely accepting the fact that the government and congress etc explicity vote to sell weapons to far off lands, bomb the shit out of wherever which include killing innocents and other horrendous acts etc etc, however a few of them are not capable of lying in court to protect a comrade accused of sexual misconduct?

Come on you're not that naive, based on your previous posts you don't trust the Gov one bit and you prefer not having one at all. So why *wouldn't *they lie about the potential scandal for the SCOTUS pick?


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044032678951960576


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> False accusations provided with no evidence where the people named to corroborate say it never happened aren't skeletons in your closet.
> 
> Definitely think he should've went with Amy Barrett though. Better on the issues and harder to bog down with these kinds of allegations since she's a woman.Seems to me that view has been vindicated by the obstructionist Mueller probe.


They'd "find" something on Amy Barrett and do the same as they are doing to Kavanaugh . This is their new tactic and they'll continue to do it unfortunately



Reap said:


> Stop. School and workplace shootings have absolutely nothing political about them at all so don't even bring them up in a political discussion AT all.
> 
> If anything most high school shootings are directly linked to violent impulses brought about by psychotropic drugs that are administered to children at an extremely young age.
> 
> ...


Ever see those drug commercials where they state potential side effects are suicidal thoughts? That's so insane to me, how can you put out a drug that may cause someone to commit suicide? Lets also not forget the crazy shit people have done while on Ambien , those stories scare the hell out of me


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> They'd "find" something on Amy Barrett and do the same as they are doing to Kavanaugh . This is their new tactic and they'll continue to do it unfortunately


The whole point of the hearings for SCOTUS is to make sure they are fit for the position. And if he really did this, you dont think it should come out?


OH and look another woman comes forward


https://www.vox.com/2018/9/23/17894410/second-sexual-misconduct-brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez

A second woman comes forward with sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
Deborah Ramirez says Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to her in college at Yale.

A second woman has come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, claiming he drunkenly exposed himself to a classmate in college and thrust his genitals in her face without her consent, the New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer first reported Sunday.

Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale University with Kavanaugh, said the incident happened their freshman year of college during a group drinking game. She was sitting on the floor in a circle of students when one male student — who she later came to realize was Kavanaugh — exposed himself to her. Ramirez added that another student in the group encouraged her to “kiss it” and that in the process of pushing Kavanaugh away, she touched his penis.

“I remember a penis being in front of my face,” Ramirez told the New Yorker. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.”

In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote: “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name — and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building — against these last-minute allegations.”

The White House has stood by Kavanaugh, saying in a statement that the most recent allegations were “inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say.”

Ramirez, according to the New Yorker, was reluctant to come forward with the accusation because she had been drinking at the time and knows there are holes in her memory. She has called for the FBI to launch an independent investigation into her allegations.

Kavanaugh would have been 18 years old at the time of the alleged incident, a legal adult. During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, he said he had never “committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature,” during his Senate confirmation hearings earlier this month.


Two of the men who Ramirez said were involved in the incident said they had no recollection of Kavanaugh exposing himself. Several college friends of Kavanaugh and Ramirez also said they never heard of the incident happening at the time. However, another classmate told the New Yorker he was “100 percent sure” someone told him about the incident at the time, and he corroborated some details of Ramirez’s story.

Several Senate Democrats have been investigating Ramirez’s allegations, after having learned about them last week. Republican Senate offices have also been aware of the allegations, according to the New Yorker.

This is the second woman to come forward with sexual misconduct allegations
This is the second accusation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh, who this summer seemed almost guaranteed to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

The first allegations came from Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University in California, who told the Washington Post that Kavanaugh held her down at a high school party in the 1980s and attempted to force himself on her, covering her mouth to quiet her protests.

Ford’s allegations were documented by her therapist in notes from sessions in 2012 and 2013, in which Ford talked about a “rape attempt” and being attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school.” Kavanaugh denied the accusation, as did another male classmate who Ford said was involved in the incident.

Ford has agreed to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee at 10 am on Thursday.

Senate Republicans have been pushing to get Kavanaugh confirmed this fall, before the midterm elections and the start of the new Supreme Court term on October 1, and spent the week spinning Ford’s allegations as a last-ditch Democratic attempt to hold up the confirmation. However, there was enough pressure from lawmakers that the Senate Judiciary Committee has committed to hearing from Ford and Kavanaugh before moving forward with votes on his confirmation.

Senate Republicans have declined to call for the FBI to investigate Ford’s accusation of sexual assault, and aides told the New Yorker they were concerned Ramirez’s story could derail the nomination further.

The White House, so far, has not backed down from support of Kavanaugh. Near the end of last week, President Donald Trump tweeted a response to Ford’s allegations: “Let her testify, or not, and TAKE THE VOTE!”


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

And now this


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

^If Trump was smart he would just pull the judge now and nominate a new one that can be confirmed before the midterms, but he can't because his ego feels like it would make him look weak. 

The Republicans in Congress will still force him through even though it looks like this is about to get very messy and it's going to make Republicans in Congress look pretty deplorable heading into the midterms. I've been saying for months that the Democrats are going to take the House, but they may not take the Senate since nearly 3 times as many Democrat seats are up than Republican, but the way the Republicans are handling this sexual slime ball situation may change things. Who knows.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> Ever see those drug commercials where they state potential side effects are suicidal thoughts? That's so insane to me, how can you put out a drug that may cause someone to commit suicide? Lets also not forget the crazy shit people have done while on Ambien , those stories scare the hell out of me


It took them years to get that label passed. They still haven't admitted it, but apparently people's testimony is brushed aside as fake ... Because ya know, hundreds of thousands of people reporting the same thing isn't scientific because a bunch of industry own regulators and "scientists" didn't come to that conclusion in an "official" study. yeah .. studies that are paid for by the pharmas themselves. 

I really wanted to believe until recently that psychiatric drugs were based on science, but over the last year's worth of research I've consistently hit roadblock after roadblock and paper after paper that does not conclusively prove the efficacy of psychiatric drugs ... meanwhile the evidence that they cause the very things they are supposed to treat are piling on.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://apnews.com/408f46201c11437ba9a8bac705f16cb7/As-aid-checks-go-out,-farmers-worry-bailout-won't-be-enough



> *As aid checks go out, farmers worry bailout won't be enough
> *
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Farmers across the United States will soon begin receiving government checks as part of a billion-dollar bailout to buoy growers experiencing financial strain from President Donald Trump's trade disputes with China.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://apnews.com/408f46201c11437ba9a8bac705f16cb7/As-aid-checks-go-out,-farmers-worry-bailout-won't-be-enough


Propaganda about how wonderful our "booming" economy is will only take you so far. Eventually, people will figure out how badly they are getting fucked in their wallet. It's only going to get worse when some of these bubbles start popping.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> Ever see those drug commercials where they state potential side effects are suicidal thoughts? That's so insane to me, how can you put out a drug that may cause someone to commit suicide? Lets also not forget the crazy shit people have done while on Ambien , those stories scare the hell out of me


I take drugs for seizures that can affect mood as an effect, and in a very small percentage of cases yes can stimulate suicidal thoughts. Some of the effects I've had on mood have been absolutely horrendous but no suicidal thoughts.

I think before we conflate the two let's also realise it's a very small percentage would be affected.

Unfortunately all drugs have downside as well as upside - if the upside is better at treating the illness and the downside is deemed tolerable then the drug generally gets through.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

That there are drug commercials at all is pretty fucked up. Americans are so used to it that they probably don't give it as much thought as they should but ads on TV trying to sell pharmaceuticals is not a thing in most other countries. A quick search tells me that New Zealand is the only other country that even allows it. Maybe it's just me but I believe the only people who should be telling people what pills to take are doctors and even then, you should do your own independent research into what you are being prescribed.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

These accusations against Kavanaugh could set a very, very dangerous precedent. The fact is these accusations can *never* be proven. Yet already there are members here referring to him as a "sexual slimeball." Does no one else think that this is wrong? Granted it is true that the accusations can basically never be disproved, but we live in a society where the burden of proof is on the accuser; where is the proof? If accusations without any evidence can ruin a man's (or woman's) career, then this is a massive step back for justice and a step towards totalitarianism. It reminds me of the Soviet Union's show trials to some extent. Make no mistake, these accusations are purely political.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Make no mistake, these accusations are purely political.


If they're true, which I don't know, then they're not purely political. As to whether or not I care that a person is labelled a philanderer or a paedo based on accusations, meh, its not cool but it's not a new phenomenon. The idea this is a dangerous precedent is pretty weird considering sex scandals have been used forever to discredit people. Care to explain why this one is any different?


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> I take drugs for seizures that can affect mood as an effect, and in a very small percentage of cases yes can stimulate suicidal thoughts. Some of the effects I've had on mood have been absolutely horrendous but no suicidal thoughts.
> 
> I think before we conflate the two let's also realise it's a very small percentage would be affected.
> 
> Unfortunately all drugs have downside as well as upside - if the upside is better at treating the illness and the downside is deemed tolerable then the drug generally gets through.


Effecting mood is one thing, but potentially causing someone to commit suicide is a pretty big potential side effect. I mean suicide has increased in the past 20+ years, as well as people being on medication, thats why I brought it up in regards to school shooters. I do think there are plenty of drugs that do help, I have a friend who would have seizures as a kid, and hasn't had one in 15 years but there seems to be too many drugs out there that seemingly cause too many problems for people and probably need to be re-evaluated


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> These accusations against Kavanaugh could set a very, very dangerous precedent. The fact is these accusations can *never* be proven. Yet already there are members here referring to him as a "sexual slimeball." Does no one else think that this is wrong? Granted it is true that the accusations can basically never be disproved, but we live in a society where the burden of proof is on the accuser; where is the proof? If accusations without any evidence can ruin a man's (or woman's) career, then this is a massive step back for justice and a step towards totalitarianism. It reminds me of the Soviet Union's show trials to some extent. Make no mistake, these accusations are purely political.


there are now three accusations against him. And how is it dangerous? If someone makes an accusation it should be investigated. What is dangerous is the GOP not giving a shit, attacking the accuser and wanting to push him through anyway just to get a win

its shit like this why women don't come forward

I mean fuck, Trump admitted on tape he likes to sexually assault women and people still defend him


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> If they're true, which I don't know, then they're not purely political. As to whether or not I care that a person is labelled a philanderer or a paedo based on accusations, meh, its not cool but it's not a new phenomenon. The idea this is a dangerous precedent is pretty weird considering sex scandals have been used forever to discredit people. Care to explain why this one is any different?


Whether they're true or not (they may be) it is political. The fact these accusations have only emerged now, after a long, reputable career, is not a coincidence. If they were conservatives, would they come forward with these allegations... probably not. As you say though it is not in some ways a new phenomenon; however, it is different in a couple of ways. 

1. Has there ever been unsubstantiated claims against a SCOTUS nominee taken into account before? Not that I'm aware. 

2. I think there is a difference between accusing someone as being sleazy, such as in the cases of John Major, Bill Clinton etc. and basically painting someone as a sexual predator. 

3. The press and indeed most individuals would not take such claims so seriously when they are unable to be proven. The lowering of press standards is mostly responsible for this though!


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> there are now three accusations against him. And how is it dangerous? If someone makes an accusation it should be investigated. What is dangerous is the GOP not giving a shit, attacking the accuser and wanting to push him through anyway just to get a win
> 
> its shit like this why women don't come forward
> 
> I mean fuck, Trump admitted on tape he likes to sexually assault women and people still defend him


What would the result of such an investigation be, realistically? I think you know as well as I do that the only tangible result would be to delay the appointment of Kavanaugh.

It's actually accusations such as the ones here that damage the chances of more women coming forward, sadly. They should be taken seriously, but any serious look at the evidence shows that the accusations are at the very least shaky to begin with, and are uncorroborated by any evidence. It makes people less likely to trust actual, credible accusations, which sucks.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> What would the result of such an investigation be, realistically? I think you know as well as I do that the only tangible result would be to delay the appointment of Kavanaugh.
> 
> It's actually accusations such as the ones here that damage the chances of more women coming forward, sadly. They should be taken seriously, but any serious look at the evidence shows that the accusations are at the very least shaky to begin with, and are uncorroborated by any evidence. It makes people less likely to trust actual, credible accusations, which sucks.


You are so full of shit. Keep blaming the victims and defend POS like Kavanaugh. Now a 4th woman is coming forward it seems. And no the accusers are not shaky at best. They are way more credible than he is.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kavanaugh-may-face-4th-sexual-misconduct-allegation-report

Kavanaugh May Face 4th Sexual-Misconduct Allegation: Repo

Maryland authorities confirmed Monday that they are aware of a second accusation of sexual assault in Montgomery County against Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to a report from The Sentinel. Authorities were extremely vague about the claims, which allegedly came from an anonymous witness and are said to concern Kavanaugh’s behavior during his senior year of high school. No complaints have been filed formally. “We are prepared to investigate if the victim wants to report to us,” Montgomery County Police Chief Thomas Manger told the paper, “and we can determine [if] it occurred in the county.” Manger told the Washington Examiner that his department does not have “any knowledge of anyone coming forward to us to report any allegations involving Judge Kavanaugh.”

If the alleged accuser does file a complaint, the Sentinel notes, it could bring the number of women accusing Kavanaugh to four: Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez—whose allegations were revealed in another explosive New Yorker piece Sunday night—lawyer Michael Avenatti’s purported client, and the Montgomery County woman. After Ramirez’s allegations surfaced Sunday night, Kavanaugh once again denied any misconduct. “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so,” he wrote in a statement issued by the White House cited by the Sentinel. “This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name—and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building—against these last-minute allegations.”


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are so full of shit. Keep blaming the victims and defend POS like Kavanaugh. Now a 4th woman is coming forward it seems. And no the accusers are not shaky at best. They are way more credible than he is.
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/kavanaugh-may-face-4th-sexual-misconduct-allegation-report
> 
> ...


How is Kavanaugh a POS? He hasn't been found guilty (and won't be.) You're the one full of shit here, I am not 'victim blaming' at all, I hope there is hearing, I am just saying that there is 0% chance that they will have any other impact than to delay the nomination. The hearing should be held as such though. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...story.html?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter If it is held under any other circumstances then that is so wrong. Why are they credible? They were drunk, don't remember key events/ times and it was 35 years ago against an upstanding member of society. It may have happened but it may not. You have to prove guilt and no court would ever convict based on the evidence presented (unless a group of democrats were on the jury it seems)


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Neither side really cares if Kavanaugh did it. Individual members might, but as a whole they don't. Both sides want that seat filled by who they want. That's what matters to them.

Democrats want to delay the vote until after the midterms, so he did it.

Republicans want to push it through as fast as possible because of the midterms, so he didn't do it.

Reverse the parties and Ds would say he's innocent and Rs would say he's guilty as sin.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> How is Kavanaugh a POS? He hasn't been found guilty (and won't be.) You're the one full of shit here, I am not 'victim blaming' at all, I hope there is hearing, I am just saying that there is 0% chance that they will have any other impact than to delay the nomination. The hearing should be held as such though. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...story.html?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter If it is held under any other circumstances then that is so wrong. Why are they credible? They were drunk, don't remember key events/ times and it was 35 years ago against an upstanding member of society. It may have happened but it may not. You have to prove guilt and no court would ever convict based on the evidence presented (unless a group of democrats were on the jury it seems)


Yes he is a POS, more and more women are coming out against him. Not to mention how he refused to even answer 90% of the questions at his confirmation hearings even before this stuff came out. And yes are you victim blaming saying the women coming out against him are going to make it harder for future women who come out, what kind of BS is that?

And LOL oh he is an 'upstanding member of society", UM the women who are coming out are also upstanding members of society. 

But sure get it, if you are rich and white, you can get off sexually assaulting a woman. That is the American way


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*












Stefan Molyneux said:


> If you’re a male over 12, you need to start documenting your every move RIGHT NOW, just in case you piss off the Democrats in 35 years or so.


- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I may actually have to watch TV news at 7 to see this Kavanaugh interview. He will of course kill it and then kill it some more on Thursday. He should be confirmed by the end of next week. A big :vincefu to these despicable liars and their abandonment of any kind of ethics.

Michael Avenatti saying Kavanaugh ran a gangrape ring :heston not even left-wing media could stomach that one, they've been tearing Avenatti a new asshole at Huffpo and on Twitter all day

Ramirez and Ford can't get anyone they said would provide corroboration as direct witnesses to provide such corroboration. They're both lying. Ford can't keep her details straight. 4 boys were in the room. No that was a mistake by the therapist, it was only 2. It was 4 boys and she was the only girl at the party as a whole. Wait no her best friend Leland Keyser was there. Wait Leland Keyser says no she was not. Ramirez says people were talking about Kavanaugh waving his dick in her face for days afterwards. Wait no Ramirez's best friend in college says she and Ramirez talked about everything, Ramirez never said anything to her about this, and she never heard anything about it from anyone else. Yeah she never heard about it when everyone was talking about it, that makes sense.

Ramirez and Ford are both lying cunts. 

Everybody already knew Avenatti was a lying cunt, nobody this side of BM is buying his bravado now.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


LOL at you quoting a white supremacist to defend a sexual assaulter


----------



## Sincere (May 7, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't know Kavanaugh. I've never spoken to him.

I don't know his accuser(s). I've never spoken to them. And I've yet to actually hear from any of them.

I wasn't there. I can't say what did or didn't happen.

It's he said, she said.

Each subsequent accusation following the first, which was already highly in question, is seemingly less and less credible.

Thus, logic dictates that the burden of proof is on the accusers. Thus far, the accusers have not said anything publicly. Thus far, no one has corroborated anything, as far as I have seen. Thus far, details are incredibly lacking, and vague, and questionable. Thus far, there is no evidence to substantiate anything, as far as I have seen. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh is issuing blanket denials, speaking publicly and cooperating in every possible way, has undergone multiple background checks, and has a horde of character witnesses corroborating his side of things. Never mind the additional context of timing, political lunacy, toxic division, corrupted process, the media circus, and so on.

And in the balance, a man's reputation, name, future, and image--at the very least--hang in the balance, not to mention the ability for the Supreme Court to function properly. And God knows what this kind of abject lunacy will spell for the standards of conduct and male/female relations going forward.

I'm not going to give anyone special treatment on account of their genitalia, or skin color, or any other ultimately irrelevant attribute, nor do I have a single fuck to give about whatever the Twitter trend de jour happens to be. Presumption of innocence still means something to me, and is still important. And if anyone with even two brain cells to rub together spares even a single honest moment to consider it, and the implications of its absence, they'd consider it of paramount importance, too. So, as far as I can tell, anyone who is ready to presume guilt of Kavanaugh at this point has shamelessly abandoned all reason, taken leave of their senses, and only proceeds to embarrass themselves.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you quoting a white supremacist to defend a sexual assaulter


You live in the United States? Because if you do then all Vic cares about is making sure that you have to live under his rules and laws.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Sincere said:


> I don't know Kavanaugh. I've never spoken to him.
> 
> I don't know his accuser(s). I've never spoken to them. And I've yet to actually hear from any of them.
> 
> ...



LOL at claiming cooperating in every possible way, he is doing everything but that. WTF are you talking about? You can't even be honest.

Also why do you think Trump and the GOP won't let the FBI do an investigation? Because they know the accusations are credible.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kavanaugh just BTFO the babyraging spittle-tossers like BM :heston


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you quoting a white supremacist to defend a sexual assaulter


Interesting. I've been watching and listening to Stefan Molyneux for 7 years now and never heard him advocate white supremacy or white nationalism. Got a quote or excerpt to back up your claim that he's a white supremacist?


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes he is a POS, more and more women are coming out against him. Not to mention how he refused to even answer 90% of the questions at his confirmation hearings even before this stuff came out. And yes are you victim blaming saying the women coming out against him are going to make it harder for future women who come out, what kind of BS is that?
> 
> And LOL oh he is an 'upstanding member of society", UM the women who are coming out are also upstanding members of society.
> 
> But sure get it, if you are rich and white, you can get off sexually assaulting a woman. That is the American way


I don't care at all about Kavanaugh, it's just clear to me that these allegations are part of a smear campaign against the guy. That's wrong, whoever he is. If the allegations are proven to be false (they certainly can't based on the evidence be proven to be true) then are you not the one who's victim blaming? Seems that way to me. You are grasping at straws in believing these allegations, they are so plainly politically motivated that it is almost embarrassing.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Interesting. I've been watching and listening to Stefan Molyneux for 7 years now and never heard him advocate white supremacy or white nationalism. Got a quote or excerpt to back up your claim that he's a white supremacist?


We have been over this a million times, go back and find my old posts on it, always love how you play dumb when this comes up over and over again


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I don't care at all about Kavanaugh, it's just clear to me that these allegations are part of a smear campaign against the guy. That's wrong, whoever he is. If the allegations are proven to be false (they certainly can't based on the evidence be proven to be true) then are you not the one who's victim blaming? Seems that way to me. You are grasping at straws in believing these allegations, they are so plainly politically motivated that it is almost embarrassing.


How is it clear? What is your evidence? There is a reason why the GOP is trying to push him through so fast, because they know the witnesses are credible. The only people grasping at straws are people like you trying to defend him with everything that is going on.

So tell me why Trump won't ask the FBI to investigate if you think it would prove Kavanaugh's innocence?

Ford talked about this sexual assault back in 2012 and also passed a polygraph test. And this new woman everyone says how honest she has always been. Kavanaugh has been lying about everything from the beginning even things in his hearings not even connected to this.

But sure keep trying to defend Kavanaugh


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> We have been over this a million times, go back and find my old posts on it, always love how you play dumb when this comes up over and over again


I don't remember. This thread is only a month old so I guess you're referring to an older version of the thread that I don't think I have access to. Well, whatever. I'm sure he's not a white supremacist because I actually follow his content whereas I'm sure you don't.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't remember. This thread is only a month old so I guess you're referring to an older version of the thread that I don't think I have access to. Well, whatever. I'm sure he's not a white supremacist because I actually follow his content whereas I'm sure you don't.


He's a right wing internet media personality

Thus, he is a racist

Guarantee that that is an exact description of BM's logic


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> He's an alt-right wing internet media personality
> 
> Thus, he is a racist
> 
> Guarantee that that is an exact description of BM's logic


fixed it for ya


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.mediaite.com/online/hea...ecutor-ask-questions-not-fair-and-respectful/

lol knew it

the arrogance of this cunt

judiciary committee should take testimony from kavanaugh on thursday morning as scheduled then hold the committee vote in the afternoon, full floor vote on friday

:vincefu to these disgusting fucks playing games with the institutions and customs of the public


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> https://www.mediaite.com/online/hea...ecutor-ask-questions-not-fair-and-respectful/
> 
> lol knew it
> 
> ...


Why would outside counsel need to ask the questions? It should be the senators asking questions.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

The idea that senators need to hire a lawyer to the questioning at a Senate committee is laughable.

That just want him to say things in a political setting they can't and get reelected. 

Yet another subversion of democracy


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044299779470225409
The front page of the Sunday edition of the local newspaper here had an article about Tulsi's supporters trying to get her to run for president in 2020.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The idea that senators need to hire a lawyer to the questioning at a Senate committee is laughable.
> 
> That just want him to say things in a political setting they can't and get reelected.
> 
> Yet another subversion of democracy


Was it a subversion of democracy when Army lawyer Joseph Welch, a non-Senator, questioned Roy Cohn at the Army-McCarthy hearings held by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations?

Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about, the ignorant like to make half-cocked pronouncements. 

There is no subversion of democracy to have a lawyer ask questions of a witness at a Congressional hearing. Sorry. Try again. Better this time please.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Was it a subversion of democracy when Army lawyer Joseph Welch, a non-Senator, questioned Roy Cohn at the Army-McCarthy hearings held by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations?
> 
> Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about, the ignorant like to make half-cocked pronouncements.
> 
> There is no subversion of democracy to have a lawyer ask questions of a witness at a Congressional hearing. Sorry. Try again. Better this time please.


Apples and Oranges this is for SCOTUS hearings. Its not even close to the same thing

Try again


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

"Joseph Nye Welch (October 22, 1890 – October 6, 1960) was an American lawyer who served as the chief counsel for the United States Army while it was under investigation for Communist activities by Senator Joseph McCarthy's Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, an investigation known as the Army–McCarthy hearings."

So the army was represented by the armies lawyer questioning senators, he wasn't representing the Senate questioning people. 

As suspected absolute nonsense.


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

oh, look a fourth accuser. :lmao

*Another Kavanaugh accuser has talked to Maryland authorities, report says*



> A possible fourth person has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Maryland law enforcement officials told a Maryland newspaper.
> 
> An anonymous witness told Montgomery County investigators over the weekend about another incident that occurred while Kavanaugh was in high school, according to a Monday report in the Montgomery County Sentinel.
> 
> ...


Source

:lmao kavanaugh is fucked. no way they have the votes :lmao


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Mighty Christian of Deepelem to react to allegations with such venom labelling the accusers as 'cunts'. The Good Lord would be proud.

:trump :trump2


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






His Excellency Donald Trump (as he was introduced :lol) begins speaking at 1:37:27﻿. Truly a fantastic speech.  There seems to be an exception to his "respect our sovereignty and we will respect yours" when it comes to certain Muslim countries though. :argh:


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> "Joseph Nye Welch (October 22, 1890 – October 6, 1960) was an American lawyer who served as the chief counsel for the United States Army while it was under investigation for Communist activities by Senator Joseph McCarthy's Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, an investigation known as the Army–McCarthy hearings."
> 
> So the army was represented by the armies lawyer questioning senators, he wasn't representing the Senate questioning people.
> 
> As suspected absolute nonsense.


Roy Cohn was not a Senator.

Welch questioning him could not be "the armies [sic] lawyer questioning Senators." Because Roy Cohn was not a Senator.

Do you even know who Roy Cohn was? It's obvious you didn't know who Joseph Welch was until you googled him. 

A non-Senator questioning a witness at a Senate hearing is obviously different from a non-Senator questioning a witness at a Senate hearing, because ignorant people like Alkomesh, draykorinee, and BM really really really really wish it were.

Pick up a history book, it's embarrassing how ignorant you guys are when you try to talk tough.



yeahbaby! said:


> Mighty Christian of Deepelem to react to allegations with such venom labelling the accusers as 'cunts'. The Good Lord would be proud.
> 
> :trump :trump2


This is the best bait you can come up with :HA

Defending lying cunts trying to destroy a man's life is such a noble position to take :ha


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Roy Cohn was not a Senator.
> 
> Welch questioning him could not be "the armies [sic] lawyer questioning Senators." Because Roy Cohn was not a Senator.
> 
> ...


Roy Cohn was Senator Joseph McCarthy's chief counsel, so he worked for the senators. Its not even close to the same thing. LOL at calling him a witness when he was a chief counsel, comparing him to someone the current situation is once again apples and oranges. 

Its also funny you had to go back to the 50s to find this when if you wanted to compare apples to apples you would compare the Anita Hill/Thomas questioning.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Oh yeah Roy Cohn and G. David Schine, also non-Senators, questioned witnesses at the hearings as well.

Democracy was really subverted by it. The conventional view of the Army-McCarthy hearings as a triumph of the deliberative institutions of American democracy over vicious rumor-mongering and smearing is false. It was actually a calamity for American democracy. Because non-Senators questioned witnesses.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> His Excellency Donald Trump (as he was introduced :lol) begins speaking at 1:37:27﻿. Truly a fantastic speech.  There seems to be an exception to his "respect our sovereignty and we will respect yours" when it comes to certain Muslim countries though. :argh:


He was laughed at during that speech lol He is such a joke, and he couldn't even read the teleprompter. He is such a joke. He is a laughing stock. Can't believe people still support this clown.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Oh yeah Roy Cohn and G. David Schine, also non-Senators, questioned witnesses at the hearings as well.
> 
> Democracy was really subverted by it.


Again who did the questioning of Anita Hill? Compare apples to apples. But I know you won't.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> He was laughed at during that speech lol He is such a joke, and he couldn't even read the teleprompter. He is such a joke. He is a laughing stock. Can't believe people still support this clown.


No need for you to repeat the left wing headlines BM, we read them too. (Y) You should spend more time trying to figure out who is even fighting who in Syria.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> No need for you to repeat the left wing headlines BM, we read them too. (Y) You should spend more time trying to figure out who is even fighting who in Syria.


LOL nice deflection. But its what you do best when you can't defend what a joke Trump is.

And at least I admit when I am not well versed in something unlike Trump who will say, no one knows more about (fill in the blank) than me. LOL

But keep defending Trump, and his stupidity.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL nice deflection. But its what you do best when you can't defend what a joke Trump is.
> 
> And at least I admit when I am not well versed in something unlike Trump who will say, no one knows more about (fill in the blank) than me. LOL
> 
> But keep defending Trump, and his stupidity.


Pretty sure you keep saying he's a Russian puppet despite having no idea what his foreign policy towards Russia has actually been. :banderas Pretty sure that counts as talking about shit you don't understand.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Pretty sure you keep saying he's a Russian puppet despite having no idea what his foreign policy towards Russia has actually been. :banderas Pretty sure that counts as talking about shit you don't understand.


He is a Russia puppet since he laundered millions through Russia. But keep lying to yourself, its what you do best. But keep deflecting. Its cute.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

But keep being completely ignorant of US foreign policy toward Russia in the Ukraine, Syria, and on trade. It's what you do best. :banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> But keep being completely ignorant of US foreign policy toward Russia in the Ukraine, Syria, and on trade. It's what you do best. :banderas


You can ignore Trump being Putin's bitch all you want. I still love all the deflecting you are doing because Trump was the laughing stock of the world today


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I could point to thousands of examples of counsel and/or investigators for Representatives and Senators asking questions of those called to testify before Committees and Subcommittees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Dozens if not hundreds of instances of a single lawyer or investigator asking questions of witnesses over a period of years before a particular Committee or Subcommittee. Not a single one of these lawyers or investigators were Senators when asking said questions.

Subversion of democracy. :heston

History. Read it please!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> I could point to literally hundreds if not thousands of examples of counsel and/or investigators for Representatives and Senators asking questions of those called to testify before Committees and Subcommittees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
> 
> Subversion of democracy. :heston
> 
> History. Read it please!


Still not comparing apples to apples I see.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> oh, look a fourth accuser. :lmao
> 
> *Another Kavanaugh accuser has talked to Maryland authorities, report says*
> 
> ...


Kavanaugh has only one actual accuser (Ford) who hasn't been backed up by any of the people she claimed were at the party. Supposedly, she has medical records and therapist notes (which don't name Kavanaugh) and that's it. Plenty of reasonable doubt here.

The second accuser wasn't even sure it was Kavanaugh and had to think about it for six days (as stated in the article) and even acknowledges that there are significant gaps in her memory. Then, after thinking about it six days, became confident that it was Kavanaugh. Too much inconsistency for me.

The "third accuser" has just been revealed to be a 4chan troll that caused Avanetti to lock his Twitter.

This fourth accuser is a non-story until there is a story. There's absolutely no substance in that "article." Just another headline with no content.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mifune Jackson said:


> Kavanaugh has only one actual accuser (Ford) who hasn't been backed up by any of the people she claimed were at the party. Supposedly, she has medical records and therapist notes (which don't name Kavanaugh) and that's it. Plenty of reasonable doubt here.
> 
> The second accuser wasn't even sure it was Kavanaugh and had to think about it for six days (as stated in the article) and even acknowledges that there are significant gaps in her memory. Then, after thinking about it six days, became confident that it was Kavanaugh. Too much inconsistency for me.
> 
> ...


yet in both cases 1 and 2 some students from both schools remember hearing about it happening

Also, if it didn't happen, why doesn't the FBI want to investigate? You would think if Kavanaugh didn't really do it,he would want the FBI to be all over this to clear his name, but if he did do it, then he knows the more they dig the more they will find on him.


----------



## KeepinItReal (Dec 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You can ignore Trump being Putin's bitch all you want. I still love all the deflecting you are doing because Trump was the laughing stock of the world today


*Why did Trump kill hundreds of Russian militants in Syria, rip up the Iran deal, impose sanctions on Russia, and increase our military spending? And what the hell has Trump EVER done for Russia?*

*#1: Hundreds of Russian mercenaries, unofficially answering to the Russian government, killed by US forces in Syria.* Putin denies controlling them like he denies controlling Russian mercenaries in Ukraine, which is the only reason this doesn't trigger World War III. For the entire Cold War, we avoided having a direct conflict between US and Russian soldiers, and Trump took us closer than ever. Many people have rightly said that if World War III were to start, it would be from an escalation of the Syrian civil war, with US/Europe on one side and Russia/Iran/China/Assad on the other.

*#2: Trump ripped apart the Iran deal*, pissing off European governments who make money off of Iran. Russia is pro-Iran and pro-Assad (Syria's dictator). Iran is pro-Assad. China is pro-Assad. Iran, a regional superpower, is very important to Russia's influence and strength, and I think I read that both Russia and Iran desperately need access to the Mediterranean, hence they support Assad in Syria.

*#3: The sanctions on Russia, and tarrifs on China, are very significant, and anti-Russia and anti-China. *He speaks very highly of both governments, as if he's a lawyer saying an opposing lawyer is just representing their client, he literally says they're just representing their people (which is stupid and untrue). He speaks very highly of Kim Jong-Un, right after mocking him like a ten year old and imposing the strictest sanctions on North Korea ever.

*#4: Trump has drastically improved our military spending.* Putin doesn't like this. Oh, and he's getting NATO countries to spend more on defense. Russia hates this.

By the way, Germany is now going to get a huge chunk of their oil from Russia. As Germany calls Trump pro-Russia. Trump has specifically pointed this out. Trump critics don't care or notice this hypocrisy or irony. They just don't care. They just say Trump loves Russia over and over.

When Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical adversary, the left mocked him for it. Leftists said Iran was our biggest adversary, ignoring the fact that Russia is pro-Iran. Now the left says Russia is the worst thing ever, and Iran isn't a threat. There are left wingers who rely entirely on demonization and emotional manipulation. My own brother told me that denying a racism accusation makes you a racist, and asked what was wrong with calling a non-racist a racist.

*So again, why did Trump kill hundreds of Russian militants in Syria, rip up the Iran deal, impose sanctions on Russia, and increase our military spending? And what the hell has Trump EVER done for Russia?*

http://time.com/5237922/mike-pompeo-russia-confirmation/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html









:Trump


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



KeepinItReal said:


> *Do you not think Russia hates that Trump (or his administration) killed hundreds of Russian militants in Syria, ripped up the Iran deal, imposed sanctions on Russia, and increased our military spending? And, most importantly, what the hell has Trump EVER done for Russia, EVER? EVER?*
> 
> *#1: Hundreds of Russian mercenaries, unofficially answering to the Russian government, killed by US forces in Syria.* Putin denies controlling them like he denies controlling Russian mercenaries in Ukraine, which is the only reason this doesn't trigger World War III. For the entire Cold War, we avoided having a direct conflict between US and Russian soldiers, and Trump took us closer than ever. Many people have rightly said that if World War III were to start, it would be from an escalation of the Syrian civil war, with US/Europe on one side and Russia/Iran/China/Assad on the other.
> 
> ...


Putin loves Trump and what he is doing, the US is in shambles because of Trump. The FBI came out and said Russia tried to hack the election yet Trump defended Putin. And look at all of Trumps connections to Russia which I have posted a million times. 

But here is yet another article on Trump and his admin and connections to Russia


http://time.com/5401645/putins-oligarchs/




How Putin's Oligarchs Got Inside the Trump Team
Putin relies on Russia’s richest men to project power. From left: ViktorVekselberg, Oleg Deripaska, Evgeny Prigozhin and Aras Agalarov. Paul Manafort, center, worked for Deripaska.
Putin relies on Russia’s richest men to project power. From left: ViktorVekselberg, Oleg Deripaska, Evgeny Prigozhin and Aras Agalarov. Paul Manafort, center, worked for Deripaska. Photo-illustration by John Ritter for TIME; Kremlin, Manafort: Shutterstock; Putin, Vekselberg, Deripaska: Getty Images; Prigozhin, Agalarov: Reuters
By SIMON SHUSTER September 20, 2018
The message from Moscow reached Paul Manafort at a crucial moment in the U.S. presidential race, just as he was about to secure the official Republican nomination for his client, Donald Trump. Manafort’s overture had been received, the July 2016 message informed him. And Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, would be back in touch soon.

In the months before the 2016 elections, Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman, had tried repeatedly to reach out to Deripaska through intermediaries, according to emails revealed last year by the Washington Post and the Atlantic. The two men’s relationship went back a decade; Manafort had worked as a political consultant for Deripaska’s business interests in Eastern Europe in the mid-2000s.


The messages used coded language–apparent references to money, for instance, were sometimes rendered as “black caviar.” But the aim of the exchange seems clear. Manafort wanted to offer “private briefings” about the Trump campaign to one of Russia’s wealthiest men.

That offer has since come under the scrutiny of Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the U.S. presidential race. His investigators want to know whether the Trump campaign had a secret back channel to the Kremlin, and Manafort has agreed to help them answer that question. As part of his guilty plea on Sept. 14 to charges stemming from the Mueller investigation, Manafort agreed to cooperate “fully, truthfully, completely, and forthrightly” with the special counsel.

Play
Unmute
Current Time 
0:24
/
Duration 
1:44
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%

Share
Captions
Fullscreen
YOU MIGHT LIKE
ROD ROSENSTEIN WILL MEET WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THURSDAY AFTER REPORTS THAT HE WAS BEING FIRED
×
Already Mueller’s probe has shown the range of assets Putin brought to bear on the 2016 campaign. Russian hackers stole and leaked the private emails of Trump’s opponents and worked to polarize and enrage voters by manipulating social media, according to evidence made public by Mueller. Russian diplomats wooed Trump’s advisers, who were eager for information that could hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads
But it is oligarchs like Deripaska, wielding extraordinary wealth and global connections, who may have played the most important role in the Russian influence campaign. Putin himself has suggested as much. Onstage with Trump at a press conference in Helsinki on July 16, the Russian leader said he “can imagine” private Russian businessmen supported Trump’s bid for the presidency. “And so what?” Putin demanded. “They don’t represent the Russian state.”

In fact, their ties to the state are a lot closer than Putin let on. From the very beginning of his 19 years in power, the Russian President has turned his country’s wealthiest men into a loose but loyal band of operatives. In exchange for lucrative deals with the government, or simply protection from the authorities, these billionaires have gathered contacts at the highest levels of U.S. politics, high enough to influence policy in the service of the Russian state. “These are cats that like to bring dead mice to the Kremlin,” says Mark Galeotti, a leading expert in Putin’s influence operations at the Prague-based Institute of International Relations.


And in the Trumps, the oligarchs found plump targets. One Russian billionaire hosted Ivanka Trump and her husband, the President’s senior adviser, Jared Kushner, at a gala in Moscow in 2014. Another has links to a $500,000 payment to Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen in 2017. A third ran a propaganda operation that pumped pro-Trump content into the news feeds of millions of American voters. In the heat of the presidential race, a fourth tycoon arranged the meeting where a Russian lawyer offered dirt on Clinton to Trump’s closest aides. And then of course there was Deripaska, whose years of fishing for friends in Washington eventually got the chairman of a presidential campaign on the line.

The U.S. has begun to hit back. In February, the Justice Department indicted one oligarch, Evgeny Prigozhin, for his role in the 2016 social-media-influence operation. In April, the Treasury Department sanctioned two others, Deripaska and investor Viktor Vekselberg, freezing their assets and limiting their travel, in retaliation for their work for Putin.


The oligarchs say they are doing nothing wrong in advancing Russia’s interests at home and abroad. Reviews of legal records and interviews with oligarchs and their associates in Russia and the West show just how far they have gone. They also show how deeply they penetrated the 2016 U.S. presidential contest, and the campaign of Donald Trump.


On a warm day in 2000, during the first months of his tenure as President, Putin arranged to meet his country’s richest men at a barbecue on the edge of Moscow. The gathering had not been his idea. One of the bankers closest to the Kremlin had suggested it, hoping it would allay their concerns about Russia’s new leader. “He was a black box,” recalls Sergei Pugachev, the financier behind the meeting, who was once known as the Kremlin’s Banker. “No one knew what was inside.”


Many of the oligarchs assumed in those days that Putin would be a pushover. With no power base in Moscow, the young KGB veteran from St. Petersburg seemed incapable of challenging their hold over the government, the media and much of the economy. Entire industries had been auctioned off to these men during Russia’s transition to capitalism in the 1990s, often in exchange for loans to save the state from bankruptcy. Some of them had urged President Boris Yeltsin to choose Putin as his successor. They assumed the new President would be at least as pliable as the old one.

Putin was quick to correct them. In choosing a venue for the meeting, he decided against the Kremlin, the normal spot for such a conclave. Instead he chose to send a more pointed message. “The meeting was at Stalin’s dacha,” Pugachev recalls. “That was very symbolic.”


Hidden among thick forests on the western outskirts of the city, the estate in Kuntsevo was the home of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin for two decades before his death in 1953. It was also the place where Stalin drew up lists of enemies among Russia’s political and economic elites, who were sent to their deaths in Siberia and elsewhere by the untold thousands in what became known as the Great Purge. The tyrant’s old office, right down to his desk and the couch where he used to take naps, was still preserved at Kuntsevo when the oligarchs pulled up to the gates for their meeting with Putin. In the presence of these memento mori, no one challenged the young President with any difficult questions, says Pugachev. “It’s enough that he let us leave,” he recalls one of the guests saying afterward.


Not all of them were so easily intimidated. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oil mogul with political ambitions of his own, understood the new rules that Putin was trying to enforce. “He wanted us to understand that we, as big businessmen, may have some power,” he tells TIME. “But it is nothing compared to his power as the head of state.” Khodorkovsky did not take that message to heart. After publicly clashing with Putin and his loyalists, he was arrested on charges of tax evasion in 2003 and subjected to a trial criticized by human-rights activists as a settling of scores. He wound up serving 10 years in prison.

The lesson to the oligarchs was clear. Their fortunes could stand or fall on Putin’s whim, and most accepted the need to do favors for the Kremlin as part of the cost of doing business. “If the state says we need to give it up, we’ll give it up,” Deripaska said of his own business empire during an interview with the Financial Times in 2007. In a remark that would come to define the position of the oligarchs in Putin’s Russia, he added, “I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests.”


The oligarchs stuck to their specialties. Some focused on banking and finance, others on mining and energy. And they paid their dues to the state in different ways.

Aras Agalarov, a flashy real estate tycoon with a taste for mafia movies–his family once filmed a remake of The Godfather for his birthday with him in the starring role–was known for accepting construction projects that might endear him to Putin. When the President decided that he wanted to host a summit in 2012 on a deserted island at Russia’s eastern edge, Agalarov spent $100 million of his own money building a vast white-elephant campus for the event, with new roads and infrastructure. Putin was pleased. “Your contribution to our country’s development cannot be measured in money,” the President said after pinning the Order of Honor to the mogul’s chest in 2013.


Another of Putin’s favorite businessmen has taken a more active role in Russia’s foreign adventures. Convicted of fraud and other crimes in the Soviet Union, Prigozhin found lawful success in the late 1990s with a St. Petersburg restaurant called New Island, where Putin would often dine with friends and foreign dignitaries. He won catering contracts with the Kremlin and the Russian army, earning him the nickname “Putin’s chef”–which has stuck despite Prigozhin’s moves into other industries.

In 2015, he emerged as a key player in Russia’s military campaigns in Ukraine and Syria. Documents and legal records published in the Russian press have linked his companies to the Wagner Group, a private military outfit that has sent fighters into both conflicts, often taking on missions that seemed too dangerous, or sensitive, for regular Russian troops. Prigozhin also bankrolled the Internet Research Agency, a troll farm that blasted out Kremlin propaganda through hundreds of fake social-media accounts, according to the U.S. charges unveiled against him earlier this year. Asked about these ventures, his spokesperson replied that Prigozhin does not speak to reporters “on principle.”


The more subtle and sensitive work of cultivating influence among power brokers in the U.S. and Western Europe generally goes to Russia’s wealthiest tycoons. Prominent among them is Viktor Vekselberg, who was one of the guests at Stalin’s dacha back in 2000. With a short silver beard and ice blue eyes, he earned much of his fortune in oil and metals. Later on, he decided to direct it, with the Kremlin’s blessing, to the tech sector.

Vekselberg quickly made friends in Silicon Valley, in part through investments managed by his cousin’s firm out of New York City. But Vekselberg’s partnerships with U.S. companies, like a billion-dollar deal he helped negotiate with Cisco in 2010, soon attracted the attention of the FBI, which issued a highly unusual warning to the industry in 2014. Vekselberg’s foundation, the bureau wrote, “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research, development facilities and dual-use technologies.”


The concerns of U.S. authorities were even more acute when it came to Deripaska. He had emerged as the winner of a brutal competition for control of Russia’s aluminum industry–a billionaire since his 30s. The U.S. revoked his visa in 2006, effectively banning him from the country, reportedly because of alleged ties to Russian organized crime. That only seemed to improve his standing with the Kremlin. He had already married into the family of Putin’s predecessor, Yeltsin, and later became “a more or less permanent fixture on Putin’s trips abroad,” according to a 2006 U.S. embassy cable.

Even without a U.S. visa, Deripaska still managed to develop ties with some of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, including Manafort and his then partner, Rick Davis. The consultants introduced Deripaska in early 2006 to several Republican Senators, including John McCain. When the late Senator celebrated his 70th birthday in the tiny Balkan nation of Montenegro that summer, Deripaska was among the revellers.


The partnership between Manafort and Deripaska was especially rich with opportunities for the Kremlin. The American lobbyist even pitched Deripaska a plan in 2005 to shape political events across the U.S. and much of Europe, according to the Associated Press, which published parts of the plan last year. The aim, the AP reported, was to “greatly benefit the Putin Government” with influence operations in a several Western capitals. One tactic Manafort reportedly touted would be to “train a cadre of leaders who can be relied upon in future governments.”

Deripaska has denied ever agreeing to such a plan and Manafort denies working for Russia. “I have always publicly acknowledged that I worked for Mr. Deripaska and his company, Rusal, to advance its interests,” Manafort said in March 2017. “I did not work for the Russian government.”


The year after Manafort sent his plan to Deripaska, they worked together on a project that redrew the map of Europe. In the spring of 2006, Montenegro held a referendum on independence from neighboring Serbia. Manafort has admitted helping stage the vote with financial backing from Deripaska. “It probably couldn’t have happened without their help,” says a Montenegrin official involved in the referendum. “They made a very good team.”

Putin at Platon International Airport in February with tycoon Vekselberg, center right
Putin at Platon International Airport in February with tycoon Vekselberg, center right Alexei Druzhinin—TASS/Getty Images
The network of relationships cultivated by the oligarchs over the past two decades covered almost every sphere of influence at home and abroad, and it was partly by chance that Trump got caught in it. Trump’s desire to do business in Russia began well before Putin and the oligarchs rose to power. During his first visit to Moscow, arranged in 1987 by the USSR’s ambassador to Washington, Trump visited sites for a new hotel, including one near Red Square. “I was impressed with the ambition of Soviet officials to make a deal,” Trump recalls in The Art of the Deal.


Vladimir Rubanov, who was a senior KGB officer at the time, says Trump may have been targeted for surveillance during that visit. “I’d say there is a 50-50 chance,” he tells TIME. The brash American certainly had the qualities that Soviet spies would have looked for. “He’s connected. He’s famous. He’s wealthy,” says Rubanov. “So for us this person would not be treated like just another visitor.”

As the communist system began to break up in the late 1980s, the talks about a Trump Tower in Moscow fizzled. They were only revived in earnest a quarter-century later, but this time it was not the government handling the negotiations. It was Agalarov, Putin’s favorite builder.

In the fall of 2013, Agalarov collaborated with Trump to bring the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow. They spent a couple of days together while hosting the event, attending parties and dinners with the Russian elite. The result was a plan to build a $3 billion complex of hotels, shopping malls and office space in Moscow, including a tower that was to bear Trump’s name. The state’s largest lender, Sberbank, even agreed to finance around 70% of the project, which would have been the biggest commercial real estate loan in its history at the time. But Trump’s political ambitions apparently wound up getting in the way. “If he hadn’t run for President, we would probably be in the construction phase today,” Agalarov’s son Emin told Forbes last year.


As the elections approached, the Agalarov family kept in touch with the Trumps. With the help of his publicist in London, Emin reached out to Trump’s eldest son Donald Jr. to arrange a meeting in June 2016 that has since become a focus of the special counsel investigation. Held on the 25th floor of Trump Tower in Manhattan, its nominal purpose was for the candidate’s top advisers–including Manafort and Kushner–to receive dirt on Clinton from a lawyer with close ties to Russian law enforcement. The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, has denied having any information to offer, and Trump says he wasn’t aware that the meeting was taking place. Mueller has yet to disclose his findings on the gathering. But the role of the Agalarov family in setting it up shows just how deep into Trumpland their contacts reached.


Then there was Vekselberg, whose ventures in Silicon Valley had caused such concern at the FBI. The tech billionaire scored an invitation to Trump’s Inauguration, thanks to his cousin Andrew Intrater, whose American firm, Columbus Nova, had made many of his tech investments in the U.S. Columbus Nova also made a surprising, different kind of investment early in Trump’s presidency. The firm paid Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, at least $500,000 in consulting fees in 2017, according to the New York Times. Although Vekselberg was Columbus Nova’s biggest client, the company’s lawyers say he had no role in the payments to Cohen.

There may be other, earlier connections between Vekselberg and those who would become involved in Trump’s campaign. Documents obtained by TIME show that Carter Page, a Trump foreign policy adviser from March to September 2016, sought out Vekselberg via intermediaries in 2013 when Page was launching a natural gas business. The documents name Vekselberg as a hoped-for investor and refer to a senior executive in his foundation as a point of contact. The documents show Page planned dinner with the senior executive on July 3, 2013, and refer to a draft Memorandum of Understanding between Page’s firm and Russian energy giant Gazprom.


At that time, Page was being wooed by a Russian intelligence operative in New York City with promises of contracts in the Russian energy sector, according to court documents. “He got hooked on Gazprom thinking that if they have a project, he could be [sic] rise up,” one of the spies wrote another, according to transcripts of intercepted conversations included in a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department in January 2015. “I will feed him empty promises.” The two Russians were later arrested by the FBI and expelled from the country.

Page told the House Intelligence Committee last year that in late June 2013 he met with two FBI officials who interviewed him about his contacts with the Russian spy. In his testimony, Page said he did not ask for anything of value from the spy, who Page said was the “least relevant” Russian he was speaking with about Gazprom at the time. Reached by TIME and asked about his attempted outreach to Vekselberg and any role the oligarch played in the Gazprom talks, Page said, “I can neither confirm nor deny, beyond noting that you’re being led far astray once again.” Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing.


Early this year, Vekselberg was stopped and questioned by Mueller’s investigators, who searched his electronic devices, according to the New York Times. It is not clear whether Page ever met with Vekselberg or the senior executive. Through a spokesperson, Vekselberg said his Skolkovo Foundation has no means of accessing U.S. sensitive research or technologies and that he had never met Carter Page, and referred TIME to his senior executive, who did not respond to requests for comment. Vekselberg declined to comment on the Mueller investigation until it is over.

Other oligarchs managed to play a role in the 2016 elections without ever setting foot on U.S. soil. The Internet Research Agency, which Prigozhin ran out of an office building in St. Petersburg, flooded social media with pro-Trump content that reached millions of American voters in 2016, according to Facebook’s internal investigation and a U.S. indictment issued against Prigozhin in February. Putin, for his part, did not seem to think these efforts were such a big deal. “This is only connected to private persons,” he said of his former chef’s alleged meddling in the U.S. election. “Not the state.”


That argument would be harder for Putin to make in the case of Deripaska. His links to the state are so tight that in order to resolve his U.S. visa problems, the Russian government granted him a diplomatic passport, which he admitted using 10 times to visit New York, in court documents filed in 2016.

It’s not known whether the private briefing allegedly offered by Manafort ever happened, but Deripaska was in close contact with the Kremlin around the time. In August 2016, he allegedly met on his yacht with one of Putin’s top foreign policy advisers, Sergei Prikhodko, and discussed U.S.-Russian relations. “We’ve got bad relations with America,” the billionaire told the Kremlin official, according to a brief audio recording of their conversation made by an escort on the boat and later leaked online. But that isn’t Russia’s fault, Deripaska added. It’s because of the ill will felt toward Russia in the Obama Administration, he said. Contacted for this story, Deripaska’s spokesperson said the line of questioning was based on “biased and false information,” but offered no further comment.


None of the oligarchs would have needed specific instructions to know that helping Trump beat Clinton, a long-standing critic of Putin’s, would earn them their President’s gratitude, experts say. “They put their imaginations to work,” says Galeotti, “leveraging whatever resources and contacts they had.”

But the price they paid for meddling in the U.S. elections was likely higher than any of them expected. The sanctions many have faced as a result are some of the toughest the U.S. has ever imposed on private businessmen. Bloomberg News estimated that Russia’s wealthiest tycoons lost a combined $16 billion of their net worth on that black Monday, April 9, after the sanctions were announced. Vekselberg reportedly had up to $2 billion of his U.S. assets frozen. Deripaska has been scrambling to distance himself from his companies in the hope of shielding them from the impact of the sanctions. The damage to their reputations among Western investors and banks is likely to hurt their businesses for years to come.


The only winner in this saga would seem to be Putin, whose taming of the oligarchs at the start of his tenure continues to pay political dividends. It allowed him to stand before the cameras in Helsinki and shift the blame away from the Russian state. And as a means of covertly exercising influence abroad, Putin could hardly ask for a better toolkit than the one the oligarchs provide.

In that sense the U.S. Treasury Department may have gotten the story backward when it pledged in April that the oligarchs “will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government’s destabilizing activities.” In fact it is the businessmen of Russia who insulate the state and act on its behalf when necessary. For Putin, that is what makes them so useful, and that is not likely to change.





But keep kidding yourself


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



KeepinItReal said:


> *Do you not think Russia hates that Trump (or his administration) killed hundreds of Russian militants in Syria, ripped up the Iran deal, imposed sanctions on Russia, and increased our military spending? And, most importantly, what the hell has Trump EVER done for Russia, EVER? EVER?*
> 
> *#1: Hundreds of Russian mercenaries, unofficially answering to the Russian government, killed by US forces in Syria.* Putin denies controlling them like he denies controlling Russian mercenaries in Ukraine, which is the only reason this doesn't trigger World War III. For the entire Cold War, we avoided having a direct conflict between US and Russian soldiers, and Trump took us closer than ever. Many people have rightly said that if World War III were to start, it would be from an escalation of the Syrian civil war, with US/Europe on one side and Russia/Iran/China/Assad on the other.
> 
> ...


Putin loves Trump and what he is doing, the US is in shambles because of Trump. The FBI came out and said Russia tried to hack the election yet Trump defended Putin. And look at all of Trumps connections to Russia which I have posted a million times. 

But here is yet another article on Trump and his admin and connections to Russia


http://time.com/5401645/putins-oligarchs/




How Putin's Oligarchs Got Inside the Trump Team
Putin relies on Russia’s richest men to project power. From left: ViktorVekselberg, Oleg Deripaska, Evgeny Prigozhin and Aras Agalarov. Paul Manafort, center, worked for Deripaska.
Putin relies on Russia’s richest men to project power. From left: ViktorVekselberg, Oleg Deripaska, Evgeny Prigozhin and Aras Agalarov. Paul Manafort, center, worked for Deripaska. Photo-illustration by John Ritter for TIME; Kremlin, Manafort: Shutterstock; Putin, Vekselberg, Deripaska: Getty Images; Prigozhin, Agalarov: Reuters
By SIMON SHUSTER September 20, 2018
The message from Moscow reached Paul Manafort at a crucial moment in the U.S. presidential race, just as he was about to secure the official Republican nomination for his client, Donald Trump. Manafort’s overture had been received, the July 2016 message informed him. And Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, would be back in touch soon.

In the months before the 2016 elections, Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman, had tried repeatedly to reach out to Deripaska through intermediaries, according to emails revealed last year by the Washington Post and the Atlantic. The two men’s relationship went back a decade; Manafort had worked as a political consultant for Deripaska’s business interests in Eastern Europe in the mid-2000s.


The messages used coded language–apparent references to money, for instance, were sometimes rendered as “black caviar.” But the aim of the exchange seems clear. Manafort wanted to offer “private briefings” about the Trump campaign to one of Russia’s wealthiest men.

That offer has since come under the scrutiny of Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the U.S. presidential race. His investigators want to know whether the Trump campaign had a secret back channel to the Kremlin, and Manafort has agreed to help them answer that question. As part of his guilty plea on Sept. 14 to charges stemming from the Mueller investigation, Manafort agreed to cooperate “fully, truthfully, completely, and forthrightly” with the special counsel.

Play
Unmute
Current Time 
0:24
/
Duration 
1:44
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%

Share
Captions
Fullscreen
YOU MIGHT LIKE
ROD ROSENSTEIN WILL MEET WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THURSDAY AFTER REPORTS THAT HE WAS BEING FIRED
×
Already Mueller’s probe has shown the range of assets Putin brought to bear on the 2016 campaign. Russian hackers stole and leaked the private emails of Trump’s opponents and worked to polarize and enrage voters by manipulating social media, according to evidence made public by Mueller. Russian diplomats wooed Trump’s advisers, who were eager for information that could hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads
But it is oligarchs like Deripaska, wielding extraordinary wealth and global connections, who may have played the most important role in the Russian influence campaign. Putin himself has suggested as much. Onstage with Trump at a press conference in Helsinki on July 16, the Russian leader said he “can imagine” private Russian businessmen supported Trump’s bid for the presidency. “And so what?” Putin demanded. “They don’t represent the Russian state.”

In fact, their ties to the state are a lot closer than Putin let on. From the very beginning of his 19 years in power, the Russian President has turned his country’s wealthiest men into a loose but loyal band of operatives. In exchange for lucrative deals with the government, or simply protection from the authorities, these billionaires have gathered contacts at the highest levels of U.S. politics, high enough to influence policy in the service of the Russian state. “These are cats that like to bring dead mice to the Kremlin,” says Mark Galeotti, a leading expert in Putin’s influence operations at the Prague-based Institute of International Relations.


And in the Trumps, the oligarchs found plump targets. One Russian billionaire hosted Ivanka Trump and her husband, the President’s senior adviser, Jared Kushner, at a gala in Moscow in 2014. Another has links to a $500,000 payment to Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen in 2017. A third ran a propaganda operation that pumped pro-Trump content into the news feeds of millions of American voters. In the heat of the presidential race, a fourth tycoon arranged the meeting where a Russian lawyer offered dirt on Clinton to Trump’s closest aides. And then of course there was Deripaska, whose years of fishing for friends in Washington eventually got the chairman of a presidential campaign on the line.

The U.S. has begun to hit back. In February, the Justice Department indicted one oligarch, Evgeny Prigozhin, for his role in the 2016 social-media-influence operation. In April, the Treasury Department sanctioned two others, Deripaska and investor Viktor Vekselberg, freezing their assets and limiting their travel, in retaliation for their work for Putin.


The oligarchs say they are doing nothing wrong in advancing Russia’s interests at home and abroad. Reviews of legal records and interviews with oligarchs and their associates in Russia and the West show just how far they have gone. They also show how deeply they penetrated the 2016 U.S. presidential contest, and the campaign of Donald Trump.


On a warm day in 2000, during the first months of his tenure as President, Putin arranged to meet his country’s richest men at a barbecue on the edge of Moscow. The gathering had not been his idea. One of the bankers closest to the Kremlin had suggested it, hoping it would allay their concerns about Russia’s new leader. “He was a black box,” recalls Sergei Pugachev, the financier behind the meeting, who was once known as the Kremlin’s Banker. “No one knew what was inside.”


Many of the oligarchs assumed in those days that Putin would be a pushover. With no power base in Moscow, the young KGB veteran from St. Petersburg seemed incapable of challenging their hold over the government, the media and much of the economy. Entire industries had been auctioned off to these men during Russia’s transition to capitalism in the 1990s, often in exchange for loans to save the state from bankruptcy. Some of them had urged President Boris Yeltsin to choose Putin as his successor. They assumed the new President would be at least as pliable as the old one.

Putin was quick to correct them. In choosing a venue for the meeting, he decided against the Kremlin, the normal spot for such a conclave. Instead he chose to send a more pointed message. “The meeting was at Stalin’s dacha,” Pugachev recalls. “That was very symbolic.”


Hidden among thick forests on the western outskirts of the city, the estate in Kuntsevo was the home of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin for two decades before his death in 1953. It was also the place where Stalin drew up lists of enemies among Russia’s political and economic elites, who were sent to their deaths in Siberia and elsewhere by the untold thousands in what became known as the Great Purge. The tyrant’s old office, right down to his desk and the couch where he used to take naps, was still preserved at Kuntsevo when the oligarchs pulled up to the gates for their meeting with Putin. In the presence of these memento mori, no one challenged the young President with any difficult questions, says Pugachev. “It’s enough that he let us leave,” he recalls one of the guests saying afterward.


Not all of them were so easily intimidated. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oil mogul with political ambitions of his own, understood the new rules that Putin was trying to enforce. “He wanted us to understand that we, as big businessmen, may have some power,” he tells TIME. “But it is nothing compared to his power as the head of state.” Khodorkovsky did not take that message to heart. After publicly clashing with Putin and his loyalists, he was arrested on charges of tax evasion in 2003 and subjected to a trial criticized by human-rights activists as a settling of scores. He wound up serving 10 years in prison.

The lesson to the oligarchs was clear. Their fortunes could stand or fall on Putin’s whim, and most accepted the need to do favors for the Kremlin as part of the cost of doing business. “If the state says we need to give it up, we’ll give it up,” Deripaska said of his own business empire during an interview with the Financial Times in 2007. In a remark that would come to define the position of the oligarchs in Putin’s Russia, he added, “I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests.”


The oligarchs stuck to their specialties. Some focused on banking and finance, others on mining and energy. And they paid their dues to the state in different ways.

Aras Agalarov, a flashy real estate tycoon with a taste for mafia movies–his family once filmed a remake of The Godfather for his birthday with him in the starring role–was known for accepting construction projects that might endear him to Putin. When the President decided that he wanted to host a summit in 2012 on a deserted island at Russia’s eastern edge, Agalarov spent $100 million of his own money building a vast white-elephant campus for the event, with new roads and infrastructure. Putin was pleased. “Your contribution to our country’s development cannot be measured in money,” the President said after pinning the Order of Honor to the mogul’s chest in 2013.


Another of Putin’s favorite businessmen has taken a more active role in Russia’s foreign adventures. Convicted of fraud and other crimes in the Soviet Union, Prigozhin found lawful success in the late 1990s with a St. Petersburg restaurant called New Island, where Putin would often dine with friends and foreign dignitaries. He won catering contracts with the Kremlin and the Russian army, earning him the nickname “Putin’s chef”–which has stuck despite Prigozhin’s moves into other industries.

In 2015, he emerged as a key player in Russia’s military campaigns in Ukraine and Syria. Documents and legal records published in the Russian press have linked his companies to the Wagner Group, a private military outfit that has sent fighters into both conflicts, often taking on missions that seemed too dangerous, or sensitive, for regular Russian troops. Prigozhin also bankrolled the Internet Research Agency, a troll farm that blasted out Kremlin propaganda through hundreds of fake social-media accounts, according to the U.S. charges unveiled against him earlier this year. Asked about these ventures, his spokesperson replied that Prigozhin does not speak to reporters “on principle.”


The more subtle and sensitive work of cultivating influence among power brokers in the U.S. and Western Europe generally goes to Russia’s wealthiest tycoons. Prominent among them is Viktor Vekselberg, who was one of the guests at Stalin’s dacha back in 2000. With a short silver beard and ice blue eyes, he earned much of his fortune in oil and metals. Later on, he decided to direct it, with the Kremlin’s blessing, to the tech sector.

Vekselberg quickly made friends in Silicon Valley, in part through investments managed by his cousin’s firm out of New York City. But Vekselberg’s partnerships with U.S. companies, like a billion-dollar deal he helped negotiate with Cisco in 2010, soon attracted the attention of the FBI, which issued a highly unusual warning to the industry in 2014. Vekselberg’s foundation, the bureau wrote, “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research, development facilities and dual-use technologies.”


The concerns of U.S. authorities were even more acute when it came to Deripaska. He had emerged as the winner of a brutal competition for control of Russia’s aluminum industry–a billionaire since his 30s. The U.S. revoked his visa in 2006, effectively banning him from the country, reportedly because of alleged ties to Russian organized crime. That only seemed to improve his standing with the Kremlin. He had already married into the family of Putin’s predecessor, Yeltsin, and later became “a more or less permanent fixture on Putin’s trips abroad,” according to a 2006 U.S. embassy cable.

Even without a U.S. visa, Deripaska still managed to develop ties with some of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, including Manafort and his then partner, Rick Davis. The consultants introduced Deripaska in early 2006 to several Republican Senators, including John McCain. When the late Senator celebrated his 70th birthday in the tiny Balkan nation of Montenegro that summer, Deripaska was among the revellers.


The partnership between Manafort and Deripaska was especially rich with opportunities for the Kremlin. The American lobbyist even pitched Deripaska a plan in 2005 to shape political events across the U.S. and much of Europe, according to the Associated Press, which published parts of the plan last year. The aim, the AP reported, was to “greatly benefit the Putin Government” with influence operations in a several Western capitals. One tactic Manafort reportedly touted would be to “train a cadre of leaders who can be relied upon in future governments.”

Deripaska has denied ever agreeing to such a plan and Manafort denies working for Russia. “I have always publicly acknowledged that I worked for Mr. Deripaska and his company, Rusal, to advance its interests,” Manafort said in March 2017. “I did not work for the Russian government.”


The year after Manafort sent his plan to Deripaska, they worked together on a project that redrew the map of Europe. In the spring of 2006, Montenegro held a referendum on independence from neighboring Serbia. Manafort has admitted helping stage the vote with financial backing from Deripaska. “It probably couldn’t have happened without their help,” says a Montenegrin official involved in the referendum. “They made a very good team.”

Putin at Platon International Airport in February with tycoon Vekselberg, center right
Putin at Platon International Airport in February with tycoon Vekselberg, center right Alexei Druzhinin—TASS/Getty Images
The network of relationships cultivated by the oligarchs over the past two decades covered almost every sphere of influence at home and abroad, and it was partly by chance that Trump got caught in it. Trump’s desire to do business in Russia began well before Putin and the oligarchs rose to power. During his first visit to Moscow, arranged in 1987 by the USSR’s ambassador to Washington, Trump visited sites for a new hotel, including one near Red Square. “I was impressed with the ambition of Soviet officials to make a deal,” Trump recalls in The Art of the Deal.


Vladimir Rubanov, who was a senior KGB officer at the time, says Trump may have been targeted for surveillance during that visit. “I’d say there is a 50-50 chance,” he tells TIME. The brash American certainly had the qualities that Soviet spies would have looked for. “He’s connected. He’s famous. He’s wealthy,” says Rubanov. “So for us this person would not be treated like just another visitor.”

As the communist system began to break up in the late 1980s, the talks about a Trump Tower in Moscow fizzled. They were only revived in earnest a quarter-century later, but this time it was not the government handling the negotiations. It was Agalarov, Putin’s favorite builder.

In the fall of 2013, Agalarov collaborated with Trump to bring the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow. They spent a couple of days together while hosting the event, attending parties and dinners with the Russian elite. The result was a plan to build a $3 billion complex of hotels, shopping malls and office space in Moscow, including a tower that was to bear Trump’s name. The state’s largest lender, Sberbank, even agreed to finance around 70% of the project, which would have been the biggest commercial real estate loan in its history at the time. But Trump’s political ambitions apparently wound up getting in the way. “If he hadn’t run for President, we would probably be in the construction phase today,” Agalarov’s son Emin told Forbes last year.


As the elections approached, the Agalarov family kept in touch with the Trumps. With the help of his publicist in London, Emin reached out to Trump’s eldest son Donald Jr. to arrange a meeting in June 2016 that has since become a focus of the special counsel investigation. Held on the 25th floor of Trump Tower in Manhattan, its nominal purpose was for the candidate’s top advisers–including Manafort and Kushner–to receive dirt on Clinton from a lawyer with close ties to Russian law enforcement. The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, has denied having any information to offer, and Trump says he wasn’t aware that the meeting was taking place. Mueller has yet to disclose his findings on the gathering. But the role of the Agalarov family in setting it up shows just how deep into Trumpland their contacts reached.


Then there was Vekselberg, whose ventures in Silicon Valley had caused such concern at the FBI. The tech billionaire scored an invitation to Trump’s Inauguration, thanks to his cousin Andrew Intrater, whose American firm, Columbus Nova, had made many of his tech investments in the U.S. Columbus Nova also made a surprising, different kind of investment early in Trump’s presidency. The firm paid Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, at least $500,000 in consulting fees in 2017, according to the New York Times. Although Vekselberg was Columbus Nova’s biggest client, the company’s lawyers say he had no role in the payments to Cohen.

There may be other, earlier connections between Vekselberg and those who would become involved in Trump’s campaign. Documents obtained by TIME show that Carter Page, a Trump foreign policy adviser from March to September 2016, sought out Vekselberg via intermediaries in 2013 when Page was launching a natural gas business. The documents name Vekselberg as a hoped-for investor and refer to a senior executive in his foundation as a point of contact. The documents show Page planned dinner with the senior executive on July 3, 2013, and refer to a draft Memorandum of Understanding between Page’s firm and Russian energy giant Gazprom.


At that time, Page was being wooed by a Russian intelligence operative in New York City with promises of contracts in the Russian energy sector, according to court documents. “He got hooked on Gazprom thinking that if they have a project, he could be [sic] rise up,” one of the spies wrote another, according to transcripts of intercepted conversations included in a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department in January 2015. “I will feed him empty promises.” The two Russians were later arrested by the FBI and expelled from the country.

Page told the House Intelligence Committee last year that in late June 2013 he met with two FBI officials who interviewed him about his contacts with the Russian spy. In his testimony, Page said he did not ask for anything of value from the spy, who Page said was the “least relevant” Russian he was speaking with about Gazprom at the time. Reached by TIME and asked about his attempted outreach to Vekselberg and any role the oligarch played in the Gazprom talks, Page said, “I can neither confirm nor deny, beyond noting that you’re being led far astray once again.” Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing.


Early this year, Vekselberg was stopped and questioned by Mueller’s investigators, who searched his electronic devices, according to the New York Times. It is not clear whether Page ever met with Vekselberg or the senior executive. Through a spokesperson, Vekselberg said his Skolkovo Foundation has no means of accessing U.S. sensitive research or technologies and that he had never met Carter Page, and referred TIME to his senior executive, who did not respond to requests for comment. Vekselberg declined to comment on the Mueller investigation until it is over.

Other oligarchs managed to play a role in the 2016 elections without ever setting foot on U.S. soil. The Internet Research Agency, which Prigozhin ran out of an office building in St. Petersburg, flooded social media with pro-Trump content that reached millions of American voters in 2016, according to Facebook’s internal investigation and a U.S. indictment issued against Prigozhin in February. Putin, for his part, did not seem to think these efforts were such a big deal. “This is only connected to private persons,” he said of his former chef’s alleged meddling in the U.S. election. “Not the state.”


That argument would be harder for Putin to make in the case of Deripaska. His links to the state are so tight that in order to resolve his U.S. visa problems, the Russian government granted him a diplomatic passport, which he admitted using 10 times to visit New York, in court documents filed in 2016.

It’s not known whether the private briefing allegedly offered by Manafort ever happened, but Deripaska was in close contact with the Kremlin around the time. In August 2016, he allegedly met on his yacht with one of Putin’s top foreign policy advisers, Sergei Prikhodko, and discussed U.S.-Russian relations. “We’ve got bad relations with America,” the billionaire told the Kremlin official, according to a brief audio recording of their conversation made by an escort on the boat and later leaked online. But that isn’t Russia’s fault, Deripaska added. It’s because of the ill will felt toward Russia in the Obama Administration, he said. Contacted for this story, Deripaska’s spokesperson said the line of questioning was based on “biased and false information,” but offered no further comment.


None of the oligarchs would have needed specific instructions to know that helping Trump beat Clinton, a long-standing critic of Putin’s, would earn them their President’s gratitude, experts say. “They put their imaginations to work,” says Galeotti, “leveraging whatever resources and contacts they had.”

But the price they paid for meddling in the U.S. elections was likely higher than any of them expected. The sanctions many have faced as a result are some of the toughest the U.S. has ever imposed on private businessmen. Bloomberg News estimated that Russia’s wealthiest tycoons lost a combined $16 billion of their net worth on that black Monday, April 9, after the sanctions were announced. Vekselberg reportedly had up to $2 billion of his U.S. assets frozen. Deripaska has been scrambling to distance himself from his companies in the hope of shielding them from the impact of the sanctions. The damage to their reputations among Western investors and banks is likely to hurt their businesses for years to come.


The only winner in this saga would seem to be Putin, whose taming of the oligarchs at the start of his tenure continues to pay political dividends. It allowed him to stand before the cameras in Helsinki and shift the blame away from the Russian state. And as a means of covertly exercising influence abroad, Putin could hardly ask for a better toolkit than the one the oligarchs provide.

In that sense the U.S. Treasury Department may have gotten the story backward when it pledged in April that the oligarchs “will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government’s destabilizing activities.” In fact it is the businessmen of Russia who insulate the state and act on its behalf when necessary. For Putin, that is what makes them so useful, and that is not likely to change.




Not to mention these gems

ERIC TRUMP: “WE HAVE ALL THE FUNDING WE NEED OUT OF RUSSIA” and Don Jr saying a lot of their assets came from Russia

There is also this

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868



But keep kidding yourself


----------



## KeepinItReal (Dec 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Putin loves Trump and what he is doing, the US is in shambles because of Trump. The FBI came out and said Russia tried to hack the election yet Trump defended Putin. And look at all of Trumps connections to Russia which I have posted a million times.
> 
> But here is yet another article on Trump and his admin and connections to Russia
> 
> ...


#1: When it comes to the election, I'm open to the argument that Putin wanted Trump to win and/or tried to help him win. Maybe Putin sees Trump as easy to manipulate, which may be true. Trump never worked with Russia or did anything for Russia. Name one thing Trump has ever done for Russia. Your article only describes Russia's behavior, not Trump's.

#2: Trump's policy is anti-Russia. He killed hundreds of Russian militants in Syria, risking World War III, he ripped up the Iran deal, he increased military spending and imposed massive sanctions on Russia. When it comes to policy, are you arguing Trump is pro-Russia? Actually discuss policy.

Don't just post massive articles and then say its obvious Trump loves Russia. Actually make an argument.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



KeepinItReal said:


> This is arguing that Putin favored Trump, not that Trump favored Putin or did anything for Putin. What has Trump done for Russia in two years of governance? Actually talk about real political issues, like the ones I mentioned. He killed hundreds of Russian militants in Syria, ripped apart the Iran deal (Russia is pro-Iran), increased our military spending, and imposed massive sanctions. Do you disagree with my argument that all four of these things were bad for Russia? Are any of these four things NOT bad for Russia? Actually discuss any one of the issues.
> 
> And what has Trump done for Russia?
> 
> ...


Are you really going to claim Putin did not want Trump to win, when Putin flat out said he wanted to Trump to win?

As for what has Trump done for Russia? Well for one he shared secret intel with them in the oval office. Trump is always downplaying Putin's human right abuses, Trump loves dictators he is always defending them. Also if Trump is so tough on Russia why does he want to kill the Mueller investigation? As for the sanctions you talked about, Congress forced him to do those, he didn't want to but they made him. There is a reason why he is not always boasting about it, like he does everything else.

and Ill post massive articles backing up my points all I want. We have been over this Trump Russia thing a million times and every time the evidence shows all of Trumps connections to Russia. Sorry if you don't like evidence

I just think its funny how you are all deflecting right now what a joke Trump was to the world in his speech today, with everyone laughing at him.


----------



## KeepinItReal (Dec 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Are you really going to claim Putin did not want Trump to win, when Putin flat out said he wanted to Trump to win?
> 
> As for what has Trump done for Russia? Well for one he shared secret intel with them in the oval office. Trump is always downplaying Putin's human right abuses, Trump loves dictators he is always defending them. Also if Trump is so tough on Russia why does he want to kill the Mueller investigation? As for the sanctions you talked about, Congress forced him to do those, he didn't want to but they made him. There is a reason why he is not always boasting about it, like he does everything else.
> 
> and Ill post massive articles backing up my points all I want. We have been over this Trump Russia thing a million times and every time the evidence shows all of Trumps connections to Russia. Sorry if you don't like evidence


#1: I literally said I'm open to the argument that Putin wanted Trump to win, and then you say I'm arguing that Putin didn't want Trump to win? I literally said Putin may have supported Trump because Putin sees Trump as easy to manipulate, and that it may be true that Trump is easy to manipulate. You're 100% mistating my argument. I'm asking you if Trump ever did anything for Russia or agreed to do anything for Russia. You're describing Russia's behavior, not Trump's, as I already said.

#2: You're right that he speaks highly of dictators. He speaks highly of China's government and North Korea's Kim Jong-Un. But his policy is very anti-China and anti-North Korea. This doesn't support your argument, it contradicts it. As I already said, it shows that Trump idiotically speaks positively of dictators as a way of sucking up to them, its a stupid negotiating tactic. So he speaks highly of Putin, and other dictators, but only Putin controls him? Do you disagree that he's anti-China?

#3: *Your ONE argument that Trump did something for Russia is that he shared secret intel with them.* Are you talking about when he shared Israel's intelligence on how it found/attacked ISIS targets in Syria? Israel is fine with t his, because Russia also hates ISIS. Israel's government doesn't hate Trump, they're renaming half the country after him. *Is that it? Is that your entire f'n argument for Trump doing something for Russia? Anything else?*

#4: Trump killed hundreds of Russian militants who are controlled by Putin, ripped up the Iran deal (Russia is pro-Iran), increased US defense spending and imposed sanctions on Russia. All of this is bad for Russia. None of it is good for Russia. You only responded to the sanctions argument, saying Congress forced him to do this. You may be right about this. Did they force him to kill hundreds of Russian militants, or rip up the Iran deal, or increase defense spending? *What the f has he done for Russia?*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

LOL claiming I only have one the argument when I have posted many and even a bunch of articles. Keep ignoring everything else I have posted. And keep talking about the sanctions on Russia and ignore how Congress had to force Trump to do them. But keep ignoring that fact

I still love all this deflection, because Trump was a joke today

If you keep want to talk about Russia go into the Russia Trump thread. Its just funny you can't even try to defend Trump today and what a joke he is to the rest of the world


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't believe you actually read the articles you post, BM. You seem to just go by the headlines and assume the article says everything you already believe.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yet in both cases 1 and 2 some students from both schools remember hearing about it happening.


The only one I'm aware of in the Ford instance is Christina King, who made a Facebook post that she immediately withdrew and said she "had no idea if it happened or not."

With the Ramirez allegation, all I've seen is Kavanaugh's roommate who said he got drunk a bunch, which isn't mindblowing considering it was college.


As for the FBI not investigating, I have no idea. I think they could put this to bed if they wanted because I doubt there's anything they could find that we don't know already. Ford's claim is vague and unsubstantiated as of now.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mifune Jackson said:


> The only one I'm aware of in the Ford instance is Christina King, who made a Facebook post that she immediately withdrew and said she "had no idea if it happened or not."
> 
> With the Ramirez allegation, all I've seen is Kavanaugh's roommate who said he got drunk a bunch, which isn't mindblowing considering it was college.
> 
> ...


Right because she was not in the room but she did remember people talking bout the incident in school. 

Also, funny how ford does not know the address of the party but Kavanaugh does even know he claims he was not there lol


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Not to mention that :trump is selling American weapons to Ukraine. Anti-tank weapons systems like the Javelin and anti-aircraft missiles especially. 

Which Barack Obama declined to do because Putin threatened to throw a mega bitch fit over it if he did. Barack sent Ukraine stuff like night vision goggles and communications equipment. 

:trump is arming the Ukrainian army with weapons that make any further open Russian army offensives like the one that saved the Donetsk and Luhansk "separatists" a very risky proposition, and gives Ukraine more capability to kill Russian "volunteers" already fighting in Ukraine. aka Russian army soldiers ordered into Ukraine under the fiction that they're "volunteers" to give Putin some degree of plausible deniability. They're the backbone of the "separatist" forces.

:trump has also repeatedly ignored Putin's demands that the US disengage itself from Syria. Syria has seen and is seeing right now the most intense electronic warfare campaign ever, being waged by US and Russian forces against each other.

But remember :trump is a Russian puppet, because arming Russia's enemies and giving Russia the finger in the Middle East is what puppets do :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I wish Trump would listen to Putin on Syria. :sad:


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Right because she was not in the room but she did remember people talking bout the incident in school.
> 
> Also, funny how ford does not know the address of the party but Kavanaugh does even know he claims he was not there lol


No. She walked back her statement and deleted the post. 



> "That it happened or not, I have no idea," Cristina King Miranda told NPR's Nina Totenberg. "I can't say that it did or didn't."
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/6497...ssmate-that-it-happened-or-not-i-have-no-idea


How can I #BelieveHer when this is the only backup she really has?


Kavanaugh knows he wasn't there because it's a negative and you can't prove a negative. The onus is on Ford (and those backing her, especially her legal team) to prove that it did. That's how it works. Not the backwards way you implied.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mifune Jackson said:


> No. She walked back her statement and deleted the post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She didn't walk about hearing about the incident, they asked if she knew if it happened or not, and she said no. She was not in the room so how would she know. 

Its like if you heard about a friend being raped, at school but someone asks you if you know if what you heard really happened or not and you say no

You are missing the point. Ford said she not sure where the party was, yet Kavanaugh claims he knows where the party was, he gave the location and he was not at that party. Explain that.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> This is the best bait you can come up with :HA
> 
> Defending lying cunts trying to destroy a man's life is such a noble position to take :ha



Bless you my son, I offer you forgiveness for your sins. 50 Hail Marys will get you in.










You talk about history, I think you need to read up on the Good Book to change your venomous attitude, for it shall only invite Satan to eat you on the inside, and shame God.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Michael Avenatti has locked his Twitter and now says that the woman he claims most definitely exists and most definitely will prove that Kavanaugh ran a gangrape ring with Mark Judge _in high school_ may not come forward because reasons.

Deborah Ramirez has informed the Judiciary Committee that she will not testify before it at any time if invited.

Dianne Feinstein is now hinting that Christine Ford will NOT appear to testify on Thursday before the Judiciary Committee. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-ford-bristles-over-role-female-attorney.html

Because wah wah the Republicans have hired a female lawyer with extensive experience prosecuting sex crimes to ask the questions. Democrats can't demagogue and spew their bigotry about old white men asking questions that way. So of course Ford's lawyer is freaking the fuck out over it. 

This was an op from start to finish, a scheme. A scheme dependent on bluffing as hard as possible. Their bluffs got called, now they're folding and they're most unhappy about it. The targets of their disgusting scheme are supposed to curl into the fetal position and take their beating, not defend themselves! WTF!

Chuck Grassley is a gaaaaaaaaaawd:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044688224529141761


yeahbaby! said:


> Bless you my son, I offer you forgiveness for your sins. 50 Hail Marys will get you in.
> 
> You talk about history, I think you need to read up on the Good Book to change your venomous attitude, for it shall only invite Satan to eat you on the inside, and shame God.


I'm not Catholic :draper2


----------



## KeepinItReal (Dec 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> I'm not Catholic :draper2


My apologies, but all those ridiculous fairytales are really the same in the end though, both with silly false events and lies for weak minded buffoons .


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> My apologies, but all those ridiculous fairytales are really the same in the end though, both with silly false events and lies for weak minded buffoons .


:heyman6


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Michael Avenatti has locked his Twitter and now says that the woman he claims most definitely exists and most definitely will prove that Kavanaugh ran a gangrape ring with Mark Judge _in high school_ may not come forward because reasons.
> 
> Deborah Ramirez has informed the Judiciary Committee that she will not testify before it at any time if invited.
> 
> ...


The pussy GOP has to hide behind a woman because they don't want to been seen trashing a woman who was sexually assaulted.

Talk about snowflakes

And again if there is nothing to hide, why don't they let the FBI investigate if you think Ford is lying it would clear Kavanaugh.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Chuck Grassley has scheduled the vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for 9:30 a.m. Friday morning.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Chuck Grassley has scheduled the vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for 9:30 a.m. Friday morning.


Just more proof the GOP don't care if he is guilty or not.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Also


The attorney for Deborah Ramirez says that they have reached out to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but the Committee has "refused to meet all scheduled appointments." per Kyle Griffin on twitter


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> She didn't walk about hearing about the incident, they asked if she knew if it happened or not, and she said no. She was not in the room so how would she know.
> 
> Its like if you heard about a friend being raped, at school but someone asks you if you know if what you heard really happened or not and you say no
> 
> You are missing the point. Ford said she not sure where the party was, yet Kavanaugh claims he knows where the party was, he gave the location and he was not at that party. Explain that.


She went from certainty in the Facebook post to uncertainty in the subsequent statement. By definition, that's walking back her statement. Either way, she is not a credible witness nor capable of being presented as evidence of Ford's claim.

And you're talking pure nonsense on the Kavanaugh denial. Where does he claim the party was? If he provided that info, that would be all over the place.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mifune Jackson said:


> She went from certainty in the Facebook post to uncertainty in the subsequent statement. By definition, that's walking back her statement. Either way, she is not a credible witness nor capable of being presented as evidence of Ford's claim.
> 
> And you're talking pure nonsense on the Kavanaugh denial. Where does he claim the party was? If he provided that info, that would be all over the place.


He said it in the interview last night.

Here is the quote


B. Kavanaugh: I do not. And this is an allegation about a party in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present.


That is funny he claims to know the party she is talking about, yet she was not sure where the party was. How much more lying does he have to do?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The format for the Thursday hearing has been revealed.

Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein, as the head of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking minority member, will each get a 5 minute opening statement.

Christine Ford will then have an unlimited amount of time to make her opening statement.

Each Senator will then have 5 minutes to question Dr. Ford. Apparently the Democratic members will also have a lawyer question Dr. Ford, instead of doing so directly. At least according to what Lindsey Graham just said on Fox News. 

Then Brett Kavanaugh will also have an unlimited amount of time to make his opening statement, and the Senators (or rather, the two lawyers, one appointed by each side) will get 5 minutes each for questions. 

There are 21 members of the Judiciary Committee, so both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh will be questioned for 105 minutes each. Minimum. As undoubtedly there will be a fair bit of political theater that will extend the time each are questioned by at least several minutes.

That is, if Dr. Ford decides to show up. If she does not, presumably Judge Kavanaugh will testify alone. Or the hearing may not happen at all.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Let's face it even if it the Kavanaugh stuff was proven it won't make a lick of difference - case in point kiddie fiddler Roy Moore. He still got Trump's endorsement without a second's thought and still almost got in.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> He said it in the interview last night.
> 
> Here is the quote
> 
> ...


Wow, you should really take this to CNN.

Surprised this isn't bigger news. Maybe it's not bigger news because that info is out there in some way. There's no way this would just slip on national TV without people questioning it.

You're the only one.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mifune Jackson said:


> Wow, you should really take this to CNN.
> 
> Surprised this isn't bigger news. Maybe it's not bigger news because that info is out there in some way. There's no way this would just slip on national TV without people questioning it.
> 
> You're the only one.


Are you saying the quote is not real ? LOL


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just more proof the GOP don't care if he is guilty or not.


I don't think any of the people involved on either side actually care if this did or didn't happen. The Democrats want Trump's nominee to fail getting in and the Republicans want Trump's nominee to get confirmed. I don't believe any of them care about anything else. Whatever they need to do to reach that goal they're going to do.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Are you saying the quote is not real ? LOL


No. The quote is real, it's just not newsworthy. I don't see this story gaining any traction despite the interview being last night and that we live in a 24 hour newscycle.

It's a strong indicator that the info of the alleged area this house was in must be out there somewhere to people who needed to know it (ie lawyers, senators, news people, and the accused). Like how Ford's name leaked within 24 hours to Washington insiders after Feinstein's anonymous letter and was then released to the public 2 days later. 

In other words, it's not a big deal that he said that.


EDIT: And people care whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty, because if he is, even if the assault is outside the statute of limitations, he still perjured himself and that is absolutely disqualifying.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mifune Jackson said:


> No. The quote is real, it's just not newsworthy. I don't see this story gaining any traction despite the interview being last night and that we live in a 24 hour newscycle.
> 
> It's a strong indicator that the info of the alleged area this house was in must be out there somewhere to people who needed to know it (ie lawyers, senators, news people, and the accused). Like how Ford's name leaked within 24 hours to Washington insiders after Feinstein's anonymous letter and was then released to the public 2 days later.
> 
> In other words, it's not a big deal that he said that.


How is it not a big deal? She said she is not sure what party it was, he claims he was never at a party like that, yet he then names a party. 

It just shows how much more of a liar Kavanaugh is. And if Ford was not sure of the exact date of this assault, how does Kavanaugh think he knows?

EDIT for your EDIT

If the GOP and Trump cared they would have let the FBI investigate. Also pretty sure in Maryland there is no statute of limitations for rape.

So if Ford wanted to, she could press charges.
Which if he really did this, she should do.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*fantastic watch





*


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Rachel Mitchell is reportedly the female prosecutor who will question both Ford and Kavanaugh for the Republican senators:

https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Arizona-prosecutor-emerges-as-GOP-choice-to-13258105.php

26 years experience, today is in more of a supervisory role for the Maricopa County Attorney's office.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044664321815515137


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is it not a big deal?


Good question! I don't see anyone talking about this except you. 

I'm saying that it's not a big deal because this "slip" you found isn't blowing up. No one is reporting on this. Where are the 200 articles about this? EVERYONE saw it. It's in the transcript. Why is wrestlingforum.com the leading news outlet for this?

Maybe this info is more common knowledge to those directly involved than you think it is.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044664321815515137


There is no reason to have outside counsel question her, unless the GOP is worried. And also what is the point of her even being put through it if the GOP is going to rush a vote the very next day. 





Mifune Jackson said:


> Good question! I don't see anyone talking about this except you.
> 
> I'm saying that it's not a big deal because this "slip" you found isn't blowing up. No one is reporting on this. Where are the 200 articles about this? EVERYONE saw it. It's in the transcript. Why is wrestlingforum.com the leading news outlet for this?
> 
> Maybe this info is more common knowledge to those directly involved than you think it is.


Love how you keep deflecting the question lol

So you don't think its a big deal that Ford was not sure what party the assault took place at, yet Kavanaugh let slip a party he claims he was not at lol


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just more proof the GOP don't care if he is guilty or not.


*Please don't tell me you think the democrats care if he's guilty or not because they don't.*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CROFT said:


> *Please don't tell me you think the democrats care if he's guilty or not because they don't.*


They care more than Republicans. The more time passes the more stuff comes out about Kavanaugh and that is why the GOP is trying to push it through to fast






OH look GOP setting up more fuckery for the midterms

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersec...ion-security-bill-wont-pass-ahead-of-midterms

Election security bill won't pass ahead of midterms, says key Republican

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said Tuesday that a bipartisan election security bill won’t be passed by Congress ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Lankford told The Hill that the text of the bill, known as the Secure Elections Act, is still being worked out. And with the House only being in session for a limited number of days before the elections, the chances of an election security bill being passed by then are next to none.

“The House won’t be here after this week so it’s going to be impossible to get passed,” Lankford said of the bill.


The legislation, which aims to protect elections from cyberattacks, was initially set to be addressed by a Senate committee last month. But the markup was abruptly postponed by Senate Rules and Administration Committee Chairman Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) over a lack of Republican support and after some secretaries of state shared concerns about the bill, a GOP Senate aide told The Hill at the time.

The White House was also critical of the legislation, saying that it “cannot support legislation with inappropriate mandates or that moves power or funding from the states to Washington for the planning and operation of elections.”

The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who has urged lawmakers to take steps to secure U.S. elections.

“With just 42 days until the midterm election, it is critical that we pass the Secure Elections Act as soon as possible," Klobuchar said in a statement to The Hill. "The bill is supported by both Democrats and Republicans who continue to work to get this done. With our nation under attack from foreign governments every day, there is a federal obligation to act.”

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers also introduced their version of the legislation in August.

Some secretaries of state and election organizations had raised concerns about the legislation, which would have required that states use backup paper ballots and conduct audits after elections to ensure that no votes or voting systems were compromised.

Lankford told The Hill on Tuesday that the lawmakers were working with secretaries of state as well as other groups involved in elections to finalize the bill.

“We ran it through the whole group last time, we’ll run it through everybody else again,” he said.

Congress has not passed another piece of legislation aimed at protecting election systems from cyberattacks since the 2016 election, which the U.S. intelligence community determined was influenced by Russia.
Lawmakers did include $380 million for states to upgrade and secure their voting systems in an appropriations bill passed earlier this year. However, House Republicans thwarted an effort to add more election security funding in a July spending bill, arguing that states has already received sufficient funds.

President Trump also signed an executive order earlier this month that authorizes sanctions against any foreign country, person or entity that was found to have interfered in U.S. elections.



Oh and looky here

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rand-paul-wants-to-scrap-some-us-sanctions-on-russia

Rand Paul Wants to Scrap Some U.S. Sanctions on Russia
The senator will introduce a bill to lift U.S. sanctions on Russian lawmakers if the Kremlin does the same for U.S. lawmakers, The Daily Beast has learned.


Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is introducing an amendment that would lift U.S. sanctions on Russian lawmakers, The Daily Beast has learned.

The amendment, which will be introduced at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on Wednesday, stipulates that existing U.S. sanctions on members of the Russian Federal Assembly will be lifted if Moscow agrees to lift its own sanctions on certain American members of Congress.

Paul’s amendment is not likely to go anywhere on a foreign relations panel that is overwhelmingly skeptical of Russia and unwilling to lift sanctions in exchange for such a concession as the one Paul has outlined. At least one fellow senator—who herself is banned from traveling to Russia—is already objecting.

“Thanks, but no thanks. As a senator who has been sanctioned by the Kremlin, I see absolutely no need for this amendment and strongly believe that sanctions should continue to be enhanced for Russian leadership rather than weakened,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who was denied a Russian visa last year, told The Daily Beast. “As the Kremlin continues to attack our institutions and democracy, this amendment would be a capitulation to Putin’s aggression.”

Paul has made sanctions relief a cause of his since returning from Moscow last month. During that trip, which he took without any of his colleagues, Paul met with Russian officials and delivered a letter from President Donald Trump to Russian President Vladimir Putin, which the White House later said was written at Paul’s request. In addition to meeting with former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, Paul had an hour-long sit-down with Konstantin Kosachev, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Russia’s legislature. During that meeting, according to Paul’s office, the senator invited Kosachev, who himself is banned from entering the U.S., to send Russian lawmakers to the U.S. Capitol to meet with their American counterparts. Paul’s amendment would be the first step toward allowing those Russians to travel to the U.S.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, paid for Paul’s trip.

The Kentucky senator has long been a proponent of President Donald Trump’s strategy to establish a better working relationship with Russia and with Putin. He has criticized his colleagues for their tougher stances on Russia, arguing that the U.S. should be promoting dialogue with Russia. And upon his return from Moscow, he openly questioned the purpose of the NATO alliance during a foreign relations committee hearing.

RELATED IN POLITICS

How Team Trump Blunder Led to Sanctions for Putin Oligarch

Trump’s Ready to Punish Election Interference. Or Is He?

White House Order on Election Meddling Has No Teeth
“Senator Rand Paul believes that dialogue and diplomacy are vitally important to global peace,” Sergio Gor, the senator’s deputy chief of staff, told The Daily Beast. “It is important to remember that the United States and Russia hold more than 90% of all nuclear weapons. While there is plenty we might disagree on, we won’t be able to resolve those difference if the two sides aren’t engaging in dialogue.”





GOP not even trying to hide it anymore


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CROFT said:


> *Please don't tell me you think the democrats care if he's guilty or not because they don't.*


And clearly the GOP doesn't care if he actually did what she accused him of,a lot of them have gone on record saying it shouldn't matter cause he was 17. Even just from a political stand point why go on record pushing a guy through if their is even a 10-20% chance the accusations are true? If they ram a lifetime SC seat through and this guy end up being Roy Moore 2.0 the Dems will win Reagan 84 level big in 2020 and any special election before then.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Rand Paul arguing on behalf of removing sanctions against Russia is PROOF POSITIVE THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE ALL PUTIN'S PUPPETS TAKING HIS ORDERS FROM THE KREMLIN!!!!11

Step 1: Run one of the most consistently hawkish individuals in post-Vietnam War U.S. history whose rhetoric pertaining to Russia and Vladimir Putin was absurdly over-the-top and embarrassingly bellicose, helping to place Russo-American relations in the worst state they have been in since the Cold War concluded the better part of three decades ago.

Step 2: Highlight the entirely predictable point that Putin, seeing at least some daylight between presidential candidate Donald Trump's generally pro-peace speechifying concerning Russia and the U.S. going forward, and aforementioned individual's histrionic equating him with Hitler, was in favor of seeing Trump win the 2016 presidential election over said individual.

Step 3: Ignore that Trump's present foreign policy is routinely clashing with Putin's present foreign policy in arenas as disparate as Ukraine, Poland, Iran and most dangerously Syria.

Step 4: Profit?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> US National Security Adviser John Bolton has warned Iran's rulers that there will be "hell to pay" if they harm the US, its citizens or allies.





> “So I say to the Iranian government, you must truly be afraid of being overthrown,” Giuliani said. “We will not forget that you wanted to commit murder on our soil.”


And people were afraid Clinton would be the warmongerer.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> GOP not even trying to hide it anymore


Look, man; I personally couldn't give two fucks whether Russia interfered in you guys' elections or not, to be perfectly honest. All I'm wondering is this: you've admitted to not being up to date on what's been going on in Syria for these past few years, which is easily one of the most pressing issues of our time; given the fact that it's been said multiple times on here that the US and Russia are in completely antagonistic positions in this conflict (not to mention all the others mentioned, but I won't even go there), don't you think this would be something of great value to study in order to understand just where the relations between both countries stand at the moment?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> And people were afraid Clinton would be the warmongerer.


The plan is long term. Both parties are the same ruling party. The politics are a performance (theater) if you will to control the sheep into putting the same people back in power and beliefs that they're putting someone else into power. The Republicans start the wars or proxy wars and the democrats just pretend that they can't stop them. They're both owned by the same corporations.

America is already a uniparty system with the illusion of a two party republic maintained by a media that's also owned by the same influencers that own most of the government. There are something like 20k unelected government bureaucrats who are placed in key positions by lobbyists and most of them are placed to push specific policies that favor specific corporations. You know this because the majority of people in office leave office to get multi-million dollar deals with the private industry. 

Let's take Ajit Pai for example. He's an ex-employee of Verizons. He's been in government since the Obama days. So this guy has been working for two governments that supposedly have opposing political ideologies (hahahaha) ... There are thousands of people like him in the American bureaucracy. 

The president's office is ceremonial. 

There is no such thing as two parties in America. Congress are corporate puppets and the bureaucrats and lobbyists run the show. 

The only reason why Clinton did not get elected was because she was unable to maintain the facade and protect her backers from fatal public exposure. That's it. But it doesn't matter because Trump's politics are essentially the same as Obama's politics. Maybe worse on the economic front because he's setting up a booming economy to have another crash in a few years.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where girls allegedly were drugged and raped*



> A third accuser of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday publicly identified herself and alleged that Kavanaugh and others while in high school spiked the drinks of girls at parties to make it easier for them to be gang raped.
> 
> Julie Swetnick's stunning claims, made on the eve of a Senate committee hearing for Kavanaugh and another accuser, came in an affidavit to a Senate staffer that was released by her lawyer. The White House had no immediate comment on Swetnick's allegations, which were signed under penalty of perjury.
> 
> ...


Source


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044960428730843136
but i thought 4chan had duped avenatti? :mj

get fucked kavanaugh. rapist scum.

edit: oh, and 4 signed affidavits backing Ford's claim.

https://www.scribd.com/document/389502624/Declarations-in-Support-of-Dr-Ford#from_embed


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Love how you keep deflecting the question lol
> 
> So you don't think its a big deal that Ford was not sure what party the assault took place at, yet Kavanaugh let slip a party he claims he was not at lol


That's not deflection. I don't know how Kavanaugh knows that and neither do you. It seems to be common enough knowledge that no one is talking about it as if it's news, though. Except you.

That's you projecting your own theory for how Kavanaugh "knew" and Ford "didn't." It's all in your head.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044740401935126528
Wikileaks dropping truth bombs.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> edit: oh, and 4 signed affidavits backing Ford's claim.
> 
> https://www.scribd.com/document/389502624/Declarations-in-Support-of-Dr-Ford#from_embed


All those affidavits say that she told them about the incidents at different times, not that they were there.

We all know she is accusing Kavanaugh of rape, I watch the news, i can sign an affidavit saying that.

Smartass comment aside my issue is this:

Why did it take 10 years for her to tell her husband about what happened, and it had to come out in therapy, heck one of the guys was just a baseball coach, and she spilled the beans to him earlier than the man she made a vow to be with forever.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> *New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where girls allegedly were drugged and raped*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, we're going to need more witnesses names released . I mean, we're talking about a massive gang rape operation , which you'd figure there'd have been more claims about. It's a pretty serious accusation that involve other men as well. If its true, he needs to step down and be punished.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> All those affidavits say that she told them about the incidents at different times, not that they were there.
> 
> We all know she is accusing Kavanaugh of rape, I watch the news, i can sign an affidavit saying that.
> 
> ...


It goes to show that this isn't just made up like Trump and the GOP are claiming, she talked about it with a number of people before now. And you can't sign an affidavit she told you about it years ago. Something like 80% of women who are sexually assaulted don't report it and we can see why with what is going on right now. Because when it does happen, instead of investing it, the woman claiming it is usually the one put on "trial"


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Just re-reading the accusation, Swetnick and Avenatti are saying Kavanaugh didn't participate in her gang rape?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm sure any guy Trump could've nominated would have been called a gangrape ring leader by the Democrats. I'm pretty curious what their plan was for a female nominee, i.e Amy Barrett. Kinda wanna reload and explore that path.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm sure any guy Trump could've nominated would have been called a gangrape ring leader by the Democrats. I'm pretty curious what their plan was for a female nominee, i.e Amy Barrett. Kinda wanna reload and explore that path.


Its stuff like this why I don't take you seriously. 



Stinger Fan said:


> Just re-reading the accusation, Swetnick and Avenatti are saying Kavanaugh didn't participate in her gang rape?


It was not clear from what I read, it looks like she said they were when it happened but it does not seem like they joined in, but she made it clear Kavanaugh was the one who spiked the drinks to get the girls drunk for the gang rapes.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> I'm sure any guy Trump could've nominated would have been called a gangrape ring leader by the Democrats. I'm pretty curious what their plan was for a female nominee, i.e Amy Barrett. Kinda wanna reload and explore that path.


Yeah, of course, because the rape claims are a well known Democrat tactic.

This bipartisan nonsense you Americans have is so god Damn pathetic.

Just watched a video from Kyle Kulinski where Trump says democrats are looking to raid Medicare so they can get Medicare for all and take old peoples Medicare away. He's so fucking stupid, raid Medicare to create Medicare...

What.

But this shows how dumb the bipartisan system is.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> Yeah, of course, because the rape claims are a well known Democrat tactic.
> 
> This bipartisan nonsense you Americans have is so god Damn pathetic.
> 
> ...


 I posted that video in this thread a couple of days ago, and of course, the Trump supporters in here were silent. Its laughable anyone tries to still claim Trump isn't stupid.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, of course, because the rape claims are a well known Democrat tactic.
> ...


It's not just Trump but his supporters, he literally said the democrats want to raid a socialist Medicare system to create a socialist Medicare system and all the monkeys at the speech booed.

They are so moronic it's sad. People like Deep/Cam won't acknowledge this idiotic speech, instead they post stuff from the NATO conference where he spreads his usual economic propaganda.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> It's not just Trump but his supporters, he literally said the democrats want to raid a socialist Medicare system to create a socialist Medicare system and all the monkeys at the speech booed.
> 
> They are so moronic it's sad. People like Deep/Cam won't acknowledge this idiotic speech, instead they post stuff from the NATO conference where he spreads his usual economic propaganda.


Well, that is a given, Trump said he loves the uneducated. That is his base.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@DesolationRow @Tater @CROFT @draykorinee @Miss Sally

How dare Rand Paul ever conceive of trying to improve relations between Russia and the US by easing off sanctions which are hurting the Russian populace more than the Putin administration itself. Makes so much more sense continuing or increasing sanctions on them, continuing to arm Ukrainian neo-nazi rebels, bulking up NATO troops along the balkans and continuing to be antagonistic towards Russia over Syria. Better yet, Trump and Paul aren't doing enough to prove they aren't allies of Putin, why aren't they advocating a no fly zone or a safe zone around Syrian airspace? Russian planes shouldn't dare fly over Syria to help their ally Assad, nor should they be focused on taking out ISIS. They should be supporting the moderate rebels instead! *cough* Al Qaeda/Al Nusra *cough*.

What a Russian puppet he is that Rand Paul, wanting a more sane foreign policy to stop the US from further escalation and war which is costing them trillions of dollars at the expense of the taxpayer who would rather see their money spent elsewhere or better yet in my opinion actually not geared towards the US governments ridiculous deficits which are going to hit over the trillion mark a year again. But no, Russia is the problem, not the US's ridiculous fiscal and foreign policies for the past two decades.

P.S Fuck this Neo-McCarthyism bullshit.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It goes to show that this isn't just made up like Trump and the GOP are claiming, she talked about it with a number of people before now. And you can't sign an affidavit she told you about it years ago. Something like 80% of women who are sexually assaulted don't report it and we can see why with what is going on right now. Because when it does happen, instead of investing it, the woman claiming it is usually the one put on "trial"


You didn't read the affidavits did you?

Her husband stated in his affidavit that she told him about it in 2012

Keith Koegler signed his affidavit saying he was told in 2016

Adela Gildo-Mazzon's affidavit says she was told in June 2013 (and kept the receipt to a random dinner, which makes no sense)

And then Rebecca white said she told her in 2017.

So i have no idea what your point of the first part was.

you second part is you virtue signaling (like usual) to make no point at all, she is on trial, because she has something to gain out of this, which is why people are skeptical. Her stories that she told in the affidavit to people aren't really that clear.

And i am skeptical personally, because she seemed to have no problem telling everyone in the neighborhood, but sure had an issue telling her husband, who you and I would agree should be a person who wouldn't put her on trail, and would believe her outright?

Also, sure, if they investigate it, where should they go to start, you said earlier in the thread that she doesn't remember the address, so the FBI should go search "A neighborhood in MD" to find rape evidence from 36 years ago? This is actually a genuine question, people say they want an FBI investigation, but i wonder what that means in their eyes.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It goes to show that this isn't just made up like Trump and the GOP are claiming, she talked about it with a number of people before now. And you can't sign an affidavit she told you about it years ago. Something like 80% of women who are sexually assaulted don't report it and we can see why with what is going on right now. Because when it does happen, instead of investing it, the woman claiming it is usually the one put on "trial"


Granted that this is true this seems convenient when the guy has been a Federal Judge for years. So if he didn't get nominated she never would have said something? I find that to be an alarm for suspicion.

Also I find this extra hilarious because we've had false claims being brought to light and people are like "fucking false claims ruining peoples lives!!!11" Yet the evidence seems in this case seems shaky at best and people already have their pitchforks out because MUH POLITICS. 

This whole thing is suspect but but lying isn't exactly a tactic a people are above in American Politics. If it's true I hope he's punished, if it's nonsense then I hope everyone running with this gets exposed as the biased partisan hacks they are.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It was not clear from what I read, it looks like she said they were when it happened but it does not seem like they joined in, but she made it clear Kavanaugh was the one who spiked the drinks to get the girls drunk for the gang rapes.


I'm reading it again trying to understand. 

So , Kavanaugh drugged women but didn't rape them? Her claim is that she witnessed them having "made efforts" to drug women but that kind of sounds like they weren't successful , no? She also goes on to say that she knew they were doing this and went to the parties avoiding any drinks but she still ended up getting drugged and doesn't quite explain how, just that they were there at the house at the same time she was being assaulted. And this gang rape group was operating for roughly 2-3 years? And she may have witnessed this happening 10 or so times? 

This is all very confusing.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Also, sure, if they investigate it, where should they go to start, you said earlier in the thread that she doesn't remember the address, so the FBI should go search "A neighborhood in MD" to find rape evidence from 36 years ago? This is actually a genuine question, people say they want an FBI investigation, but i wonder what that means in their eyes.


The accusation isn't even rape. It's sexual assault, so the best physical evidence that would be available is the medical record Ford claims to have. Also, if Ford kept the clothes from the incident. Maybe the bed, too, if there would be any way to show that two men were trying to crush a woman on it, or whatever the claim was.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You didn't read the affidavits did you?
> 
> Her husband stated in his affidavit that she told him about it in 2012
> 
> ...



WTF are you talking about. 2012 was years ago was it not? 2016 was years ago is it not? She didn't just come out with this now.

She told people about it in 2012 2013 2016, she didn't just make it up now.

so what exactly did I say that was wrong? Instead if trolling read what I actually said. It's hilarious you claim you don't understand what I am saying in my first statement when you just reiterated what I said that she didn't just make this up now like Trump and the GOP were saying, she told other people would this before.




Miss Sally said:


> Granted that this is true this seems convenient when the guy has been a Federal Judge for years. So if he didn't get nominated she never would have said something? I find that to be an alarm for suspicion.
> 
> Also I find this extra hilarious because we've had false claims being brought to light and people are like "fucking false claims ruining peoples lives!!!11" Yet the evidence seems in this case seems shaky at best and people already have their pitchforks out because MUH POLITICS.
> 
> This whole thing is suspect but but lying isn't exactly a tactic a people are above in American Politics. If it's true I hope he's punished, if it's nonsense then I hope everyone running with this gets exposed as the biased partisan hacks they are.


The whole point of the hearings for SCOTUS is to see if they are fit to sit on the highest court in the US for life. If anything is shaky is the lies given by Kavanaugh, as well as the GOP wanting to rush this through because the longer this is going the more is coming out about Kavanaugh. That is why Trump, Kavanaugh, and the GOP don't want a FBI investigation, because the more they dig the more comes out about how Kavanaugh was not a choir boy like he claims.




Stinger Fan said:


> I'm reading it again trying to understand.
> 
> So , Kavanaugh drugged women but didn't rape them? Her claim is that she witnessed them having "made efforts" to drug women but that kind of sounds like they weren't successful , no? She also goes on to say that she knew they were doing this and went to the parties avoiding any drinks but she still ended up getting drugged and doesn't quite explain how, just that they were there at the house at the same time she was being assaulted. And this gang rape group was operating for roughly 2-3 years? And she may have witnessed this happening 10 or so times?
> 
> This is all very confusing.


Her saying they "made efforts" to drug women could just mean it didn't work on every woman. She will need to speak to get more clarity on this. As for her still getting drugged, she could have tried to avoid any alcoholic drinks, but they still managed to slip the drug into her drink. Again she needs to be interviewed to get more clarity on this. 

As for if she was witnesses these rapes for 2-3 years, meaning like, oh that is the room they are running a train on, she is going to open herself up to, why didn't you do anything about it.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> WTF are you talking about. 2012 was years ago was it not? 2016 was years ago is it not? She didn't just come out with this now.
> 
> She told people about it in 2012 2013 2016, she didn't just make it up now.
> 
> so what exactly did I say that was wrong? Instead if trolling read what I actually said. It's hilarious you claim you don't understand what I am saying in my first statement when you just reiterated what I said that she didn't just make this up now like Trump and the GOP were saying, she told other people would this before.


First off I am going by this part of your statement:



birthday_massacre said:


> It goes to show that this isn't just made up like Trump and the GOP are claiming, she talked about it with a number of people before now. *And you can't sign an affidavit she told you about it years ago.* Something like 80% of women who are sexually assaulted don't report it and we can see why with what is going on right now. Because when it does happen, instead of investing it, the woman claiming it is usually the one put on "trial"


Maybe you worded it differently in your head than I read it, maybe you meant it a different way, but this is what I read at face value.

You said you can't sign an affidavit she told you about it years ago...if you meant something different, stop trolling, read your own post and clarify.

Also, nice to show you didn't answer the question of why wouldn't she tell her husband in private? But ok with telling a random neighbor... oh and how would you like the FBI to carry an investigation 36 years from when it started.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> First off I am going by this part of your statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That bolded part is perfectly clear. You said and I will bold it



DMD Mofomagic said:


> All those affidavits say that she told them about the incidents at different times, not that they were there.
> 
> We all know she is accusing Kavanaugh of rape,* I watch the news, i can sign an affidavit saying that*.


You made the claim oh you can sign an affidavit saying that she is accusing Kavanaugh of rape because you saw it on the news in 2018, to which I said, but you can't sign an affidavit saying she told you years ago about it.

And I did answer your question, I said 80% of women don't tell anyone about being sexually assaulted. You even quoted me saying that.


Stop trolling, you are bad at it


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> That bolded part is perfectly clear. You said and I will bold it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I don't have time for you trying to backpedal and get things wrong a bunch, so I am going to ask you again what you wont answer:

Why do you think Dr. Ford didn't tell her husband, who would more than likely not judge her, would believe her, and wouldn't put her on trial that she was sexually assaulted for 10 years after their marriage?

I am not asking about other women, I am asking about this one. 

And the FBI investigation you want, doubt you answer that either.


----------



## Punk_316 (Sep 9, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm sure any guy Trump could've nominated would have been called a gangrape ring leader by the Democrats. I'm pretty curious what their plan was for a female nominee, i.e Amy Barrett. Kinda wanna reload and explore that path.


This-- also a Klansman, Nazi and/or 'literally Hitler' (as they label any Republican and/or Conservative), a rampant rapist, and a pedophile (who preys on girls specifically).

Following his passing, the outpouring of love and admiration for John McCain was the biggest example of sanctimonious hypocrisy I've ever witnessed (from all the limousine liberals and usual suspects). He was reviled by the Democrats at large, liberals and mainstream media (especially in 2008 when running against the anointed Obama). He was a labeled a 'war monger' and every name in the book-- of course, up until he lashed out against Trump and became the biggest living obstructionist. Then he was revered as a saint and noble hero (_they even used his funeral_ as a bash-Trump session). 

McCain's funeral essentially became a meeting session for the elites and empty suits to resist and unite. They've been exposed and they know it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yeah, I don't have time for you trying to backpedal and get things wrong a bunch, so I am going to ask you again what you wont answer:
> 
> Why do you think Dr. Ford didn't tell her husband, who would more than likely not judge her, would believe her, and wouldn't put her on trial that she was sexually assaulted for 10 years after their marriage?
> 
> ...


LOL you are the one who got it wrong lol

And I already answered the question LOL You even quoted my answer. Love how you keep ignoring the answer. The answer is the same. Most women don't tell anyone when they are sexually assaulted Not sure what you dont undestand about that fact



But keep trolling


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

taking this with a grain of salt until more info comes out

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17907748/brett-kavanaugh-fourth-allegation-senate-confirmation

Report: Senate is investigating a fourth misconduct allegation against Brett Kavanaugh
The alleged incident took place in 1998 in Washington, DC.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating a fourth allegation of sexually aggressive behavior toward women by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to NBC News. Kavanaugh is alleged to have a shoved a woman up against a wall “very aggressively and sexually” while he was drunk.

The fourth allegation differs from those of Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick in one important way: The alleged actions took place much more recently. The previous three incidents allegedly happened in high school or college. The fourth alleged incident, which was reported to Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO), occurred in 1998. That year, Kavanaugh turned 33, and he worked from April 27 until December 1 as an associate independent counsel under Kenneth Starr, investigating President Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Senate aides asked Kavanaugh about the incident in a Tuesday phone call. He denied it, as he has continually denied the other three claims of misconduct and assault.

“We’re dealing with an anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend,” Kavanaugh said on the call, according to a transcript released by the Senate Judiciary Committee. “It’s ridiculous. Total Twilight Zone. And no, I’ve never done anything like that.”

The latest accuser, who is so far still anonymous, alleges that there were at least four witnesses to the incident.

Here is the full description of the alleged incident, from NBC’s Kasie Hunt, Leigh Ann Caldwell, and Heidi Przybyla:

According to an anonymous complaint sent to Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Kavanaugh physically assaulted a woman he socialized with in the Washington, D.C. area in 1998 while he was inebriated.

The sender of the complaint described an evening involving her own daughter, Kavanaugh and several friends in 1998.

“When they left the bar (under the influence of alcohol) they were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh, shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually.”

“There were at least four witnesses including my daughter.” The writer of the letter provided no names but said the alleged victim was still traumatized and had decide to remain anonymous herself.
A Republican aide told NBC that Judiciary Committee staffers asked Kavanaugh about the incident during a Tuesday phone call. Democratic staffers told NBC they were not satisfied with the majority’s questions during the call.

Notably, Ford alleges that Kavanaugh was drunk when he tried to force himself on her during a high school party and Ramirez alleges that both she and Kavanaugh were drunk in their freshman dorm at Yale when he pulled out his penis and shoved it her face. Julia Swetnick, the third accuser, alleges that Kavanaugh drank excessively while sexually harassing women in high school.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm sure any guy Trump could've nominated would have been called a gangrape ring leader by the Democrats. I'm pretty curious what their plan was for a female nominee, i.e Amy Barrett. Kinda wanna reload and explore that path.


I don't think they would call Merrick Garland that.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/se...vanaugh-accuser-says-raped-boat-rhode-island/

Senate investigating* fifth Brett Kavanaugh accuser *who says woman was raped on a boat in Rhode Island

Supreme Court nominee has a fifth accuser, this time from 1985 when he was 20 years old.

According to documents posted by Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein, Kavanaugh was involved in an incident on a boat in a Newport, Rhode Island harbor.

So, for the record, the report from Senator Whitehouse states, “Senator Whitehouse received a call this morning from a Rhode Island constituent [unnamed] who made allegations regarding U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. [Unnamed] reported that early on a Sunday morning in August of 1985, a close acquaintance of the constituent was sexually assaulted by two heavily inebriated men she referred to at the time as Brett and Mark.”

“The event took place on a 36-foot maroon and white boat in the harbor at Newport, Rhode Island, after the three had met at a local bar. According to [unnamed], when he learned of the assault at approximately 5:00 a.m. that same morning, he and another individual went to the harbor, located the boat the victim had described and physically confronted the two men, leaving them with significant injuries,” the statement read.

“[Unnamed] recently realized that one of the men was Brett Kavanaugh when she saw Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook photo on television over the weekend. He promptly reported the incident to our office on Monday Morning, September 24, 2018,” it continued.

Kavanaugh said he has never been on a boat in Newport.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045115996611252225

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045098674081214464
If true, why make the accusation in the first place?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045115996611252225
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045098674081214464
> If true, why make the accusation in the first place?


He gets pressure from Kavanagh to take it back, then he does. He probably got death threats too or its just a GOP troll trying to cast doubt on the real victims.



its why the FBI needs to investigate to see what is true and what is not.

Looking at his twitter, it was made in June 2018, and he has no pic, its probably a troll account.

Reading more into it looks like the GOP leaked this troll one on purpose like I said about so they can claim to SEE all these accusers are not telling the truth. it truly is sickening the length the GOP is going to to confirm Kavanaugh


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Why do you think Dr. Ford didn't tell her husband, who would more than likely not judge her, would believe her, and wouldn't put her on trial that she was sexually assaulted for 10 years after their marriage?
> 
> I am not asking about other women, I am asking about this one.


Let's say for the sake of argument that her accusations are true - It's really not up to anyone to judge or speculate on why she told who and when she told them.

People who have experienced trauma can react in funny ways IMO. It's easy to say 'I would've reported it straight away' - but if it happened to you how do you know how you would reacted?

People tend to feel guilt and shame, blame themselves, think no one will believe them anyway, the effect it will have on their family etc etc

I think normally it may be harder to tell close loved ones about this sort of stuff for a multitude of reasons. That's why councellors can be helpful.

It's not up to others to question her when she felt comfortable telling people, especially anyone that hasn't experienced similar trauma and knows what it does to you psychologically.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045139770513477632

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045146554229764096
The hearing is going to be a circus tomorrow. Imagine some guy taking "credit" for the Blasey Ford allegation. 

Just saw this on Mediaite:

https://www.mediaite.com/online/sen...es-he-forced-himself-onto-ford-not-kavanaugh/

*EDIT:* USA Today has mentioned it too so don't be surprised if this arises tomorrow during the hearing.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...d-sexual-encounter-christine-ford/1439569002/


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Good lord. Considering some the of expose's that have revealed appalling frathouse campus behavior in the past it probably could;ve been any number of future lawyers/politicians etc etc


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045139770513477632
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045146554229764096
> The hearing is going to be a circus tomorrow. Imagine some guy taking "credit" for the Blasey Ford allegation.
> ...


just slimeball tactics by the GOP to try and cast doubt, for when they confirm Kavanaugh. 

Plus neither of these guys have a leg to stand on unless one of them is a judge and that judge happened to be on Trumps picks for SCOTUS.

This is just another reason why the FBI needs to investigate.

Also, if one of them admit this under oath, and Kavanaugh gets confirmed, she should say OK so it was you and press charges in Maryland since there is no statues of limitations.

He can get like 10 years in jail if it was really him. Have him swear under oath at the hearing that it was him. He can get 1- 5 years in jail for purgery if he later tries to take it back


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:done that wikileaks tweet, @Tater;.

Fine post, @DOPA;. 


Randy Quaid is apparently cutting professional wrestling promos on the Internet now... :lmao :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1043155975954419713


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045115996611252225
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045098674081214464
> If true, why make the accusation in the first place?


Because accusations like this _*if false*_ are damning for life. It could have been a mistake but nonetheless it doesn't matter now if it's false. If it's true it's even more stupid because now he's just created doubt.



yeahbaby! said:


> Good lord. Considering some the of expose's that have revealed appalling frathouse campus behavior in the past it probably could;ve been any number of future lawyers/politicians etc etc


You won't find a greater hive for scum and villainy than a College Campus.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Let's say for the sake of argument that her accusations are true - It's really not up to anyone to judge or speculate on why she told who and when she told them.
> 
> People who have experienced trauma can react in funny ways IMO. It's easy to say 'I would've reported it straight away' - but if it happened to you how do you know how you would reacted?
> 
> ...


Yeah, but it is hard to say she felt guilt and shame when she let someone else know while they were walking their dog, just because they put something else on Facebook

Or told another man that they were assaulted after knowing them a lot less time then she had told their husband.

Also. I think it is normally easier to tell loved ones, especially someone who you obviously would have sexual relations with. You may not tell the person the first night, but you definitely would tell them maybe after a year or two, and that person is a fixture in your life.

I will say I am not saying with any certainty either way of what happened, but this thing is not passing the smell test to me, too many holes in my opinion.

But I come from the side of skepticism, I think someone coming from the side of belief would feel the exact opposite.


----------



## Punk_316 (Sep 9, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

These witnesses waited 30+ years and won't testify because they're 'afraid to fly', yet they flew out to Baltimore to take the initial softball lie detector test.

This whole fiasco is nothing but political terrorism.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

LOl at all the trolls in this thread
and they wonder why women dont come forward for sexually assault


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> You won't find a greater hive for scum and villainy than a College Campus.


iper1

Washington DC. Wall Street. A DNC or RNC national convention. A big donor fundraising dinner. Any neocon think tank. Jersey Shore.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog (Mar 22, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045139770513477632
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045146554229764096
> The hearing is going to be a circus tomorrow. Imagine some guy taking "credit" for the Blasey Ford allegation.
> ...


I'm really confused by this. First she was making it all up and it never happened because it took her so long to come forward.

And now they are basically admitting that it did happen but it was someone else and definitely not Kavanaugh!

They really need to make their mind up :lol


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Republicans made a mistake with this format. The prosecutor lady is too methodical and five minute increments is creating a disjointed and boring presentation. It feels like she has barely said anything. Republiccans would have been better off asking their own questions. Oh well, that's what they get for being chickenshits.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> Republicans made a mistake with this format. The prosecutor lady is too methodical and five minute increments is creating a disjointed and boring presentation. It feels like she has barely said anything. Republiccans would have been better off asking their own questions. Oh well, that's what they get for being chickenshits.


She is just trying to find one or two meaningless things to try and have her seem confused as a gotcha moment.

Just watch the GOP will fixate on the whole OMG she didn't want to fly, but she flies a lot


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Punk_316 said:


> These witnesses waited 30+ years and won't testify because they're 'afraid to fly', yet they flew out to Baltimore to take the initial softball lie detector test.
> 
> This whole fiasco is nothing but political terrorism.


Similar to tea party and Trump's birtherism political terrorism?


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> She is just trying to find one or two meaningless things to try and have her seem confused as a gotcha moment.
> 
> Just watch the GOP will fixate on the whole OMG she didn't want to fly, but she flies a lot


Mitchell is picking it up a bit now, but her first 15-20 minutes felt like she really said nothing. She doesn't strike me as a theatrical cross examiner. Contrast this with how aggressive the Dems will be with Kavanaugh and most likely be raining hellfire down on him. At the moment, this is looking like a disaster for the Republicans.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> Mitchell is picking it up a bit now, but her first 15-20 minutes felt like she really said nothing. She doesn't strike me as a theatrical cross examiner. Contrast this with how aggressive the Dems will be with Kavanaugh and most likely be raining hellfire down on him. At the moment, this is looking like a disaster for the Republicans.


IMO she is not trying to claim it did not happen, I think Mitchell is going for, the only reason she came forward was for political reasons just to give the GOP a reason to confirm Kavanaugh.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Round 1-Dr. Ford
Round 2-Judge Kavanaugh


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

this hearing is looking terrible for the GOP. dr ford is composed, intelligent, and very believable, despite clearly being terrified of the spotlight suddenly shone on her.

for what purpose would she be lying? she has a successful career, two kids, and was living a quiet, happy life before her name became public. why would she throw that all away, open her and her family up to death threats, just to stick it to the GOP? why would she come out in support of an FBI investigation, knowing that she could be charged if caught lying to the FBI? people aren't that fucking partisan outside of the internet.

but nope. some limp dick incels want to disparage her, calling her a lying cunt, because of their own partisan hackery or because they've deluded themselves into believing it's MUH LIBERAL C-O-N-SPIRACY!1!!11!!!1!

guess that's why neil gorsuch got bombarded with sexual assault allegations during his confirmation... oh wait, that didn't happen. because gorsuch didn't try to rape anybody.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Gabriel Sherman
✔
@gabrielsherman
Person close to Trump says Trump is raging at how bad this has been for Republicans so far. Trump told people Ford “seems credible,” per source

12:13 PM - Sep 27, 2018


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> this hearing is looking terrible for the GOP. dr ford is composed, intelligent, and very believable, despite clearly being terrified of the spotlight suddenly shone on her.
> 
> for what purpose would she be lying? she has a successful career, two kids, and was living a quiet, happy life before her name became public. why would she throw that all away, open her and her family up to death threats, just to stick it to the GOP? why would she come out in support of an FBI investigation, knowing that she could be charged if caught lying to the FBI? people aren't that fucking partisan outside of the internet.
> 
> ...


Why would anyone lie? Witnesses do lie during murder trials with execution on the table, when they have nothing to gain. It's worse when no one is corroborating your story, that's why we have investigations instead of just taking what someone says at face value. That's how you get more cases like Curtis Flowers who has been stuck behind bars for a crime he (likely) didn't commit because eye witnesses lied.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> Why would anyone lie? Witnesses do lie during murder trials with execution on the table, when they have nothing to gain. It's worse when no one is corroborating your story, that's why we have investigations instead of just taking what someone says at face value. That's how you get more cases like Curtis Flowers who has been stuck behind bars for a crime he (likely) didn't commit because eye witnesses lied.


why would she lie when she knows the GOP will slander her like they have done and the shit show that is surrounding her which she is getting now. She isn't going to lie to have all of that happens to her like it is now. 

She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this as we have seen. its shit like we are seeing now, why women don't like to come forward


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Total disaster for the GOP. Mitchell didn't do anything to discredit Ford. Ford was totally credible and sincere


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Total disaster for the GOP. Mitchell didn't do anything to discredit Ford. Ford was totally credible and sincere


Whats it going to take to discredit Kavanaugh? What happens if both come out of this looking credible? Is it possible? Not trying to start a debate since Ive only started looking into this closer the last few days.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Whats it going to take to discredit Kavanaugh? What happens if both come out of this looking credible? Is it possible? Not trying to start a debate since Ive only started looking into this closer the last few days.


If you watch that fox news interview, he tries to come off as a choirboy, like he never tried to hook up with girls, he respected them, he never drank etc, stuff has already come out to discredit that and show its not true, so all the Democrats have to do is ask him about those things, like some of the stuff in his yearbook. And ask him about all the people that have said he was drunk a lot.

Plus if the Democrats can show a pattern of sexual of assault like with the other two women, I don't see how he will be credible.

He didn't even seen credible in that fox news interview, it seemed super rehearsed. If he comes off like that again, it will be obvious he is hiding.

If he knows he really did this, he would have been better off saying, I did a lot of dumb things, and had a drinking problem back them, and even said I don't recall doing that, but if I did that to you, I am sorry, that is not me anymore, I used to black out when drinking etc etc

He probably would have been much better off doing that


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I agree Ford comes off very credible. I believe she was assaulted. I have doubts that she was assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Literally nothing links him to it outside of her word. Now Brett could come out and look guilty and sway me. I certainly won't rule that out.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Whats it going to take to discredit Kavanaugh? What happens if both come out of this looking credible? Is it possible? Not trying to start a debate since Ive only started looking into this closer the last few days.


When two theories have equal supporting evidence, our personal values act as arbiter.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> I agree Ford comes off very credible. I believe she was assaulted. I have doubts that she was assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Literally nothing links him to it outside of her word. Now Brett could come out and look guilty and sway me. I certainly won't rule that out.


What did you think of his fox interview? Did you find him credible in that?


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you watch that fox news interview, he tries to come off as a choirboy, like he never tried to hook up with girls, he respected them, he never drank etc, stuff has already come out to discredit that and show its not true, so all the Democrats have to do is ask him about those things, like some of the stuff in his yearbook. And ask him about all the people that have said he was drunk a lot.
> 
> Plus if the Democrats can show a pattern of sexual of assault like with the other two women, I don't see how he will be credible.
> 
> ...


Agreed...I havent seen the Foxnews interview, I did look up a couple things from his yearbook. I really cant believe someone of his stature wasnt partying or trying to hook up but that doesnt really put me off. If the sexual assault is true, that will put me off. Im just afraid it will become a he said-she said. No way to really prove who is right or wrong. I agree that the accusation should be taken seriously and should have merit if proven true. 

People can try and discredit his young ways, that he was a drinker and tried to hook up with girls, but that doesnt mean he sexually assaulted someone. Im not saying he did or didnt but this will be a life completely turned upside down if it comes out to be not true and vice versa.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

its very telling the GOP did not want Judge to be questioned by the Democrats.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Agreed...I havent seen the Foxnews interview, I did look up a couple things from his yearbook. I really cant believe someone of his stature wasnt partying or trying to hook up but that doesnt really put me off. If the sexual assault is true, that will put me off. Im just afraid it will become a he said-she said. No way to really prove who is right or wrong. I agree that the accusation should be taken seriously and should have merit if proven true.
> 
> *People can try and discredit his young ways, that he was a drinker and tried to hook up with girls, but that doesnt mean he sexually assaulted someone*. Im not saying he did or didnt but this will be a life completely turned upside down if it comes out to be not true and vice versa.


I think you are missing the point. If they do show how he was a drinker, it will mean that he lied about it. And why did he lie about it?

it would show how he is not trustworthy.


-------

OH look at Kavanaugh's fake outrage right off the bat. Can already tell he is not being sincere.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kavanaugh's hysteria appears manufactured.

edit: but the tears play super well

edit 2: you can't cry twice dude


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Alyssa Milano is all I can see as this guy drones on and on. I don't know what happened a long time ago with Ford and Kavanaugh sorry.

Not sure why there hasn't been an official investigation.

lmfao Kav is fake crying


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



samizayn said:


> Kavanaugh's hysteria appears manufactured.
> 
> edit: but the tears play super well


Of course, it is and the tears are too. It's soo fake.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I think you are missing the point. If they do show how he was a drinker, it will mean that he lied about it. And why did he lie about it?
> 
> it would show how he is not trustworthy.
> 
> ...


Except he never said he didn't drink He in fact said the opposite:



> JUDGE KAVANAUGH:And yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion and people generally in high school — I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit, but that’s not what we’re talking about.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/us/transcript-of-brett-kavanaughs-interview-with-fox-news.html

Where do you come up with this stuff is beyond me. It is mind boggling.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Except he never said he didn't drink He in fact said the opposite:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He just finished saying he has never attended such an event. Like, a party in someone's house? Uhhh

edit: That appears to mean, an early evening of drinking at somebody's house at some weekend.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Except he never said he didn't drink He in fact said the opposite:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He said It lol He is always contradicting himself, you are making my point for me

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17901...inking-high-school-sexual-assault-allegations


OOPS

he also said he never got blackout drink which friends dispute

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bba4d4-c0f1-11e8-be77-516336a26305_story.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...llege-classmates-out-him-as-sloppy-drunk.html


OOPS


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

And LOL at him claiming his character does not back up Fords account when three women have accused him of sexual assault


This fake crying by him, is soo transparent

and LOL at him trying to walk back the whole alumni thing not meaning sex. And he wanted to be a cool kid so he pretended he hooked up with her. Just shows more what a POS he was

He is admitting trying to hide it thus why he put his name next to the Alumni. 

As for this letter from 65 women, many of them have had their names taken off it. It also shows how the GOP knew about these allegations beforehand, because how many of us could find 65 female friends from HS to get to sign anything in one day.


his wife behind him doesn't seem to believe a word he is saying


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This guy is :lmao

I do care if the allegation is true, but it being true or not doesn't matter insofar as whether this guy should be a SC Justice. He shouldn't be. Fuck this guy.

edit: Seriously I'm not sure I despise anyone I've never met more than this guy. This includes Dick Cheney.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MrMister said:


> This guy is :lmao
> 
> I do care if the allegation is true, but it being true or not doesn't matter insofar as whether this guy should be a SC Justice. He shouldn't be. Fuck this guy.


Uhh, why? Seems extremely credible to me.

People criticizing him for being angry or whatever after swooning over Dr. Ford's testimony can go to hell. Men who are falsely accused are allowed to be angry.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Uhh, why? Seems extremely credible to me.


LOL of course you do but you find Trump credible so you are a terrible judge of character

You are buying his fake crying and outrage?

its fake anger, you can tell its not genuine, that is the issue. He is such a bad actor


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are buying his fake crying and outrage?


Wow. You are truly lost.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Wow. You are truly lost.


So I take that as you are buying it lol


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I think you'd have to be a psychopath to dismiss that testimony as in any way insincere.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> He said It lol He is always contradicting himself, you are making my point for me
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17901...inking-high-school-sexual-assault-allegations
> 
> ...


By making your point, do you mean "I am going to assume this reads a certain way to make my point"

Because the vox article (which i assume I am supposed to take seriously, but can't because it's f'n Vox) 



> Kavanaugh *insinuated* that he never drank when he was underage, saying on Fox that when he was a senior, the “drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there.”


He didn't say that he didn't drink (your direct quote) you just think that he meant he didn't drink

The rest of the article is proof showing that he was a drinker... problem is, he never said he drank.

If he had come out and said "I didn't have an ounce of alcohol until I was 21, I would be right there with you. But thats not what you are saying, you are saying that he "insinuated" that he said this.

That doesn't fly, you and I both know that.

As for the NYmag article are you talking about this quote:



> “Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling,” Liz Swisher, a college friend of Kavanaugh’s, told the Washington Post. “*There’s no medical way I can say that he was blacked out*. . . . But it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.”


Or this one:



> One college friend of Kavanaugh’s, who asked not to be named, said she had frequently been drunk with him at parties. She hadn’t seen him become belligerent, she said — instead, he could often *be found slumped over, asleep, during and after parties.*
> 
> “He drank a lot — he wasn’t falling asleep reading a book,” the former friend told BuzzFeed News. “I would suggest that very few people in the ’80s in the circles we were in did not sometimes go” to the point of being blacked out.


Now, I am going to assume you have never blacked out from alcohol before. i have (when I was 22) trust, me it is a lot different than falling asleep on a couch. Just trust me on that.

I couldn't read the washington Post article because I am not paying to read a newspaper in 2018.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> why would she lie when she knows the GOP will slander her like they have done and the shit show that is surrounding her which she is getting now. She isn't going to lie to have all of that happens to her like it is now.
> 
> She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this as we have seen. its shit like we are seeing now, why women don't like to come forward


I don't think there's quite an explanation as to why someone would lie, but like I said people do lie in murder trials , more often then you'd like , which is terrifying to me. The "why lie" is not an argument to me , you take all accusations seriously and investigate to find the truth, thats why we have that system in place. People can and have been thrown in jail for stuff they didn't commit because the jury bought into the idea of "why lie?" .

She's a registered Democrat and is being hailed as a hero, she's got full support from the Democrats regardless if she's telling the truth or not about Kavanaugh so I don't think she has nearly as much to lose as you might think. 

Look, all I'm saying is she isn't really that credible with her story because no one is corroborating it and her story has changed, that's an issue. This entire thing is political and it bothers me that these allegations come out just before important elections or confirmations because it makes me far more skeptical than I would have, had this been done much earlier. It sucks that these things happen at times like this because people will question it more, making it more difficult for victims to come forwards. That's something that bothers me greatly.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Overwhelmed at the thought that the Left's plot could be undone due to the habits born from a strong Father-Son relationship. :mj2 So poetic and perfect.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I think you'd have to be a psychopath to dismiss that testimony as in any way insincere.


It was totally insincere lol and some of his excuses like the year book thing. Please. and using the excuse oh I have lady friends, so I am not a sexual predator. really dude




Stinger Fan said:


> I don't think there's quite an explanation as to why someone would lie, but like I said people do lie in murder trials , more often then you'd like , which is terrifying to me. The "why lie" is not an argument to me , you take all accusations seriously and investigate to find the truth, thats why we have that system in place. People can and have been thrown in jail for stuff they didn't commit because the jury bought into the idea of "why lie?" .
> 
> She's a registered Democrat and is being hailed as a hero, she's got full support from the Democrats regardless if she's telling the truth or not about Kavanaugh so I don't think she has nearly as much to lose as you might think.
> 
> Look, all I'm saying is she isn't really that credible with her story because no one is corroborating it and her story has changed, that's an issue. This entire thing is political and it bothers me that these allegations come out just before important elections or confirmations because it makes me far more skeptical than I would have, had this been done much earlier. It sucks that these things happen at times like this because people will question it more, making it more difficult for victims to come forwards. That's something that bothers me greatly.


Told talked about this assault all the way back in 2012, so you think she made it up by then? That does not even make any sense


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Uhh, why? Seems extremely credible to me.
> 
> People criticizing him for being angry or whatever after swooning over Dr. Ford's testimony can go to hell. Men who are falsely accused are allowed to be angry.


The fake crying. I don't buy it. Also wasn't totally 100% serious in my post.

I hope that it was the memory of his father that made him continue to breakdown.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It was totally insincere lol


You've sold your soul to your political agenda. Just like the Democratic Party. Sad.


MrMister said:


> The fake crying. I don't buy it. Also wasn't totally 100% serious in my post.
> 
> I hope that it was the memory of his father that made him continue to breakdown.


There's no reason to think it's fake.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

lol get accused of sexual assault and participating in gang rape and participating in a conspiracy to commit gang rape, have two of the claims retracted, all of them completely uncorroborated, have your actual innocence or guilt be repeatedly cast as irrelevant on national television multiple times because it is argued you deserve to be held as guilty as a symbol for all bad things men have ever done to women, the slanders go on and on and on... 

and now the final slander, he's angry at being slandered ten million times a day on TV and the internet and showing it means he shouldn't be a justice. :Out with that lame ass shit


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

We live in a matriarchy.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> We live in a matriarchy.


We live in a misandryarchy.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

What. A. Fucking. Disaster. Pull. The. Nominee.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> You've sold your soul to your political agenda. Just like the Democratic Party. Sad.There's no reason to think it's fake.


Love your projection


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Pull the nominee, he's demolishing the slanders against him! :heyman6


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Pull the nominee, he's demolishing the slanders against him! :heyman6


No he's not lol


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> You've sold your soul to your political agenda. Just like the Democratic Party.


Said with the biggest sense of self aware irony I'm sure.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> We live in a misandryarchy.


Misandry driven by the concerns and wants of women. :draper2 It's a matriarchy.


----------



## Nolo King (Aug 22, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Holy shit, we are making sexual abuse into something political now.

I personally believe these accusations are either misdirected or completely fabricated, but am willing to accept the process.

Not looking good for the Democrats for presuming guilt though.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Misandry driven by the concerns and wants of women. :draper2 It's a matriarchy.


It's a lot of men too tho :draper2

NBC News panel quite impressed with both witnesses so far as we go into a 15 minute break.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> It's a lot of men too tho :draper2
> 
> NBC News Panel quite impressed with both witnesses so far as we go into a 15 minute break.


I know it's a lot of men. They're conditioned to serve the emotional needs of women. The emotions of men are to be ridiculed and dismissed.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Nolo King said:


> Holy shit, we are making sexual abuse into something political now.
> 
> I personally believe these accusations are either misdirected or completely fabricated, but am willing to accept the process.
> 
> Not looking good for the Democrats for presuming guilt though.


What are you watching? The GOP is looking totally bad lol

Everyone was saying how credible Ford looked even some in the GOP.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kavanaugh has shredded everything in his path so far. If you're watching and think "he seems guilty" I wanna what you're on.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I think it's probable Dr Ford was sexually assaulted. Her testimony seemed genuine to me. I don't think any of her emotions were fake and would never be so arrogant or vile to dismiss them as fake due to my political bias or an arrogant belief that I possess the power to read minds.

What her testimony was not, was credible. She had no memory of many of the details from not only 36 years ago, but also from the last couple of months. The people she's placed as being at the scene (who are not Brett Kavanaugh or his male friend whose name I forgot) have denied any knowledge of the event, including one of her own friends. When that was pointed out, Dr Ford suggested her friend had "health problems". What? And what is the reason for Dr Ford's inability to recall so much? Did the sexual assault compromise her memory? If so, why should we believe it was Brett Kavanaugh who performed the assault? 

So while it seems likely she suffered some trauma, there's ZERO reason to believe it was at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh, and many reasons to believe it was not. 

If you believe it was him, you're just being biased and choosing to believe it, either due to politics or conditioning to believe emotional women. There's no logical reasoning that should lead you to that conclusion.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> iper1
> 
> Washington DC. Wall Street. A DNC or RNC national convention. A big donor fundraising dinner. Any neocon think tank. Jersey Shore.


I wanted to add all that but then it would ruin the statement :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I think it's probable Dr Ford was sexually assaulted. Her testimony seemed genuine to me. I don't think any of her emotions were fake and would never be so arrogant or vile to dismiss them as fake due to my political bias or an arrogant belief that I possess the power to read minds.
> 
> What her testimony was not, was credible. She had no memory of many of the details from not only 36 years ago, but also from the last couple of months. The people she's placed as being at the scene (who are not Brett Kavanaugh or his male friend whose name I forgot) have denied any knowledge of the event, including one of her own friends. When that was pointed out, Dr Ford suggested her friend had "health problems". What? And what is the reason for Dr Ford's inability to recall so much? Did the sexual assault compromise her memory? If so, why should we believe it was Brett Kavanaugh who performed the assault?
> 
> ...


Just because you don't remember something does not mean it did not happen. There are many things that happened to me when I was a kid, I dont remember now. Does that mean it never happened? And of course Judge is going to lie because he was an accomplice.

Also, I went to Disneyworld when I was a kid but I can't remember the exact month or year it was. But I can remember some things that happened on that trip. And yes there is a reason it was BK, because she said it was him and she was credible


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

See how Kavanaugh can't even answer a straight question. He is just trying to run out the clock
Just more proof he is not credible.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm still on the fence, don't think her evidence is tight enough, I'm entirely convinced this is not some fake ploy though, I know that the narrative is that this is the Dems false flag/fake news conspiracy stuff from a lot of Trump fans in here. But if you put her in front of me and I was on the Jury I wouldn't send Kavanaugh down based on her testimony.

Brett is a cunt mind, but thats because of his beliefs not because of sexual assault.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Lindsay Graham just god tiered :sundin


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

#pushhimthrough


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Lindsay Graham calling out evil. Well I'll be damned.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Lindsay Graham. :done


Meanwhile Bibi Netanyahu is saying the Iranians are building a secret nuclear warehouse so it looks like an American-Iranian war is on the horizon. :lol

http://apnews.com/d93d32eb0f574307a0ac50ce4b787793


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Welp this hearing has accomplished precisely nothing as everyone should have known was going to be the result

We just heard an in-depth conversation about high school fart jokes fpalm

And now we're having drinking games explained fpalm

Has a United States Senator ever before been asked in an official setting if he knows what "quarters" is fpalm


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> We just heard an in-depth conversation about high school fart jokes fpalm
> 
> And now we're having drinking games explained fpalm


Your tax dollars hard at work people.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump picked the worst possible guy the Democrats' could've tried this strategy on. They clearly expected him to give up by now, or to catch him on some technicality in the process of trying to recall shit from 36 years ago. He doesn't give up, and he's kept calendars for 40 years. Tough luck, Dems. I wish there was a hell for you to burn in (other than the hell on Earth you're trying to create).


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

These people are the real cancer of society


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045393071926587393


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The Republicans went into halftime and made some adjustments, Rachel Mitchell was clearly incompetent so now all the Republican Senators are using their 5 minutes to speak themselves.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump picked the worst possible guy the Democrats' could've tried this strategy on. They clearly expected him to give up by now, or to catch him on some technicality in the process of trying to recall shit from 36 years ago. He doesn't give up, and he's kept calendars for 40 years. Tough luck, Dems. I wish there was a hell for you to burn in (other than the hell on Earth you're trying to create).


So you think the three women are making it up?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Welp this hearing has accomplished precisely nothing as everyone should have known was going to be the result
> 
> We just heard an in-depth conversation about high school fart jokes fpalm
> 
> ...


He lied about boofing meant. It means anal sex

He lied about what devils triangle means too since it means two guys and one girl


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you think the three women are making it up?


I already explained my position. I think Dr Ford was most likely assaulted by someone at some time. The other allegations have no credibility whatsoever and aren't worth addressing.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I already explained my position. I think Dr Ford was most likely assaulted by someone at some time. The other allegations have no credibility whatsoever and aren't worth addressing.


So you think two of them are lying, gotcha

Also how did Ford know that Kavanaugh and Judge were friends if they never hung out with her hmmmmm


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Liberal journalists are now deleting embarrassing tweets they made a couple hours ago :heston


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Sorry. Kavanaugh farted the other day. He has an asshole. It clearly makes him incompetent to hold office.

I also hear that he peed standing up and left the toilet seat up. 

He has a penis.

Clearly incompetent.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Sorry. Kavanaugh farted the other day. He has an asshole. It clearly makes him incompetent to hold office.
> 
> I also hear that he peed standing up and left the toilet seat up.
> 
> ...


He drank alcohol in high school and college, like 95% of people when they were in high school and college.

He probably even drank at times to the point of being shitfaced in high school and college, like 93% of people when they were in high school and college.

He and his friends also made fart jokes and barf jokes and jokes about the word "fuck" in high school.

Clearly this is behavior that is wholly beyond the pale, and he should be whipped to the bone and dropped at the South Pole in nothing but his Darth Vader boxer shorts. If he even wears underwear, the animal!


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Wait, were Republicans mad at the "timing" of this and mad at Senator Feinstein's scumbaggery like Merrick Garland never happened? Rethuglicans mad that the game got flipped back on them.:done


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Senator All Men Should Shut Up now embarrassing herself yet again :heston


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So for all the people saying it could be mistaken identity, so did she also misidentify Judge too?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Senator Paunchy Nosferatu about to lay the hammer down :mark:


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump picked the worst possible guy the Democrats' could've tried this strategy on. They clearly expected him to give up by now, or to catch him on some technicality in the process of trying to recall shit from 36 years ago. He doesn't give up, and he's kept calendars for 40 years. Tough luck, Dems. I wish there was a hell for you to burn in (other than the hell on Earth you're trying to create).


TBH this guy looks straight out of central casting for rich dude bro villian from an 80's movie and he comes from a Private School and College with the kind of rep for rapey dude bro's. He couldn't have teee'ed it up for Democrats any better. There is a reason this nominee might not survive anda guy considered more Conservative(Gorshuch) sailed thru


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> TBH this guy looks straight out of central casting for rich dude bro villian from an 80's movie and he comes from a Private School and College with the kind of rep for rapey dude bro's. He couldn't have teee'ed it up for Democrats any better. There is a reason this nominee might not survive anda guy considered more Conservative(Gorshuch) sailed thru


I'm glad President Trump had better judgment than to pick his nominee based on superficial considerations such as these. 

His character, courage, and integrity shone through in this testimony. I have numerous political differences with Judge Kavanaugh but he won me over today on who he is as a person. I think he'll make a fantastic Supreme Court Justice.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> TBH this guy looks straight out of central casting for rich dude bro villian from an 80's movie and he comes from a Private School and College with the kind of rep for rapey dude bro's. He couldn't have teee'ed it up for Democrats any better. There is a reason this nominee might not survive anda guy considered more Conservative(Gorshuch) sailed thru


So prejudices and stereotypes should determine how a man is judged :hmm:

Nah I think we've had more than enough of that in this country


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm glad President Trump had better judgment than to pick his nominee based on superficial considerations such as these.
> 
> His character, courage, and integrity shone through in this testimony. I have numerous political differences with Judge Kavanaugh but he won me over today on who he is as a person. I think he'll make a fantastic Supreme Court Justice.


We all know what Trump picked him, because Kavanaugh said he doesn't believe a sitting president should be indicted. He thinks a president should immune to criminal charges.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm glad President Trump had better judgment than to pick his nominee based on superficial considerations such as these.
> 
> His character, courage, and integrity shone through in this testimony. I have numerous political differences with Judge Kavanaugh but he won me over today on who he is as a person. I think he'll make a fantastic Supreme Court Justice.


yeah, he showed what a liar he is, and how evasive he is at answering simple questions and to you that will make him a fantastic Supreme Court Justice? LOL


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> So prejudices and stereotypes should determine how a man is judged :hmm:
> 
> Nah I think we've had more than enough of that in this country



I think people make judgement calls fairly or unfairly all the time. Sexual misconduct allegations and his appearance aside,he should not have picked Kavanaugh because this guy is a clear partisan who's action in the past were not above the fray. Even if I dislike say an Alito or Amy Barrett more for their ideological leanings they have shown themselves to be impartial jurists and not part of the "Republican'Team and therefore have no disqualifying factor's as sc judges.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

He'll be going through tomorrow. He did more than enough to make himself look credible and reliable


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> He'll be going through tomorrow. He did more than enough to make himself look credible and reliable


How did he look credible and reliable when he got caught in lies and was evasive?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski unlikely to vote no after today's hearing


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This day has been very... interesting. And disturbing with the reactions. No definitive proof either way and we have this:

The left - “the allegations must be true! Don’t let your bias delude you! Just look at how the republicans were manhandled today! My team won yay!”

The right - “the allegations look shady. Don’t let your bias delude you! Just look how the democrats were manhandled though! My team won yay!”

Nothing about today was for truth or justice. We are where we started. It was complete political theatre.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> TBH this guy looks straight out of central casting for rich dude bro villian from an 80's movie and he comes from a Private School and College with the kind of rep for rapey dude bro's. He couldn't have teee'ed it up for Democrats any better. There is a reason this nominee might not survive anda guy considered more Conservative(Gorshuch) sailed thru


???


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> Nothing about today was for truth or justice. We are where we started. It was complete political theatre.


As expected when there's no evidence for the allegation and a negative can't be proven. :draper2


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> This day has been very... interesting. And disturbing with the reactions. No definitive proof either way and we have this:
> 
> The left - “the allegations must be true! Don’t let your bias delude you! Just look at how the republicans were manhandled today! My team won yay!”
> 
> ...


What did you expect? Neither party cares about her. They care about the seat. That's why the Dems entire tactic all day was to get Kavanaugh to delay.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> This day has been very... interesting. And disturbing with the reactions. No definitive proof either way and we have this:
> 
> The left - “the allegations must be true! Don’t let your bias delude you! Just look at how the republicans were manhandled today! My team won yay!”
> 
> ...


This is why we need an FBI investigation. Only one side wanted that, gee I wonder why


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045444544068812800


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045444544068812800


But it wasn't honest not that Trump would know anything about being honest


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> This day has been very... interesting. And disturbing with the reactions. No definitive proof either way and we have this:
> 
> The left - “the allegations must be true! Don’t let your bias delude you! Just look at how the republicans were manhandled today! My team won yay!”
> 
> ...


Lindsay Graham had the best moment.

Kav will be confirmed for sure. There's almost no doubt.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MrMister said:


> Lindsay Graham had the best moment.
> 
> Kav will be confirmed for sure. There's almost no doubt.


Best moment for being an embarrassment.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> As expected when there's no evidence for the allegation and a negative can't be proven. :draper2





Undertaker23RKO said:


> What did you expect? Neither party cares about her. They care about the seat. That's why the Dems entire tactic all day was to get Kavanaugh to delay.


Which is my issue with how things happen in this country now. And why I think I’m done voting. Nothing will change.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Young boys should be taught to keep detailed calendars through high school and college. It's proven to be an essential survival skill for men and especially will be going forward in this emotion-driven matriarchy where all a woman has to do to destroy your life is accuse you of something. She will be believed and any emotions she exhibits will be used as proof of her credibility. You will be presumed guilty and any emotions you exhibit will be used as proof that you're a maniac capable of anything.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> This day has been very... interesting. And disturbing with the reactions. No definitive proof either way and we have this:
> 
> The left - “the allegations must be true! Don’t let your bias delude you! Just look at how the republicans were manhandled today! My team won yay!”
> 
> ...


Of course. Ford looks credible to Dem's,Brett looked credible to GOP

Though the fact Dem's are asking for an investigation and the other side is trying to rush a vote through makes this a pr/theatre battle the Republicans are losing. TBH this is a rare case where Democrats are finally outmanuevering and outsmarting the GOP in Kabuki theatre when it's usually the other way around


The only way the GOP can get out of this in good shape is if Flake vote's no in committee and it allows cover for the likes of Snowe/Murkowski etc and this becomes a nothing issue in the future.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Young boys should be taught to keep detailed calendars through high school and college. It's proven to be an essential survival skill for men and especially will be going forward in this emotion-driven matriarchy where all a woman has to do to destroy your life is accuse you of something. She will be believed and any emotions she exhibits will be used as proof of her credibility. You will be presumed guilty and any emotions you exhibit will be used as proof that you're a maniac capable of anything.


How is his life destroyed? If he doesn't become SC Justice he will still be a highly paid succesful DC judge until he chooses to retire,he can make big money with speaking engagements or writing a book. He will still have a family who loves him and be well liked in his circles,and never face any criminal charge. Was Robert Bork or Harriet Mier's life destroyed just because they are not on the SC. Sure their professional ambitions were dashed but that is something most people face


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> Of course. Ford looks credible to Dem's,Brett looked credible to GOP
> 
> Though the fact Dem's are asking for an investigation and the other side is trying to rush a vote through makes this a pr/theatre battle the Republicans are losing. TBH this is a rare case where Democrats are finally outmanuevering and outsmarting the GOP in Kabuki theatre when it's usually the other way around
> 
> ...


Democrats utterly failed today. Which is why their toadies in the media aren't talking about the credibility of Kavanaugh, they're trying desperately to make it about Kavanaugh being angry that he's been slandered non-stop for two weeks and if a man shows any anger at being slandered he's unfit for office :heston

But you keep on believing that the Democrats didn't fail. Two weeks of saying they believe Ford and now it's oh we don't know we must have an investigation! It's all so transparent :heyman6

But perhaps you could elucidate more on how a man's appearance and the circumstances of his youth mean certain conclusions can be drawn about him. Perhaps we should apply the logic of your previous post to a heavily tattooed black man who grew up in South Central LA?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Democrats utterly failed today. Which is why their toadies in the media aren't talking about the credibility of Kavanaugh, they're trying desperately to make it about Kavanaugh being angry that he's been slandered non-stop for two weeks.
> 
> But you keep on believing that the Democrats didn't fail :heyman6


You really don't live in reality do you lol

Kavanaugh lost tons of credibility with all his lies today and not answering the questions as well as not asking for an FBI investigation. 

Ford came off way more credible, and the questioning of Ford blew up in the GOP's faces.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Democrats utterly failed today. Which is why their toadies in the media aren't talking about the credibility of Kavanaugh, they're trying desperately to make it about Kavanaugh being angry that he's been slandered non-stop for two weeks and if a man shows any anger at being slandered he's unfit for office :heston
> 
> But you keep on believing that the Democrats didn't fail. Two weeks of saying they believe Ford and now it's oh we don't know we must have an investigation! It's all so transparent :heyman6
> 
> But perhaps you could elucidate more on how a man's appearance and the circumstances of his youth mean certain conclusions can be drawn about him. Perhaps we should apply the logic of your previous post to a heavily tattooed black man who grew up in South Central LA?





birthday_massacre said:


> You really don't live in reality do you lol
> 
> Kavanaugh lost tons of credibility with all his lies today and not answering the questions as well as not asking for an FBI investigation.
> 
> Ford came off way more credible, and the questioning of Ford blew up in the GOP's faces.


Case in point to my original post.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I think Kavanaugh did enough to keep the faltering Republicans. We shall see when the vote comes. Murkowski and Collins might surprise us.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> But perhaps you could elucidate more on how a man's appearance and the circumstances of his youth mean certain conclusions can be drawn about him. Perhaps we should apply the logic of your previous post to a heavily tattooed black man who grew up in South Central LA?



Quick name a single Senator of either party of any race or gender who is heavily tattooed. Unfairly or not if a heavily tatted person ran for any kind of high political office either in a GE or primary that would probably work against them until a Generational shift occurs and Boomer's die out


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Young boys should be taught to keep detailed calendars through high school and college. It's proven to be an essential survival skill for men and especially will be going forward in this emotion-driven matriarchy where all a woman has to do to destroy your life is accuse you of something. She will be believed and any emotions she exhibits will be used as proof of her credibility. You will be presumed guilty and any emotions you exhibit will be used as proof that you're a maniac capable of anything.


Lol look up the rape kit backlog and keep telling us women are winning in sexual assault allegations. If what you are saying is true most men would be in prison by now and women would be disproportionately in power in the US.

If women are in control of society they're doing a shitty job. White men are 31% of the US population. I wonder what percentage of elected officials are white men.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> I think Kavanaugh did enough to keep the faltering Republicans. We shall see when the vote comes. Murkowski and Collins might surprise us.


It all depends on how the GOP thinks their voters think it went. If they think if they confirm him and that will get them voted out, they won't confirm. We will see. But if they do confirm, it could be a worst blue wave come midterms than we thought.


----------



## Hi-Liter (Apr 2, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Today we learned, more than anything else, that Democrats don't really care about the disenfranchised in this country, only those who can help advance their narrative. I'm done with the Democrat party after today, sorry not sorry.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It all depends on how the GOP thinks their voters think it went. If they think if they confirm him and that will get them voted out, they won't confirm. We will see. But if they do confirm, it could be a worst blue wave come midterms than we thought.


I think the GOP is ok with possibly giving up Congress temporarily if they can get a guy like Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court for the rest of his life. He's not what I consider an old man.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> Lol look up the rape kit backlog and keep telling us women are winning in sexual assault allegations. If what you are saying is true most men would be in prison by now and women would be disproportionately in power in the US.
> 
> If women are in control of society they're doing a shitty job. White men are 31% of the US population. I wonder what percentage of elected officials are white men.


These points have nothing to do with my post.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> Quick name a single Senator of either party of any race or gender who is heavily tattooed. Unfairly or not if a heavily tatted person ran for any kind of high political office either in a GE or primary that would probably work against them until a Generational shift occurs and Boomer's die out


Dodgin and deflectin :dance



Kabraxal said:


> Case in point to my original post.


Your original post is pointless though :draper2

Unless the point is positioning yourself as virtuous because you can act like you're not casting judgment while casting judgment. You're No Labels. Remember No Labels? Nobody else does either.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> These points have nothing to do with my post.


"We live in a matriarchy."


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Entire Senate GOP caucus currently in a meeting.

Bob Corker says he knows how he is going to vote. Said he went into the hearing with a positive view of Kavanaugh. Didn't say what his vote would be or what his view of Kavanaugh is after the hearing. 

Flake, Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin gathered together for a private chat directly after the hearing. Manchin says the 4 of them do this frequently.

The general consensus seems to be that conservative voters are pissed off over the treatment of Kavanaugh by the press and Democrats and motivated to vote by it. GOP voter enthusiasm has been inching back towards being even with Democrat voter enthusiasm in the last couple weeks. We will see if this consensus is confirmed by polling.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MrMister said:


> I think the GOP is ok with possibly giving up Congress temporarily if they can get a guy like Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court for the rest of his life. He's not what I consider an old man.


Collins and Murkowski are the wildcards. I could see them voting no. But we will see.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Dodgin and deflectin :dance
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You’re celebrating because “your team won”, not because any sembkence of truth was brought to light. 

The only pointless thing I saw today was our government “in action”. You for teams red and blue I guess. I’m just waving the white on giving two fucks about this shit system.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> You’re celebrating because “your team won”, not because any sembkence of truth was brought to light.
> 
> The only pointless thing I saw today was our government “in action”. You for teams red and blue I guess. I’m just waving the white on giving two fucks about this shit system.


Going off of twitter at least, most people seem to be backing Ford not Kavanaugh

But people like deepelemblues don't care about the truth, they just care about pwing the libs even if it is a sexual predator getting on SCOTUS, hell they support Trump right


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> You’re celebrating because “your team won”, not because any sembkence of truth was brought to light.
> 
> The only pointless thing I saw today was our government “in action”. You for teams red and blue I guess. I’m just waving the white on giving two fucks about this shit system.


The system won't leave you alone just because you leave it alone, unfortunately. :sad:

Having Republicans in power doesn't make my life better, but having Democrats in power would make it worse. My main preference remains to be the complete dissolution of the federal government.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Told talked about this assault all the way back in 2012, so you think she made it up by then? That does not even make any sense


And she stated to her therapist that there were 4 men in the room, now she said that there's 2 men and that her therapist is wrong. No one has corroborated her story about that night despite the fact she gave names as to who were witnesses . These are major issues that would never hold up in a court if this was a murder trial. To me, I find it hard to believe that a therapist (who makes their entire living off listening to people) would make a massive mistake and get wrong the details of a major moment in their clients life like a potential rape or murder. Is it possible? Sure. Is it possible Ford misspoke and said 4 and not 2? Sure, but isn't it also possible that she could have been assaulted by someone else? I honestly don't know what happened that night, if anything happened at all, but like I said before, people do lie even if they don't have anything to gain. I can only go off what's out there and there isn't a lot . I want the truth and to punish Kavanaugh if he's guilty, but I'm unsure of his guilt


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The system won't leave you alone just because you leave it alone, unfortunately. :sad:
> 
> Having Republicans in power doesn't make my life better, but having Democrats in power would make it worse. My main preference remains to be the complete dissolution of the federal government.


How would it make it worse?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

If she has gone through trauma and has PTSD, her memory will never be accurate of the incident ... This is a known fact that sufferers of PTSD have a hard time with both long term memories and short term memories. 

This doesn't count as evidence for or against the accusations. It's sad that someone went through what she did. 

If democrats however actually cared about women and their traumatic experiences they would not further add to their suffering looking to damage political opponents however. They would actually help suffering women.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> And she stated to her therapist that there were 4 men in the room, now she said that there's 2 men and that her therapist is wrong. No one has corroborated her story about that night despite the fact she gave names as to who were witnesses . These are major issues that would never hold up in a court if this was a murder trial. To me, I find it hard to believe that a therapist (who makes their entire living off listening to people) would make a massive mistake and get wrong the details of a major moment in their clients life like a potential rape or murder. Is it possible? Sure. Is it possible Ford misspoke and said 4 and not 2? Sure, but isn't it also possible that she could have been assaulted by someone else? I honestly don't know what happened that night, if anything happened at all, but like I said before, people do lie even if they don't have anything to gain. I can only go off what's out there and there isn't a lot . I want the truth and to punish Kavanaugh if he's guilty, but I'm unsure of his guilt


She said the therapist wrote it down wrong, she clarified. If Judge would have helped make Kavanaugh's case why wasn't he brought on to be questioned? Of course he will claim it did not happen since he was supposed to be in the room. 

Also didn't Ford say there were 4 boys at the party? So its easy to see how the therapist wrote down 4 in the room instead of just at the party. 

And again, if this whole thing is mistaken identity, what are the changes she misidentified two people that were in the room?

So do you think she is lying?





Reap said:


> If she has gone through trauma and has PTSD, her memory will never be accurate of the incident ... This is a known fact that sufferers of PTSD have a hard time with both long term memories and short term memories.
> 
> This doesn't count as evidence for or against the accusations. It's sad that someone went through what she did.
> 
> If democrats however actually cared about women and their traumatic experiences they would not further add to their suffering looking to damage political opponents however. They would actually help suffering women.


It would be accurate for who did the attempted rape. And you are just making her case for her why hse has trouble remember the other details. And AGAIN this is why we need an FBI investigation to gather more evidence. One side wants that the other doesnt. If I as accused to sexual assault, I know id want the FBI to clear me, funny how Kavanaugh couldn't say he wants the FBI to investigate when asked time and time again


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It would be accurate for who did the attempted rape.


You are in no way qualified to make this statement. :lol Such hubris.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Bob Corker has announced he will vote yes on Kavanaugh.

Jen Rubin is having a meltdown on the twitter and it's _hilarious_ :LOL

Joe Manchin hinting that he's going to vote yes. He's danced this dance before though and ended up sometimes following through sometimes not.

What red-state Democratic senators say tomorrow will be _very_ interesting... rumors going around that Durbin has seen the writing on the wall and has released them to vote yes to bolster their re-election chances. It's just a completely uncorroborated claim though... so by the new Democratic standards of uncorroborated claims = unquestionable truth, that means 4-5 vulnerable Dems will vote to confirm.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045478279220797440
If Manchin is an aye, look for Donnelly and other red state Democrats to follow suit.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> She said the therapist wrote it down wrong, she clarified. If Judge would have helped make Kavanaugh's case why wasn't he brought on to be questioned? Of course he will claim it did not happen since he was supposed to be in the room.
> 
> Also didn't Ford say there were 4 boys at the party? So its easy to see how the therapist wrote down 4 in the room instead of just at the party.
> 
> ...


Her therapist wrote that she claims there were 4 boys involved in her attack, so that's assuming 4 guys were in the room in total as Kavanaugh was allegedly assaulting her. She has since stated her therapist was wrong and that there were 2 in the room, 4 people in total. She also stated after that, that there were 4 boys in total at the party and some girls, bit of an inconsistency there. That's why there's some credibility issues here. Her changing her story could be seen in many different ways like her therapist was wrong, or that it would be more difficult to accuse 4 men instead of 2. She also has stated that she has "100%" certainty of her memory , yet she cannot remember the 4th person at the alleged party. You can go on all day about the therapist note , her therapist could be wrong, but Dr.Ford could also be wrong. I also think they refused to turn over the therapists notes, not sure if they ever did but there was a refusal of that.

Her own friend who she states she was there with,Leland Keyser has no memory of the event. Her lawyer states "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford". She threw her under the bus and stated she has health issues and that shes a liar, you don't see an issue there? I can ask you this, is Keyser lying? What are the chances that everyone who was supposed to be there, including potentially more than the original 4, are all lying ? And I'll ask you this question as well, "why lie?" Can you see why this isn't so simple? 

Is Dr. Ford lying? I simply do not know, I can only go by what has been given and like I said earlier, I'm unsure of Kavanaugh's guilt.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Twitter rumors that Donnelly is a yes.

We will see :draper2


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Most people in this thread hate liberals more then ISIS. This man is against worker's rights a women's right to choose what to do with her body and believes The President is above the law. 

I just don't know what kind of world you people want to live in. One where the Conservative way of life is pretty much the way everyone has to live? That does not work for everyone or is this a "get the fuck out of my country type of thing"


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Most people in this thread hate liberals more then ISIS. This man is against worker's rights a women's right to choose what to do with her body and believes The President is above the law.
> 
> I just don't know what kind of world you people want to live in. One where the Conservative way of life is pretty much the way everyone has to live? That does not work for everyone or is this a "get the fuck out of my country type of thing"


Seriously dude for the 10th time get help for your paranoia nobody wants you to get out of the country or force you to believe something you don't want to believe

I at least don't want to force anybody to do anything. I had the government to do it to me and it was bullshit, I don't want people to be forced to do things they don't want to do 

Except bathe regularly :draper2

Sorry that's non-negotiable I am a body odor FASCIST

Or you could stop with this silly gimmick


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045496074016903168
Correct. 


The Hardcore Show said:


> Most people in this thread hate liberals more then ISIS.


Incorrect. You are unhinged.


> a women's right to choose what to do with her body


Nah, he's just against her "right" to do whatever she wants with another person's body growing inside of her. I'm not, btw. I'm pro-choice. I just don't need to lie about what the people who disagree with me believe.  



> I just don't know what kind of world you people want to live in. One where the Conservative way of life is pretty much the way everyone has to live?


The conservative way of life is more "let people live their own life" than the "liberal" way of life.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> Her therapist wrote that she claims there were 4 boys involved in her attack, so that's assuming 4 guys were in the room in total as Kavanaugh was allegedly assaulting her. She has since stated her therapist was wrong and that there were 2 in the room, 4 people in total. She also stated after that, that there were 4 boys in total at the party and some girls, bit of an inconsistency there. That's why there's some credibility issues here. Her changing her story could be seen in many different ways like her therapist was wrong, or that it would be more difficult to accuse 4 men instead of 2. She also has stated that she has "100%" certainty of her memory , yet she cannot remember the 4th person at the alleged party. You can go on all day about the therapist note , her therapist could be wrong, but Dr.Ford could also be wrong. I also think they refused to turn over the therapists notes, not sure if they ever did but there was a refusal of that.


How is it inconsistent? It was still 4 boys, the therapist just got mixed up 4 in total and 2 in the room from what Ford said. This sexual assault was still told to the therapist back in 2012 and she also told other people about it as well the following years and. she also said he was a judge that could be on SCOTUS some day. She never changed that, did she? She has always been consistent with that and it being two boys in the room except for the note with the therapist. So if she told 4 people the story and three times its two boys and one time its put down as 4, which one do you think could have gotten it wrong? Its irrelevant she does not remember the 4th person name at the party, haven't you been to parties you were not sure of someone's name? The important thing is she remembers the names and faces fo the people who assaulted her



Stinger Fan said:


> Her own friend who she states she was there with,Leland Keyser has no memory of the event. Her lawyer states "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford". She threw her under the bus and stated she has health issues and that shes a liar, you don't see an issue there? I can ask you this, is Keyser lying? What are the chances that everyone who was supposed to be there, including potentially more than the original 4, are all lying ? And I'll ask you this question as well, "why lie?" Can you see why this isn't so simple?



Do you remember every single party you went to during you HS or college years? And if she has health issues and has trouble remembering things, how wouldn't that be relevant? Again just because Keyser said she cannot recall does not mean she is lying if she was there. She never said she is 100% it did not happen, she just said she cannot recall. huge difference. I went to a few parties in college, I am not a huge drinker, rarely do it at all, and I can't remember everyone I went with or remember the address or date fo those parties. Are you going to claim you can remember the exact dates and addresses of every party you have ever been to especially if they were 20 years ago?



Stinger Fan said:


> Is Dr. Ford lying? I simply do not know, I can only go by what has been given and like I said earlier, I'm unsure of Kavanaugh's guilt.


Well lets looking into Kavanaugh, did you find him credible? he seemed to lie a lot as well as he was very evasive answers very simple yes or no questions.

here are just some of the things he was not truthful about

first, he did watch some of Fords testimony since a newspaper reported he was watching it while it was going on.

he lied about what Renate Alumnus meant. 

He also lied about what the devil's triangle and boofing means

he also lied about having memory loss when getting drunk, since they found an old quote about him admitting it but him claiming it never happens.

He also lied about never remembering a party that he was at with Judge and PJ yet right on July first there was a party with them, and the funny thing is he kind of stumbled at that point and Mitchell quickly moved away from that line of questioning, and if I'm not mistaken, she was shortly removed from asking questions after that. Not sure if that was set from the beginning or if they called an audible because she was probing too much. Not saying this was the party it happened but its funny he claimed never to have been at a party with that group yet he was and it was on his calendar

Also as for him putting everything on his calendar if he claims he didn't know Ford her name never would have been on his calendar, she would just happen to be at a party he was at. So that excuse is just dumb, well she wasn't on my calendar. And like he put every single party he went to on that calendar. again PLEASE

He lied about a number of things to try to make it seem like he was a goody goody when it's obvious he was not.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045496074016903168
> Correct. Incorrect. You are unhinged.Nah, he's just against her "right" to do whatever she wants with another person's body growing inside of her. I'm not, btw. I'm pro-choice. I just don't need to lie about what the people who disagree with me believe.
> 
> The conservative way of life is more "let people live their own life" than the "liberal" way of life.


They really don't understand that they are guaranteeing :trump's re-election with this insanity

And that Generation Z will be the most anti-Democratic Party generation in a century, and will be that way for long after :trump leaves office on January 20, 2025


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Seriously dude for the 10th time get help for your paranoia nobody wants you to get out of the country or force you to believe something you don't want to believe
> 
> I at least don't want to force anybody to do anything. I had the government to do it to me and it was bullshit, I don't want people to be forced to do things they don't want to do
> 
> ...


LOL, this post is gold when you are the worst gimmick poster in this thread


----------



## Neuron (Jul 31, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










After spending all my life's savings on buying hundreds of copies of Fear, I have tapped into my son's college fund to send a few hunnets to this brave woman. Please match my donation.



MrMister said:


> Lindsay Graham had the best moment.
> 
> Kav will be confirmed for sure. There's almost no doubt.


This will be the only time Lindsay Graham did anything useful. I'm still going through the "best of" clips and he's what stood out to me the most.


----------



## Punk_316 (Sep 9, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Young boys should be taught to keep detailed calendars through high school and college. It's proven to be an essential survival skill for men and especially will be going forward in this emotion-driven matriarchy where all a woman has to do to destroy your life is accuse you of something. She will be believed and any emotions she exhibits will be used as proof of her credibility. You will be presumed guilty and any emotions you exhibit will be used as proof that you're a maniac capable of anything.


Remember: all heterosexual men of prominence (especially white men) are rapists.

#HimToo?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

A "Senate insider" has told Townhall.com that the result of the post-hearing caucus of the entire Senate GOP is that all Republicans will vote yes on Kavanaugh, both in the Judiciary Committee vote and the full Senate confirmation vote. And that Manchin will vote yes as well.

We will see. An anonymous source and one penny gets you one piece of penny candy these days :draper2


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Punk_316 said:


> Remember: all heterosexual men of prominence (especially white men) are rapists.
> 
> #HimToo?


Where? It's an extreme minority.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

The American Bar Association is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to halt the consideration of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until an FBI investigation is completed into the sexual assault allegations that have roiled his nomination.

Brett Kavanaugh committee vote to go on as scheduled Friday, Republican senators say 
Brett Kavanaugh committee vote to go on as scheduled Friday, Republican senators say
In a strongly worded letter obtained by CNN Thursday, the organization said it is making the extraordinary request "because of the ABA's respect for the rule of law and due process under law," siding with concerns voiced by Senate Democrats since Christine Blasey Ford's decades-old allegations became public.
"The basic principles that underscore the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI," said Robert Carlson, president of the organization, in a Thursday night letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein.
Content by Charles Schwab
Not Impossible Labs: building technology for the sake of humanity
Mick Ebeling founded Not Impossible Labs on the premise that nothing is impossible if you set your mind to finding a solution. His innovative team is doing just that.
"Each appointment to our nation's Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote," Carlson wrote. "Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court."
The comments are striking because the organization gave Kavanaugh its highest rating of unanimous, "well-qualified" for the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh himself touted that rating at Thursday's emotionally-charged hearing where he denied Ford's sworn testimony that he attempted to rape her when they were teenagers.
close dialog

Receive Fareed Zakaria's Global Analysis
including insights and must-reads of world news

Activate Fareed's Briefing
By subscribing you agree to our
privacy policy.

Kavanaugh noted he was "thoroughly vetted" by the ABA.
"For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the D.C. Circuit has praised my judicial temperament," Kavanaugh said Thursday. "That's why I have the unanimous, well qualified rating from the American Bar Association."
In the letter, the ABA president says the Senate must remain "an institution that will reliably follow the law and not politics," saying a "thorough FBI investigation will demonstrate its commitment to a Supreme Court that is above reproach."
Republicans have rejected Democratic calls for an FBI probe and are planning to hold a committee vote Friday before moving the nomination to the floor this weekend.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html
> 
> American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations
> 
> ...


It's not going to happen and guess what they will get away with it no matter what happens in November.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



The Hardcore Show said:


> It's not going to happen and guess what they will get away with it no matter what happens in November.


If the GOP vote and confirm him, the DNC needs to go after Kavanaugh for perjury which he did multiple times, some of which I mentioned

And if the GOP ignore the ABA then you will just know how they dont give a shit about the law or the truth.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> A "Senate insider" has told Townhall.com that the result of the post-hearing caucus of the entire Senate GOP is that all Republicans will vote yes on Kavanaugh, both in the Judiciary Committee vote and the full Senate confirmation vote. And that Manchin will vote yes as well.
> 
> We will see. An anonymous source and one penny gets you one piece of penny candy these days :draper2


Don't be shocked if Avenatti and Swetnick try to file charges against Kavanaugh before his confirmation vote on Tuesday.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

That people are so wrapped up in this dog and pony show is fucking pathetic. Anyone who considers themselves a small government conservative and still supports Kavanaugh is a hypocritical joke. Forgetting everything else, the fact *alone* that Kavanaugh doesn't believe in the 4th amendment and thinks it's just fine and dandy that Big Government gets to spy on every citizen without a warrant should immediately disqualify him for a seat on the SC in your eyes. I could list off a number of other reasons why he should never get confirmed but that by itself should be enough.

I'm at the point where I don't even give a shit if the sexual allegations against him are true. If it keeps this Christofascist piece of shit off the SC, *good*.

Oh and for the record, fuck the Democrats too for making this solely about political theater and not about his actual views that would fuck over most Americans.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I need something more than what she provided to find him to be guilty. Is he perfect? Sure as hell not. What teenager is? But she doesn't have much of anything to back up what she said. Of course that doesn't mean she is lying, but simply accusing is not enough. On the other side, I'm not persuaded by stupid calender's or claims of being a virgin either. Brett being a heavy drinker as teen is not enough though.

Oh, and screw the FBI. Brett has been background checked 5 or 6 times or whatever. That's enough.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If the GOP vote and confirm him, the DNC needs to go after Kavanaugh for perjury which he did multiple times, some of which I mentioned
> 
> And if the GOP ignore the ABA then you will just know how they dont give a shit about the law or the truth.


What matters to them is I guess taking is country back to the 1920's and guess what They will get away with it. Even if the Democrats win big in this year and 2020. We will go back to how they acted under Obama trying to stop everything.

And the things they can't stop that really piss them off will be met with lawsuits that will go through the smaller courts all the way up to the 5-4 rulings that will pretty much always go in their favor even if it hurts more people in the long run.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> I need something more than what she provided to find him to be guilty. Is he perfect? Sure as hell not. What teenager is? But she doesn't have much of anything to back up what she said. Of course that doesn't mean she is lying, but simply accusing is not enough. On the other side, I'm not persuaded by stupid calender's or claims of being a virgin either. Brett being a heavy drinker as teen is not enough though.
> 
> Oh, and screw the FBI. Brett has been background checked 5 or 6 times or whatever. That's enough.


He lied about a ton of stuff, he was not credible. Also, that calendar was close to backing up what Ford said, especially with the time around July 1st. Why else do you think they quickly moved away from that questioning then that prosecutor was removed right after that line of questioning. IT was getting pretty close to placing him at the scene. And if you look a few days later, I think it was the 7th, pretty sure there ws a listing for something on there near the country club Ford was talking about

And the background check did not look into the allegations of these three women which it would now


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Per CNN, someone with a Congressional IP address, I think we can safely presume a Republican staffer, attempted to change the Wikipedia entry for "Devil's Triangle" to falsely make it look like it has *ever* been "a drinking game," which it has not been

LOL GOP even covering for his lies

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/devils-triangle-edit/index.html?no-st=1538110344


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> He lied about a ton of stuff, he was not credible. Also, that calendar was close to backing up what Ford said, especially with the time around July 1st. Why else do you think they quickly moved away from that questioning then that prosecutor was removed right after that line of questioning. IT was getting pretty close to placing him at the scene. And if you look a few days later, I think it was the 7th, pretty sure there ws a listing for something on there near the country club Ford was talking about
> 
> And the background check did not look into the allegations of these three women which it would now


She is accusing him and to me it's on her to provide some kind of proof or evidence. She provided nowhere near.

Is there any witnesses that say they saw him there that night. Pretty sure there isn't. Not even her friend.

If all of this stuff happened and they couldn't uncover any of it before then they aren't very good at their job. Which they aren't anyway. The left just wants to continue with an endless circus until they can stall until midterms. If the left has as much conviction as it relates to Keith Ellison it would be somewhat impressive.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> That people are so wrapped up in this dog and pony show is fucking pathetic. Anyone who considers themselves a small government conservative and still supports Kavanaugh is a hypocritical joke. Forgetting everything else, the fact *alone* that Kavanaugh doesn't believe in the 4th amendment and thinks it's just fine and dandy that Big Government gets to spy on every citizen without a warrant should immediately disqualify him for a seat on the SC in your eyes. I could list off a number of other reasons why he should never get confirmed but that by itself should be enough.
> 
> I'm at the point where I don't even give a shit if the sexual allegations against him are true. If it keeps this Christofascist piece of shit off the SC, *good*.
> 
> Oh and for the record, fuck the Democrats too for making this solely about political theater and not about his actual views that would fuck over most Americans.


If he doesn't get confirmed they probably put the extremely religious "Pro life" woman in there. Is that the more desired outcome?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

If the scandal is true or not, it's pretty much beside the point. Guys like this don't go down, they don't lose.

It's pretty ridiculous that the notion of 'conservative' or 'liberal' supreme judges even exist, they should be completely objective. It makes a mockery of the whole system.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> If the scandal is true or not, it's pretty much beside the point. Guys like this don't go down, they don't lose.
> 
> It's pretty ridiculous that the notion of 'conservative' or 'liberal' supreme judges even exist, they should be completely objective. It makes a mockery of the whole system.


This dude getting in isn't be the best thing ever. However, people that care about the constitution in full are extremely unlikely to get nominated. That's just the way it seems to be.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> If the scandal is true or not, it's pretty much beside the point. Guys like this don't go down, they don't lose.
> 
> It's pretty ridiculous that the notion of 'conservative' or 'liberal' supreme judges even exist, they should be completely objective. It makes a mockery of the whole system.


It should be, did this break the law yes/no? 

Is something constitutional based on what we have? yes/no

That's basically it, politics and leaning shouldn't have a baring on rulings.



birthday_massacre said:


> Per CNN, someone with a Congressional IP address, I think we can safely presume a Republican staffer, attempted to change the Wikipedia entry for "Devil's Triangle" to falsely make it look like it has *ever* been "a drinking game," which it has not been
> 
> LOL GOP even covering for his lies
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/devils-triangle-edit/index.html?no-st=1538110344


Nah it's the same Russian hackers that hacked the DNC.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> She is accusing him and to me it's on her to provide some kind of proof or evidence. She provided nowhere near.


If he was in a criminal trial he would have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was a civil trial he would have be proven 51% likely to have committed this act. This is a job interview,the bar is not criminal or civil guilt but reasonable likelihood. Same way if say one of us applied to Supreme Foot Locker and was accused of being a shoplifter. If the manager wanted you convicted of said crime/shoplifting it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt you were a thief for you to be convincted of said crime,if the manager simply thought you were not worth of employment their standard might be ...it's reasonably likelihood you could be a shoplifter. This is why if they are serious about victim's right the Senate wouldn't be ramming this through and we would have a full scale FBI investigation .Btwn Dr. Ford's testimony,passing a polygraph test and willingness to cooperate with an FBI Investigation passes the bar of somewhat reasonably likely said crime was committed. At this point it's only partisan's who are of the belief that there is a 98% or so he did not committ this act.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The whole idea of a group of lifelong Supreme judges is moronic and undemocratic. It's far worse than our house of lords. 

The notion that it's bipartisan is even worse. Not sure how anyone can defend the system.


----------



## JasonLives (Aug 20, 2008)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Very interesting show, to say the least. 

I really dont care if he become a judge or not. I dont know his backstory and I dont really care. Its not my country. But it was interesting to see what all the buzz was about.

Ford seemed genuine in her response and im confident that she is saying what she truly believes. She truly believes that Kavanaugh was the one. But that doesnt mean it actually was him. She could have been mistaken herself, wouldnt be the first time someone does it and wont be the last. Thats how memories work. 

Kavanugh also seemed very genuine and I dont believe he was lying either. That he seemed mad at some points are completely normal. A guy gets his whole life destroyed, and possible losing a dream job, over something he belives he didnt do. Anyone would be a mix of devastation and anger. People who say Ford or Kanavaugh was obvisously lying had already decided beforehand who the guilty party is. 

After they both been heard I dont think anyone was the "loser" in this. They both came out looking genuine and they both gained from that. 

Now I must say that the whole hearing was disgusting to see. Why must it be so damn political? The people asking the questions are people who are 100 % not objective, and had already decided who was right or wrong. Which means the Ford hearing was a "VOTE DEMOCRATS" and the Kavanaugh was a "VOTE REPUBLICAN". Which suggest that nobody really cared about the truth.

I do believe that the Democrats wanted this to be revealed as late at it possible could. I really dont believe they care if he is guilty or not about the allegation. Which leaves a bad taste in my mouth about this. When its alla about power and not about the individuals. What Senator Graham said I do side on to a ceratin point. 

Based on just this hearing alone, I dont see any reason why Kavanaugh wouldnt go threw. 

Its one ugly political system the US has, and I dont believe it matters what side is actually in power.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*Due process*: Fair treatment through the normal judicial system especially as a citizen's entitlement.

This no longer exists thanks to the Democratic Party.

- Vic


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> If he was in a criminal trial he would have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was a civil trial he would have be proven 51% likely to have committed this act. This is a job interview,the bar is not criminal or civil guilt but reasonable likelihood. Same way if say one of us applied to Supreme Foot Locker and was accused of being a shoplifter. If the manager wanted you convicted of said crime/shoplifting it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt you were a thief for you to be convincted of said crime,if the manager simply thought you were not worth of employment their standard might be ...it's reasonably likelihood you could be a shoplifter. This is why if they are serious about victim's right the Senate wouldn't be ramming this through and we would have a full scale FBI investigation .Btwn Dr. Ford's testimony,passing a polygraph test and willingness to cooperate with an FBI Investigation passes the bar of somewhat reasonably likely said crime was committed. At this point it's only partisan's who are of the belief that there is a 98% or so he did not committ this act.


Lie detector tests might be meaningful for the Muary Povich show, but they don't really mean anything. Heck, the Green River killer passed one of those things.

The Dems didn't help matters by making him out to be evil right off the bat. But if he doesn't get the votes they will probably have to deal with someone they like even less. However, if that's what they want, maybe they should get it.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I got banned on this forum for talking about Corey Booker yelling at a female senator (it was a post in poor taste), but now it seems like only democrats can yell at people given how much the corporate media is focusing on the anger aspect. 

https://downtrend.com/71superb/heres-corey-booker-yelling-at-a-woman-for-8-solid-minutes/

So even _*yelling *_is now split along bipartisan lines? :mj4

I've seen Pakistani politics unfold and American politics are now quite a few degrees lower with regards to how political opponents are treated. These are worst than third world country politics right now. The country is in an absolute spiral. I can't even take this shit seriously anymore. 

Will there be political assassinations next? Character assassinations are now the new norm .. so actual assassinations are the only things left. 

:lmao


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Speaking of yelling, wasn’t Graham’s outburst pretty laughable?&#55357;&#56834;


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Speaking of yelling, wasn’t Graham’s outburst pretty laughable?��


I didn't waste my time actually watching that shit. 

I'm commenting on the post event headlines and hysteria though. 

Amazing study in American Propaganda which is my new subject of interest.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So I'm confused how this works. They voted this morning to vote again at 1:30 ET. If that vote goes through are there more or is that it?


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak (Aug 5, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I got banned on this forum for talking about Corey Booker yelling at a female senator (it was a post in poor taste), but now it seems like only democrats can yell at people given how much the corporate media is focusing on the anger aspect.
> 
> https://downtrend.com/71superb/heres-corey-booker-yelling-at-a-woman-for-8-solid-minutes/
> 
> ...


:lol This shit is almost starting to remind me of South African Politics.... Almost. Sigh If there's anything to say about the present day politics it sure is entertaining :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Feels fitting to post this


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Let the media have a few more years and virtually everyone in the federal government will either be a racist, sexist, gang rapist fascist neo nazi .. or baby-killing, god hating, religious freedom persecuting communist Islamist terrorist loving atheist fascist who wants to take away all your guns so they can send the military at night to kill you.

Both the left and the right have completely destroyed language and credibility in their fight for absolute power.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Donnelly a no vote in Indiana. I don't think that will work out well for him.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak (Aug 5, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Let me know when they start having Battle Royals in the US :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



JasonLives said:


> Very interesting show, to say the least.
> 
> I really dont care if he become a judge or not. I dont know his backstory and I dont really care. Its not my country. But it was interesting to see what all the buzz was about.
> 
> ...



Yet I pointed out a lot of the lies he said lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> If he doesn't get confirmed they probably put the extremely religious "Pro life" woman in there. Is that the more desired outcome?


There is no desired outcome when your choices are Establishment Democrats or Establishment Republicans choosing lifelong appointments to the highest court in the land. The only differences between the nominations are on social issues. Democrats will nominate socially liberal judges and Republicans will nominate socially regressive judges but on all the important issues, both sides will nominate judges who will protect corporations and Big Government at all costs. Fuck what the citizens of the USA actually want. That has no bearing on this whatsoever. Heads, we lose. Tails, they win.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> There is no desired outcome when your choices are Establishment Democrats or Establishment Republicans choosing lifelong appointments to the highest court in the land. The only differences between the nominations are on social issues. Democrats will nominate socially liberal judges and Republicans will nominate socially regressive judges but on all the important issues, both sides will nominate judges who will protect corporations and Big Government at all costs. Fuck what the citizens of the USA actually want. That has no bearing on this whatsoever. Heads, we lose. Tails, they win.


I pointed this stuff out about the supreme Court a long time ago. There is no reason why a president in a partisan system should have the power to elect the supreme Court judge.

In fact the final straw against Musharraf that finally led to Pakistani revolt against him in 2007 was his dismissal of a supreme Court judge.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I pointed this stuff out about the supreme Court a long time ago. There is no reason why a president in a partisan system should have the power to elect the supreme Court judge.
> 
> In fact the final straw against Musharraf that finally led to Pakistani revolt against him in 2007 was his dismissal of a supreme Court judge.


Should the country vote on it?

LIke have the dems choose one and the reps choose another then there is a special election? What would be the best process?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Should the country vote on it?
> 
> LIke have the dems choose one and the reps choose another then there is a special election? What would be the best process?


People have already voted in the law makers. A judge is only there to enforce the law. Lawmakers appointing law interpretors is not needed.

The supreme Court should be a completely independent body removed from politics.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> People have already voted in the law makers. A judge is only there to enforce the law. Lawmakers appointing law interpretors is not needed.
> 
> The supreme Court should be a completely independent body removed from politics.


I can agree with that 100%


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Let the media have a few more years and virtually everyone in the federal government will either be a racist, sexist, gang rapist fascist neo nazi .. or baby-killing, god hating, religious freedom persecuting communist Islamist terrorist loving atheist fascist who wants to take away all your guns so they can send the military at night to kill you.
> 
> Both the left and the right have completely destroyed language and credibility in their fight for absolute power.


I think the same thing has happened with wrestling. Vince has pushed a bad product with some PC since WWE is a public company and the fans now seem to complain about anything that might be "mean". Like Strowman "bullying" Kevin Owens. It seems like everyone has to walk on eggshells now.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I pointed this stuff out about the supreme Court a long time ago. There is no reason why a president in a partisan system should have the power to elect the supreme Court judge.
> 
> In fact the final straw against Musharraf that finally led to Pakistani revolt against him in 2007 was his dismissal of a supreme Court judge.


I know a lot of people think it could never happen in the USA but the mainstream narrative of what's going on in this country is completely disconnected from the reality of how life is for most Americans. Not that things were great before the last crash but they have become ever increasingly more difficult for the common man since. When the next crash happens, and it will, the government is likely to pull the same shit as it did last time. Namely, giving bailout money to the criminals who caused the crash. Problem is, the vast majority of the "recovery" has gone to the top. Three quarters of the country is living paycheck to paycheck now. Nobody has any reserves left to fall back on. Even Trump diehards are starting to feel the thinning of their wallets.

This can only go on for so long. Eventually, the bottom is going to drop out and people are going to be left looking at a government that has been claiming everything is getting better. People may be resistant to change but there comes a point where change becomes inevitable.

Concerning Kavanaugh and the other Christofascists in this country... they know full well that the tide is shifting against them. That's why they are so desperate to lock down the courts to enshrine their rule into law. It's not just on economic issues; it's on social issues as well. The Christian right has lost the social wars and since they cannot convince people of their own free will to live by Christian sharia, they are doing everything within their power to force people to live that way with the courts. The reason they even have this opportunity is because they are so thoroughly in bed with big money interests. It's a match made in hell if there ever was one. Anyone who thinks Trump gives a fuck about this religious bullshit is a fucking retard. Trump only cares about what helps Trump. Pandering to the unholy alliance of Christians and big money is good for Trump. 

If you look at the polls and the trends, the USA is moving left on economic issues and away from ancient mythology on social issues. All the shit we're dealing with now will only delay the inevitable. The Christian right will not win in the long run. But they damned sure will do everything they can to slow down change. That ain't gonna make life easy for us but it's not a fight they will win.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> There is no desired outcome when your choices are Establishment Democrats or Establishment Republicans choosing lifelong appointments to the highest court in the land. The only differences between the nominations are on social issues. Democrats will nominate socially liberal judges and Republicans will nominate socially regressive judges but on all the important issues, both sides will nominate judges who will protect corporations and Big Government at all costs. Fuck what the citizens of the USA actually want. That has no bearing on this whatsoever. Heads, we lose. Tails, they win.


Well, it depends. I think we're supposed to be governed closer to the constitution and sometimes people might not agree with that. There was some positive support for the Patriot Act back in the day and now government doesn't want to give up that power now that they've obtained it. That's why the constitution shouldn't be thrown aside just based on what people are "feeling" at the present time. 

Everyone accepts the "lesser of TV evils" at this point and that's why things are where they're at.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I know a lot of people think it could never happen in the USA but the mainstream narrative of what's going on in this country is completely disconnected from the reality of how life is for most Americans. Not that things were great before the last crash but they have become ever increasingly more difficult for the common man since. When the next crash happens, and it will, the government is likely to pull the same shit as it did last time. Namely, giving bailout money to the criminals who caused the crash. Problem is, the vast majority of the "recovery" has gone to the top. Three quarters of the country is living paycheck to paycheck now. Nobody has any reserves left to fall back on. Even Trump diehards are starting to feel the thinning of their wallets.
> 
> This can only go on for so long. Eventually, the bottom is going to drop out and people are going to be left looking at a government that has been claiming everything is getting better. People may be resistant to change but there comes a point where change becomes inevitable.
> 
> ...


Basically the GOP and religious know like you said the USA is moving left and to more secular, so they are pillaging everything now and burning it to the ground so nothing is left when they lose power


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Well, it depends. I think we're supposed to be governed closer to the constitution and sometimes people might not agree with that. There was some positive support for the Patriot Act back in the day and now government doesn't want to give up that power now that they've obtained it. That's why the constitution shouldn't be thrown aside just based on what people are "feeling" at the present time.
> 
> Everyone accepts the "lesser of TV evils" at this point and that's why things are where they're at.


A couple of things regarding The Constitution...

One... there's a whole lot of people who are so distracted by the 2nd amendment that they have failed to notice the 4th amendment is already gone and the 1st amendment is under attack.

Secondly... even though there may be some good things in there, it was still written by a bunch of slave owning oligarchs. The USA has a fucked up history that was built on the back of slaves and native genocide. No amount of whitewashing will change that fact.

People need to look at the document objectively, keep the good parts and amend the rest. Regardless of who the founders may or may not have been, they did create a country that can change it's constitution. We'd do well to remember that.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> A couple of things regarding The Constitution...
> 
> One... there's a whole lot of people who are so distracted by the 2nd amendment that they have failed to notice the 4th amendment is already gone and the 1st amendment is under attack.
> 
> ...


Well, some might say that some rights were not intended for women back in the day, but giving more freedom to Americans that don't infringe on others rights is something else. Like women being allowed to vote. Women being allowed to vote doesn't infringe on my rights. Black Americans being allowed to vote doesn't infringe on my rights. These expansions make Americans more free without trampling on anyone else's rights.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> A couple of things regarding The Constitution...
> 
> One... there's a whole lot of people who are so distracted by the 2nd amendment that they have failed to notice the 4th amendment is already gone and the 1st amendment is under attack.
> 
> ...


Your own posts in here suggest that the Constitution is indeed changing. But also that people are not in control of this change. 

People have no power. What they have is the illusion of choice created by the oligarchs and the corporate media. 

Remember that little Pajama boy who suddenly showed up in national consciousness as the guy we're all supposed to vote for? Where did he come from? Why was he pushed. Who pushed him? Millions of dollars were spent trying to get him elected. Because they know that all they need is this puppet and illusion that people voting for this puppet gives these people some power to "choose" their government. 

Incredibly intricate system exists ... If we don't even have the power to choose our leaders (newsflash: they're already chosen and all you do is pick one to pretend you picked a leader) 

Once Bernie was robbed of the Democratic nomination (though yeah Bernie is also very much establishment) that should have been the end of the Democratic party. But it wasn't.

These two juggernauts are instoppable. 

The Constitution changes depending on whose power has most to gain from it. And it will change if and when those already in power want it to change.

People have no power. We should all just find ways to make our lives as happy as possible in this dystopia. The government cannot be brought down and those in power already control everything.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> The whole idea of a group of lifelong Supreme judges is moronic and undemocratic. It's far worse than our house of lords.
> 
> The notion that it's bipartisan is even worse. Not sure how anyone can defend the system.


And now we've reached the anger stage. It's moronic! Undemocratic! Indefensible! How? Well, I didn't get the result I wanted! That's how!

They are lifelong appointments precisely to keep people like you from attempting to influence case votes.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the court itself or the rules for getting onto it, except the need some people have to preen and/or be sullen about how smart they are. It's worked for over 200 years rather well, your egos don't match up. They never will either. Sorry.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Your own posts in here suggest that the Constitution is indeed changing. But also that people are not in control of this change.
> 
> People have no power. What they have is the illusion of choice created by the oligarchs and the corporate media.
> 
> ...


Well, yes and no. The 2 juggernauts are only unstoppable as long as they are able to prop up the status quo. When the status quo becomes unfixable, that's when real change will happen.

Whether or not that change will be for the good or for the bad lies in the hands of the people. If they sit idly by, it will be change for the worse. If they rise up against the ruling class, it will be change for the better.

You'll forgive me if I'm not overly optimistic.

Sheep gonna sheep. Propaganda is a powerful tool, as we have previously discussed.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Dystopia :mj4

You just gotta laugh at this pompous display of egotistical delusion. What else is there to do? :draper2 

We need another world war. It's the only thing that will lift some people from their proudly held and adamant ignorance.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This isn't technically a political tweet... but, it was retweeted by Jimmy Dore and this thread needs a positive post every once in awhile, so I'm calling it close enough.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045492539560734720


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Well, yes and no. The 2 juggernauts are only unstoppable as long as they are able to prop up the status quo. When the status quo becomes unfixable, that's when real change will happen.


In retrospect though the real problem is that after every 8 years people start thinking that the party is now "reformed" under new leadership. So this switching game is more than enough to keep the sheep under control. 

Obama was as much a cause of Hillary losing as everything Hillary herself did. Trump may get his 8 years but by that time the democrats will appear all the more appealing.

People need to start questioning the very nature of these two parties and realizing that they're the same party for there to be any real movement towards change.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Dystopia :mj4
> 
> You just gotta laugh at this pompous display of egotistical delusion. What else is there to do? :draper2


haha yeah Reap sure does like to exaggerate doesn't he



> We need another world war. It's the only thing that will lift some people from their proudly held and adamant ignorance.


haha ye-wait no what the fuck :woah


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Go move to the Congo then tell us all about how the West in general or the United States in particular is a "dystopia."

Wait, you don't even have to go that far. Move to Sonora or Chihuahua or Sinaloa state. 

Pompous nonsense from people who should know better :mj4



CamillePunk said:


> haha ye-wait no what the fuck :woah


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> In retrospect though the real problem is that after every 8 years people start thinking that the party is now "reformed" under new leadership. So this switching game is more than enough to keep the sheep under control.
> 
> Obama was as much a cause of Hillary losing as everything Hillary herself did. Trump may get his 8 years but by that time the democrats will appear all the more appealing.
> 
> People need to start questioning the very nature of these two parties and realizing that they're the same party for there to be any real movement towards change.


But of course. Good cop bad cop at it's finest.



CamillePunk said:


> haha yeah Reap sure does like to exaggerate doesn't he


Reap isn't the one sucking off a christofascist while claiming to be an anarcho-capitalist.

:draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> And now we've reached the anger stage. It's moronic! Undemocratic! Indefensible! How? Well, I didn't get the result I wanted! That's how!
> 
> They are lifelong appointments precisely to keep people like you from attempting to influence case votes.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with the court itself or the rules for getting onto it, except the need some people have to preen and/or be sullen about how smart they are. It's worked for over 200 years rather well, your egos don't match up. They never will either. Sorry.


yeah it worked for 200 years until the Dems and GOP started to fuck with and abuse the rules. The whole Dems getting rid of the filibuster, the gop delaying a pick for over a year is all bullshit. The system is now broken and needs to be fixed


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Reap isn't the one sucking off a christofascist while claiming to be an anarcho-capitalist.
> 
> :draper2


Always have to lmao when non-serious feckless clowns try to silence my views on how the government I don't believe should exist should be ran according to its own laws, as if I should silently allow statists to decide how exactly the state gets to fuck me or else this somehow makes me a hypocrite

The fuck out of here with that.

You sure do like to rush to the homosexually-charged personal attacks don't you. Wonder what that says about you, besides the obvious which is that you're completely immature. :mj


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Socialism is all about feck from each according to his ability and feck to each according to his need

If only feck distribution was more equal, the feckless wouldn't be so churlish, and thirsty for feck


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045737004804313088
SUCH A FASCIST


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't know how you could say that the United States is, politically, anything but a dystopia when the majority party repeatedly accommodates the demands of the minority party on issues extremely important to both. As long as the majority party is the Republican Party.

If the GOP operated the same way the Democratic Party did the last time it controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency, Kavanaugh would already be confirmed, and a host of other left-wing blood pressure spikers would have been passed and signed into law with machinelike regularity, and it all would have been done with a smirk and a raised middle finger on the part of the Republicans.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

A week isn't too bad but you just know more "allegations" might arise. It honestly shouldn't take that long especially with Ford not really knowing the location or the time of her alleged attack. This also could provide cover for those who are on the fence.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> And now we've reached the anger stage. It's moronic! Undemocratic! Indefensible! How? Well, I didn't get the result I wanted! That's how!
> 
> They are lifelong appointments precisely to keep people like you from attempting to influence case votes.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with the court itself or the rules for getting onto it, except the need some people have to preen and/or be sullen about how smart they are. It's worked for over 200 years rather well, your egos don't match up. They never will either. Sorry.


This would make a tiny bit of sense had I at any point said anything about Kavanaugh and his appointment, but I couldn't give two shits who Trump chooses, I have even said he seemed genuine in his denials. 

I'm about as angry about him being a judge as I am about people who eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. IDGAF. 

Once again you embarrass yourself.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> A week isn't too bad but you just know more "allegations" might arise. It honestly shouldn't take that long especially with Ford not really knowing the location or the time of her alleged attack. This also could provide cover for those who are on the fence.


Avenatti really screwed the pooch on further allegations being effective with his outlandish and embarrassing gang rape ring spectacle. Plus that Kavanaugh raped someone on a boat in 1985 allegation that was almost instantly retracted, and the Kavanaugh pushed some woman up against a wall in public allegation with his girlfriend at the time saying I was there and that never happened.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> This would make a tiny bit of sense had I at any point said anything about Kavanaugh and his appointment, but I couldn't give two shits who Trump chooses, I have even said he seemed genuine in his denials.
> 
> I'm about as angry about him being a judge as I am about people who eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. IDGAF.
> 
> Once again you embarrass yourself.


Trashes the entire institution and process, makes a conclusive statement that it is all indefensible, then tries to walk all that back. Didn't really mean it, you don't really care! Never mind that you just foamed at the mouth about it, that wasn't sincere. Or something. You just happened to say that the institution as formed and the process for maintaining it is indefensible nonsense, disconnected from anything that just happened in the real world. Quite the coincidence!

If you can't stand by what you say for longer than an hour and have to resort to laughable claims that you were speaking merely in the abstract - how often do you speak merely in the abstract on topics that are markedly unabstract at the time? - maybe don't say it in the first place? 

Take your thirst for me to rants.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Trashes the entire institution and process, makes a conclusive statement that it is all indefensible, then tries to walk all that back. Didn't really mean it, I don't really care! Never mind that I just foamed at the mouth about it, that wasn't sincere. Or something.
> 
> If you can't stand by what you say for longer than an hour, maybe don't say it in the first place?
> 
> Sad!


How the fuck did I defend the institution or process? This is why I fucking hate discussing anything with you, you make shit up.

The process of appointing a judge for life is moronic.

The fact the president gets to choose a lifelong judge is moronic.

IDGAF who that judge is.

Do you understand the difference between not caring who the judge is but disliking the idea of the judge being a lifelong position appointed by the president?

Weirdly I can believe I'm actually explaining this to you, because you're not a smart person.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Avenatti really screwed the pooch on further allegations being effective with his outlandish and embarrassing gang rape ring spectacle. Plus that Kavanaugh raped someone on a boat in 1985 allegation that was almost instantly retracted, and the Kavanaugh pushed some woman up against a wall in public allegation with his girlfriend at the time saying I was there and that never happened.


I agree. The gang rape one was too ridiculous and the last two have been by an anonymous accuser and the recanted one by Mr. Rhode Island. Apparently a couple of guys came forward saying they might have been the one that Blasey Ford was describing instead of Kavanaugh, but Lindsey Graham called one a "nut job" yesterday, so there are a bunch of bipartisan crazy mofos in this country.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> I agree. The gang rape one was too ridiculous and the last two have been by an anonymous accuser and the recanted one by Mr. Rhode Island. Apparently a couple of guys came forward saying they might have been the one that Blasey Ford was describing instead of Kavanaugh, but Lindsey Graham called one a "nut job" yesterday, so there are a bunch of bipartisan crazy mofos in this country.


Yeah, that gang rape thing was where I rolled my eyes so far back in to my head. This whole circus was embarrassing for all.


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*Senate GOP agrees to one-week delay on Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation to allow for FBI probe*



> Republicans in the Senate have agreed to delay a vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation for one week to allow for an FBI probe into allegations of sexual misconduct against the judge, according to a statement issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday.
> 
> According to the statement, the committee will request that the White House "instruct the FBI to conduct a supplemental FBI background investigation with respect to" Kavanaugh's nomination.
> 
> ...


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/senate-gop-agrees-to-one-week-delay-on-kavanaugh-confirmation-to-allow-for-fbi-probe.html


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*I am starting to like Trump since he has been doing good at being President in our country. :trump *


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

You know I would compare our politicians to angry chimps throwing their shit, but chimps would show more tact


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044940262164893696
:deandre


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045783043905146880
:lauren


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm ok with Katz taking this stance. It's her duty to her client in my artificial estimation. She and Ford are fortunate this is even happening.

Almost everything in human society is artifice to be continued in my life I love you more.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045783043905146880
> :lauren


The left is a fucking joke. Literal children.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> The left is a fucking joke. Literal children.


LOL why are they a joke for not wanting the investigation to be limited in scope? Are you afraid of what they may find? Don't you want the truth no matter what that may be.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> The left is a fucking joke. Literal children.


You give an inch and they'll take a mile. That's just what is going to happen.

You either have faith in the person after 6 background checks or you cut him/her loose. Now this thing will just drag out. Republicans are bunch of wet noodles. That's all they'll ever be. I'm glad that I've never voted for that party.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> You give an inch and they'll take a mile. That's just what is going to happen.
> 
> You either have faith in the person after 6 background checks or you cut him/her loose. Now this thing will just drag out. Republicans are bunch of wet noodles. That's all they'll ever be. I'm glad that I've never voted for that party.


Kavanaugh is lying, he lied over and over again during his testimony, and like I said earlier, his calendar backs up what Ford said about a party with Kavanaugh, Judge and PJ. Like I said there is a reason why the GOP pulled the prosecutor right after she asked about that July 1st party. Because that is probably the party it happened at

And she named Kavanaugh, Judge and PJ and another guy she forgets his name to be at said party before his calendar even came out. His calendar backs up a possible party she was talking about.

So tell me why should the scope be limited? Why are you afraid fo the truth?


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Kavanaugh is lying, he lied over and over again during his testimony, and like I said earlier, his calendar backs up what Ford said about a party with Kavanaugh, Judge and PJ. Like I said there is a reason why the GOP pulled the prosecutor right after she asked about that July 1st party. Because that is probably the party it happened at
> 
> And she named Kavanaugh, Judge and PJ and another guy she forgets his name to be at said party before his calendar even came out. His calendar backs up a possible party she was talking about.
> 
> So tell me why should the scope be limited? Why are you afraid fo the truth?


She said a lot of "I don't know" or "I don't remember" and little of anything else. Just a few days ago the left were laughing about how pointless his calendar was and now suddenly everyone believes that its the key to everything? How surprising.

She was handled with kids gloves even though she is the accuser.



> Like I said there is a reason why the GOP pulled the prosecutor right after she asked about that July 1st party.[/quote[
> 
> Can you prove this? It's your opinion and nothing else. They could go ahead and push Brett through now, but they're not going to. So it seems they will not go to any lengths to get him in after all.
> 
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> She said a lot of "I don't know" or "I don't remember" and little of anything else. Just a few days ago the left were laughing about how pointless his calendar was and now suddenly everyone believes that its the key to everything? How surprising.
> 
> She was handled with kids gloves even though she is the accuser.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> > She said she was not sure of the exact date or the address of party but she remembers being there with Kavanaugh, Judge, JP and some other boy was there too. And now the calendar that Kavanaugh brought out, has a party with those 4 boys in it, and you think she just happens to guess that right? And yes it was laughable to bring a calendar from 1982 to say see I was not at a party with these people, because most people are not going to put a keg party on a family calendar yet AGAIN there is a party with the people Ford named on his calendar, thus why everyone is talking about it, because it backs up what she said. its also very telling right after that line of questioning from the prosecutor the GOP said NOPE she is getting too close to the truth and was exposing Kavanaugh was lying, they decided to pull her
> 
> 
> If she wasn't drunk and this haunts her everyday of her life and all of that, she should probably remember more than what she remembers. Lots of no answers or vague answers and very little actual proof. Even if they were at the same party that wouldn't be proof that an assault happened.
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > If she wasn't drunk and this haunts her everyday of her life and all of that, she should probably remember more than what she remembers. Lots of no answers or vague answers and very little actual proof. Even if they were at the same party that wouldn't be proof that an assault happened.
> ...


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ryder92 said:
> 
> 
> > She remembers who was at the party, and guess what that was on Kavanaugh's calendar, she remembers who the two people that tried to rape her were, and goes into detail of what happened. The exact street address and date isn't a small detail. Again I remember going to Disneyland as a kid, I don't remember the exact date, and I can't tell you the address of the hotel we stayed at, but I can't tell you some of the things that happened and who I went with. Its funny she remembers a lot of things but you focus on the few things like exact date and street address which aren't a huge detail, she has a general idea, and that general idea coincides with a date and party on Kavanaugh's calendar. So that would be a great place to start. The most important part is, she knows who her sexual assaulters were, she is 100% sure of that but keep dismissing that fact and she also mentioned this assault to a number of people starting in 2012.
> ...


----------



## SPCDRI (Mar 15, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The Democrats are a bunch of puritans now. :lol Killing your baby in the womb is fine but drinking beer sometimes on the weekends is somehow relevant to whether or not you would sexually assault someone.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > I can remember when I answered the phone to find out that my mother and brother had just passed in a car crash. I can remember what I was doing at the time at the time even though I was only 8 and this news was the worst experience of experience of my life. That was 1989. I was 8 and playing swords with my dad and I was wearing my favorite shirt when I answered the ringing phone. Worse night of my life.
> ...


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



SPCDRI said:


>


:lol
They need to have one more hearing with him and have his entrance music hit before he stuns his Democrat interrogators.


----------



## SPCDRI (Mar 15, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










This is just what I remember from her hearing.

So, where did it happen?

I dunno

When did it happen? Do you at least know the year?

I dunno, late teens or when I was fifteen, take your pick.

Why did you say at first it was you and four boys, then you, four boys and some girls, and then you, three boys and one girl? 

I dunno

How did you get there? How did you escape? How did you get home?

Somebody drove me there but I don't know who. I dunno X2

Why didn't you tell anybody, including family members and friends at the time?

I dunno

Why didn't you say anything when he was being appointed to the second most important federal court of appeals in 2003?

I dunno

Why did you say you wanted a second door in 2012 due to trauma, but the application and permit for the second door renovation is 2008?

I dunno.

Why do you say you are afraid of flying when you take plane rides at least once a year to places as far flung as Tahiti, which is not in the United States but rather 5000 miles away?

ITS DIFFERENT FOR A VACATION

So, why did you fly to Maryland for the polygraph?

I dunno

So, who paid for it?

I dunno

Was it recorded in any fashion?

I dunno

Will you release the charts?

No. 

Do you think it was appropriate to take a polygraph test less than one day after you attended your grandmother's funeral?

I don't know much about polygraphs, I dunno

Why didn't you tell the president, vice president, senate and house majority leaders? Why did you only tell democrats?

My beach friends told me to

Who got those lawyers for you?

Beach friends

How are they being paid? Are you paying them?

I dunno. Wait, its pro bono. Maybe the Beach Friends are paying for them.

Who leaked the information if it wasn't you?

I dunno.

Why didn't you agree to meet with Republicans who publicly said they'd fly to your house to meet with you?

I dunno.

Its a load of shit. That's for starters. Horrible liar but since she's a White woman baby boomer in the Western World her wobbly voice and soggy eyes are the Fifth Gospel.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So he's supposedly a liar and the accuser cannot remember anything of value. Wowzers.

I still haven't got an answer why this didn't come up when he first became a Judge. So she was fine with him being a judge but not a SC Judge?

This whole thing is a shitshow. 

Won't matter if the investigation finds absolutely nothing, this is what our Political system has come to.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ryder92 said:
> 
> 
> > And she remembers what she was doing too and who she was with and who was in the room with here and exactly what they did do it. So your point is? Sounds like you remember just as much as her. Not to mention you were not drinking and you were in a familiar location as opposed to she was not.
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> So he's supposedly a liar and the accuser cannot remember anything of value. Wowzers.
> 
> I still haven't got an answer why this didn't come up when he first became a Judge. So she was fine with him being a judge but not a SC Judge?
> 
> ...


He is a liar lol He lied under oath, I have already pointed out a number of his lies.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > Ryder92 said:
> ...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045826278723596288
Yet another allegation against Kavanaugh completely debunked.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045826278723596288
> Yet another allegation against Kavanaugh completely debunked.


yeah the GOP keep putting up fake accusations out there to muddy the waters. Since they can't poke holes in the first three, they just keep making ones up to say SEE people are falsely accusing him. Its a joke just like how someone in Congress tried changing the wiki meaning of devils triangle

So you think Ford is lying then

Simple yes or no answer will do


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah the GOP keep putting up fake accusations out there to muddy the waters. Since they can't poke holes in the first three, they just keep making ones up to say SEE people are falsely accusing him. Its a joke just like how someone in Congress tried changing the wiki meaning of devils triangle


When you're asserting things you can't know as if they are undoubtedly true, you know you're not thinking critically.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> When you're asserting things you can't know as if they are undoubtedly true, you know you're not thinking critically.


Right..... LOL

So answer the question do you think Ford is lying then?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

lmao wtf


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> lmao wtf


Still dodging the question I see. This is why I can't take you seriously, you can't even answer a simple question.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Still dodging the question I see. This is why I can't take you seriously, you can't even answer a simple question.


dude I already answered that question multiple times and it had nothing to do with the post you replied to :lmao


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The Democrats are a bunch of puritans now. :lol Killing your baby in the womb is fine but drinking beer sometimes on the weekends is somehow relevant to whether or not you would sexually assault someone.


Been that way for awhile now. Not sure when things changed (lmfao modern feminism), but it's one of the things that makes it impossible for me to associate with the Dems.

brb voting BETO though imo


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> dude I already answered that question multiple times and it had nothing to do with the post you replied to :lmao


and what was that answer?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...8/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart


Every time Ford and Kavanaugh answered the question — and didn't answer the question


LOL at a rejoinder or other poster has to hide behind a new name. Only on WF


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah the GOP keep putting up fake accusations out there to muddy the waters. Since they can't poke holes in the first three, they just keep making ones up to say SEE people are falsely accusing him. Its a joke just like how someone in Congress tried changing the wiki meaning of devils triangle
> 
> So you think Ford is lying then
> 
> Simple yes or no answer will do


You don't think the GOP can't poke holes in the "He was part of a gang rape ring in High school, and I went to 10 parties where they were raping girls and spiking punch until they finally got me by spiking my drink with quaaludes"

You believing that one?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

What kind of piece of shit witnesses or has knowledge about a rape (not talking about when they are the victim) and then doesn't tell anyone, or continues to hang out with the rapists? It's like people don't think these allegations through before they make them.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> What kind of piece of shit witnesses or has knowledge about a rape (not talking about when they are the victim) and then doesn't tell anyone, or continues to hang out with the rapists? It's like people don't think these allegations through before they make them.


Michael Avenatti has to be a double agent for the Republicans or something.

That was the single worst thing that happened in to these Dr. Ford allegations, it made this look like a witch hunt.

When it was just Dr. Ford, the argument was "Well, what does she and the dems have to gain, except someone knowing the truth.

Now with that allegation, it now makes it look like they have a motive to say whatever to stop this nomination, an I think it has made a difference to what people think of her, as people have start to dig into her past a bit, it is looking a little muddy for her as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> What kind of piece of shit witnesses or has knowledge about a rape (not talking about when they are the victim) and then doesn't tell anyone, or continues to hang out with the rapists? It's like people don't think these allegations through before they make them.


UM, that happens all the time, especially in HS and college.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Well it's pretty clear what the Dems had to gain from the allegations. Block the nomination and then hope they win enough seats in the midterms to perpetually block any other nomination. At least one Democratic member of Congress has admitted that this is their strategy. 

As for Dr. Ford, her GoFundMe has exploded and she's also a Democrat. I don't think that means she's intentionally lying about any of this, but to say she has absolutely nothing to gain is just not factual.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You don't think the GOP can't poke holes in the "He was part of a gang rape ring in High school, and I went to 10 parties where they were raping girls and spiking punch until they finally got me by spiking my drink with quaaludes"
> 
> You believing that one?





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Michael Avenatti has to be a double agent for the Republicans or something.
> 
> That was the single worst thing that happened in to these Dr. Ford allegations, it made this look like a witch hunt.
> 
> ...


He was right about Trump and Stormy Daniels and people like you were claiming it was all BS. Let's see what he has. He said he has facts backing it up, so he needs to show it. If it's not true then you are 100% is just hurts Fords case and other women who really are raped when they come forward.





CamillePunk said:


> Well it's pretty clear what the Dems had to gain from the allegations. Block the nomination and then hope they win enough seats in the midterms to perpetually block any other nomination. At least one Democratic member of Congress has admitted that this is their strategy.
> 
> As for Dr. Ford, her GoFundMe has exploded and she's also a Democrat. I don't think that means she's intentionally lying about any of this, but to say she has absolutely nothing to gain is just not factual.


So what does she herself have to gain exactly?

Also this non-sense of all Ford is lying because they just want to block the nomination is pathetic. If that were true why didn't it happen with Gorsuch?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> UM, that happens all the time, especially in HS and college.


What school did you go to?

You think people in college and high school are witnessing rape and being like: 

"You know Amy is in there getting raped, by the way, you got those US history notes from Thursday, can you e-mail them to me?"


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> What school did you go to?
> 
> You think people in college and high school are witnessing rape and being like:
> 
> "You know Amy is in there getting raped, by the way, you got those US history notes from Thursday, can you e-mail them to me?"


People who were date raped in HS and college still hung out with that guy all the time when that guy was in their circle of friends. Women get raped by their husbands in some cases and they still stay married to them. Girls get beat and raped by their bfs and they still stay with them. Are you really going to claim that is not true?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> He was right about Trump and Stormy Daniels and people like you were claiming it was all BS. Let's see what he has. He said he has facts backing it up, so he needs to show it. If it's not true then you are 100% is just hurts Fords case and other women who really are raped when they come forward.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will be honest with you: A celebrity cheating on his wife with a porn star is a story I believe 100% of the time.

Anyone who believed Trump didn't F Stormy Daniels after hearing about Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods, was just a person who didn't want to believe anything bad about Trump.

But that is a far cry from a rae brothel and boys standing in line having sex.

And then wouldn't you (as well as overs) consider her some form of an accomplice considering she did nothing to stop this on at least 10 occasions.

It's also horrible she only mentioned two names but said that numerous boys were involved in this.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> People who were date raped in HS and college still hung out with that guy all the time when that guy was in their circle of friends. Women get raped by their husbands in some cases and they still stay married to them. Girls get beat and raped by their bfs and they still stay with them. Are you really going to claim that is not true?


Stop changing the subject.

That's not what you said, you said that people witness rape and don't report it in HS and college all the time.

Do you really believe that is true?

Do you really believe there are girls who are going to party seeing boys spiking punch and raping girls in gang rape style, and not reporting it, as you put it "All the time"


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I will be honest with you: A celebrity cheating on his wife with a porn star is a story I believe 100% of the time.
> 
> Anyone who believed Trump didn't F Stormy Daniels after hearing about Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods, was just a person who didn't want to believe anything bad about Trump.
> 
> ...


The women that knew about these train rapes on girls at parties is for sure an accomplice for letting it happen. If she is lying, why would she put that part in and just talk about the time she was raped and drugged.

From what I have read on this case, which is there not a lot of info on it yet, so I mainly focus on Ford, is these kinds of trains happened at parties on girls, and it happened to her but Kavanaugh was just at that party and did not take part in her rape, but she saw him in line at parties for other girls being used as a train.

She is the least credible of the three by far and like others have said, she only hurts Fords case until she has ironclad proof of these train rapes and that BK took part in them.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Stop changing the subject.
> 
> That's not what you said, you said that people witness rape and don't report it in HS and college all the time.
> 
> ...


I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were talking about girls still hanging out with guys who raped them, and friends of hers knowing about the rape still hanging out with that guy.

There are a lot of people in college that know a friend is going to get a girl drunk to hook up with her, which is rape, and don't do anything about it and still hang out with him. Are you claiming that does not happen? 

If you are talking about someone witnessing a gang rape and not doing anything about it, that is way more rare.

Like I said find this gang rape woman way less credible, but I am still waiting to see all the info. Because it does seem far-fetched but it does not mean it did not happen or things like that don't happen at parties.

The credibility of this 3rd woman is pretty low in my eyes. And from the sound of it, when it did happen to her BK was not in on that, she probably should not have come foward. It seems like he was just at the party it happend. If she can prove he was the one that spiked her drink, that isa different story.

Also, her other claim is she saw him in line for one of these trains on another girl, that wouldn't be very convincing either unless she saw him coming out of the room, then the girl coming out right after him crying that she was raped, which does not seem to be the case.




This came out a few hours ago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...vestigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061

White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
The FBI has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, a White House official confirmed to NBC News.

WASHINGTON — The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.

While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.

Ford said in Senate testimony Thursday that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school. Ramirez alleged that he exposed himself to her when there were students at Yale. Kavanaugh has staunchly denied allegations from Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick.


Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.

The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.

President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the FBI has "free reign" in the investigation. "They’re going to do whatever they have to do," he said. "Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing — things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine."


Trump: FBI investigating Kavanaugh could be 'blessing in disguise'
SEP.29.201801:58
The president also said he thinks Flake's role in delaying the vote is fine. "Actually this could be a blessing in disguise," Trump continued. "Because having the FBI go out, do a thorough investigation, whether its three days or seven days, I think it’s going to be less than a week. But having them do a thorough investigation, I actually think will be a blessing in disguise. It’ll be a good thing."

"I don't need a backup plan," Trump said, adding that he thinks Kavanaugh is "going to be fine."

Sen. Chris *****, D-Del., said Saturday that he supports the week-long scope of the investigation. “The FBI works at the direction of the White House in investigating the background of an administration nominee like Judge Kavanaugh," he told MSNBC's Chris Hayes at Global Citizen Festival in New York. "So it’s the White House Counsel or the president who says, ‘This is the scope of the further investigation.'"

Related

FROM POTUS
Trump asks if Feinstein leaked allegation against Kavanaugh, says FBI probe may be 'blessing in disguise'
Sen. Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who led an 11th hour move in the Senate committee for an FBI inquiry, said he thought the bureau would decide how to carry it out. His Democratic colleague Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island said he expected the FBI probe to include "adequate staffing," support from the committee for "rapid immunity and subpoena decisions as needed, plus the ability to investigate claims of a "penchant for drunkenness and inappropriate treatment of women, particularly where specifically related to incidents under investigation."

Recommended

What to know about the Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford Senate hearing

Nightly News Full Broadcast (September 27th)
An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment, referring questions to the White House.

A White House official did not specifically dispute limitations on the scope of the FBI's investigation but denied the White House was “micromanaging” the inquiry.

White House spokesman Raj Shah said that "the scope and duration has been set by the Senate. The White House is letting the FBI agents do what they are trained to do.”

The Senate has only said that supplemental FBI background investigation “be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today.”

Related

ANALYSIS
Analysis: Kavanaugh fight shows Washington is sick. Very sick.
White House counsel Don McGahn, who has shepherded Kavanaugh's nomination since President Trump chose him for the high court on July 9, is taking the lead for the White House in dealing with the FBI on the investigation, those involved in the process told NBC News.

A U.S. official briefed on the matter said its not unusual for the White House to set the parameters of an FBI background check for a presidential nominee. The FBI had no choice but to agree to these terms, the sources told NBC News, because it is conducting the background investigation on behalf of the White House.

If the FBI learns of others who can corroborate what the existing witnesses are saying, it is not clear whether agents will be able to contact them under the terms laid out by the White House, the two sources briefed on the matter said.

Some areas are off limits, the sources said.


New questions surrounding FBI background check into Kavanaugh
SEP.28.201802:22
Investigators plan to meet with Mark Judge, a high school classmate and friend of Kavanaugh's whom Ford named as a witness and participant to her alleged assault.

But as of now, the FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records verifying when he was employed there, one of the sources was told. Ford said in congressional testimony Thursday that those records would help her narrow the time frame of the alleged incident which she recalls happening some time in the summer of 1982 in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker. Those details may be pertinent to investigating claims from Ramirez who described an alleged incident of sexual misconduct she said occurred while Kavanaugh was inebriated. Ramirez's lawyer said Saturday that she had been contacted by the FBI and would cooperate.

The conditions under which the FBI's reopened background check are occurring appears to differ from the one envisioned by Flake, who used his leverage as a swing vote to pressure the Trump administration to order the FBI investigation.

Flake said Friday he thought the FBI should decide the scope of the investigation.

“They’ll have to decide — the FBI you know, how far that goes,” he told reporters. “This is limited in time and scope and I think that it's appropriate when it's a lifetime appointment and allegations this serious and we ought to let people know that we're serious about it.”


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Meanwhile, while everyone is distracted by the Kavanaugh shitshow, this happened...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1046224484653502464
Sometimes I wonder if he really is that good of a con man or if is he is so delusional that he actually believes all the bullshit he spews.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Tater said:


> Meanwhile, while everyone is distracted by the Kavanaugh shitshow, this happened...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1046224484653502464
> Sometimes I wonder if he really is that good of a con man or if is he is so delusional that he actually believes all the bullshit he spews.


His supporters believe it.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Meanwhile, while everyone is distracted by the Kavanaugh shitshow, this happened...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1046224484653502464
> Sometimes I wonder if he really is that good of a con man or if is he is so delusional that he actually believes all the bullshit he spews.


Isn't he pretty much acting like every other politician these days?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...and-kim-jong-un-fell-in-love-during-courtship

*Trump Says He and Kim Jong Un `Fell in Love' *During Courtship

President Donald Trump said he and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “fell in love” over the course of their on-again off-again detente, hours after Pyongyang’s top diplomat said there was “no way” the country would disarm under current conditions.

*“He wrote me beautiful letters,” *Trump said of Kim Saturday during a rally in Wheeling, West Virginia. *“And they’re great letters. We fell in love.”*

Trump has made repeated efforts to flatter Kim, even as talks aimed at ending Pyongyang’s nuclear program sputtered following the two leaders’ landmark June summit in Singapore. Kim and Trump are actively planning a second summit, but there are still signs that the talks haven’t advanced.

Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly on Saturday, North Korea’s top diplomat said the nation won’t dismantle its nuclear weapons until it has “sufficient trust” in the U.S., and called on the Trump administration to drop its “coercive methods” such as sanctions.

The remarks by North Korea Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho underscored lingering friction between the nations, even as they plan a second Trump-Kim meeting.

Earlier this week, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said he had a “very positive meeting” with Ri, and agreed to visit North Korea next month to prepare for another summit.

At the UN, North Korea repeated its request to the U.S. to declare the end of the 1950-1953 Korean War, which ended with a cease-fire but without a peace treaty. Skeptics of Kim’s motivations worry that the U.S. might withdraw troops from South Korea and that UN sanctions could be lifted if the war is declared over. North and South Korea see declaring the end of the war as a key to building trust between the U.S. and North Korea.




Trump getting played by Kim Jong Un and LOL at him swooning over it. LOL at anyone that takes Trump seriously. He is such a joke and one of the dumbest people in America.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> Isn't he pretty much acting like every other politician these days?


Politicians have always lied but they at least used to go through the motions and sprinkle a little truth in to make their lies seem more credible. Some of Trump's lies have been so ridiculously blatant that it's mind-boggling how even the most baaing of sheep can believe them.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were talking about girls still hanging out with guys who raped them, and friends of hers knowing about the rape still hanging out with that guy.
> 
> There are a lot of people in college that know a friend is going to get a girl drunk to hook up with her, which is rape, and don't do anything about it and still hang out with him. Are you claiming that does not happen?
> 
> ...


The issues I have with you is that you make blanket statements that not only can't be backed up but can't even be proven.

Case in point "There are a lot of people in college that know a friend is going to get a girl drunk to hook up with her, which is rape, and don't do anything about it and still hang out with him. Are you claiming that does not happen?"

How in any way shape or form can I claim if that does or does not happen.

I have never heard a person tell me or someone else "Hey I am going to get this girl drunk so she can have sex with me."

I am sure in the history of the world, somewhere in some town, at some time it has happened. That doesn't make it normal, so to answer your question, it might happen, but I wouldn't think it is an daily, or even weekly occurrence.

This makes me believe you don't know much about getting drunk or about sex. Sex while drunk is horrible, also, most women who get sloppy drunk do so on their own, if they are in college, and drinking legally, they are adults. If they need a babysitter to tell them to stop drinking, they are irresponsible to a fault.

I had a girl tell me once "When I have two drinks, I get really easy." When we sat down for dinner she ordered a drink, I paid for it, does that mean I raped her, because she was obviously lowering her own inhibitions for me?

Either way, I don't believe the 3rd woman at all, I honestly don't believe the 2nd.

As for Ford/Kavanaugh, I honestly believe and don't believe both of them.

I thin Dems are in a rush to say how Kavanaugh evaded questions and didn't answer things as a way to make their case

I think the GOP are in a rush to say how Ford evaded questions and didn't provide proof to make her case.

I think if you come from a side of skepticism (which as a falsely accused male) I do, you would tend to believe him more. 

But if you come from the side of a victim, which a lot of women are you would tend to believe her more


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Politicians have always lied but they at least used to go through the motions and sprinkle a little truth in to make their lies seem more credible. Some of Trump's lies have been so ridiculously blatant that it's mind-boggling how even the most baaing of sheep can believe them.


Trump isn't a politician.

Trump is an entertainer, that's how he won the election. He is the Mr. McMahon character as president.

The thing is Trump=money to so many of the American news outlets. IMO, people care about politics, and even if it divides us as a country, it makes Fox, News, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other outlets so much money now.

You even have has-been stars start their careers back up because of Trump being in office gives them some form of an audience.

I don't agree with it 100%, but that's my two cents on the whole thing


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Trump isn't a politician.
> 
> Trump is an entertainer, that's how he won the election. He is the Mr. McMahon character as president.
> 
> ...


The ones who win are all better actors than the ones who lose. The ones who are not actors don't win. We are just given the illusion that someone who says they believe the things we do actually believe the things we do lol. And that's why the best actor of them all always wins. 

Note how Obama's policies were never criticized but his personality (read persona) was always praised. Note how Bush is no longer a fascist war criminal because he gave Obama a piece of candy at McCains funeral. Note how Mccain is no longer a racist warmonger when he opposed Trump. 

Notice how the corporate media has sheep bleeting the virtues of their own slavery without recognizing who the real power brokers even are. 

That's pretty much as dystopian as you can get. :mj


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Meanwhile, Trump signed another budget bill after saying he would not sign another one that didn’t fund his policies like the wall. He did it again. 

If Obama had talked about love letters from an enemy of the United States, we would be demanding his impeachment. 

As for SCOTUS, all of this could have been avoided if they nominated Amy Barrett instead of that squish Kavanaugh. She has far better credentials but wasn’t nominated supposedly due to lack of experience.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> The issues I have with you is that you make blanket statements that not only can't be backed up but can't even be proven.
> 
> Case in point "There are a lot of people in college that know a friend is going to get a girl drunk to hook up with her, which is rape, and don't do anything about it and still hang out with him. Are you claiming that does not happen?"
> 
> ...


So you have never seen or known someone in HS or college that got a girl drunk with the intention of hooking up with her? You had an example of a girl that admitted when she has two drinks, she gets real easy, so do you think not guy ever hearing that, got her drunk to hook up with her? 

As for the 3rd women, lets see what info she has. 





DMD Mofomagic said:


> As for Ford/Kavanaugh, I honestly believe and don't believe both of them.



Who do you find more credible? Do you find Kavanaugh more credible with all his lies?



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I thin Dems are in a rush to say how Kavanaugh evaded questions and didn't answer things as a way to make their case
> 
> I think the GOP are in a rush to say how Ford evaded questions and didn't provide proof to make her case.
> 
> ...


He did evade questions, are you really going to claim he didn't? He also flat out committed purgery a number of times. 
Ford did not evade any questions. its a joke you would even claim that.

You keep saying she did not prove anything to make her case yet she did. Not sure why you keep ignoring this. I have said it over and over again. But keep ignoring that.

If you are truly impartial, after seeing the hearing, I don't see how you can some way with not thinking Kavanaugh is lying and hiding something.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Steve Bannon on Bill Maher.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Of course Trump and the WH trying to tie the hands of the FBI 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...vestigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061

Limits to FBI's Kavanaugh investigation have not changed, despite Trump's comments
Trump’s Saturday night tweet has not changed the limits imposed by the White House counsel’s office on the FBI's Kavanaugh investigation, sources say.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> His supporters believe it.


His supporters also believe that Sarah Palin should run in 2024 after him.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> Meanwhile, Trump signed another budget bill after saying he would not sign another one that didn’t fund his policies like the wall. He did it again.
> 
> If Obama had talked about love letters from an enemy of the United States, we would be demanding his impeachment.
> 
> As for SCOTUS, all of this could have been avoided if they nominated Amy Barrett instead of that squish Kavanaugh. She has far better credentials but wasn’t nominated supposedly due to lack of experience.


Yeah, nominating Kavanaugh in an election year with the confirmation hearings being so close to the election was a mistake. I'm guessing the mentality was that Trump was saving Barrett for RBG's replacement (because replacing her with another dude would be problematic), but you can't plan on that when politics is so chaotic. Plus, RBG could outlast Trump for all we know.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mifune Jackson said:


> Yeah, nominating Kavanaugh in an election year with the confirmation hearings being so close to the election was a mistake. I'm guessing the mentality was that Trump was saving Barrett for RBG's replacement (because replacing her with another dude would be problematic), but you can't plan on that when politics is so chaotic. Plus, RBG could outlast Trump for all we know.


Trump wanted Kavanaugh because BK said a sitting president can't be indicted, and if Trump gets indicted, it will make it to the SCOTUS and guess who will break the 4-4 tie?

Mitch knew BK would be a problem, its also why the GOP didn't allow all his info to be released and looked at by the Democrats, it's also why they are trying to rush him through because they knew this stuff was in his past

BK shouldn't be confirmed because he has shown and admitted under oath how he is not unbiased and he trashed liberal groups as well as the DNC. Not to mention, he committed purgery over and over again.

For those reasons alone he shouldn't be confirmed


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1046393147608117248
Daniel McAdams is one of the best follows on Twitter. He's constantly throwing haymakers.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you have never seen or known someone in HS or college that got a girl drunk with the intention of hooking up with her? You had an example of a girl that admitted when she has two drinks, she gets real easy, so do you think not guy ever hearing that, got her drunk to hook up with her?
> 
> As for the 3rd women, lets see what info she has.


Honestly, no. 

Because that person would be the dumbest rapist in the history of time.

Once again, it's a pie in the sky argument that absolutely has no way of being proven, or dismissed. 

Ciould someone be stupid enough to tell you "Yes I take advantage of women when they get too drunk to realize what is going on", but lets be real that as stupid as someone telling you "When I see a handicapped person down the street, I think about stealing their money, because it is so easy"

If you know someone like that, please tell me who, and tell me what happened when you contacted the local authorities.



> Who do you find more credible? Do you find Kavanaugh more credible with all his lies?


I don't answer loaded questions, you obviously have the answer in your mind of how I should think, so I am not going down that rabbit hole

You believe he has been lying. My issue is that she hasn't exactly been the beacon of truth herself. 

She lied about being afraid to fly, and I am sorry, you may disagree, but when someone keeps saying "I dont know, or I don't recall a bunch, it always makes me think they are hiding an important piece of info.

Like I said, I don't think anyone who believes her or believes him is doing so objectively, including you, that is why I don't have an opinion on it.



> He did evade questions, are you really going to claim he didn't? He also flat out committed purgery a number of times.
> Ford did not evade any questions. its a joke you would even claim that.


I didn't claim anything, I said Dems say he was evading questions... this is true right? Like dems have said he was evading questions.

I think he was evading the question about the FBI investigation, I think he should have just said "Yeah, but that isn't my call" 

I can see why he didn't say that, because he probably didn't know the investigation would happen anyway, but I can see why some would call that evading.

And once again, I know you disagree, because you went to Disneyland or something (strange Disneyland and sexual assault are used as a comparison) but when you keep saying "I don't know" or "I don't recall" to every important question, that is evading a question IMO.

I have had a traumatic experience happen to me once, that was serious, and I can remember down to the song that was playing on the radio while it happened. 



> You keep saying she did not prove anything to make her case yet she did. Not sure why you keep ignoring this. I have said it over and over again. But keep ignoring that.
> 
> If you are truly impartial, after seeing the hearing, I don't see how you can some way with not thinking Kavanaugh is lying and hiding something.


What did she prove? 

Once again, I come from a place of skepticism. 

You keep pointing to the calendar, well he has 6 names on the calendar, yet she keeps saying there were 4 boys there.

That isn't going to fly with me.

The devil's triangle thing is stupid, because to me (and don't take offense to this) it makes it feel like you don't know a lot about sex or drinking.

We used to call a threesome an Eiffel Tower when I was in school in the 90's. 

I live in MD, so that is relevant, I think. Also, language changes over time. If he had put, "Look at those thots" in his yearbook, would you think the 1982 version of the word is the same as it meant in 2018

You know what I called anal back in 1996? Booty beatdowns, not boofing, or whatever people are trying to use instead.

Like I said, I come from a place of skepticism, and a lot of the follow up question I have about her can't be answered, and some of his can't.

Sorry man, I am not seeing the proof by someone who can't even find the person who drove her home from that party.

That would make me believe her, if she knew even the first name of the driver, and they could find them.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Honestly, no.
> 
> Because that person would be the dumbest rapist in the history of time.
> 
> ...


If you are going to claim that does not happen a lot in HS or College you are delusional. And they don't say it like "Yes I take advantage of women when they get too drunk to realize what is going on" they are more like oh I am going to go get so and so drunk then hook up. 




DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't answer loaded questions, you obviously have the answer in your mind of how I should think, so I am not going down that rabbit hole
> 
> You believe he has been lying. My issue is that she hasn't exactly been the beacon of truth herself.
> 
> ...


How is it a loaded question? You can't even answer a simple question. The fact is he lied over and over again. So judging by you avoiding the question, you don't want to admit you think he is credible even though he lies over and over. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> She lied about being afraid to fly, and I am sorry, you may disagree, but when someone keeps saying "I dont know, or I don't recall a bunch, it always makes me think they are hiding an important piece of info.
> 
> Like I said, I don't think anyone who believes her or believes him is doing so objectively, including you, that is why I don't have an opinion on it.
> 
> .



We have already been over this, she not lie. Its a joke you even claim that. She has a fear of flying but does it because she has to. Just like I have a fear of driving on the highway but I do it , does that make me a liar? Plenty of people have a fear of flying but do it because they have to for a job or even when they travel. So does everyone that fly that has a fear of flying lying about it? Is that the logic you really want to go with?

As for not believing BK it's not objective LOL 

Ok is the devils triangle a drinking game? NO, thus he is objectively lying
Is boofing farting NO, thus he is objectively lying
He also lied about what that alumini meant

I could go on and on but since I have been over it already, you get the idea, those are all objective facts that he lied. Please tell me how its not
Oh I forgot, truth isnt the truth right




DMD Mofomagic said:


> I didn't claim anything, I said Dems say he was evading questions... this is true right? Like dems have said he was evading questions.
> 
> I think he was evading the question about the FBI investigation, I think he should have just said "Yeah, but that isn't my call"
> 
> ...




Saying you don't know or recall isn't evading the question. Because if you want to use that logic then when BK, and Ford are saying they don't recall a party with Ford they are evadign that question too. you want to go with that logic?



DMD Mofomagic;76233102
What did she prove?
Once again said:


> Why do you keep asking what did she prove? I have told you a million times.
> 
> Go back and read what i wrote, not going over it again.
> 
> ...


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you are going to claim that does not happen a lot in HS or College you are delusional. And they don't say it like "Yes I take advantage of women when they get too drunk to realize what is going on" they are more like oh I am going to go get so and so drunk then hook up.


This is why I asked you what school do you go to?

And in the scenario you used, that isn't rape. You are ASSUMING the girl is not consensual. How is that different than when a girl says to other girls "He gonna smoke a blunt, and then I will fuck the shit out of him"

In that scenario, the guy is also not in his full mental state, should that be rape?

I will go back to my original scenario, a girl said to me "Get me drunk and I become easy, and then drinks up herself. Why is that burden on me? 

At what point is she held accountable for her own actions. I am trying to figure out your exact definition of rape. 




> How is it a loaded question? You can't even answer a simple question. The fact is he lied over and over again. So judging by you avoiding the question, you don't want to admit you think he is credible even though he lies over and over.


Because you tried to sway my answer in the question, that is why it is loaded.

You don't know the difference between:

"Do you find Kavanaugh credible" and "Do you find Kavanaugh credible even though he is a liar?"

Interesting. I answer simple questions, not loaded ones. 

And one again, I have already said, I don't know if I find either of them credible enough to believe, or disbelieve, because of putting my own personal bias in. Is that answer wrong to you or something?




> We have already been over this, she not lie. Its a joke you even claim that. She has a fear of flying but does it because she has to. Just like I have a fear of driving on the highway but I do it , does that make me a liar? Plenty of people have a fear of flying but do it because they have to for a job or even when they travel. So does everyone that fly that has a fear of flying lying about it? Is that the logic you really want to go with?


Yes, it absolutely makes you a liar if you have a fear of driving on the highway, but do it, or at the least,it makes you a drama queen

Because that means you don't have a fear, you just don't like it. You also wouldn't accuse someone of something and say you couldn't go to court because "I was in fear of driving on the highway"

Where are these plenty of people? You are going back to blanket statements to make your point. There are very prominent people who have reasons to get on planes, and won't no matter the circumstance too, so I don't know what one statement proves against the other



> As for not believing BK it's not objective LOL
> 
> Ok is the devils triangle a drinking game? NO, thus he is objectively lying
> Is boofing farting NO, thus he is objectively lying
> He also lied about what that alumini meant


I don't know if Devil's Triangle is a drinking game in 1982, and neither do you. 

You already said that you don't drink often, and I was born in 82, and am older than you, so how would you know that.

I played a drinking game I called Circle of death, it can not be found on any website anywhere as a drinking game, but thats what we called it when I was 21

I know tooting has been used as a word for farting, whether boofing could be one, I don't know, 17 ear old jerks have come up with worse.

I don't know about the alumni thing, you have to refresh my memory



> I could go on and on but since I have been over it already, you get the idea, those are all objective facts that he lied. Please tell me how its not
> Oh I forgot, truth isnt the truth right


Objective? You interpreting language how you want to and using urban dictionary a evidence is not objective. 

Let's just leave that there.



> Saying you don't know or recall isn't evading the question. Because if you want to use that logic then when BK, and Ford are saying they don't recall a party with Ford they are evadign that question too. you want to go with that logic?


It is evading a question in my opinion. Once again, I know it may not be Disneyland (like sexual assault apparently is) but I got into a horrible car accident on May 27, 2000.

I remember EVERYTHING. I had a concussion but remember everything vividly down to the color shirt the people in the other car were wearing.

Here is the kicker: I have tried to forget it, and can't. I just can't I live with it, but I don't forget it.

So, when someone says they had an experience where a guy tried to assault them, I want them to know a little more than what she can supply.

Some people are like that, it ain't fair, but a lot of stuff ain't fair



> Why do you keep asking what did she prove? I have told you a million times.
> 
> Go back and read what i wrote, not going over it again


Because it takes more to me than what she has presented to believe someone, I told you what I would want.

And honestly, that should be somewhat easy to prove.

If you just got sexually assaulted, and had boys laughing and joking about it (which I have a hard time believing rapists high five each other after failing to perform sexual assault) then to me, she would be looking for someone she could trust to get her out of there ASAP

That person needs to be found and called upon, because it was obvious it would be someone she could trust.

Let me pull the "Answer a simple question"

If a woman just was sexually assaulted, would it make sense that she got into a car with a stranger who she doesn't know in a place she isn't aware of?"



> You can try to defend his lying all you want, but are going to claim that in the 80s boofing means farting and devil triangle was a drinking game? Are you going to claim that? yes or no


I have answered this earlier, but I will again.

There is no way for me to tell you one way or the other. Would you believe that a booty beatdown means anal unless I told you, in fact, who says I wasn't lying.

I have heard crazy shit in high school, and college, and heard a lot of stuff called a lot of things. 

I am going to ask this genuinely: what was some of the stuff your friends and you were into in HS and college, I just think that we may have hung out with different types of people



> if it comes back that she knows the layout of the house, are you still going to not believe her?
> 
> Based on the testimony there was one person who was way more believable.


I would want 2 big things that I have not gotten and I don't think I will get

1. The person who drove her home, they would be the best witness on her behalf

2. The therapy notes, it is obvious the therapist and her had miscommunication, it would be nice to know exactly what happened there

I will say this a 3rd time, since you wont process the first two:

I have see women who act like Dr. Ford did and tell the entire truth, and I have seen (and been accused) by people who act just like her and are lying through their teeth.

For me to make an assumption either way would be silly


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1046477941616635907


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> This is why I asked you what school do you go to?
> 
> And in the scenario you used, that isn't rape. You are ASSUMING the girl is not consensual. How is that different than when a girl says to other girls "He gonna smoke a blunt, and then I will fuck the shit out of him"
> 
> ...


Yes it is rape if you have sex with a girl that is drunk, its statutory rape. A girl cannot give consent when she is under the influence

if a girl tells you when she drinks too much she becomes easy, if you get her drunk that is rape unless you ask her beforehand if you get drunk can I have sex with you.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Because you tried to sway my answer in the question, that is why it is loaded.
> 
> You don't know the difference between:
> 
> ...


How did I try to sway your answer? If someone is lying, you think they are being credible? Those are simple questions, its very telling you think they are loaded. 

Its weird you have Kavanaugh lying under oath, and you still say you don't know if he is credible or not. The hoops you jump through to defend him.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> *Yes, it absolutely makes you a liar if you have a fear of driving on the highway, but do it, or at the least,it makes you a drama queen*
> 
> Because that means you don't have a fear, you just don't like it. You also wouldn't accuse someone of something and say you couldn't go to court because "I was in fear of driving on the highway"
> 
> Where are these plenty of people? You are going back to blanket statements to make your point. There are very prominent people who have reasons to get on planes, and won't no matter the circumstance too, so I don't know what one statement proves against the other



I can't even take you seriously if you truly think this. People have fears about things they have to do in everyday life and still do it, its mind blogging you would claim it makes them a liar if they do something they fear because they have to

Again with the hoops you are jumping through just to defend Kavanaugh its laughable.

As for oh I am making a blanket statement, are you going to claim there are not tons of people that have a fear of but still fly because they have to for work or another reason? Again you jumping through hoops just to defend Kavanaugh. That shit happens everyday, its a joke you claim many people who have a fear of flying still fly. 




DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't know if Devil's Triangle is a drinking game in 1982, and neither do you.
> 
> You already said that you don't drink often, and I was born in 82, and am older than you, so how would you know that.
> 
> ...



Devils Triangle was never a drinking game, we both know that FFS. If it was someone would have heard about that. Again you and these hoops you are jumping through. 

LOL at boofing mean farting. So how does have you boofed yet on a year book make any sense what so ever in the context it was used? Have you farted yet? what he nver farted before in his life? Come on man, You are losing any crediblity here by claiming oh it could have meant that. Its clear what a devils triangle is and what boofed is. You will say anythign to defend Kavanaugh.

The alumni thing is where he put in his yearbook along with a bunch of other guys on the football team, RENATE Alumni to claim they hooked up with her, but BK claimed oohhhh no it meant they were just friends. PLEASE. There was even a poem about her they used to say. She said she never hooked up with him, which I believe but he still put it in there to act cool like he did because some of his friends did and he did not want to admit he was a virgin.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Objective? You interpreting language how you want to and using urban dictionary a evidence is not objective.
> 
> Let's just leave that there.



A definition of something and someone claiming its something else is not objectively lying LOL OK dude, just more hoops on your end.
And its not just about those few things he objectively lied about. He also lied about having no connections to Yale when he did. Would love for you to claim isn't an objective lie too.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> It is evading a question in my opinion. Once again, I know it may not be Disneyland (like sexual assault apparently is) but I got into a horrible car accident on May 27, 2000.
> 
> I remember EVERYTHING. I had a concussion but remember everything vividly down to the color shirt the people in the other car were wearing.
> 
> ...



I love how you keep acting like she couldn't recall who tried to rape her and how they acted during the assault, she even described the house and remembers it was around the time when Judge was working at some store. FFS. You just keep harping on oh she cant remember the exact date and address of the house. Give me a break. 




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Because it takes more to me than what she has presented to believe someone, I told you what I would want.
> 
> And honestly, that should be somewhat easy to prove.
> 
> ...


If she was sexually assaulted she would be freaking out, and she would be in flight mode and would do anything to get out of there and if she had only one way out, she would take it.
In HS and college, I was always the DD since I didn't drink often, and I would take home friends of friends or people I barely knew all the time if they were on my way home. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I have answered this earlier, but I will again.
> 
> There is no way for me to tell you one way or the other. Would you believe that a booty beatdown means anal unless I told you, in fact, who says I wasn't lying.
> 
> ...


You could have BK say that 69 meant drinking a coffee together and you would defend him and claim well you don't know if that is what he meant by 69. Come on dude.

As for hanging out with different types of people, you dont think its rape to get a girl drink and have sex with her. Just curious in that story about that girl who told you she was easy if she has a few drinks, did you hook up with her after seh had a few drinks? Because that is the kind of stuff I am talking about that kids in my HS and college did. 

one of my friends in college told me a story how her roommate got super drunk at a party and hooked up with two guys in one night like 20 mins apart. I wasn't at that party but that shit happens all the time at college parties where guys take advantage of girls that had too much to drink. Its mind boggling you are even trying to pretend that shit does not happen. Hell in the 80s Yale wrote an article about all the wild parties that were going on and how the students were all getting druink and having sexual encounters.

Did you even go to college and live there?




DMD Mofomagic said:


> I would want 2 big things that I have not gotten and I don't think I will get
> 
> 1. The person who drove her home, they would be the best witness on her behalf
> 
> ...



We dont know is Ford is lying or not based on her testimony but we do know that Kavanaugh lied about many things. So that alone shows me I don't find him credible what so ever.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kavanaugh vs. Yale college friends, classmates (from both parties) 

Excessive drinking, including to point of not recalling events?

"Kavanaugh portrayed himself in his testimony as enjoying a beer or two...but not as someone who often drank to excess during those years.



“Nearly a DOZEN people who knew him well or socialized with him said Judge Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker in college. Dr. Swisher said she saw him 'very drunk' a number of times...freshmen year roommate, described his stumbling in at all hours of the night.” (NYT) 2/

Dr Swisher: “Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling.” "It’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess” WaPo 3/

aniel Lavan, who lived in Kavanaugh’s dorm freshman year (the same year as Ramirez's sexual assault allegations):

“I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them.” 4/

James Roche, Kav's roommate (at time of Ramirez's allegation):

Kav "was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards at the time…he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk…I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk"5/

James Roche, Kav's roommate (at time of Ramirez's allegation):

Kav "was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards at the time…he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk…I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk"5/


Those statements, including several on record by Kav's college friends, roommate, dorm mate, cover college. What about high school?

NYT: "Multiple high school classmates, in interviews, described Judge Kavanaugh as a heavy and frequent drinker." (NYT) Plus Mark Judge memoir. 7/7'

'New: Yale suitemate—year of Ramirez incident—Kit Winter:

Kavanaugh’s saying he "never drank so much that he didn’t remember…Having witnessed the level of drunkenness of Brett and his crew in that dorm and the vomitous aftermath in the bathroom, I find that very hard to believe"

New: Prof Charles Ludington, Kavanaugh friend at Yale:

"When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive…I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark…by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail"


----------



## Hi-Liter (Apr 2, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

^Damn dude, you want this guy to be a rapist SO BAD.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hi-Liter said:


> ^Damn dude, you want this guy to be a rapist SO BAD.


Just pointing out what a liar he is, and how he was an angry drunk.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Where is the evidence.

It is all testimony. There is no physical evidence. 

Kavanaugh lying? Dozens and dozens of people who knew him in high school and college have made statements declaring that he wasn't a drunken menace. Are they all lying? Were they all successfully hoodwinked or coerced somehow? That's a pretty impressive accomplishment. You'd figure at least one person would say fuck you, or figure out they were being tricked, and run off to the New York Times. 

On the other hand you have the 3 accusers, and 5 other people who knew Kavanaugh back then. None of those 5 were present for any of the events alleged by the 3 accusers. All 5 dispute that Kavanaugh wasn't some kind of belligerent drunk. Even if he was, that's circumstantial. BM wants all these inferences to be made from the alleged proving of minor accusations, ones that are totally immaterial to whether 35 years later he'd make a good Supreme Court justice. But when there's dozens of people saying one thing and 5 saying another, which is more likely? These minor accusations about youthful drunkenness are anything but proved. The same goes for the crystal ball gazing about slang and calendars. It's all inferences built on sand. There's no proof.

Boofing is slang for farting, my brother and his friends used to say it when they were in high school. 10 years ago. When he was 14 he'd say "I boofed" about 20 times a day. Usually with genuine physical accompaniment. Thought it was hilarious as fuck. It's also drug slang for putting drugs and booze up your butt because they get absorbed faster that way. Does this mean bret kavanaugh was doing mad ecstasy and lsd in high school and college?! Did he have a special beer bong that only got used when he buttchugged brewskis?! Come on now.

All the people named by the accusers as being present, or near, at the events alleged have denied the accusations. No one Ford said was at this party has backed her up in any way. The same for Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. There is not one corroborating witness. Everything else is noise.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Seems like it would be prudent to inquire after the political affiliations of those contradicting his claims about drinking in college.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Seems like it would be prudent to inquire after the political affiliations of those contradicting his claims about drinking in college.


If getting shitfaced in college with some regularity was disqualifying for professional work, three quarters of the professionals in the country would have to go work at 7-11 or the car wash next door.

It's irrelevant and the weight of the testimonial evidence is against it anyway. 

I mean really this is what we're supposed to buy into:

1. He got shitfaced a lot 35 years ago (he most likely didn't tho)
2. ????????
3. The accusations are true! 

Ummm.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> It is all testimony. There is no physical evidence.
> 
> Kavanaugh lying? Dozens and dozens of people who knew him in high school and college have made statements declaring that he wasn't a drunken menace. Are they all lying? Were they all successfully hoodwinked or coerced somehow? That's a pretty impressive accomplishment. You'd figure at least one person would say fuck you, or figure out they were being tricked, and run off to the New York Times.
> 
> .


I just posted a bunch of people that went to school with BK that back up he was a drunk, and more and more people are coming out as each hour passes backing up he was a drunk. Its way more than the people that claim he was not.

Hell Mark Judge book even backs this up when he talks about O' Kavanaugh. And don't even try to pretend he is not talking about BK.

And he lied about more than just being a drunk, like I pointed out many times. 



deepelemblues said:


> On the other hand you have the 3 accusers, and 5 other people who knew Kavanaugh back then. None of those 5 were present for any of the events alleged by the 3 accusers. All 5 dispute that Kavanaugh wasn't some kind of belligerent drunk. Even if he was, that's circumstantial. BM wants all these inferences to be made from the alleged proving of minor accusations, ones that are totally immaterial to whether 35 years later he'd make a good Supreme Court justice. But when there's dozens of people saying one thing and 5 saying another, which is more likely? These minor accusations about youthful drunkenness are anything but proved. The same goes for the crystal ball gazing about slang and calendars. It's all inferences built on sand. There's no proof.
> 
> .


Stop lying and claim they said they were not present, the few that did say they don't recall or remember a party like that, do you remember every single party you were at in HS?. But AGAIN there is a listing on BK calendar that talks about a party with the people that Ford mentioned she recalls being there. Now AGAIN the FBI needs to find out what that house looks like and if the layout is like what Ford said that is just another example of Ford being correct.

BK LYING over and over again under oath is something that would not make him a good SCJ, if you are going to claim he was not lying, then you are just not being honest and have zero credibility.





deepelemblues said:


> Boofing is slang for farting, my brother and his friends used to say it when they were in high school. 10 years ago. When he was 14 he'd say "I boofed" about 20 times a day. Usually with genuine physical accompaniment. Thought it was hilarious as fuck. It's also drug slang for putting drugs and booze up your butt because they get absorbed faster that way. Does this mean bret kavanaugh was doing mad ecstasy and lsd in high school and college?! Did he have a special beer bong that only got used when he buttchugged brewskis?! Come on now.
> 
> 
> .


Boofing is not slang for fart, it never has been, its a joke you would even try to defend that. At least you admit its slang for putting booze up your ass which is what BK was talking about. It can also mean anal sex as well. That fits the contex have you boofed yet. Writing in someones year book have you boofed yet and claiming it means have you farted yet, makes zero sense, its a joke you would even try to clam that. But




deepelemblues said:


> All the people named by the accusers as being present, or near, at the events alleged have denied the accusations. No one Ford said was at this party has backed her up in any way. The same for Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. There is not one corroborating witness. Everything else is noise.
> 
> 
> .


Once again you are lying the did not deny it happening, they said they don't recall it, that is a huge difference. Also, something you failed to mention is Ford's friend said she believes her. 
You claim there is no collaboration yet AGAIN what Ford said, was on BK calendar, and now if the layout of the house is the same as she said, that will be more collaboration, also if Judge was working at that store she claimed she saw him at a month or so after that party that is even more collaboration

BK lied over and over again about stupid shit like what is boofing, what is a devils triangle, not being at a party with the people Ford claimed he was but it being on his calendar, him saying he did not party during the week yet his calendar proved otherwise. 

he also lied about never blacking out or being a drunk. 

But why am I not surprised you defend him still, you defend Trump for all the lying he does





CamillePunk said:


> Seems like it would be prudent to inquire after the political affiliations of those contradicting his claims about drinking in college.


Pretty much all of them have said they are Republicans. 




deepelemblues said:


> *If getting shitfaced in college with some regularity was disqualifying for professional wor*k, three quarters of the professionals in the country would have to go work at 7-11 or the car wash next door.
> 
> It's irrelevant and the weight of the testimonial evidence is against it anyway.
> 
> ...


Why do you keep lying about the facts? No one is saying he should be DQ'd for getting shitfaced in college, the reason he should be DQ'd is for coming purgery about it under oath. You do know that is a felony right? And if a SCOTUS nominee is lying under oath, you think he is qualified to be a SCJ?

i love how you keep saying he never got shitfaced in college which pretty much everyone coming out but a few people said he did

I even listed a bunch of them. Why must you always ingore the facts on everything?



.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> If getting shitfaced in college with some regularity was disqualifying for professional work, three quarters of the professionals in the country would have to go work at 7-11 or the car wash next door.
> 
> It's irrelevant and the weight of the testimonial evidence is against it anyway.
> 
> ...


It's not about the allegation, they're trying to catch him on perjury now about the drinking. Same thing with the Trump-Russia investigation. They don't care whether or not the base charge is correct anymore, they're trying to take people down for anything they can dig up to make the Trump administration seem corrupt (as if any political administration could come out of a thorough investigation looking clean). That's the plan with Kavanaugh. Find ANY reason to kill the nomination, win the Senate and never confirm whoever Trump would pick next, and then hope to win the presidency in 2020.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It's not about the allegation, they're trying to catch him on perjury now about the drinking. Same thing with the Trump-Russia investigation. They don't care whether or not the base charge is correct anymore, they're trying to take people down for anything they can dig up to make the Trump administration seem corrupt (as if any political administration could come out of a thorough investigation looking clean). That's the plan with Kavanaugh. Find ANY reason to kill the nomination, win the Senate and never confirm whoever Trump would pick next, and then hope to win the presidency in 2020.


LOL

The perjury thing wouldn't even be an issue if he didn't lie over and over again. If he is telling the truth about the sexual assault, why would he lie about other things like hiding his drinking? The base charge is still the main focus but in the process, he committed perjury which is a FELONY. So are you to tell me if a cop got a search warrant for someone lets say for drugs and while doing that search they catch the person who the search warrant is for raping a woman that they shouldn't then also add the charge of rape? You don't even make any sense. If they are trying to get Trump for Russian collusion but in the process of doing that they catch him committing other crimes, you don't think they should charge him for those other crimes? you will say anything to defend people lol

So you think its ok that BK lied under oath and you think a judge lying under oath should be confirmed for the SCOTUS? 

I know you will dodge that question. The conservatives on this forum prove over and over again they don't give a shit about the rule of law if it means defending their guys


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It's not about the allegation, they're trying to catch him on perjury now about the drinking. Same thing with the Trump-Russia investigation. They don't care whether or not the base charge is correct anymore, they're trying to take people down for anything they can dig up to make the Trump administration seem corrupt (as if any political administration could come out of a thorough investigation looking clean). That's the plan with Kavanaugh. Find ANY reason to kill the nomination, win the Senate and never confirm whoever Trump would pick next, and then hope to win the presidency in 2020.


I think it's a tertiary ploy at most. They know this is just news cycle filler and will disappear when the deadline nears. Maybe it will shift the polls .3 percent. The only thing that can be done to kill the nomination is try to gin up more people to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault, and thereby pressure the investigation into becoming open ended. An open ended voluntary interview process. The FBI can't force people to talk to them here. 

That or gin up an actual corroborating witness to Ford or Ramirez's allegations. Swetnick's tale is so fantastical the FBI apparently won't touch it. And every major left wing organization in the country has been trying to find a corroborating witness for 3 weeks, and has come up with nothing. 

It will be impossible to distract from the main issue when the time comes. The right will blow its top if the FBI doesn't come up with anything and the left still tries to kill the nomination based on Kavanaugh was Bluto come to life and hedged around it 35 years later.

Bluto became Senator Blutarsky. I 'member.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers (Oct 23, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So surprised to find so many Trump supporters on WF. Kappa

Support bigotry, lies, hate, the 1%, etc....

You're playing yourselves. 

Only the stupidest people on Earth could support the worst President of the U.S. ever.

Or Russians, Im sure they love it. Those fun loving Russians. 

Vote Democrat or idk what to say. Support this shit. W/E. You already did I'm not changing your mind. But don't you at least feel 1% dirty?
If the answer is no, then I feel 100% dirty about you.
To the "yes I feel dirty" ppl, its not too late to abandon the shithole of lies and crap that Trump supporters adhere to.
Trolling is one thing. Voting this in and/or believing in it is another.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1046576964117647367
I've said from the beginning that the fight over net neutrality is not one the ISPs will win. Not in the long run. People aren't going to let this one go. Americans have allowed themselves to be fucked over in just about every way imaginable by their government but you're not taking their neutral internet away from them. You'd have better luck pulling a hambone from the jaws of a starving bulldog.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I thought the GOP was all about states rights?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

My state's government is the absolute worst. fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> My state's government is the absolute worst. fpalm


Are you from CA? If so you think they are the worst for fighting for net neutrality?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Are you from CA? If so you think they are the worst for fighting for net neutrality?


Just the latest embarrassment from the ultimate big government nanny state. We disagree on this topic, just like every other political issue. No need to quote me to let me know you disagree every time.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Just the latest embarrassment from the ultimate big government nanny state. We disagree on this topic, just like every other political issue. No need to quote me to let me know you disagree every time.


The only things that are embarrassing are the stances you take like being against net neutrality. Are you just going against your best interests but that is par for the course with most of your stances


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only things that are embarrassing are the stances you take like being against net neutrality. Are you just going against your best interests but that is par for the course with most of your stances


And here I thought I was a self-interested black-hearted libertarian. :hmm:


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Rachel Mitchell argues re Ford case: "A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. *But this case is even weaker than that.*"

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1046593627202498560


*Evidence doesn't support claims against Kavanaugh, Judiciary Committee questioner says
*

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...anaugh-judiciary-committee-prosecutor-n915236


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Just the latest embarrassment from the ultimate big government nanny state.


I know you are having a difficult time understanding this and I say this in the kindest way possible but your position on this matter is bringing you the thing you claim to hate most. You say you don't want a big government nanny state but that is exactly what you're getting with a federal government that is in bed with the ISPs and is using them to censor online content. Whether or not you are willing to admit it, losing net neutrality means government censorship. It means the government via the ISPs gets to decide what information you can and cannot see. The ISPs get more profit from this arrangement and the government gets to nanny the information you consume. I forget the exact number but it's something like over 80% of the country that is favor of keeping net neutrality. For someone who claims to not want big government enforcing tyranny over the populace, you sure seem to support them doing it when you cannot reconcile their actions with your beliefs.

There's being principled and there's cutting off your nose to spite your own face. Not every issue in life is black and white. There are often shades of grey. Sometimes, you have to support something you might oppose at first glance, such as regulations to keep the internet neutral, to prevent the government from taking complete control of the internet. Ask yourself which one you oppose more; a regulation keeping the internet neutral or government control of the internet. You can't have it both ways.

And... even if you still refuse to accept what will happen without net neutrality, there's plenty of people who do understand, and they will win this fight. Maybe some day you'll understand it too and then you can thank them.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Mifune Jackson said:


> Yeah, nominating Kavanaugh in an election year with the confirmation hearings being so close to the election was a mistake. I'm guessing the mentality was that Trump was saving Barrett for RBG's replacement (because replacing her with another dude would be problematic), but you can't plan on that when politics is so chaotic. Plus, RBG could outlast Trump for all we know.


It was his decision in the case of _Seven Sky vs. Holder_ that led to Chief Justice Roberts voting in favor of Obamacare being a legal tax. So his credentials are lacking right there alone. 

To me, he should be disqualified in showing his animus and not being able to keep his cool during the hearing. Trust me, I have no love for the Clinton crime family and have never voted Democrat in my life. I understand the anger when you are under attack and you feel that it is unfair. And it's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that he is being railroaded. Yet, as a judge you are supposed to be unyielding, like a rock. You can't let them see you sweat. If a judge starts crying in a courtroom like that, I think they have no control over the courtroom. 

I'm not saying someone doesn't have the right to be human, we all do. I have had those moments where someone attacked me and I felt it was unfair. Guess what...I had to keep my cool and not let them see that it got to me. Go back to see how Clarence Thomas handled his hearings and contrast them to how Kavanaugh handled them. Thomas showed his anger but still kept cool as the other side of the pillow. Besides, we all complain about how political SCOTUS is becoming. You put this man on the court, then the facade of not being political is pretty much gone. 

To be fair, the fact we're arguing conservative vs. liberal justices shows the system is broken anyway. The role of SCOTUS is supposed to look at the law before them and determine if it is constitutional or not...period. Bias one way or the other should not be figured in. 

At this point, we need a Convention of States or the Sweet Meteor of Doom to take care of this.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Rachel Mitchell argues re Ford case: "A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. *But this case is even weaker than that.*"
> 
> https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1046593627202498560
> 
> ...


Of course she will say that the GOP hired her lol

And the only reason this is weaker is because the FBI has not questioned anyone yet at the time she said this and for most of the GOP questions to him were just the GOP talking for him, most of them didnt even ask him any real questions The GOP didnt allow them to question anyone, it was just Ford and BK and BK really only had to answer questions 60% of the time since like I said for most of the GOP questions, it was just them crying about how this was a DNC political hit. They saw Mitchell getting on to something with that July first date, and his drinking on weekdays and they shut her down. The way her line of questioning was going, it was going to bury him. Thats why Graham acted like a fool with all his yelling to distract from that calander

Even if he gets confirmed, Ford can take all the info to the Maryland police and get him charged . then they will get a state invesigation and they will get as much time as they need, if she wants to go that route


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Rachel Mitchell argues re Ford case: "A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. *But this case is even weaker than that.*"
> 
> https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1046593627202498560
> 
> ...


Ford is most likely a kook. How did she get to be a professor with her hand writing anyway? My 10 year old niece laughed at how bad her handwriting was and said: "Ha! I write way better than that".

50 something year old woman trying to talk like a frail little valley girl up there.

Body language expert on Ford:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPI&t=440s

The "pretty pose" thing is a great observation.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I know you are having a difficult time understanding this and I say this in the kindest way possible but your position on this matter is bringing you the thing you claim to hate most. You say you don't want a big government nanny state but that is exactly what you're getting with a federal government that is in bed with the ISPs and is using them to censor online content. Whether or not you are willing to admit it, losing net neutrality means government censorship. It means the government via the ISPs gets to decide what information you can and cannot see. The ISPs get more profit from this arrangement and the government gets to nanny the information you consume. I forget the exact number but it's something like over 80% of the country that is favor of keeping net neutrality. For someone who claims to not want big government enforcing tyranny over the populace, you sure seem to support them doing it when you cannot reconcile their actions with your beliefs.
> 
> There's being principled and there's cutting off your nose to spite your own face. Not every issue in life is black and white. There are often shades of grey. Sometimes, you have to support something you might oppose at first glance, such as regulations to keep the internet neutral, to prevent the government from taking complete control of the internet. Ask yourself which one you oppose more; a regulation keeping the internet neutral or government control of the internet. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> And... even if you still refuse to accept what will happen without net neutrality, there's plenty of people who do understand, and they will win this fight. Maybe some day you'll understand it too and then you can thank them.


Net Neutrality and Article 13, the Governments plotting to buttfuck us all as hard as they can! :yas

I cannot wait to see what they cook up next! Also I had to laugh because some people are like.. "Ehh so some sites are slower and so I cannot see memes, big deal?" 

It's far, far more than that. It's Government censorship. We already have seen company censorship when all of them collude to ban people for whatever reason they see fit, while ensuring no rivals get off the ground. 

We'll never see stuff like Google called out for it's shady dealings, nor companies like it turned into public utilities because they're basically arms of the Government now.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Net Neutrality and Article 13, the Governments plotting to buttfuck us all as hard as they can! :yas
> 
> I cannot wait to see what they cook up next! Also I had to laugh because some people are like.. "Ehh so some sites are slower and so I cannot see memes, big deal?"
> 
> ...


A point that I believe Kyle Kulinski has brought up... this would be like if the phone company was allowed to listen to your calls and let the government decide if they like who you are talking to, basing their decision to let you have a phone or not on whether or not they like what you are saying on your phone call. Technology changes and the fact remains, the internet is the new public square. Anyone who believes in freedom of speech and the 1st amendment in the slightest, should also support net neutrality.

As much as some of my right leaning libertarian friends might hate regulations, sometimes it is unavoidable if you want to protect yourself from government overreach.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> So surprised to find so many Trump supporters on WF. Kappa
> 
> Support bigotry, lies, hate, the 1%, etc....
> 
> ...


:uhoh

:Trump

Welcome to the Trump thread, but why vote for Hilary? What would she have done better? Point the finger at the DNC, not individual voters, they sabotaged the only candidate that would have beaten the Trump populist movement. 

Vote for a bunch of morally corrupt, establishment neocons? Or vote for a bunch of morally corrupt, establishment neocons? 

:hmm

FWIW Trump is an awful person, and a bad president.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


>


A Ben Shapiro tweet really? He still to this day defends the Iraq war.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes it is rape if you have sex with a girl that is drunk, its statutory rape. A girl cannot give consent when she is under the influence
> 
> if a girl tells you when she drinks too much she becomes easy, if you get her drunk that is rape unless you ask her beforehand if you get drunk can I have sex with you.


Sorry for being late to the party, but I pulled an all nighter, and saw this, and needed to respond.

This statement is extremely sexist, and condescending in so many words.

First off, there are plenty of women who drink too much and don't become "easy" as you put it, that is a horrible thing to say about women in general, and part of the reason you get the flack you do. 

I know women who can out drink me, and still stay composed, it is ignorant and insulting to say the least that you think you are so holier than thou, that a woman can drink, and instantly become an erotic sex machine.

As for the consent remark, it makes you sound like a person with low confidence and a scumbag.

Why would I ask a woman for permission to have sex with her, before she has shown any type of indicators that she would.

I have asked this, and you keep avoiding this, what is the dialogue you are having with these women?

"Hey, you know you are going to get a bit drunk tonight, and because you can't hold it, you are going to become a slut and have sex with me, is that ok...just asking for a friend, and by the way, sign this waiver"

I know you take my jokes to heart, so i apologize, but I genuinely want to know what you say to a girl who "drinks and becomes really easy" as you would put it.



> How did I try to sway your answer? If someone is lying, you think they are being credible? Those are simple questions, its very telling you think they are loaded.


I explained this in what you quoted, which you just glossed over.

you could have asked me if I found Kavanaugh credible (which I have nswered twice) you didn't have to put the part of the lies you think he told in there.

That is your opinion being put on to me, I don't appreciate that, and I am not going to answer it. 

I keep hearing you say how you are this great debater, but you fall into minor league tactics all the time.

I would not ask you "Do you think Ford is credible, even though her therapist said something different"

No, that is a loaded question, I have already tried to force an opinion on you one way or the other. 



> Its weird you have Kavanaugh lying under oath, and you still say you don't know if he is credible or not. The hoops you jump through to defend him.


Ok, I am putting an end to this right now. Stop telling me what I think. It's annoying, and quite frankly insulting that you think for a second that you are going to tell me what i am thinking.

I don't do it to you, if you will continue to do this (and it doesn't happen with just me) then stop wondering why people just ignore you after awhile. 



> I can't even take you seriously if you truly think this. People have fears about things they have to do in everyday life and still do it, its mind blogging you would claim it makes them a liar if they do something they fear because they have to
> 
> Again with the hoops you are jumping through just to defend Kavanaugh its laughable.


Where am I defending him? I am talking to you. Once again, if you can't have a conversation without telling me what i am doing then just stop now. 

Also, i don't look at fear the same way you do.

If you can do something, you don't have a fear of it, you are just being a crybaby.

Like you driving on the highway, it doesn't stop you from making a living, you are motivated to drive then, so you aren't in fear of it.

Maybe not the best way of looking at it, but that's how I see it. 



> As for oh I am making a blanket statement, are you going to claim there are not tons of people that have a fear of but still fly because they have to for work or another reason? Again you jumping through hoops just to defend Kavanaugh. That shit happens everyday, its a joke you claim many people who have a fear of flying still fly.


Oh, this shit, Are you going to claim there aren't tons of people who have a fear of flying that will fly under no means necessary?

That's why its a blanket statement, it is a generalization. it is you claiming that.

would you concede that testifying to the senate about a sexual assault from a federal judge is more important that a surf trip?

She got on a plane for one, and couldn't be bothered for the other. 




> Devils Triangle was never a drinking game, we both know that FFS. If it was someone would have heard about that. Again you and these hoops you are jumping through.


I just gave you a drinking game that I made up that can't be found anywhere. 

You don't understand drinking or drinking games. This is me making an assumption based on the info about yourself you have given me. 

But I am sorry, I will take my 15 years of being at parties with alcohol (and alcohol games, over you.



> LOL at boofing mean farting. So how does have you boofed yet on a year book make any sense what so ever in the context it was used? Have you farted yet? what he nver farted before in his life? Come on man, You are losing any crediblity here by claiming oh it could have meant that. Its clear what a devils triangle is and what boofed is. You will say anythign to defend Kavanaugh.


Ok, I read this, and thought you were actually being a pretty big jerk honestly.

You sound like the kind of kid who sat in the corner of class and told everyone how things would be better if people just paid attention to you.

Your life and mine are different, so is the life of a 16 year old in 1982. By the way it makes perfect sense... You may have been the 16 year old who didn't think that putting a hand under your armpit and making a noise is funy, but some do.

As for boofing, and language, I am not swaying you, nor you me in this argument. Agree to disagree. 



> The alumni thing is where he put in his yearbook along with a bunch of other guys on the football team, RENATE Alumni to claim they hooked up with her, but BK claimed oohhhh no it meant they were just friends. PLEASE. There was even a poem about her they used to say. She said she never hooked up with him, which I believe but he still put it in there to act cool like he did because some of his friends did and he did not want to admit he was a virgin


.

Ok, so I heard about this. I will look into it more. 

From what I remember the girl says they never hooked up though. But I will look into it more. 




> A definition of something and someone claiming its something else is not objectively lying LOL OK dude, just more hoops on your end.
> And its not just about those few things he objectively lied about. He also lied about having no connections to Yale when he did. Would love for you to claim isn't an objective lie too.


Your sentence is all over the place, but let me get down to the bottom of it. 

First, you have to come off this "I know what everyone is thinking and will say it for everyone" 

The thing is I get you are trying to be a nice guy and do the right thing, but you actually come off as a pompous, sexist, condescending jerk when everything is said and done.

However, that's just my opinion, and what i have seen and heard, the kicker is, I don't think you mean to come off that way.You are just passionate, and you want to get your point out, so i respect it.

That being said, you aren't being objective, you call for an FBI investigation, but wont hold the Dems feet to the fire when they could have called for the same investigation at any time.

You don't want Kavanaugh to have the seat, you should be outraged by the dems that it took this long to get it taken care of. If you were genuie, you would be pushing him to not get confirmed, and have his backup instead confirmed immediately.

You make excuses for Ford, and demonize Kavanaugh for assumptions (some truths, some assumptions) 




> I love how you keep acting like she couldn't recall who tried to rape her and how they acted during the assault, she even described the house and remembers it was around the time when Judge was working at some store. FFS. You just keep harping on oh she cant remember the exact date and address of the house. Give me a break.


I already addressed this, but stop doing this thing where you try the "gotcha" moment by changing my words around

I told you where my reservations lie, and why, you don't want to address them fine... but it has more to do than with her not giving an address. 




> If she was sexually assaulted she would be freaking out, and she would be in flight mode and would do anything to get out of there and if she had only one way out, she would take it.
> In HS and college, I was always the DD since I didn't drink often, and I would take home friends of friends or people I barely knew all the time if they were on my way home.


Question: Have you ever been assaulted?

Have you ever had someone threaten your life, because I am believeing that everything you mentioned here may be straight out of a book. 

And you being the party's personal uber driver has nothing to do with this situation.

if you saw a girl who is a stranger running downstairs and two guys laughing, you are telling me that you would feel comfortable if you, a stranger took her home no questions asked?



> You could have BK say that 69 meant drinking a coffee together and you would defend him and claim well you don't know if that is what he meant by 69. Come on dude.


Yes, because 69 and devil's triangle, completely the same thing.



> As for hanging out with different types of people, you dont think its rape to get a girl drink and have sex with her. Just curious in that story about that girl who told you she was easy if she has a few drinks, did you hook up with her after seh had a few drinks? Because that is the kind of stuff I am talking about that kids in my HS and college did.


Yup, had sex with her 4 times that night, and don't regret it at all. not that is any of your business, unless you want to see the video, because of people like yourself, I have to record the encounters now because "Believe all women"

She had some drinks, by her own will, I asked her where she wanted to go, she said back to your place. She was a consenting adult, i never forced myself on her, or was told no. Also, she wasn't drunk. Drunk sex sucks, I keep telling you this, because I have experience doing it, anyone who tells you drunk sex is a good thing is lying to your face

Now, high sex, really f'n awesome, but I don't smoke marijuana anymore. And like I said, if I did smoke weed, and a girl sprawled on top of me before i could give consent, wouldn't that be rape in your eyes?



> one of my friends in college told me a story how her roommate got super drunk at a party and hooked up with two guys in one night like 20 mins apart. I wasn't at that party but that shit happens all the time at college parties where guys take advantage of girls that had too much to drink. Its mind boggling you are even trying to pretend that shit does not happen. Hell in the 80s Yale wrote an article about all the wild parties that were going on and how the students were all getting druink and having sexual encounters.
> 
> Did you even go to college and live there?


No offense to your friend, but she sounds like she wanted to have sex with two guys. 

Didn't this exact story just happen with Scarlet Heart, and the girl cried rape, even though it was consensual?

And look this has nothing to do with Kavanaugh or anyone else, and you can call me sexist for this (I may do the same) but believe everything a woman tells you, never ends well.

it's unfortunate but a lot (like 95%) of women do not take accountability for the things they do wrong.

You weren't there, and neither was your friend, so taking that at face value, is really you putting yourself in a situation to look stupid.

Don't think this is true, then let me tell you a personal story of when I just got out of college:

My friend was hanging out with us, and this girl gets really drunk, and starts making out with him, well, she was TOO shitfaced, and he decided that it wasn't worth taking her home (because drunk sex sucks) 

Well, we are all saying good night, and he wont let her in the car, he tells her that he wants her to go home, but he isn't interested..her exact words:

"I am just going to that cop down there and tell him you raped me then" And then proceeds to start yelling and crying, her girlfriend comes over, and guess what she says "This guy just tried to rape me"

I was 15 feet from this chick, and saw the whole thing, I even try to defend my friend, and I get told how I am in the wrong.

False claims happen, hence why I tell you I come from a place of skepticism.



> We dont know is Ford is lying or not based on her testimony but we do know that Kavanaugh lied about many things. So that alone shows me I don't find him credible what so ever.


You don't find him credible you have made that clear. I don't think I was trying to make him credible to you, honestly,I said that already.

I will say, I apologize for the name calling, as it surprisingly doesn't come from a place of contempt, just things that I have noticed. I do believe you make good points when you can stay on track, but when your emotions get involved, it makes it harder


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kavanaugh would be guilty to BM no matter the circumstances. There could be footage of Ford admitting it's a lie and it wouldn't matter. I wouldn't waste your breath. There is no objectivity with that one.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> A Ben Shapiro tweet really? He still to this day defends the Iraq war.


And thinks Socialism is bad because the 10 commandments.

:maury

He's your typical right wing pundit, hates the left because XYZ, the right can do no wrong. Its why I like Kyle and Jimmy Dore, they are absolutely capable of destroying the left even if they focus on the right.

He also sounds ridiculous, him and the human Alien hybrid Paul Joseph Watson are 2 people I despise mostly because of how they talk, but also because of their obnoxious love for the right.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> And thinks Socialism is bad because the 10 commandments.
> 
> :maury
> 
> ...


Ben Shapiro is the modern day Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Kavanaugh would be guilty to BM no matter the circumstances. There could be footage of Ford admitting it's a lie and it wouldn't matter. I wouldn't waste your breath. There is no objectivity with that one.


LOL yeah no objectivity when you are the defending BK the one who lied over and over again, evaded question after question and refused to ask for an FBI investigation. So not believing that person is the one who is not being objective? Oh that is right this is the Trump thread where Trump does the same things but people like you still believe him ha ha good one


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> A Ben Shapiro tweet really? He still to this day defends the Iraq war.


He is still on the mark here.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> He is still on the mark here.


He's still a right wing hack.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Sorry for being late to the party, but I pulled an all nighter, and saw this, and needed to respond.
> 
> This statement is extremely sexist, and condescending in so many words.
> 
> ...


I didn't read much of this but your definition of fear as just flat out wrong lol.

It makes perfect sense for you to fear something that you have to do anyway. For example, I have a really bad phobia of needles but if there's like a rampant disease of Ebola killing everyone around me, I'm taking that needle.

In this example, I fear both ebola and the needle. But me fearing ebola more doesn't make my fear of the needle any less real.

Saying that if the fear doesn't completely cripple you it's not a real fear is just an extreme definition of the word fear. Plenty of people are scared of something but toughen themselves up to do them anyway for whatever reasons. Whether the fear of the alternative is even worse of there is something that it worth going through that fear to get.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> He's still a right wing hack.


He is a lot more intelligent than a shit for brains like Lebron James.

Naturally I don’t agree with everything he says, but burned her good there.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> He is a lot more intelligent than a shit for brains like Lebron James.


So basically you have no defense at least LeBron does good deeds in his life unlike Shapiro who whines about abortion yet is for every war.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I know you are having a difficult time understanding this and I say this in the kindest way possible but your position on this matter is bringing you the thing you claim to hate most. You say you don't want a big government nanny state but that is exactly what you're getting with a federal government that is in bed with the ISPs and is using them to censor online content. Whether or not you are willing to admit it, losing net neutrality means government censorship. It means the government via the ISPs gets to decide what information you can and cannot see. The ISPs get more profit from this arrangement and the government gets to nanny the information you consume. I forget the exact number but it's something like over 80% of the country that is favor of keeping net neutrality. For someone who claims to not want big government enforcing tyranny over the populace, you sure seem to support them doing it when you cannot reconcile their actions with your beliefs.
> 
> There's being principled and there's cutting off your nose to spite your own face. Not every issue in life is black and white. There are often shades of grey. Sometimes, you have to support something you might oppose at first glance, such as regulations to keep the internet neutral, to prevent the government from taking complete control of the internet. Ask yourself which one you oppose more; a regulation keeping the internet neutral or government control of the internet. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> And... even if you still refuse to accept what will happen without net neutrality, there's plenty of people who do understand, and they will win this fight. Maybe some day you'll understand it too and then you can thank them.


I don't know what reality where we didn't have "net neutrality" and the government was censoring everything you're referring to but I'm pretty sure I didn't experience this. This is just hysteria over hypothetical scenarios that never happened and weren't going to happen in order to justify more government regulation. The reason companies like Netflix support it is because it supports their bottom line, pure and simple. You're the one being taken for a ride by corporations that just want more profit, that word you hate so much. :lol

Also citing the 80% of the population is hilarious to me as an anarchist. I have no respect for the opinions of the majority whatsoever.


----------



## BRITLAND (Jun 17, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> him and the human Alien hybrid Paul Joseph Watson are 2 people I despise mostly because of how they talk, but also because of their obnoxious love for the right.


Don't forget to add Pat Condell to your list, he also has an obnoxious love for the right and is incredibly angry and bitter in pretty much all of his videos, even in regards to brexit despite winning and likely heading to a hard brexit scanerio :lol


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Laughable Chimp said:


> I didn't read much of this but your definition of fear as just flat out wrong lol.
> 
> It makes perfect sense for you to fear something that you have to do anyway. For example, I have a really bad phobia of needles but if there's like a rampant disease of Ebola killing everyone around me, I'm taking that needle.
> 
> ...


That's why I said,I can understand if people don't agree with it.

i don't look at fear the same way, or having phobias.

I don't really have any phobias or fears, because I always think "The fear is what makes the excitement work" and "if you do something you fear everyday, you will learn that fear is just something you manifest to make excuses"

I don't expect everyone to look at it the same way, and think your example is a really good one. 

I am just saying to me, that isn't an excuse. Thats all


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> So basically you have no defense at least LeBron does good deeds in his life unlike Shapiro who whines about abortion yet is for every war.


Vince does charities and stuff. Gotta protect that image. =)


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Vince does charities and stuff. Gotta protect that image. =)


Yeah but Vince didn't start his own school did he? But I'm sure you consider Trump university a real college don't you? Also isn't Vince good friends with Trump?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> This statement is extremely sexist, and condescending in so many words.
> 
> First off, there are plenty of women who drink too much and don't become "easy" as you put it, that is a horrible thing to say about women in general, and part of the reason you get the flack you do.
> 
> ...


How is my remark sexist and condescending? You are the one who brought up a girl you knew told you if she drank too much she becomes easy? And I did not say girls are like that in general, I was making a comment on 
the girls that are like the one you described. The more I debate you the less you make sense. 

Quote me where I said "at a woman can drink, and instantly become an erotic sex machine." Oh look you are getting your ass kicked in this debate and you are now making strawman arguments. Again you were the one who brought up a girl you knew who said she gets easy when she drinks. 

As for your question, I have never hooked up with a girl when she is hammered, and no girl has ever told me, oh I when they drink too much they get easy. Like I said, I don't really drink, so any girl I have dated never got drunk around me. 

Any guy that gets a girl drunk to hook up with them is a piece of shit and a rapist.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I explained this in what you quoted, which you just glossed over.
> 
> you could have asked me if I found Kavanaugh credible (which I have nswered twice) you didn't have to put the part of the lies you think he told in there.
> 
> ...



yes I did have to put the part about all the lies because he LIED. You can ignore that fact all you want. It's not an opinion, its an objective fact he lied. Its laughable you are even trying to dispute that BK lied a number of times during his hearing. You are not even being honest. You will do anything to defend him, but again we are in the Trump thread where Trump has lied over 4,0000 times and his supporters just go with that. 

It's not a minor league tacit when its true. So are you really going to claim BK did not lie? You keep dodging simple questions a lot like BK did. 





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Ok, I am putting an end to this right now. Stop telling me what I think. It's annoying, and quite frankly insulting that you think for a second that you are going to tell me what i am thinking.



LOL I am giving you facts, something you don't seem to want to deal. And if you are not going to tell me what you are thinking, they why are you even debating this? You keep proving you can't be honest about BK lying. It's not that different to admit he was lying, which he was. But keep pretending he wasn't




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Where am I defending him? I am talking to you. Once again, if you can't have a conversation without telling me what i am doing then just stop now.
> 
> Also, i don't look at fear the same way you do.
> 
> ...


Its pretty telling you don't look at lies the same way I do. The only one being a cry baby here is you because I keep calling you out for not admitting he was lying. 

It's also a joke how you claim if someone has a fear or something but forces themselves to do it because they have to, then its not a fear. LOL The hoops you jump through are incredible, only on WF Trump thread would someone make a claim like that lol I can't even take you seriously with that is your defense.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Oh, this shit, Are you going to claim there aren't tons of people who have a fear of flying that will fly under no means necessary?
> 
> That's why its a blanket statement, it is a generalization. it is you claiming that.
> 
> ...


yes I can claim there are tons of people that have a fear of flying but its TRUE. It's just weird you keep trying to dispute this and say OH its a blanket statement. When you have to play tricks like this to defend something you know you have lost. You dont need an exact number of people who have a fear of flying that fly to say a lot of people that fear flying fly because they have to. Because Its true. if you really want to dispute that you further kill any credibility you have, I mean you already killed it by claiming someone is lying about having a fear of flying if they fly because they have to. Only in WF lol




DMD Mofomagic said:


> I just gave you a drinking game that I made up that can't be found anywhere.
> 
> You don't understand drinking or drinking games. This is me making an assumption based on the info about yourself you have given me.
> 
> But I am sorry, I will take my 15 years of being at parties with alcohol (and alcohol games, over you.



You gave a drinking game that cannot be found anywhere but that drinking game is not the name of a sex act. Stop with this nonsense dude. Everyone knows devils triangle is a sex act. You keep proving my point you have no credibility when trying to defend BK on this lies. BK could claim 69 is not a sex act but a drinking game and you would use this same defense . BK is lying about simple dumb things that no one would need to lie about. Oh unless you are accused of sexually assaulting a girl with another guy. Oh wait is that two guys and one girl, which is what a devils triangle is. Gee do you think that is why BK is lying about what it is?



DMD Mofomagic said:


> k, I read this, and thought you were actually being a pretty big jerk honestly.
> 
> You sound like the kind of kid who sat in the corner of class and told everyone how things would be better if people just paid attention to you.
> 
> ...



it does not make sense in any context because the context is asking like he has never done it before. So are you going to claim he never farted before and thats why he was asking on the year book? Come on dude
This is just another simple thing he lied about.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Ok, so I heard about this. I will look into it more.
> 
> From what I remember the girl says they never hooked up though. But I will look into it more.


Here is the poem about Renate

"You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”

She didn't have to hook up with him for him to claim he did. Like I said, he admitted he was a virgin in HS but since he was on the football team he wanted to feel like one of the guys so he put that in there.
its weird though how BK lawyer claimed that Alumini was in the year book because BK kissed her once yet BK claims its just because they were friends. PLEASE




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Your sentence is all over the place, but let me get down to the bottom of it.
> 
> First, you have to come off this "I know what everyone is thinking and will say it for everyone"
> 
> ...




You are not the one being objective here, I love your projection on this. I have pointed out a number of things that BK have lied about, and have shown how they are lies. You just try to make silly excuses for them. 

As for me not holding the dems feet to the fire not asking for an FBI investigation, they have been asking for it over and over again.. You can't even be honest on this LOL How can you claim they have not been calling for me? 

I have not made an excuses for Ford , its a joke you would even claim that. But oh yeah your laughable logic is Ford lied because she has a fear of flying but does it anyways when she has to, just like I am lying about driving on the highway because when I have to, I do it.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I already addressed this, but stop doing this thing where you try the "gotcha" moment by changing my words around
> 
> I told you where my reservations lie, and why, you don't want to address them fine... but it has more to do than with her not giving an address.


You are only saying its a gotcha moment because you know if you stop dancing around the issue, you would have to admit what i am saying is right. That is why you keep deflecting the very basic things like BK lying about dumb shit but when all added it, go to make Fords claims way more credible. That is why Bk keeps lying about that stuff



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Question: Have you ever been assaulted?
> 
> Have you ever had someone threaten your life, because I am believeing that everything you mentioned here may be straight out of a book.
> 
> ...


I have been assaulted in grade school and once in college. Have you never gotten into a fight before and had to defend yourself? As for me getting this stuff straight out of a book. you mean like objective facts like using psychology to back up my points with facts? Oh how dare I. 

You claim this girl that drove her home was a stranger, that is not what she claimed. She just said she couldn't remember who drove her home or her name. There are tons of people I went to college with that I just kind of knew through my friends and I couldn't remember their names right now. Are you going to claim you remember the name of every single person you ever kind of knew in HS or College?

To answer your question, I would ask if she was ok but if she didn't want to answer would not pressure her to answer





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yes, because 69 and devil's triangle, completely the same thing.


They are both sex acts and LOL at your defection. If BK claimed 69 was a drinking game would you claim he is lying? Or would you claim OH you dont know if that wasn't a drinking game he played. 




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yup, had sex with her 4 times that night, and don't regret it at all. not that is any of your business, unless you want to see the video, because of people like yourself, I have to record the encounters now because "Believe all women"
> 
> She had some drinks, by her own will, I asked her where she wanted to go, she said back to your place. She was a consenting adult, i never forced myself on her, or was told no. Also, she wasn't drunk. Drunk sex sucks, I keep telling you this, because I have experience doing it, anyone who tells you drunk sex is a good thing is lying to your face
> 
> Now, high sex, really f'n awesome, but I don't smoke marijuana anymore. And like I said, if I did smoke weed, and a girl sprawled on top of me before i could give consent, wouldn't that be rape in your eyes?


If you have sex with a girl that is drunk, its statutory rape since by law a woman cannot give consent if she is drunk. In your case she was not drunk so its different. You do know that having sex with a girl who is drunk is rape right




DMD Mofomagic said:


> No offense to your friend, but she sounds like she wanted to have sex with two guys.
> 
> Didn't this exact story just happen with Scarlet Heart, and the girl cried rape, even though it was consensual?
> 
> ...



if a girl is drunk she cannot legally give her consent , you do understand that right? As for my friend, she never said she was raped so sure she wanted to have sex with two different guys in one night but if she didn't she could have went to the police and accused them of rape since she was wasted. You don't have to be in the room to know if a girl is wasted and a guy has sex with her by law its rape


As for your friend , yes false claims happen, so to say that you must think Ford is lying then. Also when trying to figure what happened, you go to the credibility of both people, in this case Ford is way more credible than BK since like we have been going on Bk has lied over and over again and go watch his questioning again, he was evasive as well as super aggressive, and that is him sober, he was even passed a note at one point, which probably told him to bring it down a notch. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You don't find him credible you have made that clear. I don't think I was trying to make him credible to you, honestly,I said that already.
> 
> I will say, I apologize for the name calling, as it surprisingly doesn't come from a place of contempt, just things that I have noticed. I do believe you make good points when you can stay on track, but when your emotions get involved, it makes it harder



I don't even pay attention to the name calling, so dont even worry about it. I have never gone off track on this, the only one that seems to do that is you.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know what reality where we didn't have "net neutrality" and the government was censoring everything you're referring to but I'm pretty sure I didn't experience this. *This is just hysteria over hypothetical scenarios that never happened and weren't going to happen i*n order to justify more government regulation. The reason companies like Netflix support it is because it supports their bottom line, pure and simple. You're the one being taken for a ride by corporations that just want more profit, that word you hate so much. :lol
> 
> Also citing the 80% of the population is hilarious to me as an anarchist. I have no respect for the opinions of the majority whatsoever.


LOL yet all we hear the GOP and ajit pai talk about is wanting to make these "fastalnes" where if companies pay more, they can have their websites speeded up, which we all know means if you don't pay that fee, they can slow you down. And if this whole thing was not a big deal about nothing why did the GOP fight so hard to kill net neutrality? You are not making any sense.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Yeah but Vince didn't start his own school did he? But I'm sure you consider Trump university a real college don't you?


Did he really start/fund this school? I have read where he is kicking in a couple mil a year, well his foundation is, but I cant act like he started this school when its a public school that will have the large majority paid for by tax dollars. I still tip my hat to him and his foundation for kicking in the money though, and for trying to help at-risk kids. Im actually excited to see how the kids score.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Did he really start/fund this school? I have read where he is kicking in a couple mil a year, well his foundation is, but I cant act like he started this school when its a public school that will have the large majority paid for by tax dollars. I still tip my hat to him and his foundation for kicking in the money though, and for trying to help at-risk kids. Im actually excited to see how the kids score.


He is still helping the school out.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you have sex with a girl that is drunk, its statutory rape since by law a woman cannot give consent if she is drunk. In your case she was not drunk so its different. You do know that having sex with a girl who is drunk is rape right


I wanna tackle this one real quick. I am not sure my state laws on this so I will divert to you, and "in general" works fine. What would be legally too drunk to give consent? .08 BAL (which over is legally too drunk to drive)? I would assume blacked out/passed out and verbally cannot give consent.

What if a girl called, said come meet us for drinks, we go out have 7 or 8 drinks, we are both over the legal driving limit but not fall down, sloppy drunk and then hook up? Would that be rape? What if she came on to me first and I didnt give verbal consent? Would I have been raped?


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> He is still helping the school out.


Yea I put that in there. I cant think of a school that wouldnt love an extra couple million dollars, but again its thru his foundation. I dont think he is directly paying for this, but thru the fundraising of his foundation. I may be wrong though and he may have a bigger hand in this than I realize. I know the promotional work and just attaching his name to it is a very good way to bring in extra bucks.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> I wanna tackle this one real quick. I am not sure my state laws on this so I will divert to you, and "in general" works fine. What would be legally too drunk to give consent? .08 BAL (which over is legally too drunk to drive)? I would assume blacked out/passed out and verbally cannot give consent.
> 
> What if a girl called, said come meet us for drinks, we go out have 7 or 8 drinks, we are both over the legal driving limit but not fall down, sloppy drunk and then hook up? Would that be rape? What if she came on to me first and I didnt give verbal consent? Would I have been raped?


What is the threshold for being legally too drunk, good question, not sure, that may be a good question for Fitz since he is a lawyer. But even using the number about being too drunk to drive may not be it since some people can have two drinks and be wasted. Maybe in that case they go by what is the average number of drinks it takes for the average person to get drunk. But again that would be a good question for Fitz

As for the question, if you got a drunk and a girl came on to you, and had sex with you, would you have been raped yes you would have.

If you don't have the capacity (clear mind) to give consent to sex and someone initiates sex with you, then its rape


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> What is the threshold for being legally too drunk, good question, not sure, that may be a good question for Fitz since he is a lawyer. But even using the number about being too drunk to drive may not be it since some people can have two drinks and be wasted. Maybe in that case they go by what is the average number of drinks it takes for the average person to get drunk. But again that would be a good question for Fitz
> 
> As for the question, if you got a drunk and a girl came on to you, and had sex with you, would you have been raped yes you would have.
> 
> If you don't have the capacity (clear mind) to give consent to sex and someone initiates sex with you, then its rape


Is implied consent a thing? Or do I have to flat out ask the question and get a yes or no answer? I just have a hard time believing if we are both doing things in the moment that that can be considered rape. I do agree if a girl is fall down, passed out drunk, that would be considered rape.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Is implied consent a thing? Or do I have to flat out ask the question and get a yes or no answer? I just have a hard time believing if we are both doing things in the moment that that can be considered rape. I do agree if a girl is fall down, passed out drunk, that would be considered rape.


I think you are missing the bigger picture here. If a girl is drunk, she cannot give consent. When I say drunk I am talking about she is not fully coherent and does not know what is going on. 

Implied consent is a thing especially if you are sober, as long as she does not say no, or stop or tries to push away because she does not want it, then you are fine but once alcohol or drugs are in involved it changes based on if a person is able to give consent with a clear mind, aka know what is happening.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I think you are missing the bigger picture here. If a girl is drunk, she cannot give consent. When I say drunk I am talking about she is not fully coherent and does not know what is going on.
> 
> Implied consent is a thing especially if you are sober, as long as she does not say no, or stop or tries to push away because she does not want it, then you are fine but once alcohol or drugs are in involved it changes based on if a person is able to give consent with a clear mind, aka know what is happening.


No I get it, Im just trying to figure a limit. I can agree on the fully coherent but that seems a bit subjective. Thats why I have mentioned blacked out/passed out. 

Just seems like a possible double standard, which there may be. Lets say some not fully coherent girl comes on to me, groping/grabbing, and I decide to go with it, I am consenting but would I be liable? She did come on to me.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Anyone still claiming BK is not lying, just read this

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> No I get it, Im just trying to figure a limit. I can agree on the fully coherent but that seems a bit subjective. Thats why I have mentioned blacked out/passed out.
> 
> Just seems like a possible double standard, which there may be. Lets say some not fully coherent girl comes on to me, groping/grabbing, and I decide to go with it, I am consenting but would I be liable? She did come on to me.


If a girl that you think is not fully coherent, its best not to hook up with her. Because if she later says, you raped her, and you admit you knew she was not fully coherent and took advantage of her coming on to you when she is not fully coherent, that will work against you.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I erased all the Kavanaugh stuff, because like I said, no point of rehashing the same arguments over and over. 




birthday_massacre said:


> I have been assaulted in grade school and once in college. Have you never gotten into a fight before and had to defend yourself? As for me getting this stuff straight out of a book. you mean like objective facts like using psychology to back up my points with facts? Oh how dare I.


Sorry about that happening to you.

Luckily i have been fortunate enough to not be the subject of that kind of stuff. But I had a few friends in that situation

I would tell you this, if I saw a female friend of mine in that situation she was in, I wouldn't let anyone take her home except me. I think that is why it is worrisome to me, because I would be hoping she could go to someone she could trust. 



> You claim this girl that drove her home was a stranger, that is not what she claimed. She just said she couldn't remember who drove her home or her name. There are tons of people I went to college with that I just kind of knew through my friends and I couldn't remember their names right now. Are you going to claim you remember the name of every single person you ever kind of knew in HS or College?


I can only come to that conclusion by this way.

She said that she went to the party and she knew who the other 4 people were.

Assuming Kavanugh and Judge, assaulted her, that means, there were still 2 people who could help get her out of there.

I just don't understand why she wouldn't go to those two people, as opposed to trust someone at 15 years old mind you to take her home, when she was already in unfamiliar territory.

And by the way, as for your question at the end, you give me a yearbook, and 15 minutes and I can tell you a story about every single person i knew or met in high school. even if I only had one class with them



> To answer your question, I would ask if she was ok but if she didn't want to answer would not pressure her to answer


That sound normal, and sounds like the right thing, but that is what i am saying.

Let's say Keyser said that to her, I mean her friend was obviously upset, wouldn't that be a good time to confront at least Judge and go "Hey man, WTF is going on here"

Now, that may have happened, and I hope it did, if this whole thing went down that way. But with that huge chunk of the story missing, it makes things fuzzy.



> If you have sex with a girl that is drunk, its statutory rape since by law a woman cannot give consent if she is drunk. In your case she was not drunk so its different. You do know that having sex with a girl who is drunk is rape right





> Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim is free to consent to sex and the assailant therefore cannot be charged with rape.
> Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity. *Forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent is still Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree*. Rape is a serious offense, and people who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not considered free from guilt


Edit: not false. True... after the conversation with blaird, I am trying to see where I am disagreeing with him or you

source: https://www.stsm.org/myths-and-facts-about-sexual-assault-and-consent

But this is what we agree on. If you force yourself to have sex with a woman who is drunk, that is rape.

But someone who had too many patron shots starts grabbing your dingus, and leads you to their room, no that isn't rape in my opinion.

You are asking too much of a person to say one way or the other. This is why i tell men, to videotape their encounters, that happened to members of the Minnesota football team.

Chick got drunk, slept with some players, cried rape, luckily the video showed differently. It's unfortunate, but we have to also keep the integrity of this stuff up. 



> if a girl is drunk she cannot legally give her consent , you do understand that right? As for my friend, she never said she was raped so sure she wanted to have sex with two different guys in one night but if she didn't she could have went to the police and accused them of rape since she was wasted. You don't have to be in the room to know if a girl is wasted and a guy has sex with her by law its rape


Yes, you are correct, if your friend was forced to have sex by two different guys, then yes it is rape.

I don't see where I am disagreeing with you on this. 

And like I also said, any dude who is willing to have sex with a wasted chick, probably isn't that good with women anyway, drunk sex sucks.

You keep repeating yourself, and even though i agree, you keep making it sound like I don't.

If a girl willingly gets drunk, and hooks up with a guy, thats on her.

if a girl gets drunk, and a guy uses that opportunity to force himself on her, or make her do something she is not willing to do, that is rape. 



> As for your friend , yes false claims happen, so to say that you must think Ford is lying then. Also when trying to figure what happened, you go to the credibility of both people, in this case Ford is way more credible than BK since like we have been going on Bk has lied over and over again and go watch his questioning again, he was evasive as well as super aggressive, and that is him sober, he was even passed a note at one point, which probably told him to bring it down a notch.


First off, I never said I thought Ford was lying, or that Kavanaugh wasn't lying.

I hate to say this too, but him being super aggressive is normal to me, you haven't been through being told over and over that you are something you don't believe you are.

I have been pissed to high heavens and screamed over things that were emphatically true, and I have been calm, it matter on the scenario. Like I said, I agreed with you about the investigation question except I learned one thing:

The Dems should have done this in July. 

They could have had this all done months ago. it's sad that it wasn't, because I believe Dr. Ford did not want to be publicized, and I believe she was used by the dems as well. 

I have said the same thing from the outset:

I believe my personal views would sway how I feel about the testimony, so it is unfair for me to claim one way or the other.

if I were a sexual assault victim, I would side with her more

I have been accused falsely, so I overlook more with him then I probably should... but as for who is telling the truth, my answer:

I don't know. I just don't, and that's ok in my book, because that is what the investigation is for anyway.



> I don't even pay attention to the name calling, so dont even worry about it. I have never gone off track on this, the only one that seems to do that is you.


I am glad you didn't take it personally.

you and I both got off track, this started about the gang rape girl, and went over to Ford, so yes, we both did.

It's fine, I respect your views on Kavanaugh, even though i don't fully agree. But the stuff I am open to discussion with, I did put down


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> False:
> 
> Quote:
> Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim is free to consent to sex and the assailant therefore cannot be charged with rape.
> ...



how is what I said false? your quote backs up what I said. Ddi you even read it

*Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity.*

that is exactly what I said.

Also it does not matter what your opinion is if a girl is hammered and does not know what she is doing, and comes on to you and you have sex with her that is still rape since she is under the influence. You just quoted that. *Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity.*

If your video shows a girl was hammered and she was not coherent, that would be used as evidence you raped her. Again look at what you quoted *Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity.*


As for everything else we are going in circles, read that article I posted


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If a girl that you think is not fully coherent, its best not to hook up with her. Because if she later says, you raped her, and you admit you knew she was not fully coherent and took advantage of her coming on to you when she is not fully coherent, that will work against you.


I can understand that, it just seems that when a judge/lawyer asks "Did you come onto him first" and she says yes, its gonna be hard to convict someone. Its hard to determine how drunk someone really is. A girl can be sloppy but seem coherent enough to make a proper decision, hell I know I have been sloppy and been able to make coherent decisions, although probably questionable. I understand you are saying if she is not coherent, but sometimes that can be tough to determine. I would hate for a drunk girl to come on to a guy, he thinks hes good to go, and wind up screwing up his life because she regrets it and presses charges.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> I can understand that, it just seems that when a judge/lawyer asks "Did you come onto him first" and she says yes, its gonna be hard to convict someone. Its hard to determine how drunk someone really is. A girl can be sloppy but seem coherent enough to make a proper decision, hell I know I have been sloppy and been able to make coherent decisions, although probably questionable. I understand you are saying if she is not coherent, but sometimes that can be tough to determine. I would hate for a drunk girl to come on to a guy, he thinks hes good to go, and wind up screwing up his life because she regrets it and presses charges.




*Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity.*

Rule of thumb is you don't hook up with a girl that is hammered. 

if a girl is hammered and throwing herself at you, not knowing what she is doing, you will have a hard time explaining to a judge or jury why did you take advantage of her. 

This is a great question for Fitz but I would never chance hooking up with a girl that is hammered for this very reason. you are playing with fire.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> So surprised to find so many Trump supporters on WF. Kappa
> 
> Support bigotry, lies, hate, the 1%, etc....
> 
> ...


Why is this kind of baiting allowed constantly


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> how is what I said false? your quote backs up what I said. Ddi you even read it
> 
> *Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity.*
> 
> ...


I edited it.

It was semantics. It technically not called Statutory rape in MD. Just 3rd degree rape. 

In the state of MD, statutory rape is reserved for just crimes of a younger child, but since that is under 3rd degree rape, I figured in your state it was probably different.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> So surprised to find so many Trump supporters on WF. Kappa
> 
> Support bigotry, lies, hate, the 1%, etc....
> 
> ...


A lot of wrestling fans are bigot trash, incel trash, ******* trash or immoral trash so this shouldn't surprise you at all.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> I can understand that, it just seems that when a judge/lawyer asks "Did you come onto him first" and she says yes, its gonna be hard to convict someone. Its hard to determine how drunk someone really is. A girl can be sloppy but seem coherent enough to make a proper decision, hell I know I have been sloppy and been able to make coherent decisions, although probably questionable. I understand you are saying if she is not coherent, but sometimes that can be tough to determine. I would hate for a drunk girl to come on to a guy, he thinks hes good to go, and wind up screwing up his life because she regrets it and presses charges.


It's happened before.

But the biggest thing I look at is what led up to the scenario, as nothing is 100% true all of the time.

Most men who prey on women who are that inebriated normally are shady characters anyway, because if a girl is OBVIOUSLY drunk, then you shouldn't even want to sleep with her.

But let's go to your scenario, how I would handle it, is trying to read her body language, most men don't know how to do that, so they get in trouble. 

Most girls will just lower inhibitions, but if they are letting you do things, they are probably into you, and don't mind it.

I think that law was made for the girl who got slipped a roofie, not the girl who "drank one too many Heineken's"

Also, females should know rules of thumb before going to any gathering with alcohol, don't drink more than a few drinks, if you put your cup down, get a new cup.

If you don't want to have sex with the guy, don't be alone with him. Some things that should be ingrained in these women, just to keep them a bit safer


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I edited it.
> 
> It was semantics. It technically not called Statutory rape in MD. Just 3rd degree rape.
> 
> In the state of MD, statutory rape is reserved for just crimes of a younger child, but since that is under 3rd degree rape, I figured in your state it was probably different.


rape is rape

its still called rape. Sure the degree may be different depending on the state,but that is just semantics as you said.


----------



## ChrisMC (Jun 13, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Moral of the story, don't fuck drunk strangers (even if they want it) and you can avoid a lot of problems. Maybe get her number, go on a few dates, be a gentleman.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know what reality where we didn't have "net neutrality" and the government was censoring everything you're referring to but I'm pretty sure I didn't experience this. This is just hysteria over hypothetical scenarios that never happened and weren't going to happen in order to justify more government regulation. The reason companies like Netflix support it is because it supports their bottom line, pure and simple. You're the one being taken for a ride by corporations that just want more profit, that word you hate so much. :lol


Planting your head firmly in your ass and ignoring the burning house around you doesn't mean the house isn't burning, even if you "didn't experience this" yourself.



CamillePunk said:


> Also citing the 80% of the population is hilarious to me as an anarchist. I have no respect for the opinions of the majority whatsoever.


Well, at least you finally admitted that you are a fucking hypocrite and you are perfectly fine with power using force over the majority if it lines up with your views. We're making progress here.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Planting your head firmly in your ass and ignoring the burning house around you doesn't mean the house isn't burning, even if you "didn't experience this" yourself.


okay, show me the flames. be specific. 




> Well, at least you finally admitted that you are a fucking hypocrite and *you are perfectly fine with power using force* over the majority if it lines up with your views. We're making progress here.


no


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Yeah but Vince didn't start his own school did he? But I'm sure you consider Trump university a real college don't you? Also isn't Vince good friends with Trump?


Without the fans going to games he wouldn't have all that money to do that. So, he didn't build that. :laugh:

None of this changes that he is dumb and a shill for the Dems.


I didn't vote for Trump. I agree with a few things does, but I can usually find something to agree with a President on. Even as much as a dislike Hillary there would have been somethings I would have likely agreed with her on.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> A lot of wrestling fans are bigot trash, incel trash, ******* trash or immoral trash so this shouldn't surprise you at all.


I think most of the ******** have stopped watching wrestling. I don't know any that currently watches it. Which isn't shocking. ******** aren't going to give a crap about wrestlers like Kevin Owens, Ambrose, Rollins, Zayn and others.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> okay, show me the flames. be specific.


Have you not noticed Facebook/Twitter/Google/etc. carrying out the censorship requests of various government entities? I can look up the examples if you need me to.

Being against government censorship lines up with your claimed views, yet you are unwilling to support the thing that prevents government censorship because it has not affected you yet. I know you are capable of opposing something that has not affected you personally because you oppose the global war mongering our government does. If you would take the time to expand your mind, you would see that I am right about this.



CamillePunk said:


> no


Yes. ositivity


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

A socialist, demanding obedience and due deference to the majority :heston


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Without the fans going to games he wouldn't have all that money to do that. So, he didn't build that. :laugh:
> 
> None of this changes that he is dumb and a shill for the Dems.
> 
> ...


And if Trump wasn't born into money he'd wouldn't be president. And if LeBron is dumb as you put it then how dumb is Trump since LeBron clearly the smarter of the two.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> A lot of wrestling fans are bigot trash, incel trash, ******* trash or immoral trash so this shouldn't surprise you at all.


Also Trump has been on WWE remember the battle of the billionaires. Half of his supporters used to watch The Apprentice as well.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

To show you how much sacks of shit reporters are in general, during President Trump's press conference about NAFTA's replacement, the USMCA, (which is a BIG fucking deal!), they'd rather ask him more questions about Kavanaugh!



> He's still a right wing hack.


He's a Never Trumper which makes his criticisms about The President valid.



> Why is this kind of baiting allowed constantly


Different rules for different folks.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Have you not noticed Facebook/Twitter/Google/etc. carrying out the censorship requests of various government entities? I can look up the examples if you need me to.


So you think the solution to that is...the government passing legislation to "limit" their own power that actually does the opposite?  





> Yes. ositivity


still no, sorry. you don't get to just make things up.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> To show you how much sacks of shit reporters are in general, during President Trump's press conference about NAFTA's replacement, the USMCA, (which is a BIG fucking deal!), they'd rather ask him more questions about Kavanaugh!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not really when you're getting paid by fox news or other Republican donors.
At least start mentioning people in there quotes. Are you afraid that they'll come back and make you look foolish?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> So you think the solution to that is...the government passing legislation to "limit" their own power that actually does the opposite?


I know this is a difficult topic for you to grasp but keeping net neutrality is an anti-regulation regulation. 

I know, I know... this is tough for you to wrap your brain around, but I am trying to explain it to you the best way I can.

The government having net neutrality laws keeps the government from censoring the internet. You might say... but it's not the government censoring the internet, it's the ISPs censoring the internet... but when the ISPs are doing the bidding of the government, it is effectively government censorship of the internet. Now, one would assume you are against government censorship, and I get your libertarian position of anti-regulation, but this is one topic where your views and your goals do not line up. To get your desired outcome, sometimes you have to go against your gut instinct. 

Life is complicated in that way. Sometimes you have to do the opposite of what you think you should do to achieve your goals.



CamillePunk said:


> still no, sorry. you don't get to just make things up.


Not making things up. I can provide examples if you still do not follow my point.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I know this is a difficult topic for you to grasp but keeping net neutrality is an anti-regulation regulation.
> 
> I know, I know... this is tough for you to wrap your brain around, but I am trying to explain it to you the best way I can.


You're the least persuasive person I've ever discussed anything with. I'm done. You don't care about convincing anyone of anything, you just want to feel that you are right in your own mind and make no impact on the world whatsoever. 


> Not making things up. I can provide examples if you still do not follow my point.


Nah, I don't ever advocate for the initiation of force.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers (Oct 23, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> A lot of wrestling fans are bigot trash, incel trash, ******* trash or immoral trash so this shouldn't surprise you at all.


The "Kappa" was meant to indicate sarcasm. It's a Twitch emote. 
I'm not surprised in the least. 
But agree with your comments entirely. Which is why I've distanced myself from this forum in general lately. 

I'd say most of the type of fanbase you describe is limited to the good ol' U.S.A. and not so much other countries, at least not anywhere to the extent it is here.



draykorinee said:


> :uhoh
> 
> :Trump
> 
> ...


She would've been a Democrat instead of a Republican for starters. I don't consider myself a Democrat or call myself one but I know I'm sure as hell not a Republican. The labels really just describe how each parties traditional views on key issues and I can tell you I'm not a Conservative. But the Trump base will call you a dirty liberal if you don't like him because they have the same mindset as their man-child "god". 

Basically the main reason to have voted Hillary is because "not Trump" and also because 3rd party and otherwise is really burning your vote. I'll point the finger at Russia also and spinelessness of the other Republican candiadates to fight back against the unorthodox Trump as reasons why Trump won. 

At any rate, they both seemed to be the most unpopular choices for either side in recent history. Right didn't want Hillary. Left didn't want Trump. Sanders got sunk. People in the middle sat at home and did jack shit and basically that let Trump win.

Choices were:
Not voting = stupid. 
Voting Trump = co-signing a man-child's insanity.
Voting 3rd party = burning your vote because the majority supports one of the two parties.
So if you didn't want Trump you only had one other option even if you weren't crazy about it, at least you didn't vote in a Twittering idiot and give him the highest position in the United States .

Even if Trump didn't win, we'd be pretty much in the same place socially because he'd still have Twitter and he'd still have his base and the media who he both loves (Fox) and hates (everyone else) would still cover him. 

The issue is that now he is President and now has the power to fuck up any progress that was made and also screw not only his enemies but ironically a lot of his dimwitted supporters. It's an absolute mess and that's why I think it should've been avoided at any cost.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Great conversation between two An-Caps, Tom Woods and Stefan Molyneux. Woods doesn't support Trump, Molyneux does and therefore has been characterized as racist, white nationalist, statist traitor etc. They examine the criticisms against Molyneux with Woods asking a series of probing questions. Needless to say I can relate a LOT to Molyneux here and the wildly inaccurate criticisms he has to endure on a daily basis as a libertarian who supports Trump. Thanks to @DesolationRow for sharing the video with me on here.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Great conversation between two An-Caps, Tom Woods and Stefan Molyneux. Woods doesn't support Trump, Molyneux does and therefore has been characterized as racist, white nationalist, statist traitor etc. They examine the criticisms against Molyneux with Woods asking a series of probing questions. Needless to say I can relate a LOT to Molyneux here and the wildly inaccurate criticisms he has to endure on a daily basis as a libertarian who supports Trump. Thanks to @DesolationRow for sharing the video with me on here.


That is because he is racist and alt right. But you dont think Trump is racist soo lol

And why are you putting this in the Trump thread? This belongs in the political thread


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is because he is racist and alt right. But you dont think Trump is racist soo lol
> 
> And why are you putting this in the Trump thread? This belongs in the political thread


It's an interview with a Trump supporter about why he supports Trump. It belongs here.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Great conversation between two An-Caps, Tom Woods and Stefan Molyneux. Woods doesn't support Trump, Molyneux does and therefore has been characterized as racist, white nationalist, statist traitor etc. They examine the criticisms against Molyneux with Woods asking a series of probing questions. Needless to say I can relate a LOT to Molyneux here and the wildly inaccurate criticisms he has to endure on a daily basis as a libertarian who supports Trump. Thanks to @DesolationRow for sharing the video with me on here.


Stefan is way smarter than his critics. but I think he has went downhill since he started supporting Trump. Still, he is way better than what you'll find on CNN, Fox, MSNBC and much of the rest of the crap out there.

The left doesn't really have conversations. They're only interested in what fits their ideology. Nothing that exists outside of that ideology is acceptable. They're say something like: "I want to have a conversation", but the truth that they really don't. Not in the sense of people exchanging ideas or viewpoints. It's really about them telling you how they "feel" (feel is a word I'm trying to weed out of my vocabulary) and you either agree with it, or you're a bigot of some sort. Everyone that doesn't agree with them are sinners basically.

Well, if you're a white male then you're the ultimate sinner and you have to repent by bowing down to their form of political correctness. 

That said... Going back to Trump and Stefan, it really doesn't make sense to me that SM has supported Trump so much. Almost everything Trump does is to benefit himself. Even the trade deal. It doesn't appear to be much different than what we had, but he kicked all thus fuss and threatened our relationship with Canada only to mostly end up in the same place that we started.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't think Trump runs for president if he's self-interested. I believe he did that for the country/his grandchildren. Sources close to him have said as much.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Oh look more info coming out tonight about how BK lied about not knowing about the Deborah Ramirez allegations before it went public. Looks like people working on his behalf was texting people trying to get them to be on his side for when it came out.

yet another example of him committing purgery. 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-ramirez-allegation-earlier-than-he-says.html


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't think Trump runs for president if he's self-interested. I believe he did that for the country/his grandchildren. Sources close to him have said as much.


Trump is an 80's Democrat basically. Which tells you that the country has moved to the left a good bit since Reagan left office. I think he has convinced himself that he is looking out for the country to some degree. But mostly he is about self-promotion and himself.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Regardless if Brett did these things or not, I don't have confidence in him to serve on the Supreme Court. Because even if he didn't do these things he will lie or mislead sometimes in order to protect his reputation.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Regardless if Brett did these things or not, I* don't have confidence in him to serve on the Supreme Court. Because even if he didn't do these things he will lie or mislead sometimes in order to protect his reputation*.


Well we finally agree on something lol

Him committing purgery alone should show he is not fit to serve, he has also shown he does not have the temperament either the way he lashed out at the people asking the questions and saying how it was all a Clinton conspiracy against him.

People in this thread have already said OH the dems will get him on this and its BS because they were trying to get him on the sexual assault, the whole thing is an interview and if there were no charges of sexual assault and he still acted that way and lied, they would claim he should still make the SCOTUS which just shows they don't care if he is qualified or not they just want to own the libs


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> *Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity.*
> 
> Rule of thumb is you don't hook up with a girl that is hammered.
> 
> ...


What you're saying is almost true. Intoxicated in most places has a special meaning in related to DWI cases. It's usually a .08 blood alcohol content or it makes you physically incapable so safely operate a car. 

But I'm confident someone with a .09 can consent to sex even though they can't drive a car. 

Now obviously if you're REALLY drunk you can't consent. 

There's not like a magic number of drinks either. I get drunk a couple times a month. Someone who has a lot more tolerance can consent to sex while me with the same blood alcohol content couldn't. 

I think it's a very high standard to be incapable of consent (or low standard). Like there are people with pretty bad mental issues that can consent. You have to be able to understand the consequences of what you're doing. 

If in doubt don't. Or if you're in doubt than get more drunk than the other person and get them to initiate because than you're the rape victim and not the one committing the crime. That's a pro tip right there.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yo stahp defending rapists yo .. even if you're a lawyer ... :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FITZ said:


> What you're saying is almost true. Intoxicated in most places has a special meaning in related to DWI cases. It's usually a .08 blood alcohol content or it makes you physically incapable so safely operate a car.
> 
> But I'm confident someone with a .09 can consent to sex even though they can't drive a car.
> 
> ...


yeah, that is why I said I am not sure if there is a certain number on it but its more about if she is fully coherent or not.


PS I am going to guess your pro tip is tongue in cheek but tha wouldn't work in court would it? Like if a girl took a guy to court for rape and his defense was, well I was more drunk than her. have you seen that before?


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah, that is why I said I am not sure if there is a certain number on it but its more about if she is fully coherent or not.
> 
> 
> PS I am going to guess your pro tip is tongue in cheek but tha wouldn't work in court would it? Like if a girl took a guy to court for rape and his defense was, well I was more drunk than her. have you seen that before?


In the real world no. But most states don't have a differentiation between men and women in the rape laws. If you're super drunk and someone else initiates how are you committing a rape?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Vince needs to book Trump and Kim's commitment ceremony for next year's Wrestlemania. 

It's sweet the way a buffoon and brutal dictator can come together and share a bromance despite their differences.


:ha


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Vince needs to book Trump and Kim's commitment ceremony for next year's Wrestlemania.
> 
> It's sweet the way a buffoon and brutal dictator can come together and share a bromance despite their differences.
> 
> ...


Live sex show = :vince$


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Vince needs to book Trump and Kim's commitment ceremony for next year's Wrestlemania.
> 
> It's sweet the way a buffoon and brutal dictator can come together and share a bromance despite their differences.
> 
> ...


Who is the buffoon and who is the brutal dictator?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Who is the buffoon and who is the brutal dictator?


Well hate Trump all you want but he doesn't blatantly murder people a-la Kim, amongst all the other atrocities.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Call up Vivid video and Vlad

The world's most powerful threeway 

Uh! Double up! Uh! Uh!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Well hate Trump all you want but he doesn't blatantly murder people a-la Kim, amongst all the other atrocities.


But he does with his missile strikes. Civilian deaths have skyrocketed under Trump


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> But he does with his missile strikes. Civilian deaths have skyrocketed under Trump


The only part of dictator that Trump matches is the Dic part. He's a warmongerer and a mass murderer (Like all presidents)but he's not oppressing his own people.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> The only part of dictator that Trump matches is the Dic part. He's a warmongerer and a mass murderer (Like all presidents)but he's not oppressing his own people.


It's subjective, but all governments oppress their people by definition.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Vince needs to book Trump and Kim's commitment ceremony for next year's Wrestlemania.
> 
> It's sweet the way a buffoon and brutal dictator can come together and share a bromance despite their differences.
> 
> ...


Somewhere Dennis Rodman is crying his eyes out.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



draykorinee said:


> The only part of dictator that Trump matches is the Dic part. He's a warmongerer and a mass murderer (Like all presidents)but he's not oppressing his own people.


Trump tries to oppress the press, he is always saying it fake news even when it's not, Trump is for forced patriotism, look at all the people Trump fires or pulls their security clearance just because they criticize him, look at how Trump is doing everything he can to kill the Mueller investigation. Id say he is a dictator. At the very least he is on his way.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump tries to oppress the press, he is always saying it fake news even when it's not, Trump is for forced patriotism, look at all the people Trump fires or pulls their security clearance just because they criticize him, look at how Trump is doing everything he can to kill the Mueller investigation. Id say he is a dictator. At the very least he is on his way.


And hes a nazi...or something like that


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump tries to oppress the press, he is always saying it fake news even when it's not, Trump is for forced patriotism, look at all the people Trump fires or pulls their security clearance just because they criticize him, look at how Trump is doing everything he can to kill the Mueller investigation. Id say he is a dictator. At the very least he is on his way.


Obama spied and bullied reporters.Prosecuted leakers.Trump has a lot to catch up with in that regard.Screaming "Fake News" doesn't come close.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...taff-leakers-gave-lie-detector-tests-paranoid

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...s-trump-is-very-bad-for-criticizing-newsrooms

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...r-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2622666f367e


ps losing your security clearance after you retire should be standard practice tbh.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Obama spied and bullied reporters.Prosecuted leakers.Trump has a lot to catch up with in that regard.Screaming "Fake News" doesn't come close.
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...taff-leakers-gave-lie-detector-tests-paranoid
> 
> ...


No president bullies reporters more than Trump, Trump has said a number of times he wants to change libel laws to shut them up. Every time he is on TV he is bullying reporters or the news.

And people need to stop with this whataboutisms when it comes to trying to defend Trump


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Werner Heizenberg said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > Trump tries to oppress the press, he is always saying it fake news even when it's not, Trump is for forced patriotism, look at all the people Trump fires or pulls their security clearance just because they criticize him, look at how Trump is doing everything he can to kill the Mueller investigation. Id say he is a dictator. At the very least he is on his way.
> ...


Trump has routinely bullied and banned reporters, let's not try and play that card of all things.

I mean the way he spoke to one just yesterday shows the character of the man.

https://people.com/politics/donald-trump-female-reporter-never-thinks-cecilia-vega/

Then his office lied/accidentally miswrote about it.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> No president bullies reporters more than Trump, Trump has said a number of times he wants to change libel laws to shut them up. Every time he is on TV he is bullying reporters or the news.
> 
> And people need to stop with this whataboutisms when it comes to trying to defend Trump





draykorinee said:


> Trump has routinely bullied and banned reporters, let's not try and play that card of all things.
> 
> I mean the way he spoke to one just yesterday shows the character of the man.
> 
> ...



Getting insulted by Trump or getting you and your family spied on/bullied by the Obama administration.Which is worse?




> Obama’s Justice Department accessed the personal email of a Fox News reporter and surveilled the reporter’s parents and colleagues. They seized the home, work and mobile phone records of journalists at the Associated Press.
> 
> Risen, who fought the administration to protect his sources, got so deep in his own legal battle with Obama that he selected a reading list for prison before the government finally backed off.


https://variety.com/2018/politics/news/trump-press-war-obama-administration-reporters-1202782264/


And lets not forget that unlike Trump, Obama actually persecuted leakers.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Werner Heizenberg said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > No president bullies reporters more than Trump, Trump has said a number of times he wants to change libel laws to shut them up. Every time he is on TV he is bullying reporters or the news.
> ...


I didn't suggest it was worse, but it's absolutely a people on glass houses situation. I dont like Obama either.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Getting insulted by Trump or getting you and your family spied on/bullied by the Obama administration.Which is worse?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




why do you act like I liked Obama? I didn't. I was always against Obama doing that shit you are talking about.

You do know Trump says we should persecute leakers right lol he does it all the time FFS He calls them traitors and cowards


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> why do you act like I liked Obama? I didn't. I was always against Obama doing that shit you are talking about.
> 
> You do know Trump says we should persecute leakers right lol





draykorinee said:


> I didn't suggest it was worse, but it's absolutely a people on glass houses situation. I dont like Obama either.



I understand.I am not a big fan of Trump either.But calling him a dictator because he is mean to reporters is just silly.Especially since Obama gave him all the precedent to be much, much harsher with the press than he's actually been:


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/...ld-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> I understand.I am not a big fan of Trump either.But calling him a dictator because he is mean to reporters is just silly.Especially since Obama gave him all the precedent to be much, much harsher with the press than he's actually been:
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/...ld-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html


I already pointed out more than he is just mean why he is a dictator. But of course, you ignored it.

Not to mention look who Trumps likes the most when it comes to other world leaders, he loves Putin and literally Kim Jong Un


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I already pointed out more than he is just mean why he is a dictator. But of course, you ignored it.
> 
> Not to mention look who Trumps likes the most when it comes to other world leaders, he loves Putin and literally Kim Jong Un


There's difference between whining and actually doing stuff.Trump whining on twitter to Sessions to close the Mueller probe, doesn't make him a dictator.

Maybe he wants to be a dictator or just wants to portray himself as a victim and blame his failures on people like Sessions.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> There's difference between whining and actually doing stuff.Trump whining on twitter to Sessions to close the Mueller probe, doesn't make him a dictator.
> 
> Maybe he wants to be a dictator or just wants to portray himself as a victim and blame his failures on people like Sessions.


Trump is actively trying to shut down the Mueller probe, that is why he wants to fire Rod Rosenstein. So he can replace him with someone that will fire Mueller and stop his investigation. Don't even try to pretend Trump is doing everything he can to get it shut down. He admitted he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation FFS


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is actively trying to shut down the Mueller probe, that is why he wants to fire Rod Rosenstein. So he can replace him with someone that will fire Mueller and stop his investigation. Don't even try to pretend Trump is doing everything he can to get it shut down.


And he could've done all that a year ago.He doesn't appear to be trying very hard to shut down the probe.

If he's waiting to have the public support on such actions, that won't make him a dictator.




> He admitted he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation FFS


Didn't Comey admit he privately assured Trump that he wasn't under investigation, multiple times?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> And he could've done all that a year ago.He doesn't appear to be trying very hard to shut down the probe.
> 
> If he's waiting to have the public support on such actions, that won't make him a dictator.
> 
> ...


Trump cannot shut it down himself because of the investigation involves him, its the same reason why Sessions had to recuse himself. If Trump shut it down it would be blatant obstruction and he would get impeached. That is why he trying to get someone else to do it for him. He is pissed at Sessions for recusing himself so he can't shut down the investigation, that is why Trump is working very hard to get someone in there to shut it down. 

You have to be kidding me he is not working hard to shut it down. You are can't even be honest about this

So I wont even bother debating this with you anymore

PS as for Comey nice deflection. Trump admitted on TV he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. End of story


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump cannot shut it down himself because of the investigation involves him, its the same reason why Sessions had to recuse himself. If Trump shut it down it would be blatant obstruction and he would get impeached. That is why he trying to get someone else to do it for him. He is pissed at Sessions for recusing himself so he can't shut down the investigation, that is why Trump is working very hard to get someone in there to shut it down.
> 
> You have to be kidding me he is not working hard to shut it down. You are can't even be honest about this
> 
> So I wont even bother debating this with you anymore



Trump ending the probe won't lead to automatic impeachment.That's not how it works.The GOP will have to vote to impeach their own guy.

Like i said, whining on twitter is not trying hard imo



> PS as for Comey nice deflection. Trump admitted on TV he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. End of story



And Comey admitted that he told Trump on multiple occasions, he wasn't under investigation.Trump told Comey to say that in public and Comey refused.That's why he was fired.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Trump ending the probe won't lead to automatic impeachment.That's not how it works.The GOP will have to vote to impeach their own guy.
> 
> Like i said, whining on twitter is not trying hard imo
> 
> ...


Trump firing Mueller himself would force the GOPs hand. They would have to. He is not just whining about it. It does not matter what Comey told Trump three times, just because he told Trump that does not mean its true. You do understand that right, especially if Trump is being investigated, he wouldn't tell Trump that. 

I love how you keep ignoring Trump saying he fired Comey over the Russia investigation lol And no it was not because he refused to say it publically.

Also if the Mueller probe is not investigating Trump then why is Trump trying so hard to shut it down?

IF Trump has no connections to Russia, he wouldn't care about it now would he?


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump firing Mueller himself would force the GOPs hand. They would have to. He is not just whining about it.


Why would they have to?Don't most republican voters want Mueller fired, anyway?

What's he doing other than crying for Sessions to do something?




> It does not matter what Comey told Trump three times, just because he told Trump that does not mean its true. You do understand that right, especially if Trump is being investigated, he wouldn't tell Trump that.
> 
> I love how you keep ignoring Trump saying he fired Comey over the Russia investigation lol And no it was not because he refused to say it publically.
> 
> ...


Trump is under investigation now, he may not have been when Comey told him he wasn't.

I'm not ignoring anything.Yes, Trump fired Comey because of how he was handling the Russia stuff.Because he refused to clarify Trump himself wasn't involved in the Russia investigation at the time.

Why would he care if he was innocent of collusion with Russia?Ego.The same reason he was furious with the reporting of his small inauguration crowd.The same reason he constantly brags about his victory over Hillary in 2016.It hurts his ego to question his success.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Why would they have to?Don't most republican voters want Mueller fired, anyway?
> 
> What's he doing other than crying for Sessions to do something?


Because it would be obstruction of justice which is an impeachable offense.

yes most Trump supporters want Mueller fired because they think he is investigating Trump with his investigation.

I have already told you what he is doing. He is actively trying to get someone in power to fire Mueller. That is why he is looking into firing Rod Rosenstein so he can put in a lackey that will fire Mueller to shut down the investigation. Do you even pay attention?



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Trump is under investigation now, he may not have been when Comey told him he wasn't.


Trump has always been under investigation. That is why Trump fired Comey. 




Werner Heizenberg said:


> I'm not ignoring anything.Yes, Trump fired Comey because of how he was handling the Russia stuff.Because he refused to clarify Trump himself wasn't involved in the Russia investigation at the time.


No that is not why stop lying about that. Sure Trump was pissed Comey would not come out and tell the public that but that is not why he fired Comey. There is a live interview why Trump said he fired Comey and that was not the reason given. After Trump go so much shit for that interview he did what he always does and changed his story 50 more times.




Werner Heizenberg said:


> *Why would he care if he was innocent of collusion with Russia*?Ego.The same reason he was furious with the reporting of his small inauguration crowd.The same reason he constantly brags about his victory over Hillary in 2016.It hurts his ego to question his success.



That is not what I asked. 

If Trump knows he is innocent and the investigation would prove that, why would he want to end it? He could then brag about see the investigation cleared me. He would want it done to clear him. But Trump knows what he did and is worried the investigation will under cover that


.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because it would be obstruction of justice which is an impeachable offense.
> 
> yes most Trump supporters want Mueller fired because they think he is investigating Trump with his investigation.
> 
> ...



So you just contradicted yourself.According to you, Trump himself has admitted to firing Comey for nefarious reasons.Yet the GOP hasn't impeached him nor has it considered impeaching him.

Both things can't be true at once.If Trump admitted to obstructing justice by firing Comey why hasn't the GOP impeached him when "they have to"?




> I have already told you what he is doing. He is actively trying to get someone in power to fire Mueller. That is why he is looking into firing Rod Rosenstein so he can put in a lackey that will fire Mueller to shut down the investigation. Do you even pay attention?


Do you pay attention?Again, whining on twitter is not actively trying to fire anyone.And Trump said that he would 'prefer not' to fire Rod Rosenstein

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/trump-on-rosenstein-my-preference-would-be-to-keep-him.html




> Trump has always been under investigation. That is why Trump fired Comey.


Not according to Comey himself.








> That is not what I asked.
> 
> If Trump knows he is innocent and the investigation would prove that, why would he want to end it? He could then brag about see the investigation cleared me. He would want it done to clear him. But Trump knows what he did and is worried the investigation will under cover that


Innocent or not, the investigation is still affecting his approval rating.It's still affecting GOP's chances in the midterms.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> So you just contradicted yourself.According to you, Trump himself has admitted to firing Comey for nefarious reasons.Yet the GOP hasn't impeached him nor has it considered impeaching him.
> 
> Both things can't be true at once.If Trump admitted to obstructing justice by firing Comey why hasn't the GOP impeached him when "they have to"?
> 
> ...




I did not contradict anything. Comey was not running the investigation, and it did not get it shut down due to his firing. Trump has done many things that should have gotten him impeached but they are smaller things. 

Trump himself shutting down the Mueller investigation would be huge, on the level of Nixon and could not be swept under the rug like all these other ones. That is why Trump has not done it himself because he knows the GOP would be forced to impeach him. That is why he is trying to get someone else to do it for him.




Werner Heizenberg said:


> Do you pay attention?Again, whining on twitter is not actively trying to fire anyone.And Trump said that he would 'prefer not' to fire Rod Rosenstein
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/trum...-keep-him.html
> 
> .


LOL at taking Trump's word on anything. 70% of the things he says are lies. You have to be trolling with this...oh but Trump said He changed why he fired Comey like 3 or 4 times.





Werner Heizenberg said:


> Not according to Comey himself.
> 
> .



I already spoke to this point. Stop going in circles




Werner Heizenberg said:


> Innocent or not, the investigation is still affecting his approval rating.It's still affecting GOP's chances in the midterms.
> 
> .



LOL if you think the investigation is the main thing is effecting his approval rating and the GOP's chances in the midterms. That is one of the least reasons effecting why Trump and the GOP are screwed come midterms

Let me guess, you watch fox news and Alex Jones


I think you must be a troll poster, so I am not going to engage you anymore


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I did not contradict anything. Comey was not running the investigation, and it did not get it shut down due to his firing. Trump has done many things that should have gotten him impeached but they are smaller things.
> 
> Trump himself shutting down the Mueller investigation would be huge, on the level of Nixon and could not be swept under the rug like all these other ones. That is why Trump has not done it himself because he knows the GOP would be forced to impeach him. That is why he is trying to get someone else to do it for him.


Even more contradictions.Either Trump, has already admitted to obstructing justice on live television, or he didn't.End of story.There is nothing "small" about an incident like that.


Trump would just claim that Mueller has had more than enough time to find evidence of collusion and he's failed.It's not gonna be the catastrophic event you think it would be.





> LOL at taking Trump's word on anything. 70% of the things he says are lies. You have to be trolling with this...oh but Trump said He changed why he fired Comey like 3 or 4 times.


It's supported by his actions of not firing Rosenstein.







> I already spoke to this point. Stop going in circles


Find better arguments and we won't be going in circles.





> LOL if you think the investigation is the main thing is effecting his approval rating and the GOP's chances in the midterms. That is one of the least reasons effecting why Trump and the GOP are screwed come midterms
> 
> Let me guess, you watch fox news and Alex Jones
> 
> ...


Never said it was the only thing but it sure doesn't help.And remember, Trump was supposed to be screwed during the 2016 elections as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html



*Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father
The president has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the 1990s.*

By DAVID BARSTOW, SUSANNE CRAIG and RUSS BUETTNER

Oct. 2, 2018
President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help.

But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.

Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.

These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances.

The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show.

The president declined repeated requests over several weeks to comment for this article. But a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Charles J. Harder, provided a written statement on Monday, one day after The Times sent a detailed description of its findings. “The New York Times’s allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100 percent false, and highly defamatory,” Mr. Harder said. “There was no fraud or tax evasion by anyone. The facts upon which The Times bases its false allegations are extremely inaccurate.”

Mr. Harder sought to distance Mr. Trump from the tax strategies used by his family, saying the president had delegated those tasks to relatives and tax professionals. “President Trump had virtually no involvement whatsoever with these matters,” he said. “The affairs were handled by other Trump family members who were not experts themselves and therefore relied entirely upon the aforementioned licensed professionals to ensure full compliance with the law.”

[Read the full statement]

The president’s brother, Robert Trump, issued a statement on behalf of the Trump family:

“Our dear father, Fred C. Trump, passed away in June 1999. Our beloved mother, Mary Anne Trump, passed away in August 2000. All appropriate gift and estate tax returns were filed, and the required taxes were paid. Our father’s estate was closed in 2001 by both the Internal Revenue Service and the New York State tax authorities, and our mother’s estate was closed in 2004. Our family has no other comment on these matters that happened some 20 years ago, and would appreciate your respecting the privacy of our deceased parents, may God rest their souls.”

The Times’s findings raise new questions about Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his income tax returns, breaking with decades of practice by past presidents. According to tax experts, it is unlikely that Mr. Trump would be vulnerable to criminal prosecution for helping his parents evade taxes, because the acts happened too long ago and are past the statute of limitations. There is no time limit, however, on civil fines for tax fraud.

The findings are based on interviews with Fred Trump’s former employees and advisers and more than 100,000 pages of documents describing the inner workings and immense profitability of his empire. They include documents culled from public sources — mortgages and deeds, probate records, financial disclosure reports, regulatory records and civil court files.

The investigation also draws on tens of thousands of pages of confidential records — bank statements, financial audits, accounting ledgers, cash disbursement reports, invoices and canceled checks. Most notably, the documents include more than 200 tax returns from Fred Trump, his companies and various Trump partnerships and trusts. While the records do not include the president’s personal tax returns and reveal little about his recent business dealings at home and abroad, dozens of corporate, partnership and trust tax returns offer the first public accounting of the income he received for decades from various family enterprises.

[11 takeaways from The Times’s investigation]

What emerges from this body of evidence is a financial biography of the 45th president fundamentally at odds with the story Mr. Trump has sold in his books, his TV shows and his political life. In Mr. Trump’s version of how he got rich, he was the master dealmaker who broke free of his father’s “tiny” outer-borough operation and parlayed a single $1 million loan from his father (“I had to pay him back with interest!”) into a $10 billion empire that would slap the Trump name on hotels, high-rises, casinos, airlines and golf courses the world over. In Mr. Trump’s version, it was always his guts and gumption that overcame setbacks. Fred Trump was simply a cheerleader.

“I built what I built myself,” Mr. Trump has said, a narrative that was long amplified by often-credulous coverage from news organizations, including The Times.

Certainly a handful of journalists and biographers, notably Wayne Barrett, Gwenda Blair, David Cay Johnston and Timothy L. O’Brien, have challenged this story, especially the claim of being worth $10 billion. They described how Mr. Trump piggybacked off his father’s banking connections to gain a foothold in Manhattan real estate. They poked holes in his go-to talking point about the $1 million loan, citing evidence that he actually got $14 million. They told how Fred Trump once helped his son make a bond payment on an Atlantic City casino by buying $3.5 million in casino chips.

But The Times’s investigation of the Trump family’s finances is unprecedented in scope and precision, offering the first comprehensive look at the inherited fortune and tax dodges that guaranteed Donald J. Trump a gilded life. The reporting makes clear that in every era of Mr. Trump’s life, his finances were deeply intertwined with, and dependent on, his father’s wealth.


Donald J. Trump accumulated wealth throughout his childhood thanks to his father, Fred C. Trump. 
By age 3, Mr. Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building. Soon after Mr. Trump graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father. The money increased with the years, to more than $5 million annually in his 40s and 50s.

Fred Trump’s real estate empire was not just scores of apartment buildings. It was also a mountain of cash, tens of millions of dollars in profits building up inside his businesses, banking records show. In one six-year span, from 1988 through 1993, Fred Trump reported $109.7 million in total income, now equivalent to $210.7 million. It was not unusual for tens of millions in Treasury bills and certificates of deposit to flow through his personal bank accounts each month.

Fred Trump was relentless and creative in finding ways to channel this wealth to his children. He made Donald not just his salaried employee but also his property manager, landlord, banker and consultant. He gave him loan after loan, many never repaid. He provided money for his car, money for his employees, money to buy stocks, money for his first Manhattan offices and money to renovate those offices. He gave him three trust funds. He gave him shares in multiple partnerships. He gave him $10,000 Christmas checks. He gave him laundry revenue from his buildings.

Much of his giving was structured to sidestep gift and inheritance taxes using methods tax experts described to The Times as improper or possibly illegal. Although Fred Trump became wealthy with help from federal housing subsidies, he insisted that it was manifestly unfair for the government to tax his fortune as it passed to his children. When he was in his 80s and beginning to slide into dementia, evading gift and estate taxes became a family affair, with Donald Trump playing a crucial role, interviews and newly obtained documents show.

The line between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion is often murky, and it is constantly being stretched by inventive tax lawyers. There is no shortage of clever tax avoidance tricks that have been blessed by either the courts or the I.R.S. itself. The richest Americans almost never pay anything close to full freight. But tax experts briefed on The Times’s findings said the Trumps appeared to have done more than exploit legal loopholes. They said the conduct described here represented a pattern of deception and obfuscation, particularly about the value of Fred Trump’s real estate, that repeatedly prevented the I.R.S. from taxing large transfers of wealth to his children.

“The theme I see here through all of this is valuations: They play around with valuations in extreme ways,” said Lee-Ford Tritt, a University of Florida law professor and a leading expert in gift and estate tax law. “There are dramatic fluctuations depending on their purpose.”

The manipulation of values to evade taxes was central to one of the most important financial events in Donald Trump’s life. In an episode never before revealed, Mr. Trump and his siblings gained ownership of most of their father’s empire on Nov. 22, 1997, a year and a half before Fred Trump’s death. Critical to the complex transaction was the value put on the real estate. The lower its value, the lower the gift taxes. The Trumps dodged hundreds of millions in gift taxes by submitting tax returns that grossly undervalued the properties, claiming they were worth just $41.4 million.

The same set of buildings would be sold off over the next decade for more than 16 times that amount.

The most overt fraud was All County Building Supply & Maintenance, a company formed by the Trump family in 1992. All County’s ostensible purpose was to be the purchasing agent for Fred Trump’s buildings, buying everything from boilers to cleaning supplies. It did no such thing, records and interviews show. Instead All County siphoned millions of dollars from Fred Trump’s empire by simply marking up purchases already made by his employees. Those millions, effectively untaxed gifts, then flowed to All County’s owners — Donald Trump, his siblings and a cousin. Fred Trump then used the padded All County receipts to justify bigger rent increases for thousands of tenants.

After this article was published on Tuesday, a spokesman for the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance said the agency was “reviewing the allegations” and “vigorously pursuing all appropriate areas of investigation.”

All told, The Times documented 295 streams of revenue that Fred Trump created over five decades to enrich his son. In most cases his four other children benefited equally. But over time, as Donald Trump careened from one financial disaster to the next, his father found ways to give him substantially more money, records show. Even so, in 1990, according to previously secret depositions, Mr. Trump tried to have his father’s will rewritten in a way that Fred Trump, alarmed and angered, feared could result in his empire’s being used to bail out his son’s failing businesses.

Of course, the story of how Donald Trump got rich cannot be reduced to handouts from his father. Before he became president, his singular achievement was building the brand of Donald J. Trump, Self-Made Billionaire, a brand so potent it generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue through TV shows, books and licensing deals.

Constructing that image required more than Fred Trump’s money. Just as important were his son’s preternatural marketing skills and always-be-closing competitive hustle. While Fred Trump helped finance the accouterments of wealth, Donald Trump, master self-promoter, spun them into a seductive narrative. Fred Trump’s money, for example, helped build Trump Tower, the talisman of privilege that established his son as a major player in New York. But Donald Trump recognized and exploited the iconic power of Trump Tower as a primary stage for both “The Apprentice” and his presidential campaign.

The biggest payday he ever got from his father came long after Fred Trump’s death. It happened quietly, without the usual Trumpian news conference, on May 4, 2004, when Mr. Trump and his siblings sold off the empire their father had spent 70 years assembling with the dream that it would never leave his family.

Donald Trump’s cut: $177.3 million, or $236.2 million in today’s dollars.

By Gabriel J.X. Dance, Natalie Reneau, Aaron Byrd, Brad Fisher, Andy Mills and Grant Gold
‘ONE-MAN BUILDING SHOW’
Early experience, cultivated connections and a wave of federal housing subsidies helped Fred Trump lay the foundation of his son’s wealth.

Before he turned 20, Fred Trump had already built and sold his first home. At age 35, he was building hundreds of houses a year in Brooklyn and Queens. By 45, he was building some of the biggest apartment complexes in the country.

Aside from an astonishing work ethic — “Sleeping is a waste of time,” he liked to say — the growth reflected his shrewd application of mass-production techniques. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle called him “the Henry Ford of the home-building industry.” He would erect scaffolding a city block long so his masons, sometimes working a second shift under floodlights, could throw up a dozen rowhouses in a week. They sold for about $115,000 in today’s dollars.

By 1940, American Builder magazine was taking notice, devoting a spread to Fred Trump under the headline “Biggest One-Man Building Show.” The article described a swaggering lone-wolf character who paid for everything — wages, supplies, land — from a thick wad of cash he carried at all times, and whose only help was a secretary answering the phone in an office barely bigger than a parking space. “He is his own purchasing agent, cashier, paymaster, building superintendent, construction engineer and sales director,” the article said.

It wasn’t that simple. Fred Trump had also spent years ingratiating himself with Brooklyn’s Democratic machine, giving money, doing favors and making the sort of friends (like Abraham D. Beame, a future mayor) who could make life easier for a developer. He had also assembled a phalanx of plugged-in real estate lawyers, property appraisers and tax accountants who protected his interests.

All these traits — deep experience, nimbleness, connections, a relentless focus on the efficient construction of homes for the middle class — positioned him perfectly to ride a growing wave of federal spending on housing. The wave took shape with the New Deal, grew during the World War II rush to build military housing and crested with the postwar imperative to provide homes for returning G.I.s. Fred Trump would become a millionaire many times over by making himself one of the nation’s largest recipients of cheap government-backed building loans, according to Gwenda Blair’s book “The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a President.”

Those same loans became the wellspring of Donald Trump’s wealth. In the late 1940s, Fred Trump obtained roughly $26 million in federal loans to build two of his largest developments, Beach Haven Apartments, near Coney Island, Brooklyn, and Shore Haven Apartments, a few miles away. Then he set about making his children his landlords.

By Gabriel J.X. Dance, Russ Buettner, Brad Fisher, Tim Wallace, Grant Gold and Greg Chen for The New York Times
As ground lease payments fattened his children’s trusts, Fred Trump embarked on a far bigger transfer of wealth. Records obtained by The Times reveal how he began to build or buy apartment buildings in Brooklyn and Queens and then gradually, without public trace, transfer ownership to his children through a web of partnerships and corporations. In all, Fred Trump put up nearly $13 million in cash and mortgage debt to create a mini-empire within his empire — eight buildings with 1,032 apartments — that he would transfer to his children.

The handover began just before Donald Trump’s 16th birthday. On June 1, 1962, Fred Trump transferred a plot of land in Queens to a newly created corporation. While he would be its president, his children would be its owners, records show. Then he constructed a 52-unit building called Clyde Hall.

It was easy money for the Trump children. Their father took care of everything. He bought the land, built the apartments and obtained the mortgages. His employees managed the building. The profits, meanwhile, went to his children. By the early 1970s, Fred Trump would execute similar transfers of the other seven buildings.

The New York Times would like to hear from readers who want to share messages and materials with our journalists.

Learn More
For Donald Trump, this meant a rapidly growing new source of income. When he was in high school, his cut of the profits was about $17,000 a year in today’s dollars. His share exceeded $300,000 a year soon after he graduated from college.

How Fred Trump transferred 1,032 apartments to his children without incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in gift taxes is unclear. A review of property records for the eight buildings turned up no evidence that his children bought them outright. Financial records obtained by The Times reveal only that all of the shares in the partnerships and corporations set up to create the mini-empire shifted at some point from Fred Trump to his children. Yet his tax returns show he paid no gift taxes on seven of the buildings, and only a few thousand dollars on the eighth.

That building, Sunnyside Towers, a 158-unit property in Queens, illustrates Fred Trump’s catch-me-if-you-can approach with the I.R.S., which had repeatedly cited him for underpaying taxes in the 1950s and 1960s.

Sunnyside was bought for $2.5 million in 1968 by Midland Associates, a partnership Fred Trump formed with his children for the transaction. In his 1969 tax return, he reported giving each child 15 percent of Midland Associates. Based on the amount of cash put up to buy Sunnyside, the value of this gift should have been $93,750. Instead, he declared a gift of only $6,516.

Donald Trump went to work for his father after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. His father made him vice president of dozens of companies. This was also the moment Fred Trump telegraphed what had become painfully obvious to his family and employees: He did not consider his eldest son, Fred Trump Jr., a viable heir apparent.

Fred Jr., seven and a half years older than Donald, had also worked for his father after college. It did not go well, relatives and former employees said in interviews. Fred Trump openly ridiculed him for being too nice, too soft, too lazy, too fond of drink. He frowned on his interests in flying and music, could not fathom why he cared so little for the family business. Donald, witness to his father’s deepening disappointment, fashioned himself Fred Jr.’s opposite — the brash tough guy with a killer instinct. His reward was to inherit his father’s dynastic dreams.


The Times documented 295 streams of revenue that Fred Trump created over five decades to enrich Donald Trump, left. 

Though the other Trump children benefited from their father’s financial maneuvers, Donald Trump would be given substantially more money over time. 
Fred Trump began taking steps that enriched Donald alone, introducing him to the charms of building with cheap government loans. In 1972, father and son formed a partnership to build a high-rise for the elderly in East Orange, N.J. Thanks to government subsidies, the partnership got a nearly interest-free $7.8 million loan that covered 90 percent of construction costs. Fred Trump paid the rest.

But his son received most of the financial benefits, records show. On top of profit distributions and consulting fees, Donald Trump was paid to manage the building, though Fred Trump’s employees handled day-to-day management. He also pocketed what tenants paid to rent air-conditioners. By 1975, Donald Trump’s take from the building was today’s equivalent of nearly $305,000 a year.

Fred Trump also gave his son an extra boost through his investment, in the early 1970s, in the sprawling Starrett City development in Brooklyn, the largest federally subsidized housing project in the nation. The investment, which promised to generate huge tax write-offs, was tailor-made for Fred Trump; he would use Starrett City’s losses to avoid taxes on profits from his empire.

Fred Trump invested $5 million. A separate partnership established for his children invested $1 million more, showering tax breaks on the Trump children for decades to come. They helped Donald Trump avoid paying any federal income taxes at all in 1978 and 1979. But Fred Trump also deputized him to sell a sliver of his Starrett City shares, a sweetheart deal that generated today’s equivalent of more than $1 million in “consulting fees.”

The money from consulting and management fees, ground leases, the mini-empire and his salary all combined to make Donald Trump indisputably wealthy years before he sold his first Manhattan apartment. By 1975, when he was 29, he had collected nearly $9 million in today’s dollars from his father, The Times found.

Wealthy, yes. But a far cry from the image father and son craved for Donald Trump.

THE SILENT PARTNER
Fred Trump would play a crucial role in building and carefully maintaining the myth of Donald J. Trump, Self-Made Billionaire.


Fred Trump, right, sought ways to transfer riches from his real estate empire to his children while dodging gift and estate taxes. 
“He is tall, lean and blond, with dazzling white teeth, and he looks ever so much like Robert Redford. He rides around town in a chauffeured silver Cadillac with his initials, DJT, on the plates. He dates slinky fashion models, belongs to the most elegant clubs and, at only 30 years of age, estimates that he is worth ‘more than $200 million.’”

So began a Nov. 1, 1976, article in The Times, one of the first major profiles of Donald Trump and a cornerstone of decades of mythmaking about his wealth. How could he claim to be worth more than $200 million when, as he divulged years later to casino regulators, his 1976 taxable income was $24,594? Donald Trump simply appropriated his father’s entire empire as his own.

In the chauffeured Cadillac, Donald Trump took The Times’s reporter on a tour of what he called his “jobs.” He told her about the Manhattan hotel he planned to convert into a Grand Hyatt (his father guaranteed the construction loan), and the Hudson River railroad yards he planned to develop (the rights were purchased by his father’s company). He showed her “our philanthropic endeavor,” the high-rise for the elderly in East Orange (bankrolled by his father), and an apartment complex on Staten Island (owned by his father), and their “flagship,” Trump Village, in Brooklyn (owned by his father), and finally Beach Haven Apartments (owned by his father). Even the Cadillac was leased by his father.

“So far,” he boasted, “I’ve never made a bad deal.”

It was a spectacular con, right down to the priceless moment when Mr. Trump confessed that he was “publicity shy.” By claiming his father’s wealth as his own, Donald Trump transformed his place in the world. A brash 30-year-old playboy worth more than $200 million proved irresistible to New York City’s bankers, politicians and journalists.

Yet for all the spin about cutting his own path in Manhattan, Donald Trump was increasingly dependent on his father. Weeks after The Times’s profile ran, Fred Trump set up still more trusts for his children, seeding each with today’s equivalent of $4.3 million. Even into the early 1980s, when he was already proclaiming himself one of America’s richest men, Donald Trump remained on his father’s payroll, drawing an annual salary of $260,000 in today’s dollars.

Meanwhile, Fred Trump and his companies also began extending large loans and lines of credit to Donald Trump. Those loans dwarfed what the other Trumps got, the flow so constant at times that it was as if Donald Trump had his own Money Store. Consider 1979, when he borrowed $1.5 million in January, $65,000 in February, $122,000 in March, $150,000 in April, $192,000 in May, $226,000 in June, $2.4 million in July and $40,000 in August, according to records filed with New Jersey casino regulators.

In theory, the money had to be repaid. In practice, records show, many of the loans were more like gifts. Some were interest-free and had no repayment schedule. Even when loans charged interest, Donald Trump frequently skipped payments.

This previously unreported flood of loans highlights a clear pattern to Fred Trump’s largess. When Donald Trump began expensive new projects, his father increased his help. In the late 1970s, when Donald Trump was converting the old Commodore Hotel into a Grand Hyatt, his father stepped up with a spigot of loans. Fred Trump did the same with Trump Tower in the early 1980s.

In the mid-1980s, as Donald Trump made his first forays into Atlantic City, Fred Trump devised a plan that sharply increased the flow of money to his son.

The plan involved the mini-empire — the eight buildings Fred Trump had transferred to his children. He converted seven of them into cooperatives, and helped his children convert the eighth. That meant inviting tenants to buy their apartments, generating a three-way windfall for Donald Trump and his siblings: from selling units, from renting unsold units and from collecting mortgage payments.

In 1982, Donald Trump made today’s equivalent of about $380,000 from the eight buildings. As the conversions continued and Fred Trump’s employees sold off more units, his son’s share of profits jumped, records show. By 1987, with the conversions completed, his son was making today’s equivalent of $4.5 million a year off the eight buildings.

Fred Trump made one other structural change to his empire that produced a big new source of revenue for Donald Trump and his siblings. He made them his bankers.

By Gabriel J.X. Dance, Susanne Craig, Brad Fisher, Tim Wallace and Greg Chen for The New York Times
The Times could find no evidence that the Trump children had to come up with money of their own to buy their father’s mortgages. Most were purchased from Fred Trump’s banks by trusts and partnerships that he set up and seeded with money.

Co-op sales, mortgage payments, ground leases — Fred Trump was a master at finding ways to enrich his children in general and Donald Trump in particular. Some ways were like slow-moving creeks. Others were rushing streams. A few were geysers. But as the decades passed they all joined into one mighty river of money. By 1990, The Times found, Fred Trump, the ultimate silent partner, had quietly transferred today’s equivalent of at least $46.2 million to his son.

Donald Trump took on a mien of invincibility. The stock market crashed in 1987 and the economy cratered. But he doubled down thanks in part to Fred Trump’s banks, which eagerly extended credit to the young Trump princeling. He bought the Plaza Hotel in 1988 for $407.5 million. He bought Eastern Airlines in 1989 for $365 million and called it Trump Shuttle. His newest casino, the Trump Taj Mahal, would need at least $1 million a day just to cover its debt.

The skeptics who questioned the wisdom of this debt-fueled spending spree were drowned out by one magazine cover after another marveling at someone so young taking such breathtaking risks. But whatever Donald Trump was gambling, not for one second was he at risk of losing out on a lifetime of frictionless, effortless wealth. Fred Trump had that bet covered.

THE SAFETY NET DEPLOYS
Bailouts, collateral, cash on hand — Fred Trump was prepared, and was not about to let bad bets sink his son.


Donald Trump at the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City. As the 1980s came to a close, many of his businesses, overloaded with debt, began to lose money. Ángel Franco/The New York Times
As the 1980s ended, Donald Trump’s big bets began to go bust. Trump Shuttle was failing to make loan payments within 15 months. The Plaza, drowning in debt, was bankrupt in four years. His Atlantic City casinos, also drowning in debt, tumbled one by one into bankruptcy.

What didn’t fail was the Trump safety net. Just as Donald Trump’s finances were crumbling, family partnerships and companies dramatically increased distributions to him and his siblings. Between 1989 and 1992, tax records show, four entities created by Fred Trump to support his children paid Donald Trump today’s equivalent of $8.3 million.

Fred Trump’s generosity also provided a crucial backstop when his son pleaded with bankers in 1990 for an emergency line of credit. With so many of his projects losing money, Donald Trump had few viable assets of his own making to pledge as collateral. What has never been publicly known is that he used his stakes in the mini-empire and the high-rise for the elderly in East Orange as collateral to help secure a $65 million loan.

Tax records also reveal that at the peak of Mr. Trump’s financial distress, his father extracted extraordinary sums from his empire. In 1990, Fred Trump’s income exploded to $49,638,928 — several times what he paid himself in other years in that era.

Fred Trump, former employees say, detested taking unnecessary distributions from his companies because he would have to pay income taxes on them. So why would a penny-pinching, tax-hating 85-year-old in the twilight of his career abruptly pull so much money out of his cherished properties, incurring a tax bill of $12.2 million?

The Times found no evidence that Fred Trump made any significant debt payments or charitable donations. The frugality he brought to business carried over to the rest of his life. According to ledgers of his personal spending, he spent a grand total of $8,562 in 1991 and 1992 on travel and entertainment. His extravagances, such as they were, consisted of buying his wife the odd gift from Antonovich Furs or hosting family celebrations at the Peter Luger Steak House in Brooklyn. His home on Midland Parkway in Jamaica Estates, Queens, built with unfussy brick like so many of his apartment buildings, had little to distinguish it from neighboring houses beyond the white columns and crest framing the front door.

There are, however, indications that he wanted plenty of cash on hand to bail out his son if need be.

Such was the case with the rescue mission at his son’s Trump’s Castle casino. Donald Trump had wildly overspent on renovations, leaving the property dangerously low on operating cash. Sure enough, neither Trump’s Castle nor its owner had the necessary funds to make an $18.4 million bond payment due in December 1990.

On Dec. 17, 1990, Fred Trump dispatched Howard Snyder, a trusted bookkeeper, to Atlantic City with a $3.35 million check. Mr. Snyder bought $3.35 million worth of casino chips and left without placing a bet. Apparently, even this infusion wasn’t sufficient, because that same day Fred Trump wrote a second check to Trump’s Castle, for $150,000, bank records show.

With this ruse — it was an illegal $3.5 million loan under New Jersey gaming laws, resulting in a $65,000 civil penalty — Donald Trump narrowly avoided defaulting on his bonds.

BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Both the son and the father were masters of manipulating the value of their assets, making them appear worth a lot or a little depending on their needs.


Donald and Fred Trump, photographed for a 1980s advertisement. Bill Truran/Alamy
As the chip episode demonstrated, father and son were of one mind about rules and regulations, viewing them as annoyances to be finessed or, when necessary, ignored. As described by family members and associates in interviews and sworn testimony, theirs was an intimate, endless confederacy sealed by blood, shared secrets and a Hobbesian view of what it took to dominate and win. They talked almost daily and saw each other most weekends. Donald Trump sat at his father’s right hand at family meals and participated in his father’s monthly strategy sessions with his closest advisers. Fred Trump was a silent, watchful presence at many of Donald Trump’s news conferences.

“I probably knew my father as well or better than anybody,” Donald Trump said in a 2000 deposition.

They were both fluent in the language of half-truths and lies, interviews and records show. They both delighted in transgressing without getting caught. They were both wizards at manipulating the value of their assets, making them appear worth a lot or a little depending on their needs.

Those talents came in handy when Fred Trump Jr. died, on Sept. 26, 1981, at age 42 from complications of alcoholism, leaving a son and a daughter. The executors of his estate were his father and his brother Donald.

Fred Trump Jr.’s largest asset was his stake in seven of the eight buildings his father had transferred to his children. The Trumps would claim that those properties were worth $90.4 million when they finished converting them to cooperatives within a few years of his death. At that value, his stake could have generated an estate tax bill of nearly $10 million.

But the tax return signed by Donald Trump and his father claimed that Fred Trump Jr.’s estate owed just $737,861. This result was achieved by lowballing all seven buildings. Instead of valuing them at $90.4 million, Fred and Donald Trump submitted appraisals putting them at $13.2 million.

Emblematic of their audacity was Park Briar, a 150-unit building in Queens. As it happened, 18 days before Fred Trump Jr.’s death, the Trump siblings had submitted Park Briar’s co-op conversion plan, stating under oath that the building was worth $17.1 million. Yet as Fred Trump Jr.’s executors, Donald Trump and his father claimed on the tax return that Park Briar was worth $2.9 million when Fred Trump Jr. died.


The Trump siblings put the value of the Park Briar complex in Queens at over $17 million before their brother Fred Trump Jr. died in 1981. But as the executors of his estate, Donald Trump and his father claimed on a tax return that it was worth only $2.9 million. Dave Sanders for The New York Times
This fantastical claim — that Park Briar should be taxed as if its value had fallen 83 percent in 18 days — slid past the I.R.S. with barely a protest. An auditor insisted the value should be increased by $100,000, to $3 million.

During the 1980s, Donald Trump became notorious for leaking word that he was taking positions in stocks, hinting of a possible takeover, and then either selling on the run-up or trying to extract lucrative concessions from the target company to make him go away. It was a form of stock manipulation with an unsavory label: “greenmailing.” The Times unearthed evidence that Mr. Trump enlisted his father as his greenmailing wingman.

On Jan. 26, 1989, Fred Trump bought 8,600 shares of Time Inc. for $934,854, his tax returns show. Seven days later, Dan Dorfman, a financial columnist known to be chatty with Donald Trump, broke the news that the younger Trump had “taken a sizable stake” in Time. Sure enough, Time’s shares jumped, allowing Fred Trump to make a $41,614 profit in two weeks.

Later that year, Fred Trump bought $5 million worth of American Airlines stock. Based on the share price — $81.74 — it appears he made the purchase shortly before Mr. Dorfman reported that Donald Trump was taking a stake in the company. Within weeks, the stock was over $100 a share. Had Fred Trump sold then, he would have made a quick $1.3 million. But he didn’t, and the stock sank amid skepticism about his son’s history of hyped takeover attempts that fizzled. Fred Trump sold his shares for a $1.7 million loss in January 1990. A week later, Mr. Dorfman reported that Donald Trump had sold, too.

With other family members, Fred Trump could be cantankerous and cruel, according to sworn testimony by his relatives. “This is the stupidest thing I ever heard of,” he’d snap when someone disappointed him. He was different with his son Donald. He might chide him — “Finish this job before you start that job,” he’d counsel — but more often, he looked for ways to forgive and accommodate.

By 1987, for example, Donald Trump’s loan debt to his father had grown to at least $11 million. Yet canceling the debt would have required Donald Trump to pay millions in taxes on the amount forgiven. Father and son found another solution, one never before disclosed, that appears to constitute both an unreported multimillion-dollar gift and a potentially illegal tax write-off.

In December 1987, records show, Fred Trump bought a 7.5 percent stake in Trump Palace, a 55-story condominium building his son was erecting on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Most, if not all, of his investment, which totaled $15.5 million, was made by exchanging his son’s unpaid debts for Trump Palace shares, records show.

Four years later, in December 1991, Fred Trump sold his entire stake in Trump Palace for just $10,000, his tax returns and financial statements reveal. Those documents do not identify who bought his stake. But other records indicate that he sold it back to his son.

Under state law, developers must file “offering plans” that identify to any potential condo buyer the project’s sponsors — in other words, its owners. The Trump Palace offering plan, submitted in November 1989, identified two owners: Donald Trump and his father. But under the same law, if Fred Trump had sold his stake to a third party, Donald Trump would have been required to identify the new owner in an amended offering plan filed with the state attorney general’s office. He did not do that, records show.

He did, however, sign a sworn affidavit a month after his father sold his stake. In the affidavit, submitted in a lawsuit over a Trump Palace contractor’s unpaid bill, Donald Trump identified himself as “the” owner of Trump Palace.

Under I.R.S. rules, selling shares worth $15.5 million to your son for $10,000 is tantamount to giving him a $15.49 million taxable gift. Fred Trump reported no such gift.

According to tax experts, the only circumstance that would not have required Fred Trump to report a gift was if Trump Palace had been effectively bankrupt when he unloaded his shares.

Yet Trump Palace was far from bankrupt.

Property records show that condo sales there were brisk in 1991. Trump Palace sold 57 condos for $52.5 million — 94 percent of the total asking price for those units.

Donald Trump himself proclaimed Trump Palace “the most financially secure condominium on the market today” in advertisements he placed in 1991 to rebut criticism from buyers who complained that his business travails could drag down Trump Palace, too. In December, 17 days before his father sold his shares, he placed an ad vouching for the wisdom of investing in Trump Palace: “Smart money says there has never been a better time.” 

By failing to tell the I.R.S. about his $15.49 million gift to his son, Fred Trump evaded the 55 percent tax on gifts, saving about $8 million. At the same time, he declared to the I.R.S. that Trump Palace was almost a complete loss — that he had walked away from a $15.5 million investment with just $10,000 to show for it.

Federal tax law prohibits deducting any loss from the sale of property between members of the same family, because of the potential for abuse. Yet Fred Trump appears to have done exactly that, dodging roughly $5 million more in income taxes.


In 1991, as Fred Trump was declaring his investment in his son’s Trump Palace project almost a complete loss, Donald Trump was telling the public there had never been a better time to buy in. Dave Sanders for The New York Times
The partnership between Fred and Donald Trump was not simply about the pursuit of riches. At its heart lay a more ambitious project, executed to perfection over decades — to create that origin story, the myth of Donald J. Trump, Self-Made Billionaire.

Donald Trump built the foundation for the myth in the 1970s by appropriating his father’s empire as his own. By the late 1980s, instead of appropriating the empire, he was diminishing it. “It wasn’t a great business, it was a good business,” he said, as if Fred Trump ran a chain of laundromats. Yes, he told interviewers, his father was a wonderful mentor, but given the limits of his business, the most he could manage was a $1 million loan, and even that had to be repaid with interest.

Through it all, Fred Trump played along. Never once did he publicly question his son’s claim about the $1 million loan. “Everything he touches seems to turn to gold,” he told The Times for that first profile in 1976. “He’s gone way beyond me, absolutely,” he said when The Times profiled his son again in 1983. But for all Fred Trump had done to build the myth of Donald Trump, Self-Made Billionaire, there was, it turned out, one line he would not allow his son to cross.

A FAMILY RECKONING
Donald Trump tried to change his ailing father’s will, prompting a backlash — but also a recognition that plans had to be set in motion before Fred Trump died.


The Trump siblings: from left, Robert, Elizabeth, Fred Jr., Donald and Maryanne. via Donald Trump campaign
Fred Trump had given careful thought to what would become of his empire after he died, and had hired one of the nation’s top estate lawyers to draft his will. But in December 1990, Donald Trump sent his father a document, drafted by one of his own lawyers, that sought to make significant changes to that will.

Fred Trump, then 85, had never before set eyes on the document, 12 pages of dense legalese. Nor had he authorized its preparation. Nor had he met the lawyer who drafted it.

Yet his son sent instructions that he needed to sign it immediately.

What happened next was described years later in sworn depositions by members of the Trump family during a dispute, later settled, over the inheritance Fred Trump left to Fred Jr.’s children. These depositions, obtained by The Times, reveal something startling: Fred Trump believed that the document potentially put his life’s work at risk.

The document, known as a codicil, did many things. It protected Donald Trump’s portion of the inheritance from his creditors and from his impending divorce settlement with his first wife, Ivana Trump. It strengthened provisions in the existing will making him the sole executor of his father’s estate. But more than any of the particulars, it was the entirety of the codicil and its presentation as a fait accompli that alarmed Fred Trump, the depositions show. He confided to family members that he viewed the codicil as an attempt to go behind his back and give his son total control over his affairs. He said he feared that it could let Donald Trump denude his empire, even using it as collateral to rescue his failing businesses. (It was, in fact, the very month of the $3.5 million casino rescue.)

As close as they were — or perhaps because they were so close — Fred Trump did not immediately confront his son. Instead he turned to his daughter Maryanne Trump Barry, then a federal judge whom he often consulted on legal matters. “This doesn’t pass the smell test,” he told her, she recalled during her deposition. When Judge Barry read the codicil, she reached the same conclusion. “Donald was in precarious financial straits by his own admission,” she said, “and Dad was very concerned as a man who worked hard for his money and never wanted any of it to leave the family.” (In a brief telephone interview, Judge Barry declined to comment.)

Fred Trump took prompt action to thwart his son. He dispatched his daughter to find new estate lawyers. One of them took notes on the instructions she passed on from her father: “Protect assets from DJT, Donald’s creditors.” The lawyers quickly drafted a new codicil stripping Donald Trump of sole control over his father’s estate. Fred Trump signed it immediately.

Clumsy as it was, Donald Trump’s failed attempt to change his father’s will brought a family reckoning about two related issues: Fred Trump’s declining health and his reluctance to relinquish ownership of his empire. Surgeons had removed a neck tumor a few years earlier, and he would soon endure hip replacement surgery and be found to have mild senile dementia. Yet for all the financial support he had lavished on his children, for all his abhorrence of taxes, Fred Trump had stubbornly resisted his advisers’ recommendations to transfer ownership of his empire to the children to minimize estate taxes.

With every passing year, the actuarial odds increased that Fred Trump would die owning apartment buildings worth many hundreds of millions of dollars, all of it exposed to the 55 percent estate tax. Just as exposed was the mountain of cash he was sitting on. His buildings, well maintained and carrying little debt, consistently produced millions of dollars a year in profits. Even after he paid himself $109.7 million from 1988 through 1993, his companies were holding $50 million in cash and investments, financial records show. Tens of millions of dollars more passed each month through a maze of personal accounts at Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, UBS, Bowery Savings and United Mizrahi, an Israeli bank.

Simply put, without immediate action, Fred Trump’s heirs faced the prospect of losing hundreds of millions of dollars to estate taxes.

Whatever their differences, the Trumps formulated a plan to avoid this fate. How they did it is a story never before told.

It is also a story in which Donald Trump played a central role. He took the lead in strategy sessions where the plan was devised with the consent and participation of his father and his father’s closest advisers, people who attended the meetings told The Times. Robert Trump, the youngest sibling and the beta to Donald’s alpha, was given the task of overseeing day-to-day details. After years of working for his brother, Robert Trump went to work for his father in late 1991.

The Trumps’ plan, executed over the next decade, blended traditional techniques — such as rewriting Fred Trump’s will to maximize tax avoidance — with unorthodox strategies that tax experts told The Times were legally dubious and, in some cases, appeared to be fraudulent. As a result, the Trump children would gain ownership of virtually all of their father’s buildings without having to pay a penny of their own. They would turn the mountain of cash into a molehill of cash. And hundreds of millions of dollars that otherwise would have gone to the United States Treasury would instead go to Fred Trump’s children.

‘A DISGUISED GIFT’
A family company let Fred Trump funnel money to his children by effectively overcharging himself for repairs and improvements on his properties.


Donald Trump in 1985. Neal Boenzi/The New York Times
One of the first steps came on Aug. 13, 1992, when the Trumps incorporated a company named All County Building Supply & Maintenance. 

All County had no corporate offices. Its address was the Manhasset, N.Y., home of John Walter, a favorite nephew of Fred Trump’s. Mr. Walter, who died in January, spent decades working for Fred Trump, primarily helping computerize his payroll and billing systems. He also was the unofficial keeper of Fred Trump’s personal and business papers, his basement crowded with boxes of old Trump financial records. John Walter and the four Trump children each owned 20 percent of All County, records show.

All County’s main purpose, The Times found, was to enable Fred Trump to make large cash gifts to his children and disguise them as legitimate business transactions, thus evading the 55 percent tax.

The way it worked was remarkably simple.

Each year Fred Trump spent millions of dollars maintaining and improving his properties. Some of the vendors who supplied his building superintendents and maintenance crews had been cashing Fred Trump’s checks for decades. Starting in August 1992, though, a different name began to appear on their checks — All County Building Supply & Maintenance.

Mr. Walter’s computer systems, meanwhile, churned out All County invoices that billed Fred Trump’s empire for those same services and supplies, with one difference: All County’s invoices were padded, marked up by 20 percent, or 50 percent, or even more, records show.

The Trump siblings split the markup, along with Mr. Walter.

The self-dealing at the heart of this arrangement was best illustrated by Robert Trump, whose father paid him a $500,000 annual salary. He approved many of the payments Fred Trump’s empire made to All County; he was also All County’s chief executive, as well as a co-owner. As for the work of All County — generating invoices — that fell to Mr. Walter, also on Fred Trump’s payroll, along with a personal assistant Mr. Walter paid to work on his side businesses.

Years later, in his deposition during the dispute over Fred Trump’s estate, Robert Trump would say that All County actually saved Fred Trump money by negotiating better deals. Given Fred Trump’s long experience expertly squeezing better prices out of contractors, it was a surprising claim. It was also not true.

The Times’s examination of thousands of pages of financial documents from Fred Trump’s buildings shows that his costs shot up once All County entered the picture.


A Trump company, formed ostensibly to help maintain Beach Haven Apartments in Brooklyn and other properties, siphoned cash from the empire free of gift taxes. Dave Sanders for The New York Times
Beach Haven Apartments illustrates how this happened: In 1991 and 1992, Fred Trump bought 78 refrigerator-stove combinations for Beach Haven from Long Island Appliance Wholesalers. The average price was $642.69. But in 1993, when he began paying All County for refrigerator-stove combinations, the price jumped by 46 percent. Likewise, the price he paid for trash-compacting services at Beach Haven increased 64 percent. Janitorial supplies went up more than 100 percent. Plumbing repairs and supplies rose 122 percent. And on it went in building after building. The more Fred Trump paid, the more All County made, which was precisely the plan.

While All County systematically overcharged Fred Trump for thousands of items, the job of negotiating with vendors fell, as it always had, to Fred Trump and his staff.

Leon Eastmond can attest to this.

Mr. Eastmond is the owner of A. L. Eastmond & Sons, a Bronx company that makes industrial boilers. In 1993, he and Fred Trump met at Gargiulo’s, an old-school Italian restaurant in Coney Island that was one of Fred Trump’s favorites, to hash out the price of 60 boilers. Fred Trump, accompanied by his secretary and Robert Trump, drove a hard bargain. After negotiating a 10 percent discount, he made one last demand: “I had to pay the tab,” Mr. Eastmond recalled with a chuckle.

There was no mention of All County. Mr. Eastmond first heard of the company when its checks started rolling in. “I remember opening my mail one day and out came a check for $100,000,” he recalled. “I didn’t recognize the company. I didn’t know who the hell they were.”

But as All County paid Mr. Eastmond the price negotiated by Fred Trump, its invoices to Fred Trump were padded by 20 to 25 percent, records obtained by The Times show. This added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of the 60 boilers, money that then flowed through All County to Fred Trump’s children without incurring any gift tax. 

All County’s owners devised another ruse to profit off Mr. Eastmond’s boilers. To win Fred Trump’s business, Mr. Eastmond had also agreed to provide mobile boilers for Fred Trump’s buildings free of charge while new boilers were being installed. Yet All County charged Fred Trump rent on the same mobile boilers Mr. Eastmond was providing free, along with hookup fees, disconnection fees, transportation fees and operating and maintenance fees, records show. These charges siphoned hundreds of thousands of dollars more from Fred Trump’s empire.

Mr. Walter, asked during a deposition why Fred Trump chose not to make himself one of All County’s owners, replied, “He said because he would have to pay a death tax on it.”

After being briefed on All County by The Times, Mr. Tritt, the University of Florida law professor, said the Trumps’ use of the company was “highly suspicious” and could constitute criminal tax fraud. “It certainly looks like a disguised gift,” he said.

While All County was all upside for Donald Trump and his siblings, it had an insidious downside for Fred Trump’s tenants.

As an owner of rent-stabilized buildings in New York, Fred Trump needed state approval to raise rents beyond the annual increases set by a government board. One way to justify a rent increase was to make a major capital improvement. It did not take much to get approval; an invoice or canceled check would do if the expense seemed reasonable.

The Trumps used the padded All County invoices to justify higher rent increases in Fred Trump’s rent-regulated buildings. Fred Trump, according to Mr. Walter, saw All County as a way to have his cake and eat it, too. If he used his “expert negotiating ability” to buy a $350 refrigerator for $200, he could raise the rent based only on that $200, not on the $350 sticker price “a normal person” would pay, Mr. Walter explained. All County was the way around this problem. “You have to understand the thinking that went behind this,” he said.

As Robert Trump acknowledged in his deposition, “The higher the markup would be, the higher the rent that might be charged.”

State records show that after All County’s creation, the Trumps got approval to raise rents on thousands of apartments by claiming more than $30 million in major capital improvements. Tenants repeatedly protested the increases, almost always to no avail, the records show.

One of the improvements most often cited by the Trumps: new boilers.

“All of this smells like a crime,” said Adam S. Kaufmann, a former chief of investigations for the Manhattan district attorney’s office who is now a partner at the law firm Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss. While the statute of limitations has long since lapsed, Mr. Kaufmann said the Trumps’ use of All County would have warranted investigation for defrauding tenants, tax fraud and filing false documents.

Mr. Harder, the president’s lawyer, disputed The Times’s reporting: “Should The Times state or imply that President Trump participated in fraud, tax evasion or any other crime, it will be exposing itself to substantial liability and damages for defamation.”

All County was not the only company the Trumps set up to drain cash from Fred Trump’s empire. A lucrative income source for Fred Trump was the management fees he charged his buildings. His primary management company, Trump Management, earned $6.8 million in 1993 alone. The Trumps found a way to redirect those fees to the children, too.

On Jan. 21, 1994, they created a company called Apartment Management Associates Inc., with a mailing address at Mr. Walter’s Manhasset home. Two months later, records show, Apartment Management started collecting fees that had previously gone to Trump Management.

The only difference was that Donald Trump and his siblings owned Apartment Management.

Between All County and Apartment Management, Fred Trump’s mountain of cash was rapidly dwindling. By 1998, records show, All County and Apartment Management were generating today’s equivalent of $2.2 million a year for each of the Trump children. Whatever income tax they owed on this money, it was considerably less than the 55 percent tax Fred Trump would have owed had he simply given each of them $2.2 million a year.

But these savings were trivial compared with those that would come when Fred Trump transferred his empire — the actual bricks and mortar — to his children.

THE ALCHEMY OF VALUE
The transfer of most of Fred Trump’s empire to his children began with a ‘friendly’ appraisal and an incredible shrinking act.


Father and son in the 1980s. Together, they crafted a narrative around Donald Trump’s wealth. “Everything he touches seems to turn to gold,” Fred Trump told The Times in 1976. Bernard Gotfryd/Getty Images
In his 90th year, Fred Trump still showed up at work a few days a week, ever dapper in suit and tie. But he had trouble remembering names — his dementia was getting worse — and he could get confused. In May 1995, with an unsteady hand, he signed documents granting Robert Trump power of attorney to act “in my name, place and stead.”

Six months later, on Nov. 22, the Trumps began transferring ownership of most of Fred Trump’s empire. (A few properties were excluded.) The instrument they used to do this was a special type of trust with a clunky acronym only a tax lawyer could love: GRAT, short for grantor-retained annuity trust.

GRATs are one of the tax code’s great gifts to the ultrawealthy. They let dynastic families like the Trumps pass wealth from one generation to the next — be it stocks, real estate, even art collections — without paying a dime of estate taxes.

The details are numbingly complex, but the mechanics are straightforward. For the Trumps, it meant putting half the properties to be transferred into a GRAT in Fred Trump’s name and the other half into a GRAT in his wife’s name. Then Fred and Mary Trump gave their children roughly two-thirds of the assets in their GRATs. The children bought the remaining third by making annuity payments to their parents over the next two years. By Nov. 22, 1997, it was done; the Trump children owned nearly all of Fred Trump’s empire free and clear of estate taxes.

As for gift taxes, the Trumps found a way around those, too.

The entire transaction turned on one number: the market value of Fred Trump’s empire. This determined the amount of gift taxes Fred and Mary Trump owed for the portion of the empire they gave to their children. It also determined the amount of annuity payments their children owed for the rest.

The I.R.S. recognizes that GRATs create powerful incentives to greatly undervalue assets, especially when those assets are not publicly traded stocks with transparent prices. Indeed, every $10 million reduction in the valuation of Fred Trump’s empire would save the Trumps either $10 million in annuity payments or $5.5 million in gift taxes. This is why the I.R.S. requires families taking advantage of GRATs to submit independent appraisals and threatens penalties for those who lowball valuations.

In practice, though, gift tax returns get little scrutiny from the I.R.S. It is an open secret among tax practitioners that evasion of gift taxes is rampant and rarely prosecuted. Punishment, such as it is, usually consists of an auditor’s requiring a tax payment closer to what should have been paid in the first place. “GRATs are typically structured so that no tax is due, which means the I.R.S. has reduced incentive to audit them,” said Mitchell Gans, a professor of tax law at Hofstra University. “So if a gift is in fact undervalued, it may very well go unnoticed.”

This appears to be precisely what the Trumps were counting on. The Times found evidence that the Trumps dodged hundreds of millions of dollars in gift taxes by submitting tax returns that grossly undervalued the real estate assets they placed in Fred and Mary Trump’s GRATs.

According to Fred Trump’s 1995 gift tax return, obtained by The Times, the Trumps claimed that properties including 25 apartment complexes with 6,988 apartments — and twice the floor space of the Empire State Building — were worth just $41.4 million. The implausibility of this claim would be made plain in 2004, when banks put a valuation of nearly $900 million on that same real estate.

The methods the Trumps used to pull off this incredible shrinking act were hatched in the strategy sessions Donald Trump participated in during the early 1990s, documents and interviews show. Their basic strategy had two components: Get what is widely known as a “friendly” appraisal of the empire’s worth, then drive that number even lower by changing the ownership structure to make the empire look less valuable to the I.R.S.

A crucial step was finding a property appraiser attuned to their needs. As anyone who has ever bought or sold a home knows, appraisers can arrive at sharply different valuations depending on their methods and assumptions. And like stock analysts, property appraisers have been known to massage those methods and assumptions in ways that coincide with their clients’ interests.

The Trumps used Robert Von Ancken, a favorite of New York City’s big real estate families. Over a 45-year career, Mr. Von Ancken has appraised many of the city’s landmarks, including Rockefeller Center, the World Trade Center, the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building. Donald Trump recruited him after Fred Trump Jr. died and the family needed friendly appraisals to help shield the estate from taxes.

Mr. Von Ancken appraised the 25 apartment complexes and other properties in the Trumps’ GRATs and concluded that their total value was $93.9 million, tax records show.

To assess the accuracy of those valuations, The Times examined the prices paid for comparable apartment buildings that sold within a year of Mr. Von Ancken’s appraisals. A pattern quickly emerged. Again and again, buildings in the same neighborhood as Trump buildings sold for two to four times as much per square foot as Mr. Von Ancken’s appraisals, even when the buildings were decades older, had fewer amenities and smaller apartments, and were deemed less valuable by city property tax appraisers.

Mr. Von Ancken valued Argyle Hall, a six-story brick Trump building in Brooklyn, at $9.04 per square foot. Six blocks away, another six-story brick building, two decades older, had sold a few months earlier for nearly $30 per square foot. He valued Belcrest Hall, a Trump building in Queens, at $8.57 per square foot. A few blocks away, another six-story brick building, four decades older with apartments a third smaller, sold for $25.18 per square foot.


Fred Trump’s 1995 gift tax return valued the Fiesta Apartments, left, in Brooklyn, at $18.30 per square foot. A similar building a few minutes away sold the next year for nearly four times as much: $67.08 per square foot. New York City Municipal Archives
The pattern persisted with Fred Trump’s higher-end buildings. Mr. Von Ancken appraised Lawrence Towers, a Trump building in Brooklyn with spacious balcony apartments, at $24.54 per square foot. A few months earlier, an apartment building abutting car repair shops a mile away, with units 20 percent smaller, had sold for $48.23 per square foot.

The Times found even starker discrepancies when comparing the GRAT appraisals against appraisals commissioned by the Trumps when they had an incentive to show the highest possible valuations.

Such was the case with Patio Gardens, a complex of nearly 500 apartments in Brooklyn.

Of all Fred Trump’s properties, Patio Gardens was one of the least profitable, which may be why he decided to use it as a tax deduction. In 1992, he donated Patio Gardens to the National Kidney Foundation of New York/New Jersey, one of the largest charitable donations he ever made. The greater the value of Patio Gardens, the bigger his deduction. The appraisal cited in Fred Trump’s 1992 tax return valued Patio Gardens at $34 million, or $61.90 a square foot.

By contrast, Mr. Von Ancken’s GRAT appraisals found that the crown jewels of Fred Trump’s empire, Beach Haven and Shore Haven, with five times as many apartments as Patio Gardens, were together worth just $23 million, or $11.01 per square foot.

In an interview, Mr. Von Ancken said that because neither he nor The Times had the working papers that described how he arrived at his valuations, there was simply no way to evaluate the methodologies behind his numbers. “There would be explanations within the appraisals to justify all the values,” he said, adding, “Basically, when we prepare these things, we feel that these are going to be presented to the Internal Revenue Service for their review, and they better be right.”

Of all the GRAT appraisals Mr. Von Ancken did for the Trumps, the most startling was for 886 rental apartments in two buildings at Trump Village, a complex in Coney Island. Mr. Von Ancken claimed that they were worth less than nothing — negative $5.9 million, to be exact. These were the same 886 units that city tax assessors valued that same year at $38.1 million, and that a bank would value at $106.6 million in 2004.


The Trumps’ appraiser used two Trump Village buildings’ temporary dip into the red to claim they were worth negative $5.9 million. Dave Sanders for The New York Times
It appears Mr. Von Ancken arrived at his negative valuation by departing from the methodology that he has repeatedly testified is most appropriate for properties like Trump Village, where past years’ profits are a poor gauge of future value.

In 1992, the Trumps had removed the two Trump Village buildings from an affordable housing program so they could raise rents and increase their profits. But doing so cost them a property tax exemption, which temporarily put the buildings in the red. The methodology described by Mr. Von Ancken would have disregarded this blip into the red and valued the buildings based on the higher rents the Trumps would be charging. Mr. Von Ancken, however, appears to have based his valuation on the blip, producing an appraisal that, taken at face value, meant Fred Trump would have had to pay someone millions of dollars to take the property off his hands.

Mr. Von Ancken told The Times that he did not recall which appraisal method he used on the two Trump Village buildings. “I can only say that we value the properties based on market information, and based on the expected income and expenses of the building and what they would sell for,” he said. As for the enormous gaps between his valuation and the 1995 city property tax appraisal and the 2004 bank valuation, he argued that such comparisons were pointless. “I can’t say what happened afterwards,” he said. “Maybe they increased the income tremendously.”

THE MINORITY OWNER
To further whittle the empire’s valuation, the family created the appearance that Fred Trump held only 49.8 percent.


Donald Trump with his mother, Mary, and his father. The empire was split up among the parents and children to create the impression that Fred Trump was a minority owner, decreasing its value on paper and minimizing taxes. RTalensick/MediaPunch, via Alamy
Armed with Mr. Von Ancken’s $93.9 million appraisal, the Trumps focused on slashing even this valuation by changing the ownership structure of Fred Trump’s empire.

The I.R.S. has long accepted the idea that ownership with control is more valuable than ownership without control. Someone with a controlling interest in a building can decide if and when the building is sold, how it is marketed and what price to accept. However, since someone who owns, say, 10 percent of a $100 million building lacks control over any of those decisions, the I.R.S. will let him claim that his stake should be taxed as if it were worth only $7 million or $8 million.

But Fred Trump had exercised total control over his empire for more than seven decades. With rare exceptions, he owned 100 percent of his buildings. So the Trumps set out to create the fiction that Fred Trump was a minority owner. All it took was splitting the ownership structure of his empire. Fred and Mary Trump each ended up with 49.8 percent of the corporate entities that owned his buildings. The other 0.4 percent was split among their four children.

Splitting ownership into minority interests is a widely used method of tax avoidance. There is one circumstance, however, where it has at times been found to be illegal. It involves what is known in tax law as the step transaction doctrine — where it can be shown that the corporate restructuring was part of a rapid sequence of seemingly separate maneuvers actually conceived and executed to dodge taxes. A key issue, according to tax experts, is timing — in the Trumps’ case, whether they split up Fred Trump’s empire just before they set up the GRATs.

In all, the Trumps broke up 12 corporate entities to create the appearance of minority ownership. The Times could not determine when five of the 12 companies were divided. But records reveal that the other seven were split up just before the GRATs were established.

The pattern was clear. For decades, the companies had been owned solely by Fred Trump, each operating a different apartment complex or shopping center. In September 1995, the Trumps formed seven new limited liability companies. Between Oct. 31 and Nov. 8, they transferred the deeds to the seven properties into their respective L.L.C.’s. On Nov. 21, they recorded six of the deed transfers in public property records. (The seventh was recorded on Nov. 24.) And on Nov. 22, 49.8 percent of the shares in these seven L.L.C.’s was transferred into Fred Trump’s GRAT and 49.8 percent into Mary Trump’s GRAT.

That enabled the Trumps to slash Mr. Von Ancken’s valuation in a way that was legally dubious. They claimed that Fred and Mary Trump’s status as minority owners, plus the fact that a building couldn’t be sold as easily as a share of stock, entitled them to lop 45 percent off Mr. Von Ancken’s $93.9 million valuation. This claim, combined with $18.3 million more in standard deductions, completed the alchemy of turning real estate that would soon be valued at nearly $900 million into $41.4 million.

According to tax experts, claiming a 45 percent discount was questionable even back then, and far higher than the 20 to 30 percent discount the I.R.S. would allow today.

As it happened, the Trumps’ GRATs did not completely elude I.R.S. scrutiny. Documents obtained by The Times reveal that the I.R.S. audited Fred Trump’s 1995 gift tax return and concluded that Fred Trump and his wife had significantly undervalued the assets being transferred through their GRATs.

The I.R.S. determined that the Trumps’ assets were worth $57.1 million, 38 percent more than the couple had claimed. From the perspective of an I.R.S. auditor, pulling in nearly $5 million in additional revenue could be considered a good day’s work. For the Trumps, getting the I.R.S. to agree that Fred Trump’s properties were worth only $57.1 million was a triumph.

“All estate matters were handled by licensed attorneys, licensed C.P.A.s and licensed real estate appraisers who followed all laws and rules strictly,” Mr. Harder, the president’s lawyer, said in his statement.

In the end, the transfer of the Trump empire cost Fred and Mary Trump $20.5 million in gift taxes and their children $21 million in annuity payments. That is hundreds of millions of dollars less than they would have paid based on the empire’s market value, The Times found.

Better still for the Trump children, they did not have to pay out a penny of their own. They simply used their father’s empire as collateral to secure a line of credit from M&T Bank. They used the line of credit to make the $21 million in annuity payments, then used the revenue from their father’s empire to repay the money they had borrowed.

On the day the Trump children finally took ownership of Fred Trump’s empire, Donald Trump’s net worth instantly increased by many tens of millions of dollars. And from then on, the profits from his father’s empire would flow directly to him and his siblings. The next year, 1998, Donald Trump’s share amounted to today’s equivalent of $9.6 million, The Times found.

This sudden influx of wealth came only weeks after he had published “The Art of the Comeback.”

“I learned a lot about myself during these hard times,” he wrote. “I learned about handling pressure. I was able to home in, buckle down, get back to the basics, and make things work. I worked much harder, I focused, and I got myself out of a box.”

Over 244 pages he did not mention that he was being handed nearly 25 percent of his father’s empire.

REMNANTS OF EMPIRE
After Fred Trump’s death, his children used familiar methods to devalue what little of his life’s work was still in his name.


Fred Trump’s portrait hangs at Trump Grill inside Trump Tower. Dave Sanders for The New York Times
During Fred Trump’s final years, dementia stole most of his memories. When family visited, there was one name he could reliably put to a face.

Donald.

On June 7, 1999, Fred Trump was admitted to Long Island Jewish Medical Center, not far from the house in Jamaica Estates, for treatment of pneumonia. He died there on June 25, at the age of 93.

Fifteen months later, Fred Trump’s executors — Donald, Maryanne and Robert — filed his estate tax return. The return, obtained by The Times, vividly illustrates the effectiveness of the tax strategies devised by the Trumps in the early 1990s.

Fred Trump, one of the most prolific New York developers of his time, owned just five apartment complexes, two small strip malls and a scattering of co-ops in the city upon his death. The man who paid himself $50 million in 1990 died with just $1.9 million in the bank. He owned not a single stock, bond or Treasury bill. According to his estate tax return, his most valuable asset was a $10.3 million I.O.U. from Donald Trump, money his son appears to have borrowed the year before Fred Trump died.

The bulk of Fred Trump’s empire was nowhere to be found on his estate tax return. And yet Donald Trump and his siblings were not done. Recycling the legally dubious techniques they had mastered with the GRATs, they dodged tens of millions of dollars in estate taxes on the remnants of empire that Fred Trump still owned when he died, The Times found.

As with the GRATs, they obtained appraisals from Mr. Von Ancken that grossly understated the actual market value of those remnants. And as with the GRATs, they aggressively discounted Mr. Von Ancken’s appraisals. The result: They claimed that the five apartment complexes and two strip malls were worth $15 million. In 2004, records show, bankers would put a value of $176.2 million on the exact same properties.

The most improbable of these valuations was for Tysens Park Apartments, a complex of eight buildings with 1,019 units on Staten Island. On the portion of the estate tax return where they were required to list Tysens Park’s value, the Trumps simply left a blank space and claimed they owed no estate taxes on it at all. 

As with the Trump Village appraisal, the Trumps appear to have hidden key facts from the I.R.S. Tysens Park, like Trump Village, had operated for years under an affordable housing program that by law capped Fred Trump’s profits. This cap drastically reduced the property’s market value.


Leaving a blank space on Fred Trump’s estate tax return, the Trumps indicated that they owed no estate taxes on the Tysens Park complex on Staten Island. Dave Sanders for The New York Times
Except for one thing: The Trumps had removed Tysens Park from the affordable housing program the year before Fred Trump died, The Times found. When Donald Trump and his siblings filed Fred Trump’s estate tax return, there were no limits on their profits. In fact, they had already begun raising rents.

As their father’s executors, Donald, Maryanne and Robert were legally responsible for the accuracy of his estate tax return. They were obligated not only to give the I.R.S. a complete accounting of the value of his estate’s assets, but also to disclose all the taxable gifts he made during his lifetime, including, for example, the $15.5 million Trump Palace gift to Donald Trump and the millions of dollars he gave his children via All County’s padded invoices.

“If they knew anything was wrong they could be in violation of tax law,” Mr. Tritt, the University of Florida law professor, said. “They can’t just stick their heads in the sand.”

In addition to drastically understating the value of apartment complexes and shopping centers, Fred Trump’s estate tax return made no mention of either Trump Palace or All County.

It wasn’t until after Fred Trump’s wife, Mary, died at 88 on Aug. 7, 2000, that the I.R.S. completed its audit of their combined estates. The audit concluded that their estates were worth $51.8 million, 23 percent more than Donald Trump and his siblings had claimed.

That meant an additional $5.2 million in estate taxes. Even so, the Trumps’ tax bill was a fraction of what they would have owed had they reported the market value of what Fred and Mary Trump owned at the time of their deaths.

Mr. Harder, the president’s lawyer, defended the tax returns filed by the Trumps. “The returns and tax positions that The Times now attacks were examined in real time by the relevant taxing authorities,” he said. “The taxing authorities requested a few minor adjustments, which were made, and then fully approved all of the tax filings. These matters have now been closed for more than a decade.”

A GOOD TIME TO SELL
Donald Trump, in financial trouble again, pitched the idea of selling the still-profitable empire that his father had wanted to keep in the family.

In 2003, the Trump siblings gathered at Trump Tower for one of their periodic updates on their inherited empire.

As always, Robert Trump drove into Manhattan with several of his lieutenants. Donald Trump appeared with Allen H. Weisselberg, who had worked for Fred Trump for two decades before becoming his son’s chief financial officer. The sisters, Maryanne Trump Barry and Elizabeth Trump Grau, were there as well.

The meeting followed the usual routine: a financial report, a rundown of operational issues and then the real business — distributing profits to each Trump. The task of handing out the checks fell to Steve Gurien, the empire’s finance chief.

A moment later, Donald Trump abruptly changed the course of his family’s history: He said it was a good time to sell.

Fred Trump’s empire, in fact, was continuing to produce healthy profits, and selling contradicted his stated wish to keep his legacy in the family. But Donald Trump insisted that the real estate market had peaked and that the time was right, according to a person familiar with the meeting.

He was also, once again, in financial trouble. His Atlantic City casinos were veering toward another bankruptcy. His creditors would soon threaten to oust him unless he committed to invest $55 million of his own money.

Yet if Donald Trump’s sudden push to sell stunned the room, it met with no apparent resistance from his siblings. He directed his brother to solicit private bids, saying he wanted the sale handled quickly and quietly. Donald Trump’s signature skill — drumming up publicity for the Trump brand — would sit this one out.

Three potential bidders were given access to the finances of Fred Trump’s empire — 37 apartment complexes and several shopping centers. Ruby Schron, a major New York City landlord, quickly emerged as the favorite. In December 2003, Mr. Schron called Donald Trump and they came to an agreement; Mr. Schron paid $705.6 million for most of the empire, which included paying off the Trumps’ mortgages. A few remaining properties were sold to other buyers, bringing the total sales price to $737.9 million.

On May 4, 2004, the Trump children spent most of the day signing away ownership of what their father had doggedly built over 70 years. The sale received little news coverage, and an article in The Staten Island Advance included the rarest of phrases: “Trump did not return a phone call seeking comment.”

Even more extraordinary was this unreported fact: The banks financing Mr. Schron’s purchase valued Fred Trump’s empire at nearly $1 billion. In other words, Donald Trump, master dealmaker, sold his father’s empire for hundreds of millions less than it was worth.

Within a year of the sale, Mr. Trump spent $149 million in cash on a rapid series of transactions that bolstered his billionaire bona fides. In June 2004 he agreed to pay $73 million to buy out his partner in the planned Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago. (“I’m just buying it with my own cash,” he told reporters.) He paid $55 million in cash to make peace with his casino creditors. Then he put up $21 million more in cash to help finance his purchase of Maison de l’Amitié, a waterfront mansion in Palm Beach, Fla., that he later sold to a Russian oligarch.

*****

The first season of “The Apprentice” was broadcast in 2004, just as Donald Trump was wrapping up the sale of his father’s empire. The show’s opening montage — quick cuts of a glittering Trump casino, then Trump Tower, then a Trump helicopter mid-flight, then a limousine depositing the man himself at the steps of his jet, all set to the song “For the Love of Money” — is a reminder that the story of Donald Trump is fundamentally a story of money.

Money is at the core of the brand Mr. Trump has so successfully sold to the world. Yet essential to that mythmaking has been keeping the truth of his money — how much of it he actually has, where and whom it came from — hidden or obscured. Across the decades, aided and abetted by less-than-aggressive journalism, Mr. Trump has made sure his financial history would be sensationalized far more than seen.


In the narrative Donald Trump has long put forth, money is central; absent has been the critical financial role played by his father, whose photograph sits alongside his mother’s in the Oval Office. Doug Mills/The New York Times
Just this year, in a confessional essay for The Washington Post, Jonathan Greenberg, a former reporter for Forbes, described how Mr. Trump, identifying himself as John Barron, a spokesman for Donald Trump, repeatedly and flagrantly lied to get himself on the magazine’s first-ever list of wealthiest Americans in 1982. Because of Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, the public has been left to interpret contradictory glimpses of his income offered up by anonymous leaks. A few pages from one tax return, mailed to The Times in September 2016, showed that he declared a staggering loss of $916 million in 1995. A couple of pages from another return, disclosed on Rachel Maddow’s program, showed that he earned an impressive $150 million in 2005.

In a statement to The Times, the president’s spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, reiterated what Mr. Trump has always claimed about the evolution of his fortune: “The president’s father gave him an initial $1 million loan, which he paid back. President Trump used this money to build an incredibly successful company as well as net worth of over $10 billion, including owning some of the world’s greatest real estate.”

Today, the chasm between that claim of being worth more than $10 billion and a Bloomberg estimate of $2.8 billion reflects the depth of uncertainty that remains about one of the most chronicled public figures in American history. Questions about newer money sources are rapidly accumulating because of the Russia investigation and lawsuits alleging that Mr. Trump is violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign governments.

But the more than 100,000 pages of records obtained during this investigation make it possible to sweep away decades of misinformation and arrive at a clear understanding about the original source of Mr. Trump’s wealth — his father.

Here is what can be said with certainty: Had Mr. Trump done nothing but invest the money his father gave him in an index fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500, he would be worth $1.96 billion today. As for that $1 million loan, Fred Trump actually lent him at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars, The Times found.

And there is one more Fred Trump windfall coming Donald Trump’s way. Starrett City, the Brooklyn housing complex that the Trumps invested in back in the 1970s, sold this year for $905 million. Donald Trump’s share of the proceeds is expected to exceed $16 million, records show.

It was an investment made with Fred Trump’s money and connections. But in Donald Trump’s version of his life, Starrett City is always and forever “one of the best investments I ever made.”


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I doubt this story is as significant as they'd have you believe since we never heard about it during the election but in either case I'm a big believer in keeping as much of your money away from the government as you possibly can so that your family can have the best life possible.  The government sucks. Family is everything.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

One thing can never be disputed about Donald Trump and that's he's easily one of the greatest self-promoters of any American ever and is clearly the best one of this era, which has to make him one of the best ever.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm










big if true


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm
> 
> Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm
> 
> ...


Did you read what he said?

He said Ford told her what a polygraph entails? How is that big lol


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Did you read what he said?
> 
> He said Ford told her what a polygraph entails? How is that big lol




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1047304183286829057
I rescind my statement that I believe Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted. I no longer believe (or disbelieve) that she was. If she lied about this AND defrauded her ex-boyfriend, that really damages her character and trustworthiness. 

The key word is 'if', of course. Just like Dr. Ford's allegations, her ex-boyfriend's claims are also uncorroborated. That said, they're just as credible as Dr. Ford's testimony until proven otherwise.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1047304183286829057
> I rescind my statement that I believe Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted. I no longer believe (or disbelieve) that she was. If she lied about this AND defrauded her ex-boyfriend, that really damages her character and trustworthiness.
> 
> The key word is 'if', of course. Just like Dr. Ford's allegations, her ex-boyfriend's claims are also uncorroborated. That said, they're just as credible as Dr. Ford's testimony until proven otherwise.


They will need to check with her friend on the polygraph test thing, everything else the friend said is just noise, LOL at the plane thing again, and no shit he didn't tell her, she said she never told anyone until 2012. so he is just backing up her claim she never told anyone lol As for hearing cheating on him and using his CC after she was taken off those are irrelevant to this case. 

So with all the lies BK he said and this comes out about Ford, if true who do you find more credible? Note- It just came out how he lied about not knowing about the Ramirez allegations before the nymag story came out, yet he did, and was ever talking to friends about it and trying to get them on his side.

it looks like this has been known since July. So wonder if this is the allegation Mitch was worried about and why it could be difficult to confirm BK.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Perhaps when you are getting grilled live with 50 million people watching and listening in a highly charged tense atmosphere you aren't perfect in your remarks. And you shouldn't be crucified for it unless mendacity can be sufficiently proven.

Nah that's silly of course. 

In a more reasonable world, none of this would have ever happened. No one can corroborate any of the claims made against Kavanaugh. Ford's should have died before they ever saw the light of day. Feinstein sat on Ford's letter initially in part because she had doubts. Too bad she didn't heed them. Now it's The Most Important Thing There Is, and how much a man drank in college 30 years ago and whether a woman and he lied about sheer trivialities are The Most Important Parts of The Most Important Thing There Is.

It's shameful. At least the Chinese do their high level purges and struggle sessions mostly behind closed doors these days. The only things we've got are: those who lose don't have the boot of the State squashing them after, and we go after individuals, not whole groups. Which are no small things but it doesn't excuse the purges and struggle sessions, or their brazenly public manner.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Perhaps when you are getting grilled live with 50 million people watching and listening in a highly charged tense atmosphere you aren't perfect in your remarks. And you shouldn't be crucified for it unless mendacity can be sufficiently proven.
> 
> Nah that's silly of course.
> 
> ...


I love how you keep claiming no one can corroborate any of the claims made against Kavanaugh yet his calendar may very well do just that

she said this happened at a party with BK, Judge, PJ and some other boy, it was during a weekday and it happened about 6-8 weeks before she saw Judge working at that store. 

Well BK lied and said there was never a party like that and he never drank on weekdays yet on his calendar on July first, a weekday there is a party with 3 of those people there. And if you back day the time they saw Judge worked at safeway, that July first date falls right there.

Now if they can see if the house that party was at looks like the one that Ford described that is more collaboration. There is a reason why once BK saw Mitchell asking about that July first date and who was at teh party that matched what Ford said he quickly moved to a different event on the calendar. Its also why the GOP took her off asking questions because they saw she was making the case for the dems. It also why they did that whole distraction with Graham going off like a madman. 

So lets stop pretending there is nothing that collaborates what Ford said what Ford said when his calendar does.

And stop lying that Feinstein sat on Ford's letter initially in part because she had doubts, she sad on it because Ford wanted to stay private but someone leaked it, and it looks like one of Fords friend went to the press about it.

And LYING under oath is super important, especially when its an interview to be on the SCOTUS. There is a reason why he keeps lying about his drinking at college and what those sexual names were and what the RENATE Alumini really meant.

If he was innocent, all he had to say was yeah, I drank a lot in HS and college, and said some stupid shit that I feel terrible about, but that does not mean I sexually asaulted Ford. But he lied about all of that, why do you think that is?

And he couldn't even ask for an FBI investigation when asked. Why do you think that is?

Someone that has something to hide does not do that.


Also there is a shit load of things coming out about the Ramirez assault as well. As well as more people now backing up what Swetnick has been claiming.


And what do you call that? More corroborating evidence


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Trump is straight up savage, not in a good way mind, but he's mocked a reporter one day in front of his cackling band of old white men then ridiculed a potential victim of sexual assault. 

It's just so unpresidential but I guess his voter base gobble it up.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you keep claiming no one can corroborate any of the claims made against Kavanaugh yet his calendar may very well do just that
> 
> she said this happened at a party with BK, Judge, PJ and some other boy, it was during a weekday and it happened about 6-8 weeks before she saw Judge working at that store.
> 
> ...


Nope.Still exactly nothing to corroborate her claims.The party in question does nothing of the sort.

"Ford acknowledged on Thursday that she “went out with” Kavanaugh’s friend “Squi,” a.k.a. Chris Garrett, another invitee to the party, for a few months around that time. As RB says, how would she not have remembered Squi being at the party if she remembered Smyth, her friend Leland Ingham Keyser, and another boy whose name she can’t recall as being there? She remembered some random dude but not the guy she was dating? It’s inexplicable."

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/29/problem-dems-july-1-1982-entry-kavanaughs-calendar/




> The potential significance of this event is that it is the only party or gathering listed on Kavanaugh’s calendar at which both Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth were listed as present, and Judge and Smyth are two people alleged by Ford to have been in attendance at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted.
> 
> But the house where this gathering took place (according to Kavanaugh’s calendar) does not appear to match the description offered by Ford in her recollection of events, and there are other reasons to be skeptical of the theory put forward by Senator Whitehouse and several left-leaning journalists.



https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/was-blasey-ford-at-a-july-1-1982-party-with-kavanaugh






> And stop lying that Feinstein sat on Ford's letter initially in part because she had doubts, she sad on it because Ford wanted to stay private but someone leaked it, and it looks like one of Fords friend went to the press about it.
> 
> And LYING under oath is super important, especially when its an interview to be on the SCOTUS. There is a reason why he keeps lying about his drinking at college and what those sexual names were and what the RENATE Alumini really meant.
> 
> If he was innocent, all he had to say was yeah, I drank a lot in HS and college, and said some stupid shit that I feel terrible about, but that does not mean I sexually asaulted Ford. But he lied about all of that, why do you think that is?


But he did say exactly this:

"I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did.* Sometimes I had too many beers.* Sometimes, others did," Kavanaugh said. "I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone."

He said, "there is a bright line between drinking beer, which I gladly do, and which I fully embrace, and sexually assaulting someone, which is a violent crime." 



"what those sexual names were"

Do i need to explain to you that ECW's ONS is not in fact a ppv about single night sexual encounter?





> And he couldn't even ask for an FBI investigation when asked. Why do you think that is?
> 
> 
> Someone that has something to hide does not do that.


Because it's a delay tactic and his family has already been through enough.And in the words of Joe Biden:



> “The next person that refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn’t understand anything,” Biden said. “FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion. Period.”
> 
> “The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report — you wouldn’t like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say, ‘he said, she said, and they said.’ Period,” Biden continued.
> 
> “So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand they do not, they do not reach conclusions,” Biden said.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...conduct-investigations-joe-biden-said-in-1991







> Also there is a shit load of things coming out about the Ramirez assault as well. As well as more people now backing up what Swetnick has been claiming.
> 
> 
> And what do you call that? More corroborating evidence


LMAO, nope.Swetnick already contradicted herself and some of her exes and others have accused her of being full of shit.



> “I saw him [Kavanaugh] giving red Solo cups to quite a few girls during that time frame,” she told NBC News on Monday night. “I would not take one of those glasses from Mark Kavanaugh — Brett Kavanaugh, excuse me.”
> 
> She added, “I saw him around the punch … I don’t know what he did, but I saw him by them, yes.”
> 
> ...


https://nypost.com/2018/10/02/third-kavanaugh-accuser-backs-away-from-some-of-her-gang-rape-claims/


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Nope.Still exactly nothing to corroborate her claims.The party in question does nothing of the sort.
> 
> "Ford acknowledged on Thursday that she “went out with” Kavanaugh’s friend “Squi,” a.k.a. Chris Garrett, another invitee to the party, for a few months around that time. As RB says, how would she not have remembered Squi being at the party if she remembered Smyth, her friend Leland Ingham Keyser, and another boy whose name she can’t recall as being there? She remembered some random dude but not the guy she was dating? It’s inexplicable."
> 
> https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/...ughs-calendar/


Of course that corroborate her claim, the people she remembered being at the party where on his calendar, and the date matches up around the time she remembers seeing Judge at the safeway. So tell me how she would just be able to guess that right?

As for your excuse about Squi, well that one is easy. First off the list is who he planned on going with, and not everyone shows up to a party at the same time, so if squi did go to the party it does not mean he was there when she was. It's also pretty interesting he just so happens to be the one last on the list.

I assume you have gone parties before right? Does everyone show up exactly at the same time? Do some friends even show up 30 mins or an hour after you have? Do some friends that planned to go not show up at all? 

Also, let's point out that BK said he was never at a party like Ford described yet that was a lie since those people were at a party on his calendar. What the FBI needs to is see if the house the party was at, looks like the one Ford described but of course if she gets it right you will still pretend that is not even further collaboration. You are just making excuses at this point. 



Werner Heizenberg said:


> The potential significance of this event is that it is the only party or gathering listed on Kavanaugh’s calendar at which both Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth were listed as present, and Judge and Smyth are two people alleged by Ford to have been in attendance at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted.
> 
> But the house where this gathering took place (according to Kavanaugh’s calendar) does not appear to match the description offered by Ford in her recollection of events, and there are other reasons to be skeptical of the theory put forward by Senator Whitehouse and several left-leaning journalist


Show me the description of the layout of the inside of his house. Also

https://www.insideedition.com/maryl...ine-blasey-ford-was-allegedly-assaulted-47249

The home is a brick, two-story row home that is across the street from a park.

Inside Edition tried to get inside the house, but no one was home. The crew did, however, get access to a neighbor's home with what's said to have the same floor plan, which appears to match Dr. Ford's testimony: a narrow set of stairs, a room to the left and bathroom across the hall. 


So looks like the house and layout does match what Ford said. Video of the house

https://youtu.be/E3uZA9ksmV0

OOPS more collaboration 

But sure she just guessed that too right ? 




Werner Heizenberg said:


> But he did say exactly this:
> 
> "I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes, others did," Kavanaugh said. "I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone."
> 
> ...



Yet he has blacked out because BK admitted it before like Whitehouse pointed to him then BK could just say NOOO I REMEMBRER I REMEMBER 
And he also lied about assaulting someone when drunk, since it just came out today about his bar altercation when he got drunk at a bar and threw ice at someone.
that is assault, and just more lies from BK

You can keep making excuses about him lying about thsoe sexual names and the RENATE all you want. It just makes you look like a dishonest person
Its ok to admit yeah it was dumb would lie about those




Werner Heizenberg said:


> Because it's a delay tactic and his family has already been through enough.And in the words of Joe Biden:


LOL nice deflection. And if you were innocent of something like this, you wouldn't want the FBI to clear you? Your own defense for BK is falling apart badly

And LOL again for bringing up Biden which is irrelvant. 




Werner Heizenberg said:


> LMAO, nope.Swetnick already contradicted herself and some of her exes and others have accused her of being full of shit.



More and more people are coming out to corroborate her. Another witness has come forward saying they saw BK spike girls drinks


https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/new-avenatti-witness-says-she-saw-kavanaugh-spike-drinks.html

"She said that during the years of 1981–2, she “witnessed firsthand” Kavanaugh and others “spike” the “punch” at the house parties they attended with “Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol.”

“I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say ‘No,’” she wrote. She added that she knew other witnesses who could testify to these facts."


Like I said before, the Swetnick thing I take with a huge grain of salt since I find her the lease credible but with Ford her description of the house layout matches the house the party was at, that is huge, and BK lying about knowiing about the Ramariez allegations before the Newyorker article came out and he was even talkign to friends and having friends try to get women to vouch for him is huge .


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02...-judiciary-witnessed-coach-friend-polygraphs/

*In a sworn statement provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a man who claims to be an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed Ford coach a friend on how to take a polygraph exam. If true, it would mean Ford provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when she claimed she had never had any discussions with anyone about how to take a polygraph.*

Juicy. This whole situation is getting better and better!


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course that corroborate her claim, the people she remembered being at the party where on his calendar, and the date matches up around the time she remembers seeing Judge at the safeway. So tell me how she would just be able to guess that right?
> 
> As for your excuse about Squi, well that one is easy. First off the list is who he planned on going with, and not everyone shows up to a party at the same time, so if squi did go to the party it does not mean he was there when she was. It's also pretty interesting he just so happens to be the one last on the list.
> 
> I assume you have gone parties before right? Does everyone show up exactly at the same time? Do some friends even show up 30 mins or an hour after you have? Do some friends that planned to go not show up at all?



Sorry, but i don't buy that excuse.It will be very convenient for your argument, that the guy who was her former boyfriend just so happened to arrive late after the alleged incident took place and after Ford had already left.But i don't have any reason to grant such leeway.

Absolutely no reason for me to do that.Especially when Ford already lied about her fear of flying just to delay their hearings, lied about the committee not offering to go to her, and lied about never helping anyone with a polygraph test.




> Also, let's point out that BK said he was never at a party like Ford described yet that was a lie since those people were at a party on his calendar. What the FBI needs to is see if the house the party was at, looks like the one Ford described but of course if she gets it right you will still pretend that is not even further collaboration. You are just making excuses at this point.




Yeah he denied being at such a party just like one of Ford's friends that was supposed to be at the alleged party.She said repeatedly that she didn't know Kavanaugh and was never in party with Kavanaugh present.

Just because Kavanaugh happened to be at a party with few of the people Ford mentioned, doesn't make it the same party.Especially since she doesn't remember time, place or year.And everyone has denied it happening.

"Kavanaugh’s calendar lists seven boys in attendance at Tim Gaudette’s, but Ford recalls a party at which four boys and two girls (including herself) were present. During testimony Thursday, Ford said that she recalls that Kavanaugh, Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and “one other boy whose name I cannot recall” attended the party. *Everyone identified by Ford has denied recollection of a party like the one she described to the Washington Post, including her lifelong female friend and classmate Keyser.*"





> Show me the description of the layout of the inside of his house. Also
> 
> https://www.insideedition.com/maryl...ine-blasey-ford-was-allegedly-assaulted-47249
> 
> ...


"But sure she just guessed that too right ?"

Well, yeah.Once again this is nothing even remotely close to corroboration.

Also:



> Another significant change in the scenario came when Ford testified about the location of the party. She had originally told the Washington Post that the attack took place at a house not far from the country club. Yet, when Mitchell revealed a map of the relevant locations and reminded Ford that she had described the attack as having occurred near the country club, Ford backtracked: “I would describe [the house] as it's somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that’s shown in your picture.” Ford added that the country club was a 20-minute drive from her home.
> 
> Finally, Ford altered her description of the interior layout of the home and the details of the party and her escape. A “short” stairwell turned into a “narrow” one. The gathering moved from a small family room where the kids drank beer (and which Ford distinguished from the living room through which she fled the house) when she spoke to the Washington Post, to a home described in her actual testimony as having a "small living room/family room-type area.” And in an obvious tell to the change, Ford suggested that she could draw a floor plan of the house.


https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opini...ies-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/1497661002/





> Ford recalled that the home where the alleged attack occurred was, according to the Washington Post, “not far from the country club” in Chevy Chase, Maryland, where she had likely spent the day swimming prior to the alleged attack.
> 
> Tom Kane, one of the Kavanaugh friends who was listed in attendance, told CNN’s New Day on Friday that Tim Gaudette’s house was in Rockville, Maryland, 11 miles away from the country club.
> 
> “I saw it published today that someone’s floating the notion that there was something on July 1 at Tim Gaudette’s house,” Kane told CNN. “Tim Gaudette lived in Rockville. It’s 11 miles away from Columbia Country Club. And it wasn’t a single-family home. It was a townhouse.” The Washington Post reports: "There was no answer at the brick home on Friday."


https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/was-blasey-ford-at-a-july-1-1982-party-with-kavanaugh




> Yet he has blacked out because BK admitted it before like Whitehouse pointed to him then BK could just say NOOO I REMEMBRER I REMEMBER


What?He literally denied blacking out.He never admitted to such a thing.




> And he also lied about assaulting someone when drunk, since it just came out today about his bar altercation when he got drunk at a bar and threw ice at someone.
> that is assault, and just more lies from BK


You have to be drunk or impaired to assault someone?That's news to me.And has it actually been proven that he did throw the ice?

And what did Kavanaugh say about altercations when drunk?That he was never in a fight with someone?



> You can keep making excuses about him lying about thsoe sexual names and the RENATE all you want. It just makes you look like a dishonest person
> Its ok to admit yeah it was dumb would lie about those


Sure and the ppv ONS is ppv about people getting laid, right?People never call things with edgy names just as a joke and reference without actually dong the original stuff, right?



> LOL nice deflection. And if you were innocent of something like this, you wouldn't want the FBI to clear you? Your own defense for BK is falling apart badly
> 
> And LOL again for bringing up Biden which is irrelvant.



That's not what a deflection is and how is it irrelevant?It literally addresses your points with the FBI investigation.And is something Kavanaugh himself said.Also:


https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opini...-fbi-history-bias-mistakes-column/1488099002/









> More and more people are coming out to corroborate her. Another witness has come forward saying they saw BK spike girls drinks
> 
> 
> https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/new-avenatti-witness-says-she-saw-kavanaugh-spike-drinks.html
> ...


Yeah Swetnik herself said something similar then went back on it.Also people, exes of her and others have come out hard against her.





> Like I said before, the Swetnick thing I take with a huge grain of salt since I find her the lease credible but with Ford her description of the house layout matches the house the party was at, that is huge, and BK lying about knowiing about the Ramariez allegations before the Newyorker article came out and he was even talkign to friends and having friends try to get women to vouch for him is huge .


Literaly non of this is huge.Is the exact opposite of it.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers (Oct 23, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

For a moment of levity..


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02...-judiciary-witnessed-coach-friend-polygraphs/
> 
> *In a sworn statement provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a man who claims to be an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed Ford coach a friend on how to take a polygraph exam. If true, it would mean Ford provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when she claimed she had never had any discussions with anyone about how to take a polygraph.*
> 
> Juicy. This whole situation is getting better and better!


What gets me is that she is supposed to be this educated person and all of that, but that handwritten letter she wrote had her writing in print and very sloppy like a teenager. It kind of fits with her acting and talking like a teenager during the hearing. She doesn't offer many real details, but she replaces that with her performance. She acts like vulnerable, feminine teenager to help sell and manipulate people. During the hearing she wanted people to see a teenager and not a 50+ year old woman. I wouldn't be shocked if her letter was part of the performance.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog (Mar 22, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> *What gets me is that she is supposed to be this educated person and all of that, but that handwritten letter she wrote had her writing in print and very sloppy like a teenager.* It kind of fits with her acting and talking like a teenager during the hearing. She doesn't offer many real details, but she replaces that with her performance. She acts like vulnerable, feminine teenager to help sell and manipulate people. During the hearing she wanted people to see a teenager and not a 50+ year old woman. I wouldn't be shocked if her letter was part of the performance.


And you've never heard of doctors having bad handwriting? It's a fairly common thing

https://www.health24.com/News/Public-Health/Why-is-doctors-handwriting-so-bad-20141128

https://www.rd.com/health/healthcare/doctors-have-bad-handwriting/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/01/09/why-do-doctors-have-notoriously-bad-handwriting/#4f7b5b721f20


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> And you've never heard of doctors having bad handwriting? It's a fairly common thing
> 
> https://www.health24.com/News/Public-Health/Why-is-doctors-handwriting-so-bad-20141128
> 
> ...


M.D. vs. Ph.D.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> And you've never heard of doctors having bad handwriting? It's a fairly common thing
> 
> https://www.health24.com/News/Public-Health/Why-is-doctors-handwriting-so-bad-20141128
> 
> ...


A doctors bad handwriting might look something like this:










Her writing is like this:


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog (Mar 22, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> M.D. vs. Ph.D.


Both doctors



Ryder92 said:


> A doctors bad handwriting might look something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, because all doctors would have the same handwriting....


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Both doctors
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because all doctors would have the same handwriting....


The articles you cited were referring to M.D.s though


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I dont think the issue is so much the actual handwriting but how the letter is written. If this was a rough draft of what was going to be turned in to the senate or whoever, I may could understand that but if this was the official copy given to a senator or a person in an official capacity, it would be a little off-putting. This really is written like a teenager, although the spelling is better, and I would expect something more professional, especially from a Ph.D.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog (Mar 22, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> The articles you cited were referring to M.D.s though


So? Doesn't mean the same things can't apply to a Ph.D.

Also, what difference does her handwriting make to this whole situation? Fuck all.

People have different handwriting. Some good, some bad


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> I dont think the issue is so much the actual handwriting but how the letter is written. If this was a rough draft of what was going to be turned in to the senate or whoever, I may could understand that but if this was the official copy given to a senator or a person in an official capacity, it would be a little off-putting. This really is written like a teenager, although the spelling is better, and I would expect something more professional, especially from a Ph.D.


That's my point. Often times doctors will have hard to read but still a professional/adult look to it.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> So? Doesn't mean the same things can't apply to a Ph.D.
> 
> Also, what difference does her handwriting make to this whole situation? Fuck all.
> 
> People have different handwriting. Some good, some bad


So you cite articles to try and prove Drs have bad handwriting but you post articles citing M.D.s not Ph.D.s (MDs have notoriously bad handwriting and while I get some ph.ds have bad handwriting is well, its not something thats overly common) and now handwriting makes no difference??


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog (Mar 22, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> So you cite articles to try and prove Drs have bad handwriting but you post articles citing M.D.s not Ph.D.s (MDs have notoriously bad handwriting and while I get some ph.ds have bad handwriting is well, its not something thats overly common) and now handwriting makes no difference??


What?

Ryder started off by saying that it was bizarre that someone that was educated would have such poor handwriting. I typed "doctors handwriting" into Google and linked the first 3 articles that came up as it's a fairly common thing for people in the medical field to have poor handwriting.

I then said that her handwriting has no relevance to this case.

Not that difficult to understand is it?

Clearly it was my mistake to respond to him in the first place. I also find it funny how you two seem to follow each other around arguing with people, as it's not the first time us three have been in this situation.

Why do I keep coming into the Trump thread?!?! The man is a moron of the highest order and I just end up getting into conversations with people that just go on and on. Neither side budges and nothing is achieved or gained. Politics in a nutshell


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> What?
> 
> Ryder started off by saying that it was bizarre that someone that was educated would have such poor handwriting. I typed "doctors handwriting" into Google and linked the first 3 articles that came up as it's a fairly common thing for people in the medical field to have poor handwriting.
> 
> ...


I agree with your last couple sentences


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

As a nurse who has read doctors notes on a daily basis, thats actually some of the better handwriting I've seen, and that isn't sarcasm or hyperbole.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Sorry, but i don't buy that excuse.It will be very convenient for your argument, that the guy who was her former boyfriend just so happened to arrive late after the alleged incident took place and after Ford had already left.But i don't have any reason to grant such leeway.
> 
> Absolutely no reason for me to do that.Especially when Ford already lied about her fear of flying just to delay their hearings, lied about the committee not offering to go to her, and lied about never helping anyone with a polygraph test.


Yet you know that people show up to parties at different times yet you can't buy this lol OK

And she didn't lie about fear of flying, we have been over this a million times. I fear driving on the highway but I do it because I have to, even when its for pleasure to go see friends that live an hour away and I have to take the highway to see them. 






Werner Heizenberg said:


> Yeah he denied being at such a party j*ust like one of Ford's friends that was supposed to be at the alleged party.She said repeatedly that she didn't know Kavanaugh and was never in party with Kavanaugh present.*
> 
> Just because Kavanaugh happened to be at a party with few of the people Ford mentioned, doesn't make it the same party.Especially since she doesn't remember time, place or year.And everyone has denied it happening.
> 
> "Kavanaugh’s calendar lists seven boys in attendance at Tim Gaudette’s, but Ford recalls a party at which four boys and two girls (including herself) were present. During testimony Thursday, Ford said that she recalls that Kavanaugh, Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and “one other boy whose name I cannot recall” attended the party. Everyone identified by Ford has denied recollection of a party like the one she described to the Washington Post, including her lifelong female friend and classmate Keyser."


You need to stop being dishonest and claiming they denied being at the party they NEVER said that, they said they dont recall being at the party. That is a huge difference. And you keep bringing up her friend and ignorng the part wehre her friend said SHE BELIEVES FORD even though she does not remember the party. 





Werner Heizenberg said:


> "But sure she just guessed that too right ?"
> 
> Well, yeah.Once again this is nothing even remotely close to corroboration.
> 
> ...




She got the description right, so you didn't answer my question, so she just happened to guess what it looked like right lol




Werner Heizenberg said:


> What?He literally denied blacking out.He never admitted to such a thing.





He did admit to blacking out in his 2014 Yale speech. 

*
in a 2014 speech at Yale, Kavanaugh recounted his fun partying days with a story about “falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.” after attending a Red Sox game at Fenway Park. He then admitted that he and a friend had to put together their memory of the drunken night the next day.
*

Are you going to claim that is not blacking out?





Werner Heizenberg said:


> You have to be drunk or impaired to assault someone?That's news to me.And has it actually been proven that he did throw the ice?
> 
> And what did Kavanaugh say about altercations when drunk?That he was never in a fight with someone?


Yes it was proven he threw the ice. He claimed he never got belligerent when drinking or something to that effect, which was a lie since a number or his friends are saying he did





Werner Heizenberg said:


> Sure and the ppv ONS is ppv about people getting laid, right?People never call things with edgy names just as a joke and reference without actually dong the original stuff, right?



What? Are you going to deny that RENATE Alumuni was not for people claiming to have hooked up with her? 





Werner Heizenberg said:


> That's not what a deflection is and how is it irrelevant?It literally addresses your points with the FBI investigation.And is something Kavanaugh himself said.Also:
> 
> 
> https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...mn/1488099002/


Keep deflecting.

BK never said when asked during the hearing that he wanted an investigation. Its a FACT something you seem to keep igoring here






Werner Heizenberg said:


> Yeah Swetnik herself said something similar then went back on it.Also people, exes of her and others have come out hard against her.





Just more deflection






Ryder92 said:


> What gets me is that she is supposed to be this educated person and all of that, but that handwritten letter she wrote had her writing in print and very sloppy like a teenager. It kind of fits with her acting and talking like a teenager during the hearing. She doesn't offer many real details, but she replaces that with her performance. She acts like vulnerable, feminine teenager to help sell and manipulate people. During the hearing she wanted people to see a teenager and not a 50+ year old woman. I wouldn't be shocked if her letter was part of the performance.


LOL so now this is the defense of BK saying OMG she had bad handwriting.

yeah lets ignore all the lies and people coming out against BK and lets focus on OMG she has bad hand writing


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> He did admit to blacking out in his 2014 Yale speech.
> 
> *
> in a 2014 speech at Yale, Kavanaugh recounted his fun partying days with a story about “falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.” after attending a Red Sox game at Fenway Park. He then admitted that he and a friend had to put together their memory of the drunken night the next day.
> ...


Thats not blacking out.

please stop talking about drinking, it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Thats not blacking out.
> 
> please stop talking about drinking, it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to it.


Of course, that is blacking out. Blacking out is when you can't remember things that happened when you were drinking. BK admitted in speech in that example, he couldn't remember all the things that happened that night because they drank so much.

Mitchel even asked him if there was ever a time he drank so much that he couldn't remember parts of things that happened, and she said NO which again was a lie.

So any way you want to look at it, he lied about him drinking so much that he couldn't recall parts of that drinking night.

What is your definition of blacking out? Blacking out?


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yet you know that people show up to parties at different times yet you can't buy this lol OK
> 
> And she didn't lie about fear of flying, we have been over this a million times. I fear driving on the highway but I do it because I have to, even when its for pleasure to go see friends that live an hour away and I have to take the highway to see them.


Yeah i can't because it's very convenient in Ford's already extremely weak case.

She did lie.Her ex already confirmed that her supposed fear of flying was non existent when they were together among other lies.

Yes, we do it because we have to.We don't try to delay important events where so many people depend on us, for as long as possible because of our fears of driving on the highway.








> You need to stop being dishonest and claiming they denied being at the party they NEVER said that, they said they dont recall being at the party. That is a huge difference. And you keep bringing up her friend and ignorng the part wehre her friend said SHE BELIEVES FORD even though she does not remember the party.


Ford's *friend* doesn't want to call Ford a liar and potentially get death threats and that's relevant how?The most important part, the only part that is actually relevant is that try as she might, she can't corroborate Ford's claims even to the existence of a party where all the people in question were present.End of story.






> She got the description right, so you didn't answer my question, so she just happened to guess what it looked like right lol


She changed her description:

*Finally, Ford altered her description of the interior layout of the home and the details of the party and her escape. A “short” stairwell turned into a “narrow” one. The gathering moved from a small family room where the kids drank beer (and which Ford distinguished from the living room through which she fled the house) when she spoke to the Washington Post, to a home described in her actual testimony as having a "small living room/family room-type area.” And in an obvious tell to the change, Ford suggested that she could draw a floor plan of the house.*

And getting a house description right doesn't mean anything.





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Thats not blacking out.
> 
> please stop talking about drinking, it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to it.


Yep.








> Yes it was proven he threw the ice. He claimed he never got belligerent when drinking or something to that effect, which was a lie since a number or his friends are saying he did


Link the proof then.








> What? Are you going to deny that RENATE Alumuni was not for people claiming to have hooked up with her?


Didn't the woman in question deny hooking up with Kavanaugh?





> Keep deflecting.
> 
> BK never said when asked during the hearing that he wanted an investigation. Its a FACT something you seem to keep igoring here


Yes and he was right not to demand an investigation because it won't prove anything and it's literally just a delay tactic.Again, i have to quote Biden here:

*“The last thing I will point out, the next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period,” Biden said. “The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report [is] you would not like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say, ‘He said, she said, and they said. Period.”

“So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand they do not, they do not reach conclusions,” Biden said.*


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, that is blacking out. Blacking out is when you can't remember things that happened when you were drinking. BK admitted in speech in that example, he couldn't remember all the things that happened that night because they drank so much.
> 
> Mitchel even asked him if there was ever a time he drank so much that he couldn't remember *parts of things that happened*, and she said NO which again was a lie.
> 
> ...


If thats how the question was worded BK should be fine. If he can remember parts thats one thing...blacking out, to me, is missing hours at a time of memories from the night/day before. 

I have been out before and can remember the majority of the night but not be able to recall everything. I have also blacked out before where I remember the night up to around 10-11 pm, stayed out til 2 or so, and dont remember a thing after around 10. Blacking out could just mean passing out as well, I dont know if they exactly defined what blacking out is. 

Now if the question was asked "have you ever drank so much that you are missing parts of night/day activities" or something along those lines and he said no, it seems like that would be a lie. I will say, I find it hard to believe he partied with buddies in college and never got blackout or pass out drunk. I know how I would answer that question.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, that is blacking out. Blacking out is when you can't remember things that happened when you were drinking. BK admitted in speech in that example, he couldn't remember all the things that happened that night because they drank so much.


No it isn't.

This is why you just need to not talking about it now. You don't know what you are talking about.

You can have memory loss from alcohol without blacking out, you obviously have never blacked out before.

Blacking out while drinking is like time traveling, you kind of wake up, and you are somewhere else.

you don't remember how you got there, and you may be able to fill in blanks, but it is nothing like you described in that quote.




> Mitchel even asked him if there was ever a time he drank so much that he couldn't remember parts of things that happened, and she said NO which again was a lie.
> 
> So any way you want to look at it, he lied about him drinking so much that he couldn't recall parts of that drinking night.


I don't know what this has to do with you not knowing what blacking out is

Edit:

Also, this is another thing you don't understand aboiut drinking.

different alcohol have different reponses to people, i get really emotional with dark liquor, but really silly with light, so i don't drink dark liquor.

you can black out from 1 or 2 drinks, if you aren't used to them, or they put a hurting on you.

That may not be drinking "too much" you may have just hada bad night (bad mix, or empty stomach, or medication that you forgot you were taking)



> What is your definition of blacking out? Blacking out?


I just told you, I would probably take my word for it, considering that i have blacked out before, and been really drunk before

Actually the drunkest I have ever been i didn't black out, they are two completely separate things, and like I said, you need to stop talking about them, because you obviously have no experience/knowledge in this matter.


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Anyone else just get the presidential alert on their phones?


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Empress said:


> Anyone else just get the presidential alert on their phones?


I just heard the emergency sound that phones make but it wasnt on my phone, maybe thats what I heard was that on someone elses phone


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> This is why you just need to not talking about it now. You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> ...


We used to call it "drink yourself sober", everything moves in slow motion, you have zero reaction speed, completely aware of whats going on and dont lose any memories...it was the worst feeling in the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> This is why you just need to not talking about it now. You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> ...


what you described is just one form of blacking out but there are two. The kind you talk about and then there is fragmented. 

having to piece together what happened because you don't remember is blacking out lol
is a joke you would even claim its not





blaird said:


> If thats how the question was worded BK should be fine. If he can remember parts thats one thing...blacking out, to me, is missing hours at a time of memories from the night/day before.
> 
> I have been out before and can remember the majority of the night but not be able to recall everything. I have also blacked out before where I remember the night up to around 10-11 pm, stayed out til 2 or so, and dont remember a thing after around 10. Blacking out could just mean passing out as well, I dont know if they exactly defined what blacking out is.
> 
> *Now if the question was asked "have you ever drank so much that you are missing parts of night/day activities" or something along those lines and he said no, it seems like that would be a lie*. I will say, I find it hard to believe he partied with buddies in college and never got blackout or pass out drunk. I know how I would answer that question.


She asked both questions, so we don't even have to get into oh is what considered blacking out or not. he lied that there was never a time when was drinking that he could not remembers parts of that event.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> We used to call it "drink yourself sober", everything moves in slow motion, you have zero reaction speed, completely aware of whats going on and dont lose any memories...it was the worst feeling in the world.


And the other part is, you don't have to drink yourself silly to get there. 

BM doesn't understand that, and that's ok, like you said, the feeling is horrible, you don't forget it.

I used to drink HEAVILY, I mean 7 or 8 beers, and a 5th of vodka, just to get the party started.

but one night, I had maybe 3 beers, and a bad shot of 151, and Bam, next thing I know I am in the bathroom, then i am on a street corner, then I am in a car, then a shower.

Like I said, it wasn't even enough to get me buzzed usually, but if someone told me I had too much to drink, I would say "no,I just wasn't smart that night"


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> what you described is just one form of blacking out but there are two. The kind you talk about and then there is fragmented.
> 
> having to piece together what happened because you don't remember is blacking out lol
> is a joke you would even claim its not


No, trying to piece together what happened, is you having a bad memory f the night before

You are being dishonest because you want to believe it is something it's not.

What you described (someone falling up steps at 4:30 AM) is not blacking out.

like I said, you don't know what you are talking about, and it is obvious. Anyone that has seen someone black out, or actually blacked out would know that stumbling up steps isn't blacking out.

So if someone goes out drinking, and the next day, you go "Man you got really drunk, how many beers did you have? and they say "I am not sure, maybe 4 or 5" would that be blacking out.. I mean they are trying to piece together memories

you see how silly that sounds? yet you think that is evidence... give me a break.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> And the other part is, you don't have to drink yourself silly to get there.
> 
> BM doesn't understand that, and that's ok, like you said, the feeling is horrible, you don't forget it.
> 
> ...


Man I went thru a bottle of baccardi one night. Got to a buddies house, woke up at his gfs house, woke up at a dif buddies house, woke up at my house (evidently my dumbass drove and have zero recollection). Cant drink baccardi anymore since that night.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> No, trying to piece together what happened, is you having a bad memory f the night before
> 
> You are being dishonest because you want to believe it is something it's not.
> 
> ...


I did not say that was blacking out FFS. The memory loss due to drinking and having to piece together what happened is.

And since you made numerous strawman arguments in this one post, I am done discussing blacking out with you because you are just trolling at this point by making shit up I never claimed

Its also funny you defending drinking memory loss AKA blacking out to oh he has a bad memory. using that logic, oh you didn't have a blackout you just have a bad memory.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Man I went thru a bottle of baccardi one night. Got to a buddies house, woke up at his gfs house, woke up at a dif buddies house, woke up at my house (evidently my dumbass drove and have zero recollection). Cant drink baccardi anymore since that night.


Using DMDs logic, you just have a bad memeory, thats not blacking out.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Using DMDs logic, you just have a bad memeory, thats not blacking out.


Meh...I would call that more passing out than blacking out. I went to 3 or 4 different places and just remember waking up there, not how I got there, not my buddy driving my truck to those places, not dropping him off, and not me driving home (which is a dumb thing to do I know, uber is my best friend now).

Now lets say I remember going to his gfs house and talking to her but not one of her friends, or going back to my buddy's house but not remembering cooking a grilled cheese, but remember the rest of the night, some may call that blacked/blacking out but thats not what I consider it. Even to this day, we may over party but if we forget something from the night before and its just a small bit of time we may say our memory is foggy/fuzzy from that night.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I did not say that was blacking out FFS. The memory loss due to drinking and having to piece together what happened is.


Yup, you just proved my point.

You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to drinking.

To drinkers blacking out means something different than what you are describing.

You don't know this, because you aren't a heavy drinker... is there something wrong with that?

Is there something really wrong with how someone who drinks considers blacking out vs. how you would consider it

It's like you know you don't know what you are talking about, but you hold on to one sentence hoping that it changes something.

If you think that i would consider sitting with a friend after drinking and talking about the night together was me blacking out the day before, you are just proving what I said to begin with. 




> And since you made numerous strawman arguments in this one post, I am done discussing blacking out with you because you are just trolling at this point by making shit up I never claimed


You wrote this:



birthday_massacre said:


> He did admit to blacking out in his 2014 Yale speech.
> 
> *
> in a 2014 speech at Yale, Kavanaugh recounted his fun partying days with a story about “falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.” after attending a Red Sox game at Fenway Park. He then admitted that he and a friend had to put together their memory of the drunken night the next day.
> ...



Those are your words.. in which i told you, no that is not blacking out, and you need to stop talking about it, because some people won't consider it blacking out.

Instead of saying "I am not a heavy drinker, so i think it is" nope, you have to go insert your foot in your mouth again



> Its also funny you defending drinking memory loss AKA blacking out to oh he has a bad memory. using that logic, oh you didn't have a blackout you just have a bad memory.


And according to you when i sit around with my buddies and we talk about the night before remember everything, it is blacking out.

Dude come off it, I gave you exactly how someone knows they are in a blackout, and how you don't forget it.

you want to pretend like it's nothing i described, fine go ahead... but blaird gave the same description, and ask anyone who has done it and you will get the same answer.

Like I said, you should stop trying with the blacking out evidence, because nothing you have shown has shown that kavanaugh has blacked out.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Meh...I would call that more passing out than blacking out. I went to 3 or 4 different places and just remember waking up there, not how I got there, not my buddy driving my truck to those places, not dropping him off, and not me driving home (which is a dumb thing to do I know, uber is my best friend now).
> 
> Now lets say I remember going to his gfs house and talking to her but not one of her friends, or going back to my buddy's house but not remembering cooking a grilled cheese, but remember the rest of the night, some may call that blacked/blacking out but thats not what I consider it. Even to this day, we may over party but if we forget something from the night before and its just a small bit of time we may say our memory is foggy/fuzzy from that night.



There is no point debating if he lied about blacking out or not since that does not even matter since like I said she also asked him if there were times where he does not remember parts of a drinking night and he said no which was a lie since he admitted that happened in a yale speech. 


This whole thing is just a semantic argument so DMD can defend another BK lie.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Man I went thru a bottle of baccardi one night. Got to a buddies house, woke up at his gfs house, woke up at a dif buddies house, woke up at my house (evidently my dumbass drove and have zero recollection). Cant drink baccardi anymore since that night.


That shit happens man, hopefully you have learned to control it now. Back when I was 22, and 23.. it was ridiculous, not good at all.

I am happy I survived it, but I feel like I got more lucky than anything honestly.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Arguing about college drinking still :heston

Kavanaugh's confirmation is a foregone conclusion at this point.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is no point debating if he lied about blacking out or not since that does not even matter since like I said she also asked him if there were times where he does not remember parts of a drinking night and he said no which was a lie since he admitted that happened in a yale speech.
> 
> 
> This whole thing is just a semantic argument so DMD can defend another BK lie.


Im not necessarily defending him BUT...if he was asked "was there a time where you couldnt remember parts of a night" and he said no he really may not be lying. He may be able to remember parts of a night, maybe just not the whole night. Maybe the question should have been phrased "have you ever drank so much you forgot parts of the night".

I was 3 sheets to the wind that night of the baccardi but remember a few moments from that night so it wouldnt be lying if I was asked "could I remember parts of that night". Again, like you said its semantics. I have a hard time believing he never did get blackout drunk from the stories I am hearing. I just know how hard I went in college at a small school with a small group of friends I couldnt imagine him at a school like Yale not living it up.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> That shit happens man, hopefully you have learned to control it now. Back when I was 22, and 23.. it was ridiculous, not good at all.
> 
> I am happy I survived it, but I feel like I got more lucky than anything honestly.


Yea I am lucky I survived it and never got a DUI, one of my best friends has 2 of them. Calmed down a lot since I got into the real world. If I drink anymore its on the weekends 99% of the time. If I drink during the week its usually no more than 4 or 5 beers while watching a basketball/football game and home in bed by 10. Ha I used to start the night at 10, dont know how I did it back then.

Back then a bad hangover would keep me on the couch til midafternoon before I started again. Now a bad hangover may keep me down 2 or 3 days.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Yea I am lucky I survived it and never got a DUI, one of my best friends has 2 of them. Calmed down a lot since I got into the real world. If I drink anymore its on the weekends 99% of the time. If I drink during the week its usually no more than 4 or 5 beers while watching a basketball/football game and home in bed by 10. Ha I used to start the night at 10, dont know how I did it back then.
> 
> Back then a bad hangover would keep me on the couch til midafternoon before I started again. Now a bad hangover may keep me down 2 or 3 days.


Yeah, welcome to older age, not sure how old you are, I'm 36 and my hangovers last at least a full 24 hours, which is why I rarely drink. Well, that and I have 2 kids and a proper grown up job.

I don't believe Kavanaugh that he didn't get black out drunk at least once, he massively undersold his frat boy lifestyle imo. But thats mostly a subjective belief.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Im not necessarily defending him BUT...if he was asked "was there a time where you couldnt remember parts of a night" and he said no he really may not be lying. He may be able to remember parts of a night, maybe just not the whole night. Maybe the question should have been phrased "have you ever drank so much you forgot parts of the night".
> 
> I was 3 sheets to the wind that night of the baccardi but remember a few moments from that night so it wouldnt be lying if I was asked "could I remember parts of that night". Again, like you said its semantics. I have a hard time believing he never did get blackout drunk from the stories I am hearing. I just know how hard I went in college at a small school with a small group of friends I couldnt imagine him at a school like Yale not living it up.


KLOBUCHAR: OK. Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness, and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. *Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?*

KAVANAUGH:* No, I — no. I remember what happened,* and I think you’ve probably had beers, Senator, and — and so I…


That is a lie. Right


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> KLOBUCHAR: OK. Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness, and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. *Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?*
> 
> KAVANAUGH:* No, I — no. I remember what happened,* and I think you’ve probably had beers, Senator, and — and so I…
> 
> ...


No its not...so bring on the "you wont admit it and I cant even debate/discuss this with you anymore...youre a blah blah blah"

But here is why...that very last part..."part of what happened the night before". I said had I been asked this question the infamous night of the baccardi, I could have answered the same thing bc I remember parts of what happened. Again, semantics. Plus the question doesnt seem to refer to a specific point even if BK does kind of reference a single time in particular. Had he left off that last part and just asked "has there ever been a night you drank so much you couldnt remember everything from the night before" I think that would have made a difference. 

Heres my rationale...BK is a brilliant guy. You dont go thru the education and everything after without being brilliant. Do you really think he doesnt know exactly how to answer these questions without perjuring himself? You can call him an idiot all you want but his pedigree is better than any lawyer/judge with the exception of maybe a dozen or so, he gets the appointment and it gets as good as any lawyer or judge. This guy isnt dumb enough to perjure himself in front of a large group of people who already dont want him there. 

Do I believe he never got so drunk that he couldnt recall events of the night prior? Absolutely not. I really dont believe he never got so drunk he passed out completely. But maybe he didnt, again I dont know, but my gut says he partied it up and probably excessively to the point of memory impairment. That doesnt mean he completely blacked out. I went to a Baptist college where the only people who drank were the athletes so over half the school didnt drink a drop. Maybe he partied and kept it under control better than all the partiers I have known. I doubt it, but I cant prove otherwise.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Yeah, welcome to older age, not sure how old you are, I'm 36 and my hangovers last at least a full 24 hours, which is why I rarely drink. Well, that and I have 2 kids and a proper grown up job.
> 
> I don't believe Kavanaugh that he didn't get black out drunk at least once, he massively undersold his frat boy lifestyle imo. But thats mostly a subjective belief.


Im 36 as well, no kids but a grown up job as I call it. I cant go into work on 4 hours sleep hungover from the night before. Good chance I could lose my job doing that plus it would make for the most miserable day.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> KLOBUCHAR: OK. Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness, and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. *Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?*
> 
> KAVANAUGH:* No, I — no. I remember what happened,* and I think you’ve probably had beers, Senator, and — and so I…
> 
> ...


Agree totally. Arguing about 'blacking out' and it's definition is semantics. It's completely subjective.

If you can't remember stuff from the night before and you admit you needed a friend to tell you what happened, that's pretty much the same result as 'blacking out' in my book whether you call it that or something else.

But that doesn't really matter about the definition, if you can't remember what you did then it's possibly you sexually assaulted someone, no? May not be probable but possible.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> No its not...so bring on the "you wont admit it and I cant even debate/discuss this with you anymore...youre a blah blah blah"
> 
> But here is why...that very last part..."part of what happened the night before". I said had I been asked this question the infamous night of the baccardi, I could have answered the same thing bc I remember parts of what happened. Again, semantics. Plus the question doesnt seem to refer to a specific point even if BK does kind of reference a single time in particular. Had he left off that last part and just asked "has there ever been a night you drank so much you couldnt remember everything from the night before" I think that would have made a difference.
> 
> ...


LOL yes, its a lie it's a joke you claim that is not a lie. There is no point of even debating since you can't even be honest


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Agree totally. Arguing about 'blacking out' and it's definition is semantics. It's completely subjective.
> 
> If you can't remember stuff from the night before and you admit you needed a friend to tell you what happened, that's pretty much the same result as 'blacking out' in my book whether you call it that or something else.
> 
> But that doesn't really matter about the definition, if you can't remember what you did then it's possibly you sexually assaulted someone, no? May not be probable but possible.


I agree it's semantics but even if he did blackout it still wouldn't be a lie if he could remember parts of the night. 

I won't say the last part is impossible because sexual assault covers so many things. I don't think you could sexually assault someone by trying to rape them and forget that no matter how drunk you are but I could see a drunk guy groping a girl at a bar or party and forgetting about that. So will agree improbable but not impossible.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Agree totally. Arguing about 'blacking out' and it's definition is semantics. It's completely subjective.
> 
> If you can't remember stuff from the night before and you admit you needed a friend to tell you what happened, that's pretty much the same result as 'blacking out' in my book whether you call it that or something else.
> 
> But that doesn't really matter about the definition, if you can't remember what you did then it's possibly you sexually assaulted someone, no? May not be probable but possible.


Even if we don't call it blacking out, the question was asked, did you ever drink so much that you cannot remember parts what happened and said he got so drunk at that red sox game he needed help remembering that means he lied about it under oath.

Its a joke people are even trying to debate this

As for your last point that is why he does not want to admit he blacked out while drinking because then the question would be well could this assault have happened while you were blacked out which is what he was trying to avoid and why he lied about having missing time when drinking.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yes, its a lie it's a joke you claim that is not a lie. There is no point of even debating since you can't even be honest


Do I get bonus points for calling your response? 

But let me double check...if I went out and got hammered and remember let's say 50% of the night, and you ask me did I get so drunk that I don't remember the whole thing or parts of the night and I respond no didn't get that drunk I remember what I did but some of its fuzzy...that's a lie?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Do I get bonus points for calling your response?
> 
> But let me double check...if I went out and got hammered and remember l*et's say 50% of the night*, and you ask me did I get so drunk that I don't remember the whole thing or *parts of the night and I respond no* didn't get that drunk I remember what I did but some of its fuzzy...that's a lie?


How is that not a lie? 

If you don't remember 50% of the night because you were hammered that means you don't remember parts of the night.

So that means you lied if you claim you have never gotten so hammered you can't recall parts of that night

If someone has to fill you in on what happened, because you can't remember it, you lied if you claim that never happened.

You have to be trolling with this question


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is that not a lie?
> 
> If you don't remember 50% of the night because you were hammered that means you don't remember parts of the night.
> 
> ...


Ok I think I understand what you are saying now...maybe we can agree on this (although I doubt it since getting you to see/understand any other way from your own has proven to be an impossible task)

Question: BK, have you ever drank so much you couldnt remember parts of the previous night?
Interpretation: have you ever been unable to remember any events from the previous night
Answer: No...this is not a lie since he can recall some events from previous night

Question: BK, have you ever drank so much you couldnt remember parts of the previous night?
Interpretation: has there ever been a time you couldnt remember EVERY event of the night before
Answer: No...I will agree this would be a lie

Same question, interpreted two different ways. AGAIN, semantics. Like I said before, BK knows how to answer these questions and I would have to think that he interpreted this question as the first one even though it may have been intended as the second one. I think I interpret it the first way because its more extreme and I guess thats where my mind went when I kept seeing blackout bc that is an extreme drunkenness.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Ok I think I understand what you are saying now...maybe we can agree on this (although I doubt it since getting you to see/understand any other way from your own has proven to be an impossible task)
> 
> Question: BK, have you ever drank so much you couldnt remember parts of the previous night?
> Interpretation: have you ever been unable to remember any events from the previous night
> ...


But wouldn't that be to the extreme of an extreme?

Like I didn't have a drop to drink last night, but I couldn't tell you everything I did.

There are parts that are fuzzy, just because i am not a robot...

That's how i looked at it, if you don't remember everything you did the previous day, you don't have to be drunk for that, or even drink at all.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> But wouldn't that be to the extreme of an extreme?
> 
> Like I didn't have a drop to drink last night, but I couldn't tell you everything I did.
> 
> ...


Possibly, and that would probably be his defense. I can remember what I did bc I am lazy (laid on the couch, watched tv, ate dinner, went to bed). 

There have been times when I havent had a drop to drink and would ask someone a question that they answered the night before and they would remind me I asked them that. And then it will hit me "oh yea forgot about that". 

I read an article a while back about "blacking out". If I remember it correctly, its not that you black out its that the brain doesnt make memories (I could be way wrong but I think this is what it said). Theres often times where I can remember some things but not all details of an event without ever having a drop to drink.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Ok I think I understand what you are saying now...maybe we can agree on this (although I doubt it since getting you to see/understand any other way from your own has proven to be an impossible task)
> 
> Question: BK, have you ever drank so much you couldnt remember parts of the previous night?
> Interpretation: have you ever been unable to remember any events from the previous night
> ...



The first one is still a lie.

Here is the definition of any 

*used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many.
*

If you can only recall some events of the previous night that means you can't recall some of them so its still a lie.

Even under your Interpretation in the first example its still a lie.

You know what any means right?


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The first one is still a lie.
> 
> Here is the definition of any
> 
> ...


Yes and by your definition its not a lie...Ill replace any with the def and see if that helps you out...

"Have you ever been unable to recall (one or some of a thing) from the night before"

If I can remember having a conversation or seeing someone or what I was doing that is recalling one or some of a thing...your definition. Therefore I could answer NO I have never been unable to recall one or some of a thing from the night before. 

Do you know what any means?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Yes and by your definition its not a lie...Ill replace any with the def and see if that helps you out...
> 
> "Have you ever been unable to recall (one or some of a thing) from the night before"
> 
> ...


Why do you keep trying to change the question that was asked? The question is is there a time you *COULDN'T* recall *PARTS *of what happened. you keep trying to change to it *CAN *recall PARTS

It just shows you know he is lying but don't want to admit it. You are looking foolish here trying to claim he didn't lie, you are like a little kid when caught in a lie and trying to talk his way out of it.

This is my really last post on this question because at this point you are just trolling


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why do you keep trying to change the question that was asked? The question is is there a time you *COULDN'T* recall *PARTS *of what happened. you keep trying to change to it *CAN *recall PARTS
> 
> It just shows you know he is lying but don't want to admit it. You are looking foolish here trying to claim he didn't lie, you are like a little kid when caught in a lie and trying to talk his way out of it.
> 
> This is my really last post on this question because at this point you are just trolling


So you really cant look at that question and realize there are 2 ways of understanding that? It took me a min to realize there was another way of interpreting it so maybe you havent caught up even though Ive explained it as best as possible. This is why I put two different interpretations, I dont know whats so hard about that. Change could to couldnt and it doesnt change any of the interpretations. I dont know he is lying. I havent heard the interview I just have face value of the quotes you posted. Im sorry you cant possibly understand the other side of an argument/debate/POV. I just have a hard time believing a person as educated in ways of law like BK would lie on a simple question like this in front of the world and risk himself to having everything hes worked for destroyed.

But let me ask you this, since you are so wise, why has he not been charged with perjury yet? If it is so simple for you to see, why is it so hard for lawyers, senators, and the rest of the decision makers who already dont believe him to charge him? I would have figured with all the people that dont want him in the SC, they would have fought tooth and nail for anything to keep him out? Is it that maybe he didnt lie? What you say he lied about is too tough to prove? Maybe you are more brilliant than all of them and it is you who should be the next SC Justice, although that would be a bit scary.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> But let me ask you this, since you are so wise, why has he not been charged with perjury yet? If it is so simple for you to see, why is it so hard for lawyers, senators, and the rest of the decision makers who already dont believe him to charge him? I would have figured with all the people that dont want him in the SC, they would have fought tooth and nail for anything to keep him out? Is it that maybe he didnt lie? What you say he lied about is too tough to prove? Maybe you are more brilliant than all of them and it is you who should be the next SC Justice, although that would be a bit scary.


Because courts rarely charge anyone with perjury even when it happens unless it's an outstandingly bad lie.

Him lying about his drinking and what words mean does not fit that.

Even though technically they could if they wanted to. Like for example if a cop planted evidence and lied about it under oath, and it was proven, he would be charged with perjury. 

In this case it's just a job interview, it would be dumb to charge him with perjury, but it should be disqualifying for his nomination since he is a judge and shouldn't be lying at all


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

FBI investigation turned up absolutely nothing as expected. Kavanaugh will be confirmed. Democrats sold their souls and still lost. :hb


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> FBI investigation turned up absolutely nothing as expected. Kavanaugh will be confirmed. Democrats sold their souls and still lost. :hb


LOL 

yeah the investigation they were handcuffed by Trump and did not even interview Ford, BK,Ramirez, Swetnick, or over 40 people that were trying to get in touch with the FBI about info including BKs freshman roommate or the 4 women who have issued sworn statements that they personally witnessed Kavanaugh committing sexual assault while drunk.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I haven't been following the investigation too closely, but the narrative that Cory Booker was pushing of ditching Kav even if he's innocent is enough for me to shudder should he ever get into the White House.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> I haven't been following the investigation too closely, but the narrative that Cory Booker was pushing of ditching Kav even if he's innocent is enough for me to shudder should he ever get into the White House.


Why would that make you shudder to think, BK committed perjury over and over again. You think someone that lies under oath should be on the SCOTUS?


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL
> 
> yeah the investigation they were handcuffed by Trump and did not even interview Ford, BK,Ramirez, Swetnick, or over 40 people that were trying to get in touch with the FBI about info including BKs freshman roommate or the 4 women who have issued sworn statements that they personally witnessed Kavanaugh committing sexual assault while drunk.


Swetnik already got caught contradicting herself.Ramirez wasn't even sure Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself to her until a week ago.And Ford's million lies were pointed by her ex and others.None of these women are remotely credible.Hopefully Kavanaugh gets confirmed.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Swetnik already got caught contradicting herself.Ramirez wasn't even sure Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself to her until a week ago.And Ford's million lies were pointed by her ex and others.None of these women are remotely credible.Hopefully Kavanaugh gets confirmed.


Nice deflection.

True or false to what I said.

And LOL you think BK is credible with all his lying?

Yes or no


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice deflection.
> 
> True or false to what I said.
> 
> ...


Yeah, i think Kavanaugh is way more credible.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why would that make you shudder to think, BK committed perjury over and over again. You think someone that lies under oath should be on the SCOTUS?


I haven't followed the investigation, so I wouldn't know about whether he did or did not commit perjury. But taking your word for it, the reference by Booker was in relation to his temperament even if he is innocent, which is very low of him to say.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

He should be confirmed. None of the accusations are credible. In my eyes, if the Dems dont charge him with perjury, he never lied.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> I haven't followed the investigation, so I wouldn't know about whether he did or did not commit perjury. But taking your word for it, the reference by Booker was in relation to his temperament even if he is innocent, which is very low of him to say.


do you think someone with his temperament, especially against Clinton and the Dems, and lashed out at some of the dems asking him questions, should be on the SCOTUS when a justice is supposed to be unbiased?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Yeah, i think Kavanaugh is way more credible.


So you are a hypocrite then, good to know


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you are a hypocrite then, good to know


I just don't buy into such obviously delusional liars like Swetnik.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> I haven't been following the investigation too closely, but the narrative that Cory Booker was pushing of ditching Kav even if he's innocent is enough for me to shudder should he ever get into the White House.


Thankfully you won't have to worry about that. Booker has no chance of ever being president.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Thankfully you won't have to worry about that. Booker has no chance of ever being president.


He's running and the narrative of him being "The new Obama" will be pushed.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> He's running and the narrative of him being "The new Obama" will be pushed.


booker will get destroyed by Bernie or Tulsi


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> booker will get destroyed by Bernie or Tulsi


I think Bernie would be the best candidate for the dems, yeah


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> booker will get destroyed by Bernie or Tulsi


Booker is the Don Lemon of Politics. 

The only thing I see him doing is getting loads of love from CNN, MSN etc and when he loses they blame Tulsi and Bernie for encouraging white supremacy and the whole "Bernie bros are racists" stuff will pop up again..

Gosh it's going to be a swell time! :woo


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Booker is the Don Lemon of Politics.
> 
> The only thing I see him doing is getting loads of love from CNN, MSN etc and when he loses they blame Tulsi and Bernie for encouraging white supremacy and the whole "Bernie bros are racists" stuff will pop up again..
> 
> Gosh it's going to be a swell time! :woo


He should have this be his campaign poster:


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> He's running and the narrative of him being "The new Obama" will be pushed.


That won't cut it. Obama, while I think he was a bad president, was a super charismatic dude who won my vote in 2012. Booker is a hack with a god complex with admitted sexual assault.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> That won't cut it. Obama, while I think he was a bad president, was a super charismatic dude who won my vote in 2012. Booker is *a hack with a god complex with admitted sexual assault*.


So he is like Trump then except Trump wont admit all his sexual assaults


----------



## Punk_316 (Sep 9, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> He should be confirmed. None of the accusations are credible. In my eyes, if the Dems dont charge him with perjury, he never lied.


This fiasco has been nothing more than political theater and to prevent Kavanaugh from being nominated. Ford's entire case was built on _emotion _with _zero tangible evidence_ whatsoever. This is how much they hate America along with Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Punk_316 said:


> This fiasco has been nothing more than political theater and to prevent Kavanaugh from being nominated. Ford's entire case was built on emotion with zero tangible evidence whatsoever.


If that is true why did BK lie in almost everything he said?

And there is evidence LOL but keep lying. Brett Kavanaugh's calendar backs up the date is probably happened. But sure ignore that


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah the investigation they were handcuffed by Trump and did not even interview Ford, BK,Ramirez, Swetnick, or over 40 people that were trying to get in touch with the FBI about info including BKs freshman roommate or the 4 women who have issued sworn statements that they personally witnessed Kavanaugh committing sexual assault while drunk.


You were championing for an FBI investigation last week.

What would have been deemed a credible one to you?

Would you have been favor of them talking to Ford's or Swetnick's ex boyfriends?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You were championing for an FBI investigation last week.
> 
> What would have been deemed a credible one to you?
> 
> Would you have been favor of them talking to Ford's or Swetnick's ex boyfriends?


A credible investigation would have been one where they were not handcuffed like this one, you know one where they can interview anyone. Trump only allowed them to interview a handful of people. There are over 40 people that have come forward as of last night and the FBI was not allowed to interview them.

And yes their ex-bfs should also be interviewed of course


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> A credible investigation would have been one where they were not handcuffed like this one, you know one where they can interview anyone. Trump only allowed them to interview a handful of people. There are over 40 people that have come forward as of last night and the FBI was not allowed to interview them.
> 
> And yes their ex-bfs should also be interviewed of course


LOL at Trump only allowing them to interview a handful of people. Theres a NY Times article the says Trump said interview anyone they deemed credible, including BK and Swetnick if they found her credible. He just wanted it done within a week. So if FBI wanted to, they could have interviewed anyone in that time frame.

Im guessing FBI didnt find them credible or what they came forward with wasnt important. I am surprised they didnt interview BK or Ford though. Maybe they thought the senate testimony was enough.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> A credible investigation would have been one where they were not handcuffed like this one, you know one where they can interview anyone. Trump only allowed them to interview a handful of people. There are over 40 people that have come forward as of last night and the FBI was not allowed to interview them.
> 
> And yes their ex-bfs should also be interviewed of course


I think the 40 people thing would have been overkill.

The FBI doesn't care that Brett Kavanaugh passed out on a couch 15 years ago, and that also wouldn't tell them anything about the night we are talking about.

I would have liked for them to talk to Ford, her husband, her therapist (with the notes) her teachers from her sophomore year, her parents and any sports team coaches, and Kesley

I also think Judge, Kavanaugh, Mark Judge PJ, Renate, and Kavanaugh's sports teammates.

Sweatnick is a waste of time (even you know this) she is basically saying that she was hanging out with kids 3-5 years younger then her get drunk at a party that she attended and she didn't say anything, but kept going back.

I am glad they didn't waste time on her.

Ramirez seems to flip flop, depending on what outlet you talk to, so I guess her being interviewed doesn't hurt, but it would be tough to get anywhere.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> LOL at Trump only allowing them to interview a handful of people. Theres a NY Times article the says Trump said interview anyone they deemed credible, including BK and Swetnick if they found her credible. He just wanted it done within a week. So if FBI wanted to, they could have interviewed anyone in that time frame.
> 
> Im guessing FBI didnt find them credible or what they came forward with wasnt important. I am surprised they didnt interview BK or Ford though. Maybe they thought the senate testimony was enough.


It would make sense, I mean who would really need to hear that story twice.

i am sure the FBI has body language experts they can defer to there.

That's the problem with 40 people coming forward seemingly out of nowhere.

Anytime there is a scandal like this, there is always some guy who goes to Inside edition or Extra and says stuff that just isn't true, and they don't care because they are tabloid news.

Some of this stuff has to be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> LOL at Trump only allowing them to interview a handful of people. Theres a NY Times article the says Trump said interview anyone they deemed credible, including BK and Swetnick if they found her credible. He just wanted it done within a week. So if FBI wanted to, they could have interviewed anyone in that time frame.
> 
> Im guessing FBI didnt find them credible or what they came forward with wasnt important. I am surprised they didnt interview BK or Ford though. Maybe they thought the senate testimony was enough.


The WH is refusing to release the parameters set on the FBI for this investigation. That is all you need to know.

And how you can claim the Senate testimony would be enough when BK lied over and over, you don't think the FBi would want to ask him about that?

They didn't even talk to Kenneth Appold who said he was told about the story when he was at college about BK waving his penis in the face of Ramirez So there was talk about it when he was in college, and they could ask him who those people were and then go talk to those people. . And this guy is a Prof. at Princeton.

You can't honestly tell me you think this investigation was through


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I think the 40 people thing would have been overkill.
> 
> The FBI doesn't care that Brett Kavanaugh passed out on a couch 15 years ago, and that also wouldn't tell them anything about the night we are talking about.
> 
> ...


It all depends on what those 40 people have to say, if its just oh yeah he was a drunk and blacked out, and he told me he blacked out, you only need one or two of those. but if its people like Appold or llike some of the people coming forward claiming they saw BK grope women in college then they need to be interviewed.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The WH is refusing to release the parameters set on the FBI for this investigation. That is all you need to know.
> 
> And how you can claim the Senate testimony would be enough when BK lied over and over, you don't think the FBi would want to ask him about that?
> 
> ...


BK never lied and Im tired of you trying to tarnish his good Christian reputation!!

So Trump said interview anyone to the press/public but behind closed doors told them to not interview Kav or Ford or Swetnick? Ha ok!! The Ramirez story has gone back and forth so much I wouldnt buy anything anyone had to say on that. If someone flip flops on a story about them they are trying to tell, nothing anyone else could say would make me a believer. 

And this was predicted that any anti Kav person would cry not enough time or not enough people talked to when this was done. This FBI investigation was unnecessary to begin with. Its the FBI, a week is more than enough time to figure out whatever it is they were supposed to be looking for. 


#kav4scotus


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Wonder how many of those 40 people have nice little gofundme's started for them...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/tr...porting-brett-kavanaugh/#.W7Zobb6ZCB8.twitter

Trump supporter arrested for threatening to slaughter senators and their families for not supporting Brett Kavanaugh

Last week, James Patrick posted a credible threat on Facebook, saying he planned to shoot members of Congress depending on the outcome of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The Florida man was arrested, yet, oddly enough, Facebook still hasn’t removed the post, The Ledger reported.

Patrick’s avatar is a handgun and his photos show conspiracy theories about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, including a photo of a young woman (not Dr. Ford) with George Soros.

On Sept. 24, Patrick posted that he “bought 12 boxes of hollow point 50 caliber bullets.” He went on to say he has “plenty of ammo for my sniper rifle and bought a suppressor from a private individual so I don’t have to wait on it .. have made sure all my arrangements have been made and care for my dogs because I will not be coming home if Kav is not confirmed I will kill those I believe are responsible and track down their families and kill them too ..and have taken extra precautions and added more supplies in the tunnel under my house in case local or federal law enforcement tries to stop me .. follow in my footsteps .. I refuse to let democrats [sic] ruin this country.”

The second post alluded to the first, saying he was ready to give up his life for the cause.

“I can tell it seems I will be sacrificing my life for my country,” Patrick wrote on Sept. 29. “But I am ready and will know who needs to be killed after the vote to put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.”

“Getting ready if Kav is not confirmed,” he wrote in a Sept. 22 Facebook post. “Whoever I think is to blame may God have mercy on their soul .. just cleaned out the gun shop where I get guns ammo and target practice .. bought all their 50 cal hollow points. I expect to be confronted and I will be ready to kill and ready to die.”

In a post from two years ago that Patrick re-shared, he said that he’d find it amusing if President Donald Trump slammed Hillary Clinton’s head into the podium.

In another post from 2017, he wrote “I can’t do this by myself ! Need more conservatives going into liberals’ homes at night killing them in their sleep!”

He was never arrested for these threats, however, only the ones to elected officials.

Patrick had ammunition in his home, according to deputies.

Bail has been set at $500,000 and he has been arrested before for battery in 2009, though it’s unclear if it was domestic related.

Sheriff Grady Judd said in a press release that he wishes people would calm down and stop making threats of violence.

“Anyone who threatens to shoot or kill any public servant or law enforcement officer will go to jail immediately,” the statement read.

Just bought 12 boxes of hollow point 50 caliber bullets .. have plenty of ammo for my sniper rifle and bought a suppressor from a private individual so I don’t have to wait on it .. have made sure all my arrangements have been made and care for my dogs because I will not be coming home if Kav is not confirmed I will kill those I believe are responsible and track down their families and kill them too ..and have taken extra precautions and added more supplies in the tunnel under my house in case local or federal law enforcement tries to stop me .. follow in my footsteps .. I refuse to let democrats ruin this country


other FB posts in te article


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This whole situation has been such a disaster for the Dems. Who knew destroying a man's reputation for no reason would hurt your party?!


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/tr...porting-brett-kavanaugh/#.W7Zobb6ZCB8.twitter
> 
> Trump supporter arrested for threatening to slaughter senators and their families for not supporting Brett Kavanaugh
> 
> ...


Haha that guys a dumbass (probably not funny to others). Who announces they bought hollow points? And calls their rifle a sniper rifle? None of this trumps his threats of killing people...but wow this guy is off the chain.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It all depends on what those 40 people have to say, if its just oh yeah he was a drunk and blacked out, and he told me he blacked out, you only need one or two of those. but if its people like Appold or llike some of the people coming forward claiming they saw BK grope women in college then they need to be interviewed.


I read the Appold thing and it is shaky to say the least:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates



> Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. *He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college*. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. *“I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”*



So he basically heard a rumor of something happening, and that is enough for him to be credible?

I am 100% sure there are a bunch of stories like this, and honestly, they are a waste of time.

I would rather them spend time with the person who actually had the eye witness account.

That is the bad part about this stuff, I don't think they should be wasting time with people who "heard a story, about someone they never met or talked to"

That would be a joke.

Are you in favor of these people who have come out like Appold, and Swetnick, they seem to help in lending less credibility to the situation


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> This whole situation has been such a disaster for the Dems. Who knew destroying a man's reputation for no reason would hurt your party?!


yeah such a disaster because most of the country is against BK even some Christian Groups and 1200 law professors came out against confirming him.

Its just funny how you take BK side even though he lied over and over again yet you think everyone coming out against him is lying LOL You really need to come back to reality



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I read the Appold thing and it is shaky to say the least:
> 
> https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates
> 
> ...


LOL I am done discussing this topic because it just shows that people like you will have an excuse for everything to defend BK. 

You cant ignore all the lies BK told all you want and claim everyone backing up what the accusers say is oh shaky. It just shows you will defend BK no matter what.
I really shoudln't be surprised since people like you are the same trolls who defend Trump


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL I am done discussing this topic because it just shows that people like you will have an excuse for everything to defend BK.
> 
> You cant ignore all the lies BK told all you want and claim everyone backing up what the accusers say is oh shaky. It just shows you will defend BK no matter what.
> I really shoudln't be surprised since people like you are the same trolls who defend Trump


Well, it isn't my word that it is a shaky story.

I mean the mystery classmate that told him said the same thing:



> The report actually reads as follows: “Appold said that he initially asked to remain anonymous because he hoped to make contact first with the classmate who, to the best of his recollection, told him about the party and was an eyewitness to the incident. He said that he had not been able to get any response from that person, despite multiple attempts to do so.* The New Yorker reached the classmate, but he said that he had no memory of the incident.”*


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...n-a-single-sources-claim-to-have-heard-gossip

As for the rest, stop deflecting, I asked you if you think Swetnick and Appold have hurt this investigation, they obviously have.

Some of your vitriol should be saved for them IMO

You have the same M.O.

-Use Talking points, and sensationalized headlines
-Get shown proof of being wrong
-Insult said person because you have no argument.

You are true theater..


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Every time BM calls Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh "BK" I get hungry :bearo


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Every time BM calls Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh "BK" I get hungry :bearo


IMO Whopper>Big Mac but Mcdonald's fries are better


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> IMO Whopper>Big Mac but Mcdonald's fries are better


Wendy's Baconator though :sodone


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Wendy's Baconator though :sodone


Ha i always get a couple Jr Bacon Cheeseburgers when I go to Wendys...BTW whoever runs Wendy's twitter acct should get a publishing deal!!


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Every time BM calls Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh "BK" I get hungry :bearo


Aren’t you vegetarian?


----------



## Dave Santos (Sep 27, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*













Jerry lawler at Trump rally.

http://www.prowrestlingsheet.com/lawler-trump-ford-video/#.W7aDwmhKhPY


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Every time BM calls Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh "BK" I get hungry :bearo


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> Aren’t you vegetarian?


I stopped being a vegetarian about a year and a half ago.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> LOL
> *
> Witnesses came forward saying that “Devil’s Triangle” was in fact a drinking game after all.*
> 
> ...


https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1047959545694343168


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*Jamie Roche, Kavanaugh's freshman year roommate at Yale told CNN that he heard Kavanaugh use the term to refer to sexual activity.*


Bet if Bk and his few buddies claimed 69 was a drinking game you would claim it was not referring to a sexual act. if it was a drinking game when did some of his friends have devils triangle with multiple years next to it in the yearbook?'


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> *Jamie Roche, Kavanaugh's freshman year roommate at Yale told CNN that he heard Kavanaugh use the term to refer to sexual activity.*
> 
> 
> Bet if Bk and his few buddies claimed 69 was a drinking game you would claim it was not referring to a sexual act. if it was a drinking game when did some of his friends have devils triangle with multiple years next to it in the yearbook?'


Good try at deflection.One says the opposite vs multiple guys confirming it is in fact a drinking game.You lose.End of story.You also can't read apparently:

*
It’s worth noting that Bernard McCarthy — one of the people who signed the new letter to @SenJudiciary saying “Devil’s Triangle” was a game — is also listed in the Georgetown Prep yearbook saying he’s the one who named the game. Unless this conspiracy goes back to the 1980’s...*

I even bolded it.What's wrong with you?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Good try at deflection.One says the opposite vs multiple guys confirming it is in fact a drinking game.You lose.End of story.You also can't read apparently:
> 
> *
> It’s worth noting that Bernard McCarthy — one of the people who signed the new letter to @SenJudiciary saying “Devil’s Triangle” was a game — is also listed in the Georgetown Prep yearbook saying he’s the one who named the game. Unless this conspiracy goes back to the 1980’s...*
> ...


And his roommate said BK directly talked to him about a devils triangle being a sexual act. What is wrong with you?

show me the screenshot of the yearbook where it says devils triangle was a drinking game


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> And his roommate said BK directly talked to him about a devils triangle being a sexual act. What is wrong with you?


How many times do i have to put in bold the same sentence over and over again?Does the conspiracy go back to the 80's?Why did Bernard McCarthy claim he invented the game called devil's triangle?

https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1047959545694343168

Your guy is irrelevant.Kavanaugh may have mentioned that devil's three way is also a sexual act.So what?So they named their drinking game that way as a joke.Again, so f'n what?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kavanaugh op-ed reflecting on his testimony


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1047993565538897922
He'll be confirmed. President Trump wins again.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Kavanaugh op-ed reflecting on his testimony
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1047993565538897922
> He'll be confirmed. President Trump wins again.


Imagine if Flake and Collins voted no but Joe Manchin votes yes and he gets confirmed via tiebreaker Pence

And yeah Trump wins and America loses once again and conservatives will cheer because oh it owns the libs even though they will be getting screwed over.

conservatives are always happy to bite off their nose to spite their face if it owns libs


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> conservatives are always happy to bite off their nose to spite their face if it owns libs


After the last couple of weeks, I can't blame them. :lol Democrats are fucking insane.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> This whole situation has been such a disaster for the Dems. Who knew destroying a man's reputation for no reason would hurt your party?!


This isn't a criminal trial. This is a question about whether this specific person is fit for the position. Gorsuch (sic?) went to the same prep school/colleges and was confirmed. Why is it so much different with Kavanaugh? Is it because the dude is a rapey frat boy? If it's about abortion, why not withdraw him and appoint a new, squeaky clean judge? It's because Kavanagh doesn't think a sitting president can be subpoenaed or indicted. 

Also, sounds like he ruined his reputation pretty well by himself.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



dele said:


> This isn't a criminal trial. This is a question about whether this specific person is fit for the position. Gorsuch (sic?) went to the same prep school/colleges and was confirmed. Why is it so much different with Kavanaugh? Is it because the dude is a rapey frat boy? If it's about abortion, why not withdraw him and appoint a new, squeaky clean judge? It's because Kavanagh doesn't think a sitting president can be subpoenaed or indicted.
> 
> Also, sounds like he ruined his reputation pretty well by himself.


Exactly. 
Only in the upside-down world of the GOP and conservatives is a person like BK fit to serve on the SCOTUS, one who lies over and over, dodges question after question and is like OH YEAH WHAT ABOUT YOU HUH HUH HUH

If anyone did the shit he did during this job interview, they would be shown the door. FFS he came up with a wacky conspiracy theory this was all a Clinton conspiracy.

The fact is the GOP knew about this sexual allegations long before he was picked by Trump, at least the Rameriez ones since Mitch told Trump he should pick someone else because they man run into issues with BK.

There is a reason why the GOP didn't want to show all of BK files to the DNC.

But suuureee it was the Clintons, him claiming that along makes him not fit because it shows he cannot be unbiased nor stay calm.


He embarrassed himself like you said.


All he had to do was be honest and say yes I drank a lot in HS and college, over drank on a number of occasions. Even sometimes had to piece together with friends what happened the night before like at that red sox game, and I said some stupid things in my year book like all HS kids do but that does not mean I ever sexually assaulted anyone.

And if he really believes he was innocent, say yes I welcome an FBI investigation, I want to clear my name. 

he couldn't even do that, it makes you wonder what else is he hiding that he lied about stupid shit and evaded simple questions.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> After the last couple of weeks, I can't blame them. :lol Democrats are fucking insane.


LOL yeah democrats are the insane ones when BK is the one lying under oath, ranting, and raving while giving outlandish conspiracy theories about the Clintons

And I dont even have to go into Trump and how crazy he is.

Its things like this why I can never take you seriously. It's like you don't even live in reality.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yeah democrats are the insane ones when BK is the one lying under oath, ranting, and raving while giving outlandish conspiracy theories about the Clintons
> 
> And I dont even have to go into Trump and how crazy he is.
> 
> Its things like this why I can never take you seriously. It's like you don't even live in reality.


we do live in separate realities tho so this makes sense


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Let's be real the scotus stuff was a sham and the anti leftists in here aren't wrong to label it as that. The Dems tucked up.

BK is an liar under oath and an entirely bad choice for Scotus.

The investigation buy the FBI was a fraud and does not exonerate BK at all.

The system that allows a lifetime role set up to be specifically bipartisan is shit.

Now Amy Schumer is getting involved in really really ready for this entire farce on both sides to be over. Your politicians are worse than ours, and ours are terrible.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Democrats: The FBI destroyed Hitlery's campaign and was in bed with Trump!
Republicans: The FBI knows stuff about Hillary and isn't telling us. Lock her up!
FBI: But Russia!
Democrats: OMG FBI IS TELLING you THAT RUSSIA! IMPEACH!
Republicans: FBI IS A CORRUPT ORGANIZATION!
FBI: Kavanaugh may not be a rapist
Democrats: FBI IS A CORRUPT ORGANIZATION!
Republicans: THE FBI CLEARED KAVANAUGH!

50% of Americans: VOTE DEMOCRATS!
Other 50% of Americans: VOTE REPUBLICANS!


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



dele said:


> This isn't a criminal trial. This is a question about whether this specific person is fit for the position. Gorsuch (sic?) went to the same prep school/colleges and was confirmed. Why is it so much different with Kavanaugh?


Gorsuch was replacing one if not the most conservative judges ever, in the beginning of Trump's presidency.The climate was much different back then.Trump and the GOP were in a better position.Also read this:


*The Revisionist History of the Neil Gorsuch Hearings
*

*https://www.commentarymagazine.com/...sionist-history-of-the-neil-gorsuch-hearings/*




> Is it because the dude is a rapey frat boy? If it's about abortion, why not withdraw him and appoint a new, squeaky clean judge? It's because Kavanagh doesn't think a sitting president can be subpoenaed or indicted.


Is this a serious question?There is no time for someone else.The Dems wanted to delay the nomination even before the sexual allegations because they think they'll win the midterms and not have to confirm another Trump judge. 




> Also, sounds like he ruined his reputation pretty well by himself.


No, it was ruined by delusional, insane liars like Ford, Swetnik and others.The guy had an impeccable reputation before all this.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Exactly.
> Only in the upside-down world of the GOP and conservatives is a person like BK fit to serve on the SCOTUS, one who lies over and over, dodges question after question and is like OH YEAH WHAT ABOUT YOU HUH HUH HUH
> 
> If anyone did the shit he did during this job interview, they would be shown the door. FFS he came up with a wacky conspiracy theory this was all a Clinton conspiracy.
> ...



The ramirez stuff is complete bullcrap:


“After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”

The New York Times, meanwhile, interviewed dozens of alleged witnesses, and none can remember any such incident. It also stated: “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.” 




> All he had to do was be honest and say yes I drank a lot in HS and college, over drank on a number of occasions.


But he did say that.



> Even sometimes had to piece together with friends what happened the night before like at that red sox game, and I said some stupid things in my year book like all HS kids do but that does not mean I ever sexually assaulted anyone.


That's false.Those were two entirely separate incidents.He never said that he had to piece things together from the previous night.That happened many, many years later.:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/Kavanaugh-binge-drinking-Yale-speech-.html



> In one episode, he described taking a bus with his classmates to Boston for a Red Sox game and a night of barhopping, which ended with the students “falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.”
> 
> “Fortunately for all of us, we had a motto: ‘What happens on the bus stays on the bus,’” the speech said.
> 
> ...









> And if he really believes he was innocent, say yes I welcome an FBI investigation, I want to clear my name.




Keep repeating the same nonsence over and over again and i will keep on quoting Joe Biden:


*“The last thing I will point out, the next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period,” Biden said. “The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report [is] you would not like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say, ‘He said, she said, and they said. Period.”

“So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand they do not, they do not reach conclusions,” Biden said.*




> he couldn't even do that, it makes you wonder what else is he hiding that he lied about stupid shit and evaded simple questions.



No, it doesn't make one wonder.Because you are simply incorrect in all your assumptions.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm bothered by Wall Street Journal's continued support of Kavanaugh.

America's biggest pro crony capitalist publication is providing a full, unfiltered platform to a Supreme Court nominee. 

Yeah. Nothing to see here. Move along.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Anybody else think had something been found in this FBI investigation, Democrats would have been all "I told you so, what a great call on the FBI investigation" but bc nothing was found theyre all pissy?

BK is squeaky clean IMO. Didnt lie bc I have to believe with all the outrage perjury charges would have been brought against him. Hes lived a good clean life and deserves all that he has worked for.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kavanaugh: NOT INTERVIEWED
Ford: NOT INTERVIEWED
Ford (18 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED
Ramirez (20 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED
Swetnick: NOT INTERVIEWED
Swetnick (1 sworn corroborating witness): IGNORED
Accuser 4: IGNORED
Perjury ("Renate Alumnius"): CONFIRMED
Perjury ("Devil's Triangle"): CONFIRMED
Perjury ("FFFF"): CONFIRMED
Perjury ("boofing"): CONFIRMED
Perjury ("Bart"): CONFIRMED
Perjury (no blackouts): CONFIRMED
Perjury (no groping): CONFIRMED


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

"No way am I voting for Kav, hes got too much going on around him, I cant trust him, I would do anything to keep him out"
"Sir, he lied, we have him on perjury charges"
"Nah I dont think we should do that"

Had these accusations come out two years ago, no way does he get the nomination. But it being brought to light this close to the confirmation will bring suspicions. I dont care how long ago the event happened, IF it happened he should not be going to the SC.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Kavanaugh: NOT INTERVIEWED
> Ford: NOT INTERVIEWED
> Ford (18 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED
> Ramirez (20 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED
> ...


Just out of curiosity...had the investigation gone the exact same way with all these witnesses/people not being interviewed, and it was discovered that BK had done these things, would you still complain that important people had been ignored? 

I will agree Kav and Ford should probably have been interviewed, but the rest not so much.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



dele said:


> This isn't a criminal trial. This is a question about whether this specific person is fit for the position. Gorsuch (sic?) went to the same prep school/colleges and was confirmed. Why is it so much different with Kavanaugh? Is it because the dude is a rapey frat boy? If it's about abortion, why not withdraw him and appoint a new, squeaky clean judge? It's because Kavanagh doesn't think a sitting president can be subpoenaed or indicted.
> 
> Also, sounds like he ruined his reputation pretty well by himself.


Your last sentence shows you're clearly not a fan of evidence. Even ignoring that you clearly haven't followed the situation it's plain as day that this sham has pissed off moderates and Republicans. Go check how much polls/voter excitement/vote importance numbers have moved in the last week.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Kavanaugh: TIME TO GET CONFIRMED
> Ford: EXPOSED AS LIAR AND COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE
> Ford (0 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED
> Ramirez (0 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED
> ...


Yes, Kavanaugh's version of everything he described has been confirmed.Ford and others exposed as delusional liars.Thanks for playing.

Here's again the devil triangle thing you keep ignoring:



> Witnesses came forward saying that “Devil’s Triangle” was in fact a drinking game after all.
> 
> *It’s worth noting that Bernard McCarthy — one of the people who signed the new letter to @SenJudiciary saying “Devil’s Triangle” was a game — is also listed in the Georgetown Prep yearbook saying he’s the one who named the game. Unless this conspiracy goes back to the 1980’s...*


https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/st...59545694343168

https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1047930830012796928

https://t.co/4AD81Xo9YU


Ford's full of shit:

*Friend of Dr. Ford Felt Pressure to Revisit Statement*


https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend...52?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/rGWyma8j9w

*Christine Ford threw her under the bus.Christine Ford's high school friend, Leland Keyser, was 'completely blindsided' and left 'reeling' when the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape named her as a corroborating witness.*

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-blindsided-named-corroborating-witness.html



*Ex-boyfriend of Ford says she WASN'T afraid of flying or closed spaces*

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-says-WASNT-afraid-flying-closed-spaces.html

*Christine Blasey Ford's changing Kavanaugh assault story leaves her short on credibility*

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opini...ies-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/1497661002/

Swetnik's full of shit:


https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...n-nbc-panel-picks-apart-swetnicks-credibility

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/27...ms-against-kavanaugh-are-not-credible-at-all/

Ramirez's full of shit:


*The New York Times, meanwhile, interviewed dozens of alleged witnesses, and none can remember any such incident. It also stated: “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.” This sentence was later pulled from the New York Times article without any explanation.*

They are all full of it with the exception of Kavanaugh.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










America's "left" is just turning into Onion come to life.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> America's "left" is just turning into Onion come to life.


The study they base the article on doesn't even say that and the methodology of the study is flawed. Why are they doing an academic study on TLJ backlash anyway?

Taken from a comment on r/movies about the story.



> 1273 total tweets were gathered from December 13, 2017 to July 20, 2018 from Rian Johnson's twitter handle mentions.
> 
> 967 Tweets analyzed
> 
> ...


Link to full study and conclusion of the study.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328006677_Weaponizing_the_haters_The_Last_Jedi_and_the_strategic_politicization_of_pop_culture_through_social_media_manipulation



> *Conclusion *
> 
> Assuming that the collected dataset of Twitter interactions with The Last Jedi director
> Rian Johnson is at least to an extent representative of Star Wars fandom on Twitter, there are a
> ...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@2 Ton 21 ;

- It's more bothersome that the corporate left has stopped to such an intellectual low that they even published something this crazy. 

I know that the bar for media and news in general is extremely low but just how low are they capable of going? 

It's even worse when they have people who believe this nonsense.

If the right has one Alex Jones, at this point it seems like the "left" has countered with an entire ARMY of Alex Jones.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> @2 Ton 21 ;
> 
> - It's more bothersome that the corporate left has stopped to such an intellectual low that they even published something this crazy.
> 
> ...


Part of it is selling an agenda or clickbait sure, but the other part is the absolute lack of science knowledge and statistical analysis. They, the media and the public, see study that and think, "Well, must be real. Someone did a study and it says this, so there". Throw in that they're more likely to believe something that fits their mindset and I mean both sides of the political spectrum. 

Has it been peer reviewed or has it just been released and they're already reporting the findings like they're gospel? That's why studies are supposed to be peer reviewed and then the media should report an the data. Not like anyone is going to peer review this one. Who wants waste the time double checking 1273 tweets at Rian Johnson FFS?


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*WSJ: “Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired [FBI] agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement”*

https://twitter.com/McCormackJohn/status/1048155434614493186

*So today we find out that the same woman (Monica McLean) who denied Ford taught her how to take a polygraph pressured Leland Keyser into amending her original statement. If that doesn’t stink to you, you aren’t paying attention.*




https://twitter.com/SaraGonzalesTX/status/1048192918920593409


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> *WSJ: “Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired [FBI] agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement”*
> 
> https://twitter.com/McCormackJohn/status/1048155434614493186
> 
> ...




*The WSJ said Kavanaugh also reached out to former classmates in an effort to bolster his denials of accusations of sexual misconduct."*

OOPS

And let's not forget he did the same thing BEFORE the Rameriz story came out in that NY magazine, which again shows how he LIED about not knowing about it before that story came out.


But of course you are going to ignore this and you can keep on ignoring all the other evidence that backs Fords and the other women's claims.


And you can't even be honest about your story with McLean, and Keyser

McLean asked to Keyser clarify her statement you are acting like she tried to get her to lie. 


.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> *The WSJ said Kavanaugh also reached out to former classmates in an effort to bolster his denials of accusations of sexual misconduct."*
> 
> OOPS
> 
> ...


Of course i am gonna ignore the utter nonsense that is the Ramirez story.It's ridiculous.



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Ramirez's full of shit:
> 
> 
> *The New York Times, meanwhile, interviewed dozens of alleged witnesses, and none can remember any such incident. It also stated: “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.” This sentence was later pulled from the New York Times article without any explanation.*
> ...


*
NBC Owes Brett Kavanaugh A Retraction And Apology For ‘Perjury’ Claims Based On Ramirez Texts*

https://thefederalist.com/2018/10/0...n-apology-perjury-claims-based-ramirez-texts/


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> @2 Ton 21 ;
> 
> - It's more bothersome that the corporate left has stopped to such an intellectual low that they even published something this crazy.
> 
> ...


Between Russia-gate and serial gang-rapist Kavanaugh, the left basically IS Alex Jones now.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Of course i am gonna ignore the utter nonsense that is the Ramirez story.It's ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seems like BM may owe Honorable Kavanaugh an apology too.

Its a joke hes still trying to fight this even though their stories are falling apart in front of his eyes.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Hey, remember that famous party on July 1, 1982 from Kavanaugh's calendar?The one birthday_massacre kept arguing corroborates Ford's claims?Yeah.... about that.....

*No, The Alleged Attack On Ford Didn’t Happen At The July 1, 1982 Party, Says … Ford Team Member*



> Christine Blasey Ford would have ruled out a key date that both Republicans and Democrats have examined in evaluating her sexual assault claim against Brett Kavanaugh, had the FBI contacted her for its inquiry, according to a member of her team…
> 
> But a member of Ford’s team said the California-based professor — who was not interviewed by the FBI for its inquiry — “would have told them that she never considered July 1 as a possible date, because of some of the people listed on his calendar who she knew well and would have remembered.”
> 
> “She would have also told the FBI that it was just a regular summer night for everyone else who was there,” the member of Ford’s team added. “There would have been no reason for them to remember it.”



https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10...t-happen-july-1-1982-party-says-fords-lawyer/

Hey, birthday?It's over.Let it go buddy.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't know why you ever took BM seriously in the first place. He'll still argue every point he's been proven wrong on.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> I don't know why you ever took BM seriously in the first place. He'll still argue every point he's been proven wrong on.


LOL no it hasn't but keep pretending that if it makes you feel better.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Between Russia-gate and serial gang-rapist Kavanaugh, the left basically IS Alex Jones now.


No, Alex Jones is at least amusing in his insanity. The "Left" is just pathetic. No different than the right wing moralists that said that satanists, gays and Russians were destroying America


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Not enough reptile lizard aliens in BM's conspiracy theories

Collins and Flake yes on Kavanaugh, Manchin says he is too. Game over man game over

Murkowski should just go switch parties, it doesn't really matter if the GOP has 56 or 55 Senators in January


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Not enough reptile lizard aliens in BM's conspiracy theories
> 
> Collins and Flake yes on Kavanaugh, Manchin says he is too. Game over man game over
> 
> Murkowski should just go switch parties, it doesn't really matter if the GOP has 56 or 55 Senators in January


YET the ABA is looking into his rating again and over 2400 law professors and a former SJC say he should not be confirmed

yeah all these people are lying about BK, and we know for a fact he lied over and over again under oath, yet he is the one who is telling the truth ha ha ok


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't think all of the leftists are completely off their rocker but their corporate media headlines have been reading like Infowars for years now so I don't disagree that their media landscape is at least as bad (if not worse in some cases) than media on the right.

They've also realized that the vast majority of people base their entire world view on just headlines and so the content can say everything that contradicts the headline but it won't matter. 

As long as the headline says something, people believe it even if the next line literally says "Haha j/k"


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048331923985235968
:banderas


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I don't think all of the leftists are completely off their rocker but their corporate media headlines have been reading like Infowars for years now so I don't disagree that their media landscape is at least as bad (if not worse in some cases) than media on the right.
> 
> They've also realized that the vast majority of people base their entire world view on just headlines and so the content can say everything that contradicts the headline but it won't matter.
> 
> As long as the headline says something, people believe it even if the next line literally says "Haha j/k"


It's been a problem now, how many news outlets have put out stories with inflammatory headlines only to retract story or correct a few days or week later? It's done on purpose because the damage has been done and they're off the hook now.

I believe it was TIME that used a photograph and ran with a story for it which wasn't true and one of the higherups on TV tried justifying it even though they knew it was wrong. 

With all the talk of justice, truth and doing the right thing.. nobody seems to really want to do any of that. Proof is our academia and the MSM.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

"Corporate media" is not responsible, sorry. 

Such a contention or implication is lazy and ignorant.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Gorsuch was replacing one if not the most conservative judges ever, in the beginning of Trump's presidency.The climate was much different back then.Trump and the GOP were in a better position.Also read this:
> 
> 
> *The Revisionist History of the Neil Gorsuch Hearings
> *



That poorly written article is one massive false equivalency. The critique of Gorsuch was that his judicial opinions were very conservative and would jeopardize women's/family health services (e.g. access to birth control and safe abortion services). It's anti-woman on a philosophical level.

The critique of Kavanaugh is that he's a fucking drunk pig and has been since high school. Sounds like the company he kept throughout his life has been the same. Shouldn't that be an issue for a lifetime appointment? That minstrel show that he put on in his testimony was a mockery and showed the quality of that man.



Werner Heizenberg said:


> Is this a serious question?There is no time for someone else.The Dems wanted to delay the nomination even before the sexual allegations because they think they'll win the midterms and not have to confirm another Trump judge.


Why nominate a guy who has issues like this guy in the first place? Why was none of this research done by the person who told Trump to nominate him?




Werner Heizenberg said:


> No, it was ruined by delusional, insane liars like Ford, Swetnik and others.The guy had an impeccable reputation before all this.


Suddenly no sources. You have no problems spamming links elsewhere.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

OH Look BK BFF told Trump to make sure the scope was limited or it would be huge trouble for BK

Don McGahn stopped the FBI from carrying out a fuller investigation, according to NYT.

McGahn told Trump a wide-ranging inquiry like some Democrats were demanding would be potentially disastrous for Kavanaugh's chances of confirmation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/trump-kavanaugh-fbi.html

WASHINGTON — An exasperated President Trump picked up the phone to call the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, last Sunday. Tell the F.B.I. they can investigate anything, he told Mr. McGahn, because we need the critics to stop.

Not so fast, Mr. McGahn said.

Mr. McGahn, according to people familiar with the conversation, told the president that even though the White House was facing a storm of condemnation for limiting the F.B.I. background check into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a wide-ranging inquiry like some Democrats were demanding — and Mr. Trump was suggesting — would be potentially disastrous for Judge Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation to the Supreme Court.

It would also go far beyond the F.B.I.’s usual “supplemental background investigation,” which is, by definition, narrow in scope.

The White House could not legally order the F.B.I. to rummage indiscriminately through someone’s life, Mr. McGahn told the president. And without a criminal investigation to pursue, agents could not use search warrants and subpoenas to try to get at the truth.
ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Trump backed down, although he said publicly the next day that the F.B.I. “should interview anybody that they want within reason.” But the episode on Sunday was further evidence of the confusion, including on the part of the president, about what would happen after Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, forced a one-week delay in the confirmation vote of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by calling for a new F.B.I. investigation.

From the start, there were different expectations. Democrats hoped for a full investigation into the allegations, even as they were skeptical that one would occur and angrily said on Friday that the White House had quashed it. In all, 10 people were interviewed, and an 11th declined to cooperate.

But the F.B.I. did not interview the two people at the center — Judge Kavanaugh and his main accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.
Image
Television reporters at the White House on Thursday as the F.B.I. report was made available to Senators on Capitol Hill.CreditT.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times
Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, declared the F.B.I. efforts to be “a whitewash” and vowed to open a new investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations if Democrats take control of the House in November’s elections.
ADVERTISEMENT

“We have to assure the American people either that it was a fair process and that the new justice did not commit perjury, did not do these terrible things,” Mr. Nadler said.

But White House and former F.B.I. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the inquiry, said the weeklong examination of the charges against Judge Kavanaugh was similar to the many previous times that the bureau has been asked to update a background check of a nominee to account for new information.

People familiar with the process say the White House is always in charge of background checks and can limit the scope of the questions F.B.I. agents can ask and who they can interview.

In the case of Judge Kavanaugh, Mr. McGahn instructed the F.B.I. to do an additional background check focused exclusively on the sexual misconduct charges leveled by three women.

In talking with Republican senators, White House officials said, it became clear to Mr. McGahn that four people whom senators wanted to be interviewed: Deborah Ramirez, who alleged that Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a college party; Mark Judge, a high school friend who was said to have witnessed an assault by Judge Kavanaugh on Christine Blasey Ford at a high school party; and two other friends who Dr. Blasey said were at that party, P.J. Smyth and Leland Keyser.

Late Friday, Dr. Blasey’s legal team sharply criticized the inquiry and said in a statement that “an F.B.I. investigation that did not include interviews of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh is not a meaningful investigation in any sense of the word.”

The goal of the inquiry, White House officials said, was looking for witnesses who had firsthand accounts of sexual misconduct. The inquiry would not include questions about whether Judge Kavanaugh was frequently drunk or had been misleading in his Senate testimony.
EDITORS’ PICKS


Remarkable People We Overlooked in Our Obituaries

4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich

China Is Detaining Muslims in Vast Numbers. The Goal: ‘Transformation.’
ADVERTISEMENT

Armed with that list, F.B.I. agents began conducting the interviews.

The White House was kept informed as the agents did their work, with summaries of the interviews — known as “Form 302s” — sent to the White House as they were completed.
Image

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, arrived at a secure room to view the single copy of the F.B.I. report on Capitol Hill on Thursday.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times
Officials said that in a typical supplemental background check inquiry, agents would be required to ask the White House for permission to expand beyond the initial list of interview subjects.

But they insisted that the F.B.I. was not required to do that in the case of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Over the course of the week, they said, agents decided to add a handful of other interviews to the inquiry.

According to a list distributed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, F.B.I. agents also interviewed Timothy Gaudette and Christopher Garrett, two high school friends of Judge Kavanaugh who were listed in the judge’s 1982 calendar as having attended a high school party. In addition, agents interviewed a lawyer of one of the friends.

Agents also interviewed two potential eyewitnesses to the episode alleged by Ms. Ramirez, as well as one of her close friends. The F.B.I. did not identify the three, but two of them were Kevin Genda and Karen Yarasavage, who are now married and knew Ms. Ramirez and Mr. Kavanaugh in college, according to a lawyer briefed on the matter. Mr. Genda and Ms. Yarasavage were each interviewed for more than two hours, according to the lawyer. And although Ms. Ramirez told agents that Mr. Genda had witnessed the episode, it is not clear whether their statements offered any support for Ms. Ramirez’s account.

In addition, the F.B.I. agents collected written statements that had been submitted to them from other people, officials said. Those statements were also sent to the White House and forwarded to the Senate Judiciary Committee, officials said.
ADVERTISEMENT

The contents of the interviews have not been made public. Early Thursday, the White House sent the summaries of the interviews to the Judiciary Committee, which made them available to senators.

White House officials insisted that neither Mr. McGahn nor any other West Wing lawyer prohibited the F.B.I. from interviewing them. But some former law enforcement experts said it was an odd decision not to include the two people at the center of the controversy.

Robert Cromwell, a former F.B.I. agent who oversaw sensitive background investigations of political appointees, doubted that agents decided not to interview Dr. Blasey and Mr. Kavanaugh on their own.

“I don’t think that it was in the parameters of the request,” he said. “That’s what I would assume. It would be frustrating as an investigator. The nature of investigators is to get to the bottom line. You’d want to talk to both of them.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



dele said:


> That poorly written article is one massive false equivalency. The critique of Gorsuch was that his judicial opinions were very conservative and would jeopardize women's/family health services (e.g. access to birth control and safe abortion services). It's anti-woman on a philosophical level.


So is being pro-abortion categorically being pro-baby killing? If that's the "philosophical level" you're going to operate on.



> The critique of Kavanaugh is that he's a fucking drunk pig and has been since high school.


Then why were there zero allegations about drunken pigness for the last 30 years? 



> Sounds like the company he kept throughout his life has been the same.


By company, I assume you mean Mark Judge. I do not know how close Judge and Kavanaugh were after high school.

Do you?

Who else would be listed among this company? Do you have any names? 



> Shouldn't that be an issue for a lifetime appointment?


No, drinking in high school and college should not be an issue for a professional appointment 30 years later.



> That minstrel show that he put on in his testimony was a mockery and showed the quality of that man.


I hope you are accused of heinous behavior with no corroboration, that you are publicly denied presumption of innocence by powerful people, and that when you get pissed off about it, your reaction is cynically and ruthlessly used against you.



> Why nominate a guy who has issues like this guy in the first place?


What issues? 



> Why was none of this research done by the person who told Trump to nominate him?


What research? Do you mean all the research by the New Yorker and New York Times that couldn't find a single instance of first-hand corroboration of Deborah Ramirez's claims? Or the research by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI, and every major news organization in the United States and several in Europe that couldn't find a single instance of _any_ corroboration of Christine Ford's claims? 



> Suddenly no sources. You have no problems spamming links elsewhere.


What are your sources? You just asserted that Kavanaugh has been a drunken pig not only from ~1980 to ~1988, but since then too. 

No proof, not even any claims. Dozens of friends and acquaintances in high school and college denying it. 

Not even any allegations post-college.

You're frothing at the mouth in your frustration and realization that no matter how much you believe in unsupported smears, your belief isn't enough to prevail.

Tough shit. Thank God people like you have lost, a societal return to the Salem Witch Trials has been avoided once more. You want to go live in that quasi-medieval kind of society where self-interest and superstition wholly rule public affairs, move to a village in the mountains of the Hindu Kush or somewhere.


----------



## The Game (Oct 7, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Imagine if Flake and Collins voted no but Joe Manchin votes yes and he gets confirmed via tiebreaker Pence
> 
> And yeah Trump wins and America loses once again and conservatives will cheer because oh it owns the libs even though they will be getting screwed over.
> 
> conservatives are always happy to bite off their nose to spite their face if it owns libs


Honestly blows my mind that there are people that actually believe that worm Kavanaugh. All you need to do is watch him trying to defend himself. So disingenuous. I can't remember ever seeing someone try so hard to cry. I don't need that biased media these people are all complaining about to spot a bullshitter. I'll give these people credit though. I don't think they actually believe him. Nobody is that stupid. I just don't think they care. It's always about one-upping liberals. It's ALWAYS about that.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stone Cold Becky Lynch said:


> Honestly blows my mind that there are people that actually believe that worm Kavanaugh. All you need to do is watch him trying to defend himself. So disingenuous. I can't remember ever seeing someone try so hard to cry. I don't need that biased media these people are all complaining about to spot a bullshitter. I'll give these people credit though. I don't think they actually believe him. Nobody is that stupid. I just don't think they care. It's always about one-upping liberals. It's ALWAYS about that.


It has become that yes, Kavanaugh is clearly a liar to any rational person but you can see them rejoice in here that a phony investigation 'exonerated' him so he can be a Judge for life. I am not saying we should convict him of being a sex predator, we still have a innocent until proven guilty thing, but he lied his ass off about his frat boy days, under oath, and no one gives a fuck.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048331923985235968
> :banderas


Mansplaining is a dumb retort to pretty much anything. 

I still don't agree with an EC style system, so otherwise she's quite correct.


----------



## Werner Heizenberg (Apr 3, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> So is being pro-abortion categorically being pro-baby killing? If that's the "philosophical level" you're going to operate on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed with this .Thanks.





dele said:


> That poorly written article is one massive false equivalency. The critique of Gorsuch was that his judicial opinions were very conservative and would jeopardize women's/family health services (e.g. access to birth control and safe abortion services). It's anti-woman on a philosophical level.


The only thing false here is your arguements.I also love how you just walked over and ignored the reasons i gave for why Gorsuch didn't face the exact same allegations Kavanaugh faced.




> Why nominate a guy who has issues like this guy in the first place? Why was none of this research done by the person who told Trump to nominate him?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So go and read all the links i have already posted and don't waste my time.Kavanaugh's already been through 6 FBI investigations prior to being nominated for supreme court justice.65 women swore by him:


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...after-sexual-misconduct-allegation/ar-BBNkVtj

There was no question of temperament until this.No allegations of anything.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It is amusing that the 2016 presidential election is perhaps the single most substantive case study of why the electoral college still stands. For one thing even if you could snap your fingers three times and make it disappear and eliminated, that would merely change the dynamic of an election. Donald Trump, for instance, may have lost the popular vote in part because of the electoral college. The electoral college made an outlier of California for it is easily the most considerable cache of electoral votes and was wholly safe for Hillary Clinton. If California had voted like Oregon, a deep blue west coast state which had 25% higher voter turnout, and he had lost it by 11 points instead of 30, Trump would have narrowed the gap between himself and Clinton in the popular vote by a major margin, though he would still have to close the gap elsewhere. Naturally, though, with no electoral college the entire game plan changes, and all of these numbers would flux, not only California's. Trump ultimately did not just win because of a handful of swing states; he outperformed Mitt Romney and John McCain before Romney in the rest of the country, and outside of California boasted a 1.4 million lead over Clinton in the popular vote. 

Should the process be altered, the better, more workable solution would be to do away with winner-take-all electors, which would potentially compel a Republican candidate to campaign in places like Sacramento and Fresno and Bakersfield and San Diego, and a Democrat to campaign in places like Austin and Dallas and Houston and San Antonio (arguably not the best example since demographics should make Texas a full swing state within six or so short years and probably reliably solidly blue by the early 2030s even without the strength of unions which have been highly instrumental in mobilizing the Hispanic vote in California).


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So when do the FBI is working for Trump allegations come up? Am I too early?

It's hard to keep up!

Have we got to blaming the Jews yet or is that after November?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stone Cold Becky Lynch said:


> Honestly blows my mind that there are people that actually believe that worm Kavanaugh. All you need to do is watch him trying to defend himself. So disingenuous. I can't remember ever seeing someone try so hard to cry. I don't need that biased media these people are all complaining about to spot a bullshitter. I'll give these people credit though. I don't think they actually believe him. Nobody is that stupid. I just don't think they care. It's always about one-upping liberals. It's ALWAYS about that.


Does it really blow your mind though? There are two kinds of people that support Kavanaugh, the ones who don't care like you said and the trolls. Just a look at this thread for example, the ones defending Kavanaugh are the shit posters and trolls of WF. just like if you read twitter the ones defending him. On twitter, if you click on the names of the people that defend Kavanaugh a huge number of them just opened the twitter account in the last couple of months. 

Putting the sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh still isn't fit for the job with all his lying and evading of questions not to mention his temperament.




Miss Sally said:


> So when do the FBI is working for Trump allegations come up? Am I too early?
> 
> It's hard to keep up!
> 
> Have we got to blaming the Jews yet or is that after November?


The FBI does work for Trump LOL Are you going to deny that fact?

Their hands were tied as for as the scope and who they could interview based on who and how deep Trump said the investigation could go

I don't blame the FBI, they just did what Trump said they could do.


----------



## The Game (Oct 7, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Does it really blow your mind though? There are two kinds of people that support Kavanaugh, the ones who don't care like you said and the trolls. Just a look at this thread for example, the ones defending Kavanaugh are the shit posters and trolls of WF. just like if you read twitter the ones defending him. On twitter, if you click on the names of the people that defend Kavanaugh a huge number of them just opened the twitter account in the last couple of months.
> 
> Putting the sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh still isn't fit for the job with all his lying and evading of questions not to mention his temperament.
> 
> ...


Having someone like that on the supreme court seriously makes me lose whatever faith I had left in society


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stone Cold Becky Lynch said:


> Having someone like that on the supreme court seriously makes me lose whatever faith I had left in society




the whole reason the GOP wants him on there is to take away more Americans rights and to protect their corruption. Bye bye more workers rights, women's right to choose and also they will be getting rid of keep state and federal separate when it comes to charging people with a crime which will make the Presidents pardoning power even stronger.





Reap said:


> I don't think all of the leftists are completely off their rocker but their corporate media headlines have been reading like Infowars for years now so I don't disagree that their media landscape is at least as bad (if not worse in some cases) than media on the right.
> 
> They've also realized that the vast majority of people base their entire world view on just headlines and so the content can say everything that contradicts the headline but it won't matter.
> 
> As long as the headline says something, people believe it even if the next line literally says "Haha j/k"


I always find posts like this amusing when everything Trump and the GOP do and say sound like an onion article. And LOL yeah its the left in this case that sounds like infowar when its Kavanaugh that thinks everyone speaking out against him is because of a conspiracy against him from the Clintons.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

One more month until Democrats get their asses kicked again!

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> It is amusing that the 2016 presidential election is perhaps the single most substantive case study of why the electoral college still stands. For one thing even if you could snap your fingers three times and make it disappear and eliminated, that would merely change the dynamic of an election. Donald Trump, for instance, may have lost the popular vote in part because of the electoral college. The electoral college made an outlier of California for it is easily the most considerable cache of electoral votes and was wholly safe for Hillary Clinton. If California had voted like Oregon, a deep blue west coast state which had 25% higher voter turnout, and he had lost it by 11 points instead of 30, Trump would have narrowed the gap between himself and Clinton in the popular vote by a major margin, though he would still have to close the gap elsewhere. Naturally, though, with no electoral college the entire game plan changes, and all of these numbers would flux, not only California's. Trump ultimately did not just win because of a handful of swing states; he outperformed Mitt Romney and John McCain before Romney in the rest of the country, and outside of California boasted a 1.4 million lead over Clinton in the popular vote.
> 
> Should the process be altered, the better, more workable solution would be to do away with winner-take-all electors, which would potentially compel a Republican candidate to campaign in places like Sacramento and Fresno and Bakersfield and San Diego, and a Democrat to campaign in places like Austin and Dallas and Houston and San Antonio (arguably not the best example since demographics should make Texas a full swing state within six or so short years and probably reliably solidly blue by the early 2030s even without the strength of unions which have been highly instrumental in mobilizing the Hispanic vote in California).


The only people who want to change the electoral college are Democrats because they lost twice. If the popular vote determined the outcome, they'd never lose an election, why wouldn't they be against it? It's pretty important as it gives the "fly over states" an actual voice and if they truly believed in everyone having a voice, they wouldn't be so adamantly against it. Why the hell should New York, and California speak for South Dakota, Tennessee etc etc? Also, this is why they're in favor of illegal immigration, because if they have kids born in America, they'll grow up to be democrats and vote for them. It's a brilliant scheme they have going


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This winning, I do not find it tiresome.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> The only people who want to change the electoral college are Democrats because they lost twice. If the popular vote determined the outcome, they'd never lose an election, why wouldn't they be against it? It's pretty important as it gives the "fly over states" an actual voice and if they truly believed in everyone having a voice, they wouldn't be so adamantly against it. Why the hell should New York, and California speak for South Dakota, Tennessee etc etc? Also, this is why they're in favor of illegal immigration, because if they have kids born in America, they'll grow up to be democrats and vote for them. It's a brilliant scheme they have going


A persons vote living in a smaller state should not count more than a persons vote living in a bigger state. It should be one person one vote. Everyone's vote should count equally. People vote not where the state lines are drawn.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So I go to MSNBC and see Al Sharpton discussing the problem of women not being believed when they come forward with rape allegations. 

Having Sharpton, who was the chief peddler of the Tawana Brawley false rape allegation, on your network saying this is just... :sodone :lmao fpalm 

Amazing time we live in, this crazy Current Year. :lol


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> The only people who want to change the electoral college are Democrats because they lost twice. *If the popular vote determined the outcome, they'd never lose an election, why wouldn't they be against it?* It's pretty important as it gives the "fly over states" an actual voice and if they truly believed in everyone having a voice, they wouldn't be so adamantly against it. Why the hell should New York, and California speak for South Dakota, Tennessee etc etc? Also, this is why they're in favor of illegal immigration, because if they have kids born in America, they'll grow up to be democrats and vote for them. It's a brilliant scheme they have going


The same would be true for Republicans too.

George W won the popular vote as recently as 2004 and I’m not sure why you’re dismissing Trump winning the popular vote in 2020.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048667577810145281
:lol


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> One more month until Democrats get their asses kicked again!
> 
> - Vic


From the good of society's standpoint, I'd like to see the democrats win.

For my sick enjoyment, I want to see the republicans ruin the democrats' shit. The ensuing shit storm would reach epic proportions.

I'm really feeling like this is the latter.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048542775862542336
It's posts like this that make being on Twitter worth wile. 

Nothing like claiming white women are an oppressed minority to push your agenda, then bash them every chance you get! :laugh:

The seething rage has been building for a while at white women and their male "allied" cohorts. Watching them get called out and then meekly trying to explain "I w-wus jus trying to h-help senpai" and take it is great entertainment!

:crow


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I said it before and I'll say it again. Liberals really do eat their own! :lol

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> The same would be true for Republicans too.
> 
> George W won the popular vote as recently as 2004 and I’m not sure why you’re dismissing Trump winning the popular vote in 2020.


But he didn't win the popular vote in 2000 though. People complained all 8 years about how he wasn't a legitimate president and how the electoral college needs to change. I never said Trump couldn't win the popular vote in 2020


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> But he didn't win the popular vote in 2000 though. People complained all 8 years about how he wasn't a legitimate president and how the electoral college needs to change. I never said Trump couldn't win the popular vote in 2020


I was under the impression that was because of the sketchy circumstances around the Floridian vote not the popular vote.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048542775862542336
> It's posts like this that make being on Twitter worth wile.
> 
> Nothing like claiming white women are an oppressed minority to push your agenda, then bash them every chance you get! :laugh:
> ...




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048711795203031040

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048297950655516672

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048299641555615744
The next 100 years are going to be so much fun.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Why not move out California so you don't have to deal with those types on a daily basis? :brodgers


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048711795203031040
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048297950655516672
> 
> ...


This from a woman who covered up abuses in her own organization. Go fuck yourself bitch.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The dems are the 'pro-woman' party... unless you're a woman that disagrees with them.

The dems are the 'pro-black' party... unless you're a black person that disagrees with them.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048948551919853569
This is an amazing post-fight interview. :lol 

Trump called him before the fight and told him to "knock that Russian motherfucker out". 

Negged just for posting this. :lol Some people are so triggered by Trump's non-stop winning.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048948551919853569
> This is an amazing post-fight interview. :lol
> 
> Trump called him before the fight and told him to "knock that Russian motherfucker out".
> ...


Yes it's great that Trump has time to do useless shit like that, in between his bromance with Kim and saving the country by raising tariffs.

Re Kavanaugh, he was always going to get off like I said, the elite like him don't go down regardless of how many skeletons in the cupboard they have.

Again the issue I find fascinating is the fact that SCOTUS' who are too conservative for example will be a blow for progressives - when technically the SCOTUS job is simply to interpret the constitution with regards to the law isn't it? So shouldn't that be an objective thing with little room for swaying things to a certain side? If not then that points to an inherent problem with the validity of the constitution itself no?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yes it's great that Trump has time to do useless shit like that, in between his bromance with Kim and saving the country by raising tariffs.


OH NO HE MADE A PHONE CALL TO A FIGHTER :lol 



> Re Kavanaugh, he was always going to get off


PHRASING

Meanwhile

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-wants-to-move-on/

Dr Ford will not pursue her allegations against Kavanaugh any further. :mj Taking that 600k from her GoFundMe and running. #NothingToGain


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Now that the pendulum has swung again, I must say I can't wait until the next time the left field at WF is feeling its oats. It's interesting to watch.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The past 2 weeks have been hilariously bad for the Democrats, no matter how awful Trump has been through this process, and his mocking of Ford was both disgusting and factually innacurate as always, no one cares. The Dems have managed to turn this against themselves and once again show how incompetent they are at politics.

Then Amy Schumer and her moronic followers managed to get all angry and show up the third wave feminist left for what they are.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










Another campaign promise fulfilled. :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> The past 2 weeks have been hilariously bad for the Democrats, no matter how awful Trump has been through this process, and his mocking of Ford was both disgusting and factually innacurate as always, no one cares. The Dems have managed to turn this against themselves and once again show how incompetent they are at politics.
> 
> Then Amy Schumer and her moronic followers managed to get all angry and show up the third wave feminist left for what they are.


yeah the corp dems are a joke. They could easily be super strong and destroying the GOP if they would just get behind people like Bernie and Tulsi, but nooooo they care more about their greed and think the way to beat republicans is be republican lite. They will never learn.

They would rather lose to Reps than havve someone like Bernie or Tulsi win.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Miss Sally @virus21 @WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster @Vic Capri

Adding one more Twitter exchange:











I would say Linda Sarsour is a useful idiot but truth be told she's a vile and disgusting person. She knows exactly what she's doing appealing to feminism and intersectionality whilst pushing forward FGM and Sharia Law.

Speaking of which, there is nothing like a good bit of intersectionality to make the left eat their own. The endless pursuit of victimhood and oppression means that if an action is taken which is perceived to take away a cause of an identity group that they will immediately attack those people....particularly if they are white as we have seen by some of those tweets.

I haven't followed the Kavanaugh case closely so I cannot say what my thoughts are on the hearing or the charges itself but what I can comment on is on an idea which has persisted not only through this ordeal but in feminist thought in general when it comes to sexual assault which is that we should always believe the woman if she accuses a man of rape or sexual assault. That to me as an extremely dangerous thought process because it presumes in this case that those accused are guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty. No matter what the charge, the onus should always be on the accuser to prove that those they are accusing are guilty of the crime they are on charge for. In a court of law, actual evidence should be the barometer, not whether or not we *feel* the person is guilty or innocent, feelings don't matter when it comes to court cases, *facts* do. If these screeching harpy feminists had it their way then we would no doubt have a number of men's lives ruined due to false convictions and/or false allegations. And it has already happened a number of times without their perverse view of how justice should be administered.

So if there is no or not enough evidence to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh is indeed guilty of sexual assault, then it is the right decision the court is making. To those who may or may not be looking for Kavanaugh's head regardless of what has been concluded in the case, I want you to read this article and have a good think on why you are still pushing for the judge to be convicted despite the result being deemed otherwise. UK users should hopefully be familiar with this story:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eries-jailed-london-jemma-beale-a7911486.html



> A "manipulative" woman who made a string of false rape claims and sexual assault allegations has been jailed for 10 years.
> 
> Jemma Beale claimed she had been seriously sexually assaulted by six men and raped by nine, all strangers, in four different encounters over the space of three years.
> 
> ...



This is the most profile and extreme case which has happened in the UK but it is not the only one. Justice may have been served and she got her just deserts but in the process, she ruined a bunch of different men's lives who now have to live with the label of accused rapists for the rest of their lives. And in the process, cases like these mean that real rape victims are less likely to be believed which is even worse as less women are going to feel comfortable coming forward for the fear of not being believed.

The Rule of Law, especially in these cases is extremely important and should not be taken for granted. We have people in our midst who want to tear it all shreds, they are dangerous ideologues.

So if you are one of these people who believe that women should always be believed when accusing someone of rape without having actual evidence in a court of law to prove their case, I will tell you to go fuck yourself.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah the corp dems are a joke. They could easily be super strong and destroying the GOP if they would just get behind people like Bernie and Tulsi, but nooooo they care more about their greed and think the way to beat republicans is be republican lite. They will never learn.
> 
> They would rather lose to Reps than havve someone like Bernie or Tulsi win.


Then they'll the blame everyone else but the candidate for losing.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Fascinating post, @DOPA; thank you for the mention. A great deal to consume. Thank you once again.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049255798407229441
This is disgusting.

Utterly repulsed.

A grade school teacher in the U.S. does not even know which "who's/whose" to use at any given time.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah the corp dems are a joke. They could easily be super strong and destroying the GOP if they would just get behind people like Bernie and Tulsi, but nooooo they care more about their greed and think the way to beat republicans is be republican lite. They will never learn.
> 
> They would rather lose to Reps than havve someone like Bernie or Tulsi win.


If ands and buts were candy and nuts. The same could be said about the GOP, if they appealed to Hispanic and black voters they could have a lock down on politics. Hispanics especially are conservative in nature.

The thing is Dems/Republicans don't want to appeal to everyone nor have anyone overly idealistic. It means change would have to happen and they could no longer win trade and accomplish nothing. 

The US will always have puppet Presidents because that's what the powers at be want. A lot of blame goes on the American people for this "MUH TEAM" mentality when it comes to voting, Politics isn't a sports game, you simply vote for whoever can make the best changes and represent what you want. Parties should have nothing to do with how people vote.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

If the GOP actually cut the Leviathan down to size it could easily be super strong and destroying the Democratic Party. If it only got behind people like Rand Paul and Mark Meadows but nooooooo they care more about their greed and think the way to beat the Democrats is to be Democrat lite. They will never learn.

They would rather lose to Democrats than have someone like Rand Paul or Mark Meadows win. 

Masturbatory political fantasies: keep them to yourself. Just like your regular masturbatory fantasies.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> Fascinating post, @DOPA; thank you for the mention. A great deal to consume. Thank you once again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those eyebrows are horrific.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> If ands and buts were candy and nuts. The same could be said about the GOP, if they appealed to Hispanic and black voters they could have a lock down on politics. Hispanics especially are conservative in nature.
> 
> The thing is Dems/Republicans don't want to appeal to everyone nor have anyone overly idealistic. It means change would have to happen and they could no longer win trade and accomplish nothing.
> 
> The US will always have puppet Presidents because that's what the powers at be want. A lot of blame goes on the American people for this "MUH TEAM" mentality when it comes to voting, Politics isn't a sports game, you simply vote for whoever can make the best changes and represent what you want. Parties should have nothing to do with how people vote.


LOL the GOP could never appeal to Hispanic and black voters it goes against everything they stand for.

They would have to change their whole parties MO.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The dems are the 'pro-woman' party... unless you're a woman that disagrees with them.
> 
> The dems are the 'pro-black' party... unless you're a black person that disagrees with them.


Slight difference. Most blacks imo are not pro-Democrat but they are anti-Republican. The difference is that democrats have created a culture of "fear the enemy" but at the same time have done nothing to show that they are friends of any minority either.

As a minority brown American I feel just as disenfranchised by the Repubs as I do the Democrats. I don't like either party's politics because when it comes to social issues they meanly talk a big game but have little progress to show in 300+ years. Most of the other OECD countries are miles ahead of America when it comes to social progress. 

It's like watching Internet Explorer try to tell you that it's great.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL the GOP could never appeal to Hispanic and black voters it goes against everything they stand for.
> 
> They would have to change their whole parties MO.


Politics shift and change over time to appeal to the most amount of people. We will literally always have a "50/50" (actually, more like ~35/35/30 split) between the two parties. A demographics shift and change, the parties look for different ways to find different voters.

The whole idea of applying 2018 values to demographic shifts in 2040 has always been a really dumb one that doesn't understand how people work and parties change.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

How did I not know this existed :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL the GOP could never appeal to Hispanic and black voters it goes against everything they stand for.
> 
> They would have to change their whole parties MO.


That's my point. 

These parties could appeal to voters and actually do things that help but they don't and they won't.

Neither really want change, they like how things are.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> If ands and buts were candy and nuts. The same could be said about the GOP, if they appealed to Hispanic and black voters they could have a lock down on politics. Hispanics especially are conservative in nature.


One issue I think where the GOP has dropped the ball is criminal justice reform. Taking an old school libertarian approach to various issues that overlap with how Hispanic's and Black feel instead of siding with stop and frisk Guiliani,Sheriff Joe and other Police State Politician's is a case of dropping the ball. They are only making it that much harder to eventually get non white vote's which they will absolutely need more of to win elections in 10-15 etc. years. They have ceded an issue nationally to the Dems that blue state level Dem politicians have been just as toxic as Sheriff Joe,Rudy and Southern White Republican's.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

All this winning

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/trump-s-tariffs-have-already-cost-ford-1b-now-it-n917756

Trump's tariffs have already cost Ford $1B; now it's planning layoffs
Ironically, Ford may have to cut production of some models, potentially reducing U.S. jobs, as a result of China's tit-for-tat tariffs.


Ford will be making cuts to its 70,000-strong white-collar workforce in a move it calls a "redesign" of its staff to be leaner, have fewer layers, and offer more decision-making power to employees, the company announced.

The number of jobs that will be axed is unknown at this point.

“A lot of the (reorganization) is about making different choices about strategy,” Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks told NBC News, adding that the goal isn’t just to slash spending but to improve the “fitness” of the company.

However, a recent report by Morgan Stanley estimates "a global headcount reduction of approximately 12 percent,” or 24,000 of Ford's 202,000 workers worldwide. "Such a magnitude of reduction is not without precedent in the auto industry,” analysts wrote in the investment note.

The decision is part of Ford's $25.5 billion reorganization plan, which includes slashing $6 billion in improved capital efficiencies. Ford CEO Jim Hackett, who cut more than 12,000 jobs as head of office furniture maker Steelcase, had been expected to make cutbacks even sooner, according to some observers. Hackett took over from Ford veteran Mark Fields when he was ousted from the company in May 2017.

Ford is lagging behind the competition, selling an anemic 32.8 vehicles per employee. Long-time rival GM puts out 52.7 vehicles per employee. But it's unclear exactly how improved efficiencies will impact potential job cuts.

Ford has already warned that President Donald Trump's auto tariffs have impacted the company to the tune of $1 billion, and the president’s trade policies threaten to play havoc with Ford’s ongoing reorganization, Shanks told NBC News.

Trump and Ford have been squaring off since well before the 2016 election, when then-presidential candidate originally threatened to impose hefty tariffs on vehicles Ford intended to start importing from a factory in Mexico. The carmaker eventually scrubbed that plan, but rather than return production to the U.S. it decided to move it to China.

Earlier this year, Ford said it would all but pull out of the U.S. passenger car market, citing the rapid shift in demand from sedans, coupes, and wagons to SUVs, CUVs and pickups. It was going to eliminate the conventional Focus models in favor of a crossover version, the Active. Now, with that model dropped, the still-popular Mustang will be the only remaining passenger car model in its line-up, with Ford relying in the future almost entirely on light trucks — such as the F-Series pickups that last year generated nearly all of its profits.

Recommended

Police find 500 videotapes in home of suspected serial rapist

Nikki Haley resigns as Trump ambassador to U.N., catches officials off guard
Ironically, Ford actually may have to cut production of the Mustang and some other models — in the process, potentially reducing U.S. jobs — as a result of the tariffs China has enacted on American-made vehicles in a tit-for-tat trade war. The Mustang had been one of the most popular U.S. vehicles sold in that country.

In Latin America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East, Ford hemorrhaged about $800 million during the first half of this year. The automaker has been struggling even in China, the world’s largest automotive market, where key competitors like General Motors and Volkswagen generate significant profits.

Considering the strength of Ford’s North American operations, the general consensus is that the home market will feel a lighter hit than those in Europe or Latin America, but the impact could still be substantial.

Meanwhile, Europe could see product cuts similar to those outlined for the States. News reports identified several passenger car models that may be dropped, including the Mondeo, the European version of the Fusion, set to vanish from American showrooms. Ford has denied such cutbacks, as well as reports that it is considering selling off or perhaps entering into partnership with a foreign player to turn around its fragile Latin American operations.

That said, “We see the need to partner much more extensively than in the past,” said Shanks, pointing to deals with automakers like India’s Mahindra and Mahindra, and Germany’s Volkswagen, as well as Chinese technology giant Baidu and Silicon Valley’s Amazon.

The latter two tie-ups show how Ford’s reorganization isn’t limited to conventional lines of business. If anything, Hackett has been a strong proponent of the plans launched by his predecessor to become a “mobility company.” The new CEO has committed close to $1 billion to set up a new campus in the reviving Corktown neighborhood of Detroit to develop plans and technology for self-driving vehicles and other mobility alternatives, as well as electrified vehicles.

"Like so much of the Ford investment thesis," Morgan Stanley recently wrote, this is "a show-me restructuring and capital realignment story. Investors are still wanting more action in the form of decisive restructuring, business unit transparency, capital allocation, and external validation.”

Considering many aspects of the Ford 2.0 strategy could take several years to materialize, investors could be in for a long wait.
by Taboola


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQlWZ5q2_nY&t=85s

Alyssa Milano: "Trump is a cult like force!"

Million Dollar looks (that's going too far but you get the idea) and a 10 cent brain.

Watch the reaction of the "news woman" after Milano says that. It's great!


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> How did I not know this existed :lmao


I have to say that Trump's obsession with pop culture, his background, lifestyle, personality and everything does make me think of a Patrick Batemen. Trump is PB at 70 years old.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Republicans = Rapists
Democrats = Deep state traitors

Am I getting the branding right for both parties?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The Senate continues to look good for Republicans, the House good for Democrats. If there isn't some movement in the next week or ten days, what were looking at now is probaby how it will go in the end: Republicans pick up 3-4 Senate seats, maybe 2, maybe 5, and Democrats will have a 10ish seat, maybe 5, maybe 15, majority in the House. Now that the Kavanaugh rager is over, people are going to settle down into their final decision on if theyre gonna vote and who to vote for. 

As far as black votes go there's a tension between the local population and their politicians and the national Democratic Party. The policies of big city mayors and councilmembers and commissioners and what have you pn crime and policing are generally downright Republican in nature. These people are mostly black, and dependent on the black vote. In local elections, large numbers of candidates dependent on the black vote who stand for the status quo or going further on crime and punishment get elected. They know that if the police largely disappear from high crime neighborhoods, and more criminals are released into those neighborhoods, it would be a disaster for public order and safety, and a diaster for their reelection chances. Black people in Chicago sure aren't happy about the rise in murders, most of the victims being black. The same in other cities where murders have recently become more frequent. 

Black people don't want crime and they don't want the police breathing down their necks. With how much crime there is in many black majority neighborhoods, accomplishing the latter would increase the former. Without the latter, decreasing the former is very difficult. Crime - most of the victims again being black, whether the crime be murder or theft - wouldn't be so prevalent if the opinion that the police and justice system are racist and should never be trusted or aided was less popular among blacks. It's a quagmire. I doubt that the successes in crime reduction of the 1990s and 2000s can be repeated unless trust and amity between blacks and the police improve greatly. 

What this means politically to Republicans is that the best avenues to get black votes are education and the economy. They're also the best ways to reduce crime in the long term. Better education in black majority and plurality schools, investment in black majority and plurality areas. Which looks a hell of a lot more attractive if there is a large educated skilled labor base. Too many black communities don't have that or anything close to it. 

Poverty doesn't cause individuals to commit crime. Greed does. What poverty does is it makes the people living in places crime occurs have less of a stake in preventing it. People who have more to lose care more about not losing any of it to crime. It's those mysterious petit bourgeois middle class values.

40-50 years of policies created and implemented by Democrats on the local level, more or less unquestioningly funded by Democrats at the state and national levels, hasnt worked out well enough for many black communites, and hasn't worked out at all for many others. 

I think if the GOP could see its nose on the end of its face, it could mount a major campaign with the right presidential candidate that aimed at and went into black communities and said, "you know things suck, you know you haven't been getting the help you should have been, I'm going to deliver that help." And then actually deliver if they get the chance. They'd shave off enough of a percentage of the black vote that the donkey would be sweating. :trump said some things during the campaign, not much talking or action since he won. That was and is a major mistake.

Neither party seems much interested in education reform and economic investment in black areas. Success would take major effort and way more focus than they get now. Both parties are shortsighted on this to me. If more black people were better off, the country would be better off. No surer, more durable way to make your country stronger than by creating conditions where a group achieving below its potential can fix that. The state of education and basic geographical economic opportunity too many blacks face, they aren't getting the chance.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > All this winning
> ...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> to beat republicans is be republican lite. They will never learn.


They're not "republican lite" ... that is what democrats _*are*_. That *is *their politics.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> So you think the solution to that is...the government passing legislation to "limit" their own power that actually does the opposite?


You oppose Big Government, so one would assume that you oppose government censorship, yet you are supporting the thing that allows them to do just that. Sometimes in life you have to do the opposite of what you think you should do to achieve your desired result.

I'll try one last tactic to try to help you understand this. The Establishment lost control of the narrative during the 2016 election. Trump was never supposed to be President. It was supposed to be Queen Hillary's coronation. Now, you and I both know Russiagate is bullshit and a handful of Russian click bait trolls didn't swing the election. It's the reason why they are so desperate to control the internet, so they don't lose control of the narrative again. Government censorship of the internet is already happening. Pro-Palestinian pages have been taken down at the demand of Israel. The USA used sanctions against Venezuela to cut off the funding of the Empire Files. The Atlantic Council is one of the groups censoring Facebook. Google is using algorithms to kill the traffic to alternative news sights on the left and the right. I've heard Daniel McAdams speak of this many times. Jimmy Dore has pointed out before how they changed the algorithm to get more views for the MSM videos. There was the whole adpocalypse thing on YouTube to try to kill the funding of independent news channels. These are all examples off the top of my head but I could find scores of more examples if I looked them up.

What you need to understand is that these massive corporations are in bed with the government and are doing their bidding. By opposing net neutrality, you are supporting Big Government, the thing you claim to hate the most. This is not about a free market as you would like to believe. It's all about the government trying to control every bit of information you get to see. It's already happening and it will only get worse as time goes on. The only way to stop government censorship is a law that keeps the internet neutral, so they can't order the corporations to censor information they don't want people finding out.

How many Americans do you think realize that our tax dollars are going to arm and train terrorists in Syria? How many do you think realize that our military is acting as a protecting force for the terrorist stronghold in Idlib? There are already too many sheep living in this country. Censoring the truth of what's going on in the world will not help with that situation.

You don't want a government at all. But seeing as how that will never, ever happen, maybe you should reconsider your stance on this topic. You don't want the people you hate the most to have complete control over all information.



Reap said:


> They're not "republican lite" ... that is what democrats _*are*_. That *is *their politics.


They're controlled opposition, more or less. They exist to prevent the country from going any further than center right when people get fed up with Republicans. They're there to stop real change for the betterment of the public, so the Republicans can pass far right extremist policies when they gain power. 

I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Bernie Sanders but if the entire Democratic party were to legitimately back his platform, you'd never see Republicans in control of Congress or the White House ever again.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> They're controlled opposition, more or less. They exist to prevent the country from going any further than center right when people get fed up with Republicans. They're there to stop real change for the betterment of the public, so the Republicans can pass far right extremist policies when they gain power.
> 
> I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Bernie Sanders but if the entire Democratic party were to legitimately back his platform, you'd never see Republicans in control of Congress or the White House ever again.


Opposition is not really the best word to use for the Democrats. They give you the _impression_ that they're an opposition party. 

The thing is that corporate favoritism is an essential part of Democrat platforms as well. 

Notice how they never actually push any class-based platforms, but focus specifically on race and gender politics. When it comes to fiscal politics the main Democrat platform is still Corporate Welfare over Social Welfare .. favoring banks over the people the banks fuck over. 

Notice how this year in particular a large number of corporations have now openly declared that they want to support the democrats and that we should too. The reason for this should be obvious to anyone. 

If Democrats were in any way leftist at all, no corporation in America would actually support them. At all.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Opposition is not really the best word to use for the Democrats. They give you the _impression_ that they're an opposition party.


Controlled opposition like a WWE match. They might fight in view of the public but they hang out at the same cocktail parties when no one is looking.



Reap said:


> The thing is that corporate favoritism is an essential part of Democrat platforms as well.
> 
> Notice how they never actually push any class-based platforms, but focus specifically on race and gender politics. When it comes to fiscal politics the main Democrat platform is still Corporate Welfare over Social Welfare .. favoring banks over the people the banks fuck over.
> 
> ...


That last line is 100% unequivocally true.

It makes me sad that our education system so thoroughly fails to teach the political spectrum. Just in a basic capitalist business structure, the right is the owners and the left is the workers. There's been a helluva lot of good, hard working people who have fucked themselves over by voting for right wing policies because they don't really have a basic understanding of what left and right means. That part about identity politics is extremely intentional. _Y'all good Southern folks can't be voting for them queer loving libtards!_ Problem is, being a man or a woman or LGBT or Christian or atheist or Muslim or whatever identity politics they want to use to divide people up into voter blocs has absolutely zero to do with your ideals on the left/right spectrum. This is done very intentionally to keep socially conservative people from voting for leftist economic policies.

Democrats do the same thing but in the opposite direction. They conflate socially liberal issues with being on the left. They call you a deplorable if you don't support their identity politics issues but really it's just a ploy to call themselves the left while enacting right wing policies while in office.

Something that Kyle brings up from time to time is the difference between polling on specific issues and how people label themselves when asked. There's a lot of people out there who would call themselves right wing or conservative but if you go issue by issue, many of them are centrist to center-left in the policies they would support.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The last page of so sadly provides better discourse than most platforms one will find.

I'm not from the US so have little horse in the race, but it does indeed seem that the Democrats simply won't ever be a left of centre party.

As Tater stated above, Sanders in 2016 was the closest one would ever get and appeared at the exact right time and still couldn't beat the non-progressive, wall-street-verified, identity-focused-but-nothing-else-remotely-leftist candidate. 

Ironically he was partially defeated because minorities have had balls-to-the-wall models of racial dynamics that have been uprooted from economics and focused exclusively on the subjective victim dynamic delivered to them for so long that Sanders' frustrating unwillingness to bite his tongue and specifically namecheck the ways in which a fairer economic platform specifically benefits each minority groups in every way and works to address systematic race-bias was ignored and minorities in vast percentages instead opted for the least progressive supposedly left of centre candidate we've probably ever seen.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/



> Throughout the year, we have seen Democrats across the country uniting around a new legislative proposal that would end Medicare as we know it and take away benefits that seniors have paid for their entire lives.
> 
> Dishonestly called “Medicare for All,” the Democratic proposal would establish a government-run, single-payer health care system that eliminates all private and employer-based health care plans and would cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years.
> 
> ...


Who is convinced by this rambling? The American president is trolling everyone with an op-ed. :WTF


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/
> 
> 
> 
> Who is convinced by this rambling? The American president is trolling everyone with an op-ed. :WTF


Venezuela! Socialism! Open borders! Socialism! Big Government! The sky is falling in!!!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/
> 
> 
> 
> Who is convinced by this rambling? The American president is trolling everyone with an op-ed. :WTF


99% of the things he said in there were lies lol USA is a joke for not fact checking


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Venezuela! Socialism! Open borders! Socialism! Big Government! The sky is falling in!!!


All the buzzwords! :lol



birthday_massacre said:


> 99% of the things he said in there were lies lol USA is a joke for not fact checking


He used all the democrats criticisms of GOP policies back on them. It is like reading the Onion man. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Only Trump can claim Medicare for all would be Medicare for none.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump cant keep winning right
stock market crashed today Dow 800 points



http://fortune.com/2018/10/10/dow-stock-market-today/


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/
> 
> 
> 
> Who is convinced by this rambling? The American president is trolling everyone with an op-ed. :WTF







Kyle covered this when Trump said it at a rally. Forgetting the fact for a moment that Establishment Democrats are absolutely not going to ever even attempt to pass medicare for all, you've gotta be the biggest retard in the world if you believe Republicans are the ones who are trying to protect medicare. There's stupid but this is that extra special kind of stupid that leaves even Kyle a bit dumbfounded.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Kyle covered this when Trump said it at a rally. Forgetting the fact for a moment that Establishment Democrats are absolutely not going to ever even attempt to pass medicare for all, you've gotta be the biggest retard in the world if you believe Republicans are the ones who are trying to protect medicare. There's stupid but this is that extra special kind of stupid that leaves even Kyle a bit dumbfounded.


Agreed. He just said made up stuff because people like to hear about defending Medicare. What's scary is it might work appealing to the group of people that defend the ACA while bashing Obamacare.

On a side note, I noticed how the frivolous criticisms aimed at Obama like his golf playing, rally attending and interacting with celebrities by some conservatives talking head are now being spun into praise for Trump for doing the same shit.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

FriedTofu said:


> Who is convinced by this rambling? The American president is trolling everyone with an op-ed. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/Ii2bO3N.jpg" border="0" alt="" title="WTF" class="inlineimg" />


Someone will be convinced, because there are a lot of really really stupid dupes.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Agreed. He just said made up stuff because people like to hear about defending Medicare. What's scary is it might work appealing to the group of people that defend the ACA while bashing Obamacare.


There's a Carlin clip for everything. There's a reason why education sucks in the USA. The last thing they want is a well informed population capable of critical thinking who knows how badly they are getting fucked.






All those people cheering Trump at his rally is who Carlin was talking about. Rampant willful ignorance.



> On a side note, I noticed how the frivolous criticisms aimed at Obama like his golf playing, rally attending and interacting with celebrities by some conservatives talking head are now being spun into praise for Trump for doing the same shit.


I can't find the clip but I remember seeing a montage of Hannity from the Bush years and the Obama years and he basically took the opposite issue on every topic depending on which president was in office. Everything he praised Bush for, he trashed Obama for, and vice versa.

Trump is breaking records for vacation days as president but you don't hear a peep out of the same GOP who bashed Obama constantly for it, even though he took fewer days off. Modern politics has taken partisan hackery to a whole new level. No one gives a shit about principles anymore. It's all about which team you play for.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> "I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to go play golf." --Donald J. Trump, August, 2016


:ugh


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I wish everyone in government went and played golf instead of doing their jobs. :mj2


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Man, every single time I need a laugh, this thread never fails to deliver. I love you guys. 

Arguably the most consistently fun political banter on the internet.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










There is no reaction gif that exists on the internet that can ever be used for this ... 

American propaganda continues to surpass anything anyone could ever possibly even imagine.

A piece of candy sure goes a long way in absolving someone of being a racist, warmongering fascist hitler. 

Huh.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Agreed. He just said made up stuff because people like to hear about defending Medicare. What's scary is it might work appealing to the group of people that defend the ACA while bashing Obamacare.
> 
> On a side note, I noticed how the frivolous criticisms aimed at Obama like his golf playing, rally attending and interacting with celebrities by some conservatives talking head are now being spun into praise for Trump for doing the same shit.


And the people who praised Obama and kept quiet about him not being in the white house are now loud and criticizing Trump for doing what Obama did . This type of crap is really annoying 

For the record, I didn't actually care about Obama playing golf. A president is never really off the clock anyway


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> There is no reaction gif that exists on the internet that can ever be used for this ...
> 
> American propaganda continues to surpass anything anyone could ever possibly even imagine.
> 
> ...


Anytime I see Democratic attempts to prop up this murderous cunt as anything even slightly better than your description of him I start getting flashbacks of every time Chávez hilariously shat on him :lmao 

Absolutely sickening.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> Anytime I see Democratic attempts to prop up this murderous cunt as anything even slightly better than your description of him I start getting flashbacks of every time Chávez hilariously shat on him :lmao
> 
> Absolutely sickening.


It's obvious then that when Obama replaced Bush, he was essentially the same as Bush and now they're not even trying to create any kind of separation. 

They did the same with McCain who was everything embodying everything that was supposed to convert America into a fascist nightmare. Here are some headlines from when McCain ran against Obama

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cutbirth/mccains-racist-surge_b_134868.html










https://shadowproof.com/2008/10/08/is-john-mccain-a-racist/



















Here's Romney in 2012:










Etc etc etc. 

It's all about fooling well meaning people into voting for the Democrats and the well meaning people get fooled every 4 fucking years by the same rhetoric.

In 2020 it will be "they're pedophiles and gang-rapists" because they're "he's ray ciss" rhetoric isn't working anymore, so they need to escalate.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


>


Or they're in the 1%.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kanye in the Oval Office was fucking lit :banderas And some people wanted a boring ass typical politician to be president right now.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*




birthday_massacre said:


>


You are the republican party's biggest advocate on WF. You really should ask them to pay you.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


>


Alright, how much man? How much are they paying you money here? This is a serious question.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You are the republican party's biggest advocate on WF. You really should ask them to pay you.





BTheVampireSlayer said:


> Alright, how much man? How much are they paying you money here? This is a serious question.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


>


This would be fine if you posted it for people who were Trump supporters but ok ... 

Reason why I call you an advocate for Republicans is because you find the worst reasons to criticize conservatives. 

There's plenty to criticize them for but you sink to the bottom of the barrel and post the "criticisms" that shift people towards the right because your attacks are so ridiculously bad that people who are anti Republican or Anti-Trump can't understand the lack of rationality and end up defending the party, its supporters and the president because rationality rules over hysteria.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump can't stop winning.

Dow Drops again, nearly 1400 points in two days.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


>


Me triggered? Right..I am the least triggered person on this site. :tripsscust


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump can't stop winning.
> 
> Dow Drops again, nearly 1400 points in two days.


You do realize that if the stock market is crashing then everyone is losing right?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You do realize that if the stock market is crashing then everyone is losing right?


The stock market crashed just like I said it would. This is just the start of the recession.

Told you so.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Scott Adams talks about how Kanye West paced and led Donald Trump on "Stop and Frisk". Great analysis of persuasion from an extremely credible expert who perfectly predicted the 2016 election.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

> President Trump took credit Saturday for stock market gains since his election, telling reporters on Air Force One he's "always been great with money" and he's "always been great with jobs, that's what I do."


Interesting to see if it drops me if he'll claim credit. TBF to the buffoon it's still way up from pre Trump days. Although that's mainly down to an Obama economy.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050471431769866240


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> It's all about fooling well meaning people into voting for the Democrats and the well meaning people get fooled every 4 fucking years by the same rhetoric.
> 
> In 2020 it will be "they're pedophiles and gang-rapists" because they're "he's ray ciss" rhetoric isn't working anymore, so they need to escalate.


Wiping out the Republicans nationally would be the easiest thing in the world to do if the Democrats actually represented their constituents. Since they have no desire to do that, they are left with calling them racist pedo rapists. It'd be hilarious if there weren't so many real world consequences.

Sadly, it'll eventually work. This will end in the same way the Bush administration did. Republicans will wreck the country, then Democrats will get swept into office and do exactly jack shit nothing to fix what's wrong with the USA just like last time. Even if by some miracle they don't steal the nomination from Bernie again, Congress will block every good thing he might try to do, even if Democrats control both houses. The neoliberals will pretend to be the "good guys" and support his ideas while relying on the blue dogs to make sure there just quite aren't enough votes to pass any decent legislation.

And round and round the toilet bowl we go.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The stock market crashed just like I said it would. This is just the start of the recession.
> 
> Told you so.


Do you even look at usernames when you respond to people? 

I've been saying the economy isn't as great as anyone thinks it is for months now. But why are you celebrating something that's bad for everyone?

I think you come in here just like the far right trolls do with premeditated comments that you rapid fire like they came straight out of a Chinese sweatshop. 

Horseshoe is real people. Oh. It's real.





Tater said:


> .
> 
> And round and round the toilet bowl we go.


Yup. The majority doesn't even know that we're in a toilet bowl at all.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> And the people who praised Obama and kept quiet about him not being in the white house are now loud and criticizing Trump for doing what Obama did . This type of crap is really annoying
> 
> For the record, I didn't actually care about Obama playing golf. A president is never really off the clock anyway


Let's not be disingenuous here. Most of the criticisms against Trump for doing the same shit from non-partisan people is because Trump criticised Obama for doing said things.

I can point out the liberal's talking heads dumb talking points too if it makes you feel better. But the conservative talking heads I've read takes it to a whole new level every time with their fake outrage. *shrugs*


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


>


LOL I only just found out about this David Pakman motherfucker a couple days ago, and I gotta say, I'd have a hard time debating this guy in person, from what I've seen of him. This due to the fact that I'd be spending most of my mental capacity to hold myself back from slapping him right in the mouth.

This type of patronizing, condescending discourse is a very good example of why the so-called "liberal left" is currently being exposed as a total failure all around the world, being completely incapable of enacting real changes to the status quo and then acting bewildered when those further and further to the right are propped up in power as if they had no hand in enabling them, after alienating and waving away large segments of their populations.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> LOL I only just found out about this David Pakman motherfucker a couple days ago, and I gotta say, I'd have a hard time debating this guy in person, from what I've seen of him. This due to the fact that I'd be spending most of my mental capacity to hold myself back from slapping him right in the mouth.
> 
> This type of patronizing, condescending discourse is a very good example of why the so-called "liberal left" is currently being exposed as a total failure all around the world, being completely incapable of enacting real changes to the status quo and then acting bewildered when those further and further to the right are propped up in power as if they had no hand in enabling them, after alienating and waving away large segments of their populations.


Eh David Pakman's pretty decent in presenting his case, but he does indulge the fringe far left people with many of his content. Nature of the youtube game I suppose. Feels very similar to Ben Shapiro to me.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Eh David Pakman's pretty decent in presenting his case, but he does indulge the fringe far left people with many of his content. Nature of the youtube game I suppose. Feels very similar to Ben Shapiro to me.


Sorry man, but we've gotta be thinking of very different "far-lefts" here. From what I've seen, he seems as staunch a liberal as they come. I could see it if you were talking about Jimmy Dore, but then again, I'd say he doesn't indulge the far-left nearly enough :side:


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> Sorry man, but we've gotta be thinking of very different "far-lefts" here. From what I've seen, he seems as staunch a liberal as they come. I could see it if you were talking about Jimmy Dore, but then again, I'd say he doesn't indulge the far-left nearly enough :side:


Wild conspiracy theories about Trump's mental capacity and drama in the white house seems are content that appeal to the far leftist. I say he indulge them because he goes into these content because those people like them and not something that he maybe see value in.

Speaking of Dore... :lol


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Wild conspiracy theories about Trump's mental capacity and drama in the white house seems are content that appeal to the far leftist. I say he indulge them because he goes into these content because those people like them and not something that he maybe see value in.
> 
> Speaking of Dore... :lol


Oh yeah, I saw that one too :lol

When I talk about the far-left I'm actually referring to anti-capitalists of different stripes, and those to me never seemed too caught up in those matters tbh, though I'm not American and so obviously I might be missing something.

Out of all those dudes I do enjoy Jimmy Dore the most, since despite his own often overly simplistic analysis, at least he manages to get some serious people on his show to discuss present matters, from a counter-mainstream position and a good level of depth, like Abby Martin on stuff like Venezuela for example.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Do you even look at usernames when you respond to people?
> 
> I've been saying the economy isn't as great as anyone thinks it is for months now. But why are you celebrating something that's bad for everyone?
> 
> ...


I would make the argument that a large part of why we're swirling around a toilet bowl *is* the stock market and late stage capitalism itself. When the collapse comes, a lot of people are going to be hurt by it and that is nothing worth celebrating. 

While I won't be celebrating the suffering caused by the upcoming economic collapse, I *will* be celebrating when the final collapse happens and enough people finally pull their heads out of their asses so we can move beyond capitalism before it completely destroys any chance of having a habitable planet to live on in the future. Of course, that is no certainty. By the time enough people figure out what we're doing is not sustainable, it might be too late to do anything about it.

Just to point out the obvious, you've gotta be pretty fucking retarded to believe that a system built on ever expanding growth on a planet of finite resources is sustainable in the long run.

I would also make the argument that for anyone who is anti-war, they should also be anti-capitalism. We're not destroying the Middle East for humanitarian reasons. We're doing it for money and oil. How many new green energy invention patents have been buried by the oil companies do you wonder? We could already be off fossil fuels if not for greed. I mean, no one can own the sun. Once the solar panels are installed, they can't keep charging you for the energy on a monthly basis because sunlight is free. If we were not so reliant on fossil fuels, we would have no interest in the Middle East and we wouldn't be spending trillions and killing millions. The reason why we haven't spent the past 30 years developing new technologies in renewable energy is because there's not enough profit in it. Once that technology exists and everyone has it, everyone can generate their own energy without the need for oil companies and defense contractors. That takes away the power, control and profit of capitalists, which is precisely why it hasn't happened. 

There are a few positive signs that some people are starting to figure this out but the owners of society would rather destroy the planet than give up control of it. If humanity is going to have a future at all, we're going to have to start doing things for the right reasons instead of what's most profitable. And for that to happen, capitalism has to die. So when the stock market collapses, even though I will take no joy in the suffering it causes, it's evolve or die time. Either humanity evolves or it continues on it's current path to extinction.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Wild conspiracy theories about Trump's mental capacity and drama in the white house seems are content that appeal to the far leftist. I say he indulge them because he goes into these content because those people like them and not something that he maybe see value in.
> 
> Speaking of Dore... :lol


I had to stop listening when he started whining about being "attacked financially" because some people cancelled their memberships due to his calling Jimmy toxic. What a fucking entitled little prick to think people should keep paying him when he says stupid shit. It's tools like Pakman parading around as leftists that give the real left a bad name. He can take his liberal garbage and shove it up his ass. I stand with Jimmy on this one. He's been consistently right about a lot of things and is unafraid to call out liberals for their bullshit. Jimmy was right to go after Gillum for palling around with Corey Booker and he was right to criticize Cortez for endorsing Cuomo.

The thing that Jimmy is most right about and something that I 100% agree with is that if you replace the Republicans with the very same neoliberal Democrats who allowed for the rise of Trump in the first place, then another Trump will happen and it will be much worse next time. Morons like Pakman are too stupid to understand this and will support any loser with a D next to their name. Jimmy's right that the DNC cannot be reformed. He's right that progressives are never going to take over the party. He's right when he says no real change will ever happen within the duopoly. Fuck David Pakman and every other liberal who is too stupid to figure this out.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> and he was right to criticize Cortez for endorsing Cuomo.


I saw a video of that other liberal dude (Sam Seder I think) slamming Dore for this, on the basis that it was a matter of useless "ideological purity" to criticize her for it :lmao 

Now I do have my own sectarian rib, but that doesn't cloud my thought when I can see that there is a clear distinction between my goals and someone else's. I don't believe so-called "establishment democrat" politics have a chance to "graduate" to anything remotely socialist in nature, and the way those fucking DSA goofs keep popping up over there and bending over to Democrats whenever they start turning up the heat should make it clear that, at the very least, they're not to be trusted acritically, even for people who subscribe to socialist ideas. It's very easy to take that term and spin it around to give it a completely non-threatening nature to the very thing it is supposed to negate in capitalism, as evidenced by the ever-growing idea that socialism is just simply "oh universal healthcare and free college".

There's a difference between expecting everyone else to share your particular stripe of anti-capitalist ideology, and recognizing another's as not even being conducive to anything resembling that.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Scott Adams talks about how Kanye West paced and led Donald Trump on "Stop and Frisk". Great analysis of persuasion from an extremely credible expert who perfectly predicted the 2016 election.


Until he gets a cool set and graphics like Alex Jones, Scott just ain't up to snuff IMO. Trump should fund him I'd be down...

Wait... so Kanye persuaded Trump or the other way around? Or was it a kind of mind-meld persuasion vortex? AJ told me about those.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@CamillePunk


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050472239949389824

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050477877354004480

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050488902233022464

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050505719840219137

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050487416488890370

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050456314093002752

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050559495116607488

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050523778755612672

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050530548073066497
:draper2


----------



## Miguel De Juan (Feb 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I am an anarchist (capitalist and individualist). However, I realize the democrats are going to lose the elections more and more. I don't see how anyone can take that party seriously since it backed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and enacted many of the new state powers Trump takes advantage of. The deep state and democratic party are a cancer. I don't care for the Republican Party or the neoconservatives. However, they are guaranteed a win because the Democrats alienated and insulted half of the country in the last 18 years. 

Being among the working class poor and minorities the support has among them is far more than Democrats and progressives realize. They will never understand why either. They are far removed from the Hollywood elites, colleges campuses and progressive intellectual centers, and have been routinely shafted by progressive economic policies. 

The farce of the two party political system become more apparent with each passing decade. Question is when will it finally collapse in on itself? We are already in massive debt from wars overseas. So not much longer. Those trillions keep pilling up.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> @CamillePunk


Hello? You know Facebook supported Net Neutrality, and that nothing about it would've prevented them from doing any of this right?

People should abandon Facebook and join a pro-free speech social media platform. Believe it or not they exist. That's how you fight stuff like this, not giving massive regulatory power to the FCC of all people.

In before you criticize my ability to understand the issue while demonstrating none of your own.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> @CamillePunk


Suppressing thought is just a tiny fraction of the weaponization of the internet. The real weaponization is in hack exploits, data collection and consolidation and continual legal exploits being implemented regularly while distracting people with bells and whistles.

This from 2013: https://www.wired.com/2013/11/this-is-how-the-internet-backbone-has-been-turned-into-a-weapon/


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> This type of patronizing, condescending discourse is a very good example of why the so-called "liberal left" is currently being exposed as a total failure all around the world,


I agreed except for this. I'm not sure where you're from but pretty much every European government party is Liberal and left wing, we have nothing like the US where the left actually means at best centrist and nothing is being exposed as a total failure here. 



FriedTofu said:


> Wild conspiracy theories about Trump's mental capacity and drama in the white house seems are content that appeal to the far leftist. I say he indulge them because he goes into these content because those people like them and not something that he maybe see value in.
> 
> Speaking of Dore... :lol


That video was so fucking tragic, I can't even begin to think about the thought process that made him claim he is being attacked financially. 

The sad thing is Kyle is debating alongside him at politicon, I am going to struggle to watch that with David with him.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trumps OPed factchecked. 






Its a whole load of lies and misinformation.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I agreed except for this. I'm not sure where you're from but pretty much every European government party is Liberal and left wing, we have nothing like the US where the left actually means at best centrist and nothing is being exposed as a total failure here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The good thing Kyle's debating against Candace Owens. So I definitely have to watch him destroy her.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> The good thing Kyle's debating against Candace Owens. So I definitely have to watch him destroy her.


Of all the lowest hanging fruit the could find ...


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Hello? You know Facebook supported Net Neutrality, and that nothing about it would've prevented them from doing any of this right?
> 
> People should abandon Facebook and join a pro-free speech social media platform. Believe it or not they exist. That's how you fight stuff like this, not giving massive regulatory power to the FCC of all people.
> 
> In before you criticize my ability to understand the issue while demonstrating none of your own.


Are you or are you not against government censorship? Because that's what this boils down to. You're right in one sense. Net neutrality alone is not good enough. The internet is the new public square and should be treated as such. This is not "giving massive regulatory power to the FCC". This is a first amendment issue. 

I'm really not trying to be an ass to you. Honest, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to understand the dangers of a government that controls all major sources of news. Personally, I can't fucking stand Facebook and don't use it myself but the fact remains, it is a major platform where many people get their news and form groups and whatever other shit they do there. Due to Zuckerberg doing the bidding of the government, they are now shutting down all alternative news sources and pushing the MSM narrative. They're doing this because they lost control of the narrative in 2016 when Queen Hillary was denied her coronation. The ultimate goal is to control all sources of information that the populace receives so they can have a country full of ignorant sheep who will believe whatever the government tells them to believe.

We're just nobodies talking politics on a wrestling forum. The shit we talk about? If we were reaching large amounts of people, we'd have been censored already. You say that if people don't like the censorship of Facebook, they should just go somewhere else. One, that already effectively censors them because none of the other platforms are as big. And two, if they did get just as big as Facebook, the government would step in and censor them there too.

Please try to understand that the only way to protect ourselves from Big Government censorship is a law that prevents said censorship. Think of it as an anti-regulation regulation if that helps. One blanket rule that says anything goes and no one gets censored ever. No one gets favorable treatment, the government doesn't get to interfere with any websites and the websites don't get to censor anyone either. Short of something being actually illegal, everything else is fair game.

You and I are both against Big Government. You're just being so stubborn about being against any kind of regulations that you are getting the thing you hate most. Big Government. There's a difference between something being over-regulated and a law that keeps something free and open. All I'm trying to do here is to get you to understand that.

I'll leave you with an example of how being pro-censorship can come back to bite you in the ass. ThinkProgress is one of those liberal outlets that was cheering on when Alex Jones got shut down. Then they themselves got censored and they didn't like it so much then. You might be fine with the way things are going now but you might not like it so much if one of your faves like Scott Adams gets censored.

There used to be a saying in the USA. Something along the lines of... I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it. Keep that in mind as the government continues shutting down every news source that reveals the truth about them.

ETA: A lot of the tweets and retweets I saw today were from Daniel McAdams, an anti-war anarcho-capitalist like yourself and he gets it. It should be noted that a lot of the censorship has been aimed at sites who reveal the war crimes of the USA. That's something else you might want to consider when you say you're fine with government censorship.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050570292584624128

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050560208391553024


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I agreed except for this. I'm not sure where you're from but pretty much every European government party is Liberal and left wing, we have nothing like the US where the left actually means at best centrist and nothing is being exposed as a total failure here.


Portugal 

And in many places in Europe, most noticeably Hungary and Italy, the far-right *is * experiencing a surge that can in part certainly be attributed to the failures of liberalism in making significant improvements to the lives of their citizens, in exchange for submission to EU policies, an institution that by now has proved to be nothing but a way for the larger European economies to prey on the rest of the smaller ones. Hell, just recently the European Parliament voted for putting sanctions on Hungary and that fucking fascist Orban, and guess who caught a ton of shit in my country for voting against that: my own party, the Portuguese Communist Party, which has decades of history in fighting and resisting against the far-right and fascism, yet are not about to give up on principles of sovereignty in favour of an institution illegitimately interfering in national matters.

Of course, this rise in far-right sentiment often takes the form of anti-immigrant or anti-refugee sentiment. Some of us on the left prefer to call for the end of policies of foreign intervention and wars that constitute the very root of these migratory movements instead of calling for taking in less refugees or no refugees (positions I most certainly do NOT support), but those who own the media outlets prefer to have that sort of stance ignored and make it a fight between xenophobic parties who'll prey on people's fears and enlightened cosmopolitan liberals saying that these fears don't matter at all because they're harboured by nothing but hillbillies and racists. My point was that this sort of discourse ends up doing nothing but alienating a large amount of people, while parties that put out actual sober and consistent discourse on these matters are consistently shoved into irrelevance.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I had to stop listening when he started whining about being "attacked financially" because some people cancelled their memberships due to his calling Jimmy toxic. What a fucking entitled little prick to think people should keep paying him when he says stupid shit. It's tools like Pakman parading around as leftists that give the real left a bad name. He can take his liberal garbage and shove it up his ass. I stand with Jimmy on this one. He's been consistently right about a lot of things and is unafraid to call out liberals for their bullshit. Jimmy was right to go after Gillum for palling around with Corey Booker and he was right to criticize Cortez for endorsing Cuomo.
> 
> The thing that Jimmy is most right about and something that I 100% agree with is that if you replace the Republicans with the very same neoliberal Democrats who allowed for the rise of Trump in the first place, then another Trump will happen and it will be much worse next time. Morons like Pakman are too stupid to understand this and will support any loser with a D next to their name. Jimmy's right that the DNC cannot be reformed. He's right that progressives are never going to take over the party. He's right when he says no real change will ever happen within the duopoly. Fuck David Pakman and every other liberal who is too stupid to figure this out.


Eh it comes with the territory of running a show on a platform like youtube. Those subs and views numbers are part of their revenue stream so I can understand why he would be upset if someone among his subscription base is actively telling others to unsub to his channel because he wasn't PC in criticising Dore.

Dore is a joke but you Americans seem to only allow jokers to win for the past decade of elections so maybe his methods and thinking is the way to go. 



Draykorinee said:


> That video was so fucking tragic, I can't even begin to think about the thought process that made him claim he is being attacked financially.
> 
> The sad thing is Kyle is debating alongside him at politicon, I am going to struggle to watch that with David with him.


Why's that? Kyle can be equally cringe at times too. Comes with the territory of the platform.



Reap said:


> Of all the lowest hanging fruit the could find ...


My guess is anyone else with a similar profile as Kyle were already booked in other panels or debates. Not like she is a big downgrade from Ann Coulter, his original opponent. Both liberals turned conservative trolls for the easy money.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> My guess is anyone else with a similar profile as Kyle were already booked in other panels or debates. Not like she is a big downgrade from Ann Coulter, his original opponent. Both liberals turned conservative trolls for the easy money.


It's part of the theater. While we recognize the aesthetics of mainstream political theater. The alternative political theater isn't without it's own aesthetics and personas.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I agreed except for this. I'm not sure where you're from but pretty much every European government party is Liberal and left wing, we have nothing like the US where the left actually means at best centrist and nothing is being exposed as a total failure here.


http://speisa.com/modules/articles/...rd-world-country-by-2030-according-to-un.html

I'd say the immigration policies have been a total failure.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > I agreed except for this. I'm not sure where you're from but pretty much every European government party is Liberal and left wing, we have nothing like the US where the left actually means at best centrist and nothing is being exposed as a total failure here.
> ...


Agree, and if the premise had been some aspects of liberalism/left wing ideology are total failures I wouldn't have argued. The soft immigration policies of Merkel and co are actively fueling the right

Although Sweden becoming a third world country is never going to happen and that article is stupid.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Of all the lowest hanging fruit the could find ...


I have been quoting you a lot lately, just coincidence.

Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk are like the sidekicks who hang out with the more popular cool kids. the left have these people too, so its not like it is exclusive to them

Kirk tends to talk a lot, but ultimately just was first on the "I am smarter than this 18 year old trying to debate me" shtick and Owens argues like a black woman.

She reminds me of my sister when I debate anything with her, she just makes a point and then continually yells at you to shout you down, until you quit talking.

"I got water thrown on me, what about that, huh, huh, huh, can't say anything, that's what i thought, shut up"

She has a pretty face, and is right wing, and says enough things that she seems edgy though, so expect to see her more on Fox news.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I have been quoting you a lot lately, just coincidence.
> 
> Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk are like the sidekicks who hang out with the more popular cool kids. the left have these people too, so its not like it is exclusive to them
> 
> ...


Hehe. You just expanded on what I said a few minutes ago about aesthetics and personas 

Notice how none of these political pundits even on the alternative side are ugly, average joes. They're all handsome, pretty and we'll above average in looks. 

All of them.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I've seen Kirk and Owens at their best and I think they both have something to offer, but they've just become right wing cheerleaders at this point. 

I haven't seen them objectively criticize Trump over anything this past year, and that's because I suspect they both wont jobs on his team.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I like Kirk and Owens. Even though they have that strange "You think they are hooking up with each other on a bed full of money, but no one wants to say it" vibe about them.

like I said the left has those people too, Hassan Piker is just horrible, and Angela Rye is Candace Owens in Democrat face. 

At the end of the day, its about making that money though, so you can't fault any of them for that


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Dore is a joke but you Americans seem to only allow jokers to win for the past decade of elections so maybe his methods and thinking is the way to go.


Dore is a self-admitted night club jagoff comedian but he's still been the most correct about everything that's happened in the past couple of years. That says a lot about the competition.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I've seen Kirk and Owens at their best and I think they both have something to offer, but they've just become right wing cheerleaders at this point.
> 
> I haven't seen them objectively criticize Trump over anything this past year, and that's because I suspect they both wont jobs on his team.


I believe Charlie Kirk might be a conservative trust fund baby being groomed for a future in republican politics. He doesn't come across as someone who rose up from the bottom. But I haven't done the research to know for sure.

He's also that typical evangelical moron that conveniently ignores the world's successful atheist countries when he tries to associate atheism with communism. 

He's the 50s red scare reincarnated for the millennials.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I believe Charlie Kirk might be a conservative trust fund baby being groomed for a future in republican politics. He doesn't come across as someone who rose up from the bottom. But I haven't done the research to know for sure.
> 
> He's also that typical evangelical moron that conveniently ignores the world's successful atheist countries when he tries to associate atheism with communism.
> 
> He's the 50s red scare reincarnated for the millennials.


That Charlie Kirk guy is hilarious :lmao Literally the human form of the "WELL WHY DO YOU HAVE AN IPHONE THEN" argument, discussing politics at the kiddie table for people whose entire political knowledge stems from "X DESTROYS liberal commie" videos of smarmy reactionaries yelling at college kids.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> That Charlie Kirk guy is hilarious :lmao Literally the human form of the "WELL WHY DO YOU HAVE AN IPHONE THEN" argument, discussing politics at the kiddie table for people whose entire political knowledge stems from "X DESTROYS liberal commie" videos of smarmy reactionaries yelling at college kids.


He even runs his non-profit like a church where his workers are required to make 1500 student connections a year. Kinda like how church volunteers are required to preach. Televangelist who has essentially substituted preaching about capitalism instead of God but using all the same tricks of the trade. 

Smart. Won't knock him for making a successful business out of becoming a Joel Osteen of Conservative politics


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> He even runs his non-profit like a church where his workers are required to make 1500 student connections a year. Kinda like how church volunteers are required to preach. Televangelist who has essentially substituted preaching about capitalism instead of God but using all the same tricks of the trade.
> 
> Smart. Won't knock him for making a successful business out of becoming a Joel Osteen of Conservative politics


Makes sense.

I believe Turning Point USA is as non profit as Joel Osteen's church is, and I am a christian, lol

but like we said before, kid has a million dollar smile, and is probably cheaper to book than Ben Shapiro, so he gets by on what he gets by on.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Charlie Kirk said Marsha Blackburn is not anti-gay, a person who has ALWAYS voted against gay rights and even wanted a constitutional change to ensure gay people could never get married.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Charlie Kirk said Marsha Blackburn is not anti-gay, a person who has ALWAYS voted against gay rights and even wanted a constitutional change to ensure gay people could never get married.


That goes back to the horseshoe theory though.

I mean Hilary called Donald Trump a danger to black people when her husband locked up more black men than any president.

But he played the saxophone on Arsenio hall and stuck a cigar up a woman's cooch, so people still love him

Most of these people say stuff at the wall, and hope it sticks.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> , kid has a million dollar smile, and is probably cheaper to book than Ben Shapiro, so he gets by on what he gets by on.


From top to bottom Americans tend to flock towards beauty and that is one of the biggest problems in politics. 

While conservatives knock Hollywood for just being dancing monkeys with pretty faces when you examine the aesthetics of politicians you'll see that there is no such thing as an ugly politician either. 

They're all monkeys. Just their masters and audiences are different.

I might be a little jaded.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> While conservatives knock Hollywood for just being dancing monkeys with pretty faces when you examine the aesthetics of politicians you'll see that there is no such thing as an ugly politician either.


We have the opposite here, generally the uglier the better chances. Look at Thatcher, May, Jug ears (Blair and Brown), Farrage even people like PJW, Hitchens, Fry etc. The chances of you finding a Tomi Lohren fronting a political discussion is minimal, and before anyone says, yes we do have attractive people in the UK ><


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> We have the opposite here, generally the uglier the better chances. Look at Thatcher, May, Jug ears (Blair and Brown), Farrage even people like PJW, Hitchens, Fry etc. The chances of you finding a Tomi Lohren fronting a political discussion is minimal, and before anyone says, yes we do have attractive people in the UK ><


Sure beauty is subjective, but none of the people you mentioned above are average looking tbh. They are still above average. They're also styled professionally and take a ton of time to make themselves presentable. 

I'm not saying that your politician needs to look like a Walmart employee but those people are still aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I can't edit my post for some reason ... That said, Americans are definitely much more oriented towards absolving people of all kinds of inadequacies as long as they're pretty.

Classic Homer Simpson episode satirizes that to perfection where he grows hair and then loses it.

I mean, would you go pay to listen to this guy talk about politics?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Dore is a self-admitted night club jagoff comedian but he's still been the most correct about everything that's happened in the past couple of years. That says a lot about the competition.


Well America elected the biggest jagoff as President most recently... so Jimmy Dore 2020? He can't be worse than Gary Johnson.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really don't think Trump owes Russia and is doing mostly what they want because he laundered money from them?
> 
> You honestly don't think Trump is Putin's bitch?


This administration has been far tougher on Russia.

- Additional sanctions
- Sale of lethal arms to Ukraine
- Expelled 60 Russian diplomats
- Launched missiles against Assad

These are the actions of an administration that is secretly working for Putin? 

You need to focus on policy and what's actually occurring, not the rhetoric you see on CNN.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> From top to bottom Americans tend to flock towards beauty and that is one of the biggest problems in politics.
> 
> While conservatives knock Hollywood for just being dancing monkeys with pretty faces when you examine the aesthetics of politicians you'll see that there is no such thing as an ugly politician either.
> 
> ...


Some of them even look like turtles!



FriedTofu said:


> Well America elected the biggest jagoff as President most recently... so Jimmy Dore 2020? He can't be worse than Gary Johnson.


I'd take Gary Johnson over Trump. It's difficult to bomb a place you can't find on a map. :lol


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Some of them even look like turtles!
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take Gary Johnson over Trump. It's difficult to bomb a place you can't find on a map. [emoji38]


Unfortunately it's pretty obvious that Americans don't need to know anything about the regions they are bombing. :Shrug

I'm willing to bet any money that the last 3 American presidents would not be able to name more than 5% of all the wars america is involved in.

Does anyone really think that other than pardoning turkeys the American presidents actually do anything that they themselves have decided to do?

That said. I bet if the American president decided to not pardon the Turkey, he would not be able to do so. [emoji14]


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Are you or are you not against government censorship? Because that's what this boils down to. You're right in one sense. Net neutrality alone is not good enough. The internet is the new public square and should be treated as such. This is not "giving massive regulatory power to the FCC". This is a first amendment issue.


It literally is giving massive regulatory power to the FCC. 

You posted a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with net neutrality and then mentioned me as if somehow I am allowing or supporting it to happen. That was total bullshit on your part and either completely dishonest or ill-informed. 

Obviously I'm against government censorship. 



> I'm really not trying to be an ass to you. Honest, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to understand the dangers of a government that controls all major sources of news. Personally, I can't fucking stand Facebook and don't use it myself but the fact remains, it is a major platform where many people get their news and form groups and whatever other shit they do there. Due to Zuckerberg doing the bidding of the government, they are now shutting down all alternative news sources and pushing the MSM narrative. They're doing this because they lost control of the narrative in 2016 when Queen Hillary was denied her coronation. The ultimate goal is to control all sources of information that the populace receives so they can have a country full of ignorant sheep who will believe whatever the government tells them to believe.


I agree all of this, which is why we shouldn't give MORE POWER to the government to regulate the internet. The conclusions you draw from this are staggering to me. "The government is trying to censor us all through their Silicon Valley minions...quick, let's give more power to the government!" Nah bro, just stop using Facebook. :kobe The internet is the greatest thing humanity has invented. Giving the government, which makes EVERYTHING worse, any control over it at all is the stupidest fucking idea a person could have. 



> We're just nobodies talking politics on a wrestling forum. The shit we talk about? If we were reaching large amounts of people, we'd have been censored already. You say that if people don't like the censorship of Facebook, they should just go somewhere else. One, that already effectively censors them because none of the other platforms are as big. And two, if they did get just as big as Facebook, the government would step in and censor them there too.


The platforms would get bigger as more people switched to them. If they are run by pro-free speech individuals AND we don't give the government a bunch of regulatory control over the internet like you keep pushing for and like they've already done in Europe, no the government wouldn't get to censor them at all actually. 



> Please try to understand that the only way to protect ourselves from Big Government censorship is a law that prevents said censorship. Think of it as an anti-regulation regulation if that helps. One blanket rule that says anything goes and no one gets censored ever. No one gets favorable treatment, the government doesn't get to interfere with any websites and the websites don't get to censor anyone either. Short of something being actually illegal, everything else is fair game.


That is not what any net neutrality legislation being considered is. What they want is the power to regulate ISPs because they've convinced the masses that the ISPs are ripping everyone off and want to control access to content, even though they never have before. Facebook, Google, and Netflix all love the legislation because it helps their bottom line. There's no other reason. I'm not interested in picking winners and losers in the economy, and I'm especially not interested in empowering the FCC and by extension the federal government. I'm a libertarian. You should look into libertarianism sometime, I think you might like it. 



> You and I are both against Big Government. You're just being so stubborn about being against any kind of regulations that you are getting the thing you hate most. Big Government. There's a difference between something being over-regulated and a law that keeps something free and open. All I'm trying to do here is to get you to understand that.


None of this is remotely correct. I cannot understanding something that is objectively false. You don't get "free and open" by giving the government more power. That is fucking naive and debunked by even a cursory study of history. 



> I'll leave you with an example of how being pro-censorship can come back to bite you in the ass. ThinkProgress is one of those liberal outlets that was cheering on when Alex Jones got shut down. Then they themselves got censored and they didn't like it so much then. You might be fine with the way things are going now but you might not like it so much if one of your faves like Scott Adams gets censored.


How have you managed to twist this around and say I'm pro-censorship? :kobe I'm not at all. I think private companies that censor should be boycotted. I don't want the government to have any power to censor at all. Just because I don't agree with YOUR chosen method, which is LITERALLY to expand the power of the state (as anti-libertarian as it gets), doesn't mean I am pro-censorship. 



> ETA: A lot of the tweets and retweets I saw today were from Daniel McAdams, an anti-war anarcho-capitalist like yourself and he gets it. It should be noted that a lot of the censorship has been aimed at sites who reveal the war crimes of the USA. That's something else you might want to consider when you say you're fine with government censorship.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050570292584624128
> ...


Yes, Facebook is bad. We shouldn't use it. We agree.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Wild conspiracy theories about Trump's mental capacity and drama in the white house seems are content that appeal to the far leftist. I say he indulge them because he goes into these content because those people like them and not something that he maybe see value in.
> 
> Speaking of Dore... :lol


You don't think Trump is mentally ill?
It's obvious he is


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You don't think Trump is mentally ill?
> It's obvious he is


1) You're not a doctor
2) Stop discriminating


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> 1) You're not a doctor
> 2) Stop discriminating


Facts dont care about your feelings


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Facts dont care about your feelings


You didn't state any facts. And people with mental illnesses can lead very productive lives. Discriminating on the basis of mental illness is disgusting. 

Meanwhile, let's look at how objectively YUGELY accomplished our fantastic president is:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050800274326077440
Guess putting a business executive in charge of the government isn't such a bad idea after all. :trump


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050818938173415424
Will Trump take my advice (he personally called me while I was doing a live broadcast, didn't have time to chat but I hit him back later NBD) and add marijuana legalization to his campaign platform? :mark:

EDIT: Aww I triggered BM with this post. :sad: I thought we were friends.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Facts dont care about your feelings


Love this quote...you get a like for this Glen Coco you GO Glen Coco


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Saga of the bush candy absolvement continues.

I guess all you have to do is give a Democrat a cough drop and now you're one of the greatest humans that ever lived.

If course party doesn't separate you because you're all the same people. 

The difference is only an illusion that's created during election years to keep the population subjugated.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I approve of Trump essentially saying pot is legal according to the federal government. Let's see if it becomes reality.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Sometimes I want to ask you, do you think having a law against murder is bad? I mean, it is literally giving the government the power to lock you in prison if you murder someone. But, the way that you define things, laws against murder would be bad because it is giving the government power over you. Every law everywhere is giving the government power under your definition of the term. You can't seem to differentiate between a law designed to protect you from harm and one that is designed to harm you. They all get labeled as bad in your book.

But I don't ask you that because the question itself is asinine just as your response would be.

Anyways, for those of us who live in the real world, the government is always going to exist and sometimes we need laws to protect ourselves from the government. That's the reason we have things like the Bill of Rights. Shocking, I know, but they're government laws designed to protect you from the government. It's an amazing concept. You should think about it sometime.



CamillePunk said:


> Yes, Facebook is bad. We shouldn't use it. We agree.


Well, at least we can agree on this point. (Y)


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...d-trump-anxiety-disorder-pscyhologists-221305






:heston

:trump in a conspiracy to increase prescriptions of Xanax 1 million percent: CONFIRMED. 

Just what percentage is :trump getting in kickbacks from Pfizer?!


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You don't think Trump is mentally ill?
> It's obvious he is


I don't think Trump is mentally ill at all and nor should anyone on this matter. But if you try. I would like to see your psychology degree and any other degree on mental health. If you don't have it, then don't try to analyze.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Sometimes I want to ask you, do you think having a law against murder is bad? I mean, it is literally giving the government the power to lock you in prison if you murder someone. But, the way that you define things, laws against murder would be bad because it is giving the government power over you. Every law everywhere is giving the government power under your definition of the term. You can't seem to differentiate between a law designed to protect you from harm and one that is designed to harm you. They all get labeled as bad in your book.


You could use this reasoning to support literally anything the government wants to do if they can find a way to rationalize that it's for your own good. Bad logic. Anti-libertarian as it gets.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> 1) You're not a doctor
> 2) Stop discriminating


Well this doctor seems to think he does.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ump_mental_health_urgently_deteriorating.html
Dr. John Gartner, Founder of "Duty To Warn" and co-editor of "Rocket Man: Nuclear Madness and the Mind of Donald Trump," joins the 'David Pakman Show' to discuss the mental health conditions he believes Donald Trump has, which would justify his removal from the Presidency under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

He says that the latest version of the psychiatry diagnostic handbook is based on "observable behaviors" rather than speculative psycho-analytics. "So if I can observe your behavior, or talk to someone who has observed your behavior, I can form a valid diagnosis."

"One of the reasons Trump is so dangerous is he actually suffers from multiple conditions," Gartner said, listing four traits which point to "malignant narcissism": "narcissism, of course... paranoia, his crazy conspiracy theories and demonization of the opposition, and this constant feeling that he is a victim or aggrieved... Anti-social personality disorder sometimes called sociopathy. This is someone who routinely lies, who violates and exploits other people with no remorse... the criminal personality, predators without a conscience. And finally, sadism, actually enjoying harming other people... The cruelty is not a bug it is a feature, there is an element of pleasure he gets from crushing smaller people under his boot."

"This is the essence of evil," he said. "They get worse over time, not better."


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Mind-reading is not a valid form of medical diagnosis. The fact you thought that sounded like a credible diagnosis is hilarious. "There is an element of pleasure he gets from crushing smaller people"...how could he possibly know that? :lol Partisan quackery.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Mind-reading is not a valid form of medical diagnosis. The fact you thought that sounded like a credible diagnosis is hilarious. "There is an element of pleasure he gets from crushing smaller people"...how could he possibly know that? :lol Partisan quackery.


There's a reason it's against medical ethics, especially in psychiatry and psychology, to diagnose a subject without personal examination. 

But eh who cares acting professionally and according to ethical principles fuck that shit we gotta get :trump!

:Trump


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

All the anti government stuff is :hmmm

The government has made sure I legally get a minimum of 25 paid holiday days per year, has made sure me and someone who lives across the road who might be on 10 grand less a year gets the same access and opportunity for healthcare and prescriptions, and has put a stop on any fracking happening in my country among other things. Not sure I would have these things in a libertarian world.

I routinely hate my life for various reasons but the government doesn't even make the top 20.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Mind-reading is not a valid form of medical diagnosis. The fact you thought that sounded like a credible diagnosis is hilarious. "There is an element of pleasure he gets from crushing smaller people"...how could he possibly know that? :lol Partisan quackery.


Also here is a study on Trump supporters
https://psmag.com/news/trumps-appeal-to-the-cognitively-challenged

During the 2016 election, Donald Trump famously proclaimed "I love the poorly educated!" Well, if "poorly educated" is a euphemism for "cognitively challenged," new research finds they loved him right back.

It reports Trump voters, on average, performed more poorly than Hillary Clinton supporters on a standard test widely regarded as a good indicator of intellectual ability.


"Intellectual factors played an important role in the 2016 election," writes a research team led by Yoav Ganzach of Tel Aviv University. "These results suggest that the 2016 U.S. presidential election had less to do with party affiliation, income, or education, and more to do with basic cognitive ability."

In the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, Ganzach and his colleagues analyzed data from the American National Election Studies, which included 5,914 participants in 2012 and 4,271 in 2016.


Besides expressing their attitudes toward that year's presidential candidates, participants took a standard test of verbal ability. Specifically, they were presented with 10 sets of words, and asked "to identify the word or phrase in a set of five that was the closest to the target word."

While hardly comprehensive, the test "is considered a good indicator of general cognitive ability," the researchers note.

After taking into account participants' party affiliation, the researchers found intellectual ability was a strong predictor of attitudes toward the two major candidates in 2016. Specifically, they found "clear negative relationships of verbal ability and education with attitude toward Trump."

In contrast, they found "weak, nonsignificant relationships of verbal ability and education with attitude toward [Mitt] Romney" in his failed 2012 campaign. In both elections, higher levels of education and verbal ability were associated with support for the Democratic candidate [Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton].

"Support for Trump was better predicted by lower verbal ability than education or income," the researchers add. "Our analyses indicate that support for Trump was less about socioeconomic standing, and more about intellect."

Ganzach and his team note that Trump, on the campaign trail, expressed his opposition to both socially liberal beliefs (such as support for abortion rights and opposition to racism) and fiscally conservative beliefs (such as free trade). Both sets of beliefs have been linked in past research with higher cognitive ability, so it makes sense that their appeal would be largely limited to those who score lower on such measures

This research adds to the rapidly growing list of findings attempting to explain why the American voters (although not a majority) supported a candidate widely viewed as lacking the qualifications or temperament to be president.

While economic anxiety has been largely ruled out as a likely explanation, studies have pointed to whites' fear of declining social status in a rapidly changing society, as well as racist and sexist beliefs, tribalism, possessing an authoritarian mindset, and even being prone to anxiety, and thus susceptible to Trump's fear-based appeals.

Ganzach's findings align with those of another recent study that found Democrats who crossed over to vote for him were the least likely demographic to engage in analytical thinking. This may be because, in many cases, they just aren't good at it.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> All the anti government stuff is :hmmm
> 
> The government has made sure I legally get a minimum of 25 paid holiday days per year, has made sure me and someone who lives across the road who might be on 10 grand less a year gets the same access and opportunity for healthcare and prescriptions, and has put a stop on any fracking happening in my country among other things. Not sure I would have these things in a libertarian world.
> 
> I routinely hate my life for various reasons but the government doesn't even make the top 20.


Why should your employer be forced to pay you for not working again?

Greed. Your greed, specifically.

Why should your country be as economically productive as it can be? 

Eh fuck generating wealth that can be taxed to sustain ever-increasing public spending, just spin the electronic printing press and keep those future interest payments rising.

Why should your country have a fiscally sustainable future?

Eh you're getting yours today, fuck future generations that will be less well off because of public debt crises and interest payments gobbling up an ever-increasing amount of the national income.

Well hell if you want to fuck over your grandchildren for your own benefit that's your business, most people aren't so open about it though...



Stephen90 said:


> Also here is a study on Trump supporters
> https://psmag.com/news/trumps-appeal-to-the-cognitively-challenged
> 
> During the 2016 election, Donald Trump famously proclaimed "I love the poorly educated!" Well, if "poorly educated" is a euphemism for "cognitively challenged," new research finds they loved him right back.
> ...





> While *hardly comprehensive,* the test "*is considered* a good indicator of general cognitive ability," the researchers note.


:heston

So in other words, this is your typical humanities pseudo-science. As considered by social scientists, the bottom of the academic barrel. As "scientific" as "implicit racism" tests. But we'll try to slip it by and see who we can fool with it :lmao 

Thank you for your contribution to the 2020 :trump re-election campaign.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Also here is a study on Trump supporters
> https://psmag.com/news/trumps-appeal-to-the-cognitively-challenged
> 
> During the 2016 election, Donald Trump famously proclaimed "I love the poorly educated!" Well, if "poorly educated" is a euphemism for "cognitively challenged," new research finds they loved him right back.
> ...


I don't think verbal ability is the hill you (or BM for that matter) want to be dying on my friend. :heston


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't think verbal ability is the hill you (or BM for that matter) want to be dying on my friend. :heston


You really do fit the typical Trump supporter.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> You really do fit the typical Trump supporter.


Can't take what you dish out? Typical bully.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Can't take what you dish out? Typical bully.


Playing the victim card again typical Trump person. Always playing the victim card.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Is the guy who stands up to bullies a victim? Nah I don't think so. He's just following the example of our fearless leader, the ultimate counter-puncher. :trump


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It's a shame they don't teach rhetoric anymore. 

These "ripostes" would earn quite the humiliation at the Lykeion.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BTheVampireSlayer said:


> I don't think Trump is mentally ill at all and nor should anyone on this matter. But if you try. I would like to see your psychology degree and any other degree on mental health. If you don't have it, then don't try to analyze.


I have a pych degree thank you very much


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't think verbal ability is the hill you (or BM for that matter) want to be dying on my friend. :heston


Its a fact Trump speaks at a 4th-grade level. Again facts don't care about your opinion.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> You could use this reasoning to support literally anything the government wants to do if they can find a way to rationalize that it's for your own good. Bad logic. Anti-libertarian as it gets.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050660774903861248

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050739383060627459
Caity said it better than I could. We don't live in a magical fantasy land where massive corporations are separate from the government. Time to grow up.

Caitlin Johstone is from the libertarian left and Daniel McAdams is from the libertarian right, yet they can come together on such an important matter. If your fellow anti-war anarcho-capitalist Daniel McAdams can see the light, I have faith that one day you will be able to as well.



CamillePunk said:


> Is the guy who stands up to bullies a victim? Nah I don't think so. He's just following the example of our fearless leader, the ultimate counter-puncher. :trump


I've called you out on this particular bit of hypocrisy before. You don't get to claim to be a anti-war libertarian while simultaneously praising a pro-war authoritarian as your fearless leader and not be called a hypocrite. At least be consistent for fuck's sake. fpalm


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050660774903861248
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050739383060627459
> Caity said it better than I could. We don't live in a magical fantasy land where massive corporations are separate from the government. Time to grow up.


Yeah that exchange had nothing to do with what we were talking about. I've already talked about how corporations couldn't exist as they do now if not for the state. 



> I've called you out on this particular bit of hypocrisy before. You don't get to claim to be a anti-war libertarian while simultaneously praising a pro-war authoritarian as your fearless leader and not be called a hypocrite. At least be consistent for fuck's sake. fpalm


it's banter you goose


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I think CP does not externalize his inner criticisms of Trump because why add to the noise when there is so much out there already. 

There is definitely an issue of Trump's hands being tied with regards to keeping war mongerers off his cabinet and out of his administration. 

We all thought that Trump was the strong leader he was going to be
IMO he wasn't and his weakness is part of why I'm so jaded now. The really funny thing is that America's economy isn't even as dependant on foreign resources and war mongering than it is widely believed.

For example, Trump's tariffs have created a situation where some corporations will lose far more than warring will ever hope to gain.

So it really all just boils down to some terrible policy decision making and most of that is coming from terrible advisors. The president's powers are only as limited has his own knowledge. 

Most of America's mega corporations don't even have anything to do with war at all.

There was a reason why Kings and Princes of old we're taught everything and were only limited by their own personalities or other, more well versed men than them.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I think CP does not externalize his inner criticisms of Trump because why add to the noise when there is so much out there already.
> 
> There is definitely an issue of Trump's hands being tied with regards to keeping war mongerers off his cabinet and out of his administration.
> 
> ...


LOL at you guys who thought Trump was going to be a strong leader. He has always been a clown and some of us tried to warn you.

It's just funny seeing some people like CP still defending Trump and his buffoonery. I also warned Trump supporters what a disaster his tariffs were going to be and they just laughed. Same goes for his tax cuts and how it was going to be a crash, its now starting to happen just like I warned. And no that is not directed at you, its at the other Trump supporters


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you guys who thought Trump was going to be a strong leader. He has always been a clown and some of us tried to warn you.
> 
> It's just funny seeing some people like CP still defending Trump and his buffoonery. I also warned Trump supporters what a disaster his tariffs were going to be and they just laughed. Same goes for his tax cuts and how it was going to be a crash, its now starting to happen just like I warned. And no that is not directed at you, its at the other Trump supporters


You mean like the time Obama fooled you in 2008 and turned out to be a war mongerers as well? In fact Hitlery Clitton combined with Obama started 3 new wars and created a situation where Libya now has an active slave trade.

But you've admitted that you know nothing of Obama's foreign policy so you should probably not compare the two.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Why y'all talking like we didn't just have the North Korea issue get solved without war, unemployment at an all time low and growth much higher than anyone (including Obama) thought possible. The doomsday spiel and Trump mockery is pretty ineffective when he's objectively doing a fantastic job compared to prior presidents. :lol


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Why y'all talking like we didn't just have the North Korea issue get solved without war, unemployment at an all time low and growth much higher than anyone (including Obama) thought possible. The doomsday spiel and Trump mockery is pretty ineffective when he's objectively doing a fantastic job compared to prior presidents. :lol


You can praise him for foreign policy when he stops helping Saudi Arabia continue to eradicate The Shia in Yemen and has the balls to pull America's lips off Saudi dick.

I also don't consider the NK situation a win because their nuclear facilty was reported to have collapsed in on itself well before the "peace". It's also not like the fake NK war had any casualties except Kim's own people who are still rotting away in that country. 

It's just political theater. There's no real change there at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You mean like the time Obama fooled you in 2008 and turned out to be a war mongerers as well? In fact Hitlery Clitton combined with Obama started 3 new wars and created a situation where Libya now has an active slave trade.
> 
> But you've admitted that you know nothing of Obama's foreign policy so you should probably not compare the two.


I didn't vote for Obama the 2nd time because he was not what he claimed to be, I told you this before. I always called out Obama for his BS. Its why I dont like Corey Booker. Booker is Obama lite.





CamillePunk said:


> Why y'all talking like we didn't just have the North Korea issue get solved without war, unemployment at an all time low and growth much higher than anyone (including Obama) thought possible. The doomsday spiel and Trump mockery is pretty ineffective when he's objectively doing a fantastic job compared to prior presidents. :lol


But its not objectively better under Trump. And LOL at trying to give the unemployment rate to Trump when it was going down already under Obama. Real wages under Trump are stagnant and people are having to work multiple jobs to be able to stay afloat. Wage growth is down. Hiring is not stronger under Trump than it was under Obama

In Trumps first 18 months in office 193,000 jobs per month which is less than the rate at which jobs were added during Obama's last 18 months in office 206,000 per month.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










Two movies on one screen.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I didn't vote for Obama the 2nd time because he was not what he claimed to be, I told you this before. I always called out Obama for his BS. Its why I dont like Corey Booker. Booker is Obama lite.


He did fool you in 2008. So don't do the whole "told you so" when people gave Trump the same benefit of the doubt they gave Obama in 2008.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> He did fool you in 2008. So don't do the whole "told you so" when people gave Trump the same benefit of the doubt they gave Obama in 2008.


Trump is the same now as he was before he ran for president. A clown and a liar. With Obama we had to see he was full of shit. Big difference.

If you couldn't see what a clown Trump was before he became president something is wrong with you. At least Obama was still a halfway decent president, whereas Trump is a disaster


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Are we ever gonna feel the effects of this "disaster"? :heston


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Liberals: Trump is a fascist!

Also the Liberals:


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Liberals: Trump is a fascist!
> 
> Also the Liberals:


Oh and what is Vox's idea for a replacement, an inquisition?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> Oh and what is Vox's idea for a replacement, an inquisition?


I'm not even remotely interested in finding out what's in the article.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah that exchange had nothing to do with what we were talking about. I've already talked about how corporations couldn't exist as they do now if not for the state.


More magical fantasy land thinking. If all you do is get rid of the government and leave the rest of the corporate power structure in place, all they'll do is the same thing they've done now only without any pretense of democracy. We already live in a quasi-feudalism era. Your ideas would only take us further down that path. 

Pro tip: it didn't end well last time.



CamillePunk said:


> Why y'all talking like we didn't just have the North Korea issue get solved without war, unemployment at an all time low and growth much higher than anyone (including Obama) thought possible. The doomsday spiel and Trump mockery is pretty ineffective when he's objectively doing a fantastic job compared to prior presidents. :lol


:HA

This comment is too full of bullshit for me to break down. I sincerely hope this is one of your banter posts, you silly goose.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> More magical fantasy land thinking. If all you do is get rid of the government and leave the rest of the corporate power structure in place, *all they'll do is the same thing they've done now* only without any pretense of democracy. We already live in a quasi-feudalism era. Your ideas would only take us further down that path.
> 
> Pro tip: it didn't end well last time.


Sell me products I want at prices I'm willing to pay for them?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> Oh and what is Vox's idea for a replacement, an inquisition?


Basically, a Congressional override on Supreme Court decisions that would functionally be the same as the Congressional override of a presidential veto.

Of course, other than getting a new Supreme Court decision on the issue, there is a process that already exists for overriding Supreme Court decisions. It's called amending the constitution. 

But waaaaaaaaaaaah that's too hard if we want to make sweeping changes to the way the country is governed it should be as easy and convenient as getting an Uber waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah it's unfair that those old white men from like 200 years ago made it so hard for demagogues and weirdos to do whatever they want to the body politic waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Our master negotiator president keeps killing it.  

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-turkey-released-pastor-andrew-brunson


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Our master negotiator president keeps killing it.
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-turkey-released-pastor-andrew-brunson


It's all a disaster, I'm telling you.

A dizasstuh.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It's a corporate-controlled dystopia. :heston


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Sell me products I want at prices I'm willing to pay for them?


 is right when it comes to your understanding of economics. Government free capitalism wouldn't work out the way you think it would. The most obvious reason being that if the government was suddenly gone tomorrow, the corporations and billionaire class would just create a new government and continue along their merry way. They like the protection and power and control that comes with owning the government. Walking a high wire without a safety net is not something they are interested in. The only safety net they don't want is for everyone else.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> is right when it comes to your understanding of economics. Government free capitalism wouldn't work out the way you think it would. The most obvious reason being that if the government was suddenly gone tomorrow, the corporations and billionaire class would just create a new government and continue along their merry way. They like the protection and power and control that comes with owning the government. Walking a high wire without a safety net is not something they are interested in. The only safety net they don't want is for everyone else.


Lmao obviously if the government just magically disappears and the population are still a bunch of statists they'd just create a new government. When have I ever argued otherwise? :lmao Also not sure what that has to do with understanding economics at all.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Ignoring the economics of government/capitalist collusion and why getting rid of one won't magically solve the problems created by the other isn't the same as ignorance, so at least CP skirts away from actively talking about economics as a whole. 

The austrian pipe dream of laissez faire economics simply cannot exist because the very nature of capitalism is based around exploitation irrespective of whether or not you even throw greed into the mix. The exploitative nature of capitalism the very thing that creates the necessity for regulation in the first place, and the necessity for regulation is what empowers governments more. The end result of the capitalist game is more centralization and not less because capitalism causes the need for workers to organize and demand regulations in order to prevent the capitalist from exploiting labor.

The relationship between capitalists and labor is one of intrinsic conflict and not of cooperation.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The very nature of capitalism is based on exploitation :heston

If we're going to go to Toddler Marxism, perhaps we should google some Ayn Rand quotes so we can bring Toddler Individualism into the discussion. Equal time for all Toddlerisms!


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Lmao obviously if the government just magically disappears and the population are still a bunch of statists they'd just create a new government. When have I ever argued otherwise? :lmao Also not sure what that has to do with understanding economics at all.


It doesn't matter if the population are still a bunch of statists. Let's say for the sake of argument that the population are a bunch of libertarians, that's not going to do anything to stop the billionaire class and the corporations from forming another government they can control.

The problem that you really need to grasp is concentrated power. It doesn't matter if the concentrated power is in the hands of a government or a private entity, it's still concentrated power and it will be used against everyone else. See, that's the difference between you and me. You're against concentrated power in the hands of a government but perfectly fine if it's not called government, whereas I am against all forms of concentrated power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The saying is still true. Until these concentrations of power are broken up, we will continue living in a fucked up society with a small group of elites running everything.

We might not agree on what should be done about the problem but a point where I think we might agree upon is that nothing is going to get any better as long as the masses are a bunch of brainwashed sheep.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> The very nature of capitalism is based on exploitation :heston
> 
> If we're going to go to Toddler Marxism, perhaps we should google some Ayn Rand quotes so we can bring Toddler Individualism into the discussion. Equal time for all Toddlerisms!


The only way capitalism can't be considered exploitative is that it would treat workers fairly, which as we all know the vast majority of capitalists do not. The proof is in their own actions where wherever capitalists have been allowed to operate without regulation, or the threat of punishment, the capitalist has always found ways to treat workers unfairly. 

The proof is in the historical record as well as in chinese factories, sweatshops .. Heck it happens in the US as well. Look at prison labor. Look at the history of capitalists finding as many loopholes as they can to exploit as many avenues as they can to make a cheap buck. You choose to wilfully ignore it so that you can hold on to your irrational belief. 

Even with the threat of punishment capitalism finds a way to be exploitative. 

Save me your :heston histrionics when you willfully ignore the evidence of capitalist practices around you. At least CP blames the government collusion for capitalist exploitation as a scapegoat. You don't even see the problem or at least seem to suggest that you're woefully unaware of its existence.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> The only way capitalism can't be considered exploitative is that it would treat workers fairly, which as we all know the vast majority of capitalists do not.


If the workers and the owners were the same people, they would be treated more fairly. Some would still make more than others but it would prevent the kinds of exploitation and extreme wealth inequality that capitalism produces.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










This is pretty funny. Also how we went from personal computers to everything in the cloud too.

Anyway whatever flaws capitalism has, it has uplifted a huge proportion of the global population from extreme poverty. Maybe it has run its course and a better system is required as capital is moving at nanoseconds for decades now and the old system of governance is unable to regulate whatever corporations are able to do effectively. *shrugs*


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> This is pretty funny. Also how we went from personal computers to everything in the cloud too.
> 
> Anyway whatever flaws capitalism has, it has uplifted a huge proportion of the global population from extreme poverty. Maybe it has run its course and a better system is required as capital is moving at nanoseconds for decades now and the old system of governance is unable to regulate whatever corporations are able to do effectively. *shrugs*


The problem is that corporations have too much power and too many hands in too many cookie jars. Since the 90s, how many companies have scooped up other companies and expanded to monstrous levels? Disney is a prime example of this. We barley have a actual competitive market anymore in a lot of industries and its just a climb to scoop up as much property as possible.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> The problem is that corporations have too much power and too many hands in too many cookie jars. Since the 90s, how many companies have scooped up other companies and expanded to monstrous levels? Disney is a prime example of this. We barley have a actual competitive market anymore in a lot of industries and its just a climb to scoop up as much property as possible.


Of all the companies and industries as examples you bring up Disney? :lol


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Of all the companies and industries as examples you bring up Disney? :lol


First one that came to mind. At the rate they're scooping up companies, they might end up owning WWE sometime in the future.

Be that as it may, with the power corporations have and keep getting, society might start looking like a William Gibson novel


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Lol.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> The problem is that corporations have too much power and too many hands in too many cookie jars. Since the 90s, how many companies have scooped up other companies and expanded to monstrous levels? Disney is a prime example of this. We barley have a actual competitive market anymore in a lot of industries and its just a climb to scoop up as much property as possible.


The Telecommunications Act of 1996 says hi.


----------



## Carter84 (Feb 4, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Was there a debate?
> 
> Because I simply red repped you because I thought your comment was retarded tripe.



Bit of a stupid way of red repping but I don't care now as Trump is a fcking moron and will be found out in the end when a decent candidate runs against him , like the Rock , whoopie Goldberg or opra Winfrey.

Peace.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Why should your employer be forced to pay you for not working again?
> 
> Greed. Your greed, specifically.
> 
> ...


Or maybe you've bought into the myth that companies cannot survive if they treat workers well? It's been going on in many other countries for a long time. You talk as if the United States will be the only surviving entity in 50 years. 

And I don't want to fuck over my grand children no, that's why I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the large majority of scientists and vote for politicians who are committed to green energy.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The problem statists are having with picturing anarchy is in trying to think of it as a system, a counter-measure to the failures of the current system because generally that is what transpires. Anarchy is the dissolution of all political systems. It's not going to look like anything because it doesn't represent anything.

It's like trying to grasp the assertions of atheism. As atheism is the negation of god, anarchy is the negation of political systems. It does not mean, abolish the government and figure it out from there.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Goku said:


> The problem statists are having with picturing anarchy is in trying to think of it as a system, a counter-measure to the failures of the current system because generally that is what transpires. Anarchy is the dissolution of all political systems. It's not going to look like anything because it doesn't represent anything.
> 
> It's like trying to grasp the assertions of atheism. As atheism is the negation of god, anarchy is the negation of political systems. It does not mean, abolish the government and figure it out from there.


Tell that to the morons who wear the symbol for anarchism and think they know shit.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> And I don't want to fuck over my grand children no, that's why I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the large majority of scientists and vote for politicians who are committed to green energy.


The scientific community does not lean especially heavy in any one particular direction. You've likely been fed that talking point for so long you probably decided just not to question it.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/art...-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many
_In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question._

^ Doesn't look like a large majority to me.

And if the science is so infallible why is there even a debate to begin with? Why isn't *100%* of the scientific community leaning in one direction?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Goku said:


> The problem statists are having with picturing anarchy is in trying to think of it as a system, a counter-measure to the failures of the current system because generally that is what transpires. Anarchy is the dissolution of all political systems. It's not going to look like anything because it doesn't represent anything.
> 
> It's like trying to grasp the assertions of atheism. As atheism is the negation of god, anarchy is the negation of political systems. It does not mean, abolish the government and figure it out from there.


Most people conflate the term anarchy with the word chaos. It's doubtful any of these people have ever read a word about the political philosophy of anarchism. This is just the opening of a very long wiki page about it:

_Anarchism is a political philosophy[1][2] that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies,[3][4][5][6] although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations.[7][8][9][10] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.[11]

While opposition to the state is central,[12] anarchism specifically entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations.[13][14][15] Anarchism is usually considered a far-left ideology[16][17][18] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[19]

Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[20] Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[21] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[22] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications._

I don't consider myself 100% anarchist because I do believe there should be some kind of small government via direct democracy for basic services that is solely responsible to the people but some of my views venture into anarchism territory, especially on social views.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The scientific community does not lean especially heavy in any one particular direction. You've likely been fed that talking point for so long you probably decided just not to question it.
> 
> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/art...-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many
> _In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question._
> ...


I'm not even going to bother arguing whether climate changed is caused by burning fossil fuels or not.

Just stop and think about this for a moment. It is an inescapable fact that fossil fuels will run out at some point. They are a finite resource on this planet. At some point, mankind will have no choice but to stop using them. Then also consider all the war, death and destruction that has happened around the world, mainly in the Middle East, caused by the pursuit of fossil fuels. 

Considering those facts alone, why would you *not* want to develop renewable energy technologies? You don't have to bomb innocent civilians halfway around the globe to get power from the sun or the wind. 

Just something to consider...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm thinking about going solar in the next few years TBH.

I don't care about the environment as much as I care about literally going off the grid *shrug*


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Most people conflate the term anarchy with the word chaos. It's doubtful any of these people have ever read a word about the political philosophy of anarchism. This is just the opening of a very long wiki page about it:
> 
> _Anarchism is a political philosophy[1][2] that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies,[3][4][5][6] although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations.[7][8][9][10] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.[11]
> 
> ...


Money, its all about money. The oil companies have far to much reach in the world governments and are not going to give up their profits for anything.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Carter84 said:


> Bit of a stupid way of red repping but I don't care now as Trump is a fcking moron and will be found out in the end when a decent candidate runs against him , like the Rock , whoopie Goldberg or opra Winfrey.
> 
> Peace.


Just because our current president was a TV celebrity (and technically still is because of how the news can't stop incessantly talking about him 8*D) doesn't necessarily mean other celebrities will make it to the top of the political mountain like he has.

But again, feel free to keep spouting retarded tripe if it helps you sleep at night. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Liberals: Trump is a fascist!
> 
> Also the Liberals:


So because one law professor thinks this, you are saying its all liberals lol


Is anyone in the govt pushing for this?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Jesus did I time travel back to university what is with all these freshman-just-read-Marx-for-the-first-time level arguments :done


Reap said:


> Ignoring the economics of government/capitalist collusion and why getting rid of one won't magically solve the problems created by the other isn't the same as ignorance, so at least CP skirts away from actively talking about economics as a whole.


WHO IS INVOKING MAGIC OR SUGGESTING ALL PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED :heston Cease.



> The austrian pipe dream of laissez faire economics simply cannot exist because the very nature of capitalism is based around exploitation irrespective of whether or not you even throw greed into the mix. The exploitative nature of capitalism the very thing that creates the necessity for regulation in the first place, and the necessity for regulation is what empowers governments more. The end result of the capitalist game is more centralization and not less because capitalism causes the need for workers to organize and demand regulations in order to prevent the capitalist from exploiting labor.
> 
> The relationship between capitalists and labor is one of intrinsic conflict and not of cooperation.


Nah the very nature of capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services. You're just adding a bunch of stuff Marx, who was never a successful person and thus was envious of those who were (much like Bernie, who never had a real private sector job for any significant amount of time) asserts as fact to support his own biased worldview. Reading something in a book or on the internet doesn't make it factual, no matter what political ideology you want to roleplay as on a given week. (Y) 



Tater said:


> It doesn't matter if the population are still a bunch of statists. Let's say for the sake of argument that the population are a bunch of libertarians, that's not going to do anything to stop the billionaire class and the corporations from forming another government they can control.


NOBODY IS GONNA PAY TAXES TO OR JOIN THE ARMIES OF WAL-MART BREH, the lifelong indoctrination just isn't there. 



> You're against concentrated power in the hands of a government but perfectly fine if it's not called government, whereas I am against all forms of concentrated power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The saying is still true. Until these concentrations of power are broken up, we will continue living in a fucked up society with a small group of elites running everything.


Yes, I'm against power that is maintained and enforced through violent means. You're against exceptional people wielding exceptional influence. I actually think the smartest, richest people running society non-violently sounds pretty great. :draper2 Pretty sure that's how society moves forward, not by giving the less educated, less intelligent, less skilled masses democratic power over everything. 



Reap said:


> The only way capitalism can't be considered exploitative is that it would treat workers fairly, which as we all know the vast majority of capitalists do not.


How is this something "we all know"? What the fuck does fairness even mean in an adult context? I left the concept behind in childhood. The world isn't fair. The best gauge of what could be considered "fair" is what people are able to accomplish and willing to perform in a voluntary and peaceful society. Remove violence from the equation and I don't see any complaints about "fairness" as legitimate in any way. 



> The proof is in the historical record as well as in chinese factories, sweatshops .. Heck it happens in the US as well. Look at prison labor. Look at the history of capitalists finding as many loopholes as they can to exploit as many avenues as they can to make a cheap buck. You choose to wilfully ignore it so that you can hold on to your irrational belief.


The behavior of some companies does not determine the nature of capitalism itself. Not every company outsources. Not every company uses low wage foreign labor in oppressive countries where the governments align more with you and Tater politically. Countries where the government actually *does* censor everything, where things actually *are* like a dystopia.

You're just repeating assertions made by Marxists that aren't actually proven in any way. That's the problem with people who re-invent themselves every few weeks. You just pick up the talking points without thinking any of it through.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Why y'all talking like we didn't just have the North Korea issue get solved without war, unemployment at an all time low and growth much higher than anyone (including Obama) thought possible. The doomsday spiel and Trump mockery is pretty ineffective when he's objectively doing a fantastic job compared to prior presidents. :lol


:lmao

I came into this thread just to see if anyone is still pushing the "low unemployment" nonsense like it's something we can contribute to Trump and claim as a good thing. It doesn't surprise me that it took me only a few minutes to find you of all people pushing this agenda. 

Low wages and affordable living is still a massive problem and something Trump has done little to solve. The gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow and shows no signs of slowing down. And there are already signs that the economy will break sooner than expected, hell it might even happen during Trump's reign as presidency. Worst of all, Trump's policies continue to put the country into deeper debt, something he criticized Obama for and promised to handle on his own accord. 

So on top of not being the reason for the low unemployment rates, the problems that are still there are things Trump has done nothing to solve.

And we aren't acting like the NK issue wasn't solved. We just aren't blindly attributing it to Trump like you are. 

So far Trump hasn't done anything that has led the country into an immediate disaster. That much we can attribute to him. He still has a lot of work to do, and so far little has been done on his end that will allow the country to head into the right direction. You can claim you approve of a lot of the decisions he has made thus far, it is factually wrong however to claim he is doing a fantastic job when there are things he promised to accomplish very early into his Presidency that he STILL hasn't done two years later. That, in of itself, it a failure on his part. 

We want him to show he's capable of being a competent president and actually do things that can benefit the country in the long term. We want to see him make good on his word to make the changes he promised that even people who hated him agreed needed to be changed. Until he does that, people will continue to complain about him, as they should. And don't even get me started on his views with Climate Change, something that is and will continue to be an ongoing problem regardless of what he does as President.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yeah none of the good things Trump has done is because of him, yet Obama not only couldn't do them but said they were impossible. :heston

Also both North Korea and South Korea's presidents have given credit to Trump, and I was telling you all what Trump was doing with Kim Jong and the "fire and fury" tweets and why it would lead to peace when everyone else was acting like the world was gonna end. :heston Love the arrogance of people who are ALWAYS WRONG trying to retrospectively explain shit they never understood in the first place.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah none of the good things Trump has done is because of him, yet Obama not only couldn't do them but said they were impossible. :heston


Obama couldn't improve the economy and lower the unemployment rate?

Actually he could. In fact he did exactly that. He's the reason we got out of the recession in the first place.

Are you talking about the rate of which the unemployment is at now? Which, again, are due to Obama's ongoing policies? 

How does that prove what I said to be incorrect? 



CamillePunk said:


> Also both North Korea and South Korea's presidents have given credit to Trump


Of course they're going to give credit to Trump. Why the hell wouldn't they? If you're trying to achieve peace with someone, of course you have to claim they did something great. To not do so would be idiotic.

And why should we be happy that Trump didn't do something only a complete and utter moron would do? Of course he agreed to peace. Why are should we proclaim Trump to be great for doing something literally anyone else would do? 



CamillePunk said:


> and I was telling you all what Trump was doing with Kim Jong and the "fire and fury" tweets and why it would lead to peace when everyone else was acting like the world was gonna end. :heston


You think his tweets are the reason we're at peace with North Korea? 

Am I being trolled? 



CamillePunk said:


> Love the arrogance of people who are ALWAYS WRONG trying to retrospectively explain shit they never understood in the first place.


You're praising Trump for something he had nothing to do with, and are proclaiming it as good even though there are still massive problems that he has yet to fix and all the while it is on a crash course for disaster that he's done nothing but bring us closer to. You claim a man who has done nothing but fail on the promises he made that got him elected in the first place is doing a fantastic job. Apparently, when it comes to even the most basic aspect of being a President, or even just doing your job in general, you, yes you, don't have a single clue as to what you are talking about. 

Either that, or you're trolling the shit out of me. You tell me which way this is going.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Oh God an Obama truther. :mj4 He already said jobs weren't coming back and we couldn't get the kind of economic growth we're seeing today. North Korea was the biggest issue and he never came close to solving it.

Everyone was saying if Trump became president we'd immediately see everything unravel, the market tank, new wars break out, etc. Nearly two years later and everything is better than it was and it's all thanks to Obama now.  Why didn't Obama's great achievements factor into the calculation before when everyone was saying the country would go to shit under Trump?? :hmmm


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> the very nature of capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services.


Actually, the voluntary exchange of goods and services has nothing directly to do with capitalism itself, which you would know if you understood the political spectrum at all, because anarchism, a far left ideology, also involves the voluntary exchange of goods and services.

Actually, the very nature of capitalism is the relationship between the owner class, the *capitalists*, and the worker class. You would define voluntary as someone getting to choose between working for shitty wages and no benefits so a capitalist can buy his third yacht or starving to death in the street. Other people would define that differently.



> Yes, I'm against power that is maintained and enforced through violent means. You're against exceptional people wielding exceptional influence. I actually think the smartest, richest people running society non-violently sounds pretty great.


You have lost all grip on reality if you believe those you want in power would not defend their power through violent means if said power was threatened.



> The behavior of some companies does not determine the nature of capitalism itself. Not every company outsources. Not every company uses low wage foreign labor in oppressive countries where the governments align more with you and Tater politically. Countries where the government actually *does* censor everything, where things actually *are* like a dystopia.


:ha

You're just making yourself look foolish now by claiming that Reap and I align politically with low wage foreign labor governments. Not every company does it so we shouldn't have laws against it is about as childish as saying not everyone rapes so we shouldn't have laws against rape. Grow up and stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Jesus did I time travel back to university what is with all these freshman-just-read-Marx-for-the-first-time level arguments :done WHO IS INVOKING MAGIC OR SUGGESTING ALL PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED :heston Cease.
> 
> Nah the very nature of capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services. You're just adding a bunch of stuff Marx, who was never a successful person and thus was envious of those who were (much like Bernie, who never had a real private sector job for any significant amount of time) asserts as fact to support his own biased worldview. Reading something in a book or on the internet doesn't make it factual, no matter what political ideology you want to roleplay as on a given week. (Y)
> 
> ...


Very thankfully, this type of anarcho-capitalist open discourse and these fascistic conceptions of libertarianism remain an American-centric set of Internet-bullshit ideas for people who most likely never even witnessed any sort of political struggle themselves, so they just take all of the most abject aspects of capitalist society and go "well that sounds good to me", while pretending that their worldview is actually in any way subversive just because it has "anarchism" in its name :lmao 

I'm sure all of this somehow makes perfect sense to you, as you expose yourself to the insanity of ideologues like Rothbard calling for a flourishing free market of children, or Mises and Hayek praising fascist dictatorships, while they wrote about how free markets are the only way to allocate resources efficiently as cyclical crises of overproduction, exclusive to capitalism, consistently plunder millions upon millions into poverty and despair. 

Your ilk goes on about these being stupid moral concerns fit only for children and how concepts like "fairness" mean nothing in the real world, well, no shit. It's exactly those whom you worship that make it like that, and unfortunately for them, people naturally show resistance to it in hopes of a better life. That's when inane concepts like the NAP and the labeling of everything that goes against the growth of the influence of capital for its own sake as "violence", such as strikes or just about any sort of political action start springing up. The real world *is* unforgiving and unfair, and when you start to realize that you can't hide behind made-up concepts like "crony capitalism" to explain why capitalism in so many ways makes it so, you decide to act like capitalism is as much a part of nature itself as the birdies singing out the window. 

This whole political thought as a whole is nothing but an idealist attempt to reconcile the brutal nature of capitalism with a necessity for believing in the supreme ability of the largest economic groups to run the world, seeing as how they already do. If bothered by that, say only "wow I literally said nothing of the sort you're distorting my words"; if not, just gloat in your loss of general humanity as a way to convince yourself that you only care about facts, not feelings and that everybody else should just read basic economics or some shit.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Actually, the voluntary exchange of goods and services has nothing directly to do with capitalism itself, which you would know if you understood the political spectrum at all, because anarchism, a far left ideology, also involves the voluntary exchange of goods and services.


Is it really voluntary if you aren't allowed to start a private business and decide what you pay your employees? :mj 



> Actually, the very nature of capitalism is the relationship between the owner class, the *capitalists*, and the worker class. You would define voluntary as someone getting to choose between working for shitty wages and no benefits so a capitalist can buy his third yacht or starving to death in the street. Other people would define that differently.


And yet in America you can go from a broke college student to owning your own software company worth millions of dollars just by coming up with a decent idea and writing some code. :draper2 Kinda shits on the idea that we're just stuck in our economic classes. Marxism BTFO by technological innovation, just like the climate doomsayers soon will be as well when it turns out you don't need a big government to protect the environment. Go ahead and bet against me once again, I get off on being proven right after being doubted. 



> You have lost all grip on reality if you believe those you want in power would not defend their power through violent means if said power was threatened.


They already do this with the state so there's nothing to lose. What's clear to me is they'd be a lot less able and effective without all of the statist propaganda that the government enjoys. Nobody is gonna fight their neighbors and die for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart isn't gonna spend millions on hiring a private army when it'll just make people not wanna shop at their stores. Who the fuck is gonna be like "oh hey, Wal-Mart is buying armies and rockets, let's keep shopping there fam". Nobody. Your idea of the world is bad science fiction. 



> You're just making yourself look foolish now by claiming that Reap and I align politically with low wage foreign labor governments. Not every company does it so we shouldn't have laws against it is about as childish as saying not everyone rapes so we shouldn't have laws against rape. Grow up and stop embarrassing yourself.


Your criticisms of capitalism are the same. :draper2


Martins said:


> Very thankfully, this type of anarcho-capitalist open discourse and these fascistic conceptions of libertarianism remain an American-centric set of Internet-bullshit ideas for people who most likely never even witnessed any sort of political struggle themselves, so they just take all of the most abject aspects of capitalist society and go "well that sounds good to me", while pretending that their worldview is actually in any way subversive just because it has "anarchism" in its name :lmao
> 
> I'm sure all of this somehow makes perfect sense to you, as you expose yourself to the insanity of ideologues like Rothbard calling for a flourishing free market of children, or Mises and Hayek praising fascist dictatorships, while they wrote about how free markets are the only way to allocate resources efficiently as cyclical crises of overproduction, exclusive to capitalism, consistently plunder millions upon millions into poverty and despair.
> 
> ...


Did that feel good? How's capitalism treating you?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> WHO IS INVOKING MAGIC


Barack Obama

Then :trump took off his robe and wizard hat 

:Trump



> Did that feel good? How's capitalism treating you?


Surely it felt as good as a Venezuelan's stomach

Capitalism is treating him better than a Venezuelan's stomach is being treated right now


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Did that feel good? How's capitalism treating you?


But can you say that in .01 seconds to sound smart enough for "liberal gommies OWNED by LOGIC and FACTS" compilation video #74?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The commies couldn't even get to Proletarian Triumph Compilation Video #6 before they were purged and/or starved to death :sadbecky

Oh well, _someday_ they'll do it right!*

*Well, you know...


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This is just becoming entertaining to read now.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Dr. Middy said:


> This just becoming entertaining to read now.


Capitalism satisfies another consumer.

But, not as entertaining as Queen Becky*

*Also brought to you by _capitalism!_


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Capitalism satisfies another consumer.
> 
> But, not as entertaining as Queen Becky*
> 
> *Also brought to you by _capitalism!_


Guess capitalism isn't too bad in that it lets me watch Becky Lynch in her irish glory :woo


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Funny that in Venezuela it's actually the food companies that attempt to purposefully deny access to basic goods, the fucking Stalinists. Gotta put down those Austrian School books sometimes and just read the news.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yeah everything but socialism is to blame when socialism results in the SAME shitty situation every time it's been tried. :cena


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> Funny that in Venezuela it's actually the food companies that attempt to purposefully deny access to basic goods, the fucking Stalinists. Gotta put down those Austrian School books sometimes and just read the news.


Say that in your best Vyshinsky voice, please :heston


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Rand Paul heaps praise on his favorite president. :trump






(Unfortunately for Rand he won't be president in 2024 as I believe he intends to be, Master Persuader and Musical Genius Ye is already a lock for it)


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Rand Paul heaps praise on his favorite president. :trump
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rand's entrance music there such an 80sgasm


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Lol yeah I mean who ever even HEARD of sanctions, embargoes, disregard for sovereignty and imperialist wars? Is that in one of them "History books" you commies like so much? :cena

Some of us can actually be critical when necessary of our own political alignments and their history, and yet it doesn't stop us from identifying bullshit when we see it. It even furthers our understanding of those alignments. What was that thing called, dia... something?

It's good to challenge your worldview sometimes, gotta diversify that diet, boys. After all that ain't no socialist country you live in unk2


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Disregard for sovereignty is why Venezuelans are eating horses in the street :aries2

_Were_ eating horses in the street, I mean. The horses are all eaten or hidden now


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

... Yyyyyyyyyeah, I know I just said "it's good having your worldview challenged", but I think I'd rather eat an entire horse than hear your interpretation of "disregard for sovereignty". 

I'd try horse meat though, nothing wrong with it :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Socialism: Nothing Wrong With Horsemeat


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> He already said jobs weren't coming back and we couldn't get the kind of economic growth we're seeing today.


And yet, they did. Which, again, are due to HIS policies. I don't know why you continue to make this claim like it's supposed to prove something. It still doesn't change the fact that right now, the economy is where it's at now due to what HE did, not what Trump did. 



CamillePunk said:


> North Korea was the biggest issue and he never came close to solving it.


First off, the recession was the biggest issue. This isn't arguable.

And Trump never solved it either. In fact he was about as far from solving it as you could possibly get. North Korea solved their own issues by stopping with their nonsense. They came to this conclusion on their own. Trump had nothing to do with it. 



CamillePunk said:


> Everyone was saying if Trump became president we'd immediately see everything unravel, the market tank, new wars break out, etc. Nearly two years later and everything is better than it was and it's all thanks to Obama now.


Everything is better huh?

Lets talk about that shall we?

Yes, the economy is better. You want to know why? *Because Obama's policies are still there.* What part of this are you not understanding? Just because Trump is running the country now doesn't mean you can give Trump credit for Obama's work. HIS policies are what the economy is currently running under. Those jobs are being created through his work. Not Trump's. By your logic, we should blame Obama for the recession happening in the first place, because at one point in time, he was President while it was happening, even though it happened due to the policies put in place by Bush. 

I don't know how you aren't getting this. It's not that complicated to understand. 

Our climate is not better. It continues to get worse and Trump isn't showing any signs of improving it, because hey, guess what? He doesn't believe in Climate Change. Do you know how dangerous that is for our planet? We are at the point where if we don't make huge changes now, life for us will become a lot more difficult fifty years down the road. We're already on a crash course for some really bad shit. Your boy isn't helping matters. 

Racial tensions have gone downhill. It's become a lot more apparent in this day and age and it seems like anything can get twisted into a racial story. In what way has this gotten better? 

College Tuition hasn't gotten better. Gas has become more expensive. And other countries around the world are laughing at us. 

Don't give me this "everything's better" nonsense. That's a bullshit claim and you know it. 

As for peace with North Korea, literally no one is giving credit to Obama for this. I don't know why you would say this and expect me not to call you out on it. Exaggerating claims aren't going to help you. They just make you look hysterical and desperate. If you want to make your hero look good, you're gonna have to do better than that. 



CamillePunk said:


> Why didn't Obama's great achievements factor into the calculation before when everyone was saying the country would go to shit under Trump?? :hmmm


Because for starters, no one was predicting that the economy would immediately collapse under Trump. In fact that was the least of everyone's concerns. People were expecting the economy to continue to grow, as long as Trump didn't make any sudden and unnecessary changes to it. And for all the shit we give Trump, we know he's at least smart enough not to do that. The big concerns were what he would do to Obamacare, how his anti-global warming views would come into play and whether or not he'd worsen conditions with other countries.

And as it turns out, he's so bad at his job that he couldn't even get rid of Obamacare. Despite Republicans controlling the majority seats, he failed on two separate occasions to pass a new healthcare law. Do you understand how bad you have to be at your job to pull that off? And now he's given up on that entirely. He continues to pass laws and regulations that will harm the environment in the long run (although once he loses in 2020, whoever is in office will probably just change the policies again). Repairing relationships with North Korea has been one of his biggest accomplishments and it wasn't even because of him.

Trump isn't a failure. Yet. He still has two years to at least do SOMETHING positive that can be due to his abilities as a leader. So far that hasn't happened yet. He hasn't fucked the country over like James Buchanan did. He has by no means been a good President, and he has a long way to go before he can claim he was one. And no, he's not better than Obama. Not by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I mean, yeah. It's like that Seinfeld episode, except the pony gets expropriated, roasted and seasoned with rosemary, to be shared in a big neighbourly feast. Individualist philosophies say you can kill the horse yourself and eat it too, but where's the fun in that? Checkmate liberals


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So because one law professor thinks this, you are saying its all liberals lol
> 
> 
> Is anyone in the govt pushing for this?


I think it's sad even one professor thinks this way. Education is supposed to ensure people look past their own hangups etc.


----------



## DesoloutionRow (May 18, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> Very thankfully, this type of anarcho-capitalist open discourse and these fascistic conceptions of libertarianism remain an American-centric set of Internet-bullshit ideas for people who most likely never even witnessed any sort of political struggle themselves, so they just take all of the most abject aspects of capitalist society and go "well that sounds good to me", while pretending that their worldview is actually in any way subversive just because it has "anarchism" in its name :lmao
> 
> I'm sure all of this somehow makes perfect sense to you, as you expose yourself to the insanity of ideologues like Rothbard calling for a flourishing free market of children, or Mises and Hayek praising fascist dictatorships, while they wrote about how free markets are the only way to allocate resources efficiently as cyclical crises of overproduction, exclusive to capitalism, consistently plunder millions upon millions into poverty and despair.
> 
> ...


I took notice of your post and read the entire thing. One thing I want to point out is that while you criticised this fella's thinking, you didn't quite offer a solution of your own. What do you think should be done to solve these issues? And is it as sustainable as a free market?


----------



## Carter84 (Feb 4, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



AlternateDemise said:


> And yet, they did. Which, again, are due to HIS policies. I don't know why you continue to make this claim like it's supposed to prove something. It still doesn't change the fact that right now, the economy is where it's at now due to what HE did, not what Trump did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Loved ur critique there , summed it up nicely , maybe one day , just one day they might get it , but I wouldn't hold ur breath @AlternateDemise

Peace.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Big Louisiana Skunt said:


> I took notice of your post and read the entire thing. One thing I want to point out is that while you criticised this fella's thinking, you didn't quite offer a solution of your own. What do you think should be done to solve these issues? And is it as sustainable as a free market?


Only striving for a socialist mode of production can placate these issues. 

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/

This article makes a good case for a planned economy taking the most obvious example into account, the Soviet Union, which somehow consistently has all of its innumerable achievements and successes relegated to nothingness in favour of its ultimate failure, taken simply as ultimate proof of a success of the free market.


----------



## DesoloutionRow (May 18, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> Only striving for a socialist mode of production can placate these issues.
> 
> https://gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/
> 
> This article makes a good case for a planned economy taking the most obvious example into account, the Soviet Union, which somehow consistently has all of its innumerable achievements and successes relegated to nothingness in favour of its ultimate failure, taken simply as ultimate proof of a success of the free market.


Thanks for the link and reply. One more question I want to ask you is why do you feel we should diminish the lives of the overwhelming majority because a small minority happen to suffer?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Big Louisiana Skunt said:


> Thanks for the link and reply. One more question I want to ask you is why do you feel we should diminish the lives of the overwhelming majority because a small minority happen to suffer?


You've got this backwards as it relates to how things are now. The small minority aren't the ones who are suffering. They're the ones causing the suffering of the overwhelming majority.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Big Louisiana Skunt said:


> Thanks for the link and reply. One more question I want to ask you is why do you feel we should diminish the lives of the overwhelming majority because a small minority happen to suffer?


"Small minority" is a *very* generous designation in favour of capitalism's effects on people's conditions around the world. And the purpose is certainly not to diminish the lives of anyone, but to prove that this system is the only one that is ultimately capable of bringing true prosperity, instead of one where that prosperity is broken as the next capitalist crisis comes 'round the corner.


----------



## DesoloutionRow (May 18, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> "Small minority" is a *very* generous designation in favour of capitalism's effects on people's conditions around the world. And the purpose is certainly not to diminish the lives of anyone, but to prove that this system is the only one that is ultimately capable of bringing true prosperity, instead of one where that prosperity is broken as the next capitalist crisis comes 'round the corner.


I suppose this is where you and I will disagree in philosophy. I feel that crises and cycles are a part of life and how to produce real growth, both on a personal and economical level. To try and manage these cycles is against the very nature of our behaviour, nor do we have the resources and technology to do so at the moment. Perhaps one day we will have robot slaves and we can alter human behaviour with microchips. To wish otherwise is simply fantasising about what simply cannot be. I wish I could ride a unicorn right now, but it doesn't exist. Can technology one day make it so that I can alter a horse into a unihorned equus callibus that shits rainbows? Sure, but that is a long way off from right fucking now.

In closing, I want to say that I do think the world will eventually function the way you say it will (or at least we will try it), but probably not for another thousand years, when it is more feasible.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I always felt that a system to emphasizes noblesse oblige would be the way to go. Grant, the upper class wouldn't be likely to do so, which is why you don't give them a choice in the matter.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Socialists denying plain reality, how strange

Wait did I say strange I meant typical

The destruction of the socialist myth that capitalism does not benefit the masses must be denied at all turns, as without that myth socialism is bereft of even the most limited justification 

That capitalism whipped socialism at raising the material lot of the masses in the 20th century and is now pissing on socialism's broken corpse in the 21st is too painful to contemplate


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> I think it's sad even one professor thinks this way. Education is supposed to ensure people look past their own hangups etc.


Lots of college professors seem to be kooks.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Lots of college professors seem to be kooks.


I'll take this back... There are probably a lot of nice people that are kooky, and so I'll insert LEFT WING RADICALS in place of "kooks".


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Defenders of capitalism constantly refer to its virtues (I would know, I used to do it too) but forget that those virtues are not experienced by the vast majority of the population. Also, when you criticize capitalism or any aspects of capitalism, they demand that you provide them with an alternate utopian philosophy despite the fact that their capitalist utopia also does not exist. 

There is no perfect solution, but laissez-faire capitalism is as much a pseudoscientific belief as its opposite. The most successful societies in the world are actually based on a successful merging between Keynesian welfare statist policies and embracing of capitalism. It's not about complete regulation, or complete deregulation, but about ensuring that certain basic human rights and labor rights are regulated at the very least to ensure that most of the population remains well above the arbitrary poverty line not, on it, or near it .. because we all know that poverty line determination is incredibly arbitrary. Most countries use different measures to report their own population and therefore comparative data is not that easy to break down from within all the noise. 

However, many of the the most deregulated economies are actually not financially affluent. Hong Kong for example is considered a bastion of deregulation. In actuality, that is far from the truth. Nearly 20% of Hong Kong's population lives in poverty. 



> According to that methodology, nearly one million people lived in poverty in 2015 as they earned less than half of the median monthly household income – set at HK$3,800 for single people, HK$8,800 for a two-person household and HK$14,000 for a family of three.


While the world celebrates hong kong for its so-called "economic freedom" index, they ignore the fact that 20% of people in Hong Kong make less than 484 USD (I'm assuming this is per month). I haven't done the research into the rest of the demographical breakdown yet, but I'm willing to bet the rate of actual population in actual poverty would likely be the majority of the population, with the richest individuals skewing the data to make it appear like they're not - which is the slight of hand used by economists when they pretend to talk about how chinese are no longer poor. 

If that's what deregulated economic freedom gets you, then deregulated economic freedom can fuck off.

Economic Freedom gets you: 

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong...w-survey-calls-attention-plight-children-hong


> *Third of Hong Kong’s poorest children ‘going without regular meals of meat or fish’
> *
> Critics say government must do more to help households below poverty line, such as easing requirements for subsidies
> 
> ...


So yes, while we have socialist countries that show similar problems, you also have many countries at the opposite end where deregulation has led to similar conditions. Laissez Faire Capitalism does not work. Complete Centralization does not work either. 

The thing is that full centralization leads to people people getting a little choppy choppy. And full deregulation leads people to shooting themselves in the head or jumping off roofs :Shrug


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

You can find poverty in any country. If not being able to eat meat and fish for two meals every day is what is considered extreme poverty, I don't think capitalism has done too badly there. 

Hong Kong's main issue is the cost of housing due to its population density, hilly region that make development more difficult and expensive, and reluctance to make more available land marked for preservation into residential use. Also doesn't help that Hong Kong import most of its food from other country which made them extremely vulnerable to global supply disruption and price fluctuation. One other quirk is Hong Kong locas had to contend with Chinese Shenzhen shoppers for years now that has lowered supply and potentially drove up prices for the locals. The Chinese feel goods sold in Hong Kong are more trustworthy and also find them to cost less in Hong Kong due to the exchange rates and lowered taxes in Hong Kong. (parallel selling for profit too)


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> You can find poverty in any country. If not being able to eat meat and fish for two meals every day is what is considered extreme poverty, I don't think capitalism has done too badly there.


Of course, it hasn't. It hasn't done too badly anywhere. But that was never my point. In fact, I stated in my post that criticism of capitalism does not mean that one should abolish it or adopt full centralization because that does not work either. 

The OECD countries with the highest standards of living have adopted a mixture of models that embrace capitalism, do not completely reject Keynesianism and have not socialized (American concept of socialism is retarded anyways) private industry. But many of them have nationalized healthcare, as well as offer significant benefits to individuals across society without breaking their economies. 

These are the 11 countries with the highest standards of living (economic freedom - global rank in brackets)

1. Switzerland (81.0 - 5th)
2. Sweden (72.9 - 18th
3. Germany (72.8 - 19th)
4. Liechtenstein (not listed)
5. Ireland (75.7 - 11th
6. Canada (80.2 - 6th)
7. New Zealand (81.4 - 4th)
8. USA - (76.0 - 10th)
9. Netherlands (73.5 - 17th)
10. Australia (82.0 - 3rd)
11. Norway (70.5 - 31st)

On the flip, Hong Kong and Singapore (1 and 2 in economic freedom) list currently rank 57 and 29 respectively. 

As you can see, there is almost no significant correlation here between Standard of Living and Economic Freedom. Sweden and Germany while ranking low on Economic Freedom are ranked high on Standard of Living. 

Most of the countries above offer fully nationalized healthcare, and also have some of the largest economies in the world .. They're also highly regulated and the regulations have not impacted their overall standards of living. 

Essentially, the point is that Laissez Faire economics and standard of living are not tied to one another as much as Ann Rayndians like to believe.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So Liz Warren had a DNA test and she does have Native American heritage....from over 6 generations ago.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't understand what those on the left don't understand about Trump's reaction to the Warren DNA results. Of course he said "who cares".

How do they not get that he never actually gave a fuck? It was just something to needle her about and to pop his base. Proving anything with DNA was never going to get him to admit he was wrong or apologize because he never really gave a shit about her heritage. If it wasn't that he would have picked something else to fuck with her over. That's what he does. Same with Obama's birth certificate. Trump never really believed he was born somewhere else, he just did it to fuck with him.

It's like watching a nerdy kid try to prove to his bully why he's wrong about something. Even when he does prove it, the bully just mocks him for caring enough to try to prove him wrong.

And it's not like the results will stop it. They'll either say that the percentage of native DNA is too low to be considered of native descent or they'll just say the results are fake.

There's no winning a game like this. It's stupid to try.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I don't understand what those on the left don't understand about Trump's reaction to the Warren DNA results. Of course he said "who cares".
> 
> How do they not get that he never actually gave a fuck? It was just something to needle her about and to pop his base. Proving anything with DNA was never going to get him to admit he was wrong or apologize because he never really gave a shit about her heritage. If it wasn't that he would have picked something else to fuck with her over. That's what he does. Same with Obama's birth certificate. Trump never really believed he was born somewhere else, he just did it to fuck with him.
> 
> ...


It just proves once again what a joke and liar Trump is, and now stupid people are to defend him. Proving Trump is wrong and a liar is a good thing But you are right, it using her heritage was just a way for Trump to be racist and stir up his racist base


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

She actually released the DNA results showing she's 1/1024th Native American and thinks it's a victory. :done She just proved Trump right.

Apparently the average white person in America has 1/600th Native American DNA? :heston She's on the far end of WHITENESS.

When the libs own themselves :lmao


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Damn what a racist Fauxcahontas is, appropriating the identity of all those white people who have more Native American DNA than she does

She also reportedly took multiple DNA tests but only released the results of one

:hmm:

Who wants to bet that she released the result that had the highest % of Native American DNA. The other ones probably say her DNA is 1/1675 or 1/2048th Native American or something

Also when dealing with fractions this small, it's very likely that she has 0% "Native American" DNA :heston


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051885752357916672
What a great day this is. :heston


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

6-10 generations removed. fpalm 

This woman is a complete and utter joke. 

And so is anyone who believes that she's Indian based on this result.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I bet :trump has a higher percentage of "Native American DNA" than Fauxcahontas does

He should take a DNA test and release the results post-haste :trump3


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There is nothing and no one more American than Donald J Trump. :mark:

YE is a close second tho

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3713...tm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter

A favorite of everyone in this thread, Ben Shapiro, takes down Elizabeth Warren and the leftist media's feeble attempts to defend her incredible self-own.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

You know what I find funny? People who call Warren the 2nd best Senator and still can't figure out why Democrats are failures.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The timeline today has been entertaining as hell. The extreme left started doing victory laps thinking the issue was won.. only fir each passing hour to rain crushing blows to their weird narrative about this fraud. Now that narrative and her credibility are a pile of smoking refuse, the panic that has been incited in her zealots has completely detached them from reality.

One of the most hilarious days in politics I can remember. Hope it killed that fraud’s chances at a presidential campaign.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051887238089302016
Leftist actor gets mad his Twitter followers won't do his political bidding. :mj4 Sad! 

Also you gotta love the "Pro-climate/anti-climate" framing. Yeah, because people who don't think the way to protect the environment is increasing the size and scope of the government are against CLIMATE. :heston 

We just want the Earth to burn and become uninhabitable, you see. It had a good run but it's time.


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I dont understand the climate change thing

There is a climate

It changes


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Cherokee Nation disavows the fraudulent con artist Elizabeth Warren. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051943041576169476


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Odogaron said:


> I dont understand the climate change thing
> 
> There is a climate
> 
> It changes


Yup and they keep postponing the rapture like the religious sheep they are.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Man I'm so glad that utter fraud Elizabeth Warren just completely wrecked herself by releasing those DNA results :lmao. What an utter cretin and moron she is.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Man I'm so glad that utter fraud Elizabeth Warren just completely wrecked herself by releasing those DNA results :lmao. What an utter cretin and moron she is.


Yep and the widespread mainstream media push to frame it as her "proving her claims" and making it seem like Trump has something to answer for is just so deliciously illustrative of the President's criticisms of the fake news, Democratic Party-aligned media in this country. 


Did he not win enough last week for these people? They gotta keep their losing streak going? :heston


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051963441597075456Clown journalist tries to "gotcha" Trump over Warren (how fucking deluded are these people?) and he ruins her as First Lady Melania laughs. :lol What an amazing day.

Also, Elizabeth Warren was the #1 trend on Twitter with over 600k tweets accompanied by the fake news Twitter headline that she had "proven her ancestry". As soon as the Cherokee Nation disavowed her she completely disappeared from the trending list, with trends that had far fewer tweets still showing up. The collusion between these social media oligarchs and their prized Democratic politicians couldn't be more apparent.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



23andme report on Fauxcahontas said:


> "The analysis also identified 5 genetic segments as Native American in origin at high confidence."


"5 genetic segments"

I love how she went to the genetic testing company that is probably the most recognizable to the NPR crowd. 23andme! :ha

_Doctor_ Ian Malcolm would not approve of this chicanery


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Man I'm so glad that utter fraud Elizabeth Warren just completely wrecked herself by releasing those DNA results :lmao. What an utter cretin and moron she is.


I hope this is so damaging that it keeps her out of the next presidential run. The last thing we need is more identity politics shaming people into supporting her while completely ignoring that she voted for Trump's massive military increases multiple times. Even if she won, nothing would be done to slow down the war machine and the neocons would still be running foreign policy.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Fuck that, I demand Warren runs and wins the nomination. People were saying how she would've so easily won in 2016. :lol I wanna see those DEBATES.

Not like the Democrats have any decent candidates at all. Their entire field is awful, driven insane with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Only one who isn't tainted with it is Tulsi and the party hates her. :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Fuck that, I demand Warren runs and wins the nomination. People were saying how she would've so easily won in 2016. :lol I wanna see those DEBATES.
> 
> Not like the Democrats have any decent candidates at all. Their entire field is awful, driven insane with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Only one who isn't tainted with it is Tulsi and the party hates her. :lol


Does that mean you would vote for Tulsi over Trump in the 2020 election were she to get the nomination?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Of course, it hasn't. It hasn't done too badly anywhere. But that was never my point. In fact, I stated in my post that criticism of capitalism does not mean that one should abolish it or adopt full centralization because that does not work either.
> 
> The OECD countries with the highest standards of living have adopted a mixture of models that embrace capitalism, do not completely reject Keynesianism and have not socialized (American concept of socialism is retarded anyways) private industry. But many of them have nationalized healthcare, as well as offer significant benefits to individuals across society without breaking their economies.
> 
> ...


3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th on the economic freedom list made top 10. Not too shabby. Hong Kong and Singapore are unique in they are two of the most densely populated city-state in the world that aren't exclusively a rich people's playground. Both countries have almost no natural resources other than an excellent geographical location that import almost everything they consume.

Most of the issues these two countries face is related to the costs of housing similar to what Americans in rich coastal states experience. I don't know how socialism can resolve that issue without triggering your free market sensibilities. Singapore and Hong Kong (after returning to China) are also often penalised on a lot by standard of living indexes due to censorship issues and income inequality as they attract the super rich from other countries to migrate over.

Mind you, both countries already have an extensive public housing and healthcare in place. It seems almost as if commitment to economic freedom allowed both countries to grow beyond their means leading to overcrowding.

A more interesting comparison would be the difference in how a more libertarian leaning Hong Kong society and a Singapore society used to a totalitarian government differ in progress in the next half a century given both states similarity in economic freedom.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Does that mean you would vote for Tulsi over Trump in the 2020 election were she to get the nomination?


I would never vote for a Democrat again. Both parties may be into destroying the middle east but the Democrats encourage and incite violence (and using their media allies to destroy people's reputations) domestically and the Republicans don't. Can't get behind that at all. Most likely as a Californian I don't vote at all in 2020. 

If Tulsi wants my vote she'll have to run third-party.

I really don't see anyone beating Trump in 2020 though. It won't be close.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I would never vote for a Democrat again. Both parties may be into destroying the middle east but the Democrats encourage and incite violence (and using their media allies to destroy people's reputations) domestically and the Republicans don't. Can't get behind that at all. Most likely as a Californian I don't vote at all in 2020.
> 
> If Tulsi wants my vote she'll have to run third-party.
> 
> I really don't see anyone beating Trump in 2020 though. It won't be close.


Ehh... I'll leave your Democrats do it and Republicans don't comment alone because it is not relevant to the topic at hand. As for the rest...

Your vote for president in California doesn't matter anyways but not voting for a genuine peace advocate because she's in a worthless party while also not giving your vote to someone who currently has a neocon administration is something I can respect. 

Whether or not Trump wins depends entirely on who runs against him. If it's another Clintonite, he'll win again. If it's a Berniecrat or Bernie himself, I wouldn't bet on Trump getting another 4 years. That's not an endorsement of Bernie, just a recognition of polling data; his own and those of his platform.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051899088134914059
:Trump


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

LMAO "peruvian" that shit got me


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Watching the extreme left meltdown has been a treat. Now they are attacking the tribes denouncing Warren.... thought they were supposed to be for minorities, not bristling to keep them in line.

Wonderful theatre.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Relax guys she just misspoke. 'I do have proud Native American Heritage' was just a mistake, she came out the next day and corrected to 'I don't'.

Could happen to any politician apparently.

:trump2

:ha


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

edit wrong thread oopsies


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Well, here's hoping that the liberals stand true to their own ideals and discard this white woman for extreme, extreme, extremely offensive *ACTUAL *cultural appropriation. Because what Pocahontas has done is the very epitome of textbook cultural appropriation. Left Wing twitter is eerily quiet on the announcement though. 

But ... that would be giving them too much credit, right?

I certainly hope not.

Edit: Oh wait. They're not talking about the test results at all. Like the brainless sheep they are. They're talking about Trump's obvious joke about a 1 million dollar donation fpalm

Predictable. 

America's democrats and their entire propaganda machine is the real cancer that's destroying America from the inside. 

I will throw my hat in the ring as another leftist who will NEVER vote democrat. Fuck them.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> Watching the extreme left meltdown has been a treat. Now they are attacking the tribes denouncing Warren.... thought they were supposed to be for minorities, not bristling to keep them in line.
> 
> Wonderful theatre.


You think Liz Warren supporters are "extreme left"? 

:ha

Warren herself isn't even on the left.



Reap said:


> Well, here's hoping that the liberals stand true to their own ideals and discard this white woman for extreme, extreme, extremely offensive *ACTUAL *cultural appropriation. Because what Pocahontas has done is the very epitome of textbook cultural appropriation. Left Wing twitter is eerily quiet on the announcement though.
> 
> But ... that would be giving them too much credit, right?
> 
> ...


I'd vote for Tulsi Gabbard the Democrat just like there are certain libertarian Republicans I'd vote for if the circumstances were right, like if they were going up against a died in the wool neocon Clintonite Dem. Judge each candidate individually, not by party affiliation.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

You know you've dun more than goof'd the F up completely and cooked your own goose when CNN publishes articles like this:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/opin...ex.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



> *I am a Native American. I have some questions for Elizabeth Warren*
> 
> By Simon Moya-Smith
> 
> ...


She's done. More than done. 

She can kiss her 2020 bid goodbye.

@Tater ; - I'll consider Tulsi ... My problem however is that she's sympathetic towards Islam from a social liberal POV. But it will depend on her campaign if and when she decides to run. Of course, if she deviates too far from the party line, then she is going to get screwed over during the primaries. But if she toes the party line even in a bid to win the nomination, her platform would become too close to the democrat platform and that itself is something I can't vote for. 

She's in a lose-lose. 

I do worry though she would be another candidate that will be reluctant to end the American relationship with KSA and other Islamist states ... She would be too keen on supporting Palestinian terrorism (unintentionally like Trudeau is currently doing). She might move towards an attempt to end the bombing of muslim countries, but I'm afraid she might go too far towards the that part of social liberalism that makes some parts of the "left" blind to Islamist extremism.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I really don't see anyone beating Trump in 2020 though. It won't be close.


In 2016 he ran against the first Major candidate of either party under an FBI Investigation during the campaign. A candidate who called the supporters of someone in her own party basement dwellers, who called other voters deplorable. And who neglected to campaign in a must win Region. If he could barely beat Hilary then even Maxine Waters or Alec Baldwin would have a puncher's chance


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051940535374700550
:lmao :lmao :lmao

i hope this squashes her 2020 hopes. last thing we needed is her stealing the progressive votes from bernie and we end up with corey booker or some other establishment dem.

i don't think gabbard will run if bernie runs, and bernie's definitely running. i expect her to be his running mate if he wins the nomination.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> @Tater ; - I'll consider Tulsi ... My problem however is that she's sympathetic towards Islam from a social liberal POV. But it will depend on her campaign if and when she decides to run. Of course, if she deviates too far from the party line, then she is going to get screwed over during the primaries. But if she toes the party line even in a bid to win the nomination, her platform would become too close to the democrat platform and that itself is something I can't vote for.
> 
> She's in a lose-lose.
> 
> I do worry though she would be another candidate that will be reluctant to end the American relationship with KSA and other Islamist states ... She would be too keen on supporting Palestinian terrorism (unintentionally like Trudeau is currently doing). She might move towards an attempt to end the bombing of muslim countries, but I'm afraid she might go too far towards the that part of social liberalism that makes some parts of the "left" blind to Islamist extremism.


Stepping down as one of the DNC chairs to back Bernie against Queen Hillary is not the characteristic of someone who will toe the party line. That's something that takes balls of steel. Of course they would try to screw her in the primaries but she's both a woman and a person of color, so she wouldn't be as easy for them to smear as old white man Bernie.

How do you define being soft on Islamic extremism? Not getting involved militarily in things we shouldn't be involved with? The government we have now is not only soft on Islamic extremism, it actively arms and funds it. She's been one of the rare people in DC I've seen who actually called out the Trump administration for backing the terrorists in Idlib against the Russian supported Syrian army... 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039636324322402304
...and she regularly calls for an end to our support of the Saudi genocide in Yemen.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051534249373982720

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051217437251825667
Call that being soft on Islamic extremism if you want but it works for me.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'll keep my mind open about Tulsi. I mean it's still a game and like rolling the dice. 

Btw, none of the MSM outlets talked about the Cherokee nation response on TV. None of the paragons of virtue TV show hosts mentioned it. 

Not one. 

For the supposed media that cares about minorities, when minorites speak up they sure as hell don't give a fuck.

That's real racism.

No really. When white people go out there defending a white woman pretending to not be a white woman, and ignore the minorities that are speaking up against this white washing, that IS the very epitome of institutional racism. 

Fuck the democrats. They're racists. For them race is only a talking point. When a real race issue surfaces, they always ignore it to protect their own.










For a party that screams that everyone who disagrees with them are racists, they certainly don't give a single fuck about an entire nation of minorities.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HandsomeRTruth said:


> In 2016 he ran against the first Major candidate of either party under an FBI Investigation during the campaign. A candidate who called the supporters of someone in her own party basement dwellers, who called other voters deplorable. And who neglected to campaign in a must win Region. If he could barely beat Hilary then even Maxine Waters or Alec Baldwin would have a puncher's chance


Not interested in retrospective filters, I prefer predictive ones as they are more credible and useful.

Tulsi will never be competitive in a Democratic primary so it's useless to speculate about her. She's against the MIC and unlike Bernie she doesn't come off as an insane raving socialist so she's actually electable and thus an actual threat to it.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

How many politicians does :trump have to demolish before the idea gets through that it is very likely that there is no politician he could not demolish?

16 Republicans I'm not going to list because who cares (Jeb!)

Hillary Clinton 

Barack Obama (okay :trump did not demolish him exactly but his attacks on :trump were and are complete failures. Obama is completely irrelevant in the age of :trump and not by choice, unlike George W. Bush who consciously and deliberately decided to be irrelevant after leaving the Oval Office)

And just today he murdered the presidential aspirations of one of the most prominent United States Senators, who had commonly been held up as one of the most serious threats to his re-election

Now seriously tell me what is the name of this legendary politician in the United States who would not get torn up in a 6-month general election campaign by Donaldus Maximus :trump3


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:trump is demolishing bama3's legacy tho. :mj


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> :trump is demolishing bama3's legacy tho. :mj


Yeah I edited to reflect this :fact

Barack Obama is politically and culturally irrelevant, and :trump made him that way


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1052043565717630976
Trump getting that hooker rebate. :banderas


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> How many politicians does :trump have to demolish before the idea gets through that it is very likely that there is no politician he could not demolish?
> 
> 16 Republicans I'm not going to list because who cares (Jeb!)
> 
> ...


I think what this more shows is how untouchable the position of POTUS is. Trump has proven this like no one else. I'm no political expert but when is the last time a President's own Republican congressman and senators repeatedly had to reject outlandish offensive things he's said and done, yet no price was actually paid by the Prez?

I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but Trump has already had dozens of Warren moments like fake Pocahontas, yet he's apparently teflon and none of it sticks because no one has the power to unsurp him, or if they do they're too scared of the ramifications to their own party's rep.

Another celebrity candidate could come along and EASILY beat Trump at his own game IMO. Question is has the American public already been dumbed down too much by The Donald to care?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> I think what this more shows is how untouchable the position of POTUS is. Trump has proven this like no one else. I'm no political expert but when is the last time a President's own Republican congressman and senators repeatedly had to reject outlandish offensive things he's said and done, yet no price was actually paid by the Prez?
> 
> I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but Trump has already had dozens of Warren moments like fake Pocahontas, yet he's apparently teflon and none of it sticks because no one has the power to unsurp him, or if they do they're too scared of the ramifications to their own party's rep.
> 
> Another celebrity candidate could come along and EASILY beat Trump at his own game IMO. Question is has the American public already been dumbed down too much by The Donald to care?


Yes, incumbency is a powerful factor. 

One way you could look at it is that :trump has a strong enough connection with enough of the people that he can bypass elite opinion. Reagan was that way.

Don't be foolish. There is no one that could EASILY beat :trump - barring a massive economic crisis. Give us a name, someone that could withstand six months of :trump tearing them a new asshole three-four times a week in front of five-figure crowds. :trump is the best at his own game. Plenty of witty celebrities cleverly rip :trump every night on the TV. Ain't doing a damn thing to him.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Make America Date Again lol



> Dating as a supporter of President Donald Trump can apparently be challenging.
> 
> Conservatives may encounter messages like "Trump supporters, swipe left" on Tinder and "If you voted for Trump, don't waste my time" on other popular dating apps. A 2016 survey from Tinder found that 71 percent of online daters consider political differences to be a dealbreaker.
> 
> ...


Okay so which one of you is Riddleberger?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

If Trump is a dumb fuck like you people like to believe and no one can Trump the Trump, then what does that say about his competition?

Hence the circular rotation back to Trump.

Is this what epicurean logic is? Or something else. 

Whatever it is, it's basically become a consistent rotation. Trump says something dumb. His competition says something even dumber hence making Trump look majestic in comparison to the shitshow that's beneath him constantly elevating him with their retarded antics. 

Essentially his competition and his detractors are the ones consistently sustaining him. They're just as much his supporters as his supporters are. Face it. That's the reality.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Not interested in retrospective filters, I prefer predictive ones as they are more credible and useful.
> 
> Tulsi will never be competitive in a Democratic primary so it's useless to speculate about her. She's against the MIC and unlike Bernie she doesn't come off as an insane raving socialist so she's actually electable and thus an actual threat to it.


I don't think Tulsi would be competitive if she tried to run in 2020 simply because she doesn't have enough national name recognition yet. Never is a long time though. She's only 37 and about to win her 4th term in the House. I'd say she's off to a good start.

You say you're not interested in retrospective filters but you have no use for predictive ones that are more credible either because you completely ignore the fact that Bernie's platform polls much better than anything the Republicans put out there and Bernie crushes Trump usually by double digits in every head to head poll released. I have many of my own issues with the guy but to believe he'd have no chance against Trump is based on your own little magical fantasy land and no hard evidence from the real world.

Also, that you believe Bernie sounds like an insane raving socialist is :lmao. That dude is the most centrist politician ever. You wanna see a real leftist platform, check out Corbyn's. His is what an actual center left position looks like. 



CamillePunk said:


> :trump is demolishing bama3's legacy tho. :mj


More :lmao.

Trump ain't demolishing Obama's legacy. He's carrying it on. And Obama was carrying on Dubya's legacy, who was carrying on Clinton's legacy and they were all carrying on the legacy started by Reagan and Bush Sr... if you haven't figured this out by now, there might not be any hope for you after all.



Reap said:


> If Trump is a dumb fuck like you people like to believe and no one can Trump the Trump, then what does that say about his competition?


You can be a dumb fuck and a good con man at the same time. Being able to play people doesn't require a high IQ. It does require a bunch of rubes though. Sadly, the USA is in high supply of those.

@CROFT knows about carneys and rubes.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You can be a dumb fuck and a good con man at the same time. Being able to play people doesn't require a high IQ. It does require a bunch of rubes though. Sadly, the USA is in high supply of those.
> 
> @CROFT knows about carneys and rubes.


Wasn't saying he's smart. But he is smarter than his competition which is saying something.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Not interested in retrospective filters, I prefer predictive ones as they are more credible and useful.


Look at her results though. She literally lost an election to a black male with the middle name Hussein 6 and a half years after 9-11. There was such a "no way" thing most people could believe until it happened. And look at her polling against Generic Milquetoast Republican Politician's like Rubio,Jeb and Kasich in 2016. Unless their is a vault with secret info on any of those guy's she would have had nothing to take them down in GE. Trump is the only candidate she had a chance against,ask yourself if Trump had just been like **** it and dropped out after Iowa what would the media even cover if a bore like Jeb was the nominee. Her scandals that she is not skilled enough to talk her way out of would have been in the news cycle every single day,the media may have a liberal bias but their one concern is it leads it bleeds sensationalism. Jed or Kasich giving boring wonky speeches would have put the media to sleep and all their focus would be on her emails,and various other gaffes and scandal's of her past. The Trump reality tv tour and philosophy of be in the news every day approach,suited her just as much as him because she is awful at retail politics and let her stick to her strategy of run a campaign of just dumping money in tv ad's stay utr and wait for Trump to say something to get him in hot water.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Wasn't saying he's smart. But he is smarter than his competition which is saying something.


Trump ain't no smarter than a sack of moldy diarrhea. Winning an election against someone doesn't make you smarter than them. I have no doubt that Clinton soars above Trump in the intelligence department. That doesn't make her any less despised by the people in the Rust Belt who swung the election to Trump. It doesn't take smarts to be a good carnival barker. Trump is a good bullshitter who knows how to pander to his base. Establishment Dems were already wiped out nationally before the 2016 election. Then they rigged the primaries for one of the most hated status quo Democrats in the USA. There's only so much you can fuck people over before they choose the alternative. It was a perfect storm of shit that got him into the WH. Smarter though? Stop before I hurt myself :lmao.

On another note, I just stumbled across and watched the governor's debate for Hawai'i. I wasn't planning to because I really don't pay attention to local politics but it was there so I turned it on. We don't have much in the way of elected Republicans here. In the primaries alone, the Democrat got something like 125k votes to less than 20k for the Republican, so the Dem will most likely run away with it. There were some hilarious moments though that are worth commenting on. 

The incumbent Democrat is a man of Japanese descent and the Republican challenger is a Samoan woman. The first :lol moment was when the Republican played the identity politics card by talking about the two women of color running on the Republican ticket. The 2nd was when the moderator asked them about Trump policies and she completely dodged the question by giving some bullshit about being bipartisan and getting things done. To his credit, he actually listed off some policy issues.

Then they switched over to the Lt. Governor candidates for a few questions and that was when the real :lmao began. For the Dems, it was a standard white guy doctor who was well spoken and composed with his answers. Then boy oh boy I swear to god I just saw Filipino Sarah Palin. :lmao This crazy bitch, omg, half the time what she was saying was complete gibberish and the other half of the time you could barely understand her at all. On 3 different occasions she was asked one thing and started talking about the unfinished rail project. At one point, she suggested privatizing it and/or tearing it down and tossing it in the ocean. Hardest I've laughed at politics in awhile.

The Republican candidate for governor wasn't too bad as far as Republicans go. She is a Republican in Hawai'i after all, which is a very blue state. A lot of her answers on social issues made her sound like a typical Democrat. Some of her answers on other policy issues were pretty good as well. She's not even a climate denier but you kinda can't be living on an island. Some of her answers were standard Republican fare but that's to be expected. But gotdamn, her LG running mate did her no favors. At. All. No political savvy. Bad grammar. Hard to understand accent. Gets asked one question, goes off on a tangent about something else. Filipino Sarah Palin was something else. Sure gave me a good :lol.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Cherokee Nation disavows the fraudulent con artist Elizabeth Warren.


And so did some Democrats.










- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Not an expert on US defamation law (and I have horrible feeling its one of those things that differs heaps state by state), but the reason the republican judge ruled against Stormy Daniels doesn't really make sense and I'd be surprised if it withstood appeal.

The argument the judge used was that apparently no one was meant to believe Trump's statement that it was "a con", which is patently nonsense in the context the comments were made. 

The president of the US calling someone a liar for saying they had an affair with him is obviously meant to have been believed. 

I'm not saying she'll 100% win on appeal, but I think a higher court would have to come up with something a bit more logical/reasonable to rule against her than what was clearly a partisan decision by the lower court.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051940535374700550
> :lmao :lmao :lmao





deepelemblues said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051899088134914059
> :Trump





CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051963441597075456Clown journalist tries to "gotcha" Trump over Warren (how fucking deluded are these people?) and he ruins her as First Lady Melania laughs. :lol What an amazing day.
> 
> Also, Elizabeth Warren was the #1 trend on Twitter with over 600k tweets accompanied by the fake news Twitter headline that she had "proven her ancestry". As soon as the Cherokee Nation disavowed her she completely disappeared from the trending list, with trends that had far fewer tweets still showing up. The collusion between these social media oligarchs and their prized Democratic politicians couldn't be more apparent.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...erican-makes-her-the-butt-of-jokes-once-again



> Well, that didn’t go according to plan.
> 
> After making a big show of taking a DNA test to determine her ancestry, it turns out that Elizabeth Warren has negligible Native American roots. Not only is the Massachusetts Democrat white, *she's really, really white, possessing less Native American blood than the average European-American.*
> 
> ...



















:lmao :lmao :lmao

I'm having too much fun with this.

The Young Turks reaction :lmao

Being whiter than the average american :lmao

Being whiter than Richard fucking Spencer :lmao.


There's too much hilarity and goodness in this.


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

She should be happy to be white, infinite privilege is now bestowed upon her


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Odogaron said:


> She should be happy to be white, infinite privilege is now bestowed upon her


More like she can now claim the white victim complex seen by people like Deepemblem.


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

Draykorinee said:


> Odogaron said:
> 
> 
> > She should be happy to be white, infinite privilege is now bestowed upon her <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/smilies/confused.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Confused" class="inlineimg" />
> ...


What is the white victim complex?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Odogaron said:


> What is the white victim complex?


https://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/5596...-theyre-discriminated-against?t=1539690189192



> More than half of whites — 55 percent — surveyed say that, generally speaking, they believe there is discrimination against white people in America today.



Theres this golden one from the perpetually oppresed



deepelemblues said:


> It's simply tiresome, jumping from one Anything Forum Two-Minutes Hate to the other, especially since there's only ever 4 approved targets:
> 
> - White people
> - Men
> ...


Even though we have routinely had multiple baiting anti-liberal/left wing posters and agendas, we have many anti-islam posters (myself included), and we routinely have anti-feminism posts and mocking of women.


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

Survey is too broad to take seriously tbh - how does one define discrimination?

I mean, if I were to pay any attention to Twitter, heaven forbid, I am, as a straight white male, effectively the scourge of society. Do I care about that assessment? Not particularly, but the fact that it’s becoming an ever more mainstream opinion to think that way is a worrying trend, and if someone looked at me and thought that way, surely I’m entitled to feel discriminated against as per the parameters of the survey?


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Even though we have routinely had multiple baiting anti-liberal/left wing posters and agendas, we have many anti-islam posters (myself included), and we routinely have anti-feminism posts and mocking of women.


I will raise my hand and proudly state I'm all three.....well I'm only against modern third wave and radical feminism to be honest and I'm anti-leftist, I don't hate liberals .


----------



## HandsomeRTruth (Feb 22, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

We may not agree with her policies, but that Ancestry is the kind of candidate we can get behind- Tucker Carlson/Richard Spencer


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

Yeah important distinction to be made between liberals and leftists


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Odogaron said:


> Survey is too broad to take seriously tbh - how does one define discrimination?
> 
> I mean, if I were to pay any attention to Twitter, heaven forbid, I am, as a straight white male, effectively the scourge of society. Do I care about that assessment? Not particularly, but the fact that it’s becoming an ever more mainstream opinion to think that way is a worrying trend, and if someone looked at me and thought that way, surely I’m entitled to feel discriminated against as per the parameters of the survey?


Ah, now we're talking about gender and colour combined, do I think that white men have a reason to feel marginalised when in certain circumstances. Yes. Being white here is not the issue though, if you put a white woman in the EXACT same circumstance they wouldn't feel discriminated.


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Ah, now we're talking about gender and colour combined, do I think that white men have a reason to feel marginalised when in certain circumstances. Yes. Being white here is not the issue though, if you put a white woman in the EXACT same circumstance they wouldn't feel discriminated.


Hmm, I wouldnt use the word 'marginalised' in that context, I just think that everybody's lives would be infinitely better if they looked at situations, and situations they were involved in were judged on their own specificity, rather than identity based motives/outcomes.

And take the recent example of Susan Collins - the shrieking against her when she announced she'd be supporting Kavanaugh's nomination went along the same anti-white lines.

It's just nonsense


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There are several rather large questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered if the common man is a rube


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Even though we have routinely had multiple baiting anti-liberal/left wing posters and agendas, we have many anti-islam posters (myself included), and we routinely have anti-feminism posts and mocking of women.


Gandhi isn't around anymore and Reap is still trying to figure out which way his wind is blowing, is he a capitalist, is he a crypto-socialist, is he a race-baiter, is he not. Where is this anti-Islam stuff? 

Being anti-feminist isn't being misogynist. Mocking of women for being women, go to the WWE forums for that. I said Anything. 

"Agendas" please sir just please. "Agendas." People have their opinions and they express them. "Agendas." 

I would have more sympathy for complaints of baiting if you and a half-dozen others had not routinely engaged in frequent condescending baiting over the last 6 months, usually over race. Which finally seems to be ending. No doubt the abrupt absence of Thirsty Rick has something to do with it. 



> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > More like she can now claim the white victim complex seen by people like Deepemblem.


:ha


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

deepelemblues said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Even though we have routinely had multiple baiting anti-liberal/left wing posters and agendas, we have many anti-islam posters (myself included), and we routinely have anti-feminism posts and mocking of women.
> ...


The anti Islam stuff pops it head up often.

Why on earth do you take complaint worth the term agenda? It's not a derogatory comment. Weird thing to get hung up on.

What's with your use of thirsty all of a sudden?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I am officially an anti-vaxxer as of today. I haven't gotten a flu vaccine in 10 years, didn't get the flu once during that time. In a moment of weakness at the doctor's office yesterday, I agreed to have this year's hellbrew misnamed a "flu shot" injected into my beautiful white body.*

Today I feel like shit. Fuck vaccines!**

*Well, my mom says I'm handsome anyway. But she's genetically obligated to

**Okay not really. But still I shouldn't have agreed to it WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY did I agree ugh :sadbecky


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There's a difference between being anti-Islam and discriminating against Muslims. I'm as anti-Islam as a person can rationally be, but I've never discriminated against someone for being Muslim. Criticizing a political ideology like Islam isn't the same as discriminating against members who subscribe to it. You don't owe it to anybody to keep your opinions about ideologies to yourself.


----------



## nonogs (Jul 14, 2015)

Vic Capri said:


> > Cherokee Nation disavows the fraudulent con artist Elizabeth Warren.
> 
> 
> And so did some Democrats.
> ...


The Stormy Hole, Warren...Next???


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Or maybe my views are more wide ranging than can be categorized into simple labels anymore.

Deep still smarting from the fact that I abandoned white nationalism though is amusing. Wonder why he never accused me of having a hidden agenda when I was pushing a similar agenda as his. I am free to change my mind in race and economic issues as many times as I want based in experience and learning new things and critical self examination. 

I'm still 100% anti Islam though and as far are politics go I will NEVER vote for a Muslim that wasn't born and raised in America over several generations because they're Muslim since no Muslim from the East seeks power because they want to be secular. Voting for a Muslim who has any links to any Muslim organizations in a secular society is a vote against secularism and liberty.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Or maybe my views are more wide ranging than can be categorized into simple labels anymore.
> 
> Deep still smarting from the fact that I abandoned white nationalism though is amusing.


Uhm hello when/why were you a white nationalist? :lmao The fuck


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Uhm hello when/why were you a white nationalist? :lmao The fuck


For a while I considered ethnonationalism and even agreed with the idea of white ethnostate seriously before realizing that the logical conclusion of such an idea is essentially only going to lead to more suffering and chaos :Shrug

My opinions are pretty much always a work in progress. I've never proclaimed otherwise to be honest.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Uhm hello when/why were you a white nationalist? :lmao The fuck


He should stick to telling men that they use their wives as shields in internet political squabbles

It's better bait than this 

I am a nationalist of course, I've said that before. I've also said and talked at the edges many times about how a nation is better off if as many of its different groups of citizens as possible are doing well. The evidence is pretty clear, large multiethnic states where there is more rather than less equality of opportunity and dignity for the different groups in society are usually stong and prosperous. Rome and the United States are the greatest examples

The United States has always been a nation that is not totally white, and it has gone on from success to success as a nation that is not totally white. The closer whites and nonwhites on equality, a correlation exists with ever greater successes. And a causation.

Leaving aside any moralizing arguments based on the reasonings of justice, countries based on ethnonationalism achieve inferior results compared to ones that have broader, stronger unifying forces at play. Especially if the ethnonationalism is of a virulent kind, and it usually is. China, for example, would be much better off if the Han majority dominated government was not wasting resources repressing Uighurs, Tibetans and other minorities.

White nationalism :ha

Any color nationalism is self defeating and thus foolish. Again, independent of any moral concerns, which have their own weight and influence pragmatic concerns. Or should anyway. Nationalisms of principles and ideals are better than ones of colors


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This is why reason and principles should guide one's thinking rather than whim. Thinking critically is not a game of Dungeons & Dragons, you don't just start over and create a new character every few weeks. Can't imagine finding myself in a place where I think white nationalism sounds like a good idea. :lol

Although it does make sense that Reap is now pushing collectivism, it does go hand-in-hand with race-based nationalism. :mj Sounds like he's aligning more and more with Richard Spencer, who is a full-on actual socialist in addition to his ethno-nationalism.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> *Stormy Daniels Told to Pay Trump’s Legal Fees After Defamation Suit*


President Trump negotiates so well that he gets hookers to pay him!

*#ArtOfTheDeal*

- Vic


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> *For a while I considered ethnonationalism and even agreed with the idea of white ethnostate seriously* before realizing that the logical conclusion of such an idea is essentially only going to lead to more suffering and chaos :Shrug
> 
> My opinions are pretty much always a work in progress. I've never proclaimed otherwise to be honest.


:tripsscust


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

His home nation didn’t have toothpaste until 2003, cut him some slack.

More turns than Russo


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> This is why reason and principles should guide one's thinking rather than whim. Thinking critically is not a game of Dungeons & Dragons, you don't just start over and create a new character every few weeks. Can't imagine finding myself in a place where I think white nationalism sounds like a good idea. :lol
> 
> Although it does make sense that Reap is now pushing collectivism, it does go hand-in-hand with race-based nationalism. :mj Sounds like he's aligning more and more with *Richard Spencer, who is a full-on actual socialist* in addition to his ethno-nationalism.


:ha

You've said some stupid shit in the past but you've really outdone yourself on this one.


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

These dont seem to be the positions that a MASTERMIND of the political sphere would take tbh


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@deepemblues ; The thing about accusing someone of having hidden agendas and secret politics is that it can apply to you as well if turned around so that kind of bait is practically useless as. You want me to stop believing somethinf about you that because that bothers you, so here you are taking jabs at me lol. Let it go son. 

I agree not on nationalism, but that multiculturalism is essentially an idea that's organically doomed to fail - that the majority culture always wins out and always will. Whether it be through expanding tolerance for minority cultures or forcing them to adapt (both extremes can happen at the same time). There's more we agree on than disagree. 

Anyway, MSM takeover of YouTube is complete. They've made sure that the regular corporate owned media now always gets the top result irrespective of engagement


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Richard Spencer isn’t opposed to socialism and believes the government has a part to play.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Although it does make sense that Reap is now pushing collectivism, it does go hand-in-hand with race-based nationalism. :mj Sounds like he's aligning more and more with Richard Spencer, who is a full-on actual socialist in addition to his ethno-nationalism.


Where have I pushed collectivism? Saying that laissez fair capitalism does not result in prosperity for all is a far cry from pushing centralized communist governments. The legal system is where the battle for compensation and worker rights needs to take place. 

The fact that you're not capable of thinking outside of two extremes doesn't mean that others should follow suit.


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Reap, what are your thoughts on the free market, at a high level?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I would say that Richard spencer is a racial collectivist who does not much separate the state from the people

That's partially why his denials of nazism ring hollow to me. Spencers utopia and the utopia of nazism are largely the same. The government and the people are held to be the same thing by the rulers. The state controls all that it deems necessary to maintain the luxury and grandeur the people deserve. Needless to say, the people are all white. Either literally, or in the sense that only whites are first class citizens and residents

Maintaining that luxury and grandeur for a large privileged class would of course entail many policies indistinguishable in their aims and processes from socialism


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Odogaron said:


> Reap, what are your thoughts on the free market, at a high level?


At this point, the historical record and torrid factory worker conditions in deregulated EPZs accross the world are proof in the pudding that without regulation around pay and worker rights, even individuals in service economies will begin to suffer. 

The relationship between the capitalists and the workers is innately one of conflicting interests therefore CBAs are absolutely necessary. 

The growth of the government is a direct consequence of this conflict. The goal should be to minimize and arbitrate this conflict in such a way that neither suffer. Laissez fair adoption will only shift the balance towards those who already have power and capital and increase it.


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

ok, would ou advocate for a truly free market or a system of state property and ownership?

Im aware your actual position falls between these two extremes, but im interested in where you lean


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Odogaron said:


> ok, would ou advocate for a truly free market or a system of state property and ownership?
> 
> *Im aware your actual position falls between these two extremes*, but im interested in where you lean


More on the side of worker rights. 

You don't need the state to own anything. I don't even know how or why someone concluded that that was a sustainable solution anyways.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> :ha
> 
> You've said some stupid shit in the past but you've really outdone yourself on this one.


Not sure what is stupid about saying that someone who argues in favor of socialism is a socialist. I guess you're doing that thing where you think you alone get to define what words mean like when you say left-wing people aren't left-wing because of some personal disagreement you have with them.

@Reap hello ex-white nationalist, there is a difference between what is right and what will lead to the least suffering. Just because it might make you or some number of people suffer less to have some of my money doesn't make it right for you to take it by force. Universalize that truth and you'll see why you've gone so far astray.

Thought I was done debating utilitarians when anti-natalist Gandhi got banned.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Not sure what is stupid about saying that someone who argues in favor of socialism is a socialist. I guess you're doing that thing where you think you alone get to define what words mean like when you say left-wing people aren't left-wing because of some personal disagreement you have with them.


What's right about leaving people to suffer when other options exist?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> What's right about leaving people to suffer when other options exist?


It's not immoral but rather amoral to do nothing, but that's not the only alternative to "use force to alleviate suffering", which is actually immoral.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It's not immoral but rather amoral to do nothing, but that's not the only alternative to "use force to alleviate suffering", which is actually immoral.


Where's the coercian in a CBA? You're also literally the first person I've ever heard try to portray workers rights as immoral.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Where's the coercian in a CBA? You're also literally the first person I've ever heard try to portray workers rights as immoral.


I wasn't talking to you about CBA or workers rights. There's nothing wrong with people voluntarily getting together and making decisions like "we're not gonna work for the company unless they do x", just as there's nothing wrong with the company deciding they'd rather fire all those people and hire new workers instead.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I wasn't talking to you about CBA or workers rights. There's nothing wrong with people voluntarily getting together and making decisions like "we're not gonna work for the company unless they do x", just as there's nothing wrong with the company deciding they'd rather fire all those people and hire new workers instead.


You're too used to arguing with people you can pigeon hole into having easy arguments to respond to. 

Of course employers can fire whoever they want. Where have I said that they can't?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You're too used to arguing with people you can pigeon hole into having easy arguments to respond to.


Lmao like you literally just did with me when you brought up CBA and workers rights and said I was arguing that they're immoral when I never mentioned either? Where is your self-awareness? 

I was commenting on your overall (new) worldview that we can't have a moral free market-based system because there would be suffering, as if the existence of suffering somehow makes it OK to use force against people. If you want to say you're against using force to do any of these things then fine. I've always said I'll happily live in my Ancapistan nation right next door to the Ancommunistan nation and we can all lively happily ever after.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Lmao like you literally just did with me when you brought up CBA and workers rights and said I was arguing that they're immoral when I never mentioned either? Where is your self-awareness?


Then you should be more specific and argue specific points so I know what you're actually talking about.



> I was commenting on your overall (new) worldview that we can't have a moral free market-based system because there would be suffering, as if the existence of suffering somehow makes it OK to use force against people. If you want to say you're against using force to do any of these things then fine. I've always said I'll happily live in my Ancapistan nation right next door to the Ancommunistan nation and we can all lively happily ever after.


Free market capitalism is already a coercive system thereby it's already immoral. Cherry picking the voluntary aspects if it don't magically make the involuntary aspects disappear when both elements are woven into the system. It's not nor will ever be fully voluntary because the system is innately based on selling of labor to gain the ability to buy necessities.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Free market capitalism is already a coercive system thereby it's already immoral. Cherry picking the voluntary aspects if it don't magically make the involuntary aspects disappear when both elements are woven into the system. It's not nor will ever be fully voluntary because the system is innately based on selling of labor to gain the ability to buy necessities.


It's not coercive at all and you failed to establish any coercion in the system. 

And even if it was coercive, that wouldn't justify switching to an alternative coercive system.










"just stop" :heston


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm reminded of this quote by the inimitable Milton Friedman:






Of _course_ coercion exists in capitalism. Coercion is in human nature. It is impossible to devise a system absent of some degree of coercion.

But there are some economic systems where there is less coercion than others. Capitalism would not, in theory, have less than some, but in others it does, and in practice so far, it beats them all.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> And even if it was coercive, that wouldn't justify switching to an alternative coercive system.


If you understood the power dynamic between the power someone with capital holds over that of someone trying to buy simple necessities you would understand how coercian is built into the system that favors the capitalists the more deregulated the system gets. You simply want to understand coercian through your ancap lens. Of course taxes are bad. But at the same time be mindful enough to acknowledge that tax cuts did not achieve the desired results either. I know your pre-programmed response to this is "they didn't go far enough". But that's ridiculous because if capitalists had any interest in wage growth it would have happened by now.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> I'm reminded of this quote by the inimitable Milton Friedman:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who here has once said that we need to abolish capitalism? Name one person.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> If you understood the power dynamic between the power someone with capital holds over that of someone trying to buy simple necessities you would understand how coercian is built into the system that favors the capitalists the more deregulated the system gets. You simply want to understand coercian through your ancap lens. Of course taxes are bad. But at the same time be mindful enough to acknowledge that tax cuts did not achieve the desired results either. I know your pre-programmed response to this is "they didn't go far enough". But that's ridiculous because if capitalists had any interest in wage growth it would have happened by now.


I understand the power dynamic but it's only coercive if there is force or threats of force involved. That's what coercion means. NOTHING about free market capitalism (which is not what we have today btw) necessitates coercion at all.


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It's not coercive at all and you failed to establish any coercion in the system.
> 
> And even if it was coercive, that wouldn't justify switching to an alternative coercive system.
> 
> ...


Don't care much about discussing politics whatsoever but the bigger question comes from the bottom of that image. DID YOU REP INDYTAKER BACK? He didn't ask very nicely, not sure if I would have.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kenny Omega said:


> Don't care much about discussing politics whatsoever but the bigger question comes from the bottom of that image. DID YOU REP INDYTAKER BACK? He didn't ask very nicely, not sure if I would have.


No, and then he went into my beloved mafia section and started asking people there to rep him so I encouraged everyone to neg him, which is why he later tried impotently to neg me. :lol


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I understand the power dynamic but it's only coercive if there is force or threats of force involved. That's what coercion means. NOTHING about free market capitalism (which is not what we have today btw) necessitates coercion at all.


Not all force is simply human v human interaction. A system can have coercian built into it that favors one group over another thereby creating a situation of involuntary provision of labor. The coercian is "Accept 5 bucks an hour". The capitalist is not going to say "Or starve". Starvation is the consequence. The capitalist is using the threat of potential suffering in order to coerce the labor to work for him for a certain wage. It's not voluntary. 

In most cases of course it is. But 78 million Americans are being paid minimum wage right now. Do you think that the capitalist will pay more or less than that if they were given the choice? Why remove all coercian from the capitalist when the capitalist already has the advantage of threat of starvation on his side?

Your method is essentially feudalistic in nature. We've already experienced that and society did not function under that system.

The serfs got a little choppy choppy.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Not all force is simply human v human interaction.


All actions that can be judged as moral or not are human actions. 



> A system can have coercian built into it that favors one group over another thereby creating a situation of involuntary provision of labor. The coercian is "Accept 5 bucks an hour". The capitalist is not going to say "Or starve". Starvation is the consequence. The capitalist is using the threat of potential suffering in order to coerce the labor to work for him for a certain wage. It's not voluntary.


This is a childlike view of the world where there are just capitalists who magically have resources and businesses and then there are the poor workers who just don't have any of that. That is not reality. Some people take risks and start businesses or invent new ideas or learn new skills to make them more marketable, and others settle for food service or retail work. There are choices, and others are not responsible for you making bad choices. 



> In most cases of course it is. But 78 million Americans are being paid minimum wage right now. Do you think that the capitalist will pay more or less than that if they were given the choice? Why remove all coercian from the capitalist when the capitalist already has the advantage of threat of starvation on his side?


Why do capitalists ever pay anyone more than minimum wage? All they have to do is threaten people with starvation, right? 



> Your method is essentially feudalistic in nature.


Sure, if it were possible in feudalism to raise your status peacefully simply by learning marketable skills or coming up with marketable ideas. 

Actually it's just a meritocracy, which is very much not feudalism.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The consumer has no appreciable power in capitalism? :bryanlol

The consumer has so much power in capitalism that vast business empires can be built on the strength of consumers buying frivolities

Come now


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> All actions that can be judged as moral or not are human actions.


Doesn't change the fact that in an innately unbalanced power dynamic coercian already exists allowing humans to coerce others. Simply handwaving away the coercive nature of the majority of worker/capitalist contracts doesn't change the fact that they are indeed coercive. 



> . Some people take risks and start businesses or invent new ideas or learn new skills to make them more marketable, and others settle for food service or retail work. There are choices, and others are not responsible for you making bad choices.


The issue here is in determining what is equitable but not all capitalists give people equitable pay. 

Your knee jerking and poorly thought out response to this is that it's still voluntary but if it was, over time the serfs wouldn't look at other avenues to improve their pay. 

Free market capitalism directly CAUSES the increase in regulations because the system is inherently built upon involuntary and unequitable exchanges. There is no mechanism built into laissez faire capitalism that can prevent that from happening. 

The free market creates its own enemies. 



> Why do capitalists ever pay anyone more than minimum wage? All they have to do is threaten people with starvation, right?


Answer my question first and I'll respond to this. 



> Sure, if it were possible in fuedalism to raise your status peacefully simply by learning marketable skills or coming up with marketable ideas.
> 
> Actually it's just a meritocracy, which is very much not feudalism.


A perfect meritocracy cannot exist. You know why you keep saying that your dream is just a dream? It's because it really is and in reality it cannot exist.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> The consumer has no appreciable power in capitalism? :bryanlol


Who said that and where?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

78 million people are being paid minimum wage :bryanlol

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> 78 million people are being paid minimum wage :bryanlol
> 
> https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm


I read that wrong. My mistake.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Doesn't change the fact that in an innately unbalanced power dynamic coercian already exists allowing humans to coerce others. Simply handwaving away the coercive nature of the majority of worker/capitalist contracts doesn't change the fact that they are indeed coercive.


There was no handwaving. I pointed out the definition of coercion and you failed to establish how it is necessitated in a free market system. Just saying something is coercive doesn't make it so. 




> I could exaggerate conflate this argument to include the slave trade where for decades slave owners refused to acknowledge the fact that humans we're not property. The issue here is in determining what is equitable but not all capitalists give people equitable pay.


Slavery requires actual coercion and isn't comparable or compatible with free market capitalism. 



> Your knee jerking and poorly thought out response to this is that it's still voluntary but if it was, over time the serfs wouldn't look at other avenues to improve their pay.


Wait, what? :lol The fact people look for better jobs means they are being coerced against by their current employer? Whaaaaaaaaaat? :lmao 



> Free market capitalism directly CAUSES the increase in regulations because the system is inherently built upon involuntary and unequitable exchanges. There is no mechanism built into laissez faire capitalism that can prevent that from happening.
> 
> The free market creates its own enemies.


It's not at all based on involuntary exchanges. Equity is not the standard for morality. Equity is not something people can even determine on their own. The only objective measure we have is the free market, where companies have to compete with each other in establishing things like worker wages and benefits. Seems a lot more credible than what some socialist thinks is fair. 



> A perfect meritocracy cannot exist. You know why you keep saying that your dream is just a dream? It's because it really is and in reality it cannot exist.


This is a baseless assertion and also a mis-characterization of my position. Never said anything would be perfect, maybe not even as good as anything else, just moral.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Involuntary and inequitable exchanges :lmao

Is this really happening

The cost of foodstuffs, a _necessity,_ is so low that in capitalist countries diseases caused by obesity are faaaaaaaaaar past pandemic level

The cost of housing in the capitalist United States, while grumbled about, is so affordable that about 0.0015% of the population is homeless. About 99.985% of the population is housed

The cost of oil was so low that it doubled ten years ago and more or less not a beat was skipped. The price of natural gas and coal are extremely low. Electricity is so cheap. Fuel, like all other consumer goods and most goods in general, is cheap as fuck in capitalist societies

Involuntary and inequitable exchanges, indeed


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Not sure what is stupid about saying that someone who argues in favor of socialism is a socialist. I guess you're doing that thing where you think you alone get to define what words mean like when you say left-wing people aren't left-wing because of some personal disagreement you have with them.


Accuse the other party of the thing you're doing. There's a term for that.



CamillePunk said:


> I've always said I'll happily live in my Ancapistan nation right next door to the Ancommunistan nation and we can all lively happily ever after.


No government, no military. No military, no defense. No defense, :lmao at the prospects of Ancapistan surviving. Good luck when the first aggressive country comes along and wants your resources. Maybe you can build your country in the same magical fantasy land your ideology comes from. Build a giant wall around it, see if that helps.



Reap said:


> Not all force is simply human v human interaction. A system can have coercian built into it that favors one group over another thereby creating a situation of involuntary provision of labor. The coercian is "Accept 5 bucks an hour". The capitalist is not going to say "Or starve". Starvation is the consequence. The capitalist is using the threat of potential suffering in order to coerce the labor to work for him for a certain wage. It's not voluntary.
> 
> In most cases of course it is. But 78 million Americans are being paid minimum wage right now. Do you think that the capitalist will pay more or less than that if they were given the choice? Why remove all coercian from the capitalist when the capitalist already has the advantage of threat of starvation on his side?
> 
> ...


CP's childlike definition of force is always amusing. He doesn't consider giving someone the choice of starving in the street and working for slave wages to be the use of force in any way. They were given a choice after all.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> There was no handwaving. I pointed out the definition of coercion and you failed to establish how it is necessitated in a free market system. Just saying something is coercive doesn't make it so.


Just because you cannot understand a stream of logic and refuse to accept it doesn't mean that it hasn't been established. Even the people who say that they are working certain jobs against their will because they have to would probably not be considered coercive to you because you would still go and say that it's still voluntary. 



> Slavery requires actual coercion and isn't comparable or compatible with free market capitalism.


As seen from our lens today. You may believe in absolute morality but our understanding of shared morality changes over time. 

The only reason why you have to believe that capitalism cannot be a coersive system is because you refuse to accept those aspects of it that are coersive. 



> Wait, what?  The fact people look for better jobs means they are being coerced against by their current employer? Whaaaaaaaaaat? :lmao


I think some point was missed somewhere. 



> It's not at all based on involuntary exchanges.


Some of it is. Always has. Always will be. Your refusal and inability to understand how is dogmatic at this point. 



> Equity is not the standard for morality. Equity is not something people can even determine on their own.


 The slave master gave the slave food and shelter and therefore what he was doing was moral. At one point that was actually considered equitable. 



> The only objective measure we have is the free market, where companies have to compete with each other in establishing things like worker wages and benefits. Seems a lot more credible than what some socialist thinks is fair.


Sounds more like a belief. Perfect competition cannot exist because companies will always monopolize resources in order to stop from having to charge equitable prices. If they are not allowed to monopolize then they will revert to more extreme measures. Mafias are a good example of this.

In fact the capitalist himself will want to create the government and make sure it continues to exist to favor it. Which is the situation we're in right now. We're living the outcome of laissez faire capitalism. The world around you. It developed organically because the humans have evolved this system to make it what it is and all of it is based on exchange of goods and services since that too has existed alongside human evolution. 

Worker owned businesses is likely going to be our next step in human evolution.

Laissez faire capitalism will never rid humanity of its own flaws. 



> This is a baseless assertion and also a mis-characterization of my position. Never said anything would be perfect, maybe not even as good as anything else, just moral.


Your beliefs are basically utopian whether you want to believe that or not.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

You can get a cup of coffee in Caracas for 3 million bolivars this fine evening, if you're so inclined :heston

You can also work for slave wages and still starve in the street there, your inclination doesn't enter into the matter :heston

It's weird how socialists point out these situations that are supposed to be a damning indictment of capitalism, but they only occur under socialism :draper2 :heston


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Yes, incumbency is a powerful factor.
> 
> One way you could look at it is that :trump has a strong enough connection with enough of the people that he can bypass elite opinion. Reagan was that way.
> 
> Don't be foolish. There is no one that could EASILY beat :trump - barring a massive economic crisis. Give us a name, someone that could withstand six months of :trump tearing them a new asshole three-four times a week in front of five-figure crowds. :trump is the best at his own game. Plenty of witty celebrities cleverly rip :trump every night on the TV.* Ain't doing a damn thing to him.*


Hence my point about the position of POTUS being untouchable to a great extent.

I have no idea who this pollie is who rises up and beats Trump. Didn't Obama Jamma rise up in a pretty short time frame to win the Presidency? I don't see why that couldn't happen again.

But I take your point about Trump's power in how he conducts himself - never apologising for anything and repeating lies over and over until they become truth is a powerful thing.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Involuntary and inequitable exchanges :lmao
> 
> Is this really happening
> 
> ...


How many of the obese are poor? How many of the obese can afford healthcare?

How many of those homeowners outright own their own homes?

Again. Where have I said that capitalism needs to be abolished and where have I said that this system isn't a good one. 

Why can't it be made even better? What solution have I proposed here that's anti-capitalist?

Are you guys really that indoctrinated by the red scare? Seriously?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Accuse the other party of the thing you're doing. There's a term for that.


How have I done that? Because I correctly point out that you're not being libertarian when you're advocating the expansion of state power?  



> No government, no military. No military, no defense. No defense, :lmao at the prospects of Ancapistan surviving. Good luck when the first aggressive country comes along and wants your resources. Maybe you can build your country in the same magical fantasy land your ideology comes from. Build a giant wall around it, see if that helps.


Yeah because the concept of being able to defend yourself is so foreign to libertarians of all people. :lol 




> CP's childlike definition of force is always amusing. He doesn't consider giving someone the choice of starving in the street and working for slave wages to be the use of force in any way. They were given a choice after all.


You mean my objectively correct, dictionary definition of coercion?  I'm certainly not going to throw around Marxist terminology as if it is somehow self-evident. I'm not a liberal on a college campus. 

The person offering you a job isn't responsible if you have no other way of surviving.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> In fact the capitalist himself will want to create the government and make sure it continues to exist to favor it. Which is the situation we're in right now. We're living the outcome of laissez faire capitalism. The world around you. It developed organically because the humans have evolved this system to make it what it is and all of it is based on exchange of goods and services since that too has existed alongside human evolution.


I've pointed this out recently to him as well but it's a reality he refuses to allow into his fantasy thinking. The capitalists have no interest in a free market. They want a monopolized market with a government to influence so they can secure their power. Even if he ever got his ancap wish, it would eventually revert back to form and we'd be right back where we started. The same thing happened after FDR instituted the New Deal in response to the Great Depression. It took the capitalists awhile but now we're right back to where we were in the Roaring 20s.

The system is the problem. Fat chance getting our boy here to understand that.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> How have I done that? Because I correctly point out that you're not being libertarian when you're advocating the expansion of state power?


I haven't advocated for the expansion of state power. I believe we should have a smaller government and have been very consistent in this position. Just because the libertarian left is beyond your comprehension does not mean it doesn't exist.



> Yeah because the concept of being able to defend yourself is so foreign to libertarians of all people. :lol


I wasn't the one who said private entities wouldn't form a military because they cost too much. That was you. So when you're enjoying your Ancapistan utopia and an aggressive foreign power comes along wanting to invade your country, don't come looking to Ancommunistan for help because you have no military to defend your country.

Oh and just for the record, the fact that you attached the an from anarchist to communist just goes to prove how laughably bad your understanding of the political spectrum is. Communism is the extreme position of the authoritarian left. Anarchism is the extreme position of the libertarian left. You'd know that if your comprehension of the political spectrum rose above calling everything socialist if it's not 100% free market capitalism.



> You mean my objectively correct, dictionary definition of coercion?  I'm certainly not going to throw around Marxist terminology as if it is somehow self-evident. I'm not a liberal on a college campus.
> 
> The person offering you a job isn't responsible if you have no other way of surviving.


I'd explain it to you but I just ran out of crayons. I'll get back to you when I buy some more from the anticapitalist free market worker coop.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I believe the Everyone who disagrees with Ann Rand is a Socialist and wants to kill your babies meme applies here :mj4


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> In most cases of course it is. But 78 million Americans are being paid minimum wage right now. Do you think that the capitalist will pay more or less than that if they were given the choice? Why remove all coercian from the capitalist when the capitalist already has the advantage of threat of starvation on his side?



The reason why companies pay low wage workers either on or not much over the minimum wage is because the government has already set a standardized rate on what to pay them and therefore lowers the incentive for companies to pay them more in order to keep them. What should be the job for voluntary associations such as worker unions to negotiate pay and working conditions has to a significant extent been taken over by government legislation and therefore has given companies the excuse to not significantly increase the pay of their staff. Big multinationals can always point to the marker on low wage pay that the government has arbitrarily set in order to justify not increasing their wages.

This is why the few countries that have no minimum wage laws tend to be among the places with the highest amount of pay for low wage workers in the world.

* The United States has a minimum wage of $7.25, the UK has a minimum wage of £7.83 for workers over the age of 25 but lowers for those who are younger. The UK believe it or not is *10th* in the world overall right now for highest minimum wage from March of this year. £7.83 is around *$10.32* to use our two countries as an example.

* Denmark has the equivalent of *$20 per hour *minimum wage per hour, in Norway it hovers between *$16 to $21 per hour* depending on the economic sector, in Switzerland it's *$25 per hour*, in Iceland it's *$15.15*. In Sweden, like the UK it varies on age (and on profession) but on average fluctuates between *$9.94* and *$15.53* per hour ranging from 17 to over 20 years old.

* To put this into perspective, if you exclude Sweden, the only two countries in the world who are paying around the same per hour as those countries are Australia and Luxembourg who have the two highest minimum wage rates in the world at *$18.29* and *$17.35* respectively. *Denmark*, *Switzerland* and in certain cases *Norway* beat out these two countries and every other country in the world who has a set minimum wage.

* Wages in these countries are negotiated through collective bargaining and strong unionization. They aren't mandated by the government.

I think @Tater actually got it as well when I explained this to him.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...UkSdtSeBGpwH_HGzRrQ_0TGFSbX_AztSWtgKb-ObN4q0w



> Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is ready to show up Sen. Elizabeth Warren, saying Tuesday he plans to take a DNA test to find out whether he has more Native American heritage than she does.
> 
> “I’m going to take a DNA test,” Graham told “Fox and Friends” on Tuesday. “I’ve been told my grandmother was part Cherokee Indian. It may all just be talk.”
> 
> ...


This is the best timeline :lmao :lmao :lmao.

As much as I can't stand Lindsey Graham I can't help but find all of this utterly hilarious.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Lindsey Graham has been pretty based ever since John McCain died. :lol He's still a warhawk tho and needs to gtfo.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> At this point, the historical record and torrid factory worker conditions in deregulated EPZs accross the world are proof in the pudding that without regulation around pay and worker rights, even individuals in service economies will begin to suffer.
> 
> *The relationship between the capitalists and the workers is innately one of conflicting interests therefore CBAs are absolutely necessary. *
> 
> The growth of the government is a direct consequence of this conflict. The goal should be to minimize and arbitrate this conflict in such a way that neither suffer. Laissez fair adoption will only shift the balance towards those who already have power and capital and increase it.






DOPA said:


> ** Wages in these countries are negotiated through collective bargaining and strong unionization. They aren't mandated by the government.*
> 
> .


:hmmm

Most of those countries also have fairly robust social welfare policies as well. Their standard of living is also quite high.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> :hmmm
> 
> Most of those countries also have fairly robust social welfare policies as well. Their standard of living is also quite high.


My points were more about arguing against the minimum wage because it's shit. For so many different reasons. Hence why I quoted that part of your post. The low wage workers in the US are busy fighting for the government to hand them out a $15 minimum wage out of the goodness of their heart whilst the Swiss are paying theirs at the equivalent of $10 more than what is being demanded and over three times more than what the US low wage worker is earning right now.

The difference is absurd.

I've never been against unionization on the whole (though I could happily talk about the ills of some public sector unions through experience and history in the UK :lol) or collective bargaining provided it's voluntary. It's in the self interest of employees to do so and so they should.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm just fucking glad I've been lucky enough to avoid minimum wage in my life, must fucking suck.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> The reason why companies pay low wage workers either on or not much over the minimum wage is because the government has already set a standardized rate on what to pay them and therefore lowers the incentive for companies to pay them more in order to keep them. What should be the job for voluntary associations such as worker unions to negotiate pay and working conditions has to a significant extent been taken over by government legislation and therefore has given companies the excuse to not significantly increase the pay of their staff. Big multinationals can always point to the marker on low wage pay that the government has arbitrarily set in order to justify not increasing their wages.
> 
> This is why the few countries that have no minimum wage laws tend to be among the places with the highest amount of pay for low wage workers in the world.
> 
> ...


I understand your point just fine. It doesn't mean I agree with it. 

For one, pointing to Democratic Socialist countries with high wages, strong unions and no minimum wage and comparing them to far right wing USA with low wages, weak unions and a minimum wage leaves out quite a lot of other relevant information. 

And two, I also don't think we should have a minimum wage but for the entirely different reason of objecting to hourly pay. Pay should be decided by ratios and productivity, not hourly.

Bonus: regional costs must also be factored in because it costs a lot more to live in NYC or LA than it does Shitsplat Nebraska.

Bonus #2: claiming that the corporations keep wages low because the government set an arbitrary minimum wage is a hollow point when the government is owned by the corporations. We're not talking about separate entities here.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> For one, pointing to Democratic Socialist countries with high wages, strong unions and no minimum wage and comparing them to far right wing USA with low wages, weak unions and a minimum wage leaves out quite a lot of other relevant information.


1) None of these countries are Democratic Socialist, they have market economies and are social democracies. Don't fall for the same argument Bernie Sanders keeps using to misconstrue these countries.

2) What relevant information would you be referring to? Genuinely curious. 



Tater said:


> And two, I also don't think we should have a minimum wage but for the entirely different reason of objecting to hourly pay vs profit ratios.


What are your reasons and how are they different from the ones I have explained now and in the past?



Tater said:


> Bonus: regional costs must also be factored in because it costs a lot more to live in NYC or LA than it does Shitsplat Nebraska.


Isn't this just another strong argument for why the minimum wage should be abolished? A Centralized government can't account for the differences in cost of living in different areas of a country with such a uniform policy.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Minimum wage can't both be keeping wages low and be irrelevant to capitalists paying more at the same time. 

It means that minimum wage laws are irrelevant and there's something else at play. 

It's the lack of worker's rights and ability to demand more without threat of being replaced. Threat that creates a coercive environment.

Edit: The correct word for this countries is Social Welfare States. They're not socialist or communist.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

The argument that a minimum wage lowers wages is one of the silliest and most disinegenuous I've heard in a while.

The examples given are all chicken egg things, those countries have systems in place to ensure high wages for low paying jobs and hence don't need a minimum wage. We (us, aus, uk) do need a minimum wage because we don't have those systems.

For example they pay much more in welfare and it's easier to get on welfare, so low paying jobs have to pay more to tempt people off welfare.

Which they (Norway in particular) can afford to do because they've nationalised their energy industries, something we refuse to do.

Also Dopa, learn the difference between socialism and communism.

Socialism and market economies are not mutually exclusive.

If you want to get rid of the minimum wage then you also need to majorly up welfare and nationalise some industries.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> 1) None of these countries are Democratic Socialist, they have market economies and are social democracies. Don't fall for the same argument Bernie Sanders keeps using to misconstrue these countries.


Sorry, my fingers got ahead of my brain for a moment. Social Democrat then. Or as Reap called them, Social Welfare states. The point remains the same. Answer continued below...



> 2) What relevant information would you be referring to? Genuinely curious.


Americans are heavily propagandized their entire lives into accepting the increasingly shitty conditions they find themselves in. The citizens in the places you used as examples view society differently. They can get away without minimum wage laws because they have a different outlook on how the relationship should be between workers and business. If you tried the same thing here, it wouldn't have the same outcome.

You made the argument that it's the minimum wage law that gives corporations no incentive to raise wages. Well, I don't know how things work in all places of the world but here in the USA, the government is owned by the corporations and most of the laws that end up getting passed were written by lobbyists. So, if it's minimum wage laws that keep wages down and lobbyists representing the corporations are writing the laws, then it's the corporations who are keeping wages down by using the government. Profit above all else is the primary driving motivator. Creating a healthy society might be a higher priority in other places but it's not here. 

People aren't viewed as people. They are viewed as one might view office supplies or lumber or any other supply. It doesn't matter if lives get destroyed along the way as long as the corporations can increase their bottom line. If they could get away with paying less for labor, they would. And they do. That's why the USA has been deindustrialized and so many manufacturing jobs have been sent to third world hell holes. Lobbyists are the ones writing the trade deals too and that pushes wages down further. 

It's a systemic and a cultural problem that goes far beyond the simple point you are making about minimum wage laws and comparisons to other countries that have higher wages without them.



> What are your reasons and how are they different from the ones I have explained now and in the past?


:shrug Call it what you will but it's never made sense to me that wages should be decided by time a worker spends on the job and not on how much revenue the worker is generating for the business. Someone riding the clock to collect a paycheck has no incentive to work harder if they get paid the same hourly rate regardless of how hard they work. If you know that you're going to get more pay for being a more productive worker, then that's what most people would do. That is not only beneficial to the worker but also the business itself, because they are getting a worker who is more invested in the success of the business. It also helps the economy because regardless of what right wing ideology would have you believe, the real job creators are working class people with disposable income.

If wages were directly tied to how successful a business is, when the business does good, everyone does good, from the top right down to the bottom. That makes a lot more sense to me that a CEO making 3-4-500 times as much as his average worker while all successes the business get directly funneled to the top.



> Isn't this just another strong argument for why the minimum wage should be abolished? A Centralized government can't account for the differences in cost of living in different areas of a country with such a uniform policy.


Well, if it was decided on percentages and ratios instead of hourly, it would be more adaptable to different areas of the country. Areas where the cost of living is low usually have businesses that don't generate as much revenue and can't afford to pay as much. Other places where the cost of living is high, the businesses usually generate a lot more revenue and can afford the higher wages. 

Although, I would decentralize the concept and let it be worked out locally because people locally know local needs a lot better than a central government does.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Minimum wage can't both be keeping wages low and be irrelevant to capitalists paying more at the same time.
> 
> It means that minimum wage laws are irrelevant and there's something else at play.
> 
> ...


It's Schrodinger's Socialist. Simultaneously depressing everyone else's wages by creating an arbitrary wage floor AND forcing the elites to pay large amounts of money that would otherwise be used for bonuses and merit increases.

#bootlickers

:vince$:thecause


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

I really curious as to what you all think socialism is if you don't think the scandavian countries are it?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The United States government would be spending ~$9,250,000,000,000 a year if its spending was the same % of GDP as Denmark's government

~$9,000,000,000,000 if it were Sweden

~$9,250,000,000,000 again if it were Norway

Now tell me that's practical or even possible, I need a good laugh



Alkomesh2 said:


> I really curious as to what you all think socialism is if you don't think the scandavian countries are it?


I'm really curious as to what you think every major socialist thinker of the last 150 years would call Scandinavian countries.

Because maybe 5% of them would use the word "socialist." 

Maybe.

Of the old-timey socialists possibly only Thorstein Veblen, and he was a non-Marxist socialist. That's where you'd find the most instances, among non-Marxist socialists.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

deepelemblues said:


> The United States government would be spending ~$9,250,000,000,000 a year if its spending was the same % of GDP as Denmark's government
> 
> ~$9,000,000,000,000 if it were Sweden
> 
> ...


Not without nationalising some industries, which is kinda my point. 

Thanks for agreeing with me. 

They have a fundamentally different system which is why it's disingenuous to argue that they have no minimum wage yet higher wages because they have no minimum wage, and that we would have higher wages if we got rid of our minimum wage.



deepelemblues said:


> I'm really curious as to what you think every major socialist thinker of the last 150 years would call Scandinavian countries.
> 
> Because maybe 5% of them would use the word "socialist."
> 
> Maybe.


I'm gonna take a wild stab and say 95% of them would say socialist. 

Find me one that says otherwise.

They've nationalised major industries and have super high welfare. That is what socialism is.

Every argument put forward for why they aren't socialist is actually an argument for why they aren't communist. 

People on the right tend to have trouble distinguishing the two.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

All this finance and gov’t talk.... the real issue is the fed. A corrupt organisation created for bankers, had complete control over the value our money. Who do you think they make choices for? Hint, not us.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm not a fan of saying its socialism, however I find it annoying that the same people desperate to say Denmark etc aren't socialist countries are increasingly desperate to claim any welfare policies are a slippery slope towards Venezuela and all out socialism. Its a truly pathetic tactic employed regularly in here and by the 'brains' of the right like Ben Shapiro. Its kinda the stupidity that sees people brand Trump supporters racist/Nazis.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> The United States government would be spending ~$9,250,000,000,000 a year if its spending was the same % of GDP as Denmark's government
> 
> ~$9,000,000,000,000 if it were Sweden
> 
> ...


Considering all you do is whine while ignoring specific questions or ever responding to a post that asks you to become more specific instead of your overly generalized statements, is there even a point in asking you what the source of these calculation is, and what methods were employed in determining this?

And why is this some sort of gospel, divine figure that is the only figure and the only model that can possibly exist?



Draykorinee said:


> I'm not a fan of saying its socialism, however I find it annoying that the same people desperate to say Denmark etc aren't socialist countries are increasingly desperate to claim any welfare policies are a slippery slope towards Venezuela and all out socialism. Its a truly pathetic tactic employed regularly in here and by the 'brains' of the right like Ben Shapiro. Its kinda the stupidity that sees people brand Trump supporters racist/Nazis.


Two Words: Red Scare. 

It still petrifies Americans to this day. 

Kinda like how some westerners still have not been able to evolve beyond being scared of rats and mice which once several hundred years ago caused a plague. Why you still see Americans scared enough of a small percent likelihood of rabies to the point where killing raccoons is still legal. Did you know that Americans think that a mammal is essentially a "pest". It surprised me quite a bit when I found out. 

Paranoia is the defining American trait. You should see the grocery stores when a Hurricane is coming. These people prepare like the apocalypse is coming and that if they didn't stockpile several months worth of food they're all going to starve to death. I've seen grocery carts of people who are preparing for a hurricane and there's literally more food in there than they normally buy for a week .. Who the fuck needs that much food for a hurricane? 

They still have not been able to realize that at most it takes 2-3 weeks to restore power in some areas (extreme case but most power is restored within a few hours to 3 days), meanwhile all emergency areas get their power restored within 3-4 days and restaurants and gas stations are usually operational in max 5 (usually it's hours) .. But they prepare like it's the 1800's and their house is like some sort of refuge from humanity's demise. 

Do I sound anti-American? I'm not exaggerating this time. I've lived in 5 different countries and I've never seen a more paranoid and afraid people.

Why am I talking about paranoia? Because it all feeds into their consistent slippery slope arguments and they're almost always based around irrational fear of an action leading to an extreme outcome.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Also Dopa, learn the difference between socialism and communism.


Are you seriously trying to lecture me on this? :lol.

Communism is the full abolition of capitalism which includes abolishing private property, money and the state. It has never actually been achieved because it's a utopian fantasy. Regimes like the Soviet Union and Maoist China may have wanted to achieve Communism as their end goal but they never got there, in reality those regimes as well as countries such as Cuba and Venezuela are all variations of state socialism, which is the social ownership and worker's management of the means of production that is usually carried through the state. Socialism is the stop gap between abolishing capitalism and realization of a full Communist system.

Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland which are often touted as socialist paradises have in fact the majority of their economy in the private sector, they are market economies. Socialists are against market economies and are against capitalism. They don't want to regulate or reform capitalism, they want to remove capitalism from the equation. Having universal healthcare, free college and a large welfare state does not make them socialist countries. In fact, thinkers such as Marx and Engels hated the idea of reforming or regulating capitalism through incremental change because they viewed the capitalist system itself as oppressive. They would have hated the Scandinavian countries.

Also, why is it that some people on the left who tout these countries as Democratic Socialists yet don't say France is socialist because they have a nationalized railway system or the UK because we have a nationalized healthcare system or Germany because 30% of it's energy sector is under public ownership? It's almost as if they pick which systems they like and then just tag the Socialist label on them. It doesn't make it true however.

But if you don't believe me, then why don't you go and talk to the Danish Prime Minister for example who smacked down Bernie Sanders for calling them a socialist country and reinforced what I am saying which is that they are a market economy.

If you want a western or European example from the past which is actually socialist, I'd suggest you look up what the UK looked like in the 1970's. Back then we actually were a socialist country, we aren't today and it would be ignorant to say otherwise.




Draykorinee said:


> however I find it annoying that the same people desperate to say Denmark etc aren't socialist countries are increasingly desperate to claim any welfare policies are a slippery slope towards Venezuela and all out socialism.


This annoys me too. There are some really ill informed or stupid people out there on both sides of the political aisle who use the Scandinavian countries as some sort of Socialist example either in a positive or negative light when it simply is not true. Having a large welfare state and a few publicly funded programs or one/two nationalized sectors does not make one socialist when the majority of the economy is a market one. You can't just make up definitions as you go along to suit your agenda. This goes to both the left and the right.

Most of the guilty party does come from the US but as you can see, it's not exclusive to them.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There isn't a single socialist country in the world today. Yes, not even Cuba, NK and China aren't pure socialist. Just as there is not a single laissez faire economy in the world. Neither example exists and therefore the theoretical ideologies of both sides have no real life examples. 

Bernie calling himself a "democratic socialist" has been one of the biggest fails in political campaigning because what he is is a Social Welfare Statist, but Social Welfare Statism in America is conflated with socialism and by some with communism, so he can't call himself what he really is.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> But Social Welfare Statism in America is conflated with socialism and by some with communism


Yep, that is exactly what the problem is and we are even seeing it in this thread.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Yep, that is exactly what the problem is and we are even seeing it in this thread.


American Progressives are their own worst enemies. 

Basically, the word "welfare" is triggering for the American population - especially the conservative right. 

Even now, after decades of terrible fiscal policies and war budgets, and tax cuts (including tax breaks that are still on the books), they're favorite attack is on the welfare policies in America but have no desire whatsoever to reduce their war budgets. In fact, we're projecting an increase. 

America is a warring nation plain and simple and both parties are parties only really care about waging war. 

It's time we accepted that.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> American Progressives are their own worst enemies.
> 
> Basically, the word "welfare" is triggering for the American population - especially the conservative right.
> 
> ...


WTF are you talking about, what progressives attack welfare polices? Give some examples.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> WTF are you talking about, what progressives attack welfare polices? Give some examples.


I wasn't talking about progressives attacking welfare policies. I jumped from one group (progressives) to another (GOP conservatives) without specifying which group I was talking about.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I wasn't talking about progressives attacking welfare policies. I jumped from one group (progressives) to another (GOP conservatives) without specifying which group I was talking about.


Oh ok, I was super confused by the comment lol


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh ok, I was super confused by the comment lol


My mind has a habit of making leaps like that for some stupid reason. Usually I re-read and edit my posts several times, but sometimes still miss out on some of the things I should correct.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

DOPA said:


> Are you seriously trying to lecture me on this? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />.


Well you evidently need it.



DOPA said:


> Communism is the full abolition of capitalism which includes abolishing private property, money and the state. It has never actually been achieved because it's a utopian fantasy. Regimes like the Soviet Union and Maoist China may have wanted to achieve Communism as their end goal but they never got there, in reality those regimes as well as countries such as Cuba and Venezuela are all variations of state socialism, which is the social ownership and worker's management of the means of production that is usually carried through the state. Socialism is the stop gap between abolishing capitalism and realization of a full Communist system.


This paragraph is spot on. You nailed it.

I take my previous comment back. 



DOPA said:


> In fact, thinkers such as Marx and Engels hated the idea of reforming or regulating capitalism through incremental change because they viewed the capitalist system itself as oppressive. They would have hated the Scandinavian countries.


Marx was a communist. 



DOPA said:


> Having a large welfare state and a few publicly funded programs or one/two nationalized sectors does not make one socialist when the majority of the economy is a market one.


By your definition, which is correct, it does.

Large welfare and nationalised industries is a stop gap between capitalism and communism. 

Also Denmark is massively right wing compared to the rest of Scandinavia. I lived in a sharehouse in outback Australia with 3 Danish guys on a long holiday and quizzed them a lot on this stuff.

Denmark's problem is they don't have the natural resources Norway does and so can't afford the same level of welfare as Norway as they can't just nationalise the resources sector the way Norway can and they tend to be really jealous of Norway.

They're nowhere near as socialist as Norway, but still more so than Britain or Australia, who are more so than the US.

Realistically these things are a spectrum and its better to talk in degrees than absolutes.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak (Aug 5, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> There isn't a single socialist country in the world today. Yes, not even Cuba, NK and *China* aren't pure socialist. Just as there is not a single laissez faire economy in the world. Neither example exists and therefore the theoretical ideologies of both sides have no real life examples.
> 
> Bernie calling himself a "democratic socialist" has been one of the biggest fails in political campaigning because what he is is a Social Welfare Statist, but Social Welfare Statism in America is conflated with socialism and by some with communism, so he can't call himself what he really is.


China doesn't even try to be Communist anymore outside of the name of the party..... I remember discussing with someone who was a bit clueless :lol He talked about how he felt after living in China, Communism got a bad wrap. Lol In which I said you know this isn't really a communist country right? In he responded well it's not Nazi Germany. fpalm fpalm fpalm. I had to give him a quick lesson about how we probably wouldn't of been in a shopping mall, with big international clothing brands and fast food chains. See people driving Porsches while others work for peanuts in factories. 

China hasn't tried to be truely Communist since the fall of the wall. It's not exactly free, but there has been enough of a free market to bring hundreds of millions out of poverty since the 90s.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stupid_Smark said:


> China hasn't tried to be truely Communist since the fall of the wall. It's not exactly free, but there has been enough of a free market to bring hundreds of millions out of poverty since the 90s.


I made a lot of disparaging comments about China once, but after going back to reevaluate my position, I've learnt that this idea that China was some sort of shithole sinking into depravity before capitalism rescued it is essentially not entirely true either. A lot of our knowledge of China comes from western propaganda and we have to remember that the west is not without its own propaganda about politics different than theirs. It was definitely the result of Mao's disastrous economic policies (no one's going to deny that), but that was a short period which was eventually corrected. 

It serves as a lesson to all and therefore today I don't see any chance of any country dabbling in Maoism. I have not heard one person actively propose his economic policies in the west - at all. But every time someone suggests social welfare, there are some people who love to bring up Maoism as though social welfare and Maoism are one and the same thing. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> Realistically these things are a spectrum and its better to talk in degrees than absolutes.


That won't matter because certain words like "socialist", "communist", "far left", "far right" are intentionally used by groups with self-interest in order to keep the average person from fully understanding politics. 

It's a battle for votes in the end and when power is at stake labels only matter so much so that political positions are framable as as evil as possible.


----------



## Genking48 (Feb 3, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Also Denmark is massively right wing compared to the rest of Scandinavia. I lived in a sharehouse in outback Australia with 3 Danish guys on a long holiday and quizzed them a lot on this stuff.
> 
> Denmark's problem is they don't have the natural resources Norway does and so can't afford the same level of welfare as Norway as they can't just nationalise the resources sector the way Norway can and *they tend to be really jealous of Norway.
> 
> ...


Because we got fucked by Per Hækkerup!

We get sad whenever people talk of Norway and their oil.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Genking48 said:


> Because we got fucked by Per Hækkerup!
> 
> We get sad whenever people talk of Norway and their oil.


You guys are #2 in quality of life ... Norway is #4 ... why the envy?


----------



## Genking48 (Feb 3, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You guys are #2 in quality of life ... why the envy?


Because we could have had the oil man. But Per decided to give it all to Norway. I don't even know what we got out of that deal  An inferiority complex as well I'd imagine.

We're pretty happy other than that I'd imagine. Just the classic thing of needing something to bitch about. And we bitch about our neighbors. There's still a fondness of Norway. As long as they are not Sweden they are alright.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Genking48 said:


> Because we could have had the oil man. But Per decided to give it all to Norway. I don't even know what we got out of that deal  An inferiority complex as well I'd imagine.
> 
> We're pretty happy other than that I'd imagine. Just the classic thing of needing something to bitch about. And we bitch about our neighbors. There's still a fondness of Norway. As long as they are not Sweden they are alright.


This is some Joneses level upper class urban nightmare. Should I feel bad for you guys? :lol

Come back here when you have some _real _problems! You lot are the envy of the world hah.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There are no _real_ problems. It's all in yer head.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak (Aug 5, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I made a lot of disparaging comments about China once, but after going back to reevaluate my position, I've learnt that this idea that China was some sort of shithole sinking into depravity before capitalism rescued it is essentially not entirely true either. A lot of our knowledge of China comes from western propaganda and we have to remember that the west is not without its own propaganda about politics different than theirs. It was definitely the result of Mao's disastrous economic policies (no one's going to deny that), but that was a short period which was eventually corrected.
> 
> It serves as a lesson to all and therefore today I don't see any chance of any country dabbling in Maoism. I have not heard one person actively propose his economic policies in the west - at all. But every time someone suggests social welfare, there are some people who love to bring up Maoism as though social welfare and Maoism are one and the same thing.


I actually wish I could talk to people here about that... How people think things are now compared to the past. But I've got two main challenges, One living in a country which is very Authoritarian means people aren't so willing to be honest about the government specially to a foreigner. I did Briefly date a girl who shitted on them though :lol But I find most people here are very nationalistic. 

And two my Manderin isn't at a level where I can have deep conversations. Specially with older folk who generally don't speak any English and are probably the best to talk about that stuff with.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Goku said:


> There are no _real_ problems. It's all in yer head.


Are you a figment of my imagination too? 

:hmmm 

Maybe you are! 



Stupid_Smark said:


> I actually wish I could talk to people here about that... How people think things are now compared to the past. But I've got two main challenges, One living in a country which is very Authoritarian means people aren't so willing to be honest about the government specially to a foreigner. I did Briefly date a girl who shitted on them though :lol But I find most people here are very nationalistic.
> 
> And two my Manderin isn't at a level where I can have deep conversations. Specially with older folk who generally don't speak any English and are probably the best to talk about that stuff with.


I'm gonna spend some time today brushing up on the "alternate" history of China as told by someone more sympathetic to their policies and see what I can draw from it. 

I grew up in Pakistan in the early 80's and we had a lot of cultural exchanges with the Chinese as they were our closest neighbor and ally (unlike the experience of westerners) and honestly, I never really walked away feeling like they were some poor destitute people. 

Maybe it's time to find out the tooth .. as told by someone else .. But it'll help me have a much better understanding.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak (Aug 5, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Are you a figment of my imagination too?
> 
> :hmmm
> 
> ...


I don't doubt Chinese expats probably had reasonable lives... Probably were connected through the government which til this day is your best bet in having a good life in China. So I'm not sure if they are the best example of the average Chinese person at the time but I could be wrong. No doubt things changed for the better after the (not so) great leap forward and Mao's death. I think 1978 was when things generally got better for most folk from what I can find. 

But even Chinese sources claim over 150 million were lifted out of poverty in the 1990s. 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-07/11/content_244499.htm



> The report quoted World Bank estimates saying that, based on consumption surveys, the proportion of people living on less than US$1 a day declined in China from 33 per cent in 1990 to 16 per cent in 2000.


To be fair.... Living on a dollar a day was probably a lot easier in 1990 :lol. While people earn more money now living costs have certainly gone up lol Even though I'd say general goods and food is really cheap here. Just keep it local though, anything foreign is way more expensive. I can get a good meal for two dollars.

Edit:
Expanding what I said before about the relationship between standing in government and how one's life is. There's a thing in Chinese culture called Guanxi 关系 which means a sought of mix of friendship and connections but not quite. This is something deeply routed in Chinese culture, its actually a Confucius principal (As much as the cultural revolution tried to lose that). China takes knowing the right people to whole new levels. Meaning curruption is pretty accepted and rife, but it also gives people opportunities they might not of had otherwise knowing the strictness of many chinese policies. Here's a video explaining it better than I could.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't use USD as a good comparison because goods that are produced locally are cheaper than they are in America. 

A tiny example of this is that the Ventolin Inhaler I need for my asthma costs Rs 100 (75 cents) in Pakistan while it costs $30-40 here in the US. My dad brings me my asthma medication from Pakistan whenever he travels. Even today $1 (Rs 145) can get you at least 3 cheap meals, a cup of tea with money left over ... It's what your income can buy you, not what it is. 

So the comparison is never apples to apples. The only way to really know how much a certain amount of currency can buy you in a certain country is to actually live there. The per capita/wage comparisons don't tell you anything on paper.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

$30 for Ventolin? That's max $10 here even if you bought it privately.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> $30 for Ventolin? That's max $10 here even if you bought it privately.


Most generics are cheap (like antibiotics etc), but there's no generic for Ventolin. I'm assuming it's still patented. But the thing is, if the parent company can charge so little in Pakistan, why are they fleecing Americans?

Edit: Actually ... that is the cost of the generic which makes it even worse :lol (why do I google after I make a post?)


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1052591292616769537
I'd add... either Trump was lying from the start and he was never non-interventionist in nature... or he's a little bitch who became a puppet of the neocons as soon as he got into office.

Which is it, MAGA folks? Did he lie to get into office or was he too weak to stand up to the MIC once he got there?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

He surrounded himself with neocons to appease the GOP establishment who he felt he needed in order to govern as the Democrats were clearly not going to work with him on anything at all.

It's the worst thing about his presidency.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So I see Reap has changed yet again, now he's Tom Friedman with great admiration for Chinese fascism. Oh you see 50-60 million people dying during the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, Four Antis- Campaign, Three Antis- Campaign, Campaign against the Rightists, Four Pests Campaign, etc., that was really just a brief time in post-1949 Chinese history you see. Then Deng came in and China became just wonderful. I mean sure, the struggle sessions, street beatings, torture in prisons, gulags for Buddhists, Christians, Uighurs, drug users, homosexuals, troublesome peasants and citydwellers, purges, street massacres of which Tiananmen is only the most well-known and egregious example, all that continued and does so up to the present day, the "social credit" system they're implementing that blatantly creates different tiers of citizenship based on how well you kowtow to the government line, but I'm sure it's mostly just Western propaganda and will only be a short period of post-1949 Chinese history you see. 

Where will it end, by this time next week he'll be expressing admiration for the three-field system and feudalism, because really the three-field system worked a lot better than the two-field system, and feudalism worked a lot better compared to the chaos of the five centuries that preceded its widespread adoption in Western Europe. Also feudalism gets a bad rap from "Western propaganda" :ha

Go live in China then, hopefully somewhere that is slated for demolition so some important Communist Party member or PLA general can make a few dozens of millions of dollars on another high-rise or road construction project, so you can see what happens when you trundle off to complain that your home is being taken from you so some fat guy high up in Beijing or the provincial apparat or the military can line his pockets some more. Hope you enjoy just above starvation rations living in a cinderblock "reeducation center" for your "vocational training"


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> So I see Reap has changed yet again, *now he's Tom Friedman with great admiration for Chinese fascism.* Oh you see 50-60 million people dying during the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, Four Antis- Campaign, Three Antis- Campaign, Campaign against the Rightists, Four Pests Campaign, etc., that was really just a brief time in post-1949 Chinese history you see. Then Deng came in and China became just wonderful. I mean sure, the struggle sessions, street beatings, torture in prisons, gulags for Buddhists, Christians, Uighurs, drug users, homosexuals, troublesome peasants and citydwellers, purges, street massacres of which Tiananmen is only the most well-known and egregious example, all that continued and does so up to the present day, the "social credit" system they're implementing that blatantly creates different tiers of citizenship based on how well you kowtow to the government line, but I'm sure it's mostly just Western propaganda and will only be a short period of post-1949 Chinese history you see.
> 
> Where will it end, by this time next week he'll be expressing admiration for the three-field system and feudalism, because really the three-field system worked a lot better than the two-field system, and feudalism worked a lot better compared to the chaos of the five centuries that preceded its widespread adoption in Western Europe. Also feudalism gets a bad rap from "Western propaganda" :ha
> 
> Go live in China then, hopefully somewhere that is slated for demolition so some important Communist Party member or PLA general can make a few dozens of millions of dollars on another high-rise or road construction project, so you can see what happens when you trundle off to complain that your home is being taken from you so some fat guy high up in Beijing or the provincial apparat or the military can line his pockets some more. Hope you enjoy just above starvation rations living in a cinderblock "reeducation center" for your "vocational training"


How did you get all that from "I'm gonna go do some more research from a different POV"?

Are you high or something? Or do you not know what research is?

Here's what I said. I'm re-posting because it seems like you didn't read my post at all: 



Reap said:


> I made a lot of disparaging comments about China once, but after going back to reevaluate my position, I've learnt that this idea that China was some sort of shithole sinking into depravity before capitalism rescued it is essentially not entirely true either. A lot of our knowledge of China comes from western propaganda and we have to remember that the west is not without its own propaganda about politics different than theirs. *It was definitely the result of Mao's disastrous economic policies (no one's going to deny that), but that was a short period which was eventually corrected.
> 
> It serves as a lesson to all and therefore today I don't see any chance of any country dabbling in Maoism. I have not heard one person actively propose his economic policies in the west - at all*. But every time someone suggests social welfare, there are some people who love to bring up Maoism as though social welfare and Maoism are one and the same thing.


Apparently, just wanting to learn more now is the same as "admiration for Chinese fascism" ... Man deep, you are an absolute riot :heston


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Next month reap will earnestly be telling us how sauron was a victim of elvish propaganda and his plans to turn all of middle earth into mordor were actually very grand 

Then the month after that gandalf will be the best and aragorn will be the rightful heir to the throne of gondor again

After that, well, gondorian and rohirrim privilege over the hill and mountain men, the men of the east and south, numenorean nationalism is just awful. Reap was once in agreement with some numenorean nationalist ideas you know, until he saw the light and stood up for haradian and orcish rights


----------



## Genking48 (Feb 3, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

gondorian and rohirrim privilege, numenorean nationalism. These aren't the LOTR questions that needs to be answered. GRRM already asked the single most important LOTR question.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

When you're more interested in baiting a poster than acknowledging your god emperors failures on the Afghanistan front Tater highlighted. Thirsty work Deep, thirsty work.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Genking48 said:


> gondorian and rohirrim privilege, numenorean nationalism. These aren't the LOTR questions that needs to be answered. GRRM already asked the single most important LOTR question.


Just look at the splendor of his court at the end of return of the king

The fishermen of dol amroth, the peasants of lossarnach and anfalas no doubt groan mightily under the hand of the King's tax collectors


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> When you're more interested in baiting a poster than acknowledging your god emperors failures on the Afghanistan front Tater highlighted. Thirsty work Deep, thirsty work.


There is little greater flattery than imitation

I keep my own counsel on afghanistan and the proportion of its importance, if I care enough to share it i will. But I don't find it very important you see. 

An interesting definition you propose though, not responding to someone now indicates thirstiness. Am I expected to respond to every attack on the president? How silly. I speak when I wish. No one chooses for me. I responded to that very person last night on a different subject, so what weight does your charge have anyway? 

If you had done your homework you'd also have found that I ignore reap of many colors rather often. I expect I'll go back to it again soon. And then later on I won't again for a little bit. You're the.only one remaining i consistently pay attention to

But not if you keep up with this, which I'm sure you would find for certain you care about very little, as I have

I will give the proposition the credit of counterintuitiveness, though.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> When you're more interested in baiting a poster than acknowledging your god emperors failures on the Afghanistan front Tater highlighted. Thirsty work Deep, thirsty work.


At this point it's clear that neither deep nor CP are actually interested in any kind of discussion. 

The thing is, they don't have convincing arguments for their own political stances so therefore they need to call me a "communist!", so I'm just going to embrace it. 

It's classic red scare tactics and phobia in action but it's fascinating to see how much mental gymnastics need to be employed in order to frame intellectual inquiry as outright fascination for communism :heston


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Ranblings.


Cute. But ultimately weak retort.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> There is little greater flattery than imitation
> 
> I keep my own counsel on afghanistan and the proportion of its importance, if I care enough to share it i will. But I don't find it very important you see.
> 
> ...


Oh, I'm *deep *inside your head bro. You've been constantly addressing me when you have shit to say, but not when I have asked you questions. If that's how you "ignore" people, then I think your exes might start accusing you of stalking while you think you're "ignoring" them :heston


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> He surrounded himself with neocons to appease the GOP establishment who he felt he needed in order to govern as the Democrats were clearly not going to work with him on anything at all.
> 
> It's the worst thing about his presidency.


So you're going with option B then. Trump really is non-interventionist in nature but he's too much of a weak little bitch to stand up to the neocons. Got it.

Oh and blame Democrats. :lmao

You make the best arguments against why Trump is not, in fact, a fearless leader.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Classic Cult of Personality effect @Tater ;


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> So you're going with option B then. Trump really is non-interventionist in nature but he's too much of a weak little bitch to stand up to the neocons. Got it.
> 
> Oh and blame Democrats. :lmao
> 
> You make the best arguments against why Trump is not, in fact, a fearless leader.


ok birthday massacre


----------



## Odo (Jun 9, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I interrupt this feud to bring you

Lulz

Christ look at the size of him/her


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> ok birthday massacre


It's okay little buddy. You've already answered the question satisfactorily. Don't be mad because you were the one who tore down Trump this time.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Cute. But ultimately weak retort.


don't be lazy

you said something that wasn't true, you can't sullen your way out of it


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump is a fucking idiot. 

Kim promised to start denuclearization and trump believed him

This camel fucking prince promised trump he had no knowledge of this journalist getting tortured and killed by 15-20 saudis trump believed him.

Kavanaugh obviously hurt that girl but he told trump he didn't so he believed him

What does it takes to convince trump? Did the suspect figures in question just pinky swear trump and suddenly trump just said they're pinky swearing they didn't do it they're nice people.

Really meanwhile he dismisses every bit of truth of his corrupted organization as fake news whether there's visual evidence or not. :heston. 

This is your president.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> It's okay little buddy. You've already answered the question satisfactorily. Don't be mad because you were the one who tore down Trump this time.


Never seen such negative persuasion. Attacking people for agreeing with you. :lol My goodness. No wonder you find Trump so confusing if this is your skill level.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Never seen such negative persuasion. Attacking people for agreeing with you. :lol My goodness. No wonder you find Trump so confusing if this is your skill level.


I've never found Trump to be confusing in the slightest. I'm just proud of you for admitting Trump is a weak little bitch.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I've never found Trump to be confusing in the slightest. I'm just proud of you for admitting Trump is a weak little bitch.


No, you're very confused by Trump. In your worldview he's a feckless moron who also somehow went from no government experience to president of the US, took over the GOP and moved its base away from Conservative Inc. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz and towards populism. 

You're far more confused than you realize. And it's because you don't have the competency which would allow you to recognize competence in others. That's the price of being more concerned with being Right Online than being influential.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



God Of Anger Juno said:


> Trump is a fucking idiot.
> 
> Kim promised to start denuclearization and trump believed him
> 
> ...


Not to mention Trump is helping the Saudi Princes cover up a murder they ordered because they say nice things about him and overpay for his shitty hotels.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Not to mention Trump is helping the Saudi Princes cover up a murder they ordered because they say nice things about him and overpay for his shitty hotels.


Of course. This is the same man who called Stormy daniels a lying Horseface but admitted of paying her hush money... Money that came from his campaign funds which by the way was illegal to do. 

Trump is the guy who wanted to be somebody but now that he is he still the chump trying to be a dictator like putin kim and prince but don't have the balls to put the money where his mouth is when actually needed. 

Not to mention he's selling a 100 billion dollars in weapons to the saudis which will be used for saudis to fund more terrorist organizations. And possibly hurt other countries that disagree with them via wmd or drone carpet bombing all that provided by the good ol usa.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



God Of Anger Juno said:


> Of course. This is the same man who called Stormy daniels a lying Horseface but admitted of paying her hush money... Money that came from his campaign funds which by the way was illegal to do.
> 
> Trump is the guy who wanted to be somebody but now that he is he still the chump trying to be a dictator like putin kim and prince but don't have the balls to put the money where his mouth is when actually needed.
> 
> *Not to mention he's selling a 100 billion dollars in weapons to the saudis which will be used for saudis to fund more terrorist organizations.* And possibly hurt other countries that disagree with them via wmd or drone carpet bombing all that provided by the good ol usa.


Exactly, most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from SA and Trump funding more terrorism for them.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Exactly, most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from SA and Trump funding more terrorism for them.


Yup. But hey what can be done. He's going to keep running the country like one of his shitty businesses the scary thing of all this is saudis using those same weapons against americans if something goes south between sabu and cheeto.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



God Of Anger Juno said:


> Yup. But hey what can be done. He's going to keep running the country like one of his shitty businesses the scary thing of all this is saudis using those same weapons against americans if something goes south between sabu and cheeto.


it's just funny because now Trump is having his blind sheep defend Muslim terrorist lol


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

​


birthday_massacre said:


> it's just funny because now Trump is having his blind sheep defend Muslim terrorist lol


The same people who said obama was a dirty Muslim and crucified him after shaking hands with the Prince i believed people even called him a traitor and he was being called all this shit before he even shook hands with that man not sure if it was the prince or a prime minister but obama got a lot of shit from conservatives just for his last name alone. 


In a surprising turn of events these people are now supporting saudi arabia because of trump because they have to stick it to the liberals as usual. That kind of thinking is fucking dangerous. I don't understand 9 years ago these same group of voters would always say things like bomb them because they deserve to die! USA USA USA but now are defending them for trump so they can stick it to left lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



God Of Anger Juno said:


> ​
> The same people who said obama was a dirty Muslim and crucified him after shaking hands with the Prince i believed people even called him a traitor and he was being called all this shit before he even shook hands with that man not sure if it was the prince or a prime minister but obama got a lot of shit from conservatives just for his last name alone.
> 
> 
> In a surprising turn of events these people are now supporting saudi arabia because of trump because they have to stick it to the liberals as usual. That kind of thinking is fucking dangerous. I don't understand 9 years ago these same group of voters would always say things like bomb them because they deserve to die! USA USA USA but now are defending them for trump so they can stick it to left lol.


Yup Trump supporters love to bite off their nose to spite their face if it would stick it to the libs.

It's like how they are yeah let's stick it to the libs and cheer on the GOP to kill Medicare and social security because it will trigger them, but they are too uninformed to know that will effect them, then when its too late they will be like WTF.

Its like how all the conservatives who were against Obamacare and were glad when their states rejected the Obamacare extensions then bitch about how much their insurance sucks lol

Or you have those idiots that trashed Obamacare then when asked about the Affordable Care Act, they were all for it not knowing its the same thing lol


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The khashoggi disappearance seems fantastical in many ways

All those involved have apparently escaped

Khashoggis body was allegedly cut up or dissolved in acid

Yet turkey claims to have all this evidence

How did the perpetrators escape but fail to take this evidence with them? How did they fail to destroy it along with his body?

Something doesn't add up here

That Khashoggi entered a Saudi consulate and never came out, that is all that is undeniable

Everything else should be looked at with the highest skepticism


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't trust Turkey or its intelligence any more than I do Saudi Arabia. Both are vile, untrustworthy actors who we should have nothing to do with, regardless of whatever went down in the consulate.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yup Trump supporters love to bite off their nose to spite their face if it would stick it to the libs.
> 
> It's like how they are yeah let's stick it to the libs and cheer on the GOP to kill Medicare and social security because it will trigger them, but they are too uninformed to know that will effect them, then when its too late they will be like WTF.
> 
> ...


Some where in the mind of some of those idiots they truly believe that those drastic changes won't affect them because they're donald trump supporter. Some already think they're above the laws as well Not long ago I read an article about this white woman who was driving drunk she was stopped by an officer and she tried to use her politcial preference on trump to be exempted from being arrested.

Then there's some who already think that just because Trump is their president they have rights to harass minorites such as the old dumb bastard harassing that poor lady in chicago at a kid birthday party and white men chasing black men to call them the n word. Plus pretty much you either see it read it or watch it in videos every day with these ppl thinking they're above the law and everyone else.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Khashoggi was (is?) not exactly a saint either, he was a big time lover of the Muslim brotherhood and wahhabism/salafism and Osama bin laden and the writings of qutb 

Doesn't mean he deserved to be kidnapped and probably murdered. He might still be alive, but if so, he's being held captive *somewhere* by the saudis


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

No one should trust a President who said he'd pull America out of wars and didn't.

Nothing is going to happen with this imo. They'll probably come up with some crowd pleasing narrative and it'll be forgotten.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Don't trust american presidents because they're reptile alien lizard people from the 5th dimension

Like the queen of england

And the royal house of saud

And erdogan

And vladdymeer pootin

They're all 33+ degree freemason rosicrucian templar hashashins that drink human blood 

Or so David icke told me and if you can't trust David icke who can you trust?


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

deepelemblues said:


> Yet turkey claims to have all this evidence


It's naive to even contemplate the Turks didn't have the Saudi consulate bugged.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> It's naive to even contemplate the Turks didn't have the Saudi consulate bugged.


But would they have devices the saudis couldn't find?

Would the saudis attempt to kidnap or kill him without securing the site first?

One thing this is is an opportunity for erdogan to take the saudis down a notch. Turkey and Saudi Arabia can't both be the preeminent country in the middle east. Erdogan wants turkey to be on top eventually. Turkey is stronger than Iran and Egypt is focusing on building its strength, not spending it. Turkey is getting nice with russia. Maybe get Putin to take turkeys side if they ever get into it with iran. Saudi arabia is on top now. Use the opportunity to undermine them. 

Maybe the saudis were just slipshod dipshits but I bet turkey is just making hay. I think khashoggi was lured to the consulate to be kidnapped, and something happened that turned it into him ending up dead. But that is slipshod dipshittery itself, the turks could have some kind of recordings or a source or evidence left behind. You could be right.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> No, you're very confused by Trump. In your worldview he's a feckless moron who also somehow went from no government experience to president of the US, took over the GOP and moved its base away from Conservative Inc. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz and towards populism.
> 
> You're far more confused than you realize. And it's because you don't have the competency which would allow you to recognize competence in others. That's the price of being more concerned with being Right Online than being influential.


I know it hurt you to admit that your fearless leader is in actuality a weak little bitch, so I'm going to allow you this because it'll make you feel better.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Don't trust american presidents


QFT. Yup. You're right. For once.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The chief matter sustaining the tether between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is not a dependence upon foreign oil, which in the past four years has hit historic lows for the Americans, but Saudi Arabia's coveted position as one of the world's greatest creditors. The most recent estimates for what the Saudis own in U.S. debt/Treasury securities is $166.8 billion as of July. The Saudis are the 10th-largest creditor for the U.S. The course was set permanently after a solid four decades of solid and peaceful relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in the 1930s with Treasury Secretary William Simon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger under Richard Nixon securing the deal that U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Gerry Parsky later said had to succeed for failure was not an option to keep the U.S. petrodollar situation humming along while simultaneously endeavoring to placate the Arab world following Nixon's intervention to fundamentally rescue the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War. 

Speaking solely hypothetically, with tensions perhaps rising between the Saudis and U.S. today over the mysterious disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi it is at least remotely conceivable that the Saudis could effectively transform their held bonds into punitive strikes toward the U.S. by selling them off wholesale. Flooding the market with those bonds would probably compel yields to soar against the new prices, resulting in bond yield upticks that would directly engender considerable trouble for companies attempting to pay on the private debt they have accumulated as well as people looking to take out mortgages. 

Having said that, the odds are rather slim that this would occur, and even were it to happen interest rates would likely be only marginally impacted at all, and it would be a fairly small ripple across the international bond market as several behemoths own far more U.S. Treasury securities such as China and Japan.

The main reason why the Saudis will almost surely not implement this scorched earth financial strategy is that it would ultimately do them inordinate harm by carving out most of their holdings' worth. 

Moreover, as markets go, presently just about everyone is pouring their money into the U.S. not because the U.S. is so thoroughly competent but chiefly due to the present point that international lenders and buyers of debt are looking for some safety and security. The Chinese and other prominent powers have been slowly forming financial power blocs in an effort to position themselves well in case the American kingpin starts to become truly wobbly but the past several years have indicated that while the U.S. monetary situation is hardly ideal it is presently better than the litany of alternatives, in large part because the Americans still issue the currency which is used the world over. The last twenty years in particular have been informative for all of the troubles the U.S. monetary order has experienced, it is simply outlasting all of the others, which is why non-Americans are continuing to flood U.S. markets with hundreds of billions of dollars. The markets going up steeply over the past 23 or so months, even with the highly necessary and ultimately beneficial market corrections which have taken place in 2018 has been a phenomenon most specifically initiated by the denomination of debt in dollars throughout almost the entire planet. For his part, Donald Trump has been instrumental in instituting policies which strengthened the dollar (he was criticized for doing so by a number of economists in the pages of the _Washington Post_ and _New York Times_) which has spurred on only more purchasing of U.S. Treasury securities. This is not to say that Trump's economic policies have all been terrifically successful but several of the most important for the here and now have been rather solid on behalf of immediate U.S. interests. The Chinese have even allowed themselves to take a brief but perhaps critical loss in the trade-based struggle between the two powers in the second half of this year.

Should the U.S. stop funding the Saudis' war machine and cease playing kingmaker among radical Sunni terrorist factions in opposition to Iranian interests? For many reasons this should happen. Unfortunately Trump is hurting the possibilities of his touting his own genuine successes in the international economic sphere by peddling his unconvincing talk of American jobs being aided through the military aid to the Saudis. 

The whole spectacle--from all perspectives: Saudi, Turkish, American, Iranian, Israeli, etc.--recalls the famous quote from Sir Henry Wotton. 

"An ambassador is an honest gentleman sent to lie abroad for the good of his country."


...Meanwhile...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1052258002693165057
:lmao :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> No, you're very confused by Trump. In your worldview he's a feckless moron who also somehow went from no government experience to president of the US, took over the GOP and moved its base away from Conservative Inc. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz and towards populism.
> 
> You're far more confused than you realize. And it's because you don't have the competency which would allow you to recognize competence in others. That's the price of being more concerned with being Right Online than being influential.


I think this speak more about the GOP and American voters than Trump. A stronger party or national institutions would be able to withstand populism demagogues from obtaining real political power.

A celebrity can be a feckless moron and still have more influence on something than someone who dedicated their careers on the subject. I don't think that is a controversial opinion to hold.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053018248512335872
Quick, someone get Wolf Blitzer to explain to her how many jobs will be lost if we don't sell weapons of death to Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053130150102134785
Jimmy Boy can dish it, but can't take it. This was his response to a Tweet saying "Dear Diary..." Such a professional!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Apparently the Cruz's wife is sad that they can't afford a second home on their combined 2-3 million dollar income and over 5 million dollar net worth. 

She also admitted that getting that tax credit was great which is why after Trump essentially treated her and her family like trash she still voted for him. 

Some people pretend to have dignity but are ok to pimp that dignity for money and still complain they don't have enough.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Apparently the Cruz's wife is sad that they can't afford a second home on their combined 2-3 million dollar income and over 5 million dollar net worth.
> 
> She also admitted that getting that tax credit was great which is why after Trump essentially treated her and her family like trash she still voted for him.
> 
> Some people pretend to have dignity but are ok to pimp that dignity for money and still complain they don't have enough.


If you had to fuck Grandpa Munster, you'd want a 2nd home too.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> If you had to fuck Grandpa Munster, you'd want a 2nd home too.


Oh I'm sure there's no sex in that marriage. 

We all know Cruz's porn habits.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Apparently the Cruz's wife is sad that they can't afford a second home on their combined 2-3 million dollar income and over 5 million dollar net worth.
> 
> She also admitted that getting that tax credit was great which is why after Trump essentially treated her and her family like trash she still voted for him.
> 
> Some people pretend to have dignity but are ok to pimp that dignity for money and still complain they don't have enough.


Wow, this is how these rich assholes really think isn't it, its not just propaganda. Hopefully this will show Texans that these guys are so out of touch with the average working person and they'll vote for Beto


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Wow, this is how these rich assholes really think isn't it, its not just propaganda. Hopefully this will show Texans that these guys are so out of touch with the average working person and they'll vote for Beto


Texans have a long way to go before they even understand how much the political machine and MIC is against them.

Texans are one of the worst hit states with regards to giving up their sons to foreign wars, but they keep the supply coming. 

Because you know, any man would give his only begotten son for god and country!


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/18/texas-democrats-ask-noncitizens-register-vote/

*The Texas Democratic Party asked non-citizens to register to vote, sending out applications to immigrants with the box citizenship already checked “Yes,” according to new complaints filed Thursday asking prosecutors to see what laws may have been broken.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation alerted district attorneys and the federal Justice Department to the pre-checked applications, and also included a signed affidavit from a man who said some of his relatives, who aren’t citizens, received the mailing.

“This is how the Texas Democratic Party is inviting foreign influence in an election in a federal election cycle,” said Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the PILF, a group that’s made its mark policing states’ voter registration practices.

The Texas secretary of state’s office said it, too, had gotten complaints both from immigrants and from relatives of dead people who said they got mailings asking them to register.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vowed to investigate.

“If true there will be serious consequences,” he said.*

Interesting. Must be the Russians!



DROW NGOs and other Euro nations have been dumping migrants on Italy. What they're doing is illegal. It's been reported on for a year or so now. Surprised Italy hasn't said anything sooner or kicked the NGOs out yet. :laugh:


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/18/texas-democrats-ask-noncitizens-register-vote/
> 
> *The Texas Democratic Party asked non-citizens to register to vote, sending out applications to immigrants with the box citizenship already checked “Yes,” according to new complaints filed Thursday asking prosecutors to see what laws may have been broken.
> 
> ...


It is fascinating indeed. Italian politics are so fun to closely study. Vastly more complicated than American politics with a host of different parties vying for power with one another. The issue at hand with the waves of migrants is that the Mediterranean countries such as Italy, Greece and Spain are effectively at the front line. The European Union's looming threat of the imposition of stiff penalties for countries which blanch and protest under the weight of these migration waves. Sanctions and variegated penalties may be utilized from the EU. Serbia, however, which is not part of the EU, demanded that the migrants within their country have to leave, but the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians erect checkpoints at the borders of their countries.

The Italians have had to pay the price in the manner that the European Union's leverage is considerable in these instances. The Italians have been struggling with the increases in North African migration while the Greeks have been working with North Africans as well as Turks and Syrians and even some Pakistanis. 

The per capita debt in Greece is terribly high, and the Greeks owe French and German banks a great deal of money, so the EU is easily capable of manipulating the Greeks to do as they demand due to the financial leverage the EU boasts over them. This is reminiscent of what former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi noted, which is that the immensity of the Italian economy within the European orbit makes it difficult for the EU to efficaciously threaten Italy the way Greece is typically more thoroughly humbled.

Following Berlusconi's highly scandalous tenure and the ousting from same, the more far-left government overspent almost ludicrously while bringing in a large number of immigrants as welfare state clients. This period of time gave rise to what is called the peculiar coalition called the _Cinque stelle_ or the Five Star Movement. This was founded by an odd rascal of sorts in October of 2009, comedian Beppe Grillo in partnership with Gianroberto Casaleggio. Grillo prudently stepped aside as he apparently has some sort of drug conviction in his past and he does not believe someone with such a history should play a direct and major role in controlling the party and possibly the government, which is just as well since he is an opportunistic figure with nary a tincture of dignity. That said he was a fairly capable muckraker and gave the big tent coalition a fair bit of momentum some years ago. It's somewhat analagous to the Donald Trump populist movement which required the apparatus and network of the Republican Party to consider the partnership between what Grillo and Casaleggio founded and the long-running regional Italian party powerhouse known as the _Lega Nord_ or in its full name the _Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania_. This is where the hard-hitting Matteo Salvini comes in to play as he is Italy's bulldog as it were in confronting the EU over immigration in general. The _Lega Nord_ represents the north of the Po river in Italy, which is the most heavily taxed and generally richest and stable part of the entire country. 

What is happening now is Salvini and his partners are attempting to restore the letter of the law enacted under the Berlusconi coalition (roughly called the "Fourth Italy," which is almost a sports cry cheering on Italy as a nation more than anything else) called the Bossi-Fini Law, which gave Italian forces sufficient autonomy with which to eject illegal immigrants without apology. The government of the left that came into power following Berlusconi's tumultuous run simply refused to enforce it, and now Italian war ships Umberto Bossi and Gianfranco Fini co-authored the 2002 Bossi-Fini Law. Bossi was more of a traditional Italian conservative, but Fini was something of a neo-fascist. If you go to Italy to this day you will encounter many Italians who proudly insist that the Italian nation must be protected. The idea of the "three Italian republics" of the north, the south and the center has faded from the past twenty-five years, and the political theories concerning the Italian polity at large seemed to fly about a couple of decades ago toward the idea of reasserting the individual regions' independence as per the _Lega Lombarda_, all of the regions such as Piedmont and Tuscany to name off only two, Canadian provinces or American states before the 1860s or the German "_Länder,_" essentially preserving some autonomy. Of course the bitter truth is that even now most northerners dislike and distrust southerners and southerners find the northerners contemptible, with just about everyone finding no patience whatsoever for Sicilians. Today what does unite Italians at large, though, is a reordering of their house pertaining to illegal immigration.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The Democrats just can not stop failing at politics. The Republicans are incredibly lucky to have such an inept bunch because they're only marginally better.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> The Democrats just can not stop failing at politics. The Republicans are incredibly lucky to have such an inept bunch because they're only marginally better.


It makes it difficult to win when one is paid to lose.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> It is fascinating indeed. Italian politics are so fun to closely study. Vastly more complicated than American politics with a host of different parties vying for power with one another. The issue at hand with the waves of migrants is that the Mediterranean countries such as Italy, Greece and Spain are effectively at the front line. The European Union's looming threat of the imposition of stiff penalties for countries which blanch and protest under the weight of these migration waves. Sanctions and variegated penalties may be utilized from the EU. Serbia, however, which is not part of the EU, demanded that the migrants within their country have to leave, but the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians erect checkpoints at the borders of their countries.
> 
> The Italians have had to pay the price in the manner that the European Union's leverage is considerable in these instances. The Italians have been struggling with the increases in North African migration while the Greeks have been working with North Africans as well as Turks and Syrians and even some Pakistanis.
> 
> ...


That's rather crazy! I knew Italians were tired of the illegals, I didn't know the extent of which. The coverage of it all it's fairly sparse, I do remember when Cloney was on his welcome refugee shtick until the migrants started showing up near his home and several rich people moved out and didn't off their massive homes to these people. I am awaiting for the day when the Italian military shuts down NGOs operating in it's area and with the French caught, it could be the the very situation they were waiting for.:laugh:



Tater said:


> It makes it difficult to win when one is paid to lose.


Which side is that? Since both have corporations flooding both parties with cash. Or is it a win trade kind of deal?

I'm actually shocked the MSM is even writing an article about this voter fuckery to be honest.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Which side is that? Since both have corporations flooding both parties with cash. Or is it a win trade kind of deal?


The GOP is paid to enact far right policies when they get into office and the Dems are paid to be fake leftists while making sure the government goes no farther than center right when everyone gets sick of the GOP and kicks them out of office. Every time we go through this cycle, the end result is a government that is even further to the right. We've been on this trajectory since Reagan.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/o...hoggi-dies-in-suspicious-car-accident-3463852



> One of 15 Saudis that targeted Khashoggi dies in suspicious car accident
> 
> Claims are circulating that Meshal Saad M. Albostani, who visited the consulate while Khashoggi was still inside, could have been silenced
> 
> ...


Possibly interesting development.

The fairly unstable Mohammad bin Salman has revealed himself to be a desperate and highly ruthless despot. It's now almost morbidly humorous to consider that his ascendancy was viewed as a sign that the Saudi Kingdom was experiencing a kind of reformation. Several dozen of his most direct rivals have been assassinated over the past six months and in a moment of true brazenness bin Salman reportedly oversaw the kidnapping of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri through a thoroughly mishandled house arrest and detention. 

_Le Figaro_ has displayed some of the most fecund coverage of this ongoing matter and yesterday featured likely-accurate reports that the Saudi Royal Family is meeting and may attempt to have bin Salman replaced. Per yesterday's issue, translated into English from French:

"_For several days, the Allegiance Council for the ruling Saudi family is meeting in the utmost discretion, says a diplomatic source to Le Figaro in Paris. The information has been confirmed by a Saudi Arabian contacted in Riyadh. Composed of a delegate representing each of the clans--at least seven--of the royal family, this body, responsible for inheritance problems, examines the situation created by the disappearance, still unresolved, more than a fortnight ago, of the journalist dissident Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul._"


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't know what happened to Khashoggi nor do I claim to know. What I _*do*_ know is that when the MSM en masse starts pushing a unified narrative, that's when we should be the _*most*_ skeptical of what they are saying.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

Tater said:


> I don't know what happened to Khashoggi nor do I claim to know. What I _*do*_ know is that when the MSM en masse starts pushing a unified narrative, that's when we should be the _*most*_ skeptical of what they are saying.



Trump has admitted it based on intelligence reports and the Saudis have admitted it on their own state television, though apparently are claiming it was a "fight".

Sometimes everyone says something's true because it actually is.

Sometimes.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

One somewhat "amusing" component to the ongoing situation is that Turkey has, by a rather substantive margin, the greatest number of journalists jailed in the world.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> One somewhat "amusing" component to the ongoing situation is that Turkey has, by a rather substantive margin, the greatest number of journalists jailed in the world.


Just have the good sense to not do it to US residents aye.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Trump has admitted it based on intelligence reports and the Saudis have admitted it on their own state television, though apparently are claiming it was a "fight".
> 
> Sometimes everyone says something's true because it actually is.
> 
> Sometimes.


Even if it is true, one should still always be skeptical of the MSM uniting behind a single narrative because they more than likely have an agenda.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Tater said:


> Alkomesh2 said:
> 
> 
> > Trump has admitted it based on intelligence reports and the Saudis have admitted it on their own state television, though apparently are claiming it was a "fight".
> ...


Doesn't that become conspiracy theory? I mean they've admitted it, I'm not going to be sceptical of them all reporting it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Doesn't that become conspiracy theory? I mean they've admitted it, I'm not going to be sceptical of them all reporting it.


How many other times has fucked up shit been admitted and it wasn't covered extensively by the MSM? I'm not saying it's not true. Alls I'm saying is that we should always be skeptical of an agenda when the MSM unites behind a narrative.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> I don't know what happened to Khashoggi nor do I claim to know. What I do know is that when the MSM en masse starts pushing a unified narrative, that's when we should be the most skeptical of what they are saying.


Well, its official. Democrats want the United States to go to war with Saudi Arabia because some journalist died. 

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Well from my observations, it seems like Iran have bought huge influence in Western liberal MSM over the years while conservative MSM in the West has mostly been bought by the Murdochs and their agenda. Iran government hate the Saudis, so the liberal MSM could be incentivise to blow this incident up. Let's not kid ourselves, this type of incident happen over there all the time but this blew up probably because of the agenda by Iran against the Saudis. Conservative media was slow to cover it probably because one of the Murdochs' agenda is their investment relationship with the Saudis, but they couldn't ignore it once it obtained such wide coverage so they are trying to put some spin into it to protect their investments.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> How many other times has fucked up shit been admitted and it wasn't covered extensively by the MSM? I'm not saying it's not true. Alls I'm saying is that we should always be skeptical of an agenda when the MSM unites behind a narrative.


Judging by how wrong the MSM was wrong about The Iraq War, The Chris Beniot case and The Duke Lacrosse case I can see why people don't trust them.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Judging by how wrong the MSM was wrong about The Iraq War, The Chris Beniot case and The Duke Lacrosse case I can see why people don't trust them.


MSM propaganda isn't based on just lies. It's also based on what truths they bury and what truths they run with to advance their agenda. All of this they are reporting about Khashoggi could very well be true but the fact that so many of them are in lockstep on this issue and giving it the amount of coverage that they have leads me to believe that there is more at stake here than just calling Saudi Arabia out on this particular crime; especially considering how many other crimes that Saudi Arabia has committed that didn't get nearly the same amount of coverage.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

MSM chooses the narratives that are least consequential in rousing actual public concerns. 

Basically the Khassoggi case is something that makes people talk about Trump and Saudi Arabia negatively without having to talk about the fact that American Government mouths are wrapped around Saudi dick over the real reason of selling them arms and enabling the murder of Yemenis. 

So .. find something other than the real reason why KSA should be in the spotlight. 

Something that can be resolved and everyone can go back to the business of continued support to the Saudis.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> MSM chooses the narratives that are least consequential in rousing actual public concerns.
> 
> Basically the Khassoggi case is something that makes people talk about Trump and Saudi Arabia negatively without having to talk about the fact that American Government mouths are wrapped around Saudi dick over the real reason of selling them arms and enabling the murder of Yemenis.
> 
> ...


All these news outlets MSM, MSNBC, CNN, FOX etc are told by DC what narrative to push and what to bury. 

They are all bought and paid for.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> All these news outlets MSM, MSNBC, CNN, FOX etc are told by DC what narrative to push and what to bury.
> 
> They are all bought and paid for.


It's a symbiotic relationship. Media is owned by corporations that own the politicians therefore the media never really goes in hard enough into any policy positions and the consequences of those policies.

It's getting progressively worse too.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Vic Capri said:


> > I don't know what happened to Khashoggi nor do I claim to know. What I do know is that when the MSM en masse starts pushing a unified narrative, that's when we should be the most skeptical of what they are saying.
> 
> 
> Well, its official. Democrats want the United States to go to war with Saudi Arabia because some journalist died.
> ...


Do you ever get bored of just making stuff up?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Do you ever get bored of just making stuff up?


Trump does, so why not Vic, Trump supporters fall for it all the time


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The only reason these "news" outlets care is because they and the dems want to force Trump to condemn SA. They want to force Trump's hand because that's what they do. Most of the mainstream media and the Hollywood idiots are basically the Dems attack dogs. This way of doing business has mostly worked against Republicans over the last 15 years or so.

I don't remember them pushing Bush to be critical of SA even after it was revealed that most of the hijackers came from there. But this here is mostly about Trump.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> The only reason these "news" outlets care is because they and the dems want to *force Trump to condemn SA*.


You think he shouldn't?


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You think he shouldn't?


Of course he should. I'm just saying their concern over this by the dems and the media isn't genuine. It's just about forcing Trump to do something he doesn't want to do.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Of course he should. I'm just saying their concern over this by the dems and the media isn't genuine. It's just about forcing Trump to do something he doesn't want to do.


An interesting bit of conjecture.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Of course he should. I'm just saying their concern over this by the dems and the media isn't genuine. It's just about forcing Trump to do something he doesn't want to do.


You think its good that Trump does not want to disavow SA having someone in the media killed? You don't think the dems and media should push him to disavow it? Trump wishes he could silence anyone in the media that talks bad about him, we all know Trump deep down wishes he could cheer this on. Just the other day he was cheering that reporter getting body slammed


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You think he shouldn't?





Ryder92 said:


> Of course he should. I'm just saying their concern over this by the dems and the media isn't genuine. It's just about forcing Trump to do something he doesn't want to do.


For the record, Bush Jr should have condemned them in his first term.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Ryder92 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course he should. I'm just saying their concern over this by the dems and the media isn't genuine. It's just about forcing Trump to do something he doesn't want to do.
> ...


No, he thinks Trump should do it. He's just saying that the Democrats and main stream media are only saying he should because they know he doesn't want to or some Shit like that.

Even when they agree with the democrats stances they'll still find a way to bash them.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> No, he thinks Trump should do it. He's just saying that the Democrats and main stream media are only saying he should because they know he doesn't want to or some Shit like that.
> 
> Even when they agree with the democrats stances they'll still find a way to bash them.


It's just weird he is bashing the Dems for wanting Trump to do the right thing even though he admits Trump does not want to it. You think he would be bashing Trump for not doing it already.

Also, did you see the BS how Trump finds the BS story SD is telling how Khashoggi started the fight with the 15 military officers and that is why he was killed lol


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Of course he should. I'm just saying their concern over this by the dems and the media isn't genuine. It's just about forcing Trump to do something he doesn't want to do.


To be honest the reason trump won't say shit is because of his main businesses with Saudi Arabia. He even said it himself Saudi arabia pay him lots of money and that's the reason he likes them very much.


This isn't a moral issue but more of a greed issue. Trump goes after saudis there goes the millions of dollars he makes from them by having his golf country club businesses and towers over there.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Do you ever get bored of just making stuff up?


No he doesn't.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

> He insisted that he would be able to get rid of the nation’s more than $19 trillion national debt “over a period of eight years.”


Yeah, about that.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



God Of Anger Juno said:


> To be honest the reason trump won't say shit is because of his main businesses with Saudi Arabia. He even said it himself Saudi arabia pay him lots of money and that's the reason he likes them very much.
> 
> 
> This isn't a moral issue but more of a greed issue. Trump goes after saudis there goes the millions of dollars he makes from them by having his golf country club businesses and towers over there.


Of course. Both things can be true. Trump is refusing to denounce them for selfish reasons and the media is more concerned about getting Trump than anything else. I don’t have much faith in either Trump or the media at this point.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Ryder92 said:


> Of course. Both things can be true. Trump is refusing to denounce them for selfish reasons and the media is more concerned about getting Trump than anything else. I don’t have much faith in either Trump or the media at this point.


LOL The media is right on this issue, it's laughable you would claim they are trying to get Trump on anything when A the media is always kissing his ass, and B, in this case, its the right thing.

Show some examples of the media trying to get Trump for something, he didn't do.


----------



## Ryder92 (Jul 24, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

*Questionable Saudi Explanation of Khashoggi's Death Bolsters Rand Paul's Case for Ending Arms Sales*

https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/20/...K1D-TQjXl_2W_GEmT-V7cXqrifmB5VMQNTU9b2CDb28bs


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://www.tmz.com/2018/10/20/senator-mitch-mcconnell-confronted-restaurant-protesters/

The mob strategy ain't gonna work, leftists. People like civility, peace, order. Not throwing tantrums and harassing people.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> http://www.tmz.com/2018/10/20/senator-mitch-mcconnell-confronted-restaurant-protesters/
> 
> The mob strategy ain't gonna work, leftists. People like civility, peace, order. Not throwing tantrums and harassing people.


Caution: snowflakeism in progress.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> http://www.tmz.com/2018/10/20/senator-mitch-mcconnell-confronted-restaurant-protesters/
> 
> The mob strategy ain't gonna work, leftists. People like civility, peace, order. Not throwing tantrums and harassing people.



I love how you claim people like civility, peace, and order yet the conservatives love Trump when he is anything but those things. Trump is always throwing tantrums and harassing people and you guys jerk off all over him when he does it. But of course, when it happens to a conservative, you melt like a little snowflake because you are soo triggered.

Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Anyone at all surprised John "War is the answer to everything" Bolton was the one pushing for this?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other



> *Trump says US will withdraw from nuclear arms treaty with Russia*
> 
> Donald Trump has confirmed the US will leave an arms control treaty with Russia dating from the cold war that has kept nuclear missiles out of Europe for three decades.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Anyone at all surprised John "War is the answer to everything" Bolton was the one pushing for this?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053638837283491843

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053828568025772032

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053791823511109632
I've joked about this in the past but it's looking more and more like it could be true. Nukes could be flying in either direction and these fucking Russiagate retards would still find a way to claim Trump is doing Putin's bidding.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053638837283491843
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053828568025772032
> 
> ...


I still cannot believe John fucking Bolton of all people got a 2nd act in politics after the unmitigated disaster that was the Iraq war and the Bush foreign policy. Bush I get because he's likable in public and they can shift blame to Cheney, but Bolton? How the fuck did that war mongering, sheep dog looking motherfucker get a pass?

I think the argument from the left is supposed to be that Putin wanted rid of the agreement. Currently with the treaty there are sanction we can impose if Russia violates it and with the treaty just being gone then there are no sanctions for Russia to worry about now or in the future.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Bolton's mustache must have hypnotic powers. Anyone still think Trump is a Russian puppet?

Meanwhile


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053741795148992513
Good. Can't let this horde of people into our country.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Bolton's mustache must have hypnotic powers. Anyone still think Trump is a Russian puppet?


The hardcore Russiagaters are never letting this go. Their belief in this despite a lack of evidence is akin to a fundamentalist religion.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> The hardcore Russiagaters are never letting this go. Their belief in this despite a lack of evidence is akin to a fundamentalist religion.


LOL love how you keep ignoring all of Trump's ties to Russia. Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@CamillePunk ^^^ Like I said.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL love how you keep ignoring all of Trump's ties to Russia. Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.


> Probe goes on for a whole year and counting

> Butt-fuck-nothing has been found to even remotely support the claim

> Pin down Manafort as the biggest consolation prize they could offer to people suffering from TDS, as well as to save some sliver of face

> MFW you refuse to acknowledge that a disgusting amount of taxpayer dollars were completely wasted on the biggest wild goose chase since the Iraq WMDs










Honestly, you're better than this, BM. :armfold


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> @CamillePunk ^^^ Like I said.


Facts don't care about your ignorance and LOL at you tagging CP who is one of the biggest trolls on this forum to try and defend your ignorance. But you two are like two peas in a pod. So it does not surprise me.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> http://www.tmz.com/2018/10/20/senator-mitch-mcconnell-confronted-restaurant-protesters/
> 
> The mob strategy ain't gonna work, leftists. People like civility, peace, order. Not throwing tantrums and harassing people.


This isn't happening from just "the left". Do better. Your retarded President is causing this to happen from his people.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053332441757294592


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> This isn't happening from just "the left". Do better. Your retarded President is causing this to happen from his people.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053332441757294592


That was dumb of them. Let me know when Republican leaders commend and encourage the behavior like Democrat leaders have on numerous occasions.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> That was dumb of them. Let me know when Republican leaders commend and encourage the behavior like Democrat leaders have on numerous occasions.


So your President doesn't encourage this? Did you not listen to him where encouraged police to aggressively ruff up people at a police conference? Did you not listen to him discuss the congressmen that slammed a reporter and said that was his kind of guy? “Any guy who can do a body slam, he's my kinda guy."

Do you not pay attention to the things he says? Or you do ignore it and act like it didn't happen. It would only make sense at this point.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> That was dumb of them. Let me know when Republican leaders commend and encourage the behavior like Democrat leaders have on numerous occasions.


Yes Trump never would encourage violence.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> > Probe goes on for a whole year and counting
> 
> > Butt-fuck-nothing has been found to even remotely support the claim
> 
> ...


LOL I have posted the evidence over and over again something you guys love to ignore. FFS Trump admitted he colluded with Russia to get dirty on Hillary. Trump admitted himself yet you ignore his own tweets about it.

And there is the whole Trump sever pinging the Rusian bank you guys love to ignore and pretend it was debunked when it wasn't. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign

Not to mention all the other connections I have pointed out over and over again months ago. But sure keep ignoring all the evidence. Here are just some of them

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Yes Trump never would encourage violence.


and there is this gem


"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise," he said on Feb. 1, 2016.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> This isn't happening from just "the left". Do better. Your retarded President is causing this to happen from his people.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053332441757294592


The most retarded thing happening here is people calling Pelosi a communist. That's so far from the realm of reality that one cannot help but :lol.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I would love to punch Mitch McConnell in the face personally, but mainly for giving Turtle-Men a bad reputation. The non-political ones don't want to hurt anyone.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> The most retarded thing happening here is people calling Pelosi a communist. That's so far from the realm of reality that one cannot help but :lol.


Champagne Socialist maybe, but not a Communist. And I doubt she would even be that


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL I have posted the evidence over and over again something you guys love to ignore. FFS Trump admitted he colluded with Russia to get dirty on Hillary. Trump admitted himself yet you ignore his own tweets about it.
> 
> And there is the whole Trump sever pinging the Rusian bank you guys love to ignore and pretend it was debunked when it wasn't. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign
> 
> ...


And yet if any of this info was credible, Mueller would've called it a day months ago and be hailed a hero for restoring our election process' legitimacy.

But here we are, a whole year later (and counting), yet nothing has come about to stop a supposed Manchurian candidate. I can't imagine why that would be the case if all this accumulated info had even a shred of cred. :hmmm


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> And yet if any of this info was credible, Mueller would've called it a day months ago and be hailed a hero for restoring our election process' legitimacy.
> 
> But here we are, a whole year later (and counting), yet nothing has come about to stop a supposed Manchurian candidate. I can't imagine why that would be the case if all this accumulated info had even a shred of cred. :hmmm


So Trump admitting collusion with Russia on trying to get info on Hillary is not credible? He admitted it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So Trump admitting collusion with Russia on trying to get info on Hillary is not credible? He admitted it.


Evidently not to Mueller. :trump3


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










After its all said and done, I was on the right side of history.

*#JobsNotMobs*

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

People should go to jail over MUH RUSSIA

Most notably Glenn Simpson, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey

Note that the latter five should also be in jail for numerous crimes disconnected entirely from the 2016 election; they've all been violating serious federal laws with impunity for decades


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> After its all said and done, I was on the right side of history.
> 
> *#JobsNotMobs*
> 
> - Vic


Are you trolling or expecting us to take a back page regional newspaper cartoon seriously?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

yeahbaby! said:


> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> > After its all said and done, I was on the right side of history.
> ...


Are you seriously questioning whether Vic is a troll?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Evidently not to Mueller. :trump3


Even if there was evidence, does anyone truly give a shit?

At the end of the day what is the accusation here? That someone running for office went under the table and sought dirt on their political opponent?

THIS is why the opposition portion of dems are crying???


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Even if there was evidence, does anyone truly give a shit?
> 
> At the end of the day what is the accusation here? That someone running for office went under the table and sought dirt on their political opponent?
> 
> THIS is why the opposition portion of dems are crying???


And upset it happened to Hilary Clinton of all people.

Hilary f'n Clinton.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Evidently not to Mueller. :trump3


I am asking YOU.

Trump admitted he colluded with Russia to get dirty on Hillary. So tell me how Trump did not collude with Russia?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am asking YOU.
> 
> Trump admitted he colluded with Russia to get dirty on Hillary. So tell me how Trump did not collude with Russia?


Why do you care? So what if he did?

If there is legitimate dirt on someone, what does it matter where it came from? Why are you more focused on it's origin than it's content? 

If the dems were to obtain the last 20 years of Trump's tax returns from some russian business associate, you don't think they would be putting those into play? 

Be real. Why is this even an issue to you?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Why do you care? So what if he did?
> 
> I*f there is legitimate dirt on someone, what does it matter where it came from? Why are you more focused on it's origin than it's content? *
> 
> ...


Because its illegal, you do understand that right? It breaks US campaign rules. Also, Russians giving Trump info on Hillary to win the election would mean Trump owns them.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> *Because its illegal*, you do understand that right? It breaks US campaign rules. Also, Russians giving Trump info on Hillary to win the election would mean Trump owns them.


:lol

Okay I'm sure that's the reason this makes you mad.

There you go again complaining about something every single politician does.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> :lol
> 
> Okay I'm sure that's the reason this makes you mad.
> 
> There you go again complaining about something every single politician does.


Glad you are ok with Trump breaking the law


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Glad you are ok with Trump breaking the law


I don't condone it, I just don't care given the circumstances. People break and bend the law all the time. In comparison to other things going on in politics this would be jaywalking at best. 

But at least I acknowledge these things. Meanwhile you condemn republicans for doing things both sides clearly do all the time, yet willfully turn a blind eye when it's a democrat doing it. 

Just the other day you tried to insinuate that I was a bad person because I was 'okay' with voter suppression. But when I showed you that democrats do the same thing you were nowhere to be found.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I don't condone it, I just don't care given the circumstances. People break and bend the law all the time. In comparison to other things going on in politics this would be jaywalking at best.
> 
> But at least I acknowledge these things. Meanwhile you condemn republicans for doing things both sides clearly do all the time, yet willfully turn a blind eye when it's a democrat doing it.
> 
> Just the other day you tried to insinuate that I was a bad person because I was 'okay' with voter suppression. But when I showed you that democrats do the same thing you were nowhere to be found.


What voter suppression are Democrats doing exactly?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> What voter suppression are Democrats doing exactly?


I linked you to this during our last encounter.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony...ession-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html



> The biggest issue, and something the corporate media barely touches, is that Hillary’s two wins over the past month  —  New York and Arizona  —  came in the two state primaries that were most fraught with problems and that are now under legal investigation.
> 
> A similarity between the two states is disturbing. In both states, massive voter roll changes and purges took place in the days and weeks leading up to the primary, disqualifying thousands upon thousands of new Democratic voters.


Glad to know you're okay with voter suppression.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I linked you to this during our last encounter.
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony...ession-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html
> 
> ...


You are kidding, right? I was bashing the DNC for all the fuckery they did to Bernie during the primaries. You can't even be honest FFS.

If you are going to troll try harder.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are kidding, right? I was bashing the DNC for all the fuckery they did to Bernie during the primaries. You can't even be honest FFS.


So then if both sides are guilty, why do you take issue?

Why are you so upset with republicans?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> So then if both sides are guilty, why do you take issue?
> 
> Why are you so upset with republicans?


Because regardless of who does voter suppression it is wrong and unconstitutional, everyone should have a problem with it. 

Its just weird you seem to be ok with it.

Also what did the Democrats do to suppress the vote in your example? Point that out. Ill wait.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because regardless of who does voter suppression it is wrong and unconstitutional, everyone should have a problem with it.
> 
> Its just weird you seem to be ok with it.
> 
> Also what did the Democrats do to suppress the vote in your example? Point that out. Ill wait.



"Don't vote for your corrupt liars! Vote for democrats!"

"Pro-Trumpers don't care about laws! They should have voted the way I wanted them to! My party cares about laws!"

^That's how you sound.

I wasn't posting here during the time of the democratic primaries so I couldn't observe you. But since posting here again I've seen you lean left on the issue 100% of the time no matter the subject and no matter the debate. You also seem to take great pride in shaming republicans and insinuate that they're bad people.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > Because regardless of who does voter suppression it is wrong and unconstitutional, everyone should have a problem with it.
> ...


Welcome to the anything wrestling forum where only a handful of people are interested in discussion the rest just want to bash the other side. It's why my ignore list has grown recently, even Cam has become an incessant wind up merchant.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> "Don't vote for your corrupt liars! Vote for democrats!"
> 
> "Pro-Trumpers don't care about laws! They should have voted the way I wanted them to! My party cares about laws!"
> 
> ...


yeah, I lean let because I am a progressive lol that is how it works. As for Republicans being bad people, they are against the LGBT community, they want to cut social security and Medicare as well as ohter programs li that help the middle class and poor because they gave themselves huge tax cuts and need to pay for that. I'd say those things make you a bad person. 

As for your other strawman arguments, if you want to claim something quote me.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah, I lean let because I am a progressive lol that is how it works. *As for Republicans being bad people, they are against the LGBT community*, they want to cut social security and Medicare as well as ohter programs li that help the middle class and poor because they gave themselves huge tax cuts and need to pay for that. I'd say those things make you a bad person.
> 
> As for your other strawman arguments, if you want to claim something quote me.


This is what I'm talking about. What kind of ridiculous talking point is this. 

No doubt there is a portion of people who are not in favor of gay marriage, but that is not even close to being the entire party nor should it be used as an indictment on republican voters. 

If republicans are "against" the gay community then how do you explain the existence of gay republicans?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> This is what I'm talking about. What kind of ridiculous talking point is this.
> 
> No doubt there is a portion of people who are not in favor of gay marriage, but that is not even close to being the entire party nor should it be used as an indictment on republican voters.
> 
> If republicans are "against" the gay community then how do you explain the existence of gay republicans?


How is it a ridiculous talking point when its a fact?

And we are talking about the Republican party as a whole. That is their worldview. Don't even try to act like it's not. Of course, 100% of Republicans all don't have the same view of gay marriage or gays people but the majority of them do, as does their platform. 

Are you going to claim the Republican platform is not anti-gay marriage?

You are using the logic, oh someone isn't a racist because they say they have a black friend.

The fact is the republican party is anti-gay. It laughable to claim it's not.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fi...ine-point-advantage-midterm-elections-n922266

President Trump's approval rating hits a record high with the NBC/WSJ poll and is higher than Obama's at the same point in his presidency.  

My favorite take is from The Root though. :lol

https://www.theroot.com/undeniable-proof-america-is-still-racist-af-1829910576

America is just racist, you see. :lol Yes, more articles like this please. 2020 will be a landslide at this rate.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fi...ine-point-advantage-midterm-elections-n922266
> 
> President Trump's approval rating hits a record high with the NBC/WSJ poll and is higher than Obama's at the same point in his presidency.
> 
> ...


What?! You don't think Bernie, Fauxcahontas or Booker will take him down?!


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Bernie won't run, Elizabeth Warren got played by Trump into ruining herself, and Booker is aggressively inauthentic just like Hillary, but more prone to making a fool of himself. :lol

The biggest threats to Trump are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, but I don't see either beating him. Biden is a gaffe machine without the charisma to inspire loyalty that Trump has. He's also even older than Trump, who is already pretty old (yet incredibly energetic). Kamala I imagine we're going to learn a lot about over the next two years. Probably a serious contender in 2024.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I don't fear Creepy Uncle Joe. Kamala would be a serious problem if she wasn't such an idiot. 2024 prediction is probably correct.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> This is what I'm talking about. What kind of ridiculous talking point is this.
> 
> No doubt there is a portion of people who are not in favor of gay marriage, but that is not even close to being the entire party nor should it be used as an indictment on republican voters.
> 
> If republicans are "against" the gay community then how do you explain the existence of gay republicans?


My upstairs neighbor is a gay republican. While you're downplaying the anti-gay of Republicans in some areas of the country, namely the bible belt, it's true that most of the Republicans (what few that are here) in Hawai'i aren't quite as bigoted. I don't know that he'd still be a Republican had he ever lived in Alabama for an extended amount of time but that's a different story.

His reason for voting Republican is basically ignorance. I'm not saying that as an indictment of Republican voters. Both sides have people voting for them who don't understand policy at all. He has two main reasons. One, he thinks the government is going to take all his money when he dies because he is ignorant of how the estate tax works. He doesn't own 1/1000th of what it would take for the estate tax to affect him but he's not the only one who has been fooled by "death tax" propaganda. His other reason is because he's a real estate agent and he doesn't understand what causes housing market bubbles. He got burned by it the last time it happened but he is uninterested in knowing why it happened and what will cause it to happen again. He's only interested in the boom of a boom/bust cycle and either can't or refuses to understand why the bust happens.

His case is not an isolated one. Most American voters decide who they want to vote for based on political theater and outright bullshit a lot more than actual policy substance. People in general aren't really interested in learning how things work. They want someone else to do it for them. It's a large reason as to why the USA is so fucked right now. This country would look a lot different if we had a voting populace who was educated on the issues and was capable of critical thinking. There's a reason why they don't teach this stuff in schools.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Even if there was evidence, does anyone truly give a shit?
> 
> At the end of the day what is the accusation here? That someone running for office went under the table and sought dirt on their political opponent?
> 
> THIS is why the opposition portion of dems are crying???


I certainly don't, considering how our government agencies haven't had issues fucking with other countries' elections. :quite

And yes, that's 1 reason why they're crying. The other reasons could be:

- Knowing damn well that they have no viable alternatives to Trump

- Being so mentally immature that they allow people they don't even personally know to dominate their thought processes on a near-daily basis



birthday_massacre said:


> I am asking YOU.
> 
> Trump admitted he colluded with Russia to get dirty on Hillary. So tell me how Trump did not collude with Russia?


Because I'm well aware that he consistently says outlandish shit in order to get a rise out of people and play them for fools? :hmmm


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

In regards to Pelosi being harassed by Trump supporters: To be fair, when you have someone like Maxine Waters calling for Trump officials to be harassed and you have Democrat supporters heeding that word and actually doing it, there was always going to be a chance that Republican voters/Trump supporters would retaliate and do it to well known Democratic politicians. It's not right, I don't condone it for a single second but perhaps Maxine should think twice next time about calling for something like that because it's going to be used as an excuse for all sorts of nonsense against politicians. It's not good at all.

So Trump is about to undo a treaty that has been upheld for close to three decades since Reagan partly thanks to that utter cunt John Bolton, causing more unnecessary tension between the US and Russia and you're still going to have idiots claiming Trump is a Russian puppet :done.

There's no helping some people who are truly and utterly lost.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Because I'm well aware that he consistently says outlandish shit in order to get a rise out of people and play them for fools? :hmmm


The meeting happened lol Are you going to claim it didn't?




DOPA said:


> In regards to Pelosi being harassed by Trump supporters: To be fair, when you have someone like Maxine Waters calling for Trump officials to be harassed and you have Democrat supporters heeding that word and actually doing it, there was always going to be a chance that Republican voters/Trump supporters would retaliate and do it to well known Democratic politicians. It's not right, I don't condone it for a single second but perhaps Maxine should think twice next time about calling for something like that because it's going to be used as an excuse for all sorts of nonsense against politicians. It's not good at all.
> 
> So Trump is about to undo a treaty that has been upheld for close to three decades since Reagan partly thanks to that utter cunt John Bolton, causing more unnecessary tension between the US and Russia and you're still going to have idiots claiming Trump is a Russian puppet :done.
> 
> There's no helping some people who are truly and utterly lost.


The only people are lost are ones like you who deny the evidence.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only people are lost are ones like you who deny the evidence.


Can you please honestly explain to me how in the hell Trump pulling out of the nuclear weapons treaty when the last thing Putin would want is war with the US proves that he is a puppet of Russia? Seriously, take your partisan cap off for just a minute and think rationally. I know you can be capable so think it through.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The meeting happened lol Are you going to claim it didn't?


Whether it did or not is irrelevant, considering Mueller's *still* found nothing of significance to prove that Trump and Russia collaborated.

:trump3


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fi...ine-point-advantage-midterm-elections-n922266
> 
> President Trump's approval rating hits a record high with the NBC/WSJ poll and is higher than Obama's at the same point in his presidency.
> 
> ...


You know what I'm actually starting to appreciate Trump too. When you offer up no excuses, no apologies or lame excuses for anything and generally be obnoxious people like that in a weird sort of way. More often than not it can be a better way to 'get the sale'.

It's definitely entertaining the same way reality shows are. If nothing else he shows what a circus the whole government is.

Hopefully this signals the emergence of more celebs in office -


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> I don't fear Creepy Uncle Joe. Kamala would be a serious problem if she wasn't such an idiot. 2024 prediction is probably correct.


Really? 2024? I think she will easily be one of the favorites heading into 2020, especially since the democrats have planted their flag so firmly in the realm of identity politics. 

At this rate they HAVE to have a woman and/or a minority represented on the ticket. Kamala checks both boxes.

They won't be allowed to run two white men.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Can you please honestly explain to me how in the hell Trump pulling out of the nuclear weapons treaty when the last thing Putin would want is war with the US proves that he is a puppet of Russia? Seriously, take your partisan cap off for just a minute and think rationally. I know you can be capable so think it through.


The military forcing Trump to do things he does not want to do, doesn't take away from the fact Trump collision with Russia and all his ties to Russia. 

Its just funny how you will find one or two things Putin may not like but still ignore all the other things Trump does to suck his dick.

Are you really going to deny all the ties Trump has to Russia, that he colluded with them to try and get info on Hillary and a Russian bank was pinging his server and when it was discovered, the Russian banked stopped pinging that server and started to ping another Trump server?





Berzerker's Beard said:


> Really? 2024? I think she will easily be one of the favorites heading into 2020, especially since the democrats have planted their flag so firmly in the realm of identity politics.
> 
> At this rate they HAVE to have a woman and/or a minority represented on the ticket. Kamala checks both boxes.
> 
> They won't be allowed to run two white men.


If they are going with a woman Tulsi Gabbard is the best choice.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The military forcing Trump to do things he does not want to do


:heston

I don't think you understand the structure of the government in this country.


----------



## El Conquistador (Aug 16, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

TED IS NO LONGER LYING TED... HE IS BEAUTIFUL TED


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> So Trump is about to undo a treaty that has been upheld for close to three decades since Reagan partly thanks to that utter cunt John Bolton, causing more unnecessary tension between the US and Russia and you're still going to have idiots claiming Trump is a Russian puppet :done.
> 
> There's no helping some people who are truly and utterly lost.


This is the same Bolton who played a role in ending the ABM treaty in 2002.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054038614093443072
:HA @ anyone who still believes Trump is really in control of foreign policy.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fi...ine-point-advantage-midterm-elections-n922266
> 
> President Trump's approval rating hits a record high with the NBC/WSJ poll and is higher than Obama's at the same point in his presidency.
> 
> ...


The "Republicans are racist" argument is not very effective. I think going that route again would be one of the biggest mistakes that Democrats can make.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If they are going with a woman Tulsi Gabbard is the best choice.


Indeed. Which means she won't be picked despite being an indentitarian's dream: a female who is both a racial and religious minority (and as the cherry on top, an active member of the armed forces).

Why you ask? Because she happened to have a spine by crying foul at her own party's deliberate shafting of a candidate that could've very well been their party's nomination. We also can't forget that she further shat on partisanship by having a cordial meeting with Trump very early into his presidency regarding foreign policy. And as we all know, a good token tows the line instead of rocking the boat.

So yeah, Kamala Harris being the dems' anointed one to battle BAD ORANGE MAN should surprise no one. By that same notion, no one should be surprised that she's gonna get utterly curb stomped by Trump if she indeed clinches the nomination.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Indeed. Which means she won't be picked despite being an indentitarian's dream (a female who is both a racial and religious minority and has served in the armed forces).
> 
> Why you ask? Because she happened to have a spine by crying foul at her own party's deliberate shafting of a candidate that could've very well been their party's nomination. We also can't forget that she further shat on partisanship by having a cordial meeting with Trump very early into his presidency regarding foreign policy. And as we all know, a good token tows the line instead of rocking the boat.
> 
> So yeah, Kamala Harris being the dems' anointed one to battle BAD ORANGE MAN should surprise no one. By that same notion, no one should be surprised that she's gonna get utterly curb stomped by Trump if she indeed clinches the nomination.


Like I have said in the past, the corp. democrats would rather lose to a Republican than have a real progressive win.

Gabbard and Ellison would have been a great combo, but Ellison with that sexual assault over his head, totally ruins him as it should. Even though with Trump no one gives a shit. But progressives stick to their values.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Like I have said in the past, the corp. democrats would rather lose to a Republican than have a real progressive win.
> 
> Gabbard and Ellison would have been a great combo, but Ellison with that sexual assault over his head, totally ruins him as it should. Even though with Trump no one gives a shit. But progressives stick to their values.


But progressivism is cancer, fam. Egalitarianism is the most feasible way to go.

And Ellison was a non-credible fuckstick even before the domestic assault incident (*cough* Antifa support *cough*).


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Caitlyn Jenner tweeting Trump over the latest anti-trans BS is schadenfreude manifest. I wish it was her specifically being fucked over and not anybody else.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054556416155910144
Trump is tying his own noose by taking so much credit for the economy. When the collapse happens, the only thing tanking harder than the economy will be Trump's support amongst his base. We're watching a rerun of the Dubya years on steroids right now.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054556416155910144
> Trump is tying his own noose by taking so much credit for the economy. When the collapse happens, the only thing tanking harder than the economy will be Trump's support amongst his base. We're watching a rerun of the Dubya years on steroids right now.


Thank god Trump isn't in to x1000 OTT hyperbole.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is it a ridiculous talking point when its a fact?
> 
> And we are talking about the Republican party as a whole. That is their worldview. Don't even try to act like it's not. Of course, 100% of Republicans all don't have the same view of gay marriage or gays people but the majority of them do, as does their platform.
> 
> ...


Yet again you are projecting your own bias and attributing negative things only to republicans. You do realize that not even 10 years ago both Hillary and Obama, the two most prominent faces of the democratic party, were against gay marriage right? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

According to a several polls only 2 states contain populations where the majority opposes gay marriage. That still leaves more than 30 red states, including REALLY red states like Utah and Wyoming, where the majority are in favor of gay marriage. So you are flat out wrong when you insinuate the majority of republicans hold these beliefs.

There is no republican 'platform' that is anti-gay because sexual orientation is not even a talking point when it comes to republican politics. Not because they hate gays, it's because *nobody cares*. Meanwhile the democrats carry on like being gay (or black or whatever) is a virtue in and of itself.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Trump is tying his own noose by taking so much credit for the economy. When the collapse happens, the only thing tanking harder than the economy will be Trump's support amongst his base. We're watching a rerun of the Dubya years on steroids right now.


The economy is going to win him re-election. He has 2 more years to ride this wave of success.



> TED IS NO LONGER LYING TED... HE IS BEAUTIFUL TED


Politics make strange bedfellows. In this case, Ted had to come back to Trump's side otherwise he'd lose his race like other disloyal Republicans have.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> The hardcore Russiagaters are never letting this go. Their belief in this despite a lack of evidence is akin to a fundamentalist religion.


I am not sure if I qualify as a hardcore Russiagater, but I have been saying Russia helped Trump during the elections since 2016 before the election results. The main reason is to cool China's growing clout that started to invade into spaces they could previously exploit more easily in poorer countries for global influence. I.e the alternative to American/Western world view. 

I think Trump's actions since becoming President doesn't disprove it at all. It fits his behaviour in his history, he uses anyone to suit his purpose and discard them when he find someone else more useful to replace them.

*Have to ask Hilary haters in this thread, how does the threat of withdrawing from the missile treaty rank compared to declaring a no-fly zone in Syria in terms of starting World War 3?*


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Yet again you are projecting your own bias and attributing negative things only to republicans. You do realize that not even 10 years ago both Hillary and Obama, the two most prominent faces of the democratic party, were against gay marriage right?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
> 
> ...


Trump is the first pro-gay candidate to win the presidency (not change his mind after the fact like someone else) but his party is anti-gay? BM looking like an idiot per usual.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I still think that every single time a democrat or liberal dunks their head inside the russia conspiracy, they create more republican voters.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> > Yet again you are projecting your own bias and attributing negative things only to republicans. You do realize that not even 10 years ago both Hillary and Obama, the two most prominent faces of the democratic party, were against gay marriage right?
> ...


Are you seriously suggesting Obama wasn't a pro lgbt president???


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Obama was against gay marriage before he became President. There's a video on youtube where he says it. When he became President, he supported gay rights and did a lot for them.

You Trump dudes should really chill and wait until the midterm results. A lot of you might end up looking real bad in two weeks.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Obama was against gay marriage before he became President. There's a video on youtube where he says it. When he became President, he supported gay rights and did a lot for them.
> 
> You Trump dudes should really chill and wait until the midterm results. A lot of you might end up looking real bad in two weeks.


Most likely things are going to go their way the way it did in 2016 because pretty much at this point they are the only ones who go out and vote. It does not take much to motivate them plus some of them are willing have a lot of their entitlements taking away if it means the Democrats and liberals wake up every day with no hope. As fucking stupid as that sounds


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Headliner said:


> Obama was against gay marriage before he became President. There's a video on youtube where he says it. When he became President, he supported gay rights and did a lot for them.
> 
> You Trump dudes should really chill and wait until the midterm results. A lot of you might end up looking real bad in two weeks.


He was against gay marriage but was not against gay rights, the marriage debate always hinged on the religious aspects, Obama was always pro lgbt.

One of the first thing Trump did was remove transgender rights to work in the military.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Yet again you are projecting your own bias and attributing negative things only to republicans. You do realize that not even 10 years ago both Hillary and Obama, the two most prominent faces of the democratic party, were against gay marriage right?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
> 
> ...


LOL

The Republican party is all about saying marriage is between a man and a woman. And just look at how badly the republican part is treating the trans community right now. hell just over a stupid bathroom issue as an example. Are you seriously going to claim that is not true?






Undertaker23RKO said:


> Trump is the first pro-gay candidate to win the presidency (not change his mind after the fact like someone else) but his party is anti-gay? BM looking like an idiot per usual.


LOL at claiming Trump is the first pro-gay president. Obama was pro-LBGT. And Trump is anything but pro-LBGT.

You can't even be honest.




Draykorinee said:


> He was against gay marriage but was not against gay rights, the marriage debate always hinged on the religious aspects, Obama was always pro lgbt.
> 
> One of the first thing Trump did was remove transgender rights to work in the military.


And Trump as we speak is trying to remove more Trans rights.

Its laughable anyone would claim Trump is pro-LBGT.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Obama said "he wasn't for it" to get elected because he didn't want a distraction at the time stopping him getting to the white house. The audacity of being Black was enough. Was pretty clear his agenda was always going to be to support it. The idea that any republican president would have been for it between 2008-2016 is delusional. 

Regardless, Republicans are unforgivable for putting up with so many insane evangelical anti gay senators in the past. Just because it was trendy after 2010 to be okay with it doesn't make you part of any club. Some people have lived there lives never being homophobic. Band-wagoners with no integrity can fuck off. This attitude pisses me off in real life too.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Are you seriously suggesting Obama wasn't a pro lgbt president???


He did not run on a pro lgbt platform. Hence the () in my post. Although looking back I did misword it in the ().


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Obama was against gay marriage before he became President. There's a video on youtube where he says it. When he became President, he supported gay rights and did a lot for them.
> 
> You Trump dudes should really chill and wait until the midterm results. A lot of you might end up looking real bad in two weeks.


This was literally my point. I'm not bragging about anything. I was fact checking an idiot. How you interpreted anything else beyond that makes no sense to me.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054530163000705024
:heston


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Are you seriously suggesting Obama wasn't a pro lgbt president???
> ...


I'll give you that he didn't run on an LGBT platform. I think the LGBT community have every right to feel hoodwinked if Trump ran on a pro LGBT platform, because he's actually been the worst president for that group. It's just further proof that he talks populist but when in power he bows to the establishment Republicans.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054798872902422529
TDS is real. We need to find a cure.

Also how is life different for LGBT people than it was before Trump was president? I'm talking about tangible stuff not how they feel based on their perceptions.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Sandra Day O'Connor says she is in the very early stages of dementia/Alzheimer's

Next year and 2020 is going to be so much fun when the increased GOP Senate majority rams through another SC Justice or two. Or three. Breyer's 80 years old, after all

What a shame it would be if the only two anti-Constitution justices left were I won't recuse myself Kagan and Wise Latina Racist Misandrist Sotomayor


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Are you seriously suggesting Obama wasn't a pro lgbt president???


He didn't support gay marriage until re-election came up.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054788628348424192
I have a lot of empathy for TDS sufferers but I also love to laugh so I'm sharing this great tweet I saw today. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Fascismo!



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054788628348424192
> I have a lot of empathy for TDS sufferers but I also love to laugh so I'm sharing this great tweet I saw today. :lol


There's an even better one he retweeted an hour ago about how the US is already fascist and the fascism must be voted out!

Vote out fascism. 

I think maybe that word does not mean what they think it means.

*OLD AND BUSTED:* :trump IS HITLER!

*THE NEW HOTNESS:* HITLER WAS BETTER THAN :trump!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054788112193331200
:Trump

Folks...

They aren't sending their best.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> TDS is real. We need to find a cure.


I didn't think Democrats would now be praising Adolf Hitler on social media, but here we are.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> It's amazing how liberals praise and hate Hitler at the same time!
> 
> - Vic


And it's amazing how Conservatives praise freedom yet hate any rights for minorities at the same time! See how easy it easy to lump everyone in the same pile to make OTT statements?

-yeahbaby!


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> And it's amazing how Conservatives praise freedom yet hate any rights for minorities at the same time! See how easy it easy to lump everyone in the same pile to make OTT statements?
> 
> -yeahbaby!


There's supposed to be a space between the hyphen and the name

Like so

- deepelemblues 

:trump3


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Fascismo!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude how can you deny this totally factual tweet? Bruce has TRUTH all over this site in capital letters. That's good enough for me.

Trump should grow a little Hitler moustache just to piss people off.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> It's amazing how liberals praise and hate Hitler at the same time!
> 
> - Vic


That's hilarious since Neo Nazis love Trump.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Cory Booker has been accused of following a man into a bathroom and groping him. The man says he is a liberal homosexual and has hired a lawyer. He is currently publicly anonymous and has given few details but says he has told everything to this lawyer

Did I say Cory Booker I mean Spartacock

Meanwhile the ex-wife of Claire McCaskill's husband has accused him of striking her in the breast (she had breast cancer at the time), pushing her to the floor, and *peeing on her,* all the while proclaiming that he was going to take all her shit and leave her impoverished in their divorce

:trumpwoah

Everything is spinning out of control!


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> *The Republican party is all about saying marriage is between a man and a woman.* And just look at how badly the republican part is treating the trans community right now. hell just over a stupid bathroom issue as an example. Are you seriously going to claim that is not true?


"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

- Barack Obama, 2008

:lol


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The lesson is it is okay to lie to the public on an important issue so long as you "change your mind" later, and you "change your mind" to the Correct Opinion. Which is decided by mysterious forces and mysterious ways quite frankly


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Vic Capri said:


> > Are you seriously suggesting Obama wasn't a pro lgbt president???
> 
> 
> He didn't support gay marriage until re-election came up.
> ...


Already discussed, he was still absolutely pro LGBT a evidenced by his actual actions when in office. 
Are you going to ignore trumps lies when he ran a pro LGBT platform?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> The lesson is it is okay to lie to the public on an important issue so long as you "change your mind" later, and you "change your mind" to the Correct Opinion. Which is decided by mysterious forces and mysterious ways quite frankly


But it is okay to change your mind as a general rule right?

I mean Trump has changed his mind plenty of times, misspoken a fair few times, and I believe that was a-ok with you.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> But it is okay to change your mind as a general rule right?
> 
> I mean Trump has changed his mind plenty of times, misspoken a fair few times, and I believe that was a-ok with you.


He's changed his mind so many times it has broken some kind of quantum barrier of reality and produced remarkably consistent policy

Which most presidents produce regardless of how they get there

It's fuckin crazy man

Of course people can change their mind even if it's for purely or mostly self interested reasons

Which obama didn't do, there's no doubt he was for gay marriage all the time, he made a political calculation to lie about it. Frankly I wouldn't want a president incapable of making such a decision in pursuit of a grand prize. Doesn't mean I think that strictly speaking it is a good thing to do. But also the issue of gay marriage wasn't going to lay low the republic. Regardless of what pat roberts thinks. So obama making a political calculation to lie about it in 2008 is kind of whatever to me.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054798872902422529
> TDS is real. We need to find a cure.
> 
> Also how is life different for LGBT people than it was before Trump was president? I'm talking about tangible stuff not how they feel based on their perceptions.


Stop the planet, I want to get off.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


> Stop the planet, I want to get off.


Someone linked am an article to this.. I just had to laugh. The hysteria has reached insane levels. I wish people were this fanatical about jobs, education and overall life improvement for poor and struggling Americans.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I would imagine that that tweet was extreme satire. Namely POE.

Proof is in his own Twitter feed.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054891937998741504

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054822673153474561
Lol.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I would imagine that that tweet was extreme satire. Namely POE.
> 
> Proof is in his own Twitter feed.
> 
> ...


Sad when sarcasm actually sounds like the shit people say. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Sad when sarcasm actually sounds like the shit people say. :laugh:


The reality is that people simply want gotcha moments for their partisan politics and are willingly allowing themselves to be trolled so that they can go around thinking they've got some sort of damaging ammunition against their political opponents. 

It's shoddy politics and inferior thinking. Let's just call it what it is instead of acting like that since some people believe outrageous things, therefore it's ok to be fooled. 

If someone is this easily fooled by a simple and obvious troll and can't go back and contextualize the person's tweet with a gloss through his own twitter feed, then that someone deserves to be trolled.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> But it is okay to change your mind as a general rule right?
> 
> I mean Trump has changed his mind plenty of times, misspoken a fair few times, and I believe that was a-ok with you.


Politicians don't change their mind, they change their stance... and their stance just depends on whatever group they are trying to pander to at that moment. 

I find it hard to believe that Obama and Hillary, two grown adults in their 40's and 50's with a plethora of world experience, didn't already know how they felt about gay marriage. More likely they pivoted on that issue because it became politically favorable for them to do so.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Love how people keep trying to point out how Obama and Hillary changed their minds of gay marriage and support the LBGT to defend how the republican party is STILL AGAINST it and LGBT rights


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> The reality is that people simply want gotcha moments for their partisan politics and are willingly allowing themselves to be trolled so that they can go around thinking they've got some sort of damaging ammunition against their political opponents.
> 
> It's shoddy politics and inferior thinking. Let's just call it what it is instead of acting like that since some people believe outrageous things, therefore it's ok to be fooled.
> 
> If someone is this easily fooled by a simple and obvious troll and can't go back and contextualize the person's tweet with a gloss through his own twitter feed, then that someone deserves to be trolled.


Let's be honest, with how much idiocy gets posted to Social Media this tweet is far from the silliest we've seen. Sure it's goofy but there are people who actually think this stuff considering everyone and everything are Nazis or "literally Hitler". 4chan constantly trolls people and people fall for it. It's just a really silly time.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> *Let's be honest, with how much idiocy gets posted to Social Media this tweet is far from the silliest we've seen.* Sure it's goofy but there are people who actually think this stuff considering everyone and everything are Nazis or "literally Hitler". 4chan constantly trolls people and people fall for it. It's just a really silly time.


yeah just look at Trump's twitter on a daily basis.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Let's be honest, with how much idiocy gets posted to Social Media this tweet is far from the silliest we've seen. Sure it's goofy but there are people who actually think this stuff considering everyone and everything are Nazis or "literally Hitler". 4chan constantly trolls people and people fall for it. It's just a really silly time.


It's goofier when people get trolled on a daily basis by remaining firmly inside their twitter bubbles where if one right wing (or left wing) sheep gets trolled, then everyone else gets trolled as well because they're all part of the same thoughtless bubble of people who can't commit 2 minutes to investigate :mj


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> It's goofier when people get trolled on a daily basis by remaining firmly inside their twitter bubbles where if one right wing (or left wing) sheep gets trolled, then everyone else gets trolled as well because they're all part of the same thoughtless bubble of people who can't commit 2 minutes to investigate :mj


Come on Reap, we both know it's the Russians causing all this  It's Russian bots trolling other bots! :laugh:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Love how people keep trying to point out how Obama and Hillary changed their minds of gay marriage and support the LBGT to defend how the republican party is STILL AGAINST it and LGBT rights


NPC malfunctioning folks.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> NPC malfunctioning folks.


Love how you keep deflecting how the RNC are anti-LBGT. facts don't care about your ignorance


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Love how you keep deflecting how the RNC are anti-LBGT. facts don't care about your ignorance


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


>


LOL, that means nothing, Trump's actions do. 

Funny how you ignore the article that pic came from

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/1/22/16905658/trump-lgbtq-anniversary

Trump promised to be LGBTQ-friendly. His first year in office proved it was a giant con.
From Trump’s ban on transgender military service to his failure to acknowledge Pride Month, his administration now has a long anti-LGBTQ record.


President Donald Trump said he was a different kind of Republican. As someone from liberal New York, he signaled that he would be the person to finally move his political party on LGBTQ issues. He held up a Pride flag at a campaign event, and he said the key acronym (“L, G, B, T … Q”) at the 2016 Republican convention.

But Trump’s administration, based on its first year, has been anything but LGBTQ-friendly.

“He campaigned saying that he would be a good friend to LGBT people,” James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT and HIV Project, told me. “Actions speak far louder than words. And what he’s done has been a wreck.”

In its first year, the Trump administration has tried to reinstate a ban on transgender people in the military. It has nominated multiple people to the courts and elsewhere who have anti-LGBTQ records. It has directed its army of federal lawyers to take the anti-LGBTQ side in court cases. And it has done some extraordinarily petty things, like refusing to recognize Pride Month.

Together, it all marks a significant shift from President Barack Obama’s administration. In the runup to his 2012 reelection, Obama became the first sitting president to support same-sex marriage. His administration interpreted civil rights law to protect trans people where other existing laws failed to. It reversed “don’t ask, don’t tell” — which banned gay people from serving openly in the military — and began to reverse a similar ban on open trans service members. In court cases in which it chimed in, the Obama administration was a reliable ally of LGBTQ rights causes. And it took on smaller yet still symbolic causes, such as designating the Stonewall Inn as a national monument.

The Trump administration, based on a review of what it’s done so far, has essentially worked to undo all of this progress. It can’t undo all of it — same-sex marriage, for example, is the law of the land and looks to remain that way.


But the Trump administration is certainly trying. From Trump’s nominations for courts that will decide the expanse of LGBTQ rights across the country to his administration dictating who has basic civil right protections, it’s an agenda that could seriously harm LGBTQ people in the years and perhaps decades to come.

Trump’s anti-LGBTQ record
Many of the anti-LGBTQ actions the Trump administration took during its first year got very little attention in the mainstream press, typically receiving a couple of days of coverage at most. But as I reviewed the administration’s record, I was surprised by its breadth and scope. Altogether, it represents a distinctly anti-LGBTQ agenda.

Trump “doesn’t talk a lot about LGBTQ people,” Rebecca Isaacs, executive director of the LGBTQ rights group Equality Federation, told me. “But he’s done so many things that are as anti-LGBTQ as you could possibly be.” She added that they are things that might not seem “as clear as being anti–marriage equality,” but ultimately are anti-LGBTQ.

Here are some of the major anti-LGBTQ actions that Trump took during his first year in office:

He tried to reinstate a ban on trans people joining and openly serving in the military. The Obama administration in 2016 announced plans to reverse the ban in 2017. But Trump, in a series of tweets last July, announced he would bring it back, arguing that trans-related health care is expensive. (Research from the RAND Corporation indicates that it would make up “a 0.04- to 0.13-percent increase in active-component health care expenditures.”) So far, Trump’s ban has been stymied by the courts — and trans people are now allowed to openly enlist and serve.
Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court to replace the consistently anti-LGBTQ Antonin Scalia. Although Gorsuch had a vague record on LGBTQ rights when he was nominated, civil rights advocates argued that, based on some of his past writings on marriage equality and religious issues, he could be a big opponent for LGBTQ equality. In just a few months on the bench, Gorsuch has proven advocates right; for one, he dissented against a Supreme Court ruling that requires states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates.
Nearly one-third of Trump’s judicial nominees have anti-LGBTQ records, according to Lambda Legal. These nominees, if accepted by the Senate, may rule on major LGBTQ issues over the next few years, from anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ workers to trans access to bathrooms.
The Trump administration rescinded a nonbinding Obama-era guidance that told K-12 schools that receive federal funding that trans students are protected under federal civil rights law and, therefore, schools should respect trans students’ rights, including their right to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity. The Trump administration took back the guidance altogether, arguing trans students aren’t protected under federal civil rights law.
Trump’s Justice Department also rescinded another Obama-era memo that said trans workers are protected under civil rights law. This has enabled the federal government, including its army of attorneys, to now argue in court that anti-trans discrimination isn’t illegal under federal law. The courts are ultimately independent of the Trump administration, but the federal government can play a big role in legal arguments by throwing its people and resources behind a case.
In a major Supreme Court case, Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Trump administration argued in court in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery that’s claiming First Amendment rights to discriminate against same-sex couples. The case could have potentially enormous repercussions — opening a big loophole in anti-discrimination laws, particularly those that protect LGBTQ people, by letting business owners cite religious or moral justifications to discriminate.
Trump’s Justice Department argued that anti-gay discrimination is legal, filing a friend-of-the-court brief claiming that the federal Civil Rights Act doesn’t protect gay and bisexual workers. The lawsuit in this case was filed by Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor who says an employer, Altitude Express, fired him due to his sexual orientation. The Justice Department in effect argued that this was legal under federal law.
The Justice Department has similarly taken anti-LGBTQ steps in other cases across the country, including one about North Carolina’s anti-trans bathroom law and one about discrimination against trans people in health care. “We’ve gone from a position where LGBT people are protected to one where we’re not,” Esseks of the ACLU said.
The Trump administration sent out a “religious liberty” guidance to federal agencies, essentially asking them to respect “religious-liberty protections” in all of the federal government’s work. It’s unclear what kind of impact the guidance will have, but LGBTQ organizations worry that it will be used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people within the federal government and its work.
The Department of Health and Human Services enacted a new regulation and created an agency, the Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom, that will purportedly work to ensure health care providers’ religious liberties aren’t violated. LGBTQ groups argue this agency will effectively give doctors, nurses, and other medical staff cover to discriminate against LGBTQ people, because providers will now get protection from the federal government if they cite religious or moral objections to refuse service to LGBTQ patients.
Without explanation, Trump fired all the members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. “It’s outstanding,” Isaacs said. “HIV isn’t only in the LGBTQ community, but it largely is.”
Trump failed to recognize LGBTQ Pride Month



Trump did keep existing executive orders that prohibit the federal government and federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity. But otherwise, his first year in office was marked by anti-LGBTQ action after anti-LGBTQ action.


Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, was frank in her assessment of Trump’s anti-LGBTQ policies: “I don’t think Donald Trump likes us.” She argued that while the Trump administration has gone after LGBTQ people, it seems to have targeted trans people in particular — such as with the military ban.

But Keisling also took a broader view of Trump’s policies in general, adding, “The way he is undermining American institutions, he is a direct threat to trans people just because he is a direct threat to everyone. All the ways he’s bad for America, he’s also bad for trans people.” As an example, the undocumented immigrants who now face a greater threat of deportation under Trump include hundreds of thousands of LGBTQ people as well.

Trump has broken his promise to LGBTQ people
On the campaign trail, Trump said he would be different — the first Republican president to embrace LGBTQ people. He posed with the Pride flag and acknowledged “L, G, B, T … Q” people. He initially defended the right of Caitlyn Jenner, a transgender woman, to use the bathroom that aligns with her gender identity. He tweeted, in reference to a mass shooting at a gay club in Orlando, Florida, “Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.”

As president, Trump has acted more or less how you would expect a typical anti-LGBTQ Republican to act. Maybe that reflects his own opinions. Maybe it reflects the views of the people he’s surrounded himself with in his administration, including Vice President Mike Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, both of whom have very long histories of anti-LGBTQ causes.

Whatever the cause, the result is Trump’s presidency and administration have now adopted a broad anti-LGBTQ agenda — one that has gone after LGBTQ workers, troops, and even patients. And more than showing Trump’s dishonesty, this agenda potentially threatens the rights of millions of LGBTQ Americans.

“People debate, ‘Does he personally like or dislike LGBT people?’ That’s irrelevant,” Esseks argued. “He has put in place people who have firmly anti-LGBT agendas, and he’s not just enabled but endorsed those agendas himself. He’s been a train wreck for LGBT people nationwide.”


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

- NPC is confronted with facts

- NPC retreats and hides behind left leaning editorial

- NPC may or may not even realize editorial is bias, but such is his programming


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> - NPC is confronted with facts
> 
> - NPC retreats and hides behind left leaning editorial
> 
> - NPC may or may not even realize editorial is bias, but such is his programming


What facts did you show that Trump is pro-LBGT? A picture of a flag that is pro-Trump LOL

I showed you all the facts he isn't.

Show me things Trump has done to show he is for the LBGT, all his policies are anti-LGBT.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Declaring consistent definitions of gender for medical, statistical and public records is not discriminatory towards transgender people. Sex is biological, not how one feels. No one is infringing on their lifestyle.

You do not have to be a white republican to believe this. Plenty of left leaning people (of all colors) feel this way.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Declaring consistent definitions of gender for medical, statistical and public records is not discriminatory towards transgender people. Sex is biological, not how one feels. No one is infringing on their lifestyle.
> 
> You do not have to be a white republican to believe this. Plenty of left leaning people (of all colors) feel this way.


LOL

that I what i thought, you have zero evidence of Trump being pro-LBGT.

taking away rights (or trying to) of the LBGT community is infringing on their lifestyle.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > Love how you keep deflecting how the RNC are anti-LBGT. facts don't care about your ignorance


Poor trolling attempt. 1/10 at best.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I see Bruce Bartlett is well-versed in the "I said something really stupid and I'll try to cover my ass by saying I was just trolling, haha got you!" lame ass ploy

Just like the guy defending him here is

Shows how insecure they really are that they have to resort to option "wrangle" in the win-tie-wrangle system, in such an obvious and craven manner :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Maybe Bruce Bartlett is just mirroring a complete idiot so he can understand their perspective.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> I see Bruce Bartlett is well-versed in the "I said something really stupid and I'll try to cover my ass by saying I was just trolling, haha got you!" lame ass ploy
> 
> Just like the guy defending him here is
> 
> Shows how insecure they really are that they have to resort to option "wrangle" in the win-tie-wrangle system, in such an obvious and craven manner :draper2





CamillePunk said:


> Maybe Bruce Bartlett is just mirroring a complete idiot so he can understand their perspective.


You both trolled yourselves on this one :mj4

Don't be so easy.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



>


- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Does Reap's lack of support for having To Kill a Mockingbird in the general high school curriculum mean that he has returned to white nationalism? :hmm: Has he flopped his flip or flipped his flop?

Suspicious that he would dismiss one of the more prominent anti-racist texts in popular culture :cudi


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Does Reap's lack of support for having To Kill a Mockingbird in the general high school curriculum mean that he has returned to white nationalism? :hmm: Has he flopped his flip or flipped his flop?
> 
> Suspicious that he would dismiss one of the more prominent anti-racist texts in popular culture :cudi


I know getting trolled like that is a bitter pill to swallow. Hopefully in time you'll get over it. 

#prayingfordeep


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

As of today, I will admit this and it is the perfect time for me to come out of the closet. I am a fan of Trump now. He has done a decent job at being President and has been getting some shit taken care of. Now, I know you are going to say, it's kissing Trump's ass. I don't care honestly. I can admit when someone has done some good. He handled today's event with the upmost of the best of his abilities.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Glad you to have you on board! 










- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BTheVampireSlayer said:


> As of today, I will admit this and it is the perfect time for me to come out of the closet. I am a fan of Trump now. He has done a decent job at being President and has been getting some shit taken care of. Now, I know you are going to say, it's kissing Trump's ass. I don't care honestly. I can admit when someone has done some good. He handled today's event with the upmost of the best of his abilities.


What good has Trump done? what has he taken care of?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> BTheVampireSlayer said:
> 
> 
> > As of today, I will admit this and it is the perfect time for me to come out of the closet. I am a fan of Trump now. He has done a decent job at being President and has been getting some shit taken care of. Now, I know you are going to say, it's kissing Trump's ass. I don't care honestly. I can admit when someone has done some good. He handled today's event with the upmost of the best of his abilities.
> ...


I'd also like to know.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Looks like the stock market got tired of so much winning. All gains made for the year (and since Trump's tax cut) have been wiped out. This is what happens when the economy is built on fake growth instead of sound investment. The deficit has been blown up. Government borrowing is on the rise. The Fed is raising interest rates. Military spending has expanded. The tariffs are hurting way more than they're helping and have started a global trade war. Big banks are teetering on the edge. Wages are down relative to the cost of living. A majority of the country is living paycheck to paycheck and that percentage is still going up. Jobs are being sent overseas at a higher pace under Trump than Obama.

Meanwhile, Trump is out there bragging about all the prosperity that he has brought to the USA. :lol

Gonna be a lot of finger pointing when the chickens come home to roost.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Looks like the stock market got tired of so much winning. All gains made for the year (and since Trump's tax cut) have been wiped out. This is what happens when the economy is built on fake growth instead of sound investment. The deficit has been blown up. Government borrowing is on the rise. The Fed is raising interest rates. Military spending has expanded. The tariffs are hurting way more than they're helping and have started a global trade war. Big banks are teetering on the edge. Wages are down relative to the cost of living. A majority of the country is living paycheck to paycheck and that percentage is still going up. Jobs are being sent overseas at a higher pace under Trump than Obama.
> 
> Meanwhile, Trump is out there bragging about all the prosperity that he has brought to the USA. :lol
> 
> Gonna be a lot of finger pointing when the chickens come home to roost.


Source for these TRUMP-RAGEOUS claims? Sounds like fake news to me.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Source for these TRUMP-RAGEOUS claims? Sounds like fake news to me.


https://abcnews.go.com/Business/stock-market-plunges-dow-sp-now-negative-year/story?id=58687003



> "Stocks have surrendered all of their hard won 2018 gains as rising interest rates, slowing Chinese growth, simmering trade tensions, and midterm election jitters have combined to cloud the economic and profit outlook"


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump fucked himself by claiming the soaring stock market was his doing. If he takes credit for the rise, he has to take credit for the fall.

But that goes the same for the anti-Trumpers. They can't all of a sudden start celebrating and claiming that Trump is destroying the stock market when they spent all of the last two years saying that he had no hand in it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Trump fucked himself by claiming the soaring stock market was his doing. If he takes credit for the rise, he has to take credit for the fall.
> 
> But that goes the same for the anti-Trumpers. They can't all of a sudden start celebrating and claiming that Trump is destroying the stock market when they spent all of the last two years saying that he had no hand in it.


You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

who said Trump didn't get credit for the stock rising? NO ONE, everyone said it was because of his tax cuts and we also said the stock market was going to crash because it was artificially inflated by all the stock buybacks and now its crashing just like we said it would.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Trump fucked himself by claiming the soaring stock market was his doing. If he takes credit for the rise, he has to take credit for the fall.
> 
> But that goes the same for the anti-Trumpers. They can't all of a sudden start celebrating and claiming that Trump is destroying the stock market when they spent all of the last two years saying that he had no hand in it.


The economic trajectory we were on did not change from Obama to Trump. The bubbles were already being inflated. The only thing Trump's administration has really done is put their feet on the accelerator so the crash will be even more devastating when it happens.

Like you said, where Trump really fucked himself was by claiming so much credit for it. He got played like the fucking moron he is by the bankers he put in his administration. They're running out the back door with all the money while he will be left holding the bag.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Not at all surprised that almost all of my predictions about Trump's economy have come true. 

Kinda makes me sad really. Deep down I was hoping to be wrong - but the mechanics were in place and math is rarely wrong. It was objectively fairly easy to make accurate predictions of the outcome of his bullshit fiscal policies.

Still don't see as much of a doom and gloom scenario as @Tater is seeing, but it is getting closer and closer.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Not at all surprised that almost all of my predictions about Trump's economy have come true.
> 
> Kinda makes me sad really. Deep down I was hoping to be wrong.


The predictions were easy since they were based on history when Republicans did the same thins Trump is doing in the past and it crashed the economy and stock market.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Not at all surprised that almost all of my predictions about Trump's economy have come true.
> 
> Kinda makes me sad really. Deep down I was hoping to be wrong - but the mechanics were in place and math is rarely wrong. It was objectively fairly easy to make accurate predictions of the outcome of his bullshit fiscal policies.
> 
> Still don't see as much of a doom and gloom scenario as @Tater is seeing, but it is getting closer and closer.


I don't believe this next crash will bring about the end of capitalism, mainly because people are so resistant to change, but it will bring us one step closer to the inevitable. We're quickly approaching the point where consumer's ability to purchase won't be able to keep up with capitalism's ability to produce. Roughly 2/3rd to 3/4th of the country living paycheck to paycheck should be a major warning sign, not to mention personal debt continuing to skyrocket. The only people who have really recovered from the last crash are those at the very top. Most people are still struggling to make ends meet. Wall Street and the banks learned last time that not only will they not be criminally charged for their fraudulent behavior, they'll be given trillions in free bailout money. Eventually, enough people to do something about it will figure out the scam that is being perpetuated against them by capitalists and their puppet government.

You might not see what I see, yet, but like you said, math is rarely wrong.


----------



## Hi-Liter (Apr 2, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?
> 
> who said Trump didn't get credit for the stock rising? NO ONE, everyone said it was because of his tax cuts and we also said the stock market was going to crash because it was artificially inflated by all the stock buybacks and now its crashing just like we said it would.


Stocks rose because of the deregulation policies implemented under this administration.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Interesting interview between Dave Rubin and Tucker Carlson. He's much more candid than he is on his own show.

Opps, meant to put this in the Politics thread. Oh well.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Happy to give Trump credit for the CONTINUING rises in the stock markets of course, but when they rose because of deregulation and massive tax cuts for the rich I was never congratulating him for those rises because it was always a short term gain based on terrible policy ideas.
It's a shame to see this volatility because bottom line is its not good for anyone, but this is Trumps stock market now so he can take all the credit either way.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Trump fucked himself by claiming the soaring stock market was his doing. If he takes credit for the rise, he has to take credit for the fall.
> 
> But that goes the same for the anti-Trumpers. They can't all of a sudden start celebrating and claiming that Trump is destroying the stock market when they spent all of the last two years saying that he had no hand in it.


The best part was Obama saying Trump would need a magic wand to bring jobs back a few years ago then recently tried to take credit for what Trump did. :lol

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Honestly, the steep sell-off, while dramatic, was also something of a medicinal matter for Wall Street. Interest rates are presently on the rise in a significant manner for fundamentally the first time since the late 1990s. For approximately ten years the rates have been kept low in order to spur economic growth and following the past nearly two years of expansive growth, perhaps culminating in the second quarter in terms of sheer growth at 4.2 percent, which was easily the fastest rate since early 2014, and unemployment is down--do not even disagree that a lot of the jobs taken are of dubious long-term merit but for as long as this market observer has surveyed the terrain the U.S. has probably neared full employment to as great extent as at any point since the end of the 1960s--so the costs of borrowing are naturally going to not remain depressed like a dormant halibut at the bottom of the sea. 

The housing market is the first considerable area that takes a beating from the rising interest rates and simultaneously naturally auto sales have slowed dramatically since summertime. The tech market was drilled primarily because higher rates tend to also sting growth sectors fairly significantly. Investors had itchy trigger fingers with the higher-earning stocks so that they secure the coveted profit of the sell-off. Throw in the craziness of the mailed-in suspicious packages in a number of places, this rockiness on Wall Street was something like a perfect storm and it was all fairly foreseeable outside of the final factor.

It should also be remembered that while the ramifications throughout Wall Street are probably going to remain intriguing to watch unfold over the next week or two, especially with the midterm elections so close now, many of the financial press headlines are misleading. If one, for instance, takes a few minutes to look at the data of the SPY which tracks the S&P 500, which you can use every day in order to follow events. Glancing at only the last month, which has proven to be tumultuous, it is remarkably revealing. The day's low was 264.7. The high on the SPY was not even one full month ago on September 28 and it was 293.94. 293.94 is the all-time high. Ever. Genuinely unprecedented for the entirety of the existence of the markets.

So yes, this week has been a little bit of a jab to the nose but it has to be given necessary perspective. The low of May 2018, only five short months ago, at which time the U.S. economy was about as hot as it has been since perhaps the second Clinton administration in terms of actual overall growth for a quarter or two consecutive quarters, was 259.05. In other words the low of the almost universally hailed second quarter of 2018 was lower than the low of October 24, 2018. Five short months ago.

This is why Wall Street, while bracing for uncertainty and a restricted consumers' market in a number of different markets chiefly due to the waxing of interest rates, is hardly apoplectic about the turn of the events over the past month or so. If anything it is surprising it took this long for some "blowback" to hit, and honestly though it inexorably wiped trillions out of the market and predictably forced a domino effect in Asian markets, it is probably a healthy and to a major extent necessary development. Something had to give. When something does not give massive bubbles are created and then something gives, all at once. Word on the "street" from New York to San Francisco is the U.S. is set for some voracious gains following this. Which is why, from a purely observational standpoint, the crocodile tears being shed by a few Wall Street celebrities rang so hollow for the majority of investors who are a little too shrewd for that game. Even there, most Wall Street talking heads are keeping their concerns spoken in fairly conservative tones. 

Trump's greatest economic failing is that he wants to have his cake and his candy and place them on golden plates and admire them and eat them, too. The Federal Reserve is, as institutions go, enormously dubious in a host of ways and it is not a lie that their manipulation of interest rates diminishes the salutary effect of interest rates in the first place. Be that as it may, with the economy picking up with the speed at which it was picking up over the past year in particular, the interest rates were going to have to rise or Trump's strengthened dollar, something he prizes for the luring of foreign interests to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, would be undermined. This present absurdity over Russia has led to the Russians selling off their U.S. debt and Vladimir Putin talking about a new arms race, both of which harm obvious U.S. interests. Trump deserves some credit for recognizing this _realpolitik_ situation; if only he could sometimes keep his mouth shut with regard to U.S. interest rates. (Having said that, an understandable political benefit to bemoaning the Federal Reserve's interest rate-hiking is that it further ingratiates Trump with one of the wings of his base, the corporatist side of the GOP field and interlocking interests. So, 4D chess, perhaps?)

In any event, where the market goes from here remains in question but the sell-off itself was probably for the best. Whether Trump or anyone else will be saying that much publicly, ha, is an open and slightly funny question.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> The best part was Obama saying Trump would need a magic wand to bring jobs back a few years ago then recently tried to take credit for what Trump did. :lol
> 
> - Vic


What exactly did Trump do to bring jobs back?

Unemployment was already on a downward trajectory under Obama.

In fact job growth has slowed under Trump and wages are down under Trump when you factor in inflation.

I love how Trump supports act like unemployment was super high under Obama and now super low under Trump


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

As much as I hate Trump, the blame for the stock markets goes to China more than him. Now one could argue Trump's policies accelerated China's stock decline for the year (bearish more than 20% down since Jan) but another could also argue China's growth was artificially inflated and unsustainable in the long run and it is better for it to crash now than later.

The effects of Trump's administration's policies won't be felt til next year or even later. Clinton's policies that allowed for the crash didn't happen til a decade later. Worry more for the great crash in 2026 when the deregulations create unintended consequences.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> As much as I hate Trump, the blame for the stock markets goes to China more than him. Now one could argue Trump's policies accelerated China's stock decline for the year (bearish more than 20% down since Jan) but another could also argue China's growth was artificially inflated and unsustainable in the long run and it is better for it to crash now than later.
> 
> The effects of Trump's administration's policies won't be felt til next year or even later. Clinton's policies that allowed for the crash didn't happen til a decade later. Worry more for the great crash in 2026 when the deregulations create unintended consequences.


How is it China's fault? Trump put the tariffs on China. 

The crash is coming and it will be huge and its all because of Trump. And Clinton is the one who got the US economy back on track, The crash 10 years later was Bush's fault, ii's a joke you try to blame Clinton for that.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is it China's fault? Trump put the tariffs on China.
> 
> The crash is coming and it will be huge and its all because of Trump. And Clinton is the one who got the US economy back on track, The crash 10 years later was Bush's fault, ii's a joke you try to blame Clinton for that.


Because China was already in a bubble before Trump's election. They were overproducing everything leading to surplus in supply. Look up China's ghost cities for example.

I am saying the policies Clinton passed that allowed for shit to happen later. I am not blaming Clinton directly, but saying if his administration (with a GOP house or Senate, can't remember) passed the policies that allow for banks to get bigger. Bush's tax cuts and push for home ownership created a situation for these too big to fail banks to bet recklessly with everybody's money.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Because China was already in a bubble before Trump's election. They were overproducing everything leading to surplus in supply. Look up China's ghost cities for example.
> 
> I am saying the policies Clinton passed that allowed for shit to happen later. I am not blaming Clinton directly, but saying if his administration (with a GOP house or Senate, can't remember) passed the policies that allow for banks to get bigger. Bush's tax cuts and push for home ownership created a situation for these too big to fail banks to bet recklessly with everybody's money.


Clinton had both a GOP senate and house at the end that is when he got rid of glass stegal. I do blame him for the banking stuff if I am being fair So if you are referring to that, then yes I would agree with that.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Clinton had both a GOP senate and house at the end that is when he got rid of glass stegal. I do blame him for the banking stuff if I am being fair So if you are referring to that, then yes I would agree with that.


Please read what others are posting before you jump on stupid anti-Trump bashing in the future just because I defended Trump in one isolated case. You are alienating everyone with this BS. Even someone like me that is anti-Trump around here.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It is true: China has been building quite the monumental economic house of cards for itself for a long time now. As woeful as the Americans are, the Chinese have lately been making Uncle Sam look like the paragon of frugality and prudence.

The yuan devaluation messily and irresponsibly inflated China's already-troubled liquidity bubble. 

The tariffs imposed by Trump have partially exposed China's weakened stature due to the precipitous decline of the renminbi, which slumped en route to its 6.3 percent fall from mid-June, 10.5 percent fall since April and truly something of the beginning of the major decline since January. The Chinese were hastily seeking to pass along the costs of a highly expensive trade war with the U.S. on to their own housing market and the consequential rippling effect on their household sector has already been rather deep at this juncture. The purchasing power of Chinese households has taken a significant hit in 2018 due the monetary policies China employed mainly in order to combat the U.S.'s new trade policies under the Trump administration. 

The Chinese would be better off for themselves if they utilized some genuine economic reforms that have been a long time coming, primarily cut taxes at least considerably for its increasingly squeezed middle class. 

For sixteen years the boosting of liquidity has been the Chinese course to thwart economic sicknesses, as it were. Usually they prevail each time in the short-term but the multitude of distortions in the Chinese economy for the past three, four years now has become something of an increasingly unavoidable matter. Most of these policies are leading to mass de-capitalization throughout much of the world while also artificially suppressing the return on capital for others. It's not a good long-term strategy as the Chinese are responsible for inflating their housing stock about six or seven times GDP value, and as of mid-2018 Chinese household debt was pushing closer and closer to 120 percent of household disposable income. It is on pace to reach 200 percent by 2025.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Please read what others are posting before you jump on stupid anti-Trump bashing in the future just because I defended Trump in one isolated case. You are alienating everyone with this BS. Even someone like me that is anti-Trump around here.


You were wrong about China, sorry if you didn't like the truth. Trump is 100% to blame for the market crashing not China. I will call you out when you are wrong


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is 100% to blame for the market crashing not Trump.


:garrett


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Wasn't the DOW up 1.6% today, 400 points?

Oh yes, it was.

It's hilarious how people fall all over themselves to make silly pronouncements because they just can't stop themselves. 

The economy is on no more solid footing today for the DOW being up 1.6% than it is on less solid footing because the DOW is roughly at the same place it was at the end of last year.

":trump crash" and the other silliness put on display yesterday and today in this thread :bryanlol


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You were wrong about China, sorry if you didn't like the truth. Trump is 100% to blame for the market crashing not China. I will call you out when you are wrong


How am I wrong about China? I provided my opinion on why China is to blame. Please state what you think Trump did that caused the over correction of the markets this month.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Wasn't the DOW up 1.6% today, 400 points?
> 
> Oh yes, it was.
> 
> ...


Pretty sure this is like the 10th time we've had it dip, people rush in to use it to criticize Trump, only for it to pick back up and be met with silence. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Wasn't the DOW up 1.6% today, 400 points?
> 
> Oh yes, it was.
> 
> ...


The market is on track for its worst Oct. since 2008 and the market lost. how many points has the market lost this month?

Do you want to claim that was not a crash? Also the dow was down 600 points just yesterday lol




FriedTofu said:


> How am I wrong about China? I provided my opinion on why China is to blame. Please state what you think Trump did that caused the over correction of the markets this month.


Trump's tariffs s caused China to retaliate, thus why its Trumps fault.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump's tariffs s caused China to retaliate, thus why its Trumps fault.


Are you saying China's tariffs is what causes the stock crash?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Are you saying China's tariffs is what causes the stock crash?


Trumps tax cuts are what caused the crash like I said it would and I was right

It going to crash even harder in the coming months. You were the one who brought China into this.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trumps tax cuts are what caused the crash like I said it would and I was right
> 
> It going to crash even harder in the coming months. You were the one who brought China into this.


The current dip is because the markets is starting to take seriously the fragile state of China's economy. Like I said, you *can* blame it on Trump for pulling the wool over our eyes by accelerating the timing of the potential crash with his tariffs. On the other hand, it could mean a softer landing than in 2008 when everyone was still under the illusion of a never ending bull market.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> The current dip is because the markets is starting to take seriously the fragile state of China's economy. Like I said, y*ou *can* blame it on Trump for pulling the wool over our eyes by accelerating the timing of the potential crash with his tariffs*. On the other hand, it could mean a softer landing than in 2008 when everyone was still under the illusion of a never ending bull market.


So you agree its Trumps fault then, good.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Pretty sure this is like the 10th time we've had it dip, people rush in to use it to criticize Trump, only for it to pick back up and be met with silence. :lol


Credit has been cheap as fuck for almost 20 years, now it is getting a little less cheap. :trump is against this which I think is the wrong position. 

I suppose we can give Obama credit for his weakest economic recovery ever, if he had executed policies that weren't anti-business claptrap the growth during his terms would have been stronger and the correction that is due would be harsher. The economy is a bit overheated in general and a bit bubbley in certain areas - nothing like China's - but things like consumer and business sentiment, the savings rate, and federal economic policy that is friendly to more than California tech companies and New York financial companies are not to be sneezed at or handwaved away. :trump is the first president in 20 years to build more than paper economic strength. 

The debt bomb will kill us all anyway eventually that is true. That's still quite a ways off though. Probably decades.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There is a reason why "TDS" sounds like "tedious."


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> There is a reason why "TDS" sounds like "tedious."


Aren't you glad :trump did away with the Pun Tax :trump3


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Credit has been cheap as fuck for almost 20 years, now it is getting a little less cheap. :trump is against this which I think is the wrong position.
> 
> I suppose we can give Obama credit for his weakest economic recovery ever, if he had executed policies that weren't anti-business claptrap the growth during his terms would have been stronger and the correction that is due would be harsher. The economy is a bit overheated in general and a bit bubbley in certain areas - nothing like China's - but things like consumer and business sentiment, the savings rate, and federal economic policy that is friendly to more than California tech companies and New York financial companies are not to be sneezed at or handwaved away. :trump is the first president in 20 years to build more than paper economic strength.
> 
> The debt bomb will kill us all anyway eventually that is true. That's still quite a ways off though. Probably decades.


Under Obama debt bomb = OMG OMG
Under Trump = Still quite a ways off anyway.

Feels weird to see how someone look at the same thing under different presidents (but the same congress!!)


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Under Obama debt bomb = OMG OMG
> Under Trump = Still quite a ways off anyway.
> 
> Feels weird to see how someone look at the same thing under different presidents (but the same congress!!)


The debt bomb was also decades away in 2009-2017 and I never said otherwise. Increasing the federal public debt almost 100% from 2009-2017 certainly will not make the blast smaller though. Just as if :trump raises it another 50% in 8 years as he is on pace to do it will not make the blast smaller.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> The debt bomb was also decades away in 2009-2017 and I never said otherwise. Increasing the federal public debt almost 100% from 2009-2017 certainly will not make the blast smaller though. Just as if :trump raises it another 50% in 8 years as he is on pace to do it will not make the blast smaller.


You said more about the bomb louder and more often during those years than the last 2 years though.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I was careful not to go too hard on the drop yesterday knowing how volatile the market was and the predictions it would rise (it's going to drop again today).

We're still on course for a proper crash imo and I'll certainly be crediting Trump not China.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

And its back down again. It's going to be like this for a while, up then down, personally I see it crashing eventually but I'm a pessimist.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> You said more about the bomb louder and more often during those years than the last 2 years though.


And? 

Now for something completely different.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054503815548936192
:heston


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The least racist president in our history addresses the Young Black Leaders Summit in D.C.  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055893947531382784
The left wing media is of course trying to distort and downplay his speech because they are committed to pushing the factually bankrupt narrative of a racially divided country where white supremacists are in power, but what can you expect from such desperate, sad and vile people?  #MAGA


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The least racist president in our history addresses the Young Black Leaders Summit in D.C.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055893947531382784
> The left wing media is of course trying to distort and downplay his speech because they are committed to pushing the factually bankrupt narrative of a racially divided country where white supremacists are in power, but what can you expect from such desperate, sad and vile people?  #MAGA


He also told them that he wants to see a "black, Republican" president within his lifetime 

How ray-cissssss


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Wasn't the DOW up 1.6% today, 400 points?
> 
> Oh yes, it was.
> 
> ...


Using the Dow Jones Index to explain overall macroeconomic policy and not looking at a few large corporations.
:rodgers3



CamillePunk said:


> Pretty sure this is like the 10th time we've had it dip, people rush in to use it to criticize Trump, only for it to pick back up and be met with silence. :lol


I'm pretty sure this is only the 10th time we've had small earthquakes before "the big one." Not sure why people rush to analyze the data and proclaim that, however.



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> It is true: China has been building quite the monumental economic house of cards for itself for a long time now. As woeful as the Americans are, the Chinese have lately been making Uncle Sam look like the paragon of frugality and prudence.
> 
> The yuan devaluation messily and irresponsibly inflated China's already-troubled liquidity bubble.
> 
> ...


A bit of a perfect storm is brewing, no doubt. That being said, you can't put all the blame on the Chinese. I work for an auto supplier and we import a lot of tooling/injection molding from China. Putting a 25% tariff on Chinese imports hurts a lot more than Americans want to admit. Think there won't be a ripple effect in the American economy? Think again.

Next time you get into your car, look at all the plastic parts in the car and ask yourself: where were all those injection molds made? Then look at all the metal parts in the car (and consider the ones you can't see) and ask yourself: where were all the stamping tools and dies made? 

I then want you to scale that up to all of the cars you see on the road.



FriedTofu said:


> Under Obama debt bomb = OMG OMG
> Under Trump = Still quite a ways off anyway.
> 
> Feels weird to see how someone look at the same thing under different presidents (but the same congress!!)


Yeah, Keynesian economics doesn't work when a black man is doing it. Didn't you read that in your textbook? Never mind that Obama prevented capitalism from ending back in 2009, he was a Kenyan Muslim socialist who was bent on destroying American values!


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



dele said:


> A bit of a perfect storm is brewing, no doubt. That being said, you can't put all the blame on the Chinese. I work for an auto supplier and we import a lot of tooling/injection molding from China. Putting a 25% tariff on Chinese imports hurts a lot more than Americans want to admit. Think there won't be a ripple effect in the American economy? Think again.
> 
> Next time you get into your car, look at all the plastic parts in the car and ask yourself: where were all those injection molds made? Then look at all the metal parts in the car (and consider the ones you can't see) and ask yourself: where were all the stamping tools and dies made?
> 
> I then want you to scale that up to all of the cars you see on the road.


The Chinese are certainly not solely to blame by any particular measure. Though these subjects are somewhat both apart from and connected to one another, monetary policy and trade policy. The Chinese trade policies have been efficiently ruthless for many, many years now and have largely been highly successful at leveraging other markets. China ranks high today in aftermarket car parts primarily due to the incredibly dramatic level of production they boast. Earlier in the 2010s they were averaging about 16-17 million vehicles per year, second only to the U.S., about, a little more than twice Japan's vehicle production. 

While the U.S. importing on average $65-70 billion worth in auto parts per year over the past several years, representing approximately 16 percent of the world's importing of auto parts, the exchange between the U.S. and China today is fairly reciprocal since China's share of the auto parts exported into the U.S. is not especially altogether outstanding unto itself. Japanese and German auto manufacturers ship the most cars by major margins in sales value. Volkswagen shares took several hits this past spring and summer because of concerns over these possibilities related to their exports. 

This is not to dismiss the myriad side effects and oft-chaotic ramifications of the tariffs on China because they undoubtedly exist. Back in mid-September I sat outside in the California redwoods and tried to run the numbers on what the American tariffs imposed on China would result in for the median U.S. household and I came with it costing that household approximately $115 per year, mainly because of inevitable increases in prices for cars, clothing, cosmetics, electronics (Apple has indicated that they will have to increase prices quite soon for example), televisions and a fair number of disparate-branded washing machines. These can be coupled to the already-apparent uptick in prices for lumber due to the tariffs on Chinese lumber. I felt good about my overlook when I found out a few days ago Kirill Borusyak from Princeton University released a report that stated that the average American household would lose $127 per year from the tariffs. 

Perhaps the more notable crunch will come for Harley-Davidson and some other specialty businesses where the price hikes will compel their business model to lay off a significant slice of their workforce. 

With China's manufacturing sector downright rocked by the tariffs as of now, and with China having exhausted their supply of tariffs which have thus far been comparatively ineffectual for a variety of reasons, both humorous and sad, they should sever their losses in this spat. Indicators are that this is where the matter is heading but the government is seeking to spur on economic growth at home in the meantime. Ultimately the tariffs will not bring China down by any means and China's tariffs applied to the U.S. will only glance upon the U.S. economy for the most part. The primary reason why China's situation is less than enviable is because their economic model since early 2002 has placed them in this situation where they do not see a way out beyond further devaluation. They are caught up in a painful, vicious cycle. The Americans unquestionably are, too, but for a long while their cycle is dramatically less deleterious--though hardly not serious, either.


----------



## Nolo King (Aug 22, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The least racist president in our history addresses the Young Black Leaders Summit in D.C.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055893947531382784
> The left wing media is of course trying to distort and downplay his speech because they are committed to pushing the factually bankrupt narrative of a racially divided country where white supremacists are in power, but what can you expect from such desperate, sad and vile people?  #MAGA


I was invited to be at that event months before it occurred and now I'm so upset I didn't go.

There wasn't word on whether Trump would speak and it was originally just going to be done at a convention center.

Really bummed I didn't get to see one of the greatest presidents in my lifetime speak. 

Not a big fan of identity politics in general, but it's unfortunately the only way to get people from certain demographics to listen because they've been encouraged to be prejudice.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Ben Shapiro, a frequent Trump critic, sits down with Scott Adams to discuss the latter's "theories" about Trump's persuasion ability (which Shapiro is extremely skeptical of) in a fascinating interview.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The least racist president in our history addresses the Young Black Leaders Summit in D.C.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055893947531382784
> The left wing media is of course trying to distort and downplay his speech because they are committed to pushing the factually bankrupt narrative of a racially divided country where white supremacists are in power, but what can you expect from such desperate, sad and vile people?  #MAGA


Hmm I dunno I don't believe in big government or their ability to be responsible to anything really, I would prefer no government to be honest, so I don't blindly believe everything the Prez says.

:trump :trump :trump2


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

http://www.iraqinews.com/arab-world-news/u-s-airstrike-kills-syrian-family-on-borders-with-iraq/

Trump's foreign policy has been excellent in places and lousy in others. In the Middle East it has simply not lived up to his "America First" rhetoric of 2016. Understanding that he inherits a world that he cannot hope to remake, much as Obama before him inherited the monumentally idiotic legacy of the Iraq War of his predecessor, but he is now approaching the two-year mark of his presidency. The Islamic State just slaughtered 40 U.S.-backed Kurdish anti-ISIS fighters in the Syrian east. A number of Vladimir Putin's aides have been boisterous in declaring that the Russians are isolated and need to display a hostile countenance toward the Americans as the powers jockey for position in Syria. 

At least the anti-Assad program run by the CIA finally had its last tentacles sliced off by Trump rather recently after he correctly made a demonstrative effort to crush it in the summer of 2017.

It's almost funny. The anti-Assad CIA program's lasting legacy through the end of the 2010s is probably that the Russian "footprint" in Syria is now fully flowered, and not even barely cloaked by Assad, the Iranians or Russians. The CIA's own term "blowback" has seldom been more appropriate.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kanye West's Pro-Republican 'Blexit' T-Shirts Call for Black Exodus From Democratic Party

https://www.theroot.com/kanye-wests-pro-republican-blexit-t-shirts-call-for-bla-1830055396

Linking to The Root because it's the funniest take on the story. :lol So unhinged, racist, and incredibly salty. 



> At the Young Black Leaders Summit, instead of lip balm (*Why do black conservatives’ lips always look like they just finished eating powdered doughnuts?* Is Chapstick owned by leftists?), Candace Owens handed out T-shirts that were reportedly designed by MAGA Kanye, Page Six reports.


Why would any black American not want to be a Democrat when this is how they treat dissenters?


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Finally getting around to reading the Omarosa book, which isn't amazing but has some funny bits, best part so far is definitely that Trump was considering swearing the oath of office on the "Art of the Deal" as opposed to the bible or constitution.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Finally getting around to reading the Omarosa book, which isn't amazing but has some funny bits, best part so far is definitely that Trump was considering swearing the oath of office on the "Art of the Deal" as opposed to the bible or constitution.


I'd prefer a president swearing in on a book of his own bullshit rather than a book of mythology or something written by slaveowners.

:draper2


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Kanye West's Pro-Republican 'Blexit' T-Shirts Call for Black Exodus From Democratic Party
> 
> https://www.theroot.com/kanye-wests-pro-republican-blexit-t-shirts-call-for-bla-1830055396
> 
> ...


Eh, The Root is garbage.

They literally have no talking points, and ignore everything that is wrong with the black community.

I don't know if they have positive articles, because most of them have the same rhetoric (white people are bad, black people who like white people are bad, black people are good, especially the ones who agree with us)

they are the people who scream that they don't understand why no one wants to talk about racism while screaming "this nazi is racist because he said LeBron James is rich"


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Petty I know, just a weird thing to do lol.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Kanye West's Pro-Republican 'Blexit' T-Shirts Call for Black Exodus From Democratic Party
> 
> https://www.theroot.com/kanye-wests-pro-republican-blexit-t-shirts-call-for-bla-1830055396
> 
> ...


I applaud the idea but I hate the way they are going about it.

There are far, FAR more qualified people to be the face of this movement than Candace Owens and Kanye Fucking West. Maybe he can use his fame to put the spotlight no someone that actually knows what the fuck they're talking about.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I applaud the idea but I hate the way they are going about it.
> 
> There are far, FAR more qualified people to be the face of this movement than Candace Owens and Kanye Fucking West. Maybe he can use his fame to put the spotlight no someone that actually knows what the fuck they're talking about.


He prefers to be called 'Ye' I believe :laugh:

On a serious note, is there anybody you would suggest?


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Petty I know, just a weird thing to do lol.


This reminds me of when a dog has a branch that won't fit through a doorway hahaha! He does have some strange idiosyncrasies!


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I applaud the idea but I hate the way they are going about it.
> 
> There are far, FAR more qualified people to be the face of this movement than Candace Owens and Kanye Fucking West. Maybe he can use his fame to put the spotlight no someone that actually knows what the fuck they're talking about.


Yeah I can't really stand Candace Owens, she's like a right-wing SJW. 

Kanye watches Scott Adams' periscopes, he's definitely qualified to tackle this psychological barrier.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kanye just needs to release the "Votedigger" mixtape already

ggnore after that


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Here's something to keep in mind the next time someone wants to call Bernie a far leftist.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056964797508476929
The USA has moved so far to the right since Ike that the modern Dems, the so called party of the left, is further to the right than Eisenhower, the last Republican president who was actually worth a shit.

To be fair, the Dem presidents since Ike have sucked pretty hard too.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah I can't really stand Candace Owens, she's like a right-wing SJW.
> 
> Kanye watches Scott Adams' periscopes, he's definitely qualified to tackle this psychological barrier.


Owens is in the right place at the right time.

I still would pay money to see her and Angela Rye have a debate, because they do the same thing.

They find a way to bring every issue to themselves instead of others.

I don't know who would take the gig that she ad Kanye have now though


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057059902638751745
If this war mongering cunt runs again, just go ahead and kill me now. *My poor brain* can't take another cycle of Hillbots shaming people who do not vote for her. I swear to god, I am convinced this fucking psycho would rather destroy the USA than ever give up on her self-ordained coronation.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump/Clinton II :mark:

But nah I'd rather see Trump go up against one of these "progressive" loony tunes so people like Kyle Kulinski who push this idea that Trump would've lost to anyone but Hillary, and especially to Bernie, to bed. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057017326653054977
Wonder if there's gonna be wall-to-wall coverage of this like there 100% would be if Trump said something similar. :mj


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Sources around Hillary were indicating she would attempt to run again about a week ago. Almost posted about it but did not wish to as it would probably have been considered speculative. :lol Well... Sounds like she intends to.

Not surprised.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

BernieOld being an Eisenhower Republican equivalent shows just how far the angry delusions have taken over the minds of the far left :heston

And they wonder why they can't even overtake a mummified Democratic Party establishment, when they regularly say things that are so stupid even the most devoted progressive SJW 20 year old college student looks at them askance

Noam Chomsky, Cambodian genocide denier-then-apologist for 25 years ftw!


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Shouldn't it really be Blaxit?


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'd enjoy Trump/Clinton II. It's not like the dems have anyone that can actually challenge Trump anyway.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Goku said:


> I'd enjoy Trump/Clinton II. It's not like the dems have anyone that can actually challenge Trump anyway.


They don't have anyone who's done anything. Except Hilary. And Joe Biden but really? We might get our first presidential debate invitation to a rumble at the skate hop next saturday night. There's soooo much testosterone in :trump-Biden.

All these senators have done nothing. Nothing but create spectacles. :trump will presumably campaign on spectacle and his economic record. 

And now for a big economy post that you all better read or I'll be very disappointed in you. Even if you think its nonsense anything would be better if there were more of these. So there.

A big slowdown or a recession or a big crash in 2019 or 2020 is getting fashionable in some circles, but those circles seem to all operate on the belief that a debt crisis will occur in such strength as to swamp everything. The personal savings rate is apparently double what was believed. That's a powerful bulwark for great masses of people. It also makes sense, people do learn lessons from bad times and one is save money always. 

The United States is, or potentially could be, the most closed major economy on the planet if it needed to be. Huge natural resources, agricultural and otherwise. An excellent communications system. People rightly worry about infrastructure but the energy infrastructure at least is the best in the world. And energy infrastructure is the foundation of the rest. And the decline of infrastructure is not as uniform as impressions might create. Some states and regions have badly declining infrastructure. Others are doing great and adding more. Canada and Mexico are economic vassal states to the US. Look at the new treaty. Canada and Mexico both started out talking big. Then folded almost immediately. They don't have the weight to stop a determined US and everyone knows it. They probably weren't very much opposed at all, they kicked up their heels for a moment to show they'd want some good things for them in the deal. :trump likes to make deals where he can say everyone came out happy. Being able to at least claim that means giving Canada and Mexico something real. 

He's treated china differently. Bold moves, and always offering to negotiate. China is of course far stronger than canada and mexico. But not as strong as the United states, at a time when china is inflating debt bubbles with debt bubbles. The US has a stronger, more flexible economy to keep its debt game going longer. China can't afford a real trade war with the US. 

People like to say :trump is chaotic but there is one goal at the end of his tax, regulatory, general economic and trade policies. To encourage growth through the utilization of the natural and human resources of the country, and those of Canada and mexico whose inclusion would be profitable. In more ways than one.* To use its position to obtain new trade deals and foreign government policies that result in more profit - at least in certain perceived important areas - for Americans. 

When the president says he's a nationalist, I think a huge part of that is economic nationalism. Being as dependent on other countries to as small a degree as possible, again at least in certain percieved vital areas. A country whose economic strength is in itself. Which the US is now, but the perception is that that's been slipping. It's not entirely untrue. :trump wants to reverse that. 

And look so far it has worked great for some things, okay and kinda okay in others, and not so good in others still. The positives right now are steamrolling the negatives. I see help wanted ads everywhere on the internet and around the area everywhere. Everyone is hiring. This is hapenning in a lot of places. And lots of skilled professions too. That is also the case in a lot of places.

I think the dude has a vision. To achieve good growth in the right places to build a foundation for an economy that has real physical strength in addition to creative, innovative, and other mental strengths. The strength of 1s and 0s inside computers in Washington, New York, London, Brussels and Berlin, Tokyo, and Beijing is real, but more easily broken than great amounts of physical self sufficiency. 

Will it work? Maybe. There is reason to think that modifications in policy will need to be made. I's the conservative in me. I think that in some areas (regulation and taxation not among them), sensible policies of moderate power should be instituted at first, and given time to do their job in building strength. That increase can be used for stronger policy, until some good place has been reached that is convenient to rest the power of the state for a bit. Administer existing policies, and introduce only minor new ones. 

:trump has a more aggressive plan. I think that being aggressive has great virtues. And great dangers. One is being aggressive too long. All things in their season. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe :trump is. He and his people do know more about the vital details and all the details than I do, I can't just discount that. But I dont think their superior knowledge is decisive in making up my opinion.

Henry Phipps, of the Carnegie steel empires fame, once said, "when business gets in a groove, it runs wonderfully." The US has a lot of grooves. :trump is trying to strengthen the strong ones, repair the cracked, and create some new. But that is not easy. It can be done though. :trump is trying to do it in a way that hasn't been used in this country in a while, and he's putting energy into it. He's working with the best economic material in the world. Theyre not guaranteed, but don't doubt his chances.

*Canada and Mexico certainly greatly benefit from their huge volume of trade with the US. Their decision to come to terms was not all born from fear of :trump going nuclear. They knew there'd be opportunities for themselves and acted accordingly. They're economic vassals to the US but it's a relationship where most of the time everyone wants to keep everyone else happy. All three make a lot of money that way. The US got unhappy. They patched things up right quick. Now everyone is happy again. For shorter or longer.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump's interview with Laura Ingraham: 






It's Fox News so please be advised there is a strong right-wing bias. Don't want anyone to get triggered.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Fucking Hillary :HA.

Anyone but that power hungry self entitled bitch. Her coronation should never happen because she feels she's born to be president.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> Trump's foreign policy has been excellent in places and lousy in others. In the Middle East it has simply not lived up to his "America First" rhetoric of 2016. Understanding that he inherits a world that he cannot hope to remake, much as Obama before him inherited the monumentally idiotic legacy of the Iraq War of his predecessor, but he is now approaching the two-year mark of his presidency. The Islamic State just slaughtered 40 U.S.-backed Kurdish anti-ISIS fighters in the Syrian east. A number of Vladimir Putin's aides have been boisterous in declaring that the Russians are isolated and need to display a hostile countenance toward the Americans as the powers jockey for position in Syria.
> 
> It's almost funny. The anti-Assad CIA program's lasting legacy through the end of the 2010s is probably that the Russian "footprint" in Syria is now fully flowered, and not even barely cloaked by Assad, the Iranians or Russians. The CIA's own term "blowback" has seldom been more appropriate.


America first = America wants cheap gasoline. Cozying up to a few dictatorships to achieve that end is an "ends justify the means" situation for Trump.

It's not like the Russians haven't been trying to get a warm water port for centuries now. They were finally able to get really close to that goal with the latest war in Syria. It's going to be really interesting in the coming months and years to see if Vlad can carve out a sliver of land that juts into the Mediterranean. 



Goku said:


> I'd enjoy Trump/Clinton II. It's not like the dems have anyone that can actually challenge Trump anyway.


John Hickenlooper (former governor of Colorado)

- Ran (and won) as a democrat in a purple state
- Speaking of purple, he is very pro cannabis (he created the rules in Colorado for recreational). You can say what you want, but cannabis is a winning issue (nay, the winning issue) in 2020.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



dele said:


> You can say what you want, but cannabis is a winning issue (nay, the winning issue) in 2020.


Which all but guarantees no establishment Dem will run on it.

#Tulsi2020


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Why do ya'll lord and savior want to end birthright citizenship? What a xenophobic ass administration. Which one of ya'll going to defend this?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."


You watch all the 'the constitution says' people suddenly back down from that argument because Trump wants to change something.



> "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,"












He's either perpetually ill informed or he's just a liar. I think its the first.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Why do ya'll lord and savior want to end birthright citizenship? What a xenophobic ass administration. Which one of ya'll going to defend this?


Trump showing what a racist and fascist dictator he is once again. Trump trying to ignore the 14th amendment.





Draykorinee said:


> You watch all the 'the constitution says' people suddenly back down from that argument because Trump wants to change something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its both of course. Just depends on the issue. In this one I think its a little of both. He probably didn't know but someone in the WH had to have told him it's against the constitution, I just don't think he cares and is lying because he knows his supporters wont fact check him or care if he is lying or not.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> You watch all the 'the constitution says' people suddenly back down from that argument because Trump wants to change something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The constitution is up for _interpretation _on this debate (even though it shouldn't be a debate at this point), and this is why the religious and racist right coming into power in America is so dangerous. They will interpret the Constitution like Taliban interpret the Quran in order to push their agendas. Whenever you hear that "this is what it really meant" you should automatically think of a highly radicalized interpretation coming that seeks to support the justification for an extreme measure. 

Now I'm now saying that the American right is like the Taliban. I'm just saying that they will interpret the constitution to support their agendas like the Taliban use the Quran to support theirs. Simply interpret it in as hard line a manner as possible and use it like a substitute for their bible. It's not that hard and once the conservative takeover of the supreme court is complete, expect it to start operating like medieval Europe, which is what the religious right seems to want anyways.

Finally starting to make sense why the more progressive countries do not hold on to their constitution like it's some sort of bible, quran or book of hadith. It's not like they view their "founding fathers" like Prophets who handed them a new book of revelation like conservative Americans.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Those supporting a Trump EO end run around the 14th amendment are really not thinking this through. This has the potential to be a gigantic shit show.

What happens when a Democrat gets in and decides to do the same thing with the 2nd amendment? "A well regulated militia means lots of regulation and you have to be member of a standing organized militia that the government regulates." That's *an* interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Not saying it's the right one, just saying if all a president has to do is say that's their interpretation and then issue an executive order, then precedent has been set. An executive order can override a constitutional amendment.

Then there's complications of the order itself.

First off, will it be retroactive? If you are currently a legal citizen, but neither of your parents are, is that citizenship revoked? Let's go a step further. If what I just said is true then do your descendants no longer have citizenship lineage? Let's say the children of non-citizens who are currently citizens have a kid together, does that kid no longer have citizenship either, and if so, what about their offspring?

Second, let's say it's not retroactive, then won't there be a huge amount of people in the future clogging up the courts claiming they should have citizenship since other residents born under the same conditions do?

Third, what happens when/if the EO is rescinded by a future president? Do those born here while the order was in place become citizens or are they just the lost generation? If it was retroactive, then will all those have their citizenship restored? Will their descendants? Will it just go back and forth with each president issuing a new EO confirming or denying the precedent? How can you have a stable society when who can or can't be a citizen can change every four fucking years?


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Why do ya'll lord and savior want to end birthright citizenship? What a xenophobic ass administration. Which one of ya'll going to defend this?


To be fair nobody should be born a citizen, you should have to apply for such after High School like anyone who wants to immigrate here does, same tests and all. 

Also from what I've read the birthright was supposed to be for people who were already Citizens, say you came here and became a citizen so your children would be too. It's confusing why someone coming here illegally isn't a citizen but their kids born here are. 100% needs to be looked at even if I don't agree with what's going on.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057302515077865472
This made me laugh, I love Capitalism but this is just so classless. "Hey guys we're on your side so plz buy our expensive ice cream even though most of the people who take issues with Trump cannot afford this anyways. We're based in the white wonderland of Vermont the whitest state in the Union but trust us, we support you!"

I'm starting to see why Tater hates Capitalism so much. The need to make money off everything is rather disgusting.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> To be fair nobody should be born a citizen, you should have to apply for such after High School like anyone who wants to immigrate here does, same tests and all.
> 
> Also from what I've read the birthright was supposed to be for people who were already Citizens, say you came here and became a citizen so your children would be too. It's confusing why someone coming here illegally isn't a citizen but their kids born here are. 100% needs to be looked at even if I don't agree with what's going on.
> 
> ...


#McResistance.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Why do ya'll lord and savior want to end birthright citizenship? What a xenophobic ass administration. Which one of ya'll going to defend this?


:heston

I don't have a problem with birthright citizenship, but if getting rid of it gets your asshole all stirred up, might not be a bad idea for that benefit alone.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Not sure why anyone would be against ending it for people who are in the country illegally. Clearly their children shouldn't become citizens when their parents are violating our laws by being here.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056971162566250496
:lol


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

CamillePunk said:


> Not sure why anyone would be against ending it for people who are in the country illegally. Clearly their children shouldn't become citizens when their parents are violating our laws by being here.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056971162566250496
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />


If you are born in the United States then you are a citizen of the US. Your citizenship is based on your birthplace. Not your nationality. Your argument is covered in xenophobic nationalism bullshit which is one of the components of white nationalism. 

Luckily for you plausible deniability allows you to just say you're simply expressing your nationalism views and citizenship is simply not a birth right. <img src="https://i.imgur.com/4jDq2f0.png" border="0" alt="" title="Lebron armfold" class="inlineimg" />

I highly doubt this would be an issue if the parents were from Australia.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> To be fair nobody should be born a citizen, you should have to apply for such after High School like anyone who wants to immigrate here does, same tests and all.
> 
> Also from what I've read the birthright was supposed to be for people who were already Citizens, say you came here and became a citizen so your children would be too. It's confusing why someone coming here illegally isn't a citizen but their kids born here are. 100% needs to be looked at even if I don't agree with what's going on.
> 
> ...


Fuck's sake it's not even a catchy name. 



> ... it’s embracing a pronunciation of pecan” -- as in "PEE-can" -- that’s really only popular along stretches of the East Coast from Maine to South Carolina.
> 
> Starting Tuesday, the flavor normally known as New York Super Fudge Chunk will be called “Pecan Resist.” Get it?


Oh... so it rhymes with We Can Resist? fpalm

Christ just put it in the name. "We-can Pe-can Resist!" Actually sounds like a B & J flavor. Huh... never noticed til just now their initials are BJ.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> If you are born in the United States then you are a citizen of the US. Your citizenship is based on your birthplace. Not your nationality. Your argument is covered in xenophobic nationalism bullshit which is one of the components of white nationalism.
> 
> Luckily for you plausible deniability allows you to just say you're simply expressing your nationalism views and citizenship is simply not a birth right. <img src="https://i.imgur.com/4jDq2f0.png" border="0" alt="" title="Lebron armfold" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> I highly doubt this would be an issue if the parents were from Australia.


Birthright citizenship in the US isn't as cut-and-dry as you believe. Go do some research on the topic. The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was intended to give former slaves citizenship, not children of illegal immigrants. 

You're not a xenophobe for not wanting people to benefit from breaking your country's immigration laws. I like my neighbors fine, I'm not OK with them breaking into my house and saying they live here now. 

Not responding to the white nationalism point because it's hysterical nonsense and beneath me. Go talk to Reap if you want to discuss white nationalism, he's an admitted ex-proponent of it. I've been anti-racism my entire life and don't want to live in a country with only white people, or where white people get special rights and privileges under the law. 

If a bunch of Australians sneak into the country and have kids I'd say send them all back. No citizenship for any of them.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Even Ice Cream is getting political. 

That's it...I'm out.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

CamillePunk said:


> Birthright citizenship in the US isn't as cut-and-dry as you believe. Go do some research on the topic. The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was intended to give former slaves citizenship, not children of illegal immigrants.
> 
> You're not a xenophobe for not wanting people to benefit from breaking your country's immigration laws. I like my neighbors fine, I'm not OK with them breaking into my house and saying they live here now.
> 
> ...


Surrrreee.

No, it's pretty cut and dry. You're not a Mexican citizen if you were born in the United States. That doesn't make any sense. Common sense > Phony complexity to justify bigot views.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Surrrreee.
> 
> No, it's pretty cut and dry. You're not a Mexican citizen if you were born in the United States. That doesn't make any sense. Common sense > Phony complexity to justify bigot views.


You're incorrect. Children of Mexican citizens born outside of Mexico are Mexican citizens.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> If you are born in the United States then you are a citizen of the US. Your citizenship is based on your birthplace. Not your nationality. Your argument is covered in xenophobic nationalism bullshit which is one of the components of white nationalism.
> 
> Luckily for you plausible deniability allows you to just say you're simply expressing your nationalism views and citizenship is simply not a birth right. <img src="https://i.imgur.com/4jDq2f0.png" border="0" alt="" title="Lebron armfold" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> I highly doubt this would be an issue if the parents were from Australia.


This is why the NPC meme is a thing. "I don't agree with you, you're a racist." From a mod ffs.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

CamillePunk said:


> You're incorrect. Children of Mexican citizens born outside of Mexico are Mexican citizens.


Oh yes because were going to deport a 8 year old child back to Mexico because even though he was born in the US and lived here his whole life, his parents are from Mexico. Stop. That's an American child.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Oh yes because were going to deport a 8 year old child back to Mexico because even though he was born in the US and lived here his whole life, his parents are from Mexico. Stop. That's an American child.


So a pregnant woman who wants her child to be a citizen of a specific country should just be able to sneak into that country and give birth to make it happen? Totally disregard their immigration laws? Totally disregard what the people of that country might want? And then that country's tax payers are on the hook to support that child because of the mother's whims.

How is that even remotely reasonable?


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

CamillePunk said:


> Headliner said:
> 
> 
> > So a pregnant woman who wants her child to be a citizen of a specific country should just be able to sneak into that country and give birth to make it happen? Totally disregard their immigration laws? Totally disregard what the people of that country might want? And then that country's tax payers are on the hook to support that child because of the mother's whims.
> ...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Kanye West's Pro-Republican 'Blexit' T-Shirts Call for Black Exodus From Democratic Party


Update on this story:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057382888520499201

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057382916760707072
:lmao Candace Owens is so scummy she caused (maybe) Kanye to stop talking politics.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

What is the point in Candace Owens? She brings nothing to the table other than a pretty face and being a black woman.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Surrrreee.
> 
> No, it's pretty cut and dry. You're not a Mexican citizen if you were born in the United States. That doesn't make any sense. Common sense > Phony complexity to justify bigot views.


You are simply wrong. Only two developed countries srill ashere to the idiocy of birth on soil equals citizenship... TWO. I wouldn’t care if you were from Denmark, giving birth on US soil should not make your child a US citizen.

Stop flinging race baiting insults so god damned much. It’s beyond stale and is exposing you as a gimmick with no substance to offer to these conversations.


----------



## Nolo King (Aug 22, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This is definitely a power play from Trump.

You can still technically be American and not have citizenship. This will simply stop illegal immigrants from exploiting this loophole. There are plenty of legal options out there to become a citizen so I don't understand the outrage.

I'm still looking into this issue a bit more so if anyone wants to enlighten me I'd be happy. As of now, I don't see the big deal. If you want citizenship, wait in line and do it like everyone else. If you weren't supposed to be here in the first place, why feel entitled for your child to be a citizen? That's just the way I see it.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Fuck's sake it's not even a catchy name.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The worst part is that it's just a recycled flavor that doesn't sell well. 

Wonder how many more major corporations will jump on board and try to turn a profit? 

Michelle Wolfe was right about these people, I cannot believe how right she was and it's scary.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> You are simply wrong. Only two developed countries srill ashere to the idiocy of birth on soil equals citizenship... TWO. I wouldn’t care if you were from Denmark, giving birth on US soil should not make your child a US citizen.
> 
> Stop flinging race baiting insults so god damned much. It’s beyond stale and is exposing you as a gimmick with no substance to offer to these conversations.


I'm not a gimmick. I see through coded bullshit and my patience is simply gone with all of you. :toomanykobes


----------



## Crasp (Feb 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So what the fuck you gonna do? Deport everyone who's not of actual native american lineage?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Crasp said:


> So what the fuck you gonna do? Deport everyone who's not of actual native american lineage?


Guess they should start with Melania and Barron right


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> You are simply wrong. Only two developed countries srill ashere to the idiocy of birth on soil equals citizenship... TWO. I wouldn’t care if you were from Denmark, giving birth on US soil should not make your child a US citizen.
> 
> Stop flinging race baiting insults so god damned much. It’s beyond stale and is exposing you as a gimmick with no substance to offer to these conversations.


Actually, it's is over 30 that have birth right citizenship laws. You don't even know what you are talking about.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> To be fair nobody should be born a citizen, you should have to apply for such after High School like anyone who wants to immigrate here does, same tests and all.


To be honest, even as someone who is conservative on immigration, citizenship tests are stupid. Who really knows the relevant history of a specific country? For one, education is so poor because it is monopolized by governments who have agendas or feel as though certain subjects or topics aren't important to the curriculum so they don't teach them. 

Secondly, it presumes that everyone has equal ability when it comes to education and I'm sorry but that simply isn't true. Not everyone has the memory capacity or intelligence when it comes to knowing a country's history, should people really be punished on that? It seems absurd to me.

Personally I think citizenship in terms of immigration should be based on years spent in the country (LEGALLY), whether or not they are tax payers and if they are law abiding citizens. There can be honest debate on how long the process should be, I'd argue 5 years but if someone feels it should be longer or shorter I think that is reasonable to discuss and work out. 

What isn't reasonable is allowing people regardless of their race or ethnicity to cross the border illegally or in the case of the European Migrant crisis, legally without any vetting process as refugees even though most are economic migrants when you have people who are trying to do the right thing and apply legally and go through all the legal processes only to be jumped ahead of the queue by someone who crosses the border. I do understand in many cases why this happens and have empathy for those people but governments have to have a firm line on this and have guidelines. Otherwise there will be consequences. I live on a continent that has felt the consequences of open border policies and whilst thankfully I live on an island and have a Conservative government which whilst not perfect has been stricter than most, I have neighboring countries who have been more lenient and have felt the effects.

But yeah, citizenship tests I don't think are effective at all. What I am more concerned about is controlling the number of people immigrating and having people who are going to be a benefit to that country rather than flooding the market with low economic workers which are going to push wages down and saturate competition for jobs and push more people into welfare. It benefits nobody, including the immigrant population.

And it's dependent from country to country too. For example, in the UK, there is a concern about NHS workers, particularly doctors and nurses if we control immigration. There is no reason why if we have a points system for example why we can't fast track those in the health service if that is considered to be a benefit to the nation (and even as someone who is against the NHS I do agree with that). There are those who are pro immigration who have a be all or end all attitude like either we continue large mass immigration or completely stop immigration who I don't understand or agree with. They don't seem to have any subtlety when it comes to this issue.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Crasp said:


> So what the fuck you gonna do? Deport everyone who's not of actual native american lineage?


The natives lost breh it's over, been over for centuries.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The natives lost breh it's over, been over for centuries.


and you claim you are not racist lol


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> and you claim you are not racist lol


You don't know what racism is.

Native Americans (who migrated from Africa just like the rest of us) were conquered by colonial Europeans who came from countries where their natives were conquered by Romans and so on. It's the chain of history. We aren't going back in time.


----------



## Nolo King (Aug 22, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> You don't know what racism is.
> 
> Native Americans (who migrated from Africa just like the rest of us) were conquered by colonial Europeans who came from countries where their natives were conquered by Romans and so on. It's the chain of history. We aren't going back in time.


They truly believe that everyone was just holding hands and getting along before colonialism 

It's a strange mentality I will never understand

They want the advantages of this history and are unwilling to give up those benefits to come across as less hypocritical. It's the Starbucks, Apple Ipod owner that is anti-capitalist. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> You don't know what racism is.


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......


I'm glad you don't have me on ignore anymore. I've missed this.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm glad you don't have me on ignore anymore. I've missed this.


I kept seeing your ridiculous posts via quotes, so having you on ignore was pointless.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I kept seeing your ridiculous posts via quotes, so having you on ignore was pointless.


You love my ridiculous posts just like I love yours. We don't have to pretend.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> You love my ridiculous posts just like I love yours. We don't have to pretend.


We are one of the top feuds on WF ha ha


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> He prefers to be called 'Ye' I believe :laugh:
> 
> On a serious note, is there anybody you would suggest?


Larry Elder is the first to come to mind.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There are millions of low income low skill jobs in western countries that locals consider themselves too good to fucking do meanwhile millions of skilled workers in western countries are fucking jobless so save me the bullshit about only wanting high net worth high skilled intelligent people from third world countries when you all should actually be finding low skilled workers to fill those jobs.

Stop the fucking brain drain from the developing world. It's bad for everybody because the intelligentsia of the third world abandoning their countries leads to more social problems in those third world countries which circle back to problems in the west. 

They are sending the best to countries that aren't smart enough to manage their own demographics. Filling up their own children's minds about these supposed white collar opportunities that don't actually exist while forcing bachelor's qualified kids into service coffee at Starbucks while also whining about da immigrants taking our jerbs. The middle east has their immigration policy right. They get cheap labor from the third world and provide those families an opportunity to earn more than they are actually worth, while also being able to develop their infrastructure and local industry at affordable costs. But the west which is supposed to have the brains can't even realize that inviting engineers to a country that's already filled with engineers (just as an example) is a terrible fucking idea. 

It's getting to the point of insanity at this point lol.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Update on this story:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057382888520499201
> ...


Lol take the blinkers off and just admit your guy Ye was duped. He was too busy masturbating to his own albums.

I guess the right can go back to having only James Woods endorsing them 

:ha :ha


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> There are millions of low income low skill jobs in western countries that locals consider themselves too good to fucking do meanwhile millions of skilled workers in western countries are fucking jobless so save me the bullshit about only wanting high net worth high skilled intelligent people from third world countries when you all should actually be finding low skilled workers to fill those jobs.
> 
> Stop the fucking brain drain from the developing world. It's bad for everybody because the intelligentsia of the third world abandoning their countries leads to more social problems in those third world countries which circle back to problems in the west.
> 
> ...


Are you saying it was a mistake for Canada and the US to invite you into the country? :O


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Are you saying it was a mistake for Canada and the US to invite you into the country? :O


I'm not an economic migrant fpalm


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I'm not an economic migrant fpalm


But you are part of the brain drain. k


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> But you are part of the brain drain. k


Has nothing to do with my statements regarding economic migrants and western countries inviting high skilled labor.


----------



## JasonLives (Aug 20, 2008)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I think its pretty logical that just because you are born in a country doesnt grant you the right of citizenship right away. So a foreign woman can just go to the country, have a baby and boom the baby is swedish? Nope. Think its kinda dumb. If it was my country I would support the proposal.

I do however think the citizinship tests are pretty dumb aswell. Think its better to just look at the persons history in the country and do a objective assessment if the person meets the criteria for a citizenship, without some sort of test.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol take the blinkers off and just admit your guy Ye was duped. He was too busy masturbating to his own albums.
> 
> I guess the right can go back to having only James Woods endorsing them
> 
> :ha :ha


Nope, Ye still supports Trump. He contacted TMZ to correct them that he wasn't distancing himself from Trump, just Candace Owens. :trump Maybe one day you'll be right about something. But it is not this day, or any day before.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I think it's fair to say that I'm a saiyan cos I was born on vegeta but I'm also an earthling cos I live on earth.

There is a lesson for nation states somewhere in there.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Actually, it's is over 30 that have birth right citizenship laws. You don't even know what you are talking about.


Notice the qualifier.... Canada and The US are the only developed, aka economically advanced, nations that have a blanket soil birthright. Read.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I like Trump like most of you here do but before you all believe he has your best interests...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> Notice the qualifier.... Canada and The US are the only developed, aka economically advanced, nations that have a blanket soil birthright. Read.


Which was explicitly never supposed to be the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the drafters of the amendment made clear. It only became a thing due to an utterly ridiculous footnote inserted into a Supreme Court case ruling in...1982. :lol Meanwhile countries such as the UK and Australia rescinded birthright citizenship within the last few decades, and yet I don't recall mass cries of racism and fascism levied at them. 

Sorry birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegals pushers, y'all have absolutely no leg to stand on. Trump is right. Time to clearly affirm that only children of American citizens obtain birthright citizenship, as was always the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(For those who don't have a decoder, what I am saying is that only white people should be American citizens!11!11!1 8*D)


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Which was explicitly never supposed to be the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the drafters of the amendment made clear. It only became a thing due to an utterly ridiculous footnote inserted into a Supreme Court case ruling in...1982. :lol Meanwhile countries such as the UK and Australia rescinded birthright citizenship within the last few decades, and yet I don't recall mass cries of racism and fascism levied at them.
> 
> Sorry birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegals pushers, y'all have absolutely no leg to stand on. Trump is right. Time to clearly affirm that only children of American citizens obtain birthright citizenship, as was always the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> (For those who don't have a decoder, what I am saying is that only white people should be American citizens!11!11!1 8*D)


A lot of countries moved away from it. It is something that is not sustainable, even moreso in countries more reliant on socialised systems than the US. 

But the cries of racism will continue... the progressive left has no actual rebuttal to lend, so they scream loudly in the hopes of denigrating their opponents. It used to work, but it is now running off every true liberal, conservative, and centrist. It’s been amazing watching both parties tack so hard to their extremes that they are both on the verge of fracturing into extinction. Maybe there is a little hope out there still. Though I am worried the Kavanaugh hearing and Warren’s stupidity has stabalised the Republicans. They are more united now than the last two years.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

And when you can't actually prove how someone is being racist, just say there's secret coded racism within their statements, undetectable to those not trained in the secret social justice arts of mind-reading. What a reasonable mode of thinking. The universities are really doing a great job. Civilization is going in a wonderful direction y'all.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Where is Congress in this whole thing regarding birthright? Granted, they have become as useless as tits on a bull. They couldn't find their asses with both hands if you put it in their hands for them and gave it a squeeze. At the same time, it's a bit convenient for Trump to have used this as part of his campaign and immigration agenda for almost two years and only NOW, one week before election day, does he decide to pull this rabbit out of his hat and tell us he's actually going to do something about it. 

Maybe, just maybe...I'm thinking outside the box here...if the GOP had actually done something in regards to resolving the immigration issue instead of pissing away what they had, maybe they wouldn't have to run ads saying, "A vote for Democrats is a vote for illegal immigrants invading our country." If that's all you have to run on (that and the liberals will raise your taxes), you really ain't done a lot. 



Shekels4Shlomo said:


> I like Trump like most of you here do but before you all believe he has your best interests...


I suppose I should give you credit for at least being honest about your anti-Semitic stance. What you are saying is what the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was right in that MAGA has a Jewish problem. I don't respect you at all, but at least you are honest about it. 

At least in these times the cockroaches come out and we know where we are.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

"Racist" is just a slur word to say to someone. Race is a paramount importance and the foundation of identity

America is not a "nation of immigrants". It is a nation built by colonizers, settlers, conquerers, and ultimately, European people

P.S. I'm not white, and not a single percentage of blood is white


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> anti-Semitic stance


Oh please >_> Most Jews aren't even semites. Most of them came from Europe

The real anti-semites are the people who have occupied the West Bank since 1967 and turned the Gaza strip in to an open air prison for 1.5 million people


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


> I like Trump like most of you here do but before you all believe he has your best interests...





Shekels4Shlomo said:


> Oh please >_> Most Jews aren't even semites. Most of them came from Europe
> 
> The real anti-semites are the people who have occupied the West Bank since 1967 and turned the Gaza strip in to an open air prison for 1.5 million people


:lol You just put a post out there about how Trump's son-in-law and daughter-in-law are Jewish filth and you are trying to convince us you mean no anti-Semitism in your posts. :lol Which means you are not really a Trump supporter, at least be honest about it. Works for me, I'm perfectly good with being honest about my not supporting Trump because he really doesn't believe in the conservative agenda and merely provides lip service to it. 

As for the West Bank, etc...perhaps Israel could handle the situation over there a little better. At the same time, perhaps if that area wasn't run by Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to wiping Israel off the face of the earth, maybe things would be better for the Palestinians. Israel has negotiated with them time and again, only for nothing to get done. Arafat was offered his own nation with East Jerusalem as his capital and he chose jihad instead. Israel pulled out of parts of the West Bank and was thanked for it with rocket attacks from groups within. They are surrounded by people who want to annihilate them...maybe I can understand why things are the way they are over there. 

Of course, you'll ignore it because you simply believe Jews are evil and that they don't have a right to self-preservation.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> Works for me, I'm perfectly good with being honest about my not supporting Trump because he really doesn't believe in the conservative agenda and merely provides lip service to it.


And yet he nominated and pushed through two dream conservative Supreme Court justices. :hmmm

Ben Shapiro is satisfied, why aren't you? Are you more of a true conservative than Shapiro? :lol


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, was meant for former slaves, not foreign citizens and it would be up to each state to decide with the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part.

The Democratic Party was also against illegal immigrants and anchor babies until they realized they could get more votes from them.






- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> And yet he nominated and pushed through two dream conservative Supreme Court justices. :hmmm
> 
> Ben Shapiro is satisfied, why aren't you? Are you more of a true conservative than Shapiro? :lol


Ben Shapiro hammers Trump for the stuff that he does just as much as praise him for what he does right. Go over to the Daily Wire sometime and read the comments...people still think Shapiro is a member of the Deep State. 

One conservative in Gorsuch, one crybaby squish in Kavanaugh. Someone should have asked Kavanaugh how he would have reacted if a lawyer acted out in his courtroom the way he did on the stand. It was his Seven Sky vs. Holder decision that paved the way for the legalization of Obamacare per SCOTUS. We could have had Amy Barrett...yes there would have been wailing and gnashing of teeth but not from her. She has her principles where Kavanaugh does not. 

There are some conservative accomplishments so far, I will freely admit that. However, we have been down this road before only to be disappointed. I know many people here love Trump. For every conservative accomplishment, there is him running across to work with Chuck and Nancy. There are socialist bailouts of farmers who would prefer to sell their crops. He attacks private businesses for their practices (the NFL and Amazon). I could go on and on but you would choose to blindly ignore it. 

Let's not forget Obamacare is still the law of the land, the wall hasn't been built, our troops are still over in the Middle East, etc. Instead, he'd rather get into tweeting fights with porn stars. 

People praised Bush as a principled conservative, only for the rug to be pulled out from under them and now those same people lament him as a globalist, etc. Trump is not a conservative no matter how you spin what he does. I will not support a man who provides mere lip service to conservative values and doesn't actually embrace them. 

If he can do otherwise, I will reconsider. Unlike the Trumpocrats, my goal posts have never changed and you have succeeded in becoming more annoying then the Obama sycophants.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump isn't a conservative, he just governs like one to the point where Ben Shapiro, who didn't vote for him in 2016 even though his opponent was Hillary fucking Clinton, fully intends to vote for him in 2020 and doesn't want there to be a GOP primary. :lol

I watch Ben Shapiro nearly every day, I'm very familiar with his criticisms of the president. I also watch Secular Talk and the Jimmy Dore Show a lot. Believe it or not I consume more anti-Trump or neutral-Trump media than I do pro-Trump media. I don't do echo chambers.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump isn't a conservative, he just governs like one to the point where Ben Shapiro, who didn't vote for him in 2016 even though his opponent was Hillary fucking Clinton, fully intends to vote for him in 2020. :lol
> 
> I watch Ben Shapiro nearly every day, I'm very familiar with his criticisms of the president. I also watch Secular Talk and the Jimmy Dore Show a lot. Believe it or not I consume more anti-Trump or neutral-Trump media than I do pro-Trump media. I don't do echo chambers.


2016 was the worst election probably ever. We had the matriarch of the Clinton crime family vs. her good friend and donor. Many who are still screaming for HRC to be wearing an orange pantsuit conveniently forget that Trump was a regular donor of her campaigns as well as the Clinton Foundation. 

I don't consider Trump to govern like a conservative with tariffs, bribing companies with taxpayer dollars to keep their jobs here (Ford and Carrier), talking about going around the 2nd Amendment to ban gun stocks and take away guns from certain people and worry about due process later, and so on. He has no principles or morals to begin with, and throws red meat out at his diehard supporters whenever he is in trouble. This week, talk of the EO ending birthright citizenship comes on the heels of his handling poorly the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and HIS stock market starting to slip with the worst month the DJIA has had since October 2009. 

I also see the ads talking about how liberals will raise your taxes, destroy Medicare, and be open borders. Perhaps if Trump had gotten Congress on board with repealing of Obamacare (which we were promised for eight years) and more parts of his agenda, maybe they'd have more to run on then "Liberals are going to raise your taxes". 

Shapiro, like myself, will never vote Democrat. And, right now there's "Resist Trump" and that's about it. Just like in the early days of the Obama administration, the GOP realized that "Resist Obama" in and of itself wasn't a good strategy. Right now, there's no one that could supposedly beat Trump, but two years is a long time politically. A lot can change in that time. 

Shapiro considers Trump just conservative enough when he needs to be. I don't. Trump does just enough to pacify us (or most of his diehards anyway). I'm not satisfied, and I'm also jaded. I'm used to being Charlie Brown having Lucy pull the football away. 

But feel free to mock me for what I believe in...you Trumpocrats will never hold him accountable and one day we just might hear this phrase coming from you like many did regarding Bush, "He wasn't conservative enough."


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> 2016 was the worst election probably ever. We had the matriarch of the Clinton crime family vs. her good friend and donor. Many who are still screaming for HRC to be wearing an orange pantsuit conveniently forget that Trump was a regular donor of her campaigns as well as the Clinton Foundation.


He cared more about greasing palms to help his business deal with government red tape than his political views, its true. He said as much during the campaign. Nobody forgets this at all, they just rightly don't see it as relevant or significant to anything. :lol 



> I don't consider Trump to govern like a conservative with tariffs, bribing companies with taxpayer dollars to keep their jobs here (Ford and Carrier), talking about going around the 2nd Amendment to ban gun stocks and take away guns from certain people and worry about due process later, and so on. He has no principles or morals to begin with, and throws red meat out at his diehard supporters whenever he is in trouble. This week, talk of the EO ending birthright citizenship comes on the heels of his handling poorly the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and HIS stock market starting to slip with the worst month the DJIA has had since October 2009.


Is it conservative to let other countries take advantage of us with bad trade deals?  How is using tariffs to leverage them into making better deals for our country worse than that? 

I'll give you bump stocks and the gun grabber rhetoric. Bump stocks aren't a major issue though and he didn't follow through on the latter. As Ben Shapiro wisely notes about Trump, sometimes he just says stuff. What is more important is what he actually does.

Ending birthright citizenship is one of the most pro-conservative things he could do. :lol If its constitutional for him to do it via EO, then great. If not, he won't do it and it'll either be something that ends up being decided in the Supreme Court (where he has appointed two very conservative justices), or being just another thing he said that had no consequences either way.

How did he handle the Pittsburgh shooting poorly? :lol The fuck?



> I also see the ads talking about how liberals will raise your taxes, destroy Medicare, and be open borders. Perhaps if Trump had gotten Congress on board with repealing of Obamacare (which we were promised for eight years) and more parts of his agenda, maybe they'd have more to run on then "Liberals are going to raise your taxes".


It's Trump's fault the GOP are a bunch of cowardly phonies when it comes to repealing Obamacare? :lol Again, the fuck? Your criticisms are so unrealistic and mainly focused on stuff he said rather than stuff he's done. 



> But feel free to mock me for what I believe in...you Trumpocrats will never hold him accountable and one day we just might hear this phrase coming from you like many did regarding Bush, "He wasn't conservative enough."


I'm a free market anarchist so no, you won't be hearing me make this complaint regardless of what Trump does. :lol I consider government to be immoral, the constitution a complete and utter failed attempt at mitigating its immorality, and democracy in general (in whatever form) to be a repugnant system for deciding anything of importance.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> As for the West Bank, etc...perhaps Israel could handle the situation over there a little better. At the same time, perhaps if that area wasn't run by Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to wiping Israel off the face of the earth, maybe things would be better for the Palestinians.


The West Bank is NOT run by Hamas lol thank you for exposing your own ignorance about the Israel/Palestine conflict. The original PM of Israel Ben Gurion explicitly advocated for the expulsion of the indigenous Arabs, and an ethnic cleansing of 720,000 Palestinians took place in 1948. It was never "a land without a people and a people without a land". The Jewish people's "right" to live on top of an Arab land comes from a book that was written thousands of years ago >_>

"Our greatest ally" has also committed multiple terrorist attacks against America and its allies

*King David Hotel Bombing(91 deaths, 28 British), The Lavon Affair, The Apollo Affair, The USS Liberty(34 deaths, 134 wounded, ALL Americans)*

We also know that there are Israeli fingerprints all over 9/11(5 Dancing Israelis, Lucky Larry Silverstein) and 7/7


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

^Just ban the above troll already. He's obviously some rejoiner or a massive troll. This forum seems to attract a lot of them.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

^ The truth hurts...


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Not sure if comedy or horror. :lol :O


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


> I like Trump like most of you here do


:Wat?

Quit while you're behind.



FriedTofu said:


> Not sure if comedy or horror. :lol :O


Leprosy...He used Leprosy.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I did like Ben Shapiro but he is kinda a caricature nowadays, it seems he’s playing up more to his audience. He’s overly defensive of Jews and is a super neocon.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Ben Shapiro uses the Bible to position his political views. Any and all of his input is therefore null and void to me. I actually used to watch some of his stuff but not after that utter drivel he spouted.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> *Ben Shapiro uses the Bible to position his political views.* Any and all of his input is therefore null and void to me. I actually used to watch some of his stuff but not after that utter drivel he spouted.


Shapiro is the conservative's favorite because of that reason. Kanye too (not for the bible but for other reasons). 

A lot of minorities have found a niche in appeasing the conservative white majority and it's extremely easy to do so. 

All you have to is just say their words right back to them in different words and they'll love you for it - but we all know that that "love" isn't genuine. You stop toeing the line and they will go around disparaging you at every turn. It's really funny when you think about it. It goes like this:

"Hey, he thinks like _me_, therefore _I _am very smart". 
"Oh he doesn't think like _me_, there _he _is very dumb".

It's very easy to expose. Just copy paste things from the echo chamber and then profit. Also, ignore the counter arguments irrespective. That's why these shapiros and coulters and even kyles and cenk stick to the same group of "debators" and interactions. They are basically all within their own echo chambers and their debates with each other also represent yet _another _echo chamber which barely scratches the surface of fully realized and contextualized arguments that are taking place elsewhere.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

“Facts don’t care about your feelings” brags the man who leads his life on a book written by ignorant desert dwellers thousands of years ago :trips8


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump isn't a conservative, he just governs like one to the point where Ben Shapiro, who didn't vote for him in 2016 even though his opponent was Hillary fucking Clinton, fully intends to vote for him in 2020 and doesn't want there to be a GOP primary. :lol
> 
> I watch Ben Shapiro nearly every day, I'm very familiar with his criticisms of the president. I also watch Secular Talk and the Jimmy Dore Show a lot. Believe it or not I consume more anti-Trump or neutral-Trump media than I do pro-Trump media. I don't do echo chambers.


You are right Trump isn't a conservative, he is a fascist and wants to be a dictator like his buddies Putin and Kim Jong-un


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are right Trump isn't a conservative, he is a fascist and wants to be a dictator like his buddies Putin and Kim Jong-un


A dictator that got voted into power? 

I’m not sure how Trump is fascist either.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Ben Shapiro is an Israel First neoconservative charlatan










Shapiro doesn't care about demographics unless it's Israel

Demographics matter. The overwhelming majority of non-whites vote for the left

After 8 years, Texas will flip and you'll never have a Republican President ever again because of Hispanic migration BOTH legal and illegal

If America wants to save itself, it needs to halt its immigration for at least 50 years

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-l...among/religious-family/nothing-in-particular/


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Ben Shapiro's Favorite Book - The Talmud


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> A dictator that got voted into power?
> 
> I’m not sure how Trump is fascist either.


Putin got voted into power, is he not a dictator? I also said wannabee dictator.

And how is Trump not a fascist? 

Here are 14 characteristics of fascism


Powerful and Continuing Nationalism 
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights 
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause 
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 

Supremacy of the Military 
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 

Rampant Sexism 
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. 

Controlled Mass Media 
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 

Obsession with National Security 
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 

Religion and Government are Intertwined 
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 

Corporate Power is Protected 
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 

Labor Power is Suppressed 
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed . 

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts 
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. 

Obsession with Crime and Punishment 
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption 
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 

Fraudulent Elections 
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.



Trump is pretty much all of those.

Want to tell me how Trump isn't a facist lol

I can even give you direct Trump examples of almost all of those but I am sure you can come up with those on your own.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Shapiro is the conservative's favorite because of that reason. Kanye too (not for the bible but for other reasons).
> 
> A lot of minorities have found a niche in appeasing the conservative white majority and it's extremely easy to do so.
> 
> ...


I hate to correct you here but it was Cowardly Coulter who backed out of the debate with Kyle at Politicon. He ended up debating Scottie Nell Hughes. I'm not a fan of Cenk but he did do a debate with Tucker Carlson. I don't watch TYT but you can't really say Kyle lives in an echo chamber, because he spends a lot of time listening to other points of view to prepare for his show. If he was in an echo chamber, the only things he'd be listening to are views that line up with his own.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights


That, I can agree. Trump sold $350 billion of Weapons to Saudi to obliterate Yemen. He also passed a bill to give Israel $30 billion of taxpayer money for the next 10 years which is illegal because Israel has nuclear weapons


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Shapiro is the conservative's favorite because of that reason. Kanye too (not for the bible but for other reasons).
> 
> A lot of minorities have found a niche in appeasing the conservative white majority and it's extremely easy to do so.
> 
> ...


This is literally my facorite part of politics to talk about, and I almost always agree with you on it. Hopefully this conversation goes somewhere.

But I am a big unapologetic Ben shapiro mark, and the reason is because he seems to handle himself very well.

He talks like a nerd, looks like he has never been laid in his life, and you can tell he is the smart smug kid in class who takes getting bullied because he knows he is going to be that guy's boss one day anyway.

I think for a lot of people that his "I don't know why no one lets me talk" gimmick relates to them, and he has become very successful with it.

Politics is now a way for young people to become rock stars. I was watching Sam Seder and his thoughts on politicon, and he said something similar, and its true.

it isn't about getting facts out there, and letting people make their mind, it is about what mic drops you can get on Youtube that your echo chamber will perform auditory masturbation to, and call you a genius.

I disagree with Shapiro on some things, and agree with about 90% of what he says, but this idea that he isn't playing into a persona is naive for anyone who doesn't believe it.

He just got interviewed by TMZ on Sunday about the Dodgers game.

Hey man, make that money, aint no one mad.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> But I am a big unapologetic Ben shapiro mark


This is a fair criticism of Shapiro's double standards

Hopefully you'll like it


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> This is literally my facorite part of politics to talk about, and I almost always agree with you on it. Hopefully this conversation goes somewhere.
> 
> But I am a big unapologetic Ben shapiro mark, and the reason is because he seems to handle himself very well.
> 
> ...


Just because Ben talks fast doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about. If you ever break down what he says, 90% of it is bullshit.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I hate to correct you here but it was Cowardly Coulter who backed out of the debate with Kyle at Politicon. He ended up debating Scottie Nell Hughes. I'm not a fan of Cenk but he did do a debate with Tucker Carlson. I don't watch TYT but you can't really say Kyle lives in an echo chamber, because he spends a lot of time listening to other points of view to prepare for his show. If he was in an echo chamber, the only things he'd be listening to are views that line up with his own.


Eh, they all pretty much have the same spiel thogh.

Fight for the YouTube clips.

They all do response videos to each other, and then avoid debates unless it furthers lining up their pockets.

After hearing you guys talk up Kalinski so much, I came away unimpressed. I liked the things he said on his interview with Joe Rogan, but at politicon with the panel with Bakari Sellers, he really didn't say much at all.

Same with Shapiro, I feel like the Ben Shapiro I got on joe Rogan, was better than i have ever seen

Sorry if that wasn't the point of your post, just wanted to interject a bit.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just because Ben talks fast doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about. If you ever break down what he says, 90% of it is bullshit.


kay


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


> This is a fair criticism of Shapiro's double standards
> 
> Hopefully you'll like it


Yeah, the man isn't perfect, and like I said, I don't agree with everything he says.

But I am a fan, I don't see why that is something that I have to defend.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yeah, the man isn't perfect, and like I said, I don't agree with everything he says.
> 
> But I am a fan, I don't see why that is something that I have to defend.


I understand. I used to be a fan too until I woke up to his "Nationalism for me but not for thee" BS and his pro-war, pro-intervention stance on Syria and the Middle East

Shapiro is essentially the hipster version of William Kristol lol


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


> I understand. I used to be a fan too until I woke up to his "Nationalism for me but not for thee" BS and his pro-war, pro-intervention stance on Syria


Yeah, I don't think it is smart to be on either side honestly.

I tend to like guys who can handle themselves in a debate, that is how I became a Shapiro mark.

I am a Sam Seder mark, but can't stand Jesse Lee Petersen.

Ann Coulter is a caricature IMO, the only time I came away impressed by her is when she talked about single moms, because that is a subject no one touches on.

But most of the guys (Kulinski, Crowder, Cenk, Kirk, Piker, etc.)

They just put out things to their audience, and that audience gobbles it up (to be fair, Shapiro is starting this now too)

But the main point is that I can understand where people don't like Shapiro, I just don't get why I should have to follow certain opinions.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I enjoy Crowder but he can be a little too mean spirited at times.

I love it when he crashes events and trolls people because usually it's done with the intent of educating and/or exposing hypocrites. But one time they had Sven Computer crash some LBGTQ session and it just came off like they just wanted troll and insult some gay people. Never looked at him the same after that.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I enjoy Crowder but he can be a little too mean spirited at times.
> 
> I love it when he crashes events and trolls people because usually it's done with the intent of educating and/or exposing hypocrites. But one time they had Sven Computer crash some LBGTQ session and it just came off like they just wanted troll and insult some gay people. Never looked at him the same after that.


Crowder is a clown and he keeps ducking a debate challenge from Sam Seder because he knows Seder would embarrass him like Seder embarrassed Charlie Kirk.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Crowder is a clown and he keeps ducking a debate challenge from Sam Seder because he knows Seder would embarrass him like Seder embarrassed Charlie Kirk.


Crowder is not an intellectual debater, as evidenced in his 'change my mind' videos. His heart is in the right place but he doesn't have the wits to pull it off. 

But he definitely has his moments. He's owned and exposed his fair share of people.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Crowder is not an intellectual debater, as evidenced in his 'change my mind' videos. His heart is in the right place but he doesn't have the wits to pull it off.
> 
> But he definitely has his moments. He's owned and exposed his fair share of people.


He does not have the intelligence either.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> *it isn't about getting facts out there, and letting people make their mind, it is about what mic drops you can get on Youtube that your echo chamber will perform auditory masturbation to, and call you a genius.*


You have Shapiro nailed. I've also not gotten the blind sheep vibe from you and I consider you one of the smarter individuals on the subject of minority appeasement - not just someone who leans somewhat right simply because he just wants to toe the line personally. I think your politics are somewhat flexible and I'm sure that if you're aware of how theatrical modern politics are, then you are keenly self-aware of your own positions. I think you will grow and your politics will with you. 



> Hey man, make that money, aint no one mad.


Yeah that's fine ... but unfortunately, while supporting conservatives might be fine in *some* very limited views, they are unintentionally or (maybe even intentionally) aligned with the hard religious and racist right. Like Gillum said about Desantis and it's a zinger but with a deep message behind it. 

Even if he ain't racist, racists think he's racist and love him. For example, Desantis started off his campaign for governor with a racist dog whistle quite literally - so while he may not be a racist, he wants their support openly. 

We have to be careful with regards to who we vote for lest there are the unintended consequences of the racist right gaining power.

BTW, I know that you also consider the Democratic party as also the party of racism and that's because they too are. The real culprit however there is still the corporatist that views the minorities as merely consumers (which is where the token minority and modern day blacksploitation is coming from) and therefore they have put a more appeasing face on their puppets than the republicans who simply go all out openly with their corporatist agenda. The democrats have to veil it a little. The so-called "leftist" corporations are not leftist obviously. Yes, the republicans do this too. They are just more blatant about it. 

If there were any true leftists in America not a single politician would ever have any funds to get themselves elected from any mega corporation. An American corporation would never in a million years support a leftist. Not one. Why, because one of the _primary _ideas behind leftism is _anti-corporatism_. Period. 

However, they are now starting to run on platforms of prison and drug reform (they are being forced to tbh) and eventually, I think they are the party much more likely to bring that about than the Republicans. I think both parties are shit so the real fight is at the county/state level.



Tater said:


> I hate to correct you here but it was Cowardly Coulter who backed out of the debate with Kyle at Politicon. He ended up debating Scottie Nell Hughes. I'm not a fan of Cenk but he did do a debate with Tucker Carlson. I don't watch TYT but you can't really say Kyle lives in an echo chamber, because he spends a lot of time listening to other points of view to prepare for his show. If he was in an echo chamber, the only things he'd be listening to are views that line up with his own.


I will give his show a much closer listen once I'm done fulfilling my deep fascination for communism by listening to podcasts appreciating Mao, Stalin and Lenin.

Srsly tho, I am back into the fray with the anti-corporatist movement for the most part and I can't believe that I even thought for a second about thinking they were in the wrong lol.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Crowder claims to be a Christian and a Zionist

That's like claiming to be a meat-eating vegan or a god-fearing atheist fpalm Jesus hated the Jews and the Jews hated Jesus

tl;dr Crowder is either an idiot or a shabbos goy


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

facts are legitimized feelings. Absolutely no such thing as a fact without feeling.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I enjoy Crowder but he can be a little too mean spirited at times.
> 
> I love it when he crashes events and trolls people because usually it's done with the intent of educating and/or exposing hypocrites. But one time they had Sven Computer crash some LBGTQ session and it just came off like they just wanted troll and insult some gay people. Never looked at him the same after that.


Crowder is a ham.

i like him, because he does make me laugh, I look at his political commentary as comedy more than with actual intent to educate, so I guess that is why it doesn't bother me.

Comedy is sometimes hit or miss.

The Hodge Twins are the best when they come on with him though, the chemistry between those 3 are amazing.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I love Shapiro. I don't agree with everything he says (he's very set in stone on his beliefs on abortion, he tends to support wars/excessive military spending) and he's clearly got an agenda he's playing but the dude can flat out debate. I watched a lot of Politicon stuff this year and found a lot to be really good. Not a Kulinski or Kirk guy. Kulinski tries to play the Ben role but he's not 1/100th the debater Ben is. Kirk is just a child. The Cenk/Tucker conversation was great. That's what modern politics needs to be as opposed to Ben/Cenk last year.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Crowder is a clown and he keeps ducking a debate challenge from Sam Seder because he knows Seder would embarrass him like Seder embarrassed Charlie Kirk.


Oh come off it.

They all avoid each other.

Crowder called out your boy Kulinski when he was ducking him. Kyle straight said he wouldn't debate Ben or Steven, strictly because they believed in jesus, and then was all "What do you mean no one wants to debate me" when Coulter left him out in the cold.

Seder challenged Crowder to a debate at Politicon, in which Crowder is banned from.

Politics are more like WWE than CNN

Seder and Kulisnki just went to the ring and said "I am calling out so and so to debate me, and letting all of you know when i can just DM the guy and get a response."

Conservatives do it too. So it isn't one sided.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You have Shapiro nailed. I've also not gotten the blind sheep vibe from you and I consider you one of the smarter individuals on the subject of minority appeasement - not just someone who leans somewhat right simply because he just wants to toe the line personally. I think your politics are somewhat flexible and I'm sure that if you're aware of how theatrical modern politics are, then you are keenly self-aware of your own positions. I think you will grow and your politics will with you.


That's very kind of you to say.

And like I said, I started following Shapiro because I heard him on Joe Rogan's podcast.

He sounded and seemed a lot different then he does when he is in his "Republican Rockstar" gimmick.

But that is the funny thing about trump being president, these guys are now becoming rockstars as opposed to actual discussers of things.

I listen to Shapiro's show just to get information now. He isn't Milo(who is) but he obviously does research, and is a smart guy.

Part of the reason I see him milking this how he has. 



> Yeah that's fine ... but unfortunately, while supporting conservatives might be fine in *some* very limited views, they are unintentionally or (maybe even intentionally) aligned with the hard religious and racist right. Like Gillum said about Desantis and it's a zinger but with a deep message behind it.
> 
> Even if he ain't racist, racists think he's racist and love him. For example, Desantis started off his campaign for governor with a racist dog whistle quite literally - so while he may not be a racist, he wants their support openly.
> 
> We have to be careful with regards to who we vote for lest there are the unintended consequences of the racist right gaining power.


This is my issue of what politics is becoming. It's frustrating, because we as a society should be passed it.

But racism drives the news media. I hate the idea that racists get more power, hate the idea even more that people will cater to them (on either side) to get their vote. 



> BTW, I know that you also consider the Democratic party as also the party of racism and that's because they too are. The real culprit however there is still the corporatist that views the minorities as merely consumers (which is where the token minority and modern day blacksploitation is coming from) and therefore they have put a more appeasing face on their puppets than the republicans who simply go all out openly with their corporatist agenda. The democrats have to veil it a little. The so-called "leftist" corporations are not leftist obviously. Yes, the republicans do this too. They are just more blatant about it.


It's strange, I was listening to Jimmy Dore who said the same point you made the other day about how the dems swapped over to become just like the republicans.

the issues (IMO) we face in America come dow to what I call "green privilege" No one cares about their other man, as long as the money is good.

I had a friend of mine say to me once, "if we got rid of Wall Street, we would solve 50-60% of America's problems right away, but no one wants to do that because Americans love to gamble and win"

It stuck out to me, and I think is a driving force in a lot of the systematic BS that claims everyone.



> If there were any true leftists in America not a single politician would ever have any funds to get themselves elected from any mega corporation. An American corporation would never in a million years support a leftist. Not one. Why, because one of the _primary _ideas behind leftism is _anti-corporatism_. Period.
> 
> However, they are now starting to run on platforms of prison and drug reform (they are being forced to tbh) and eventually, I think they are the party much more likely to bring that about than the Republicans. I think both parties are shit so the real fight is at the county/state level.


I hate when we agree, because I feel like I nitpick when I find something.

But this paragraph is spot on.

give more power to the states. 

Colorado wants to legalize the gonjah, while Arkansas doesn't? Perfect fine by me, let Arkansas reap the rewards or suffer the heartache.

The biggest thing that i hear most of these people agree on is getting government out of things they shouldn't be involved in, yet they all find another way to fight with each other, lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Crowder is a ham.
> 
> i like him, because he does make me laugh, I look at his political commentary as comedy more than with actual intent to educate, so I guess that is why it doesn't bother me.
> 
> ...


The video where he pretended to be a woman and crashed the women's march is the best segment he ever produced. It was hilarious but eye opening at the same time. 

One of the most damning videos of mainstream feminsm that exists on the internet.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> I love Shapiro. I don't agree with everything he says (he's very set in stone on his beliefs on abortion, he tends to support wars/excessive military spending) and he's clearly got an agenda he's playing but the dude can flat out debate. I watched a lot of Politicon stuff this year and found a lot to be really good. Not a Kulinski or Kirk guy. Kulinski tries to play the Ben role but he's not 1/100th the debater Ben is. Kirk is just a child. The Cenk/Tucker conversation was great. That's what modern politics needs to be as opposed to Ben/Cenk last year.


Kirk is a guy who is 25, so the idea that he gets hot, is something people hold against him, but its also understandable. I also refuse to believe he isn't giving Candace his own Turning Point if you get my drift, and he is starting to sound a bit like her.

Seder was not a good match for him, because Charlie came ill prepared, and obviously underestimated him.

It also showed when he debated Piker as he let Piker off the hook numerous times, and wouldn't follow up and got distracted by shiny quarter disease.

Kulinski looks for the gotcha moments, and he gets them on his own show, but he is also a product of people trying to find a "mic dropper" as opposed to someone who can articulate facts without the agenda showing.

I swear my Youtube is filled with "Kyle wrecks" or "Kyle destroys" and it is really isn't an earth shattering "why arent you 60" moment like Ben seems to have.

i saw a video where he "wrecked" Michael Knowles by asking Knowles if he was pro-life why does he support the death penalty, which is a dumb argument, because the same exact argument can be used the other way around.

Then he says "This will be easy if you keep walking into this." That is around the point I got a little disappointed. And then he spent most of the rest of the debate agreeing with Kirk. It wasn't what I expected


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The video where he pretended to be a woman and crashed the women's march is the best segment he ever produced. It was hilarious but eye opening at the same time.
> 
> One of the most damning videos of mainstream feminsm that exists on the internet.


Yeah, like I said, I think Crowder is legit funny. 

He doesn't debate well, because in his change my mind segments, if he feels he is losing, he pulls the mic back, you can tell

But that concept is phenomenal, it is shocking that it was turned down by networks, it is really good, and everyone should be doing things like that.

I am enjoying his segments where he is finding people from twitter now, and confronting them, that is tremendous


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Kirk is a guy who is 25, so the idea that he gets hot, is something people hold against him, but its also understandable. I also refuse to believe he isn't giving Candace his own Turning Point if you get my drift, and he is starting to sound a bit like her.
> 
> Seder was not a good match for him, because Charlie came ill prepared, and obviously underestimated him.
> *
> ...


Its because Kirk is a shit debater, he just has talking points and that is it. When challenged on one of his talking points, he does not know how to defend it, so he just says the talking point again.

Kirk lost to Piker which is sad. Piker is not a great debater by any means, its just funny Kirk couldn't even beat Piker

Kyle is a great debater because he knows his facts backward and forward. 

And NO you can't ask the pro-life / death penalty the other way around to the pro-choice crowd. How do you figure? The death penalty is not a pro-choice issue. Whereas if you are pro-life you are supposed to value all life no?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Undertaker23RKO said:
> 
> 
> > I love Shapiro. I don't agree with everything he says (he's very set in stone on his beliefs on abortion, he tends to support wars/excessive military spending) and he's clearly got an agenda he's playing but the dude can flat out debate. I watched a lot of Politicon stuff this year and found a lot to be really good. Not a Kulinski or Kirk guy. Kulinski tries to play the Ben role but he's not 1/100th the debater Ben is. Kirk is just a child. The Cenk/Tucker conversation was great. That's what modern politics needs to be as opposed to Ben/Cenk last year.
> ...


How on earth is it the same the other way round? People who are pro abortion do not count a zygote as a human being. That's a complete misconception of kyles position.

Being pro choice and against execution are in no way comparable to being pro life but also pro death penalty.

I'm against execution not because i give two shits about guilty people dying, but I care about the innocent people who are killed of which ONE us too many to risk. It's not that in pro life or some shit.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its because Kirk is a shit debater, he just has talking points and that is it. When challenged on one of his talking points, he does not know how to defend it, so he just says the talking point again.


Kirk is an average debater, and works like Cenk

He has his stats, and his talking points that he regurgitates, and is going to win or lose with that.

Not the best strategy, but he may grow up and get better.



> Kirk lost to Piker which is sad. Piker is not a great debater by any means, its just funny Kirk couldn't even beat Piker


Kirk didn't lose to Piker. I am going to steal one of your lines:

if you can't be honest, then just don't talk about it.

Piker was contradicting himself just to disagree, he wasn't even listening, and KEPT moving the goalposts to something else.

Charlie asked him within the first 5 minutes if he considered Norway, a socialistic country, and Piker for some unknown f'n reason, says no... all because he anticipates that Charlie has a point.

Then goes on to later say "Well, we could be like Norway"

Piker gets prepped by his uncle on how to debate, that is why it is painful to watch the debates they had.

he did better than last year, but he didn't win.



> Kyle is a great debater because he knows his facts backward and forward.


Dude, you are going to have to show me something then, because I was not impressed.

Now, I didn't watch his actual debate, but I saw him against Knowles and Kirk, and he did nothing like you are talking about.

he barely spoke, he had the "zinger" on Knowles, which was just stupid, and then started agreeing with Kirk more than Sellers.

I get you are a fan, but Kulinski should be put in the oven for some seasoning, dude is a B+ player right now. 



> And NO you can't ask the pro-life / death penalty the other way around to the pro-choice crowd. How do you figure? The death penalty is not a pro-choice issue. Whereas if you are pro-life you are supposed to value all life no?


Oh my, try to stay objectional

Whats the differenc between pro-life and anti-abortion?

If I just say I am "anti-abortion" then I can believe the death penatly is ok.

it's like saying oh, so you are pro-choice, so can I choose to kill you, I mean you approve of choices?

Its a flawed and stupid argument both ways which is why for Kyle to be the dude you want to go against Shapiro, i hit the :rolleyes

Knowles says "i am pro-life and pro-process" which answers the question.

"I only want capital punishment if the process deems it necessary"

Also it could be easy to say "Well, you care about the life outside the womb, why not caring about it inside the womb. The argument is flawed on both sides.

Now, I agree with Kirk and Kulinski as i think that the death penalty is a waste of time, and money, but there were many other argument he could have made but didn't.

he wanted his "mic drop" moment, and unfortunately he didn't get it there. 

He was just on Rogan's show, so i will check him out there, I am willing to give him a chance, but Seder impressed me a lot more


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

DMD Mofomagic said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > Its because Kirk is a shit debater, he just has talking points and that is it. When challenged on one of his talking points, he does not know how to defend it, so he just says the talking point again.
> ...


I'm amazed by this post because it's absolute word soup garbage.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> How on earth is it the same the other way round? People who are pro abortion do not count a zygote as a human being. That's a complete misconception of kyles position.
> 
> Being pro choice and against execution are in no way comparable to being pro life but also pro death penalty.
> 
> I'm against execution not because i give two shits about guilty people dying, but I care about the innocent people who are killed of which ONE us too many to risk. It's not that in pro life or some shit.


Well, then the argument should be about when does life begin.

But when Knowles brings up that argument Sellers shoots it down right away, and Kyle (who from what i have seen is not a puppet) could have brought that up.

The worst part is Charlie Kirk made a better case against the death penalty than Kyle Kulinski did.

The main point is that instead of trying the mic drop he should have hit him up with his reasons and the facts, that Kirk did.

But nope, that's not what happened. Like I said to BM, I get it you are a fan, but this dude came away unimpressive and seems to be built up by his audience, I don't see it.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > How on earth is it the same the other way round? People who are pro abortion do not count a zygote as a human being. That's a complete misconception of kyles position.
> ...


I like Kyle. He's not the be all and end all.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Kirk is a guy who is 25, so the idea that he gets hot, is something people hold against him, but its also understandable. I also refuse to believe he isn't giving Candace his own Turning Point if you get my drift, and he is starting to sound a bit like her.
> 
> Seder was not a good match for him, because Charlie came ill prepared, and obviously underestimated him.
> 
> ...


Charlie is young so it makes sense but he really doesn't handle himself very well. He's got a long way to go. At Politicon all Kyle tried doing was getting a "big own" in and every time he did that Knowles smacked him around. I didn't even know who he was until then. Apparently he had the Shapiro of the left hype but from what I've seen he's not remotely impressive.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I like Kyle. He's not the be all and end all.


And I like Ben.

I think it was you (or Tater) i forget that said they didn't like Knowles

I think Knowles is an arrogant twat, but I like his arrogance and moxy (mainly because of him reminding me of a wrestling character)

I am not saying "Kyle is an idiot" I think dude is smart, but I saw BM saying he wanted to see him face Shapiro.

He don't want those problems.

I don't know anyone on the left i would want to debate Shapiro, as i actually like Dinesh D'Souza's style a lot better (part of the reason i like Sam Seder is because he reminds me of him)

I just wish I saw more out of him then I did. Like I said, i think he is capable, I just dont see him as the "God tier" i have seen him be made out to be.

But different strokes for different folks, ya know


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Charlie is young so it makes sense but he really doesn't handle himself very well. He's got a long way to go. At Politicon all Kyle tried doing was getting a "big own" in and every time he did that Knowles smacked him around. I didn't even know who he was until then. Apparently he had the Shapiro of the left hype but from what I've seen he's not remotely impressive.


Charlie has regressed.

I told reap this, but I HATE how Candace Owens debated and he is starting to remind me of her

That "Well, you don't agree, then I am just going to keep talking over you until you get tired"

Everything else I agree with and talked about already in this thread (and riled some feathers obviously)


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> And I like Ben.
> 
> I think it was you (or Tater) i forget that said they didn't like Knowles
> 
> ...


Liberals don't want it with Shapiro, but even less want it with Larry Elder.

Especially white liberals.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Liberals don't want it with Shapiro, but even less want it with Larry Elder.
> 
> Especially white liberals.


Shapiro destroying Cenk last year cemented his legacy.

People forget everyone said that Cenk would destroy him, because Cenk did a good job against D'Souza the year before.

But in an Austin vs Hart moment, the crowd turned on Cenk, and he went heel on them

The dude who was the progressive's man turned on them, and got shut down.

since then, I think the progressives are just trying to find the one person who can take down Shapiro, they may find one, never say never


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Charlie has regressed.
> 
> I told reap this, but I HATE how Candace Owens debated and he is starting to remind me of her
> 
> ...


They "regress" not because their arguments are no longer valid. They "regress" because _we_ grow while _they _continue with the same shtick .. and they are stuck in their own arguments because they do not address the counters to their arguments while repeating aging arguments that have been deconstructed by others. They're performers. We're the audience. We have more freedom to go and listen to others who are countering their arguments and so on and so forth. There are several posters in here (both liberals and conservatives) that also show the same lack of growth and instead of growing intellectually become stuck in what they already know and start identifying with their _label _instead of the knowledge itself. 

I'll give you an example of Christina Hoff Sommers who is a famed anti-feminist feminist within the gamergate circles. I enjoyed her the first few times I saw her videos. Then I started noticing a pattern. All of her talks were scripted. The more videos I watched, the more repetition I noticed. Then I went back to watch some of her oldest vids which were uploaded at the time and she was using the same examples decades ago. Like she was caught in a loop and it was eerily like finding myself caught inside a time vortex. 

Most of these talkers are the same. The reason why many of them fall by the wayside is that they get popular for reasons other than their actual intellect and over time it gets exposed because they don't continue to grow their arguments to include the counters to their arguments. They simply continue to parrot whatever it is that got them the platform originally. And then they become that platform for others like them etc.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I would like to watch this 'destruction' of Cenk but I can't stand him or Shapiro so it sounds like I'll have to take other people's word for it. And so far, from other sources, it's mostly in bens favor but nothing seems to support a destruction of anybody. Probably just more misuse of words from WF.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are right Trump isn't a conservative, he is a fascist and wants to be a dictator


You're thinking of FDR.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I would like to watch this 'destruction' of Cenk but I can't stand him or Shapiro so it sounds like I'll have to take other people's word for it. And so far, from other sources, it's mostly in bens favor but nothing seems to support a destruction of anybody. Probably just more misuse of words from WF.


Cenk's a terrible excuse of a progressive ffs. TYT are morons. Their entire shtick is simply being as _reactionary_ as possible without once talking about anything that matters with regards to corporatism whatsoever. They celebrate corporate success and profits as long as they happen within a democrat government just because it serves the agenda of pushing establishment democrats as much as possible. They're Pro-hillary ffs. So I have no clue whatsoever why anyone thinks that they have any leftist cred whatsoever.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://twitter.com/camanpour/status/1057336868046430208/video/1

Jon Stewart exposes the media.

- Vic


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> They "regress" not because their arguments are no longer valid. They "regress" because _we_ grow while _they _continue with the same shtick .. and they are stuck in their own arguments because they do not address the counters to their arguments while repeating aging arguments that have been deconstructed by others. They're performers. We're the audience. We have more freedom to go and listen to others who are countering their arguments and so on and so forth. There are several posters in here (both liberals and conservatives) that also show the same lack of growth and instead of growing intellectually become stuck in what they already know and start identifying with their _label _instead of the knowledge itself.
> 
> I'll give you an example of Christina Hoff Sommers who is a famed anti-feminist feminist within the gamergate circles. I enjoyed her the first few times I saw her videos. Then I started noticing a pattern. All of her talks were scripted. The more videos I watched, the more repetition I noticed. Then I went back to watch some of her oldest vids which were uploaded at the time and she was using the same examples decades ago. Like she was caught in a loop and it was eerily like finding myself caught inside a time vortex.
> 
> Most of these talkers are the same. The reason why many of them fall by the wayside is that they get popular for reasons other than their actual intellect and over time it gets exposed because they don't continue to grow their arguments to include the counters to their arguments. They simply continue to parrot whatever it is that got them the platform originally. And then they become that platform for others like them etc.


I agree.

That's why with Crowder I would never go to anyone and say "Steven Crowder says" because while I like Steven, and find him entertaining, i am not looking for him to be this intellectual on things politics.

in fact my favorite stuff from Steven is when he isn't focusing on politics as much as political satire.

Same with Trevor Noah, who I love as a comedian, but think is a joke as a political analyst

The sad part is that it has gotten into the political circle now. I like Greg Gutfeld on Fox news, and I don't find him extremely intelligent about politics, but I do find him funny.

What is crazy is how Candace Owens bounced back, she was vilified by a lot of the right just 15 months ago, and climbed her way out of that.

I don't know about people being recycled though,i think this is the "benefits" of a Trump presidency, people want the shock jocks because the president is one himself.

I remember Obama as president, and it was mainly just one side saying he was good, and another saying he was evil... but it was nothing like this.

this is a little crazy, and a little fun. Gets more eyeballs than WWE Evolution did at least


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> You're thinking of FDR.


Crazy story:

My great grandfather once told me the only white person he ever liked was FDR.

I asked him about JFK and his exact words were "Kennedy wasn't shit, he didn't care about black people at all"

That has nothing to do with anythng, but you saying that reminded me of him, lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Kirk didn't lose to Piker. I am going to steal one of your lines:
> 
> if you can't be honest, then just don't talk about it.
> 
> ...


Piker totally beat Kirk LOL It was not even close. You are the one who can't be honest.

What exactly did Piker contradict himself on? List them out

Norway isn't a socialist country, its a democratic socialist, there is a difference. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Dude, you are going to have to show me something then, because I was not impressed.
> 
> Now, I didn't watch his actual debate, but I saw him against Knowles and Kirk, and he did nothing like you are talking about.
> 
> ...


Watch any of Kyles debates, If he does not impress you then I have no idea what you are looking for to impress.
Just go watch his two fox news appearances if you want something short and sweet. 





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Oh my, try to stay objectional
> 
> Whats the differenc between pro-life and anti-abortion?
> 
> ...



How am I not staying objectionable?

Pro-life means you are FOR LIFE so if you are pro-life when it comes to abortion you can't turn around and claim you are for the death penalty. 

And pro-choice means you are in favor of a womans right to choose for an abortion.

If you are pro-life for abortion and for the death penalty it makes you a hypocrite which was Kyles point. If you want to be a hypocrite on that, its fine just admit it. 

It's not a flawed argument, it's perfectly valid, showing the hypocrisy of the pro-lifers. 

The argument is not flawed on both sides because a zygote is not a human life.

He totally owned with his point, its just a joke you are trying to make excuses


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Well, *then the argument should be about when does life begin.
> *
> But when Knowles brings up that argument Sellers shoots it down right away, and Kyle (who from what i have seen is not a puppet) could have brought that up.
> 
> ...


Its just funny who impresses you and who doesn't when it comes to debaters. I can't even take you seriously. but you post history already aught me that lol

As for the argument when life begins, we have been over this a million times in abortion threads. It always ends the same.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I would like to watch this 'destruction' of Cenk but I can't stand him or Shapiro so it sounds like I'll have to take other people's word for it. And so far, from other sources, it's mostly in bens favor but nothing seems to support a destruction of anybody. Probably just more misuse of words from WF.


It might not be total destruction but Ben rattled the hell out of Cenk to the point he was mocking the crowd and calling them unintelligent. Plus he had absolutely no answer for Ben when it came to his hypocritical stance on taking money out of politics. If you're going to watch something interesting Cenk vs. Tucker is much better.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I just think it's hilarious that much of the hysteria and hyperbole about Trump accurately describes stuff FDR actually did and he's like the left's favorite president ever. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> It might not be total destruction but Ben rattled the hell out of Cenk to the point he was mocking the crowd and calling them unintelligent. Plus he had absolutely no answer for Ben when it came to his hypocritical stance on taking money out of politics. If you're going to watch something interesting Cenk vs. Tucker is much better.


Cenk beat Ben in that debate, and he didn't rattle Cenk LOL Cenk was right on what he said, Cenk told the crowd to go fact check what he was saying and Cenk was 100% right. 

As for Cenk having no answer for Ben on Bens money in politics question, pretty sure he did answer it, if its th one where Ben tried to compare TYT to lobbyists giving money to politicians. It was a nonsensical question and was not even close to the same thing.

If you are referring to something else then refresh my memory. Ben was always laughably bad when it came to the healthcare part of that debate He embarrassed himself with his reasoning.

Kyle or David Pakman need to debate Ben that is the debate I want to see because Ben would go down hard against either of them.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057683481793302528
:mj


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Piker totally beat Kirk LOL It was not even close. You are the one who can't be honest.
> 
> What exactly did Piker contradict himself on? List them out
> 
> Norway isn't a socialist country, its a democratic socialist, there is a difference.


Did you listen to the debate?

Piker brings up the scandanavian countries, and then Kirk, lists the ones that everyone says, and Piker, says they don't practice socialism. 

Pikerdoesn't say much, he just changes the subject on things, and virtue signals instead of saying facts.

Last year his laughable "Ben Shapiro isn't popular" was the worst of the worst, but I am not sitting through that debate again, just to list out shit.

You can't even give me instances where he "owned" Charlie, so i don't feel like hearing it.



> Watch any of Kyles debates, If he does not impress you then I have no idea what you are looking for to impress.
> Just go watch his two fox news appearances if you want something short and sweet.


So this is the one I looked at:






Now, understand first off, there is a big leap between me saying "I think Kyle is good, but nowhere near as touted" and "Kyle is an idiot" One I said one I didn't.

I can see why you are a fan of his, but he is not a "Final Boss" debater you make him out to be. he is good, but not anywhere near a Shapiro, or a Seder... I don;t see how that is an insult, honestly. 

He was about to make a point about the prison system, which i thought would be good, but had nothing to do with the convo. I stand by what i said, he looks for the gotcha moment, and he doesn't have to, it makes him sloppy. 

And I don't know how he defended that clip, because it was cringe-worthy bad. Thats a Piker move, so negative points there



> How am I not staying objectionable?


You are not an objectionable poster, has anyone told you that you were.



> Pro-life means you are FOR LIFE so if you are pro-life when it comes to abortion you can't turn around and claim you are for the death penalty.


Ok, we just have to stop here, because you are doing that thing where you string words together, and trying to actually not sound bad, but you sound worse.

But just to go by Merriam Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life



> Definition of pro-life
> : opposed to abortion


Please just stop from here



> And pro-choice means you are in favor of a womans right to choose for an abortion.


Yes, which is why the example I used was completely stupid and made no sense, and should never be used in a debate.



> If you are pro-choice for abortion and for the death penalty it makes you a hypocrite which was Kyles point. If you want to be a hypocrite on that, its fine just admit it.


well, maybe Kyle should read a dictionary, you email him that for me, let me know what he says



> It's not a flawed argument, it's perfectly valid, showing the hypocrisy of the pro-lifers.


But Knoles response was a good one... i am not going to tell you what he said, because i am 100% sure that you didn't see it.



> The argument is not flawed on both sides because a zygote is not a human life.
> 
> He totally owned with his point, its just a joke you are trying to make excuses


Kirk made a better point to his point (which Kyle agreed with) and you called him a shitty debater, so its funny how you, the objectional poster you are, cant even stay consistent

Keep in mind the even worse context:

Knowles was talking about how he likes division in the parties because he wants side to be clear.

Kyle(who apparently, had been thinking of this zinger all day) brings up the death penalty, as something that Knowles should oppose and his argument is because of abortion.

There is a bad train of thought there.

he went for the YouTube clip instead of actually arguing the point, and then instead of strengthening his position he went to the "Well, you do this, so you are a hypocrite"

If you want to debate on WF like that, thats fine, but to be at politicon, and the masses say this is you showing how much of a boss you are, you need to come better than that.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I personally think it's unreasonable for a child of parents who aren't citizens to get automatic citizenship in that country just because they dropped it on that soil.

I have no problem with this change I just find it hilarious that it's a constitutional thing and he wants to just executive order. But mention gun control...


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its just funny who impresses you and who doesn't when it comes to debaters. I can't even take you seriously. but you post history already aught me that lol
> 
> As for the argument when life begins, we have been over this a million times in abortion threads. It always ends the same.


Oh no, what am i going to do that BM has said he cant take me seriously for the 100th time .

The first 99 were easy to deal with, but today is so tough.

I think I will be fine. 

Run along now, I am sure you need to go judge poor people, and use some more condescending rhetoric in the name of "social justice"


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> I just think it's hilarious that much of the hysteria and hyperbole about Trump accurately describes stuff FDR actually did and he's like the left's favorite president ever.


It's quite remarkable.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> this is a little crazy, and a little fun. Gets more eyeballs than WWE Evolution did at least


Yup. Watch the 10th episode of Dear White People Season 2 at around the 20 minute mark on Netflix. 

I can't find it uploaded anywhere otherwise I'd just link it.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Cenk beat Ben in that debate, and he didn't rattle Cenk LOL Cenk was right on what he said, Cenk told the crowd to go fact check what he was saying and Cenk was 100% right.
> 
> As for Cenk having no answer for Ben on Bens money in politics question, pretty sure he did answer it, if its th one where Ben tried to compare TYT to lobbyists giving money to politicians. It was a nonsensical question and was not even close to the same thing.
> 
> ...


You don't insult the entire audience if you aren't rattled. Which is exactly what Cenk did. Why are you such a staunch defender of anyone who remotely resembles being "progressive"? You go on about how the left is magically unbeaten in every debate ever against anyone who leans centre or right, like...those people aren't going to give you a job the harder you kiss their asses. And you moan about how Trump supporters are blind biased sheep, you do the exact same thing to anyone who opposes him and or the GOP. 

Also, for someone who is such a progressive, its ironic that you have no issue with Cenk and his naming of his media group "The Young Turks". You know that same regime in Turkey that murdered over 1 million Armenians over ethnic and religious differences. Which mind you, Cenk did deny it ever happened. I can't imagine how you'd react if a big time youtube news outlet was named after the SS


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Aye Cenk denying the genocide is just one ridiculous thing that if someone like Shapiro said he'd be 'destroyed' by people like me.

I don't like double standards very much. So fuck Cenk.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I personally think it's unreasonable for a child of parents who aren't citizens to get automatic citizenship in that country just because they dropped it on that soil.
> 
> I have no problem with this change I just find it hilarious that it's a constitutional thing and he wants to just executive order. But mention gun control...


No change has to be made to the 14th amendment for this to happen. It has never included illegals.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yeah there's zero basis for thinking the 14th amendment applied to foreigners. Go back and read what the people who actually passed these bills said instead of just assuming you know what they meant 150 years later.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah there's zero basis for thinking the 14th amendment applied to foreigners. Go back and read what the people who actually passed these bills said instead of just assuming you know what they meant 150 years later.


It's not even up for debate. There was some Thomas Jefferson quote floating around the other day that said it in plain terms.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

My post on how "it's up for interpretation" was what was really the most valid commentary on the American Constitution ITT.

Just another set of edicts by another group of men from a different era that are still being debated as the be all and end all of existence. Blah blah blah. 

We know the arguments. Religious people have been making them for thousands of years.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Did you listen to the debate?
> 
> Piker brings up the scandanavian countries, and then Kirk, lists the ones that everyone says, and Piker, says they don't practice socialism.
> 
> ...


yes, I watched the debate. AGAIN they practice democratic socialism. Not sure how many times this needs to be said. You do understand there is a difference right?

Piker gave plenty of facts in this debate, he refused most of Kirks points and Kirk like the robot he just keeps repeating his talking points. 

Piker isn't a great debater by any means, but Kirk lost this debate, and that is just said he cant even beat Piker.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Now, understand first off, there is a big leap between me saying "I think Kyle is good, but nowhere near as touted" and "Kyle is an idiot" One I said one I didn't.
> 
> I can see why you are a fan of his, but he is not a "Final Boss" debater you make him out to be. he is good, but not anywhere near a Shapiro, or a Seder... I don;t see how that is an insult, honestly.
> 
> ...




Kyle is way better than Sharpio. I know you think just because Sharpio talks fasts it means he is a good debater, it doesn't. If you actually listen to what Ben says, you will see how wrong and illogical he is on most of the things he says. Kyle would run circles around Ben.

Kyle is far from sloppy, Kirk what sloppy, Kyle is always on point and cuts to the chase, he does not BS like Ben does.

As for him defending that clip, he was talking more about her policies then the BS question the interviewer asked her. He better explains what he should have said in response to the clip, but time was short and he wanted to stick to the left and their platform.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You are not an objectionable poster, has anyone told you that you were.



LOL nice deflection on the topic at hand.

QUOTE=DMD Mofomagic;76375818]

Ok, we just have to stop here, because you are doing that thing where you string words together, and trying to actually not sound bad, but you sound worse.

But just to go by Merriam Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life

Definition of pro-life 
: opposed to abortion
Please just stop from here


[/QUOTE]

Are you going to deny pro-lifers are not hypocrites? If they are pro-life when it comes to abortion they should be pro-life for everything. Are you really going to claim they shouldn't?



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yes, which is why the example I used was completely stupid and made no sense, and should never be used in a debate.



So you admit your logic for the opposite being true is nonsensual. good, you can admit that.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> well, maybe Kyle should read a dictionary, you email him that for me, let me know what he says



LOL keep defending the hypocrisy of the pro-life crowd





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Kirk made a better point to his point (which Kyle agreed with) and you called him a shitty debater, so it's funny how you, the objectional poster you are, can't even stay consistent


Kirk made a better point to Kyles point, and???????? Kirk is a shitty debater, he just spews talking points. All you did was admit Kirk made a talking point Kyle agreed with LOL

You don't really think Kirk is a good debater do you?







Stinger Fan said:


> You don't insult the entire audience if you aren't rattled. Which is exactly what Cenk did. Why are you such a staunch defender of anyone who remotely resembles being "progressive"? You go on about how the left is magically unbeaten in every debate ever against anyone who leans centre or right, like...those people aren't going to give you a job the harder you kiss their asses. And you moan about how Trump supporters are blind biased sheep, you do the exact same thing to anyone who opposes him and or the GOP.
> 
> Also, for someone who is such a progressive, its ironic that you have no issue with Cenk and his naming of his media group "The Young Turks". You know that same regime in Turkey that murdered over 1 million Armenians over ethnic and religious differences. Which mind you, Cenk did deny it ever happened. I can't imagine how you'd react if a big time youtube news outlet was named after the SS



The audience was heckling him and Cenk told them to google it because they don't know what they are talking about and again Cenk was right. So using your logic when a comedian fires back at a heckler, he or she is rattled? LOL 

We have been over the naming of his TYT group a million times, Cenk has even explained it a million times but people like you just ignore it to keep your false narrative going which isn't even true. And Cenk even said he was wrong to deny it when he was a republican when he was younger but of course you ignore that fact too


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Yup. Watch the 10th episode of Dear White People Season 2 at around the 20 minute mark on Netflix.
> 
> I can't find it uploaded anywhere otherwise I'd just link it.


I just chekced it out couple thoughts:

I always find it funny when people seem to look like "real-life" counterparts.

That girl looks just like Candace Owens, just like the villain in Venom looks like Elon Musk, no one can tell me differently.

Also, it is scary how true it is.

We all are characters, ya know, like even on here, we are all our own little gimmicks, its what the world has become.

DMD Mofomagic can be a heel who bullies and uses smart ass remarks, but if most people met me in real life, I am really reserved, and don't like to argue nearly as much.

Sometimes the difference between us and everyone else really is time, lol..

Love that line, totally stealing it.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > I personally think it's unreasonable for a child of parents who aren't citizens to get automatic citizenship in that country just because they dropped it on that soil.
> ...


Yeah, and the second amendment doesn't mention bumper stocks, so let's give up the idea that the constitution is in any way relevant to either issues.

That'll never happen though.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah there's zero basis for thinking the 14th amendment applied to foreigners. Go back and read what the people who actually passed these bills said instead of just assuming you know what they meant 150 years later.


Of course, it does. If it didn't you really think they would have been allowing it all this time until Trump's racist ass become president.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Yeah, and the second amendment doesn't mention bumper stocks, so let's give up the idea that the constitution is in any way relevant to either issues.
> 
> That'll never happen though.


There is a difference between not mentioning and specifically outlawing.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Cenk's a terrible excuse of a progressive ffs. TYT are morons. Their entire shtick is simply being as _reactionary_ as possible without once talking about anything that matters with regards to corporatism whatsoever. They celebrate corporate success and profits as long as they happen within a democrat government just because it serves the agenda of pushing establishment democrats as much as possible. They're Pro-hillary ffs. So I have no clue whatsoever why anyone thinks that they have any leftist cred whatsoever.


TYT are what's wrong with the modern "Left". 

For one Cenk is an idiot who denied the Armenian Genocide and TYT is named after a group of racist genocidal maniacs. Yet TYT and Cena are considered Leftist heroes by many of the "Left" and considered legit after all their exposure. 

Could you imagine a Right Wing group called "The Hitler Youth" lead by a Holocaust denier actually being taken seriously, by anyone? So the Turks commit mass genocide on a group of people who aren't Jewish so that makes it ok, not so bad? I really don't get the thinking here. 

It's why I cannot take TYT or the "Left" seriously because they have no self awareness. Sadly the Left is crawling with these people, mucking things up.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yes, I watched the debate. AGAIN they practice democratic socialism. Not sure how many times this needs to be said. You do understand there is a difference right?
> 
> Piker gave plenty of facts in this debate, he refused most of Kirks points and Kirk like the robot he just keeps repeating his talking points.
> 
> Piker isn't a great debater by any means, but Kirk lost this debate, and that is just said he cant even beat Piker.


Well, if Piker had said that instead of you trying to pigeonhole in put words in his mouth, maybe I would consider you more genuine.

i don't, there is no reason to go into circles, it's boring me.





> Kyle is way better than Sharpio. I know you think just because Sharpio talks fasts it means he is a good debater, it doesn't. If you actually listen to what Ben says, you will see how wrong and illogical he is on most of the things he says. Kyle would run circles around Ben.


That is Cenk's argument word for word. But no I think Shapiro is a smart guy because he graduated high school at 16, and went to Harvard Law School, graduated , wrote a book at 22, and at 34 has the number 1 conservative podcast in America.

not because he talks fast. ben is smart, the fact that you can't say that, shows you have a bias. 

Also, Kyle had said before he won't debate Ben, he had his chance, and then started whining as soon as Coulter left him in the cold.

like I said, I know you don't want to believe your heroes let you down, but it happened, so i don;t feel remorse for Kyle on that.




> Kyle is far from sloppy, Kirk what sloppy, Kyle is always on point and cuts to the chase, he does not BS like Ben does.


He did it in the video I just showed.

they showed the Democratic candidate fumbling over words, and they ask Kyle if he thought she was impressive, he said yes, and gave his reasons.

the other talk host says that she didn't and that they should stop relying on whatever, and Kyle jumps in with "Aha, thats not true" like a doofus. And I have seen him do this multiple times.

Also, he claims to have been interrupted, when he literally never got interrupted. That is out of the Eric Michael Dyson playbook

There is a conservative who goes on CNN and does that too, its so bad. 



> As for him defending that clip, he was talking more about her policies then the BS question the interviewer asked her. He better explains what he should have said in response to the clip, but time was short and he wanted to stick to the left and their platform.


I just said that he defended his position, but he should have acknowledged why the clip was bad.

If you want to speak for him, fine, but don't get upset people don't see things your way.




> LOL nice deflection on the topic at hand


.

It's not a deflection, I answered your question.

you are not an objectionable poster. i was asking if anyone has told you that, because you aren't.

it's fine, i have been consistent in saying I know your views on things, so i don't mind it, but you aren't objectionable.




> Are you going to deny pro-lifers are not hypocrites? If they are pro-life when it comes to abortion they should be pro-life for everything. Are you really going to claim they shouldn't?


what are you talking about?

You said pro-life meant something it didn't. this is the problem I have with Piker. he gets told something and instead of saying "Well, this is why i think that way" he just virtue signals and tries to ask the same question another wway.

i showed you what Webster dictionary considers the definition of pro-life is because you typed out a definition that was false, period end of story.



> So you admit your logic for the opposite being true is nonsensual. good, you can admit that.


Yes, I have said that either argument is dumb.

if Knowles (or any conservative) would say "well, you care about the death penalty, why don't you care about abortion, its a stupid argument. 

you however think it is a good argument, which i still don't understand.

Because the only difference is one for abortion and one is against abortion




> LOL keep defending the hypocrisy of the pro-life crowd


kay





> Kirk made a better point to Kyles point, and???????? Kirk is a shitty debater, he just spews talking points. All you did was admit Kirk made a talking point Kyle agreed with LOL
> 
> You don't really think Kirk is a good debater do you?


i just said I think Charlie is average. He isn't great, and he has regressed, but I don't see him as bad as Piker or Jesse Lee Peterseen.

But you obviously didn't watch that debate, so i don;t think we should talk about it anymore since you are talking about things you don't have knowledge on.

I believe you watched Krik/Piker, but doubt you watched this one, or else you would have much more details about what was being said.

Fake it til you make it, right!


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Dub Post!


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The main TYT show is unwatchable for me. Cenk and Ana are irredeemably awful to listen to. I can handle Kyle and Jimmy even though I disagree with them on a lot. Same with Ben Shapiro. Disagree with him on a lot but don't find him cancerous. 

Really the only pro-Trump people I follow are Molyneux and Scott Adams, and neither are conservatives. Molyneux is an An-Cap (who engages a bit too much in right-wing outrage for my tastes, but I get it, going pro-Trump has brought him a lot of traffic and he wants to keep it), Scott Adams calls himself left of Bernie and he's not wrong. :lol

Also enjoy Dave Rubin's interviews.  He's not pro-Trump at all. Same with Joe Rogan.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> TYT are what's wrong with the modern "Left".
> 
> For one Cenk is an idiot who denied the Armenian Genocide and TYT is named after a group of racist genocidal maniacs. *Yet TYT and Cena are considered Leftist heroes by many of the "Left" and considered legit after all their exposure. *
> 
> ...


:rivetingcena


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, and the second amendment doesn't mention bumper stocks, so let's give up the idea that the constitution is in any way relevant to either issues.
> ...


Ahhh I see, you're not going to accept that the second amendment doesn't mention allowing semi automatic rifles and therefore is not relevant to a discussion about controlling their sale. 

It's a tactic we see regularly from religious folk, only care about their own interpretation to fit their agenda, at least you're open about it.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057728445386539008

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057715198684000258
Good luck Democrats. :heston


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Cenk is an embarrassment. 

When he started yelling "Google It" I started laughing at him. 

Seriously, I'm pretty sure the left can do better than him.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Ahhh I see, you're not going to accept that the second amendment doesn't mention allowing semi automatic rifles and therefore is not relevant to a discussion about controlling their sale.
> 
> It's a tactic we see regularly from religious folk, only care about their own interpretation to fit their agenda, at least you're open about it.


This is a classic leftist tactic, just assume shit for no reason. First, there is a difference between not mentioning something and outlawing something. That's a fact. To suggest otherwise only shows your bias.

Second, you clearly don't know anything about me. I am not remotely religious, I do not own guns and I do not like guns. My only "pro-gun" argument is I have yet to see compelling evidence that gun control works. I don't care in the slightest if assault weapons have further restrictions placed on them. But don't let that get in the way of pushing your agenda on others.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh I see, you're not going to accept that the second amendment doesn't mention allowing semi automatic rifles and therefore is not relevant to a discussion about controlling their sale.
> ...


I neither said you were religious or pro gun. Your agenda is to say the 14th amendment doesn't mention illegals and thus is not a constitutional issue.

You're clearly not a gun nut because you used the term assault weapons.

My agenda is the same but with bumper stocks etc. Although really my agenda is that constitutions are bullshit and open to interpretation. 

The constitution could easily be dismissed in both instances. But they're not. 


Don't make stuff up.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I neither said you were religious or pro gun. Your agenda is to say the 14th amendment doesn't mention illegals and thus is not a constitutional issue.
> 
> My agenda is the same but with bumper stocks etc. Although really my agenda is that constitutions are visit and open to interpretation.
> 
> Don't make stuff up.


My agenda is that illegals are specifically outlawed. I've said it multiple times. 

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”~Jacob Howard

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*uote*



DMD Mofomagic;76376198
Well said:


> Pretty sure he did mention that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> My agenda is that illegals are specifically outlawed. I've said it multiple times.
> 
> "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”~Jacob Howard
> 
> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11


BM literally negged me and told me to learn my history. :heston


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> BM literally negged me and told me to learn my history. :heston


you should learn your history since you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to the 14th amendment. So go read a history book.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:heston


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > I neither said you were religious or pro gun. Your agenda is to say the 14th amendment doesn't mention illegals and thus is not a constitutional issue.
> ...


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> That's not in the amendment.
> Fucks sake mate.
> 
> Don't bother wasting my time with your bullshit.


Nope, just stated by the guy who drafted it. But hey doesn't fit your agenda so who cares!

Btw the part in the actual amendment you're looking for is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*Re: uote*



birthday_massacre said:


> Pretty sure he did mention that.


Just stop, he didn't.



> Why are you going on about how smart you think he is when we are talking about his debating skills or the stuff he says not being correct? You are just deflecting. Quote me where I said Ben was not smart? I said he is not a good debater and the stuff he says is not true most of the time
> 
> You can't even be honest, you just keep straw manning this argument because you know I am right


Because you said the reason i liked ben was because he talked fast.

i was telling you the reasons i like Ben, and that if you think it is just because he talks fast, then you need to get your facts straight.

You have a hard time admitting when you know you messed up



> When did Kyle say he wouldn't debate Ben? At the list of people, he said he would debate at the position he put Ben on his list.
> 
> Citation on that one, please. show the full quote or video.


Ok, 






And that I agree with him on, because he says that it has to do with more the "getting the audience involved

This is the second:







There ya go.



> Kyle owned that guy in the video, its justs funny you claim he was sloppy based on that one video clip and his answer which he was 100% right on. But you will continue to ignore. And Kye was right about that guy lying, so he should be calling out that BS, its what more left winged people need to do on fox news when the right is lying about stuff. And LOL at him not being interrupted at 5:15 of the video, you ant even be truthful. Its right there in the video FFS


whatever dude, no one owned anyone.

it was a good conversation, but you opening your throat to give the verbal blow job is a bit much.

5 minutes into a 7 minute video is not "continually interrupted" You know better, I think I dont know



> He did a video about that interview on Fox and why he did not happen with that answer he gave but why he had to do it because of the limited time he has to talk. Also what Bush was saying was correct but she just flubbed what she was saying.
> 
> Kinda hard to flub shit when you aren't talking.
> 
> Its just funny you think he was sloppy in that interview because of that one thing but he totally destroyed that guy and Kyle was on point for everything he said


Yes, fucking sloppy. Maybe when I keep saying you will get that I am not impressed. 

If you want to show me a moment I can be impressed with, I am fine to hear it. 

I liked Kyle on Rogan, but even then, he doesn't seem like this monster you make him out to be. 




> You are the one not being objectionable when you can't see the hypocrisy of being pro-life and being for the death penalty.


You don't read. I am actually against the death penalty.

i am telling you that Kyle's argument was shit, because he had a shit argument.

"You're a hypocrite" is not an argument. But you think it is, so I don't knwo why i am wasting my time saying that.



> LOL pro-life means being FOR LIFE LOL yet you are ok with killing someone for the death penalty, that is a hypocrite. You can try to deny that all you want. you are a hypocrite if you are for the "life" of a zygote but not a living person getting the death penalty, its a joke you would even try to defend that hypocrisy


Write to Merriam-Webster,

Thats where the definition came from, don't get mad at me that definitions don't care about your feelings.



> yeah, the argument is really dumb claiming you are for life but also for the death penalty. You are being hypocritical. Just admit it, the pro-lifers only care about someone before they are born not their life after.


you didn't see the debate, because that wasn't even Knowles rebuttal, he actually made a point of why he looks at it the way he does, and Kyle had nothing to say.

you are trying to defend Kyle like he owes you money, dude, get out of here.




> LOL at claiming I didn't want the debate when I obviously did. You just don't want to talk about it because you know Piker won and can't defend how badly Kirk did. And that is cool.


You don't read. You just prove that over and over.

I wrote in the text you quoted that i believed you watched the Kirk/piker debate, so I don't know how you missed that

I said you didn't watch the debate i am criticizing Kyle over, and quite frankly, i still believe that is true


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > That's not in the amendment.
> ...


He can think whatever he wants, when it gets ratified it's accepted by countless other people, if he didn't expressly word the amendment than how the fuck are the other representatives agreeing to what you're saying?

You can't write an amendment, get it ratified then go, oh by the way that thing you agreed to, I just want to clarify I meant this.

Why do you think it's open to interpretation? Why did the courts rule in favor of it including imigrantss?

Hey, you wasted my time, but you proved my point, the constitution is not a useful document in 2018.



> What about the quote from “Honest Jake” Howard? Well, here’s the full quote: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Anton quietly supplied the word or to make it appear that two different definitions were being offered—either a diplomat or a foreigner. But in fact, what Howard was saying was simple: American-born children of diplomats are not birthright citizens—because they and their parents are immune from American laws.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This is getting needless. I'll let it die.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Such a biblical / mullah argument happening right now. 

Here's a other opinion since it's all about opinions right?



> To better understand the Constitution, read your Bible | Opinion
> 
> As Constitution Day draws near, it's worth remembering not only our founding charter, but also an often-overlooked source of its ideas.
> 
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: uote*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Because you said the reason i liked ben was because he talked fast.
> 
> i was telling you the reasons i like Ben, and that if you think it is just because he talks fast, then you need to get your facts straight.
> 
> You have a hard time admitting when you know you messed up



Keep lying and making strawman arguments. 





DMD Mofomagic said:


> videos


The first video he never said he wouldn't debate Sharpio, as for the second that was years ago and he said he wouldn't debate them where they can do shitty debate tactics, meaning where the moderators dont fact check and call out a debate when they are wrong. And like I said, Kyle just this year said he would debate Ben and IIRC he also had him on his list of people he was willing to debate at polticon. But LOL at you taking what he said out of context. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> whatever dude, no one owned anyone.
> 
> it was a good conversation, but you opening your throat to give the verbal blow job is a bit much.
> 
> 5 minutes into a 7 minute video is not "continually interrupted" You know better, I think I dont know


Yes Kyle totally owned him, you can't even be objective.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yes, fucking sloppy. Maybe when I keep saying you will get that I am not impressed.
> 
> If you want to show me a moment I can be impressed with, I am fine to hear it.
> 
> I liked Kyle on Rogan, but even then, he doesn't seem like this monster you make him out to be.



It seems no matter how good he is, you will claim this narrative. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You don't read. I am actually against the death penalty.
> 
> i am telling you that Kyle's argument was shit, because he had a shit argument.
> 
> "You're a hypocrite" is not an argument. But you think it is, so I don't knwo why i am wasting my time saying that.



I never said you personally, I am talking about people who are pro-life and for the death penalty are hypocrites. You do understand how "you" can be used in a general person right.
And yes its a valid argument saying if someone is pro-life and they are for the death penalty it makes them a hypocrite. It does not get any more valid than that. 

You can't even make a good argument against it.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> BM literally negged me and told me to learn my history. :heston


Notice it is a nasty habit of his. He got pissy with me and negged my post about birthright citizenship... posted something clearly advertised he didn’t read my post carefully and then never responded when I called him
out on it.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057761731085303808
People think we would've elected this SJW to be president. :heston


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057679951359602689
Mattis. :mark:


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> Notice it is a nasty habit of his. He got pissy with me and negged my post about birthright citizenship... posted something clearly advertised he didn’t read my post carefully and then never responded when I called him
> out on it.


don't be so triggered, it was cute you tried to downplay how many countries have birthright citizenships


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> don't be so triggered, it was cute you tried to downplay how many countries have birthright citizenships


Except I said developed countries. Still aven’t read it have tou?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> Except I said developed countries. Still aven’t read it have tou?


Keep downplaying it. By you focusing on developed countries keeps showing your dog whistling even more.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057778037654118400
So much for stagnant wages, eh?  

The media has decided to frame this as bad news, somehow, someway, as a matter of course. :lol "It's costing companies money!" Oh dear...

I'm sure my progressive friends who have long complained about stagnant wages will be rushing to credit Trump...ha.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057778037654118400
> So much for stagnant wages, eh?
> 
> The media has decided to frame this as bad news, somehow, someway, as a matter of course. :lol "It's costing companies money!" Oh dear...
> ...


Wages and salaries are down when you factor in inflation.

the more you know


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Wages and salaries are down when you factor in inflation.
> 
> the more you know


Wages for the middle class went up only 1.8% while inflation is higher than that. 

Scott Adams proving he's just a cartoonist moron. And CPs Twitter level research is just embarrassing at this point. I don't even know why you bother with him.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Wages for the middle class went up only 1.8% while inflation is higher than that.
> 
> Scott Adams proving he's just a cartoonist moron. And CPs Twitter level research is just embarrassing at this point. I don't even know why you bother with him.


Because its more for others reading the thread to get the real facts


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I get the real facts from Fox News tbsmilly


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because its more for others reading the thread to get the real facts


CP is a propagandist. Nothing more. His entire identity is wrapped around promoting Trump even if he has to lie for it.

https://wqad.com/2018/09/12/middle-class-income-jumps-to-61400/


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It's progress in the right direction, stay tuned for more.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Reap ; weren't you a Trump fan a while ago?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Gains that are lower than 2015-2016 is not progress in the right direction. But feel free to keep showing everyone how little you know and how much you just propagate the minute you see something on your Twitter feed without reading anything more about it.





Rugrat said:


> @Reap ; weren't you a Trump fan a while ago?


Unlike others, I don't continue to keep sucking neocon dick when there is clear evidence that the current president is essentially one. It doesn't matter what he said when he doesn't have the balls to put a stop to it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It's progress in the right direction, stay tuned for more.


No its not. The wage increase YOY is getting less and less, how is that progress?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> @Reap ; weren't you a Trump fan a while ago?


I give reaper a ton of credit, he is not a blind Trump sheep like most of the Trump supporters on here are. He saw Trump was not what he claimed he was and he starting call Trump out.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I give reaper a ton of credit, he is not a *blind Trump sheep like most of the Trump supporters on here are*. He saw Trump was not what he claimed he was and he starting call Trump out.


I hope you're not including me in this otherwise our e-friendship may have struggles. :sundin2


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> I hope you're not including me in this otherwise our e-friendship may have struggles. :sundin2


No not you, I am talking about posters like CP and blues. That is why I said most


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Even adjusted for inflation the wage growth is still the highest since 2016, before Trump took office. We can revisit the topic in a couple years, though I doubt some of you will want to.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Even adjusted for inflation the wage growth is still the highest since 2016, before Trump took office. We can revisit the topic in a couple years, though I doubt some of you will want to.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*Re: uote*



birthday_massacre said:


> Keep lying and making strawman arguments.


I am lying about my personal opinion?

Yeah sounds about right coming from you





> The first video he never said he wouldn't debate Sharpio, as for the second that was years ago and he said he wouldn't debate them where they can do shitty debate tactics, meaning where the moderators dont fact check and call out a debate when they are wrong. And like I said, Kyle just this year said he would debate Ben and IIRC he also had him on his list of people he was willing to debate at polticon. But LOL at you taking what he said out of context.


You asked for video, you got video

I said he said he didn't want to debate Shapiro, and then when Coulter left him in the cold, he started whining how no one wanted to debate him, like they should be happy he changed his mind

Well, sucks for him, but he should have taken it when Crowder challenged him the first time.

Take the L man, it is what it is.




> It seems no matter how good he is, you will claim this narrative.


Might be because I don't see him as that good. :draper2

I was expecting more, you keep telling me there is more, but I am not finding more.

I see a guy who is trying too hard to play gotcha, and comes off as more "know it all" than "Intellectual"

I keep telling you the same thing, yet you won listen:

If he is amazing to you, fine. But he didn't impress me. You keep making it sound like I "have" to fawn over this guy, I am giving as constructive criticism as I can, I am not sure what you want.





> I never said you personally, I am talking about people who are pro-life and for the death penalty are hypocrites. You do understand how "you" can be used in a general person right.
> And yes its a valid argument saying if someone is pro-life and they are for the death penalty it makes them a hypocrite. It does not get any more valid than that.
> 
> You can't even make a good argument against it.


What are you even trying to say.

I said that you were wrong on your definition, and Kyle gave a shitty argument to oppose the death penalty, because "Ohhhh, you are a hypocrite" is not a valid argument

I don't know in what world you live in that would be a valid argument, or would be substantial, but you let me know.

You are caught in the echo chamber, debates aren't about mic drops, or youtube views.

The job is to either find common agreement or sway someone to your side, if you can explain to me how "durrrr, you are a hypocrite" which is the basis of his argument, because he didn't follow it up at all (proof you didnt see it) was a good one.

Once again, Knowles answers him, to spark conversation, and Bakari Sellers shut it down, because Kyle was too busy in the corner patting himself on the back, for some unknown reason proud of himself.

The fact that Charlie Kirk, who you said was a shitty debater gave a better argument against the death penalty than the guy you are telling me would "crush" any conservative thrown in front of him makes me think, he may not be all that and a bag of chips


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The 14th was made for the African slaves. Not for 3rd world countries to dump their anchor babies


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

How did Monsieur Shekalim go from to two red stars to seven green in like 12 hours?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: uote*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am lying about my personal opinion?
> 
> Yeah sounds about right coming from you


You are not good at trolling, leave it to the experts. You are lying about claiming I said something I did not.

Stop making strawman arguments.

QUOTE=DMD Mofomagic;76377228]

You asked for video, you got video

I said he said he didn't want to debate Shapiro, and then when Coulter left him in the cold, he started whining how no one wanted to debate him, like they should be happy he changed his mind

Well, sucks for him, but he should have taken it when Crowder challenged him the first time.

Take the L man, it is what it is.



[/QUOTE]

I love how you ignored what he said and took it out of context and AGAIN he said he would debate Sharpio, he said that a few weeks ago but keep ignoring that.





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Might be because I don't see him as that good.
> 
> I was expecting more, you keep telling me there is more, but I am not finding more.
> 
> ...


I am not going to waste my time giving you more videos when you can just look them up yourself.


QUOTE=DMD Mofomagic;76377228]


What are you even trying to say.

I said that you were wrong on your definition, and Kyle gave a shitty argument to oppose the death penalty, because "Ohhhh, you are a hypocrite" is not a valid argument

I don't know in what world you live in that would be a valid argument, or would be substantial, but you let me know.

[/QUOTE]


You keep going in circles on this. Already refuted your hypocrisy on this. 


Everything else you said in your post is just more BS because you can't argue the point because you have no leg to stand on.

if you have nothing more, i won't even bother with your next reply.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*Re: uote*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you ignored what he said and took it out of context and AGAIN he said he would debate Sharpio, he said that a few weeks ago but keep ignoring that.



FFS learn how to use the quote function.

I am not repeating myself anymore. If you arent going to get it, then that is on you




> I am not going to waste my time giving you more videos when you can just look them up yourself.


You didn't give me any videos to begin with, you told me to search something, get out of here with that B




> You keep going in circles on this. Already refuted your hypocrisy on this.
> 
> 
> Everything else you said in your post is just more BS because you can't argue the point because you have no leg to stand on.
> ...


I sure hope not,you have no idea what I am talking about, and keep proving the one thing I am calling you directly out on:

You don't even knwo the conversation I am going off of. Yet you are defending it because you are doing your default mode.

And this is why the NPC meme exists


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Oh look more projection from DMD, who can't even argue his point.

And LOL at you using the lame alt right NPC meme. If anyone is an NPC its you maybe your name should be NPC Mofomagic

The projection by you is at an all-time high, it's cute. you still can't argue your point. But is not surprising.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


> The 14th was made for the African slaves. Not for 3rd world countries to dump their anchor babies


*All persons born or naturalized in the United States*, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


How exactly is all persons just meaning African slaves? If it was only for African slaves then it would have just stated all African slaves born..... 

It's in plain English and clear as day, its anyone born in the US.....


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


>


Don't show me a video, argue your case. It says, All persons born or naturalized in the United States..... so tell me how that means just slaves.

If the intention was for just slaves they would have said that, but instead, they said ALL persons.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I care about your opinion as much as I care about the sand of Saudi Arabia

The vid debunks all of the left and the RIGHT's (surprise surprise, the right is just as weak on immigration as the left) dumb talking points about BC


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


> I care about your opinion as much as I care about the sand of Saudi Arabia


And that is what I thought, you can't argue your own case.

Btw what rejoiner are you?

EDIT

There is nothing to debunk, it says ALL PERSONS, not just slaves.

But sure try to argue exactly what it says with all persons meaning not everyone but just slaves when it could have just said, slaves.

truth is not the truth, right?


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

^ lol this dude negs everyone he disagrees with

Typical screeching leftist


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> *All persons born or naturalized in the United States*, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Sounds extremely straightforward to me. If Trump wants to override this and start a precedent then the message is The Constitution is on the road to meaning less and funnily enough not appropriate for our modern age. What a novel idea.

WHO'S TO SAY THE GUNS WON'T BE TAKEN AWAY NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!

:trump2 :trump :trump3 :trump


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I highly doubt Trump really gives a fook about this issue but if he really does, SCOTUS will have his back for sure


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sounds extremely straightforward to me. If Trump wants to override this and start a precedent then the message is The Constitution is on the road to meaning less and funnily enough not appropriate for our modern age. What a novel idea.
> 
> WHO'S TO SAY THE GUNS WON'T BE TAKEN AWAY NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> :trump2 :trump :trump3 :trump


It's funny how conservatives ignore straightforward things like *" a well-regulated militia"* and *"all persons"* then claim its the left that is misinterpreting it when they try to give an alt meaning to something that is perfectly clear. 
It boggles the mind.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


>


That is not what he put in the 14th amendment, we have already been over this earlier in the thread.

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and that quoted you posted was said in 1886 which is almost 20 years later.
He can't retcon what he claims he meant after it was passed by everyone else who understood it as, all persons, which is what he clearly put. They were not put in the amendment and have zero legal power.

Not to mention, all persons for 150 years that were born in the US were made US Citizens at birth.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It doesn't really matter what all of us here think

I highly doubt neocon Trump will issue an EO on this but if he does, it'll be struck down by a lower court and it'll be appealed to a right wing heavy SCOTUS :mj2


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


> It doesn't really matter what all of us here think
> 
> I highly doubt neocon Trump will issue an EO on this but if he does, it'll be struck down by a lower court and it'll be appealed to a right wing heavy SCOTUS :mj2


So if Trump did do this and the SCOTUS saw it Trump's way, then Melania and Barron should be the first to go right?


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is not what he put in the 14th amendment, we have already been over this earlier in the thread.
> 
> He can't retcon what he claims he meant after it was passed by everyone else who understood it as, all persons, which is what he clearly put. They were not put in the amendment and have zero legal power.
> 
> Not to mention, all persons for 150 years that were born in the US were made US Citizens at birth.


It does hold legal power though, to the extent that the SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the constitution (and its amendments) as the creators originally intended. Also the first line implies that he wrote this before the amendment was passed, and thus those who voted to pass the amendment were aware of what the author intended. Either way, the amendment was created to grant rights to African-Americans, that's ultimately the context, the U.S Civil War. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the creators of the amendment always wanted to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So if Trump did do this and the SCOTUS saw it Trump's way, then Melania and Barron should be the first to go right?


Pretty sure Barron's dad is American


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It does hold legal power though, to the extent that the SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the constitution (and its amendments) as the creators originally intended. Also the first line implies that he wrote this before the amendment was passed, and thus those who voted to pass the amendment were aware of what the author intended. Either way, the amendment was created to grant rights to African-Americans, that's ultimately the context, the U.S Civil War. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the creators of the amendment always wanted to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.


It does not hold any legal power since in the constitution it says all persons and he did not write in what he claims it meant 20 years later. That is not how it works. Its funny how it says all persons, then 20 years later he claims well its not all persons, its all persons but A B and C.
if that is what he really meant when it was written, he would put that into the amendment. If they didn't want the amendment always wanted to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants then why did they allow it for 150 years?


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So if Trump did do this and the SCOTUS saw it Trump's way, then Melania and Barron should be the first to go right?


False equivalency considering that Melania is the spouse of a U.S citizen and Barron is the son of a U.S citizen. The status of both would therefore remain unchanged by any change to the law. 

You can do better than that...


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm just super grateful I live in an ethnostate. Multiracial countries seem to be forever unhappy and full of drama :HA


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It does not hold any legal power since in the constitution it says all persons and he did not write in what he claims it meant 20 years later. That is not how it works. Its funny how it says all persons, then 20 years later he claims well its not all persons, its all persons but A B and C.
> if that is what he really meant when it was written, he would put that into the amendment. If they didn't want the amendment always wanted to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants then why did they allow it for 150 years?


When was it written? I'd be very surprised if it was 20 years later rather than at the same time it was passed. The same amendment was interpreted as allowing for segregation and 'separate but equal' for nearly 100 years, so it is a good thing that the interpretation is open to reconsideration, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> The same amendment was interpreted as allowing for segregation and 'separate but equal' for nearly 100 years, so it is a good thing that the interpretation is open to reconsideration, wouldn't you agree?


boom


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> False equivalency considering that Melania is the spouse of a U.S citizen and Barron is the son of a U.S citizen. The status of both would therefore remain unchanged by any change to the law.
> 
> You can do better than that...


I was being sarcastic


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Shekels4Shlomo ; 

What are your opinions on David Solomon, Lloyd Blankfein, Michael Bloomberg and Mark Zuckerberg?


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> @Shekels4Shlomo ;
> 
> What are your opinions on David Solomon, Lloyd Blankfein, Michael Bloomberg and Mark Zuckerberg?


I think you have a good idea of what my opinion on them is lol


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I was being sarcastic


Sorry, I should have known better  I'm relieved haha!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> When was it written? I'd be very surprised if it was 20 years later rather than at the same time it was passed. The same amendment was interpreted as allowing for segregation and 'separate but equal' for nearly 100 years, so it is a good thing that the interpretation is open to reconsideration, wouldn't you agree?



The founding fathers always said you can amend the constitution, that is why there are rules on how to do that.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The founding fathers always said you can amend the constitution, that is why there are rules on how to do that.


Ah, but we are not talking about a formal amendment here, we are talking about a reinterpretation of an existing amendment by the SCOTUS


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Rugrat When did you start waking up to the JQ?

I had my awakening when I started studying the heinous and cowardly attack on the USS Liberty in 1967


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Ah, but we are not talking about a formal amendment here, we are talking about a reinterpretation of an existing amendment by the SCOTUS


You can't get any more clear than ALL PERSONS. 

How can all persons mean anything else but all persons? If he only wanted to include slaves then he should have put that in the amendment. 

Not sure how much clearer it can be.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Shekels4Shlomo ; 

I was always aware that the Jews were disproportionately represented in various areas of society. I guess in my early twenties a few years ago was when I discovered this. I'm not anti-Semitic, just aware that as a demographic they have a lot more power in society than others.


----------



## Shekels4Shlomo (Oct 31, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> @Shekels4Shlomo ;
> 
> I was always aware that the Jews were disproportionately represented in various areas of society. I guess in my early twenties a few years ago was when I discovered this. I'm not anti-Semitic, just aware that as a demographic they have a lot more power in society than others.


Being aware is already "anti-semitic", even though most Jews are NOT semites

Less than 1% of the US population, controls 98% of the US media and press

There, insta-redpill :x


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shekels4Shlomo said:


> Being aware is already "anti-semitic", even though most Jews are NOT semites
> 
> Less than 1% of the US population, controls 98% of the US media and press
> 
> There, insta-redpill :x


Historically anti-Semitism has been associated with the right as early as the 1930s by Jews Stateside. Hitler and his National Socialism party are often suggested to be right wing, when the opposite would be true - this by the Jewish media. It doesn't surprise me that the current culture is shifting towards the left.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You can't get any more clear than ALL PERSONS.
> 
> How can all persons mean anything else but all persons? If he only wanted to include slaves then he should have put that in the amendment.
> 
> Not sure how much clearer it can be.


The following is from: 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...rump-end-birthright-citizenship/#336d1a2a1c44 

'The 14th Amendment, Section 1 begins:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…"

Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Clearly, the clause’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means something. The Constitution’s words cannot be accepted or ignored to suit mere political desires.'

The point is the context matters. Until today, I felt the same way as you. Though to me it seemed backward, I did not think the law could could be changed without an amendment, as at first glance it seems pretty clear. But the wording of the constitution has always been really important and so too has the context in which it is written. As it stands I do not believe the second amendment is being legislated properly as it ignores the intention of what the founding fathers intended, as well as the fact that it is clearly ineffectual, hence the volume of mass shootings. The context of this amendment is important too, and you know for a fact that it was not aimed at illegal immigrants at all (I'm not even sure there was any such thing in 1866.) This is the important case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...m_Ark_and_children_of_undocumented_immigrants and I don't see any reason as to why the Supreme court could not now interpret the 14th amendment as not applying to illegal immigrants as they are not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and they, as foreigners, were specifically ruled out by the author of the amendment on the senate floor.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> The following is from:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...rump-end-birthright-citizenship/#336d1a2a1c44
> 
> 'The 14th Amendment, Section 1 begins:
> ...


This bolded part you guys love to keep posting was NOT included in the amendment. If he wanted the bolded part to be his intent, why didn't he write that into the amendment? Just answer that simple question.

Its clear what the amendment says, it says ALL PERSONS, he didn't write the bolded part into the amendment so it has no power at all. You can't write a law that is clearly saying everyone then later say well, Its everyone but A B C. If you didn't intend for ABC to be included, you put that in the law.

So answer the question, why didn't he just put that bolded part in the amendment if that is what he intended? Or he could have just put slaves.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It does hold legal power though, to the extent that the SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the constitution (and its amendments) as the creators originally intended. Also the first line implies that he wrote this before the amendment was passed, and thus those who voted to pass the amendment were aware of what the author intended. Either way, the amendment was created to grant rights to African-Americans, that's ultimately the context, the U.S Civil War. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the creators of the amendment always wanted to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.


So what you're saying is that someone can write an ambiguous amendment and then retcon it twenty years after to mean something and its only HIS intent thats important and not the intent of all the representatives at the time who ratified it?

What a terrible concept.

President Johnson said this before it was ratified.



> By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I don't see any reason as to why the Supreme court could not now interpret the 14th amendment as not applying to illegal immigrants as they are not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and they, as foreigners, were specifically ruled out by the author of the amendment on the senate floor.


Bingo, the omission of illegal immigrants and the ambiguity and interpretation around it is why the constitution should not be brought up during discussions on things like illegal immigrants and citizenship or gun control. Its a flawed document written in a completely different time and atmosphere.

I would argue that illegals are under US jurisdiction still though, just because they're illegal it doesn't mean they can run around murdering people and not go in front of a US court does it?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> @Shekels4Shlomo ;
> 
> I was always aware that the Jews were disproportionately represented in various areas of society. I guess in my early twenties a few years ago was when I discovered this. I'm not anti-Semitic, just aware that as a demographic they have a lot more power in society than others.


Your gimmick is shit. At least don't be so fucking transparent with your trolling.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> He cared more about greasing palms to help his business deal with government red tape than his political views, its true. He said as much during the campaign. Nobody forgets this at all, they just rightly don't see it as relevant or significant to anything. :lol
> 
> Is it conservative to let other countries take advantage of us with bad trade deals?  How is using tariffs to leverage them into making better deals for our country worse than that?
> 
> ...


Let's break this down.

He was a friend of the Clintons...I love how Trump cultists try to spin this as mere convenience. He was a pal of theirs, he donated to their campaigns, sang their praises, especially donated to the Clinton Foundation. He talks about Sessions needs to investigate her, how will that look the day they actually do that and find his name in the ledger as a donor to the Foundation? He has always been a limousine liberal and it shows in the company he has kept. 

There is nothing conservative about tariffs, as the increase in prices of goods as a result is technically a tax increase. Tax increases is certainly not conservative. I understand we have some not-so-friendly trade deals out there, but tariffs end up pinching us regular folk. Check out Mark Levin's thoughts on the matter. 

It's not the fact he wants to end birthright by EO that is the issue (although it's just as annoying for ANY president to want to rule by executive order). It's that for three years he has talked a bigly game about dealing with the immigration issues plaguing our country. For example...on day one he had promised doing away with DACA...day number 649 and it's still around. And he chose to do nothing about it until September of last year when he talked about it being gone but leaving it up to Congress. After three years, it's rather convenient that a week before the mid-terms, he NOW suddenly decides to address the birthright issue. Where is the wall being built, etc? It's not happening. Again...Congress is derelict in their responsibilities but he has done nothing in reality to address the issue nor provide leadership to get his agenda pushed. 

As for the synagogue issue...he could have expressed his condolences, etc...and actually made an effort to bring people together to heal. Instead, he once again blames the media (granted, I have no love towards a biased MSM but it has become annoying in how it's now such a problem), trots out how it's the late-night talk show hosts, etc. Yes, I get people are going to bash him no matter what, but sometimes there's nothing wrong with taking the high road. Let them make themselves out to be horrible. It's called being a leader. Nothing wrong with doing that. 

Obamacare...here's where you talk about making a distinction between what Trump says and what he does. For eight years, the GOP promised that they were going to repeal Obamacare. This was THE promise...the biggest promise that has been broken. And spare me the "But McCain" line...these bills were trash. They didn't promise repeal or anywhere close. Again, Congress has a role in the blame, they proved they are worthless. Yet, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of our President for failing to provide the leadership and to take the lead with his own party to resolve the matter. In 2013, he tweeted out regarding leadership..."Leadership...whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." It didn't happen, he is responsible for that not happening. His words. 

Besides, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Basic democracy eventually breaks down into tyranny. The electoral college is an example of that...it was the EC that got Trump elected. Democracy would mean basically the most populated states would call the shots and ignore the rest of us. 

We had an opportunity in '16 to turn things around. I have a feeling we might have made things worse as a result. What really annoys me the most is that Trump cultists have become victims, it's everyone and everything's fault but their own. Blaming everyone else is not a conservative trait. I take responsibility for my own actions and for the actions of my family. I don't need the government to do that for me. I have a feeling Trump will be replaced by someone far worse then HRC, and then we are screwed as a nation. And it will be on him for failing to get shit done that needed to be done and wasting political capital on petty pissing contests. 

You'll pretty much ignore all of this, of course, as you have sold out to the cult that is President Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> He was a friend of the Clintons...I love how Trump cultists try to spin this as mere convenience. He was a pal of theirs, he donated to their campaigns, sang their praises, especially donated to the Clinton Foundation. He talks about Sessions needs to investigate her, how will that look the day they actually do that and find his name in the ledger as a donor to the Foundation? He has always been a limousine liberal and it shows in the company he has kept.


You can be friends with people you don't align with politically. 

Finding his name in their donor ledger would be completely unimportant because he's already said he donated to her...I don't know what point you're trying to make here.  



> There is nothing conservative about tariffs, as the increase in prices of goods as a result is technically a tax increase. Tax increases is certainly not conservative. I understand we have some not-so-friendly trade deals out there, but tariffs end up pinching us regular folk. Check out Mark Levin's thoughts on the matter.


It's not conservative, but if temporarily having tariffs as a means of obtaining better trade deals (at which point we can remove the tariffs) works out then are you really going to say we shouldn't have done it because it wasn't the True Conservative way? 



> It's not the fact he wants to end birthright by EO that is the issue (although it's just as annoying for ANY president to want to rule by executive order). It's that for three years he has talked a bigly game about dealing with the immigration issues plaguing our country. For example...on day one he had promised doing away with DACA...day number 649 and it's still around. And he chose to do nothing about it until September of last year when he talked about it being gone but leaving it up to Congress. After three years, it's rather convenient that a week before the mid-terms, he NOW suddenly decides to address the birthright issue. Where is the wall being built, etc? It's not happening. Again...Congress is derelict in their responsibilities but he has done nothing in reality to address the issue nor provide leadership to get his agenda pushed.


Why do you omit facts that don't support your narrative? Trump did try to end DACA. The federal courts are blocking it. He can't get his federal court appointments through because of the left's obstructionist agenda. You're, in one paragraph, criticizing him for trying to rule by EO while also faulting him for having his powers limited by the courts. This is an incoherent and inconsistent argument you are trying to make. It has zero merit. Garbage like this utterly betrays your bias. You have no interest in fairly evaluating this president.



> As for the synagogue issue...he could have expressed his condolences, etc...and actually made an effort to bring people together to heal. Instead, he once again blames the media (granted, I have no love towards a biased MSM but it has become annoying in how it's now such a problem), trots out how it's the late-night talk show hosts, etc. Yes, I get people are going to bash him no matter what, but sometimes there's nothing wrong with taking the high road. Let them make themselves out to be horrible. It's called being a leader. Nothing wrong with doing that.


He did express condolences, condemned anti-Semitism, and visited the victims. The media incredibly tried to blame him for the attacks even though the attacker was anti-Trump and he fought back. Would you not fight back if someone blamed you for violence committed by someone who opposed you? Another ridiculous line of criticism by you. 



> Obamacare...here's where you talk about making a distinction between what Trump says and what he does. For eight years, the GOP promised that they were going to repeal Obamacare. This was THE promise...the biggest promise that has been broken. And spare me the "But McCain" line...these bills were trash. They didn't promise repeal or anywhere close. Again, Congress has a role in the blame, they proved they are worthless. Yet, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of our President for failing to provide the leadership and to take the lead with his own party to resolve the matter. In 2013, he tweeted out regarding leadership..."Leadership...whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." It didn't happen, he is responsible for that not happening. His words.


The lack of Obamacare repeal is the failure of Republicans in Congress. If you are adopting Trump's views on leadership, then I suppose I can see why you would blame Trump for it. I prefer to think for myself.



> You'll pretty much ignore all of this, of course, as you have sold out to the cult that is President Trump.


Not sure why you keep predicting that I'm going to ignore you when I'm literally responding to you point-by-point. Grow up. I'm not a victim or a cultist or an ideologue for disagreeing with you, you're just *wrong.*


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Your gimmick is shit. At least don't be so fucking transparent with your trolling.


What is my gimmick supposed to be lol? Everything I’ve said is objectively true which is why you haven’t attempted to correct me.

I’m not sure why an Asian former white nationalist who changes his opinion every two weeks is in any position to attack anyone else anyway. For all I know you may agree with me next month.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> You can be friends with people you don't align with politically.
> 
> Finding his name in their donor ledger would be completely unimportant because he's already said he donated to her...I don't know what point you're trying to make here.
> 
> ...


You have been mocking liberals so long here you have become one. Denial is the first step. 

Friends with someone you disagree with politically is fine. But he talks about Crooked Hillary but just thought she was peachy keen all those years. The Clinton Foundation was improper yet he donated to it. That and the Clintons are just not good people. 

Trump has not provided the leadership he has been given because he would rather fight battles that don’t matter. Fighting back is fine but he has reached a point where it is counterproductive. All he had to do is do his job and ignore the haters. The failures are partly Congress and Trump. 

Funny how you accuse me of bias but your orange colored glasses get in your way regarding the President. You attack me yet ignore your blind devotion to him. Very Alinskyesque of you. You will never hold him accountable no matter what. I am a fierce critic and won’t apologize for it. I want the man to succeed but won’t be a cheerleader. If we wanted liberal policies we might as well have elected HRC as he is no different right now. 

But keep on laughing about it. Keep on pointing out the speck in my eye while ignoring the log in yours. Just Trump along as you will.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> Besides, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Basic democracy eventually breaks down into tyranny. The electoral college is an example of that...it was the EC that got Trump elected. Democracy would mean basically the most populated states would call the shots and ignore the rest of us.


You mean like the tyranny we have now of the minority opinion over the majority opinion of country? unk2

Sorry not sorry but living in a rural area should not give people the right to enforce their will over the majority of the rest of the country. Stop defending a system set up to appease slave owners.

There's a simple solution to solving this problem. Break up the power of the federal government and decentralize. The state can't abuse power it does not have.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You mean like the tyranny we have now of the minority opinion over the majority opinion of country? unk2


I had to re-read because I thought this said ******.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Garbage like this utterly betrays your bias. You have no interest in fairly evaluating this president.


:ha


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> What is my gimmick supposed to be lol? Everything I’ve said is objectively true which is why you haven’t attempted to correct me.
> 
> I’m not sure why an Asian former white nationalist who changes his opinion every two weeks is in any position to attack anyone else anyway. For all I know you may agree with me next month.


Weak af. If you want to have an actual impact, up your game. Don't fish for CP likes. They're not worth a dime. :mj4


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You mean like the tyranny we have now of the minority opinion over the majority opinion of country? unk2
> 
> Sorry not sorry but living in a rural area should not give people the right to enforce their will over the majority of the rest of the country. Stop defending a system set up to appease slave owners.
> 
> There's a simple solution to solving this problem. Break up the power of the federal government and decentralize. The state can't abuse power it does not have.


http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/in-the-electoral-college-white-votes-matter-more


> *In the Electoral College White Votes Matter More
> *
> Lara Merling and Dean Baker
> 
> ...


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> This bolded part you guys love to keep posting was NOT included in the amendment. If he wanted the bolded part to be his intent, why didn't he write that into the amendment? Just answer that simple question.
> 
> Its clear what the amendment says, it says ALL PERSONS, he didn't write the bolded part into the amendment so it has no power at all. You can't write a law that is clearly saying everyone then later say well, Its everyone but A B C. If you didn't intend for ABC to be included, you put that in the law.
> 
> So answer the question, why didn't he just put that bolded part in the amendment if that is what he intended? Or he could have just put slaves.


I am aware that it is not in the amendment BM, I am simply suggesting that because of it, the SCOTUS have the 'excuse' if you like, to interpret the fourteenth amendment as not applying to the children of illegal immigrants. 

Much of the constitution is extremely ambiguous as you know, perhaps so future generations may interpret it differently if need be, rather than needing a formal amendment every time.

I am just letting you know that it is likely that the SCOTUS will interpret it this way, using the authors stated intention for the amendment as evidence. You should prepare yourself for disappointment if you think that the Supreme Court will see the 14th amendment as clear-cut as you do.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> So what you're saying is that someone can write an ambiguous amendment and then retcon it twenty years after to mean something and its only HIS intent thats important and not the intent of all the representatives at the time who ratified it?
> 
> What a terrible concept.
> 
> President Johnson said this before it was ratified.


Read the article I sent. The author clarified the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment in 1866 and on the floor of the Senate, not 20 years afterwards as you imply. The authors intention will be important to the constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, whether or not you deem it to be relavent. 



Draykorinee said:


> Bingo, the omission of illegal immigrants and the ambiguity and interpretation around it is why the constitution should not be brought up during discussions on things like illegal immigrants and citizenship or gun control. Its a flawed document written in a completely different time and atmosphere.
> 
> I would argue that illegals are under US jurisdiction still though, just because they're illegal it doesn't mean they can run around murdering people and not go in front of a US court does it?


I totally agree, as a Brit, it seems kinda ridiculous to me. The constitution is clearly a very flawed document, alas the US legal system is totally reliant on the constitutionality of its laws. As it stands the issue of the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants will be referred to the 14th amendment, and I believe there is sufficient ambiguity that the Supreme Court will find it constitutional for the children of illegal immigrants to be denied citizenship.

It could be argued either way, depending on your stance. In a way they are not under US jurisdiction in that they don't pay taxes, can't legally work etc. They can't murder people obviously,but if they did then they would likely find themselves deported..


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Weak af. If you want to have an actual impact, up your game. Don't fish for CP likes. They're not worth a dime. :mj4


You’re talking shit. You’re just saying I’m wrong with no elaboration because you’re clueless on the matter.

My central point was that Jews hold a lot of power as a whole in society, considering how small they are as a demographic. I assume you weren’t aware of this and you just assumed I was being anti-Semitic without doing a quick Google search which would support my comments.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*









Back to the pits, Democrats


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I don't see any reason as to why the Supreme court could not now interpret the 14th amendment as not applying to illegal immigrants as they are not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and they, as foreigners, were specifically ruled out by the author of the amendment on the senate floor.





Draykorinee said:


> I would argue that illegals are under US jurisdiction still though, just because they're illegal it doesn't mean they can run around murdering people and not go in front of a US court does it?


The point of Jurisdiction from what I have read is where there will be the main point of contention as far as Birthright Citizenship is concerned should Trump follow through with the executive order and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court which it likely would. The wording of the 14th amendment makes it a tricky one to muddle through because of how this can be interpreted. Democrats will obviously make the argument that because of those who are born in the United States from illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the US that that means they have a right to birthright citizenship.

There are two problems I have with using the jurisdiction argument for birthright citizenship. Firstly, it's not like if either myself or Dray went to the United States on holiday or on a green card to work in the country that we aren't under jurisdiction in terms of the country's laws. As visitors, we still have to obey the laws of the land whilst we are living in that said country. That doesn't make us citizens obviously and it doesn't make those crossing the border illegally suddenly citizens either. Why should it apply any differently to an infant who is born from a family or partnership of illegal immigrants who aren't citizens of the country themselves?

Secondly, the illegal immigrants who are in the country who have conceived the child are already breaking the countries laws by crossing the border without going through the proper vetting process, applying for a visa and getting approved. I've used this example before but it's akin to trespassing, if I walk into your back yard without permission I am invading your property and therefore am risking myself to being subjected to being placed under address and I would at the very least be thrown off the property or thrown in the jail. The same can be applied to illegal immigration, even if I would be sympathetic to the reasons why illegal immigrants cross the border they are still in the country without permission. If we are to go by the jurisdiction argument, then you have to concede that the people involved are already breaking the law that they are under jurisdiction of and therefore their claim to having their infant child be made a birthright citizen becomes null and void.

I'm not going to go into the particulars of the constitution and interpretation of the 14th amendment any deeper but common sense tells me that birthright citizenship is a terrible concept and one which should be avoided. It creates another incentive for more illegal immigration rather than actually solves the problem which should be the main focus here at the end of the day.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> You’re talking shit. You’re just saying I’m wrong with no elaboration because you’re clueless on the matter.
> 
> My central point was that Jews hold a lot of power as a whole in society, considering how small they are as a demographic. I assume you weren’t aware of this and you just assumed I was being anti-Semitic without doing a quick Google search which would support my comments.


Stop. If you want to continue to troll, feel free to do so but don't bother quoting me.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm jewish and I don't see how he's trolling or being offensive.

He's stating a fact. Jewish people make up an incredibly small percentage of the population yet as a group collectively have the most wealth and power. I'm not about to attribute that to some conspiracy but he's just stating facts. 

I honestly wish I knew the real answer because I don't get to sit in on those meetings.


----------



## Shlomo2k18 (Nov 1, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I couldn’t login so I made a new one

Despite being less than 1% of the Soviet Union population, 85% of the 1st Soviet Union government were ethnically Jewish. This is verifiable on Jewish Encyclopedia






The Jewish controlled government committed the largest genocide of all time, “the forgotten genocide”, Holodomor. 12 million Ukrainians were starved to death

To anyone “fascinated” by communism and the USSR, I recommend you to read “*Two Hundred Years Together*” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Jews were banned from owning property or the means of production many years ago, forcing them into stuff like banking and brokering which turned lucrative.

There’s also factors like the matching hypothesis, limited social circles and strong in group preferences which would suggest that the most successful Jews would largely date amongst themselves hence the 1% getting richer.

Even as an aside from that Jews generally have the lowest rates of single motherhood (better chance of a good upbringing) and higher IQ’s, making it all the more likely that they would reach the 1% from outside.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

@Reap ;


----------



## Shlomo2k18 (Nov 1, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Stop. If you want to continue to troll, feel free to do so but don't bother quoting me.


But he's not wrong, coming from someone with Jewish ancestry, Jews are a tiny minority within the US that wield a lot of power from business, Politics, entertainment/media and even culturally. 

There's nothing wrong with saying this. If we want equality, true equality then no sex, religion, ethnic group, culture should be off limits. The fact people get uneasy talking about the Jewish community even when just presenting facts attests to the fact we're nowhere near there.

Talking about Jewish influence isn't the same as spouting off some Jewish conspiracy theory.


----------



## Shlomo2k18 (Nov 1, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Most white people are conditioned and indoctrinated to get uncomfortable by the Jewish Question

Just try to talk to both liberals and conservatives about King David Hotel Bombing, The Lavon Affair, The Apollo Affair, The USS Liberty, etc and they will call you “anti-semitic” lol


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Read the article I sent. The author clarified the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment in 1866 and on the floor of the Senate, not 20 years afterwards as you imply. The authors intention will be important to the constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, whether or not you deem it to be relavent.
> 
> 
> .


You're correct, I was misinformed and I concede that point. It is however still an ambiguous thing to say.



> Unfortunately, the key sentence is cryptic. Is that a list of three different categories (foreigners, aliens, and people from the families of ambassadors and ministers), in which case all kids of foreigners and aliens would be excluded from birthright citizenship? Or is “aliens” used simply as a synonym for “foreigners” and meant to be read in apposition, in which case the exclusion is limited to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers? (“Foreigners — that is, aliens — who belong to the families . . .”)
> 
> As an editor with twelve years of professional experience, I regret to inform you that we can’t resolve this based on grammar alone, despite numerous efforts to do so. One side claims it’s a list and you have to make too many adjustments to the text to read it otherwise (killing both commas and adding an “or”: “foreigners or aliens who . . .”), but that’s ignoring the possibility of reading “aliens” as an appositive, in which case you don’t have to change the text at all. The other points out that if it’s a list, it’s not properly constructed: The first two items are nouns, the third a relative clause. This is true, but I’ve seen lots of lists whose items don’t line up properly in my day — I fix them in my editing and angrily furrow my brow when I see them published elsewhere — so it’s entirely possible Howard did mean to convey a list and just slightly misspoke or was mistranscribed.
> 
> I think we can rule out this particularly broad reading, though, through other means. For one thing, if all foreigners and aliens were ineligible for birthright citizenship, it seems a little odd to then single out a tiny subcategory of them, those who belong to the families of ambassadors and ministers — though maybe this was just for emphasis.


And that in itself is a major issue if you're using this to suggest that he is saying illegals are not included. It is not black and white.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> But he's not wrong, coming from someone with Jewish ancestry, Jews are a tiny minority within the US that wield a lot of power from business, Politics, entertainment/media and even culturally.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with saying this. If we want equality, true equality then no sex, religion, ethnic group, culture should be off limits. The fact people get uneasy talking about the Jewish community even when just presenting facts attests to the fact we're nowhere near there.
> 
> Talking about Jewish influence isn't the same as spouting off some Jewish conspiracy theory.


What does their being _Jew _have anything to do with it at all. What does their being _Jew _have any implications? What is even the point of saying that they're Jew?

I'll only address you because I know you're not intentionally pushing any kind of propaganda around this. But you of all people should also be smart enough to know that the original anti-semetic propaganda started with exactly these kinds of statements and this myth morphed into nazi propaganda which eventually led to second world war. 

There are powerful people. Just because they happen to be Jew is completely meaningless. There are millions of people who also hold power who aren't Jews. Can we stop with the ridiculous otherism?

Rugrat is trolling. He's not serious.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Anti-semetism is the new racist, if you're wanting to knock your political opponent down just make sure you get in that he's an anti-semite because he's not enamoured by the situation in Palestine.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Anti-semetism is the new racist, if you're wanting to knock your political opponent down just make sure you get in that he's an anti-semite because he's not enamoured by the situation in Palestine.


Hiding anti-semitic views under the veil of "but the jews own everything" which _implies _that just because they're rich therefore they "control" and "shape" society according to an _implied _ (but carefully not stated intentionally) "hidden" agenda is also a new level of fascist fuckery that some of these people hide behind.

It's transparent. The people who are doing it think that they are just "purveyors" of "factual truth" and then scream "victim" when called out on their heavily implied meanings because they've only "implied" what they're saying, but haven't had the balls to actually say it.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> What does their being _Jew _have anything to do with it at all. What does their being _Jew _have any implications? What is even the point of saying that they're Jew?


The whole topic of the discussion is around the disproportionate power held by Jews and whether it’s causation or correlation.



> I'll only address you because I know you're not intentionally pushing any kind of propaganda around this. But you of all people should also be smart enough to know that the original anti-semetic propaganda started with exactly these kinds of statements and this myth morphed into nazi propaganda which eventually led to second world war.


It’s not anti-Semitism. Everything I’ve said is factually correct hence why in your four(?) responses you’ve not had a single counter-argument, just a few ad hominem attacks . By the same token, if you want to talk about Nazi nonsense you could just as easily say forced suppression of discussion like you’re doing is a fascist tactic.



> There are powerful people. Just because they happen to be Jew is completely meaningless. There are millions of people who also hold power who aren't Jews. Can we stop with the ridiculous otherism?


Maybe and maybe not. I’ve suggested theories, but you’ve just been an idiot for the discussion.


----------



## Shlomo2k18 (Nov 1, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

(((Just A Coincidence)))


----------



## Shlomo2k18 (Nov 1, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> but you’ve just been an idiot for the discussion.


Pretty much


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> The whole topic of the discussion is around the disproportionate power held by Jews and whether it’s causation or correlation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What does their being Jew have anything to do with it? And why is them being Jew important to the discussion of power dynamics?

Your trolling is transparent in any case. But the thing is that you know you cannot answer the question of why them being Jew has anything to do with this discussion at all because you will never answer this question specifically. I'll be surprised if you have the balls to answer my question.


----------



## Shlomo2k18 (Nov 1, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Another “Anti-Semitic” Fact:

Jews have been expelled from nations and countries 109 times since AD250

^ Easily verifiable


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

What a desperate little troll you must be to set up a second account because you can't wait to log in to your other.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Shlomo2k18 said:


> Another “Anti-Semitic” Fact:
> 
> Jews have been expelled from nations and countries 109 times since AD250
> 
> ^ Easily verifiable


Are you trying to imply something? Not attacking you, just curious.

What is your theory? What is the point you are trying to make.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> What does their being Jew have anything to do with it? And why is them being Jew important to the discussion of power dynamics?
> 
> Your trolling is transparent in any case. But the thing is that you know you cannot answer the question of why them being Jew has anything to do with this discussion at all because you will never answer this question specifically. I'll be surprised if you have the balls to answer my question.


Because they’re a small part of the population and hold a large amount part of the power. It’s not a hard concept. There are various conversations on why African-Americans are doing badly so I wanted to open the inverse dialogue on why Jews are doing so well.

I do think being Jewish has a lot to do with their power, as I’ve already mentioned AND given reasons for as written below:



Rugrat said:


> Jews were banned from owning property or the means of production many years ago, forcing them into stuff like banking and brokering which turned lucrative.
> 
> There’s also factors like the matching hypothesis, limited social circles and strong in group preferences which would suggest that the most successful Jews would largely date amongst themselves hence the 1% getting richer.
> 
> Even as an aside from that Jews generally have the lowest rates of single motherhood (better chance of a good upbringing) and higher IQ’s, making it all the more likely that they would reach the 1% from outside.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> Because they’re a small part of the population and hold a large amount part of the power. It’s not a hard concept. There are various conversations on why African-Americans are doing badly so I wanted to open the inverse dialogue on why Jews are doing so well.
> 
> I do think being Jewish has a lot to do with their power, as I’ve already mentioned AND given reasons for as written below:


I already stated that millions of people hold power so the discussion should be around unequal power distribution. We know how to break power structures but also that they have consequences for those who hold power. When there is an unequal distribution, the masses get choppy choppy which has happened time and time again. When the Nazis perceived the Jews holding all the wealth, they also got choppy choppy. 

So I ask you again, what is to be done about this. And when we know that otherism leads to people getting choppy with others, what is the point of otherism. 

I think you were probably doing better when you were just trolling. Now you have to present solutions to the problem you've defined. Go ahead. I'm waiting. Oh I know. There was one nation that decided to take power away from the Jews because they identified them as having too much power. Don't shirk away from the comparison now that you've tossed your hat into the ring with the earliest germans who came up with the "jews have all the power" rhetoric and actually decided to go ahead and do something about it. Original Nazism didn't happen overnight. It took decades of thinly veiled anti-semite propaganda to finally come to a head in the 30's. 

What should we do about the Jews holding all this power?

If nothing, then there is no point in bringing up like it's some sort of "issue". If you just want to do it for the discussion, then intuitively you should know that someone simply being Jew and having power means nothing with regards to having a solution to this "problem". 

The thing is, you're barking up a tree that has been done before and we've seen the logical conclusion of its identification as a problem. 

At the same time, Jews actually make a very small minority of those who hold power and also their religion has nothing to do with the fact that they hold power. Most of them don't even identify as jews. Almost none of them are active within any "jewish communities". 

There is no discussion here. You're literally supporting a troll and just running with it because you have no real foresight and insight into the discussion you got yourself involved in. It would be better if you just walked away from the troll instead of just going all in.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46040789 

It's about time something was done regarding Yemen. Shame so many have died in the meantime.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46040789
> 
> It's about time something was done regarding Yemen. Shame so many have died in the meantime.


The odious little weasel faced arse Jeremy Cunt is trying to suggest it's labours fault that we deal arms to Saudi Arabia. It's been 8 fucking years, stop blaming labour and fix your own shit.

He was a useless health secretary and he's an even worse foreign Secretary.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You mean like the tyranny we have now of the minority opinion over the majority opinion of country? unk2
> 
> Sorry not sorry but living in a rural area should not give people the right to enforce their will over the majority of the rest of the country. Stop defending a system set up to appease slave owners.
> 
> There's a simple solution to solving this problem. Break up the power of the federal government and decentralize. The state can't abuse power it does not have.


And as a result the rest of the country would be ignored. The idea of the EC was to make sure all states have a voice. Ignoring the rural areas gave us what we have now.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

BruiserKC said:


> Tater said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like the tyranny we have now of the minority opinion over the majority opinion of country? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/CubQa.png" border="0" alt="" title="CM Punk" class="inlineimg" />
> ...


Just not an equal voice.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> And as a result the rest of the country would be ignored. The idea of the EC was to make sure all states have a voice. Ignoring the rural areas gave us what we have now.


In reality, none of this matters because the EC first gave us Bush - a neocon. Then the popular vote and EC both gave us Obama - a neocon. And now the EC gave us Trump - another neocon. 

American choice is always between neocons. So it's never an actual choice.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> And as a result the rest of the country would be ignored. The idea of the EC was to make sure all states have a voice. Ignoring the rural areas gave us what we have now.


For the party that loves to cry about voter fraud, they sure do love the system that gives them disproportionate power to take a minority opinion and rule over the majority opinion with it. Funny how things work out that way.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> And as a result the rest of the country would be ignored. The idea of the EC was to make sure all states have a voice. Ignoring the rural areas gave us what we have now.


All votes should count the same. People vote not geography. As for making sure all states have a voice even with the EC that is not true. There are tons of states that are ignored for presidential elections. The EC is a broken system, you could become president with only getting 23% of the vote. You think that is a good system to have?




Tater said:


> For the party that loves to cry about voter fraud, they sure do love the system that gives them disproportionate power to take a minority opinion and rule over the majority opinion with it. Funny how things work out that way.


Not to mention all the voter suppression they are doing to steal elections in like what 4 or 5 states.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> For the party that loves to cry about voter fraud, they sure do love the system that gives them disproportionate power to take a minority opinion and rule over the majority opinion with it. Funny how things work out that way.


The EC was created to reduce mob rule. While the founding fathers wanted tge majority to have a powerful voice, they understood it could not be the only one. Quite prescient considering without out the urban majority would run this country into the ground without the rural voters balancing out some of the more ignorant aspects of urban thinking.

Edit: and naturally, some backwards shit from rural voters needs to be balanced by urban voters. Just wanted to make that clear.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Very prescient indeed, they made a voting system that is rigged against the majority.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Very prescient indeed, they made a voting system that is rigged against the majority.


Not against. Balanced to keep the majority from mob rule. It is why we are not a full democracy... the dangers of mob rule have been proven throughout history.

It’s also the reason they wanted smaller government fractured along state lines. They understood that freedom was best served by smaller populations deciding how to run things on a state wide scale and the federal oversight was simply to be there to protect and enforce constitutional law and contracts. Sadly, we abandoned such rational thinking a century ago when those in power realised they could leverage war and tragedy into stealing more money from the populace. It was by no means perfect before, but it has been a reversion to the governments this country rebelled against.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> Not against. Balanced to keep the majority from mob rule. It is why we are not a full democracy... the dangers of mob rule have been proven throughout history.


You think that a minority can't enforce a mob-like agenda? You think that the minority always knows best simply because it's a minority? A lot of countries end up forming "minority governments" even in popular vote majority states. They can be pretty dysfunctional as well.

The entire country that is now around 60%+ with regards to marijuana legalization is being held hostage by the minority who wants to keep it criminlized. You think that that's a good thing?

Let's take it to the extreme. Let's say Taliban take control of Afghanistan and they enforce their minority viewpoint on the majority population simply because they have power. Does what the Taliban want to do or actually did make it right becase they had the power to do so?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Kabraxal said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Very prescient indeed, they made a voting system that is rigged against the majority.
> ...


If the majority have less representation then it's against.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> You think that a minority can't enforce a mob-like agenda? You think that the minority always knows best simply because it's a minority? A lot of countries end up forming "minority governments" even in popular vote majority states. They can be pretty dysfunctional as well.
> 
> The entire country that is now around 60%+ with regards to marijuana legalization is being held hostage by the minority who wants to keep it criminlized. You think that that's a good thing?
> 
> Let's take it to the extreme. Let's say Taliban take control of Afghanistan and they enforce their minority viewpoint on the majority population simply because they have power. Does what the Taliban want to do or actually did make it right becase they had the power to do so?


I am not arguing that the minority get sole rule either. This country is out of balance right now and there is no rational logic to which group has control or will wield it outside of the one obvious truth... the government has way too much and that needs to be addressed. They have interceded in matters that should have never involved them. 

The biggest point about the EC and our represntative style of governing, is that it gives all groups a voice. And the recent election is outstanding as a proof of concept... without the EC, California and New York are given disproportionate power to rule the entire country. Instead, they can choose to govern their states as they see fit but cannot weild such power iver what they demean as “flyover states”. We need to get back to the very foundation of that idea and expand on it.


The drug example is a perfect case of this... I support the state movement going on. And this is one of the major areas I worry about on the federal level given the piece of shit preciding over idiotic federal drug policies. Stares should decide this and the feds need to stay the fuck out. But we have given too much power to the federal level of government. It was never meant to be the centralised point of power. That is a perversion of what the US was built to be.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Kabraxal said:


> The EC was created to reduce mob rule. While the founding fathers wanted tge majority to have a powerful voice, they understood it could not be the only one. Quite prescient considering without out the urban majority would run this country into the ground without the rural voters balancing out some of the more ignorant aspects of urban thinking.
> 
> Edit: and naturally, some backwards shit from rural voters needs to be balanced by urban voters. Just wanted to make that clear.


That term you're using, "mob rule", it doesn't mean what you think it means. The thing that prevents mob rule is having a constitution that gives people rights that cannot be voted a majority of people. 

The EC was not in any way, shape, form or fashion created to reduce mob rule. It was created by a bunch of slave owners to protect their power.

Liberals are too chicken shit to fight against this broken system in the way that they should but it would be a different story entirely if red state USA was the one losing elections if they outnumbered the blue state voters. All hell would have broken lose had Trump been the one losing the election after getting 3 million more votes.

It's not just the WH either that a minority opinion has disproportional sway over. The party with fewer votes in Congress gets to be the majority there as well.

I still stand by the position that power should be decentralized and more issues should be handled on a local level but if we're going to have a strong centralized federal government, at least the representatives sent there should be proportional to how the people in the country want to vote.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

More people voted for Hillary but they were heavily concentrated in certain pockets of the country, namely the big cities and along the coasts. Trump had more voters across the entire nation, which is why he won. 

We're not just a country of people, we're a country of states.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> More people voted for Hillary but they were heavily concentrated in certain pockets of the country, namely the big cities and along the coasts. Trump had more voters across the entire nation, which is why he won.
> 
> We're not just a country of people, we're a country of states.


Trump won by less than 80,000 votes over three states. And the states he won were mostly empty farmland. why should empty farmland count more than areas that have tons of people?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump won by less than 80,000 votes over three states. And the states he won were mostly empty farmland. why should empty farmland could more than areas that have tons of people?


I don't understand what you mean. States are states. 

Are you saying farmers aren't important?


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I don't understand what you mean. States are states.
> 
> Are you saying farmers aren't important?


You’d be surprised the derision urban centres hace for farmers... hell Chicago detest the rest of its dirty farmer bretheren in Illinois. But then that shithole is not exactly liked by the rest of the state either.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I don't understand what you mean. States are states.
> 
> Are you saying farmers aren't important?


Of course, you don't understand what I mean, its too over your head.

And where did I say farmers are not important? Just you lying once again.

States are not just states. Some states have tens of millions living there and other states are mostly empty land with only a few million people. You want to discount states that have tens of millions of people for ones that have 1/10 the population but pretend they should count the same because they have empty land.

Its one person one vote, it should not matter where you live, everyone's vote should count equally regardless of what state you live in.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, you don't understand what I mean, its too over your head.
> 
> And where did I say farmers are not important? Just you lying once again.
> 
> ...


Why have states at all then? Why not just erase the lines completely? 

And yea it does sound like you're saying farmers aren't important. "Oh it's all just farmland"... as if the country doesn't need fucking agriculture. These states contribute to society and the economy too. They have their own beliefs and they deserve a say just like you do.

Trump lost the popular vote by 2%, not some huge margin. It's not like a small pocket of the country is calling the shots for everyone else. We're a country of states. Trump won more states and had more voter representation across the country. 

You're really gonna have to get over this election. It's time to move on.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Why have states at all then? Why not just erase the lines completely?
> 
> And yea it does sound like you're saying farmers aren't important. "Oh it's all just farmland"... as if the country doesn't need fucking agriculture. These states contribute to society and the economy too. They have their own beliefs and they deserve a say just like you do.
> 
> ...



I won't even bother with this BS post since you keep lying about what I am saying.


----------



## Hi-Liter (Apr 2, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> I won't even bother with this BS post since you keep lying about what I am saying.


It's very obvious you've never taken a course in civics. Which isn't necessarily your fault btw, they don't teach it anymore, but it's still very... very obvious.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Hi-Liter said:


> It's very obvious you've never taken a course in civics. Which isn't necessarily your fault btw, they don't teach it anymore, but it's still very... very obvious.


Of course I have, and instead of making an ad hominem, why don't you try speaking to my points.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ference-claiming-mueller-sex-assaults-n929951

Feels like it is almost an addiction for these people. Can't get the same high making up stuff and posting them online, now they have to create it and be the first to 'break the news'.

"a child prodigy who has eclipsed Mozart."

ARE YOU BOTH PREPARED FOR FEDERAL PRISON? :lol


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Anti-semetism is the new racist, if you're wanting to knock your political opponent down just make sure you get in that he's an anti-semite because he's not enamoured by the situation in Palestine.


I have to agree with this, at least to a certain extent.

I'm not a fan of the Labour Party at all, as you know but when the antisemitism was exposed to the general public, Jeremy Corbyn was attacked as a raving anti-semite during the whole ordeal because he didn't agree that the general definition of anti-semitism should include criticism of Israel in it's decree. I would accuse Jeremy Corbyn of many things but a racist or an anti-semite is not one of them. It's pretty clear he's not a hateful person even if he has in the past mixed with unsavoury groups because of political reasons....which is more than enough of a reason to criticize him without making stuff up.

The police investigation into anti-semitism without the Labour party brought up if I recall about 28 incidents of anti-semitism with 4 of the incidents where charges are being considered. One of the incidents included a Labour member stating that jews should be thrown off of buildings. Being consistent with my free speech absolutism, if the other three charges are also inciting violence towards jews then they should also be pressed for charges, if not then if it is general racism/anti-semitism without incitement of violence then I do not believe they should be charged. They of course should be exposed by the media and name and shamed publicly (I know you may disagree with me on not pressing charges).

Either way, there is a clear problem in the Labour party with anti-semitism but at the same time, it was used politically to personally attack Jeremy Cobryn which I think was unwarranted. I may not like the guy because of his political views but there are better ways to attack him. I hate dishonesty more than anything, I don't care what their political alignment is. I'm not a partisan hack, or at the very least I try not to be.

I think characterizing criticism against Israel as anti-semitic is wrong and dangerous. I do not have a strong argument on the Israel/Palestine affair because 1) I don't know enough about it and 2) From what I know there are legitimate arguments from both sides.

That doesn't mean Israel is free from criticism. It is not anti-semitic to be critical of Israel.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There is no "new racist" because "racist" is still widely used to smear anyone right-wing at the drop of a hat. 

A lot of allegations of anti-Semitism seem to stem from the idea that if you're critical of Israel you must be an anti-Semite. This is of course nonsense, just like most accusations of racism against the right.  You can be critical of Israel, and you can want secure borders and an immigration system that puts the needs of citizens first. Doesn't make you a bigot.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> You have been mocking liberals so long here you have become one. Denial is the first step.


What liberal position did I espouse?  I mock conservatives a lot too. I've had these long-winded arguments with you and deep before. It's not like I say I'm a conservative and argue with liberals. I'm an anarcho-capitalist and argue with literally everyone because I'm the only one on this forum that I know of with my positions (except for that period of months when Reap was mirroring me, but he's on to Tater now :lol). Trump is just a weapon against people I don't like. I don't share his views on most things. I will defend him from false attacks though. I like the guy! 



> Friends with someone you disagree with politically is fine. But he talks about Crooked Hillary but just thought she was peachy keen all those years. The Clinton Foundation was improper yet he donated to it. That and the Clintons are just not good people.


Yeah he admitted to all of this. 



> Trump has not provided the leadership he has been given because he would rather fight battles that don’t matter. Fighting back is fine but he has reached a point where it is counterproductive. All he had to do is do his job and ignore the haters. The failures are partly Congress and Trump.


Okay you didn't really address my counter-argument so I'll consider the point conceded. 



> Funny how you accuse me of bias but your orange colored glasses get in your way regarding the President. You attack me yet ignore your blind devotion to him. Very Alinskyesque of you. You will never hold him accountable no matter what. I am a fierce critic and won’t apologize for it. I want the man to succeed but won’t be a cheerleader. If we wanted liberal policies we might as well have elected HRC as he is no different right now.


These are just assertions. No arguments, no evidence, no specifics. Worthless.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> More people voted for Hillary but they were heavily concentrated in certain pockets of the country, namely the big cities and along the coasts. Trump had more voters across the entire nation, which is why he won.
> 
> We're not just a country of people, we're a country of states.


A country of states is good for local governance. It's not good for electing a centralized federal government when you're giving more power to one person's vote based on their geographical location.

The argument you always get from the people who like the current system is that it will give all the power to NY and CA, cities and coasts. I hate to break it to ya but that's kinda where most people live. Your premise is based on lessening the power of their vote to give more weight to the votes of people living in rural areas. You say, but if we had a majority vote election, they would ignore the so called flyover states. The response is, presidential elections already ignore every state that's not a swing state. You think Establishment Dems/Reps really give a fuck about Iowa outside of once every 4 years? 

One person, one vote, means that everyone's votes count equally. Right now, if you're a Republican living in California your vote for president literally does not count. Same for every Democrat living in a deep red state. The only votes that actually count are swing state votes. If you don't live in a swing state, you get no say whatsoever on who the president is.

If every vote counted equally, it would have the opposite effect of causing middle America states to be ignored. It would force every candidate to go campaign in all parts of the country because every vote counts now, instead of the current system where they only have to campaign in swing states. Republicans would have to campaign in California because those California Republican votes actually mean something now and vice versa for Dems and red states.

It seems like to me that anyone who claims to believe in equality should also believe that everyone's vote should count equally. I recall another group of people who thought some people's vote should count more than others and certain other's vote should only count for 3/5ths. It's something to consider when arguing for disproportional weighting of votes.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> The response is, presidential elections already ignore every state that's not a swing state. You think Establishment Dems/Reps really give a fuck about Iowa outside of once every 4 years?
> 
> One person, one vote, means that everyone's votes count equally. Right now, if you're a Republican living in California your vote for president literally does not count. Same for every Democrat living in a deep red state. The only votes that actually count are swing state votes. If you don't live in a swing state, you get no say whatsoever on who the president is.
> 
> If every vote counted equally, it would have the opposite effect of causing middle America states to be ignored. It would force every candidate to go campaign in all parts of the country because every vote counts now, instead of the current system where they only have to campaign in swing states. Republicans would have to campaign in California because those California Republican votes actually mean something now and vice versa for Dems and red states.


This is a great point and one that often gets ignored when people get too deep into this topic. You can't say that the EC makes things more equal for the whole country and it's citizens without conceding that a red voter who lives in a blue state is not given any equality in their vote also.

It's the same in Australia, if you're in a conservative electorate but lean progressive/left then you may as well not vote.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

He called him an "Economic Lunatic" and an ignoramus. :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058119725019025409
Good times.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

^Must be some leftie socialist duped by the Fake Media.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> There is no "new racist" because "racist" is still widely used to smear anyone right-wing at the drop of a hat.


Only a racist would say that.

I joke again, on this we agree, I see the word too often from posters in here. I remember the guy indytaker who kept coming in and saying everything the left did was racist then came back and claimed the left are always calling the right racist. Was super weird because its usually the other way round.

Still, racism is to the left what communism and venezuela is to the right, lets not pretend meaningless rhetoric is a one sided issue. The new Venezuela seems to be that all lefties (although we all know lefty is a misnomer) want a violent mob uprising.



CamillePunk said:


> I mock conservatives a lot too.


Why you lying though?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> This is a great point and one that often gets ignored when people get too deep into this topic. You can't say that the EC makes things more equal for the whole country and it's citizens without conceding that a red voter who lives in a blue state is not given any equality in their vote also.
> 
> It's the same in Australia, if you're in a conservative electorate but lean progressive/left then you may as well not vote.


This is why I detest FPTP in the UK. If I vote Labour in my area I throw my vote away, they got like 8% of the vote Tories got 41% and Lib Dem got about 36% so I basically just vote Lib Dems to try to get rid of the Tories. 

I like the idea of alternative voting or proportional representation voting far more than this FPTP.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Guys, read In the Wet by Nevil Shute.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So Trump said the soldiers should shoot people throwing rocks on the border. So now Trump wants to claim throwing rocks is the same as shooting at soldiers. FFS


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> When they throw rocks like what they did to the Mexican military and police I say consider it a rifle


uttahere

Trump says stupid shit number 11378.



> He said any stone will be considered a "firearm because there's not much difference when you get hit in the face with a rock."


Trump says stupid shit number 11379.

Its a rock, put a fucking riot helmet on. One travels at BEST 90mph, the other travels 1700mph. They're not even remotely the same.

Maybe Trump can volunteer to test his theory, do some of us a favour.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So whats the solution here? I dont necessarily agree that throwing rocks at LE means you should get shot but there should be some form of protection for LE. And while agree that rocks arent the same thing as a gun, if someone gets hit in the head with a 2lb rock or so, theres a good chance serious damage can be done.

But back to my original question, whats the solution? Stand there in riot gear and fire LTL rounds like bean bag rounds or rubber bullets? Water canons? Batons? Fight back when attacked, arrest, and then deport?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> More registered voters think members of the news media are to blame for political divisions in America than think President Donald Trump is to blame, according to a new Morning Consult/Politico poll.
> 
> Of the 2,543 voters surveyed last week and early this week — amid news about the package bombs and the deadliest anti-Semitic shooting in U.S. history — a majority of voters said the press has done more to divide Americans than Trump has.
> 
> ...


http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/01/voters-blame-media-trump-political-division/#disqus_thread


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Love you how people are continuing to whine about accusations of anti-semitism but refusing to address the issue of _why _they continue to bring up the "jewish" problem like it's some sort of "problem". No one called anyone an anti-semite in here, but no one also addresses why "jews" having power and saying that "jews" control the media is a necessary part of any discussion. Not like this "discussion" around bringing the up "facts" about "jews having power" isn't still drawing from original "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" propaganda, right? What are the implications of "powerful jews"? Why is it important? 

Actually, I take it back. It's not "new racism". It _draws_ from the _same _otherism that created the _original _conspiracy theories and mass panic and led to "solutions to the jewish problem" that saw millions massacred. 

I had a feeling Rugrat would disappear when asked to answer these questions. It's like clockwork. Make a bunch of posts about certain "facts", but when asked to explain why those "facts" are brought up, run away. While others act like having to answer questions is the same as being victimized.

Not like our current sitting president just called for shooting asylum seekers or anything as one "solution" to the "immigrant problem". But the real issue here is debating the merits of whether or not Trump is a racist or neocon, or blood thirsty war-mongerer who is afraid of the "invading forces" .. Something that many right wingers here also believe .. i.e. we are being "invaded" by "barbarian hordes" and we're re-living "the fall of rome". 

Jesus.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> So Trump said the soldiers should shoot people throwing rocks on the border. So now Trump wants to claim throwing rocks is the same as shooting at soldiers. FFS


Should just use standard riot control, even though those migrants fucked up the Mexican guards. Mexico even offered them asylum if I recall correctly. 

I doubt it will be about as bad as Israel, anytime a riot happens there a bunch of people end up dead.


----------



## Ertan Soner (Nov 2, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

really bad


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> So whats the solution here? I dont necessarily agree that throwing rocks at LE means you should get shot but there should be some form of protection for LE. And while agree that rocks arent the same thing as a gun, if someone gets hit in the head with a 2lb rock or so, theres a good chance serious damage can be done.
> 
> But back to my original question, whats the solution? Stand there in riot gear and fire LTL rounds like bean bag rounds or rubber bullets? Water canons? Batons? Fight back when attacked, arrest, and then deport?


UM, not shoot them. The military has tons of protection, it a fucking rock. Water hoses would work just fine


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> UM, not shoot them. The military has tons of protection, it a fucking rock. Water hoses would work just fine


Ok just wanted to see what others may think. Do you arrest and deport after the water hoses?

Also, is it really the military? I know troops are being sent down, but I thought I read they cant act in a law enforcement capacity. So its going to be the Border patrol and other law enforcement that will be dealing with the caravan people and military is just down there for some other parts or support, I dont know how directly they will be engaging the caravan people.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Ok just wanted to see what others may think. Do you arrest and deport after the water hoses?
> 
> Also, is it really the military? I know troops are being sent down, but I thought I read they cant act in a law enforcement capacity. So its going to be the Border patrol and other law enforcement that will be dealing with the caravan people and military is just down there for some other parts or support, I dont know how directly they will be engaging the caravan people.


If someone is throwing rocks they should be arrested and deported, yes.

The ones trying to be peaceful and get asylum the legal way, should be let in and go through the proper channels 

As for your second question, you really think Trump cares about the rules? He has been breaking them over and over again.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Technically, almost all of them always have asylum papers. Almost 80% of them are turned away at the American border after their papers are reviewed. We have a system in place for asylum caravans. 

They are not a "barbarian horde" or an "invading force". 

They are also the victims of Hillary's support of a violent dictatorship. 

They are being halted at the Mexican border without hearing their concerns which are guaranteed by several international treaties - many of which Americans are a part of which Trump and his fascist supporters want to believe are wrong, or don't even exist. It's obviously more fear mongering despite the fact that we have had reasonable and working systems in place for these Asylum seekers and "migrants" for decades. These are not people looking to enter the country illegally. They have rights and are working within the system that already exists. 

Stopping all of them _before _they get to the American border in order to go through the process is also wrong and is a violation of their rights. In fact, even the Mexicans have a system in place where they vet asylum seekers and check their papers before they get to America. Comparing them to illegals who jump the border illegally or commit crimes, or are committing some sort of a crime is heinous but also intentional.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> If someone is throwing rocks they should be arrested and deported, yes.
> 
> The ones trying to be peaceful and get asylum the legal way, should be let in and go through the proper channels
> 
> As for your second question, you really think Trump cares about the rules? He has been breaking them over and over again.


I am just saying what I read about how the military will be involved, I am not saying they wont get involved in a more direct manner, just that I have read they are there for other purposes. 

Another question, if you were going to another country and made the threat to throw rocks at LE or military and were told that if you do so, theres a chance you could get shot, would you still throw rocks?

I dont agree with shooting them but also dont agree with throwing rocks at LE or military. I dont understand why they would in the first place either.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> I am just saying what I read about how the military will be involved, I am not saying they wont get involved in a more direct manner, just that I have read they are there for other purposes.
> 
> Another question, if you were going to another country and made the threat to throw rocks at LE or military and were told that if you do so, theres a chance you could get shot, would you still throw rocks?
> 
> I dont agree with shooting them but also dont agree with throwing rocks at LE or military. I dont understand why they would in the first place either.


Being the president and claiming you are going to have the military shoot anyone throwing rocks will just make things worse. It could cause those immigrants to arm themselves with weapons instead. Its also a terrible look for the rest of the world to hear the US president saying that.

In other news


Trump administration announces return of all US sanctions on Iran that were lifted under 2015 nuclear deal.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I find it funny that some people claim that throwing people out of restaurants is violent rhetoric inciting violence, but the President calling to shoot people isn't.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I find it funny that some people claim that throwing people out of restaurants is violent rhetoric inciting violence, but the President calling to shoot people isn't.


Is he actually calling for them to be shot or is he telling LE/Military that if you are threatened, return fire/shoot? The ROE for military is fairly strict and I dont see them shooting someone for lobbing some pebbles but if someone chunks a large rock and hits a LE/Military person and knocks them out or busts them up, then I could see shots being fired. 

I agree with BM (cant believe I just said that) in that water hoses or IMO bean bag or rubber bullets can be used to stop others from throwing rocks. There has to be a line drawn when a caravan of people are threatening to harm LE and Military. Can anyone tell me or direct me as to why they are threatening to throw rocks??


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Is he actually calling for them to be shot or is he telling LE/Military that if you are threatened, return fire/shoot? The ROE for military is fairly strict and I dont see them shooting someone for lobbing some pebbles but if someone chunks a large rock and hits a LE/Military person and knocks them out or busts them up, then I could see shots being fired.


When he said "think of rocks like it's a rifle" it's a veiled threat to shoot. People like Trump know that their literal words are open to interpretation. It's intentional and it's designed for people to debate over the words instead of the intent and what it achieves. 



> I agree with BM (cant believe I just said that) in that water hoses or IMO bean bag or rubber bullets can be used to stop others from throwing rocks. There has to be a line drawn when a caravan of people are threatening to harm LE and Military. Can anyone tell me or direct me as to why they are threatening to throw rocks??


I already did several times. 

*They have guaranteed legal rights to go to any international border and have their concerns heard.* In fact, in America it is a LAW that anyone no matter if they arrived legally or illegally have every right to be veted by immigration officials in a timely manner and have their case heard individually if needed. 

These refugee caravans have been around for decades and their rights have been ratified through several decades of detailed international treaties that the Americans are also a part of .. as well as Mexico and Central America. 

The current climate around the mass hysteria being ramped up by the fascist right has made it such that instead of the governments going through the proper channels and letting the immigrants pass through in a civilized manner are *enforcing lock-downs, delaying proceedings and even encouraging detainment. *It's created a climate of aggression in the refugees since they are being labeled as illegals .. The far right even has claimed that they are carrying diseases etc etc. It's hysteria of the lowest common denominator. 

These caravans have human rights. By denying them their rights, the US and Mexico governments are in the wrong.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> ne drawn when a caravan of people are threatening to harm LE and Military. Can anyone tell me or direct me as to why they are threatening to throw rocks??


The details aren't great but a group of them threw rocks at Mexican authorities when they were surrounded at the border. Its probably not that unusual to have violence when you have desperate people going through an ordeal. I'm not absolving the migrants of blame but to escalate the rhetoric with threats of being shot, (which Trump is very clear on, its not ambiguous), is very unhelpful.

A rock can hurt, it can probably kill if you really really tried, but it is not equatable to a gun, and the response should always be proportionate.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> When he said "think of rocks like it's a rifle" it's a veiled threat to shoot. People like Trump know that their literal words are open to interpretation. It's intentional and it's designed for people to debate over the words instead of the intent and what it achieves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So they are threatening to throw rocks if their rights are denied?


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> The details aren't great but a group of them threw rocks at Mexican authorities when they were surrounded at the border. Its probably not that unusual to have violence when you have desperate people going through an ordeal. I'm not absolving the migrants of blame but to escalate the rhetoric with threats of being shot, (which Trump is very clear on, its not ambiguous), is very unhelpful.
> 
> A rock can hurt, it can probably kill if you really really tried, but it is not equatable to a gun, and the response should always be proportionate.


Ok this clears it up a bit for me. I agree that Trump could probably have deescalated this situation better than by saying what he did and agree on the proportionate response for the most part.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> So they are threatening to throw rocks if their rights are denied?


At least you acknowledged that someone's human rights are being violated if you got nothing else from my response.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



blaird said:


> Ok this clears it up a bit for me. I agree that Trump could probably have deescalated this situation better than by saying what he did and agree on the proportionate response for the most part.


There is going to be violence at the border sadly, unless the Caravan continues to shrink even more like it has been. 

I think once they hit the border and the cameras are all there Trump will realise he can't actually open fire on them even if they throw stones.

We have to remember this is election time and this is a fantastic opportunity for the republicans to push a certain rhetoric and they have grabbed it with both hands. I was massively surprised to read this from a Republican



> "We all know what's happening. It's all about revving up the base, using fear to stimulate people to come out at the polls," Corker told reporters in Nashville on Wednesday.
> 
> Corker added that the caravan is a "football" issue and recalled how a friend recently asked him if he thought it was being funded by a wealthy Democratic donor.
> 
> "I said, are you kidding me? If anybody's funding it, it's some Republican donor, because it has obviously turned into an election issue that has benefited the Republican side," Corker said.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> There is going to be violence at the border sadly, unless the Caravan continues to shrink even more like it has been.
> 
> I think once they hit the border and the cameras are all there Trump will realise he can't actually open fire on them even if they throw stones.
> 
> We have to remember this is election time and this is a fantastic opportunity for the republicans to push a certain rhetoric and they have grabbed it with both hands. I was massively surprised to read this from a Republican


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


>












Back to your respective /pols with these memes.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> *Back to your respective /pols with these memes.*


Irony ...


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I have the solution to all this migrant/immigrant stuff. Have Trump or who ever come out and say that he will let them in. But the catch is, they will all be in California and will be in places like Hollywood, Beverly Hill, Bel-Air ect. Then see what all these celebs and what have you say about what is being done.

I guarantee that they well all be losing their shit about it because _now_ they have to directly deal with it instead of being walled up in their posh mostly homogeneous neighborhoods with it being sight unseen.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058507520594100224
I have sympathy for some who might have believed Trump really intended to drain the swamp once he got elected but you gotta be a real extra special kind of stupid to still believe it at this point in his presidency. Loading his administration with bankers and neocons should have been a red flag right from the start but it has steadily gotten worse since then. He's every bit the puppet of the Establishment that Obama/Bush/Clinton/etc. were before him.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It should be clear by now that most Trump voters didn't care about draining the swamp. It was mostly about winning the culture war. There is a reason Trump is focused on immigration and not the economy during his rallies for mid terms. Because that is what really motivate his voters to vote. 

Economic anxiety? That usually is a secondary concern used to mask the real anxiety about losing their current status in their community. i.e losing the advantages of being part of a White Christian majority in their community. The question is this racist or just simple anxiety about losing social status?


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058507520594100224
> I have sympathy for some who might have believed Trump really intended to drain the swamp once he got elected but you gotta be a real extra special kind of stupid to still believe it at this point in his presidency. Loading his administration with bankers and neocons should have been a red flag right from the start but it has steadily gotten worse since then. He's every bit the puppet of the Establishment that Obama/Bush/Clinton/etc. were before him.


Ugh. Hopefully the Fish and Wildlife Service won't go into the downturn the EPA has been going through recently. I don't necessarily hate Trump or anything, it's just dislike, but he make it hard not to hate him with his complete environmental apathy.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> It should be clear by now that most Trump voters didn't care about draining the swamp. It was mostly about winning the culture war. There is a reason Trump is focused on immigration and not the economy during his rallies for mid terms. Because that is what really motivate his voters to vote.
> 
> Economic anxiety? That usually is a secondary concern used to mask the real anxiety about losing their current status in their community. i.e losing the advantages of being part of a White Christian majority in their community. The question is this racist or just simple anxiety about losing social status?


I don't think this is completely accurate. It certainly true of some but definitely not for all.

Economic anxiety is still a top issue for many people. Trump isn't necessarily not playing up the economy at his rallies because his supporters are all racist pieces of shit. It's because life his not gotten significantly better for these people economically. He'd brag about it if he could but these are people who aren't helped by skyrocketing corporate profits. It's not like this is a new tactic from a politician. If you've got nothing you can really point to and say I've done this to make your life better, all you're left with is riling up fear of the other and blaming them for your economic woes. Anything that scares people to vote and keeps their focus off the capitalistic system that has been fucking them for the better part of half a century.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> It should be clear by now that most Trump voters didn't care about draining the swamp. It was mostly about winning the culture war. There is a reason Trump is focused on immigration and not the economy during his rallies for mid terms. Because that is what really motivate his voters to vote.
> 
> Economic anxiety? That usually is a secondary concern used to mask the real anxiety about losing their current status in their community. i.e losing the advantages of being part of a White Christian majority in their community. The question is this racist or just simple anxiety about losing social status?


Draining the swamp was a big part of the reason why people who voted for Obama voted for him and why many begun to flock to his side. People were tired of establishment Politics and were hoping for an outsider to expose the corruption.

This of course changed when he brought on establishment picks and neocons onto his cabinet. Even furthered it by covering for and legalizing the shady shit that happened under the Obama administration. If he had been interested in cleaning up the Government he'd not have covered up for them.

As for immigration it ties into the economy, people are worried about losing their jobs, paying more taxes and not getting help. Even black nationalists like Tariq Nasheed are getting vocal about it.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The swamp can't be drained. It's time for people to give up on this idea that we can have a government that isn't controlled by corporations and the military-industrial complex. They have more money, more power, more influence. They own most of the people in the government and they can replace any of them at any time because they own the media most people consume too. The idea of a Republic or a Democracy where the people control the government is a sham. The government is the gun in the room and everyone is vying for it so that it ain't pointing at them. People can either evolve past the idea altogether or accept what we have. Actually, I doubt there's anything we can do anyway.

Oh well, that's why I keep my world as small as possible. Friends and family. They're all that matter to me. Everyone else is on their own. Enjoy the struggle. I'd say it's their own fault for playing the game, but the government is in charge of educating everyone from early childhood, and massively influences the curriculum and structure of private schools as well. :lol We never had a chance.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-46074719



> The Nigerian army has cited a video of US President Donald Trump, in which he says soldiers should respond with force to migrants throwing stones, to justify opening fire on a Shia group this week.


Trump influencing on the world stage.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I don't think this is completely accurate. It certainly true of some but definitely not for all.
> 
> Economic anxiety is still a top issue for many people. Trump isn't necessarily not playing up the economy at his rallies because his supporters are all racist pieces of shit. It's because life his not gotten significantly better for these people economically. He'd brag about it if he could but these are people who aren't helped by skyrocketing corporate profits. It's not like this is a new tactic from a politician. If you've got nothing you can really point to and say I've done this to make your life better, all you're left with is riling up fear of the other and blaming them for your economic woes. Anything that scares people to vote and keeps their focus off the capitalistic system that has been fucking them for the better part of half a century.


I disagree. Economic anxiety is just what the MSM tried to explain away the uncomfortable truth that a large portion of the country is not comfortable with changing demographics and social norms. And the far left using it to trump (pun intended) up their narrative that the winning ticket in 2016 was their full blown class warfare agenda.

Majority of voters for Trump weren't losing jobs and Clinton won the majority of the votes from those from the lowest household income bracket. Something else was motivating the still well-off voters to to vote Trump, and I find economic anxiety less likely to be the top of their concerns.



Miss Sally said:


> Draining the swamp was a big part of the reason why people who voted for Obama voted for him and why many begun to flock to his side. People were tired of establishment Politics and were hoping for an outsider to expose the corruption.
> 
> This of course changed when he brought on establishment picks and neocons onto his cabinet. Even furthered it by covering for and legalizing the shady shit that happened under the Obama administration. If he had been interested in cleaning up the Government he'd not have covered up for them.
> 
> As for immigration it ties into the economy, people are worried about losing their jobs, paying more taxes and not getting help. Even black nationalists like Tariq Nasheed are getting vocal about it.


Americans were flocked towards anti-establishment in their choice of president. From Reagan to Clinton to Bush Jr to Obama, all ran as outsiders and won against he perceived 'insider'. Draining the swamp was just a glossy sticker to hide the real issue, their anxiety over social changes that hurts them.

Sure nativism and the economy are issues that are connected. But if we are being honest, do you really think the people that are most vocal about immigration are concerned about their jobs with regards to immigration? Or is it more of not wanting to feel like the minority in their own community?

What I'm saying is, resentment against the changes in social norms is a bigger factor than anti-corruption or economic anxiety in what motivated voters to vote Trump. Hence why they are still fine with all the corrupt practices of Trump's administration or not as worried about rising prices as before.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The swamp can't be drained. It's time for people to give up on this idea that we can have a government that isn't controlled by corporations and the military-industrial complex. They have more money, more power, more influence. They own most of the people in the government and they can replace any of them at any time because they own the media most people consume too. The idea of a Republic or a Democracy where the people control the government is a sham. The government is the gun in the room and everyone is vying for it so that it ain't pointing at them. People can either evolve past the idea altogether or accept what we have. Actually, I doubt there's anything we can do anyway.
> 
> Oh well, that's why I keep my world as small as possible. Friends and family. They're all that matter to me. Everyone else is on their own. Enjoy the struggle. I'd say it's their own fault for playing the game, but the government is in charge of educating everyone from early childhood, and massively influences the curriculum and structure of private schools as well. :lol We never had a chance.


This is probably the most sane thing you have ever said. Like I always tell you, I like you when you actually stick to your proclaimed libertarian beliefs. 

Good post.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> I disagree. Economic anxiety is just what the MSM tried to explain away the uncomfortable truth that a large portion of the country is not comfortable with changing demographics and social norms. And the far left using it to trump (pun intended) up their narrative that the winning ticket in 2016 was their full blown class warfare agenda.
> 
> Majority of voters for Trump weren't losing jobs and Clinton won the majority of the votes from those from the lowest household income bracket. Something else was motivating the still well-off voters to to vote Trump, and I find economic anxiety less likely to be the top of their concerns.


You can't look at this as a single election cycle. A dozen years ago, everyone was so disgusted with the Dubya years that they gave Democrats full control of the government, resulting in Obama getting elected with Dems in control of both houses of Congress.

From that moment forward, the Dems lost both houses of Congress, the majority of governorships, a thousand state seats and eventually, the White House.

You're lying to yourself if you believe Republicans regained control of the country because a majority of Americans like Republican policies. The reason the Democrats lost all that power is because they governed as moderate Republicans when they actually had the chance to create change for the better in the USA.

Had Obama and the Dems, once in control, done things like universal healthcare, ending the wars, prosecuting the war criminals of previous administrations instead of escalating war crimes, cracked down hard on the bankers and Wall Street instead of bailing them out... they would have never lost power and we wouldn't have Republicans running the country right now.

There is no greater truth in USA politics than attributing the power of Republicans to the failure of Democrats.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You can't look at this as a single election cycle. A dozen years ago, everyone was so disgusted with the Dubya years that they gave Democrats full control of the government, resulting in Obama getting elected with Dems in control of both houses of Congress.
> 
> From that moment forward, the Dems lost both houses of Congress, the majority of governorships, a thousand state seats and eventually, the White House.
> 
> ...


Any chance of creating change will involve raising taxes, something that nobody, not even Sanders is willing to go into. He simply hide behind raising taxes on the rich to explain away the costs of many of his policies.

Obama went for the compromised effort to introduce universal healthcare. It became the rallying call for GOP for 8 years that won them back all the seats you listed. A more leftist policy would still result in lost democratic seats.

I agree the failure of the Democrats is a big factor. They overreached with the liberal social agenda to copy the GOP playbook with conservative social issues because it was the easier thing to do.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You can't look at this as a single election cycle. A dozen years ago, everyone was so disgusted with the Dubya years that they gave Democrats full control of the government, resulting in Obama getting elected with Dems in control of both houses of Congress.
> 
> From that moment forward, the Dems lost both houses of Congress, the majority of governorships, a thousand state seats and eventually, the White House.
> 
> ...


Yup exactly, the problem with the establishment Democrats is they are republican lite, and why vote for Republican-lite when you can just vote for full-on rebpulican. Not to mention running as rebuplican lites just causes your voters to not even bother to turn out. 

If the demoracts would just run on the policies they are supposed to, like some of the ones you listed, like universal healthcare, ending the wars as well as the legalization of marijuana, getting rid of prisons for profit, wall st. reform, net neutrality etc they would never lose


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Any chance of creating change will involve raising taxes, something that nobody, not even Sanders is willing to go into. He simply hide behind raising taxes on the rich to explain away the costs of many of his policies.
> 
> Obama went for the compromised effort to introduce universal healthcare. It became the rallying call for GOP for 8 years that won them back all the seats you listed. A more leftist policy would still result in lost democratic seats.
> 
> I agree the failure of the Democrats is a big factor. They overreached with the liberal social agenda to copy the GOP playbook with conservative social issues because it was the easier thing to do.


I don't like agreeing with loony tunes, ever, but he's right about this and you are wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-46074719
> 
> 
> 
> Trump influencing on the world stage.


And this is why Trump's words are soo dangerous. But hey as long as he is triggering the libs its ok right, that is what Trump supporters believe.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> And this is why Trump's words are soo dangerous. But hey as long as he is triggering the libs its ok right, that is what Trump supporters believe.


People who have never had any problems with their personal human rights over centuries tend not to understand that rights are not equally distributed in this country or any other country. The stripping off the rights of the asylum seekers and the lack of humane reaction from the right is an example of this. If you've never been told that you're sub human and deserve to be shot after reacting to your guaranteed rights being taken away, how can you understand what it's like for those who have to go through that ordeal.

Nationalism and creation of ethnostates always results in violence. It's not possible for one to exist without it. It sounds so nice and cosy when they speak of it in their living rooms when they're part if the favored group or nation because they know that they won't be personally effected by it. And they already think that anyone that doesn't believe the same things they do are evil and subhuman so why should it bother them?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058496518582403072


> *Press release
> Joint Statement by the UK, France and Germany on the Iran Nuclear Deal*
> 
> Joint statement by High Representative Federica Mogherini and Foreign Ministers Jean-Yves Le Drian of France, Heiko Maas of Germany and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt of the United Kingdom and Finance Ministers Bruno Le Maire of France, Olaf Scholz of Germany and Philip Hammond of the United Kingdom
> ...


Good. It's about fucking time some of these other countries quit supporting the USA's war mongering. If the neocons still try to start up a war with Iran, when Iran is still abiding by the JCPoA, they'll be going it alone and it'll be an incredibly bad look internationally. One can hope this will keep them in check.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Bill O-Reilly starts off by 'we have all these social programs!!!' yeah, you also have the most expensive military in the world too.

However he did correct Trump when he said if you cut taxes its going to increase the debt, so well done Bill.

Trump got his dynamic economy, the deficit is getting worse under him.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Bill O-Reilly starts off by 'we have all these social programs!!!' yeah, you also have the most expensive military in the world too.
> 
> However he did correct Trump when he said if you cut taxes its going to increase the debt, so well done Bill.
> 
> Trump got his dynamic economy, the deficit is getting worse under him.


Cutting taxes as a way to reduce the debt doesn't work without cutting spending. Ironic how Trump ripped the Bush family yet has no problem with repeating Dubya's mistakes on keeping the spending going, especially considering cutting taxes means less revenue coming in.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058496518582403072
> 
> 
> Good. It's about fucking time some of these other countries quit supporting the USA's war mongering. If the neocons still try to start up a war with Iran, when Iran is still abiding by the JCPoA, they'll be going it alone and it'll be an incredibly bad look internationally. One can hope this will keep them in check.


End goal is to make the world dependent on US oil and US oil only. 

The only way now to subvert the US imperialism is for Europe to develop their solar infrastructure. Once the huge European markets go solar, the east will follow and US will have no choice but to do the same.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> We’re now three days from the 2018 election — an election in which Republicans appear likely to lose the House. The funny thing is that President Trump seems at peace with that. His late strategy seems to be all about motivating the base for key red-state Senate races. He is focused on that even though that rhetoric seems less helpful — and possibly even harmful — in the more endangered chamber, the House.
> “It could happen,” Trump said Friday about losing the House. “And you know what you do? My whole life, you know what I say? ‘Don’t worry about it, I’ll just figure it out.’ Does that make sense? I’ll figure it out.”
> An election analyst might say he is conceding the House.
> A conspiracy theorist might say he actually sees benefit — personally, at least — in losing the House.
> ...


http://archive.is/HOGYQ#selection-1413.0-1533.93


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

virus21 said:


> Article


A good article, agree that whilst it is a negative it can play in to a different narrative later on down the line.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I was talking with an older co-worker the other day and she brought up the caravan. She only watches Fox News and won't accept anything that contradicts what they say. She asked what I thought would happen. I said same thing that happened back in April with the previous caravan, nothing. A few asylum seekers will get in and the rest will stay in Mexico or go else wheres. She started in on how this was different and it's so terrible and invasion and all that.

I tried to tell her the whole thing is overblown bullshit for political reasons and tv ratings, but she just kept going on. Then she brought up how her brother thinks when they get within sight at the border they should fire warning shots in front of them. Then if they don't stop shoot their shins. If they fon't stop then their knees. If they're still moving forward after that give a warning that the next will be in their chest and follow through on that threat. She laughed and laughed at the idea.

I changed the subject after that. Nice lady, but when she brings up race, police, or politics/Trump, it gets awkward.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> but when she brings up race, police, or politics/Trump, it gets awkward.


You shouldn't engage with her. That could end bad for you at work. Never trust them. 

The connection to Trump is based on social racial beliefs. White victimization, white "sovereignty" anxiety, white nationalism, white patriotism (which, historically was born out of bigotry and xenophobia) and white moral relativism. It's why Trump can try to take the ACA away, which would effect a lot of his base for the worst, and say whatever outrageous fear mongering or blame game lie he wants every single day with zero consequence. As long as you tell them those bad Hispanics and kneeling blacks are the problem, that's all they care about, they'll gladly turn the other cheek to any other policy that may effect them for the worst. Anything to protect white identity & comfort. It may sound harsh, but it's true. Rep. Steve King is a good example of someone who embodies some of this. And then there are others who say dog whistles for the purpose of plausible deniability. So then they use the police and military to protect "their culture".

Even non-whites who have that type of mindset get looped into it not realizing it's not beneficial to their racial interest.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> You shouldn't engage with her. That could end bad for you at work. Never trust them.
> 
> The connection to Trump is based on social racial beliefs. White victimization, white "sovereignty" anxiety, white nationalism, white patriotism (which, historically was born out of bigotry and xenophobia) and white moral relativism. It's why Trump can try to take the ACA away, which would effect a lot of his base for the worst, and say whatever outrageous fear mongering or blame game lie he wants every single day with zero consequence. As long as you tell them those bad Hispanics and kneeling blacks are the problem, that's all they care about, they'll gladly turn the other cheek to any other policy that may effect them for the worst. Anything to protect white identity & comfort. It may sound harsh, but it's true. Rep. Steve King is a good example of someone who embodies some of this. And then there are others who say dog whistles for the purpose of plausible deniability. So then they use the police and military to protect "their culture".
> 
> Even non-whites who have that type of mindset get looped into it not realizing it's not beneficial to their racial interest.


I'll be all right. The boss hates her and likes me. Plus, she never gets mad about things I don't agree with her on, she just ignores it and plows through with her Fox talking points. It's odd though. Worked with her for nearly a year and a half and she only started bringing this stuff up in the last month or two. Hopefully once the election cycle is over with, she'll calm down.



> The connection to Trump is based on social racial beliefs. White victimization, white "sovereignty" anxiety, white nationalism, white patriotism (which, historically was born out of bigotry and xenophobia) and white moral relativism...


I think this might describe her pretty well.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I was talking with an older co-worker the other day and she brought up the caravan. She only watches Fox News and won't accept anything that contradicts what they say. She asked what I thought would happen. I said same thing that happened back in April with the previous caravan, nothing. A few asylum seekers will get in and the rest will stay in Mexico or go else wheres. She started in on how this was different and it's so terrible and invasion and all that.
> 
> I tried to tell her the whole thing is overblown bullshit for political reasons and tv ratings, but she just kept going on. Then she brought up how her brother thinks when they get within sight at the border they should fire warning shots in front of them. Then if they don't stop shoot their shins. If they fon't stop then their knees. If they're still moving forward after that give a warning that the next will be in their chest and follow through on that threat. She laughed and laughed at the idea.
> 
> I changed the subject after that. Nice lady, but when she brings up race, police, or politics/Trump, it gets awkward.


I wouldn't call that a nice lady at all, but that's just me. She's also definitely not just listening to Fox news but also some of the far right people on Twitter and YouTube, or at least her husband is. Probably her though. Everything she's saying is parroting words straight from the play book of far right Twitter or her family and friends ... some of whom are definitely heavily involved on social media somewhere. The word "invasion" is a dog whistle amongst the racists. They want to create as much of a negative view of asylum and refugee seekers as they can so they specifically choose to use that word amongst themselves.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> I wouldn't call that a nice lady at all, but that's just me. She's also definitely not just listening to Fox news but also some of the far right people on Twitter and YouTube, or at least her husband is. Probably her though. Everything she's saying is parroting words straight from the play book of far right Twitter or her family and friends ... some of whom are definitely heavily involved on social media somewhere. The word "invasion" is a dog whistle amongst the racists. They want to create as much of a negative view of asylum and refugee seekers as they can so they specifically choose to use that word amongst themselves.


When I say nice, I mean she's personable most of the time.

And yeah she is on Facebook a lot, so that's probably some of it.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058496518582403072
> 
> 
> Good. It's about fucking time some of these other countries quit supporting the USA's war mongering. If the neocons still try to start up a war with Iran, when Iran is still abiding by the JCPoA, they'll be going it alone and it'll be an incredibly bad look internationally. One can hope this will keep them in check.


Meanwhile, Trump once again shows he is all talk, no action in regards to his word on international issues. He has backed down on closing off oil sales by Iran by permitting 8 nations to do so, including some of Iran’s top customers...

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Why-Trump-Decided-To-Back-Down-On-Iran.html

What happened to being tough on Iran, Mr. President?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> Meanwhile, Trump once again shows he is all talk, no action in regards to his word on international issues. He has backed down on closing off oil sales by Iran by permitting 8 nations to do so, including some of Iran’s top customers...
> 
> https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Why-Trump-Decided-To-Back-Down-On-Iran.html
> 
> What happened to being tough on Iran, Mr. President?


So... you *want* another regime change war in the Middle East?

That doesn't really jive with your desire to see reduced government spending.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> So... you *want* another regime change war in the Middle East?
> 
> That doesn't really jive with your desire to see reduced government spending.


Just pointing out that Trump promised sanctions with teeth that would bring the Iranian regime to its knees. The idea is supposedly to then see the Iranian people overthrow the government themselves. 

Problem is when you offer exemptions it does nothing but just make what you say into hyperbole. And you don’t have to worry about regime change wars with Trump when the worst he has done is bomb an empty airfield in Syria.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> Just pointing out that Trump promised sanctions with teeth that would bring the Iranian regime to its knees. The idea is supposedly to then see the Iranian people overthrow the government themselves.
> 
> Problem is when you offer exemptions it does nothing but just make what you say into hyperbole. And you don’t have to worry about regime change wars with Trump when the worst he has done is bomb an empty airfield in Syria.


Wow. Where to even start with this one...

Who gives a shit if Trump promised sanctions with teeth that would bring the Iranian regime to it's knees? Politicians always make bullshit promises. I'd rather they make a sane decision later than stick with the insane one out of some delusional responsibility to stick by their insane promise. But let's break this down anyways.

First of all, he's not exactly the one running foreign policy, that would be the deep state. Secondly, even if he was, we've already destroyed the Middle East enough as it is. The absolute *last* thing we should be doing is toppling Iran. Lastly, these exemptions have done nothing to actually stop the neocons from advancing their agenda to destroy Iran. It's nothing more than a part of the process. These people will never be satisfied until they have installed another puppet dictator like they did the last time they toppled Iran's government.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Trump was actually the one making these decisions... good! I hope he backs us off all the way out of the fucking Middle East. I'm never going to criticize anyone in DC for making a less aggressive foreign policy choice.

Oh and the bombing an empty airfield in Syria thing... _that's_ what you think the worst thing they've done is? Wow. I guess we're not counting helping Saudi Arabia commit genocide in Yemen then. Or continuing to illegally occupy parts of Syria. Or the shadow war that is still going on in Africa. Or the ramping up of drone bombings by over 400%. Or John fucking Bolton calling Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela the "Troika of Evil", because we know Bolton's answer to everything he deems a problem. Hell, even hiring John fucking Bolton in the first place is something I would mark down in the foreign policy mistakes category.

Pulling out of the JCPoA was a disaster in and of itself. You're upset because the sanctions aren't harsh enough but the real point is that we shouldn't be sanctioning them in the first place because they never broke the deal. The other countries who signed on to the deal are still abiding by it and are not going along with the USA's plans for yet more destruction of the Middle East. My only hope is that enough of our allies stand up and say no to this fucking bullshit. That's the only slim hope we have of stopping the neocons from getting their way.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Tater said:


> BruiserKC said:
> 
> 
> > Just pointing out that Trump promised sanctions with teeth that would bring the Iranian regime to its knees. The idea is supposedly to then see the Iranian people overthrow the government themselves.
> ...


I give a shit, I'm glad he hasn't of course,, but that doesn't mean you can't highlight he said he'd do something then backed down once again.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I give a shit, I'm glad he hasn't of course,, but that doesn't mean you can't highlight he said he'd do something then backed down once again.


If someone promises that they're going to do something really retarded, then they do something less retarded, I'm not going to give a shit that they promised to do something really retarded. I'm just going to be happy that they went with the less retarded option. Of all the things to criticize the Trump administration for, choosing the less retarded option, even if it goes against the promise of something really retarded, is not one of them.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> If someone promises that they're going to do something really retarded, then they do something less retarded, I'm not going to give a shit that they promised to do something really retarded. I'm just going to be happy that they went with the less retarded option. Of all the things to criticize the Trump administration for, choosing the less retarded option, even if it goes against the promise of something really retarded, is not one of them.


I think the criticism is about his strong words and weak actions not about the topic of those words though. Clearly, no one wants the worst option to happen. Its a minor grievance this whole talk the talk thing but he does it continuously and his voter base gobbles it up.

Take for example 'clearing the debt will be easy' then not clearing the debt but making it worse. 

I highly doubt Bruiser wanted to Trump to put these sanctions in place, he's simply highlighting once again Trump riles up his voter base (and his detractors in this case) with rhetoric he doesn't deliver on.


----------



## MarkOfAllMarks (Apr 7, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

1


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I think the criticism is about his strong words and weak actions not about the topic of those words though. Clearly, no one wants the worst option to happen. Its a minor grievance this whole talk the talk thing but he does it continuously and his voter base gobbles it up.
> 
> Take for example 'clearing the debt will be easy' then not clearing the debt but making it worse.
> 
> I highly doubt Bruiser wanted to Trump to put these sanctions in place, he's simply highlighting once again Trump riles up his voter base (and his detractors in this case) with rhetoric he doesn't deliver on.


I get what you're saying but what is this, lie #2,594,719? I mean, there's been so many of them that I don't consider one more lie to be of any significance. That's why I don't give a shit if he lied or not, or any politician for that matter. For most politicians, lying is like a fish swimming in water. It's just what they do. I only care about what actions they take while in office.

Plus, as I've pointed out before, it's not like he's the one steering the ship. Not in any real sense. Even if Trump were earnest about everything he ever said on the campaign trail, he wouldn't exactly be the first person to get to DC and find out that the deep state are the ones really in control.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I think the criticism is about his strong words and weak actions not about the topic of those words though. Clearly, no one wants the worst option to happen. Its a minor grievance this whole talk the talk thing but he does it continuously and his voter base gobbles it up.
> 
> Take for example 'clearing the debt will be easy' then not clearing the debt but making it worse.
> 
> I highly doubt Bruiser wanted to Trump to put these sanctions in place, he's simply highlighting once again Trump riles up his voter base (and his detractors in this case) with rhetoric he doesn't deliver on.


I actually had no issues with the sanctions themselves. Iran is a hostile regime to the United States that funds terrorism across the Middle East and the world. That being said, pulling out of the nuclear agreement makes no sense if trying for a better deal. If you can’t get the deal you want then pull out. 

At the same time it is another broken promise by the President. It’s become a regular thing. The ironic thing is that people were tired of the broken promises by other politicians and Presidents so they elected Trump. However he is doing the same thing.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> I actually had no issues with the sanctions themselves.


So you're okay with the USA toppling foreign governments who don't fall in line with the American Empire. Gotcha.



BruiserKC said:


> Iran is a hostile regime to the United States


Hostile how? Are they threatening to invade Nebraska? Can you show me when Iran has directly attacked the USA?

Last I checked, Syria invited their ally Iran into their country to help fight ISIS. It's the USA who has illegally invaded and occupied Syria and they have no right to demand Iran leave.

The USA, BTW, has completely surrounded Iran with military bases. I'm reasonably certain Iran does not have military bases in Canada and Mexico, but feel free to fact check me on that one.



BruiserKC said:


> that funds terrorism across the Middle East and the world.


What terrorist groups are Iran funding in the Middle East? What terrorist groups are Iran funding around the world?

These are pretty serious charges. Care to back it up with a little evidence or are you just parroting neocon talking points?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I can't type a lot because I sliced my finger with a knife yesterday lol. Just wanted to mention that ever since Trump went 100% neocon and basically starting falling the agenda of the last 18 years, the Russiagate nonsense in the mainstream media died down completely. 

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

^^^ Not nonsense, but I won't try to convince anybody as everybody here's already made up their minds before the investigation has finished.

But there's a reason no news has dropped regarding the russia/obstruction of justice investigation, and that's because of the midterms. Mueller does things by the book, and under DOJ guidelines, taking any public actions that could influence the election should be avoided. A guideline Comey disregarded in 2016. This quiet period was anticipated months ago.

Expect news to start dropping again once the midterms finish up.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






NBC and Facebook banned this ad for being "racist". The funny part is if Trump didn't approve it, the liberal powers that be wouldn't have given two shits! :lol

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> NBC and Facebook banned this ad for being "racist". The funny part is if Trump didn't approve it, the liberal powers that be wouldn't have given two shits! :lol
> 
> - Vic


How is the ad not racist plus that guy's killings happened under Bush.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> ^^^ Not nonsense, but I won't try to convince anybody as everybody here's already made up their minds before the investigation has finished.
> 
> But there's a reason no news has dropped regarding the russia/obstruction of justice investigation, and that's because of the midterms. Mueller does things by the book, and under DOJ guidelines, taking any public actions that could influence the election should be avoided. A guideline Comey disregarded in 2016. This quiet period was anticipated months ago.
> 
> Expect news to start dropping again once the midterms finish up.


BRB. I'm going to a soup kitchen and feed them the Russia soup. I hear its very filling.

I'm sorry but I don't think any leftist out there actually gives a crap about your Russian conspiracy theories.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

China’s president vows to lower tariffs, increase imports amid tensions with US

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/...ensions-with-us?amp&__twitter_impression=true


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059526156888752128
This is what Trump has been working towards all along with these tariffs so hopefully it works out. (Y)


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> BRB. I'm going to a soup kitchen and feed them the Russia soup. I hear its very filling.


be careful, it might be mixed with polonium. wouldn't want you to get indicted for accidentally murdering the homeless. 



Reap said:


> I'm sorry but I don't think any leftist out there actually gives a crap about your Russian conspiracy theories.


it's ok. they don't have to. facts are facts. the investigation will conclude, and we'll see who's right. in the meantime, i'm already stocked up on popcorn in anticipation of the coming indictments. opcorn


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






President Trump said he's willing to work with Democrats now. He might get more done with them given how little the Republicans produced when they had the ball. 

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump said he's willing to work with Democrats now. He might get more done with them given how little the Republicans produced when they had the ball.
> 
> - Vic


What am I reading here? Vic Capri speaking ill of the Republicans?


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I called out the RINOs for the past two years if you had actually bothered to pay attention to my posts and thankfully, most of them are gone now with the exception of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. We'll see if Mitt Romney is willing to play ball or not.

- Vic


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060256619383193601

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060256623439110146
Jeff Sessions is out as AG


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> I called out the RINOs for the past two years if you had actually bothered to pay attention to my posts and thankfully, most of them are gone now with the exception of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. We'll see if Mitt Romney is willing to play ball or not.
> 
> - Vic


You didn't say RINO, you said republicans. You just said most of the RINO's had gone, make up your mind.

Jeff Sessions was a dead man walking.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump laying the groundwork for federal legalization of marijuana. :hb 

Sessions being done should be welcome news for all.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060270803483271168
Right on cue. :heston


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump laying the groundwork for federal legalization of marijuana. :hb
> 
> Sessions being done should be welcome news for all.
> 
> ...



:lmao at the two tweets. He's not even hiding his anti-Trump bias is he? At least be consistent in your principles instead of being a partisan hack.

Sessions being removed is a wonderful thing, it's a shame he was appointed to begin with.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> :lmao at the two tweets. He's not even hiding his anti-Trump bias is he? At least be consistent in your principles instead of being a partisan hack.
> 
> Sessions being removed is a wonderful thing, it's a shame he was appointed to begin with.


yet you never say anything when Trump contradicts himself over and over and over and over and over again, sometimes even in the same sentence.

Also you should put his two different quotes in context.

The first one was around the time Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. The 2nd quote is more about Trump firing Sessions because Sessions recused himself and refused to end the Russia investigation. Funny how you left that part out. You are better than that.

Sessions as a horrible AG, but Trump is also corrupt for firing him because the only reason he did so is because Trump knows Mueller is close and Trump wants the Russia investigation ended ASAP

Both can still be true and you know that


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Sessions had a job to do with MS-13 and he did it well. Time to move on to other priorities now that he's not well-suited to handle given his draconian and out of touch views.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> yet you never say anything when Trump contradicts himself over and over and over and over and over again, sometimes even in the same sentence.


Where do you want me to start? :lol. Even a lot of Trump supporters know he's contradicted himself at times and has changed position on policies when it has suited him, particularly during the 2016 election cycle.

You are pointing out the obvious, we've known this for about two years and you're trying to use that to criticize me? Just stop :lol.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Most politicians lie and take whatever position suits their agenda at the given moment. I merely point out the hypocrisy to show that the #Resistance isn't really about some virtuous uprising against fascism (lmao), it's just politics as usual. People are allowing Democrats to whip them into a frenzy as if something truly unprecedented is occurring in this country and we're going down a dark road. It's not. We're not. We have a Republican president and the Democrats are the opposition party. That's all it is. Our constitutional republic isn't under threat, democracy itself isn't under threat, freedom of the press isn't under threat, no minority groups are under threat, women aren't under threat, white nationalists/supremacists aren't suddenly gaining political power or social acceptance, and the interests of Russia aren't any more served by Trump than they were by previous presidents. The hysteria is completely unwarranted. We don't need to have the same political party in power all the time, it's totally OK for the Republicans to get their turn. The pendulum will eventually swing back as it always does.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Most politicians lie and take whatever position suits their agenda at the given moment. I merely point out the hypocrisy to show that the #Resistance isn't really about some virtuous uprising against fascism (lmao), it's just politics as usual. People are allowing Democrats to whip them into a frenzy as if something truly unprecedented is occurring in this country and we're going down a dark road. It's not. We're not. We have a Republican president and the Democrats are the opposition party. That's all it is. Our constitutional republic isn't under threat, democracy itself isn't under threat, freedom of the press isn't under threat, no minority groups are under threat, women aren't under threat, white nationalists/supremacists aren't suddenly gaining political power or social acceptance, and the interests of Russia aren't any more served by Trump than they were by previous presidents. The hysteria is completely unwarranted. We don't need to have the same political party in power all the time, it's totally OK for the Republicans to get their turn. The pendulum will eventually swing back as it always does.


Trump is full on fascist now. Teh country is going down a dark road because of Trump's racism, and corruption. We have never seen a president this bad before and get away with all the shit he is getting away with. Trump is making racist rise up and speaks freely again. And LOL at calling the Dems he opposition party after what the GOP did to Obama for 6 years. You don't really believe the nonsense you spew do you?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> And LOL at calling the Dems he opposition party after what the GOP did to Obama for 6 years. You don't really believe the nonsense you spew do you?


Is the Trump administration Democrat? No? Then the Democrats are the opposition. I'm sorry you think benign facts are nonsense.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Is the Trump administration Democrat? No? Then the Democrats are the opposition. I'm sorry you think benign facts are nonsense.


What facts do you have? How are the Dems and not the GOP the opposition party? We all know how you were using the word opposition there. Don't try to change the context now that you were called out.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Was using it in the most benign context possible, as the entire point of the post was to show that everything is completely normal. :lol My goodness, BM.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Jeff Sessions is out as AG


About fucking time! He should've been the first guy Trump fired!

- Vic


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Am I getting this right? Is BM arguing that the Democrats are not the opposition party? :sodone :sodone :sodone.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> Am I getting this right? Is BM arguing that the Democrats are not the opposition party? :sodone :sodone :sodone.


That is not the context he was using the word and you now that. He was using it as them being obstructionist. What is why he used #Resistance right before it.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is not the context he was using the word and you now that. He was using it as them being obstructionist. What is why he used #Resistance right before it.


I shouldn't need to defend CP because he can do that himself but the point about the Resistance was the fact they aren't above hypocrisy just like any other political movement which has both politicians and activists who are all about gaining power.

That was clearly separate from the part about the Democrats being the opposition party, which was relaying the facts of the US's current political climate and demonstrating that despite the media's sensationalism and many on the Democratic side acting hysterically (and I'm careful to use those who are partisan to the party, not the entire American Left), things are really business as usual.

Which they are other than media coverage and political engagement have been ramped up by about 100 because of the Trump phenomena....whether in a negative or positive light :lol.

You know not every point being made has to be taken as an attack BM :lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

DOPA said:


> I shouldn't need to defend CP because he can do that himself but the point about the Resistance was the fact they aren't above hypocrisy just like any other political movement which has both politicians and activists who are all about gaining power.
> 
> That was clearly separate from the part about the Democrats being the opposition party, which was relaying the facts of the US's current political climate and demonstrating that despite the media's sensationalism and many on the Democratic side acting hysterically (and I'm careful to use those who are partisan to the party, not the entire American Left), things are really business as usual.
> 
> ...


Since CP is a shit poster yes it does. Its also ironic he is claiming the Dems are the ones whipping up the country in a frenzy when its really Trump doing that.

Oh look Trump revokes Jim Acosta press credentials, proving yet again what a fascist he is.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look Trump revokes Jim Acosta press credentials, proving yet again what a fascist he is.


Trump needed his safe space.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yeah, Trump needs a safe space from Jim Acosta, that's why he calls on him like every time he has a press conference. :lmao 

Jim Acosta was way out of line, the revocation of his pass has nothing to do with the kinds of questions he asks. Nearly everyone asks critical questions of the president. He's not revoking anyone else's pass. CNN can send someone else to ask the exact same questions Jim would've asked and they'll be completely fine.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, Trump needs a safe space from Jim Acosta, that's why he calls on him like every time he has a press conference. :lmao
> 
> Jim Acosta was way out of line, the revocation of his pass has nothing to do with the kinds of questions he asks. Nearly everyone asks critical questions of the president. He's not revoking anyone else's pass. CNN can send someone else to ask the exact same questions Jim would've asked and they'll be completely fine.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060336119315873792


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Not sure why you quoted me there but OK


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, Trump needs a safe space from Jim Acosta, that's why he calls on him like every time he has a press conference. :lmao
> 
> Jim Acosta was way out of line, the revocation of his pass has nothing to do with the kinds of questions he asks. Nearly everyone asks critical questions of the president. He's not revoking anyone else's pass. CNN can send someone else to ask the exact same questions Jim would've asked and they'll be completely fine.


Yes Trump needs a safe space, he is the biggest snowflake there is. And Trump does not call him on anything, Trump just refuses to answer his legit questions, and then calls him names. 

Trump has revoked passes in the past, don't even lie he hasn't. And he banned the media from the WH press briefings when it was Spicer a couple fo times. He has also threatened to revoke others as well.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060374680991883265
You guys be the judges, but all I walked away with from this is that everyone involved is just showing how shitty they are. From the president, to the reporter, to the press secretary. 

Now continue your your partisan fights with one another. 

We know that the Trump supporters will scream "Costa is a female abuser" and the media supporters will scream "this isn't abuse". 

But you all know that you'll be exaggerating and intentionally throwing out of context hysterical fits in order to show which side was the more oppressed when essentially this was a shitty interaction that went south that should never have happened if the Western Civilization was as "Civilized" as you all seem to claim it is :mj4

I love the third world level shit fuckery American politics are turning into because now I get to be smug about it.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:bahgawd he nearly broke her arm!

You shouldn't judge anything from an edited video clip, so sad to see what has become of the WH.

So sad to see shitty journalism too ofc.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> So you're okay with the USA toppling foreign governments who don't fall in line with the American Empire. Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/index.html

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/is-iran-really-the-worlds-leading-state-sponsor-of-terror

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/proxy-power-understanding-irans-use-of-terrorism/

The last one is an older one but it's been an issue for years. Iran has funded groups like Hezbollah for years. They don't directly threaten the US with their actions but get terrorist groups to do it for them. Hamas' leadership has also confirmed Iran backs them with money and military supplies. 

I don't want to be the world's policeman, that's not the United States' job and if it was up to me I'd tell the world to deal with their own shit while we focus on matters here at home. Unfortunately, with the state of the world as it is now that's not the best policy. Problem is, our leadership is more worried about sniping with each other on stupid shit rather then dealing with everything as a whole. However, ultimately it is up to the people of Iran to decide their own fate and whether they want a different form of government or the theocracy that clearly has pushed that nation to the position it is now.


----------



## Kiz (Dec 2, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

imagine donald trump calling someone else a terrible person.

grab em by the pussy eh.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I'm not a fan of banning journalists or removing their credentials even if they are being rude obnoxious jackasses. The reasoning used by the WH honestly is rather weak, I don't see much evidence of the claims being made. But considering what I have already posted about Acosta and how he has continuously acted in press conferences, I can't feel sorry for the man. He honestly had it coming and it was a matter of time before an excuse was used. It's not so much that he's rude towards the president or the press secretary which is still unsavory but they can handle it, it's the fact he takes away time from other journalists who want to ask questions for their media outlets and the fact he continues to shout over them. He's an egotistical asshole who wants the spotlight for himself.

So I'm not surprised this happened.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> One thing I want to add is that Obama early on his presidency, banned an entire news network from his press conferences, that being FOX. Are the same people who are crying oppression and dictatorship because of this incident and because of the some of the language Trump uses criticizing Obama for literally taking away the credentials of an entire news network? I'm sure some did or would have, but I suspect many didn't. It's the double standards I do not like from either side.


Is this actually true though? Can't find a story anywhere.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> One thing I want to add is that Obama early on his presidency, banned an entire news network from his press conferences, that being FOX. Are the same people who are crying oppression and dictatorship because of this incident and because of the some of the language Trump uses criticizing Obama for literally taking away the credentials of an entire news network? I'm sure some did or would have, but I suspect many didn't. It's the double standards I do not like from either side.


Not a fan of your whataboutist arguments. I never heard about him banning Fox, so I have no clue what you're talking about. You might want to double check. 

When Obama did "oppress the media", it was also plastered all over the media. That's how you and everyone who talks about it knows about it. It's not like some sort of deep dark secret. Some of those stories require context as well just as the ones happening now do as well. 

Lastly, between 2008-12, people were still reading paper newspapers and there was no such thing as social media. It was in its infancy and people were busy sharing family pictures instead of fighting like dogs over politics. 

It was wrong then, it's wrong now.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Is this actually true though? Can't find a story anywhere.


I think Obama's administration tried to ban FOX from one interview but the other MSM stood up for FOX and they ultimately backed down.

I wonder if the conservative outlets given more press access in the Trump era will band together now for their fellow journalist.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This is what he's talking about: 

https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/foxs-white-house-bans-fox-news-story-completely-unravels/



> UPDATE – This story was originally published without key information that changes some key points of the story. It no does not appear that the story is “starting to unravel” as the headline claims, rather, the story has changed since its first reporting. Mediaite gave Fox News every opportunity to make clear their side of the story, but did not share key information until Saturday afternoon, which lead to Fox News: White House Apologized For Pay Czar Interview Snub “Mistake” In the so-called “war” between Fox News and the White House, it looks like the Obama administration has scored a much-needed victory.
> 
> On Thursday night, Fox News ran a shocking report that the “Obama administration” had “contacted the White House pool” and made executive pay czar Kenneth Feinberg available for round-robin interviews, “but specified that all members of the pool were welcome except Fox News.” They billed it as the Obama administration’s “first concrete step” in the direction of treating Fox News Channel like it’s not a real news organization.
> 
> ...


:lmao Totally not the same thing.



FriedTofu said:


> I think Obama's administration tried to ban FOX from one interview but the other MSM stood up for FOX and they ultimately backed down.
> 
> I wonder if the conservative outlets given more press access in the Trump era will band together now for their fellow journalist.


From Fox News:



> Other journalists, however, reacted differently, including Fox News' Chris Wallace, who called Acosta's behavior "shameful."


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> Not a fan of your whataboutist arguments. I never heard about him banning Fox, so I have no clue what you're talking about. You might want to double check.
> 
> When Obama did "oppress the media", it was also plastered all over the media. That's how you and everyone who talks about it knows about it. It's not like some sort of deep dark secret. Some of those stories require context as well just as the ones happening now do as well.
> 
> ...



Not whataboutism, a legitimate question, I know certain people have principles and would stick to them regardless, I'm talking about those who have deep partisan lines, you know this.

Seems as though I may have not gotten the whole story straight though about FOX so I take it back, still stand by the rest of what I said however.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

You're at least right about the fact that they were looking for an excuse and they made up a terribly weak reason to do what they did.

It does energize Trump's 4chan base and give them something to share amongst either and push those social media likes for their favorite youtubers and Twitter users.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reap said:


> This is what he's talking about:
> 
> https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/foxs-white-house-bans-fox-news-story-completely-unravels/
> 
> ...


I won't fault Wallace for saying that. At least he seems consistent in his disdain for both Trump's horrible behaviour and combative journalists pushing back.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Jim Acosta is not a journalist. He's a paid agitator. His press credentials should've been revoked months ago when he tried to sabotage the peace meeting with North Korea. The diva got what he deserved. 

- Vic


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Acosta is clearly guilty.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060432229011095552


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Acosta is clearly guilty.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060432229011095552


"The video is clearly doctored."
"Here's a frame-by-frame analysis proving that it isn't doctored."

*reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It's such a dumb distraction, they were more than justified to ban him based on everything else he did.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> Jim Acosta is not a journalist. He's a paid agitator. His press credentials should've been revoked months ago when he tried to sabotage the peace meeting with North Korea. The diva got what he deserved.
> 
> - Vic


If it was up to you there would be only Fox News and Breitbart reporters.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> It's such a dumb distraction, they were more than justified to ban him based on everything else he did.


How libertarian of you to come to this conclusion.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> If it was up to you there would be only Fox News and Breitbart reporters.


Or just a comfy couch with these hard hitting journalists:


----------



## FlashMcGardenhose (Nov 7, 2018)

Trump is doing good!


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Or just a comfy couch with these hard hitting journalists:


Because the media never lobbed soft balls towards Democrats ever in life :lol


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> Because the media never lobbed soft balls towards Democrats ever in life :lol


Don't you remember all the coverage about the spying, misuse of Government agencies, the fuckery in Haiti and the Libya debacle? Among other issues? 

The MSM was so HARD on the Obama administration!

He is right, it's every Politicians dream to have an adoring MSM fawning over them. Just like it's every Government's dream to have a Trump for the MSM to foam at the mouth over and completely ignore decades long Government misdeeds.

Then again it's the MSM, truth tellers privately owned by businesses who deal in Politics, so in reality who knows what's true? :laugh:


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> Because the media never lobbed soft balls towards Democrats ever in life :lol


Untwist your panties champ, never suggested they didn't. 

This is the Trump thread who is the POTUS, of course he gets talked about more than anyone else. He's also appeared on Fox n Friends and admitted he loves their show so my joke was appropriate.

If you want to start a 'Media is soft on Democrats' thread, go right ahead, no sweat off my sack.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Untwist your panties champ, never suggested they didn't.
> 
> This is the Trump thread who is the POTUS, of course he gets talked about more than anyone else. He's also appeared on Fox n Friends and admitted he loves their show so my joke was appropriate.
> 
> If you want to start a 'Media is soft on Democrats' thread, go right ahead, no sweat off my sack.


My point is that people shouldn't act surprised and get annoyed that FOX is soft on Trump. Its like they completely ignored the media's fascination with Obama and his administration, or the fact that CNN was actively helping Clinton, which didn't seem to annoy nearly as many people as it should have. I'm not a huge fan of media outlets taking sides, especially how blatant it is, but I understand it(they have air time to fill) and acknowledge the fact that its kind of important to have at least 1 major media outlet that is pro republican. We know how many big news outlets out there that are pro democrat so I don't care about FOX being right wing or soft on Republicans. In a perfect world no media would have a side or aggressively push their side as hard as they do, but this is where we are today so why waste time and get so angry about it?(not saying you are but others do get angry)

That's all I was trying to say.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The only side that doesn't get any positive bias is the left, the actual left and not Americas left. This is objectively true and an unfortunate example of the MSM obsession with the establishment.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Two major takeaways from the midterms:


*It was in the short-term about as good a night for Donald Trump as realistically plausible.* Most sitting presidents are dealt vastly more painful losses in the houses of Congress than what Trump received, especially in the post-World War II era and perhaps particularly in the past twenty-five or so years. The math favored the Republicans as far as the Senate is concerned so that only marginally counts as a "win" for Trump but the outcome of having a hostile House of Representatives controlled by Democrats has a number of political benefits to the Trump administration as Trump probably begins to consider his reelection bid (if he has not already). Gridlock provides him with the chance to complain about "obstructionist Democrats" thwarting parts of his agenda, which is something of Standard Operating Procedure for such scenarios either way. 

Also, it must be said. The Democrats' roster of headliners in the House of Representatives is charged with the prospect of quasi-comic relief. Maxine Waters will be the new chair of the House Committee on Financial Services. The heated arguments over economic deregulation and Waters's efforts to slow down Trump's measures to increase the scope of his deregulation policies will be prominent over the next two years. Adam Schiff will be chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, likely compelling each side of the proverbial aisle to grow enraged with some of his tactics. Jerrod Nadler will be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in all likelihood, which is the repository for resolutions of impeachment. This could be the nastiest Beltway street fight in a long time and Trump would probably savor every last back elbow and eye gouge. One can easily see a chain of events in which an indignant House of Representatives and a vengeful White House duke it out with great regularity, gifting the sitting president with a foil against which to run in 2020.

As for the midterms themselves, no blue wave was discovered. It was more like a sleepy country creek. For a president who drives the opposition into the frenzy that this one does, it was a success for Trump and Republicans in general.

*While a good night for Trump overall, the midterm elections foreshadow perhaps mortal peril, in the long-term nationally, for the Republican Party.* All you have to do is compile the election results from the last six or eight election cycles or so and look at the numbers with a touch of care. Realistically speaking, there is just about no way even the Democrats can screw this up: Arizona, Georgia and Texas are officially now turning purple, and demographically it is almost impossible to see how they are deep blue by the time the 2020s are winding down a decade from now. Arizona in particular has been demographically changing in dramatic fashion over the past five, six years or so, and the bills are beginning to come in. 

As a political party, the GOP depends almost exclusively on the votes of older whites, married whites, religious whites, rural whites. Problem: the share of the electorate for whites in general and those groups of whites in particular is dwindling, year by year. Where this is most apparent is where it is happening fastest, such as in Arizona and Georgia. This is no new trend; California and Virginia were binding, ostentatious signposts. California was the home to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and was reliably consistently Republican for decades before the composition of the state's electorate began to quickly and irrevocably change, beginning in earnest approximately three decades ago. As recently as the early 2000s Virginia was ruby-red on election day. Mass immigration to the uppermost counties of Virginia around Alexandria just outside Washington, D.C. (many of whose immigrants are employed today by the "deep state" everyone these days is talking about) altered Virginia's electoral makeup to the point that now it is a consistently-claimed prize for Democrats. 

The sagacious demographer Ruy Teixeira noted back a few years ago that "...For the past 20 years, looking at the rate of change over every four-year presidential cycle, we've been running like clockwork nationwide with a 2 percent increase in minority voters, a 1 percent increase in college-educated whites, and a 3 percent decrease in white non-college voters... That might not sound like much in the span of four years. But over 20 years--six presidential cycles--that's twelve points more minority and twelve points less whites." 

In Georgia another story but with similar consequences for Republicans has been brewing. Turnout among black voters soared this past spring in that state's primary, which always boded exceedingly well for Democrats. The number of black voters rose 43 percent this past spring compared to 2010, which was the last time Georgia's gubernatorial election was hotly contested. As blacks in Georgia vote approximately on average 94-6 for Democrats as data collected from the past one dozen election cycles demonstrates, this was only good news for Team Blue. Further good news was the realization that the share of the white vote in Georgia is continually dwindling. White voter participation in Georgia has dipped 9 percentage points since 2010. As white voters are almost always conservative, constituting 93 percent of Republican primary votes while only 30 percent of Democratic votes, the trajectory for Georgia, which is also impacted by mass immigration in numerous counties, is something of a _fait accompli_ over the long haul.

And the Republicans' stranglehold on Texas has now received its first major push-back with Terrant County, always a red area and one of those instances of an actual large town/city being quite thoroughly Republican in Fort Worth, turning blue for Beto O'Rourke. Now every major city in Texas is blue and those are the places where the population of Texas is swelling, not in the hinterlands. In fact Pew Research estimated several months ago that approximately 85-90% of the population growth in Texas is occurring in cities. Texas turning blue due to demographics is now only a matter of time.


----------



## red dead2 (Dec 15, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Trump needed his safe space.


Where are all the right-wing champions of free speech now to protect this journalists 1st amendment rights?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



red dead2 said:


> Where are all the right-wing champions of free speech now to protect this journalists 1st amendment rights?


There's no constitutional or any violation of any kind depending on which side of the political spectrum these partisan individuals fall on. As long as whatever administration does whatever these individuals personally want happens, they cherry-pick their reasons for why it's justified or not justified. 

Here's an interesting article in 2010 talking about it:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/07/can-the-white-house-revoke-a-reporters-credentials/


> *Can the White House Revoke a Reporter’s Credentials?
> *Not really.
> 
> Today, after 50 years of covering the White House, Hearst newspapers columnist Helen Thomas announced her retirement after the widespread outrage that followed the release of a video in which she says that Jews in Israel should "go back to Germany and Poland." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called Thomas’s remarks "offensive and reprehensible." But if the 89-year-old Thomas had insisted on remaining, could the White House have forced her out of the press corps?
> ...


So this administration continues to act like buffoons and thugs. No repercussions from their supporter base.


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

honestly, the best thing that could've happened for the republican party would've been a hillary clinton presidency. 

she would've been neutered the first two years by a GOP-held house and senate, accomplishing practically nothing, only to go into one of the most unfavorable maps ever for the dems and because she got nothing done and is completely uninspiring, the GOP would've likely swept this year, getting closer to a supermajority in the senate, house, and governorship. because she would've barely scraped by in 2016, she'd have easily lost in 2020 to whomever the republican candidate would've been, and they'd now have a very favorable government to pass whatever legislation they wished. 

and with the census coming up, having a majority of governors would allow them to redraw the maps to give themselves an even greater advantage in the future. 

instead, the GOP got stuck with trump, and because he's so repulsive, in a year the GOP had every advantage to win big, they lost the house(as dems look to gain upwards of 40 seats), lost 7 governorships, and did OK at best in the senate(and even that might be worse than expected, with Arizona now leaning blue and Florida still up in the air).

clinton would've kept the country red until at least 2024.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> honestly, the best thing that could've happened for the republican party would've been a hillary clinton presidency.
> 
> she would've been neutered the first two years by a GOP-held house and senate, accomplishing practically nothing, only to go into one of the most unfavorable maps ever for the dems and because she got nothing done and is completely uninspiring, the GOP would've likely swept this year, getting closer to a supermajority in the senate, house, and governorship. because she would've barely scraped by in 2016, she'd have easily lost in 2020 to whomever the republican candidate would've been, and they'd now have a very favorable government to pass whatever legislation they wished.
> 
> ...


I said this exact same thing 2 years ago. Had Clinton won, in 2020 the GOP would have had the WH, strong majorities in both houses of Congress and control of enough states to call for a constitutional convention and let the likes of the Koch Bros rewrite the Constitution itself. People think we're fucked now. We'd have been fucked beyond repair had Hillary won.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The Donald passing on armistice commemoration because of light rain, sent his wife instead. Don't want to mess up that hair.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> President Barack Obama walked in the rain among the graves of U.S. casualties from the Iraq and Afghan wars at Arlington National Cemetery and took an unscheduled detour into section 60, a thicket of simple white headstones, to mark Veterans Day.
> 
> The first couple, bareheaded and ignoring the miserable weather, spoke and shook hands with visitors they found by the gravesides, one of whom Michelle Obama hugged.


:lelfold :lelfold


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> The Donald passing on armistice commemoration because of light rain, sent his wife instead. Don't want to mess up that hair.


he didn't want his spray tan to wash off.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Shoulda colluded harder


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1061581053599592448
good job frenchies


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> The Donald passing on armistice commemoration because of light rain, sent his wife instead. Don't want to mess up that hair.


Taking away the hair quip, this feels like something the onion would write 3 years ago to trigger conservatives. Now it is really happening with their preferred president. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1061581053599592448
> good job frenchies


Stuff like this always makes me laugh, so Nations are supposed to put the needs of it's citizens last? Even funnier is when anti-nationalists cry that they're not getting beneficial Government programs or the Government isn't paying attention to the needs of it's citizens. :laugh:


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> The Donald passing on armistice commemoration because of light rain, sent his wife instead. Don't want to mess up that hair.


What a fucking nimrod. Bets on the most weak ass excuse from the Trumpeterss?


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1061581053599592448
> good job frenchies





Miss Sally said:


> Stuff like this always makes me laugh, so Nations are supposed to put the needs of it's citizens last? Even funnier is when anti-nationalists cry that they're not getting beneficial Government programs or the Government isn't paying attention to the needs of it's citizens. :laugh:


Macron is what you would call a supra-nationalist, he wholeheartedly believes in the European project which seeks to make the EU a political union which does away with the current countries you see in Europe and instead makes them "states" much like the US except the leaders and legislators aren't elected but appointed. They hate nation state democracies and the very concept of them because they believe they are what have caused the first two world wars. The EU bureaucrats use that as an excuse to justify the positions and power that they have which are unaccountable to the normal population within the European Union.

The statement of course pre-supposes that putting the interests of the nation first goes against the values of that said country...which is ridiculous. They aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest.

The problem is the term nationalist these days has been tarred and is treated as toxic. I would classify myself as a nationalist in so far as I believe in the nation state and that only those politicians and governments who are elected by their constituents should uphold and change laws, legislation and regulations of that said country because they can be held accountable for their actions. That goes against the very fabric of what the Eurocrats want to achieve with the EU.

So it's hardly surprising that someone like Trump who at least in his rhetoric has made it clear that decisions his administration makes will put the interests of the people he is representing i.e his country first above all else is something that Macron is wholly against.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The government taking your money at gunpoint and then saying they're not going to put your interests as taxpaying citizens first, citing your own (presumed) values is hilariously fucked up.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The government taking your money at gunpoint and then saying they're not going to put your interests as taxpaying citizens first, citing your own (presumed) values is hilariously fucked up.


Thank god in the USA the citizens are armed to fight back against the whole gunpoint thing.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump is having a rather hideous week--politically-speaking, in terms of "optics" as is the much-favored (and overused) word these days, but more importantly in principle--post-election. 

Attacking California forest management/fire policies is laughably erroneous. California has created a multitude of its own problems in a plethora of disparate arenas but this is not one of them. 

This weird business with the World War I armistice commemoration is just a bizarre unforced error. 

This is a colossal whopper, one of Trump's worst as U.S. president:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060912743207845888
If Trump had said, "A lot of military equipment was too old and we needed to spend some more money to replace that old, worn down equipment with better, new equipment," that statement would have at least been mostly accurate. Knowing someone who monitors military equipment efficacy on a yearly basis, much of the equipment the military was using in the mid-2010s was over twenty-five, thirty, even in some cases forty years old. Spending some money to rectify this and, pardon the pun, trumpeting that, would be more than fair game considering everything. To say the U.S. military was underfunded from 2009-2017 is either hilarious or depressing because it is almost ineffably wrong. Unfortunately while some allocation for new equipment was warranted by the time Trump became president a disproportionate amount of the money spent for the military has been earmarked for Lockheed Martin, and of that pool a disproportionately high cost is dedicated toward an astronomically overpriced fighter jet project which is singlehandedly ballooning the U.S.'s defense budget to dizzying consequences. 


Moving toward France and Emmanuel Macron, @DOPA; made a number of fecund points. While the European Union's long-term prospects remain at the very least in doubt, as much as Macron's policies are primarily a sort of liberal-corporatist _melange_, in some ways he appears to boast the courage to say things which no one else in Europe who has major political power will. Macron sees a future for Europe in which the Europeans must forge a continental-wide defense force, which means raising an army with teeth. Whether the Europeans are up to that or not (some nations are, others are not), Macron's vision is at the very least coherent. For the Europeans to possess some semblance of autonomy generally free of American pushing and pulling they will have to force the EU to evolve beyond the stage at which it rests today, and in rather unwieldy fashion, as well, which is as supra-regional economic bureaucracy. 

Of course, the real world dictates that self-interest is always involved. National figures lie and distort to benefit their nation's relative economic well-being through the menagerie of international finance. Macron is cagier than some of silly, utopian rhetoric may have many believe. France today persists in creating military equipment, hardware and weapons to a degree that surpasses most other "heavy hitters" on the continent. Macron is partly angling to see his nation's "military-industrial complex"--larger than many worldwide--reap the benefits of a hypothetically fully blossomed "European Union Army."


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump supporters could give a fuck if he pissed on military members graves tomorrow. The same way then Evangelicals don't care that he's a lying cheating cunt. All anyone cares about is money. I'm not sure Republicans can run someone on Christian values from now on but maybe it's a good thing. I'm just happy the mask has fallen off the Right.


----------



## JasonLives (Aug 20, 2008)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

It was raining on Sunday aswell, if the rain was the main issue(that he doesnt wanna get wet) he would have skipped that aswell. Once again people jumping to conclusion witout knowing the facts. Maybe it was the rain or maybe it wasent.
The whole "Derp, Trump is dumb and doesnt wanna get wet" is idiotic. Doesnt matter if you are a republican or democrat, youre part of the problem if you think spreading and believing unconfirmed information as true facts.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Either Trump's state department is so underfunded that they are this incompetent to not have a rainy day contingency that do not allow Trump to travel via helicopter, or Trump can't be bothered to take a longer time in traffic to arrive on time for the ceremony to pay his respect. Conservative folks, which is worse for you?


----------



## JasonLives (Aug 20, 2008)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Either Trump's state department is so underfunded that they are this incompetent to not have a rainy day contingency that do not allow Trump to travel via helicopter, or Trump can't be bothered to take a longer time in traffic to arrive on time for the ceremony to pay his respect. Conservative folks, which is worse for you?


Well a longer time in traffic is a security risk. And how was the roads to this place? From Trumps hideout to the ceremony. In the end its the secret service that does the recommendation and planning of the trips.
Could other leaders get there? Yes, but was it the same route? Did they do a better job? Was their original plan to take a helicopter? Did they have the same security risk?
Or maybe Trump just didnt wanna get wet.

But once again, we dont have all the facts. All we got is that the helicopter couldnt take off and it was raining, everything else is speculation. 

People are the worst for me. I dont give a shit if you are right, left, a nazi or a communist. I have no problem having a normal conversation with anyone, as long as they behave in a normal fashion. A nazi or a commi can be much more well behaved then someone with a "normal" look at things.
Im not gonna put people in groups. The whole republican Vs. Democrat, or the left Vs. right we have in sweden, is something I dont buy into. Because its dangerous. You stop seeing people as people, and instead seeing them as a group. Which is why people can behave so badly to one person, just because that person votes for a certain party. In their mind they are attacking a party, and not just a person.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



JasonLives said:


> Well a longer time in traffic is a security risk. And how was the roads to this place? From Trumps hideout to the ceremony. In the end its the secret service that does the recommendation and planning of the trips.
> Could other leaders get there? Yes, but was it the same route? Did they do a better job? Was their original plan to take a helicopter? Did they have the same security risk?
> Or maybe Trump just didnt wanna get wet.
> 
> ...


How dangerous do you think Paris is to add significant security risks via travelling in a car? Trump was at the US ambassador’s residence. Reports said it was roughly 60 miles from the site. Sarah Sanders said it would take 2.5 hours to and fro. 

At the end of the day, it was either spending more time on the road for symbolism sake, or not caring about the symbolism at all. His delegations was able to arrive for Saturday and I am sure they aren't staying that far away from wherever Trump was.

You last paragraph is just word salad that sounds like something a triggered snowflake use to deflect from something she was uncomfortable with so she can continue the conversation in a safe zone.


----------



## JasonLives (Aug 20, 2008)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> How dangerous do you think Paris is to add significant security risks via travelling in a car? Trump was at the US ambassador’s residence. Reports said it was roughly 60 miles from the site. Sarah Sanders said it would take 2.5 hours to and fro.
> 
> At the end of the day, it was either spending more time on the road for symbolism sake, or not caring about the symbolism at all. His delegations was able to arrive for Saturday and I am sure they aren't staying that far away from wherever Trump was.
> 
> You last paragraph is just word salad that sounds like something a triggered snowflake use to deflect from something she was uncomfortable with so she can continue the conversation in a safe zone.


Are reporters and Sarah Sanders the secret service? If not, then their points are invalid. Thats like people telling police officers how to do their job.
Once again, people are working with speculation because it fits their opinion. The problem is when speculation is presented as facts. Like in this case where people are acting like he didnt go because he doesnt want to get wet. Its idiotic. If being wet was a problem he could have just done what he did on Sunday, when it rained. Bring a umbrella. Now maybe he doesnt want to get wet, and that was the actual reason. But without knowing it, its dumb to present it as such.

Have no idea what youre last paragraph is meant to say. My whole point is the main problem with politics is everyone wanting to put people in groups. If you vote for that party then youre automatic "this and that". And never understood how people can be so rude to other people based on what party they vote for. That goes for everyone, from the smallest citizen to Trump. 
If people want to critizice Trump, then do it with facts and not speculation. 

Its disgusting how angry the politics have become. People yelling at politicians at resturants, at their homes, involving their kids, acting like the politicians wants to kill them. People yelling nazi or communist to each other. All that behaviour is dangerous. Sure as hell not gonna stop either just because another party or president wins. The spiral continues. Its a big problem that is right now going around the world.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



JasonLives said:


> Are reporters and Sarah Sanders the secret service? If not, then their points are invalid. Thats like people telling police officers how to do their job.
> Once again, people are working with speculation because it fits their opinion. The problem is when speculation is presented as facts. Like in this case where people are acting like he didnt go because he doesnt want to get wet. Its idiotic. If being wet was a problem he could have just done what he did on Sunday, when it rained. Bring a umbrella. Now maybe he doesnt want to get wet, and that was the actual reason. But without knowing it, its dumb to present it as such.
> 
> Have no idea what youre last paragraph is meant to say. My whole point is the main problem with politics is everyone wanting to put people in groups. If you vote for that party then youre automatic "this and that". And never understood how people can be so rude to other people based on what party they vote for. That goes for everyone, from the smallest citizen to Trump.
> ...


Wtf are you on about? Sarah Sanders was relaying what the secret service supposedly told the White House to us about the journey. You either can't see the irony in your rant or is a really bad attempt at deflecting.

Also, Trump being afraid of the rain is clearly a joke. At least for me. The issue for me is instead Trump thinking the symbolism of the visit isn't worth the extra 4 to 5 hours of his time to travel via a car. Maybe he prefer to watch cable news instead of working in the car. Take that for what it is.


----------



## Kiz (Dec 2, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



JasonLives said:


> It was raining on Sunday aswell, if the rain was the main issue(that he doesnt wanna get wet) he would have skipped that aswell. Once again people jumping to conclusion witout knowing the facts. Maybe it was the rain or maybe it wasent.
> The whole "Derp, Trump is dumb and doesnt wanna get wet" is idiotic. Doesnt matter if you are a republican or democrat, youre part of the problem if you think spreading and believing unconfirmed information as true facts.


well that doesnt exactly stop the donald


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

There is always supposed to be a contingency plan for bad weather. I could see if it was a monsoon out because things can get dicey. Otherwise, why did he even bother to make the trip? The optics look really bad here. If such was the case, he should have stayed home and honored American veterans on Veterans Day. Especially if he knew that most of the people there weren’t his fans.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



JasonLives said:


> It was raining on Sunday aswell, if the rain was the main issue(that he doesnt wanna get wet) he would have skipped that aswell. Once again people jumping to conclusion witout knowing the facts. Maybe it was the rain or maybe it wasent.
> The whole "Derp, Trump is dumb and doesnt wanna get wet" is idiotic. Doesnt matter if you are a republican or democrat, youre part of the problem if you think spreading and believing unconfirmed information as true facts.


It's probably more idiotic to think people were being serious about the Donald not getting wet.

:confused

Hey, at least he sent his wife!



FriedTofu said:


> Wtf are you on about?


These randoms wonder in to the anything section from time to time and you just go.

:bean


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






We have our first Democratic candidate for 2020.

I've followed Ojeda a little bit and let's just say he's a fascinating character. The 2020 primaries could end up being very interesting with some of the projected people who are running.






And it's likely Hillary is in too.....god help us :lol.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Someone far savvier with computers than I needs to cobble together a "*Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump: Twice in a Lifetime*" promotional poster. Preferably with "*2020 American Presidential Election*" in classic Wrestlemania logo font in the lower center beneath these two icons.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Hillary is doing it for her own ego.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.facebook.com/jointherebel/videos/1157436374425042/

President Trump left Trudope hanging again. :lol

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-confused-baltics-balkans-and-accused-confused-leaders-starting-yugoslav-1210939?fbclid=IwAR1Sej08rVFnV-Z7Dvguvt3t9hX1OgYoJztnEHHYKkkm7fVAAYo2ar7cmY8



> *Trump Confused the Baltics With Balkans—And Accused Confused Leaders of Starting Yugoslav Wars: Report*
> 
> President Donald Trump confused the Baltic states in Europe with the Balkans—and chastised leaders of the former for starting wars in the 1990s that lead to the break-up of Yugoslavia, French daily Le Monde reported.
> 
> ...


Not his fault. Advisors prepped him with this and it hasn't been updated since 1992.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Baltics, Balkans lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> We have our first Democratic candidate for 2020.
> 
> I've followed Ojeda a little bit and let's just say he's a fascinating character. The 2020 primaries could end up being very interesting with some of the projected people who are running.
> 
> ...


If there were are any gods that exist, they are cruel and torturous gods and must be getting quite the laugh at inflicting the Hildabeast on us.

ETA: I don't know if you read the article or not but I actually saw it yesterday and it is one of the most delusional things I have seen in my entire life. If you haven't read it, you really should, just for how stunningly disconnected from reality it is.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062055907629109249
Good old Jeb! chimes in now. Jeb!, you appointed Brenda Snipes in 2003 to Broward County Supervisor of Elections. 

In 2012 this woman was accused by myriad local and national actors and observers of "finding" ballots. :lol

Now Jeb! says she needs to be removed from her office after the recount. Why after the recount? 

Oh, Jeb!, oh Jeb!. :lol

Adding a layer of more amusement to this fiasco in Florida is that the Republicans' chances of continuing to have close statewide elections with Democrats was just dramatically reduced for 2020 and beyond with the passing of Amendment 4. :lol Trump winning Florida looks distinctly unlikely now. Hillary Clinton lost that election by a little over 110,000 votes. Were voter turnout to remain the same and only half of the ex-felons granted full restoration of "voting rights" voted in 2020, the odds of Trump winning that state would be somewhere between zero and a snowball's chance at two o'clock in the afternoon on a South Florida beach in July. :lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062055907629109249
> Good old Jeb! chimes in now. Jeb!, you appointed Brenda Snipes in 2003 to Broward County Supervisor of Elections.
> 
> In 2012 this woman was accused by myriad local and national actors and observers of "finding" ballots. :lol
> ...


In Jebediah's defense, his infamously low energy levels were even lower back then when you take into account that his bro was front and center as The Decider. Hell, abysmally low energy should be expected from him, considering how much of a potato their dad has become in the last few years.

Thus, he couldn't be anywhere near cognizant enough to know that Black Ursula would be such a conniving piece of shit.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://fee.org/articles/americas-2...?utm_medium=push&utm_source=push_notification



> John Bolton is President Trump’s National Security Advisor. While speaking at an event hosted by the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington DC on October 31, 2018, he weighed in on the national security implications of the US government’s budget deficit and the national debt:
> 
> It is a fact that when your national debt gets to the level ours is, that it constitutes an economic threat to the society. And that kind of threat ultimately has a national security consequence for it.
> 
> ...



I can't believe John Bolton of all people is stating this. I feel dirty for saying this but this might be the first time I've ever heard him say anything right. The problem in reality is it's likely just rhetoric. I can't fathom Bolton actually pushing Trump to cut spending, particularly on the military where he is insanely hawkish. Both him and Trump seem to agree on further increasing expenditure on the US's already bloated military and I can't see it slowing down let alone being cut.

I've bolded the most important parts, I'm pretty confident in saying that both in 2017 and 2018 the deficit increased and went higher than Obama's last year in office but I'll have to check. 2018 definitely has seen a big increase that's for sure. What's interesting and I'll have to fact check it but the tax collection being slightly more in 2017 despite the tax cuts falls right in line what's happened in the UK every time we've had a corporation tax cut, that being that the tax receipts end up increasing due to encouraging more investment into the country. Closing the loopholes and deductions I would say has helped too in order to stop avoidance of paying more tax but we'll have to see how long they stay in place.

Of course the tax cuts for individuals and in particular the increase in spending has wounded up increasing the deficit as expected. Spending has and will always be the major problem right now for the US economy unless the course is changed. Discretionary spending at the very least needs to be under control but in order to get a balanced budget again, entitlements need to be looked at.

The main thing is Republicans need to stop being damn hypocrites over spending, that's never going to happen though :lol.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> https://fee.org/articles/americas-2...?utm_medium=push&utm_source=push_notification
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's the problem though... because of the extreme levels of wealth and income inequality that has been been propagated by the duopoly over the past 40 years or so, the USA has been turned into a society where a majority of people cannot survive without the little government spending that does come their way. And, every time any spending gets cut, it's always spending that helps out the regular people. You're never ever going to see the government cut spending that helps out the already rich and powerful and there's only so much you can squeeze the rest of the population. We'll eventually reach a breaking point. Depending on which study you look at, somewhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of the country is already living paycheck to paycheck. People are barely making enough money to get by, so the idea that they can save for retirement is ludicrous, yet Social Security is directly in the cross hairs of the Establishment.

Unless the goal is people literally dying homeless and starving in the streets, we cannot continue down the path of giving more and more to the rich while using budget deficits and debt to justify taking more and more from the poor.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Here's the problem though... because of the extreme levels of wealth and income inequality that has been been propagated by the duopoly over the past 40 years or so, the USA has been turned into a society where a majority of people cannot survive without the little government spending that does come their way. And, every time any spending gets cut, it's always spending that helps out the regular people. You're never ever going to see the government cut spending that helps out the already rich and powerful and there's only so much you can squeeze the rest of the population. We'll eventually reach a breaking point. Depending on which study you look at, somewhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of the country is already living paycheck to paycheck. People are barely making enough money to get by, so the idea that they can save for retirement is ludicrous, yet Social Security is directly in the cross hairs of the Establishment.
> 
> Unless the goal is people literally dying homeless and starving in the streets, we cannot continue down the path of giving more and more to the rich while using budget deficits and debt to justify taking more and more from the poor.


There's some truth to that, particularly when it comes to corporate welfare and the military industrial complex. The US obviously has a unique problem with money in politics which needs to be addressed, everyone and their mother knows the system is corrupt and that a lot of the politicians are bought to serve the interests of lobbyists and corporations rather than their constituents. Doesn't make sense to me why you can't have clean elections with strict rules and regulations on funding and donations. And as entertaining as it is, there shouldn't be 2 years spent on elections for christ sake :lol. You have the right idea on term limits, something I want applied to the UK but the rest of the election process is fucked up.

Though the thing with Social Security for example is the way things are going regardless, you aren't going to see your Social Security cheque unless it is reformed and that's mainly due both people living longer and the amount of workers for every retiree decreasing due to a change in demographics. So regardless, there has to be a different approach to government retirement funds. And it's not just the US btw, this is happening across the west with the declining birthrate as well. Those damn baby boomers :lol.

It used to be when Social Security first started that you'd have around 14 workers for every 1 retiree and when a person collected their social security cheque that it weren't too long before they died after because life expentancy wasn't as great. But now on average people are living to their 80's and sometimes even their 90's, meanwhile the number of workers to retirees has dropped to between 3 to 4 worker for every one retiree. That's both due to the drop in number of kids being produced and a greater life expectancy with all the baby boomers now retiring right around the same time. So now you have a dual problem situation: people are paying more into their social security over their lifetime than they were taking out but it was always excused because the funds were seen as safe and sustainable yet the government is having to pay out more money for social security than they are bringing in the tax which is leaving the program 40+ trillion in the hole. So it's the worst of both worlds. If you don't address the issues with social security now for example, you'll see no fall back whatsoever left. 

In the UK it's not as severe but it's still at least a couple of trillion in the hole too for many of the same reasons, I'd have to look into the numbers.

So it's not like the concerns on entitlements aren't legit on principle, they do need to be looked at if you want them to be sustained. One problem with corportatism and the levels of income inequality doesn't mean the other problem isn't real.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> There's some truth to that, particularly when it comes to corporate welfare and the military industrial complex. The US obviously has a unique problem with money in politics which needs to be addressed, everyone and their mother knows the system is corrupt and that a lot of the politicians are bought to serve the interests of lobbyists and corporations rather than their constituents. Doesn't make sense to me why you can't have clean elections with strict rules and regulations on funding and donations. And as entertaining as it is, there shouldn't be 2 years spent on elections for christ sake :lol. You have the right idea on term limits, something I want applied to the UK but the rest of the election process is fucked up.
> 
> Though the thing with Social Security for example is the way things are going regardless, you aren't going to see your Social Security cheque unless it is reformed and that's mainly due both people living longer and the amount of workers for every retiree decreasing due to a change in demographics. So regardless, there has to be a different approach to government retirement funds. And it's not just the US btw, this is happening across the west with the declining birthrate as well. Those damn baby boomers :lol.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with you that the way SS is set up is a problem and that the entire concept of support for the elderly needs to be reformed. The problem though is that the people running the show aren't interested in providing for people after they are no longer useful as servants. They are only interested in keeping more for themselves. It's already a massive problem that's currently headed in the wrong direction.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062055907629109249
> Good old Jeb! chimes in now. Jeb!, you appointed Brenda Snipes in 2003 to Broward County Supervisor of Elections.
> 
> In 2012 this woman was accused by myriad local and national actors and observers of "finding" ballots. :lol
> :lol


To be fair they were stuck in her couch pillows at the time. I found Jimmy Hoffa in mine the other day.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> To be fair they were stuck in her couch pillows at the time. I found Jimmy Hoffa in mine the other day.


:lol

On the Good News Front, the Trump administration and U.S. military has ceased refueling Saudi jets waging brutal war on Yemenis. 

This is a necessary first step toward extricating the U.S. out of that conflict... Yet in reality it is sadly most likely a mere temporary gesture toward restraint. 

Will be worth continual monitoring over the winter.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Here's the problem though... because of the extreme levels of wealth and income inequality that has been been propagated by the duopoly over the past 40 years or so, the USA has been turned into a society where a majority of people cannot survive without the little government spending that does come their way. And, every time any spending gets cut, it's always spending that helps out the regular people. You're never ever going to see the government cut spending that helps out the already rich and powerful and there's only so much you can squeeze the rest of the population. We'll eventually reach a breaking point. Depending on which study you look at, somewhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of the country is already living paycheck to paycheck. People are barely making enough money to get by, so the idea that they can save for retirement is ludicrous, yet Social Security is directly in the cross hairs of the Establishment.
> 
> Unless the goal is people literally dying homeless and starving in the streets, we cannot continue down the path of giving more and more to the rich while using budget deficits and debt to justify taking more and more from the poor.




Culture of voting seems bizarre in the US though and I don't think it'll ever change. In Scotland even the richest, snobbiest cunt you meet still believes in all people getting healthcare, workers rights and won't vote for corporate interests or other billionaires. There's a reason every depressing sci-fi movie set in the future has this "fend for yourself and fuck other people" libertarian motif running in the background. 

In the US it feels like up to 50% of people would rather vote to help corporations and billionaires (even if they themselves are just middle to working class) instead of their perhaps slighty poorer neighbour down the street. Because anyone poorer than you made bad decisions, is lazy, and the poorer they are the more you stand out because you feel like you worked hard for your life and everyone is born with a chance. 

I honestly couldn't give a fuck about somebody who's living off anymore than £80,000 a year. That's more than enough for a person to be happy with. That doesn't mean I think there should be a threshold on income, just that those people aren't my concern. I'd more concerned at someone living in a high rise flat barely able to scrap 78p for super-saver supermarket bread to feed their family. It's strange to me that people vote for the interests of people that are already doing better than them. Feels borderline sociopathic.

Feels like the only way for people to get what they want is split the country in two or run all states almost like separate economies so people have freedom of movement. Fantasy land I know. Leftism never has and never will be a possibility.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> In the US it feels like up to 50% of people would rather vote to help corporations and billionaires (even if they themselves are just middle to working class)


Take away all of Bernie's voters and you have the real number of how many corporatist backing voters there are in America. 

Bernie got 723k write-ins and he was the only candidate at the time suggesting free healthcare and free education ... so I'd say that that number is the real number of "socialists" in america .. Socialist is still the wrong word though because they are mainly social welfare statists. 

Liberals or what is considered to be "the left" in America are also corporatists. They're just not as much vocal about it because they tend to focus more on social issues and ignore the economic ones.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> I honestly couldn't give a fuck about somebody who's living off anymore than £80,000 a year. That's more than enough for a person to be happy with. That doesn't mean I think there should be a threshold on income, just that those people aren't my concern. *I'd more concerned at someone living in a high rise flat barely able to scrap 78p for super-saver supermarket bread to feed their family.* It's strange to me that people vote for the interests of people that are already doing better than them. Feels borderline sociopathic.


Ok so what have YOU done to help them? 

What percentage of your yearly earnings do YOU donate?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Ok so what have YOU done to help them?
> 
> What percentage of your yearly earnings do YOU donate?


When you were typing this out, did you think you were being clever?

Did you think to yourself... aha! I'll show this stupid socialist! ...?

You know what would have really made your post more effective? If you had found a way to insert Venezuela into the equation. That really woulda showed him!

ositivity


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I have no response


Clearly


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Here's the problem though... because of the extreme levels of wealth and income inequality that has been been propagated by the duopoly over the past 40 years or so, the USA has been turned into a society where a majority of people cannot survive without the little government spending that does come their way. And, every time any spending gets cut, it's always spending that helps out the regular people. You're never ever going to see the government cut spending that helps out the already rich and powerful and there's only so much you can squeeze the rest of the population. We'll eventually reach a breaking point. Depending on which study you look at, somewhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of the country is already living paycheck to paycheck. People are barely making enough money to get by, so the idea that they can save for retirement is ludicrous, yet Social Security is directly in the cross hairs of the Establishment.
> 
> *Unless the goal is people literally dying homeless and starving in the streets, we cannot continue down the path of giving more and more to the rich while using budget deficits and debt to justify taking more and more from the poor*.


That is the end goal. Corporations have been trying to get rid of their American workers for years now, so called "Leftist" tech companies are replacing qualified American workers of all colors with cheap non-voting, un-invested in the Nation workers from China and India. They now have a disposable work force.

Companies have been moving overseas and exploiting developing nations for generations now. The end goal is to use up and destroy the American people and move onto the next group. Why else would American companies get so hard at the thought of China etc being the next big consumer? Many of these companies don't even care anymore about the US, just getting in on the next big thing.

Doesn't help that the people who know this and want to help others act like kids standing at a middle school dance, not wanting to do anything unless everyone else is doing it. I guess we'll get by on well wishes and "idea guys" because action is hard and requires effort. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Got to get a dig in at the left even though it's clearly a bipartisan issue.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> That is the end goal. Corporations have been trying to get rid of their American workers for years now, so called "Leftist" tech companies are replacing qualified American workers of all colors with cheap non-voting, un-invested in the Nation workers from China and India. They now have a disposable work force.
> 
> Companies have been moving overseas and exploiting developing nations for generations now. The end goal is to use up and destroy the American people and move onto the next group. Why else would American companies get so hard at the thought of China etc being the next big consumer? Many of these companies don't even care anymore about the US, just getting in on the next big thing.
> 
> Doesn't help that the people who know this and want to help others act like kids standing at a middle school dance, not wanting to do anything unless everyone else is doing it. I guess we'll get by on well wishes and "idea guys" because action is hard and requires effort. :laugh:


Sally no offence but do you get $5 every time you squeeze in 'leftists' into the first paragraph of your posts? Just stirring luv


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/trump-brenda-snipes-fired-broward-county-florida-elections/



> “If you buy a box of cereal — you have a voter ID,” Trump continued. “They try to shame everybody by calling them racist, or calling them something, anything they can think of, when you say you want voter ID. But voter ID is a very important thing.”


Is this true?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Got to get a dig in at the left even though it's clearly a bipartisan issue.


None of these companies are Left in the least even though people like to claim Google is. These companies have bamboozled the American people into thinking they care about them or want to "do good". It's all a sham, just like our Political system.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062852237779554304
Van Jones and Jake Tapper are the only guys with any shred of integrity on CNN. Maybe Wolf Blitzer.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



virus21 said:


>


Rachel Maddow. :heston

It is fun to peruse Twitter now and then and read tweets about how "MUELLER IS COMING". :lol Like he's some superhero who is gonna fly to the rescue.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump with the bit about people putting on disguises and voting again :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MrMister said:


> Trump with the bit about people putting on disguises and voting again :lol


Trump clearly has dementia, he is bat shit crazy.


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063167490866372608

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063166053692424193

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063160328371011586


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



The Woman said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063167490866372608
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063166053692424193
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063160328371011586


I hope there's no rain!


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MrMister said:


> Trump with the bit about people putting on disguises and voting again :lol


I wonder if this will trigger some conservative nutjobs to try this in the next elections thinking it will be easy to get away with. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> I wonder if this will trigger some conservative nutjobs to try this in the next elections thinking it will be easy to get away with. :lol


Edit: Pic of Trump with moustache on censored? FAKE NEWS! BAD!


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Rachel Maddow. :heston
> 
> It is fun to peruse Twitter now and then and read tweets about how "MUELLER IS COMING". :lol Like he's some superhero who is gonna fly to the rescue.


People worshiping at the altar of the FBI and CIA scare me. :frown2:


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/white-house-weighs-booting-erdogan-foe-u-s-appease-turkey-n933996?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma



> *To ease Turkish pressure on Saudis over killing, White House weighs expelling Erdogan foe*
> 
> WASHINGTON — The White House is looking for ways to remove an enemy of Turkish President Recep Erdogan from the U.S. in order to placate Turkey over the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to two senior U.S. officials and two other people briefed on the requests.
> 
> ...


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.61891a7d1ef0



> President Trump threw his support Wednesday behind legislation that would loosen some mandatory minimum sentencing laws — a measure backed by powerful Senate Republicans and Democrats, but which could run into opposition from some tough-on-crime conservatives.
> 
> At an afternoon event at the White House, Trump officially endorsed the First Step Act, which he said included “reasonable sentencing reforms while keeping dangerous and violent criminals off our streets.” He urged lawmakers to send him a bill, saying: “I’ll be waiting with a pen.”
> 
> ...


Some good news here for criminal justice reform .


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-first-ever-audit-official-says-idUSKCN1NK2MC



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon has failed what is being called its first-ever comprehensive audit, a senior official said on Thursday, finding U.S. Defense Department accounting discrepancies that could take years to resolve.
> 
> Results of the inspection - conducted by some 1,200 auditors and examining financial accounting on a wide range of spending including on weapons systems, military personnel and property - were expected to be completed later in the day.
> 
> ...



Remember when Rand Paul brought up the fact the Pentagon had never been audited? Well they just had their first one and it failed :HA. Imagine my shock.

Still, that's one institution now being properly held accountable, though there is still at least one big one to go which still refuses to be checked out.

#AuditTheFed.


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Honestly, I really hope that First Step Act is successful, and good on people both sides crossing lines to agree with it together. As a 1st world nation, the amount of incarcerated is downright embarrassing, thanks to for profit prisons, an emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation, and the fact that culturally for the most part we treat anybody who has experienced criminal punishment with abject disdain, and almost scoff at them. It's no wonder why the vast majority end up back in prison after being released.

The fact that we should put more focus onto rehabilitation, and actually helping first time offenders work there way back into society after crimes should be emphasized. People make mistakes sometimes, even if they might be serious, but it shouldn't result in somebody's life being ruined forever. I'd especially give this case for many drug offenses, in particular marijuana and such.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Federal judge ordered Jim Acosta's white house press pass to be given back to him. Justice prevailed. They probably won't call on him anymore.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Federal judge ordered Jim Acosta's white house press pass to be given back to him. Justice prevailed. They probably won't call on him anymore.


And amazingly the full on fascist President Trump is abiding by the judge's order. :hmmm


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

CamillePunk said:


> And amazingly the full on fascist President Trump is abiding by the judge's order. <img src="https://i.imgur.com/qADWU4j.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Hmmm" class="inlineimg" />


If he knew he could get away with not abiding, he would not abide. He's not a full on fascist but he definitely has dictator tendencies.


----------



## LukePuke25705 (Nov 3, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump should of never been elected president due to the fact he had no experience in politics. He has less experiance than when Obama ran and won.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> None of these companies are Left in the least even though people like to claim Google is.


Mark Zuckerberg himself said that Silicon Valley is an extremely left leaning place.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Dr. Middy said:


> Honestly, I really hope that First Step Act is successful, and good on people both sides crossing lines to agree with it together. As a 1st world nation, the amount of incarcerated is downright embarrassing, thanks to for profit prisons, an emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation, and the fact that culturally for the most part we treat anybody who has experienced criminal punishment with abject disdain, and almost scoff at them. It's no wonder why the vast majority end up back in prison after being released.
> 
> The fact that we should put more focus onto rehabilitation, and actually helping first time offenders work there way back into society after crimes should be emphasized. People make mistakes sometimes, even if they might be serious, but it shouldn't result in somebody's life being ruined forever. I'd especially give this case for many drug offenses, in particular marijuana and such.


I've experienced very few instances where it's the first time offenders who go to prison. Most people that I've seen end up there worked their way up to a prison sentence. 

The federal sentencing needs to be revamped because the sentences that some people get are absurd. 

But if we're working on rehabilitating people in prison they're most likely already done for anyway as all of the attempts to put them on the right track the first 8 times they were arrested didn't work.


----------



## Phantomdreamer (Jan 29, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



LukePuke25705 said:


> Trump should of never been elected president due to the fact he had no experience in politics. He has less experiance than when Obama ran and won.


I keep track of American politics as much as I can. You say Trump has no experience in politics but at least he is experienced in economics. The Democrats have people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who knows far less about politics than I do and i'm just a random guy from England. I have never seen politics so polaraized as they are in America right now, it's crazy.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



AN ENIGMA IN SOME WAYS. A CHILDREN'S BOOK IN OTHERS. said:


> Mark Zuckerberg himself said that Silicon Valley is an extremely left leaning place.


That only proves Zuckerberg has no idea what the fuck he is talking about.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> And amazingly the full on fascist President Trump is abiding by the judge's order. :hmmm


You do understand how constitutional democracies work right?


----------



## Phantomdreamer (Jan 29, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> You do understand how constitutional democracies work right?


There is no point asking someone if they know how constitutional democracies work when they clearly don't even know what the word "facist" means. Trump is many things and a lot of them not good but he certainly isn't a facist.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> You do understand how constitutional democracies work right?





Phantomdreamer said:


> There is no point asking someone if they know how constitutional democracies work when they clearly don't even know what the word "facist" means. Trump is many things and a lot of them not good but he certainly isn't a facist.


am I being Punk'd


----------



## Phantomdreamer (Jan 29, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> am I being Punk'd


Not by me at least ?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I know Trump's not a fascist that was the joke

I don't like fascists or fascism 

Unlike the Democratic Party which idealizes one in FDR :heston Fascism is cool with them as long as they like what you did!


----------



## Phantomdreamer (Jan 29, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I know Trump's not a fascist that was the joke
> 
> I don't like fascists or fascism
> 
> Unlike the Democratic Party which idealizes one in FDR :heston Fascism is cool with them as long as they like what you did!


It seems I didn't read enough of the thread or actually understand what you said was a joke. It seems I owe you an apology sir, I should of known really considering your avatar :smile2:,


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> And amazingly the full on fascist President Trump is abiding by the judge's order. :hmmm


For someone who doesn't understand what the political spectrum is, you certainly love to pick apart any use of the word fascist for Trump. Most anyone reasonable has been saying for years that the use of that word for him is wrong - both on the left and the right. 

But at this point after two years of posting the same crap over and over again, you're really becoming a parody as much the people you think you're poking fun of.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

love how people keep pretending Trump isn't a fascist loll


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> *Most anyone reasonable has been saying for years that the use of that word for him is wrong - both on the left and the right.*





birthday_massacre said:


> love how people keep pretending Trump isn't a fascist loll


:lol


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

BM's nonsense about Russiagate and calling Trump a fascist is not reasonable. I don't think I ever implied that it was :Shrug

Him and CP combined lend a lot of credence to the horseshoe theory.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> BM's nonsense about Russiagate and calling Trump a fascist is not reasonable. I don't think I ever implied that it was :Shrug
> 
> Him and CP combined lend a lot of credence to the horseshoe theory.


The horseshoe theory is a very naive idea with no credibility. Every standpoint has dumb people following and you could easily point to them and say "People like these are why *_insert ideology_* is stupid".

If you'd done any research into it you'd be aware, but that's a :jet4 as you don't even scrutinise your own personal views which is why they change all the time


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



AN ENIGMA IN SOME WAYS. A CHILDREN'S BOOK IN OTHERS. said:


> The horseshoe theory is a very naive idea with no credibility. Every standpoint has dumb people following and you could easily point to them and say "People like these are why *_insert ideology_* is stupid".
> 
> If you'd done any research into it you'd be aware, but that's a :jet4 as you don't even scrutinise your own personal views which is why they change all the time


Saying that something lends credence to a theiry doesn't mean that that theory doesn't have other parts that cannot be scrutinized. 

How interesting of you to say this when scrutinizing one's own views is exactly how one changes their mind. It is lack of ability to be self critical that always leads to dogmatism. But if you weren't just parroting CP, you would be able to recognize that your statement is full on idiotic. 

Apparently I guess you think that people start fires by throwing water on sticks. Something even neanderthals figured out doesn't work.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> Saying that something lends credence to a theiry doesn't mean that that theory doesn't have other parts that cannot be scrutinized.
> 
> How interesting of you to say this when scrutinizing one's own views is exactly how one changes their mind. It is lack of ability to be self critical that always leads to dogmatism. But if you weren't just parroting CP, you would be able to recognize that your statement is full on idiotic.
> 
> *Apparently I guess you think that people start fires by throwing water on sticks. Something even neanderthals figured out doesn't work.*


What does this have to do with anything? 

You were saying that CP and BM lend a lot of credence to horseshoe theory. I was pointing out that horseshoe theory is a stupid idea and that nothing would lend credence to it other than just cherry picking people on opposite sides and deciding they're both fools. To paraphrase; it was poor evidence for a poorly evidenced claim.

You don't need to scrutinise your views to change them, you can just see another bandwagon to jump on and that's that - no thinking necessary. Even if you do scrutinise your own views, you don't do it enough before committing to them. If you did, there wouldn't be a need to reset them so frequently.

It's not parroting CP to observe that you change your views a lot. It is something you yourself admit that you do a lot.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



AN ENIGMA IN SOME WAYS. A CHILDREN'S BOOK IN OTHERS. said:


> What does this have to do with anything?


Everything. You literally said that people who change their mind don't scrutinize themselves which is literally the opposite of how someone changes their mind ergo throwing water on sticks to start fires ... It's a simple enough metaphor. 



> You were saying that CP and BM lend a lot of credence to horseshoe theory. I was pointing out that horseshoe theory is a stupid idea and that nothing would lend credence to it other than just cherry picking people on opposite sides and deciding they're both fools. To paraphrase; it was poor evidence for a poorly evidenced claim.


It's not poor evidence. I could spend / waste my time talking to you about theory, but you'll escape this discussion the same way you escaped our last discussion so I won't waste my time on you on anything theoretical again since that is clearly not something you're comfortable with. 



> You don't need to scrutinise your views to change them, you can just see another bandwagon to jump on and that's that - no thinking necessary.


Anyone that falls on any side of the political spectrum can be accused of this by anyone so this is a completely useless point. Case in point later in this post. 



> Even if you do scrutinise your own views, you don't do it enough before committing to them. If you did, there wouldn't be a need to reset them so frequently.


I've explained this plenty of times before, I formulate my views as I'm externalizing them and I will scrutinize after, before, during or whenever .. that really is my own prerogative. 



> It's not parroting CP to observe that you change your views a lot. It is something you yourself admit that you do a lot.


Of course it's parroting because you only started saying this in much of the same way CP does after he started losing arguments to me about the political spectrum and instead of arguing the merits of the point started quoting others with how I'm a former white nationalist and how I change my views all the time. It's an interesting tactic he resorted to once he realized that he could no longer defend his BS authoritarian dick sucking while pretending to be a libertarian .. who barely knows anything about the political spectrum. 

If anything, you're on his bandwagon at this point and are showing a complete lack of ability to express your own thoughts. Just as you did when you were parroting that troll about Jews. 

Accuse others of what you do yourself.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

For what's its worth, I think Reap you are as good an example of the horseshoe theory as BM and CP. You went from parroting the far right 2 years ago to now parroting the far left. :shrug


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

theories don't explain anything but the person theorizing.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> Everything. You literally said that people who change their mind don't scrutinize themselves which is literally the opposite of how someone changes their mind ergo throwing water on sticks to start fires ... It's a simple enough metaphor.


Just a dumb straw man really. Experiments are a binary objective thing, you either get fire or you don't. Politics are subjective and nominal.



> It's not poor evidence. I could spend / waste my time talking to you about theory, but you'll escape this discussion the same way you escaped our last discussion so I won't waste my time on you on anything theoretical again since that is clearly not something you're comfortable with.


*Argument gets disproved* "you're not worth discussing with" okay then



> I've explained this plenty of times before, I formulate my views as I'm externalizing them and I will scrutinize after, before, during or whenever .. that really is my own prerogative.


I'm well aware it's your prerogative. But consistently changing stance shows you to be ill-informed on the subject matter. It's just the same my prerogative to take you to task on it in a discussion board.



> Of course it's parroting because you only started saying this in much of the same way CP does after he started losing arguments to me about the political spectrum and instead of arguing the merits of the point started quoting others with how I'm a former white nationalist and how I change my views all the time. It's an interesting tactic he resorted to once he realized that he could no longer defend his BS authoritarian dick sucking while pretending to be a libertarian .. who barely knows anything about the political spectrum.


You deserve all the mocking and derision you get for being a brown man being a white nationalist. I don't care if I'm the first or last to point it out.

I don't really care to defend CP's views, he is anarcho-capitalist. The issue with you doing your unfounded "both sides r idiots lolz" shtick despite you being aligned with (at least) one side.



> If anything, you're on his bandwagon at this point and are showing a complete lack of ability to express your own thoughts. Just as you did when you were parroting that troll about Jews.


I made various points regarding Jews which several others agreed with. Most people sided with me on that and pointed out you being daft.

It's objectively true that there's a disproportionate amount of Jews in senior positions, which various posters agreed with, yet you childishly just stuck your fingers in your ears and made childish ad hominem attacks.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

FriedTofu said:


> For what's its worth, I think Reap you are as good an example of the horseshoe theory as BM and CP. You went from parroting the far right 2 years ago to now parroting the far left. :shrug


In some things. Not in all things. My views are more complex, but the thing is that people here want everyone to be fit into neat little boxes and are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to and focusing on putting people into those boxes instead of reading the arguments on their merits.



AN ENIGMA IN SOME WAYS. A CHILDREN'S BOOK IN OTHERS. said:


> Just a dumb straw man really. Experiments are a binary objective thing, you either get fire or you don't. Politics are subjective and nominal.


As are mine. 



> *Argument gets disproved* "you're not worth discussing with" okay then


You ran away from the argument when I made it real for you. You can't hide behind talking about "facts" (that are also wrong facts) and then run away when asked to talk about the implications of that kind of misinformation being spouted. 



> I'm well aware it's your prerogative. But consistently changing stance shows you to be ill-informed on the subject matter. It's just the same my prerogative to take you to task on it in a discussion board.


Aah. I see why you people are so dogmatic. You're afraid of "being taken to task" for "changing your mind" therefore continue to remain ill-informed instead of admitting that maybe you don't know everything like you pretend to do so. Got it. 



> You deserve all the mocking and derision you get for being a brown man being a white nationalist. I don't care if I'm the first or last to point it out.


And this is why I know that you're just parroting his BS, because I said specifically that I entertained the ideas in my head. I did not advocate for them, nor did I push those ideas. Jesus fucking christ you're a tool if you literally thought that I was literally a white nationalist fpalm 



> I don't really care to defend CP's views, he is anarcho-capitalist.


And his ideas are completely mal-formed and not thought through either. He's been taken to task several times by several posters. He has lost significant arguments and yet he holds on to his dogmatic beliefs. 



> The issue with you doing your unfounded "both sides r idiots lolz" shtick despite you being aligned with (at least) one side.


Some views are on the left, some aren't. What exactly do you think my views are at this point? Do you even know?



> I made various points regarding Jews which several others agreed with. Most people sided with me on that and pointed out you being daft.


You stated what you believe to be facts like this one below: 



> It's objectively true that there's a disproportionate amount of Jews in senior positions, which various posters agreed with, yet you childishly just stuck your fingers in your ears and made childish ad hominem attacks.


You ran away with your tail tucked between the legs when challenged to talk about the implication of this view. I did not make any ad hominems in that exchange.* I asked you to answer some hard-hitting questions that you ran away from. And I know that you will still not address because when you identify something like that you are clearly identifying it as a problem that requires something to be done about it, but you are too cowardly to provide any solution because that's where the discussion about Jews owning shit gets real.* When Nazis took this same thinking to its logical conclusion we had the holocaust. 

You can think this all you want, but you're not the first to push this propaganda and the more you continue to do so, the more you'll be associated with those damn Nazis you don't want to be compared with. 

I'm not saying you're a Nazi. I'm just saying that Nazis also started off believing that Jews have too much power and wealth in their society.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> As are mine.


What? My quote was in reference to how politics are not related to the dumbed down example you provided.



> You ran away from the argument when I made it real for you. You can't hide behind talking about "facts" (that are also wrong facts) and then run away when asked to talk about the implications of that kind of misinformation being spouted.


Which wrong facts have I said? What misinformation have I spread? Quote them :armfold



> Aah. I see why you people are so dogmatic. You're afraid of "being taken to task" for "changing your mind" therefore continue to remain ill-informed instead of admitting that maybe you don't know everything like you pretend to do so. Got it.
> 
> And this is why I know that you're just parroting his BS, because I said specifically that I entertained the ideas in my head. I did not advocate for them, nor did I push those ideas. Jesus fucking christ you're a tool if you literally thought that I was literally a white nationalist fpalm


I never pretended to know everything. If you change your stance multiple times, it suggests you probably supported a political side without proper informed knowledge of it. This should be obvious.

You mentioned being in favour of white Nationalism. I guess I'm a tool for not gathering a statement that various other users took also to be serious was a joke.




> And his ideas are completely mal-formed and not thought through either. He's been taken to task several times by several posters. He has lost significant arguments and yet he holds on to his dogmatic beliefs.


Ok then. But I have no reason to defend him or his beliefs. I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist, which is what I believe he is.



> Some views are on the left, some aren't. What exactly do you think my views are at this point? Do you even know?


I don't know and I don't care quite frankly. Presumably in the centre. Whatever your views are, they'll probably be both temporary and ill-informed so I have no reason to inform myself on what side of the political agenda you're on.



> You stated what you believe to be facts like this one below:


It is fact, disprove it :armfold



> You ran away with your tail tucked between the legs when challenged to talk about the implication of this view. I did not make any ad hominems in that exchange. I asked you to answer some hard-hitting questions that you ran away from. And I know that you will still not address because when you identify something like that you are clearly identifying it as a problem that requires something to be done about it, but you are too cowardly to provide any solution because that's where the discussion about Jews owning shit gets real. When Nazis took this same thinking to its logical conclusion we had the holocaust.


I never once said it was a problem of the Jews being in power. I'm not a communist who thinks everyone should have power. I even stated that the Jews have the highest IQ's. I thought it was an interesting discussion of how and why Jews have so much control of the world, but you just decided I had an agenda against them and was being covertly anti-Semitic, despite other actual Jews saying my comments were fine AND accurate.



> You can think this all you want, but you're not the first to push this propaganda and the more you continue to do so, the more you'll be associated with those damn Nazis you don't want to be compared with.


"omg your lyk a hitler and the natzees"



> *I'm not saying you're a Nazi.* I'm just saying that Nazis also started off believing that Jews have too much power and wealth in their society.


Thanks (Y)

Quote when I've ever said Jews have ever said Jews have too much power and wealth. You won't because you can't. Identifying they have an abnormal amount of power WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT is not wrong. Forcibly attempting to suppress objective facts on the other hand...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

AN ENIGMA IN SOME WAYS. A CHILDREN'S BOOK IN OTHERS. said:


> What? My quote was in reference to how politics are not related to the dumbed down example you provided.


And at that point I was not talking about politics, but rather the fact that you made a complete logical foopah when you claimed that people who change their mind are not scrutinizing their views. That's literally the opposite of what happens when someone changes their view. They literally are engaging in self-criticism. 



> Which wrong facts have I said? What misinformation have I spread? Quote them :armfold


The word "Jew" is an identification of a group as though they are a monolith and the implication of making a claim that that group owns more brings in ideas of innateness that allows for that ownership. 



> I never pretended to know everything. If you change your stance multiple times, it suggests you probably supported a political side without proper informed knowledge of it. This should be obvious.


Do you even understand what you're saying? Because I don't think you do at this point. 

If you claim that you don't know everything, then that also means that whatever political stance you currently hold is based on that limited information as well as mine would be if I did the same thing .. that is settled on my current world view and stopped learning. 

Sorry, unlike some of you, I don't limit myself to the conclusions based on limited knowledge and feel free to change stances based on continued learning. 

Do you believe that one should stop learning just so they can have the same political stance all of their lives? 

Is there a limit to how many times someone can change their stance?



> You mentioned being in favour of white Nationalism. I guess I'm a tool for not gathering a statement that various other users took also to be serious was a joke.


Pretty obvious here that you haven't read that post yourself. 



> Ok then. But I have no reason to defend him or his beliefs. I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist, which is what I believe he is.


An anarchist that supports one of the most authoritarian offices in the world. 



> I don't know


Then how do you know that I keep changing my stance? 



> and I don't care quite frankly.


Clearly you do though. If you don't care, then why constantly repeat it like it's a bad thing? 



> Presumably in the centre.


You don't know. 



> Whatever your views are, they'll probably be both temporary and ill-informed so I have no reason to inform myself on what side of the political agenda you're on.


You literally just admitted above that you don't know everything. I don't know everything either which is why whenever I learn something new, it helps me become better informed and that obviously influences my opinion. 

There is no superiority to be found in claiming that one doesn't know everything, but that ones political stance should remain unchangeable as well. 

This is a completely ridiculous stance in and of itself. 



> It is fact, disprove it :armfold


It is "fact" but missing context in that you use the word Jew to create an impression of the individual as belonging to a group (a group that others have defined for those individuals for the most part) and then that assumes some sort of innateness to them being able to accumulate wealth ... while ignoring the 100's of millions of other individuals who don't belong to any group also being able to accumulate wealth and power. 



> I never once said it was a problem of the Jews being in power.


So what is the value of this statement? Why is it important or necessary to talk about? It's not about simply relaying facts because this "fact" again misses the context of the individual differences in ideologies and beliefs amongst the jewish people. If Jews have different ideologies and beliefs and are also prone to the same class/social struggles as everyone else, then simply talking about those "jews" who hold power is an unnecessary discussion. 



> I'm not a communist who thinks everyone should have power.


I'm not a communist either. 



> I even stated that the Jews have the highest IQ's.


There's that misinformation again. 

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-myth-of-jewish-intelligence.html



> I thought it was an interesting discussion of how and why Jews have so much control of the world,


But they don't. Where do they control? What do they control? how do they control? How do they exert control? What exactly are the Jews doing? Which countries do they control? 

Jew poverty rate in America is higher than it is in Israel

Jews are becoming more poor over the years

Jews are consistently becoming more poor in America not less



> but you just decided I had an agenda against them and was being covertly anti-Semitic, despite other actual Jews saying my comments were fine AND accurate.


Well, clearly you don't know everything and have not bothered to critically examine your views. 

Just because someone else agrees with you does not make you right. It just makes you all wrong. 



> "omg your lyk a hitler and the natzees"


And there's that victim complex. When you open up a discussion that has been ongoing and is the cause behind a historical record of Jew oppression around the world, then you better be ready to answer the hard hitting questions as well. 



> Quote when I've ever said Jews have ever said Jews have too much power and wealth. You won't because you can't. Identifying they have an abnormal amount of power WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT is not wrong. Forcibly attempting to suppress objective facts on the other hand...


You just did in this response to me. 

I've responded with counter facts this time. I hope you learned something and maybe that'll help you change your mind. 

If not, then this discussion is pointless because clearly you were trolling at some point and then it got serious for you.

"Suppress objective facts" ... Uh no. By asking you to continue to take the discussion that you brought up (the facts as you like to call them but they're misinformed), then you need to continue the discussion into the more uncomfortable realm of implication of that misinformation or "objective facts" as you like to call them which really is just poorly contextualized myth and propaganda pushing.

Rugrat. You really need to support this statement with your "objective facts": 



> I thought it was an interesting discussion of how and why *Jews have so much control of the world,*


I'm interested to see what you come up with.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> BM's nonsense about Russiagate and calling Trump a fascist is not reasonable. I don't think I ever implied that it was :Shrug
> 
> Him and CP combined lend a lot of credence to the horseshoe theory.


LOL I pointed out time and time again examples of how Trump is a fascist and the evidence of Trump's ties to Russia, You can ignore the evidence all you want. It just shows you can't deal with reality.

it still amazes me you deny Trump's collusion with Russia when Don Jr admitted it.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

reap your new "gotcha" build isn't all that.

but i don't know if you're serious or srs so i'll just leave it at that :hmm:


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL I pointed out time and time again examples of how Trump is a fascist and the evidence of Trump's ties to Russia, You can ignore the evidence all you want. It just shows you can't deal with reality.
> 
> it still amazes me you deny Trump's collusion with Russia when Don Jr admitted it.


That's because you don't understand what fascism is and are defining it narrowly through a personal interpretation. 

As far as the collusion shit goes, if you actively read the articles you yourself posted, you'd know that the headings say one thing and the articles say another. 

Next time you post one, I'll point it out to you.



Goku said:


> reap your new "gotcha" build isn't all that.
> 
> but i don't know if you're serious or srs so i'll just leave it at that :hmm:


There is no "build" here.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> That's because you don't understand what fascism is and are defining it narrowly through a personal interpretation.
> 
> As far as the collusion shit goes, if you actively read the articles you yourself posted, you'd know that the headings say one thing and the articles say another.
> 
> Next time you post one, I'll point it out to you.


I know exactly what fascism is and Trump fits almost all of it. You give me your write up about what signs show fascism and I will show you how Trump fits them. I wrote a whole post on it earlier in the year


Are these early warning signs of fascism?

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Trump easily checks off most of the things on the list.


AGAIN about the collision, Don Jr admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt on Hillary true or false? that is just one example. The Russia thread is full of others. Are you really going to deny 
Don Jr. did not admit to colluding with Russia?


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> There is no "build" here.


okay


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So it's either the Jews or the Russians

It must be the *RUSSIAN JEWS* pulling the strings

Could the answers be in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion then? I haven't read it, and I don't think BM has either, but the other dude sure seems to keep it by his nightstand


----------



## EMGESP (Apr 3, 2016)

Well say what you want about him as a person, but as a President he's not doing a horrible job.



LukePuke25705 said:


> Trump should of never been elected president due to the fact he had no experience in politics. He has less experiance than when Obama ran and won.


As if having experience in Politics automatically means someone will be a good President. We already have many examples of this not being the case.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



EMGESP said:


> As if having experience in Politics automatically means someone will be a good President. We already have many examples of this not being the case.


it just so happens some of the dumbest presidents have been Republicans, like Trump, the two Bush's, Reagan etc.


----------



## EMGESP (Apr 3, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> it just so happens some of the dumbest presidents have been Republicans, like Trump, the two Bush's, Reagan etc.


Trump considered himself Democratic for many years, remember this.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

FriedTofu said:


> For what's its worth, I think Reap you are as good an example of the horseshoe theory as BM and CP. You went from parroting the far right 2 years ago to now parroting the far left. <img src="https://i.imgur.com/VqmkupW.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Shrug" class="inlineimg" />


At no point has reap ever parroted far left or right, and I say this as someone who argued nearly every day with him previously. A very disingenuous use of terminology.

Anyways I came in here to laugh at Trump saying the Finns take first leaves that's why they don't have forest fires like California.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

not sure why I'm being brought up in a discussion about the horseshoe theory. I'll assume it's Reap spreading bullshit about me that he refuses to back up in any way as per usual.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Sounds like Trump basically killed off his future vote from veterans last night.

At this rate the only people voting for Trump in 2020 will be the 4chan 18-30 years old angry white incels.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> Sounds like Trump basically killed off his future vote from veterans last night.


What are you referring to?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064243265468272645
Crenshaw leaves these Fake News peddlers scrambling as he debunks their dramatic claims about the president by calmly pointing out facts. :lol What a dude. Has an eyepatch, too. Really cool new character for the simulation masters to introduce.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> skypod said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like Trump basically killed off his future vote from veterans last night.
> ...


He bashed the guy that killed Obama, wait I meant Osama. Possibly that?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> He bashed the guy that killed Obama, wait I meant Osama. Possibly that?


Not the guy who killed him, the guy who oversaw the operation, McRaven. And it was in response to attacks McRaven made about Trump. Once again people fail to point out when Trump is retaliating.

That guy wrote a letter sucking off John Brennan, who is literal scum. Fuck him. 

Won't affect Trump's support at all. Any vet who was with Trump after his McCain joke aren't gonna turn on him because of an extremely rare occasion where he misses a memorial or when he criticizes people who criticized him first. 

The criticism was also completely fair. We should've gotten Bin Laden a long time before we did. He was living it up in Pakistan and they knew about it. One of many huge fuck-ups by our intelligence agencies who people so like to venerate when it serves the purpose of attacking the president.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064535926486040578
I love it. :lol Acosta is a grandstanding dork.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



EMGESP said:


> Trump considered himself Democratic for many years, remember this.


Trump was never really a Democrat, his values were always Republican. Just like some people who were in the state claimed to be a democrat are really Republicans.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064540462848098304

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064544156960387072
Good and correct tweets.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> And at that point I was not talking about politics, but rather the fact that you made a complete logical foopah when you claimed that people who change their mind are not scrutinizing their views. That's literally the opposite of what happens when someone changes their view. They literally are engaging in self-criticism.


No scrutiny is required to jump on a bandwagon. I mentioned this before.



> Do you even understand what you're saying? Because I don't think you do at this point.
> 
> If you claim that you don't know everything, then that also means that whatever political stance you currently hold is based on that limited information as well as mine would be if I did the same thing .. that is settled on my current world view and stopped learning.
> 
> ...


You've had various stances some of which are complete polar opposites to each other. It shows you clearly haven't understood the stances before committing to them.



> Pretty obvious here that you haven't read that post yourself.


I did



> An anarchist that supports one of the most authoritarian offices in the world.


 @CamillePunk ;



> Then how do you know that I keep changing my stance?


You mentioned it yourself and I do skim some of your posts. 



> You literally just admitted above that you don't know everything. I don't know everything either which is why whenever I learn something new, it helps me become better informed and that obviously influences my opinion.
> 
> There is no superiority to be found in claiming that one doesn't know everything, but that ones political stance should remain unchangeable as well.
> 
> This is a completely ridiculous stance in and of itself.


You change your stance a lot, changing only with the addition of "new information" which you hadn't bothered looking at prior to jumping on the new fad.



> It is "fact" but missing context in that you use the word Jew to create an impression of the individual as belonging to a group (a group that others have defined for those individuals for the most part) and then that assumes some sort of innateness to them being able to accumulate wealth ... while ignoring the 100's of millions of other individuals who don't belong to any group also being able to accumulate wealth and power.


Wealth and power are arbitrary. Short of homeless people, anyone has some degree of wealth and power. The discussion was on those in the most ELITE positions.




> So what is the value of this statement? Why is it important or necessary to talk about? It's not about simply relaying facts because this "fact" again misses the context of the individual differences in ideologies and beliefs amongst the jewish people. If Jews have different ideologies and beliefs and are also prone to the same class/social struggles as everyone else, then simply talking about those "jews" who hold power is an unnecessary discussion.





> I'm not a communist either.


Never said you were, the point was that it goes with socialist theory to want to overthrow those in power.




> There's that misinformation again.
> 
> https://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-myth-of-jewish-intelligence.html


Not misinformation. The author just states that they dislike the extrapolation, age and "bias" of the studies.


> But they don't. Where do they control? What do they control? how do they control? How do they exert control? What exactly are the Jews doing? Which countries do they control?


They dominate the rich lists. Most of the banks and successful websites/business are ran/owned by Jews.



> Jew poverty rate in America is higher than it is in Israel
> 
> Jews are becoming more poor over the years
> 
> Jews are consistently becoming more poor in America not less


The point was about the amount of Jews in ELITE positions, not necessarily whether Jews are doing better or worse.



> Well, clearly you don't know everything and have not bothered to critically examine your views.
> 
> Just because someone else agrees with you does not make you right. It just makes you all wrong.


Okay then



> And there's that victim complex. When you open up a discussion that has been ongoing and is the cause behind a historical record of Jew oppression around the world, then you better be ready to answer the hard hitting questions as well.


Victim complex :lmao

You just tried to associate me with the Nazis, so you got laughed at.



> If not, then this discussion is pointless because clearly you were trolling at some point and then it got serious for you.


I wasn't trolling. The other poster was trolling, but he had an interesting point which hadn't really been mentioned or explored on here.



> "Suppress objective facts" ... Uh no. By asking you to continue to take the discussion that you brought up (the facts as you like to call them but they're misinformed), then you need to continue the discussion into the more uncomfortable realm of implication of that misinformation or "objective facts" as you like to call them which really is just poorly contextualized myth and propaganda pushing.
> 
> Rugrat. You really need to support this statement with your "objective facts":
> 
> ...


In college atm, I'll give some links later tonight


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Wait, Trump hasn't undermined democracy?

-Fired the FBI director because he wanted to get rid of the investigation into his campaign and Russia. Told the Russian ambassador right after that firing Comey relieved pressure off him.

-Flipped out when he found out Mueller was appointed special counsel. Asked Sessions to resign in a rage. Sessions did but Trump wouldn't accept it.

-Ordered Mueller and Rosenstein fired but the white house counsel wouldn't carry it out.

-Fired the Attorney General simply because he did the ethical thing and removed himself from overseeing the investigation and Trump didnt like that so he installed a loyalist in that position who's sole purpose is to disrupt and strain the investigation and tell the white house everything he can about the inner workings of the investigation.


-Removed the former CIA director's security clearance simply because he dared to criticize Trump. 

-Removed someone's press pass simply because he was annoying him. Then his press secretary posts a doctored, fake video from info wars to justify why the pass was removed. 

Seriously? How many fucking excuses are ya'll going to make for him?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064243265468272645
> Crenshaw leaves these Fake News peddlers scrambling as he debunks their dramatic claims about the president by calmly pointing out facts. :lol What a dude. Has an eyepatch, too. Really cool new character for the simulation masters to introduce.


They were ready to pounce on him but when he dropped that fact about Obama you could feel the soul leaving their bodies.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064243265468272645
> Crenshaw leaves these Fake News peddlers scrambling as he debunks their dramatic claims about the president by calmly pointing out facts. :lol What a dude. Has an eyepatch, too. Really cool new character for the simulation masters to introduce.


How does Trump not undermine the press? He is always saying fake news even when its true, he is always talking about lying press, even when they are telling the truth, Trump is always talking about wanting to change libel laws so the press can't say bad things about him, not to mention all the things Headliner pointed out.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> Wait, Trump hasn't undermined democracy?
> 
> -Fired the FBI director because he wanted to get rid of the investigation into his campaign and Russia. Told the Russian ambassador right after that firing Comey relieved pressure off him.


There were a lot of reasons to fire James Comey and the Democrats wanted him fired months before it happened. The Russian investigation continued anyway. This doesn't even have anything to do with democracy. 



> -Flipped out when he found out Mueller was appointed special counsel. Asked Sessions to resign in a rage. Sessions did but Trump wouldn't accept it.


This is only the narrative according to unidentified sources. Not certifiable fact. Again, not undermining democracy. 



> -Ordered Mueller and Rosenstein fired but the white house counsel wouldn't carry it out.


That's not how that works. :lol If Trump wanted them gone they'd be gone. 



> -Fired the Attorney General simply because he did the ethical thing and removed himself from overseeing the investigation and Trump didnt like that so he installed a loyalist in that position who's sole purpose is to disrupt and strain the investigation and tell the white house everything he can about the inner workings of the investigation.


Sessions recused himself more than a year before he was fired. His replacement wasn't some outsider Trump went and found, it was Sessions' own appointed Chief of Staff. He's also only Acting Attorney General. And again, not undermining Democracy. As president Trump is authorized to do all of this. 



> -Removed the former CIA director's security clearance simply because he dared to criticize Trump.


Again...nothing to do with democracy. 



> -Removed someone's press pass simply because he was annoying him. Then his press secretary posts a doctored, fake video from info wars to justify why the pass was removed.


He was already justified in removing the press pass independent of that. CNN acted like their entire organization was banned instead of one reporter. This is why they are called fake news. Again, how is democracy undermined if Jim Acosta, who regularly interrupts his colleagues, doesn't get to attend White House press briefings? 



> Seriously? How many fucking excuses are ya'll going to make for him?


No excuses needed.  You failed to provide one example of how he undermined democracy. You just cited stuff he did that he was authorized to do that you personally don't like.

Perhaps you should look up how Obama treated the press. Did a lot worse than call the stories he didn't like Fake News and banning one disruptive reporter from press briefings. :lol I'm sure that magically somehow wasn't "undermining democracy" to you though.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> How does Trump not undermine the press? He is always saying fake news even when its true, he is always talking about lying press, even when they are telling the truth, Trump is always talking about wanting to change libel laws so the press can't say bad things about him, not to mention all the things Headliner pointed out.


If Trump is undermining the press by insinuating bad things about them, wouldn't that also mean the press is undermining the presidency by insinuating bad things about _him_?

How is Trump calling CNN the enemy of the people any different than CNN's top brass calling Trump a racist and an evil dictator?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I much prefer the relationship between the press and the government be one of contentious scrutiny. I don't want the press and the government getting along. The press is supposed to tell us (truthful) stuff about the government that the government doesn't want us to know. Having a press that swoons over the president (even while he uses his political power unjustly against reporters, as Obama did) is not how we keep the government in check. The problem is that in our current situation the press isn't being objective, they're openly pushing their own political agenda. They want literally every single person in the government to be a Democrat, just like them. That's why they protect Democrats from scandals and magnify any potential Republican scandal.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064243265468272645
> Crenshaw leaves these Fake News peddlers scrambling as he debunks their dramatic claims about the president by calmly pointing out facts. :lol What a dude. Has an eyepatch, too. Really cool new character for the simulation masters to introduce.


If he winds up bringing this cool, calm and collected presence to the table in order to make waves, by 2024, he could be a weapon to surpass Metal Gear:










:trump2


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> If Trump is undermining the press by insinuating bad things about them, wouldn't that also mean the press is undermining the presidency by insinuating bad things about _him_?
> 
> How is Trump calling CNN the enemy of the people any different than CNN's top brass calling Trump a racist and an evil dictator?


How is the press underming Trump when they report on the bad things he says and does? And Trump is a racist and acts like a dictator.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is the press underming Trump when they report on the bad things he says and does? And Trump is a racist and acts like a dictator.


So you think the media should be given free reign to say whatever they want about the president, but the president shouldn't be given free reign to say what he wants about the media?

Do you think the president is entitled to free speech?


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

CamillePunk said:


> There were a lot of reasons to fire James Comey and the Democrats wanted him fired months before it happened. The Russian investigation continued anyway. This doesn't even have anything to do with democracy.


Yes it does because the reason for the termination was obstruction of justice which is considered an abuse of power and a President trying to be above the law.



> -This is only the narrative according to unidentified sources. Not certifiable fact. Again, not undermining democracy.


 See above.



> That's not how that works. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> If Trump wanted them gone they'd be gone.


That's how Trump works because he is too much of a bitch to do it on his own. Trump didnt tell Sessions he was done. He made John Kelly do it. Just like he's made Kelly or some other stooge give the word on other firings.



> Sessions recused himself more than a year before he was fired. His replacement wasn't some outsider Trump went and found, it was Sessions' own appointed Chief of Staff. He's also only Acting Attorney General. And again, not undermining Democracy. As president Trump is authorized to do all of this.


He's wanted to fire Sessions since the moment he removed himself from the investigation. He just waited until the right time. And if you notice, when he was asked about Whitaker, he randomly brought up the "witch hunt" investigation when nobody said anything about it. He made his intention known. He even took it a step further and said he would not interfere if Whitaker interfered in the investigation. That was the green light. You're not this delusional man c'mon. You know why he put Whitaker there. To protect him and his son.



> -Removed the former CIA director's security clearance simply because he dared to criticize Trump.


No 1st amendment violation? Ok. Criticize the President and get your security clearance removed. Your boy talks about Venezula all the time. That's a dictator move. 



> He was already justified in removing the press pass independent of that. CNN acted like their entire organization was banned instead of one reporter. This is why they are called fake news. Again, how is democracy undermined if Jim Acosta, who regularly interrupts his colleagues, doesn't get to attend White House press briefings?


No the fuck he wasnt justified. Aggressive, persistence journalism has always been a staple in journalism. Trump just cant take when someone doesn't just fold and bow to his knee. Fox News and multiple news outlets all supported CNN in the lawsuit against Trump because they collectively took it as a disrespect to free press which is one of the pillars of democracy. 



> No excuses needed. <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smilie" class="inlineimg" /> You failed to provide one example of how he undermined democracy. You just cited stuff he did that he was authorized to do that you personally don't like.
> 
> Perhaps you should look up how Obama treated the press. Did a lot worse than call the stories he didn't like Fake News and banning one disruptive reporter from press briefings. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> I'm sure that magically somehow wasn't "undermining democracy" to you though.


Stopppp Obama wasnt nearly as bad as Trump was toward the press. You sound like Sean Hannity right now. <img src="http://imgur.com/7fvjvtR.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" /> <img src="http://imgur.com/7fvjvtR.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" /> 

You're apart of a cult dude. There's no reason for anyone of logic to debate with you on this forum anymore. You've decided a long time ago that you're just going to ignore reality and insert your own which includes throwing shit to the wall in hope it sticks just like your fearless leader does. No reason to continue with you.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Anyone who thinks Trump is a dictator is a fucking idiot. If he was you wouldn't have Acosta's or CNN's around. Pretending to be something does not make it so.

"A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force."


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> So you think the media should be given free reign to say whatever they want about the president, but the president shouldn't be given free reign to say what he wants about the media?
> 
> Do you think the president is entitled to free speech?


You do understand how freedom of the press works right? The press can report what they want on Trump. And Trump trying to suppress freedom of the press is not frees speech.



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Anyone who thinks Trump is a dictator is a fucking idiot. If he was you wouldn't have Acosta's or CNN's around. Pretending to be something does not make it so.
> 
> "A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force."


We didn't have Acosta around, Trump tried banning him, Trump also said once the restraining order is over, he will ban him again. Look at all the people that Trump has fired or revoked their access because they wouldn't do what Trump wanted.


Trump is also doing everything he can do to shut down the Mueller investigation against him. But sure pretend he is not a dictator.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You do understand how freedom of the press works right? The press can report what they want on Trump. And Trump trying to suppress freedom of the press is not frees speech.


CNN still exists right? MSNBC still exists right? The plethora of journalists and pundits trashing Trump at every waking moment still have jobs and still have access to their social media accounts, correct?

You're not really making any points here. How has he 'suppressed' the media?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> CNN still exists right? MSNBC still exists right? The plethora of journalists and pundits trashing Trump at every waking moment still have jobs and still have access to their social media accounts, correct?
> 
> You're not really making any points here. How has he 'suppressed' the media?


You did hear Trump say how he wants to change libel laws so the press can't say anything bad about him right? Also, love how you ignore the points about all the people Trump fired because they wouldn't do what he wants. 

You can deny the evidence all you want about Trump being fascist and a dictator. You are only fooling yourself. If Trump has his way he will be a full-on dictator.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Y*ou did hear Trump say how he wants to change libel laws so the press can't say anything bad about him right? Also, love how you ignore the points about all the people Trump fired because they wouldn't do what he wants. *
> 
> You can deny the evidence all you want about Trump being fascist and a dictator. You are only fooling yourself. If Trump has his way he will be a full-on dictator.


Suggesting that we should take a second look at libel laws is not the same as the president suppressing and silencing speech. That is you being sensational and over dramatic.

The press is free to criticize the president however they please and that will be the case throughout and beyond Trump's presidency. Those are the facts of the situation. The press is not being silenced.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



skypod said:


> Sounds like Trump basically killed off his future vote from veterans last night.
> 
> At this rate the only people voting for Trump in 2020 will be the 4chan 18-30 years old angry white incels.


This is the party that convinced veterans that John Kerry who served in a war is less of a war hero than Bush who escaped conscription due to political connections.

Trump appeal to the rank and file by calling their commanders stupid and they can do a better job than said commanders. There are more grunts than commanders in the military. Don't worry about Trump losing votes from these voters yet.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Suggesting that we should take a second look at libel laws is not the same as the president suppressing and silencing speech. That is you being sensational and over dramatic.
> 
> The press is free to criticize the president however they please and that will be the case throughout and beyond Trump's presidency. Those are the facts of the situation. The press is not being silenced.



Trump wants to change the libel laws so the press can't report anything negative about him that is true. And no it's not being sensational and overdramatic, its what Trump wants. He says it all the time. And yes Trump is silencing the press when he bans them from the WH, and Trump and the WH even went as far as saying maybe they won't even do those Q and As anymore, that again is silencing the press.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump wants to change the libel laws so the press can't report anything negative about him that is true. And no it's not being sensational and overdramatic, its what Trump wants. He says it all the time. And yes Trump is silencing the press when he bans them from the WH, and Trump and the WH even went as far as saying maybe they won't even do those Q and As anymore, that again is silencing the press.


You are offering nothing by opinions and hypotheticals. CNN was not banned from the WH, a single person was on the grounds that he was being disruptive (which is debatable). Obama routinely attempted to de-legitimize Fox News, was that an attack on the press? 

You carry on like a drama queen and blow up everything to the utmost degree. I'm still waiting on a timestable for those concentration camps he was supposed to open. Those should have been up and running by now.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> You are offering nothing by opinions and hypotheticals. CNN was not banned from the WH, a single person was on the grounds that he was being disruptive (which is debatable). Obama routinely attempted to de-legitimize Fox News, was that an attack on the press?
> 
> You carry on like a drama queen and blow up everything to the utmost degree. I'm still waiting on a timestable for those concentration camps he was supposed to open. Those should have been up and running by now.


LOL it's not a hypothetical, I am using Trump's own words and what he wants to do. Its just funny you ignore Trumps own wants and intentions. And no Obama did not try to de-legitimize Fox News, he never did the stuff Trump is doing. And stop with the whataboutism, we are talking about Trump here.

As for Trump and concentration camps? You mean for illegals, he already dit that FFS. Are you not even paying attention? Google Trump tent camps.

Are you going to deny they don't have those for the illegals? Those are concentration camps.

You want another example of Trump being a dictator, just look at what he is doing with the Attorney General and Whittaker. Its illegal to make him the AG since the Senate never confirmed him. But Trump does not care about the constitution and just did it anyways


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL it's not a hypothetical, I am using Trump's own words and what he wants to do. Its just funny you ignore Trumps own wants and intentions. And no Obama did not try to de-legitimize Fox News, he never did the stuff Trump is doing. And stop with the whataboutism, we are talking about Trump here.
> 
> *Obama didn't try to de-legitimize Fox News?
> 
> ...


Truth in bold.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Obama didn't try to de-legitimize Fox News?
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ve-to-america/
> 
> ...


But Fox news does exactly that lol And Obama was calling out there BS where as Trump claims the press is lying when its in fact not. Huge difference. Its a joke you even try to compare the two. Obama never tried to delegitimize things Fox news said that was true like Trump does.




Berzerker's Beard said:


> They aren't rounding up people and executing them, they're housing them because they're running out of room. WTF are they supposed to do, put them all up in five star hotels?
> 
> This makes Trump like Hitler? This is just the same as the holocaust? Are you serious?


No one ever claimed Trump was going to round up people and kill them. You are just making shit up now. But Trump is in fact putting people in camps which you claimed he was not. So you were WRONG.





Berzerker's Beard said:


> So if a sitting president does something that could be deemed unconstitutional, that means they are a dictator? LMAO was Obama a dictator? Was GWB a dictator? Was Clinton?


We are talking about Trump here, stay on topic. Love how you can't defend Trump on this because you know I am right.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> ou lose credibility because all of your attacks on Trump could be levied at past presidents, yet you act as if Trump is setting new precedent. His language is new, his brazen is new, his obnoxiousness is new... but this shit ain't new.



You lose credibility because you deny the things Trump does. You know you can't defend him, so you just keep bringing up all these whataboutism.

No US president has been as sexist, racist, corrupt or against the media as Trump is. NEVER

And yes the extent to which Trump is going is all new.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Anyone who thinks Trump is a dictator is a fucking idiot. If he was you wouldn't have Acosta's or CNN's around. Pretending to be something does not make it so.
> 
> "A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force."


Dictator Trump accidentally let millions of people vote a few weeks ago!

- Vic


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

* Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails about government business last year *



> Ivanka Trump sent hundreds of emails last year to White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistants using a personal account, many of them in violation of federal records rules, according to people familiar with a White House examination of her correspondence.
> 
> White House ethics officials learned of Trump’s repeated use of personal email when reviewing emails gathered last fall by five Cabinet agencies to respond to a public records lawsuit. That review revealed that throughout much of 2017, she often discussed or relayed official White House business using a private email account with a domain that she shares with her husband, Jared Kushner.
> 
> ...


Full article

:mj4:mj4:mj4

lock her up! :lmao


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DaRealNugget said:


> * Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails about government business last year *
> 
> 
> 
> ...







She really ought to fuck off in all honesty, because I'll be damned if her waterworks get us involved with another warfare quagmire (e.g. the Syrian airstrike). She needs to take her pencil-neck husband with her, too.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

As thousands of Tijuana residents are marching in protest of the caravan and many are screaming "Tijuana First!" this occurs. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064603792107294720
:lmao :lmao :sodone


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/troops-us-mexico-border-come-home-1005510



> Troops at U.S.-Mexican border to start coming home
> All the troops should be home by Christmas, as originally expected, Army Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan said in an interview Monday.
> 
> The 5,800 troops who were rushed to the southwest border amid President Donald Trump’s pre-election warnings about a refugee caravan will start coming home as early as this week — just as some of those migrants are beginning to arrive.
> ...


What a waste of money.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> As thousands of Tijuana residents are marching in protest of the caravan and many are screaming "Tijuana First!" this occurs.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064603792107294720
> :lmao :lmao :sodone


It's a spin-off for the spanish speaking. I expect we'll eventually get an iteration in every language. The series seems very popular.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> Dictator Trump accidentally let millions of people vote a few weeks ago!
> 
> - Vic


 


yet millions of people had their votes suppressed or not counted lol And look what dictator Trump and the WH are doing with their new "rules" for questions. So if Trump wants to not answer their question, they are not allowed to follow up and press him to answer the question, if they do they can be kicked out. And they can only ask a follow up if Trump wants them to lol


----------



## Continuum (Sep 14, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

My rake just broke. thanks Donuld.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudis-using-pompeos-plan-shield-leadership-khashoggi-fallout-says-source-1684431379



> *Pompeo handed Riyadh a plan to shield MBS from Khashoggi fallout, says source*
> 
> Saudi Arabia's king and crown prince are shielding themselves from the Jamal Khashoggi murder scandal by using a roadmap drawn up by the US secretary of state, a senior Saudi source has told Middle East Eye.
> 
> ...


A former Director of the CIA came up with a plan to protect a repressive regime?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> But Fox news does exactly that lol And Obama was calling out there BS where as Trump claims the press is lying when its in fact not. Huge difference. Its a joke you even try to compare the two. Obama never tried to delegitimize things Fox news said that was true like Trump does.
> 
> *When Obama was in office Fox News was the opposition media just as CNN and MSNBC are now. It's the same exact thing only the roles are now reversed. All three are guilty of fake news and spreading propaganda. To deny this, or to insinuate that Fox News is the only that's guilty... is LYING. You are just so much of a mark that you can't see it. *
> 
> ...


Truth in bold.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yeah, BM is quite possibly the least objective person I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. I'd be shocked if there was any left argument that would go undefended.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Yeah, BM is quite possibly the least objective person I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. I'd be shocked if there was any left argument that would go undefended.


LOL ignore the facts and evidence, yet I am not the one who is being objective. Good one.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> As thousands of Tijuana residents are marching in protest of the caravan and many are screaming "Tijuana First!" this occurs.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064603792107294720
> :lmao :lmao :sodone



Mexican Hitler! :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> When Obama was in office Fox News was the opposition media just as CNN and MSNBC are now. It's the same exact thing only the roles are now reversed. All three are guilty of fake news and spreading propaganda. To deny this, or to insinuate that Fox News is the only that's guilty... is LYING. You are just so much of a mark that you can't see it.


It's not the same thing. Fox has always been propaganda tabloid "news" who makes up shit, Obama was calling that out. Trump calls signs that are facts and even quotes they have him on tape saying as fake news and lies.

Fox news was never legit to begin with. Everyone knows that. 





Berzerker's Beard said:


> Then why are you and your ilk so comfortable comparing him to Hitler? Why the constant fear mongering? Why the constant parallels between what's going on at the border and Nazi Germany?


Trump is a fascist. I have given tons of examples before. If you can't see how Trump is a fascist, then you are not paying attention. Go back to the list I just posted yesterday about fascist tendencies, Trump nails pretty much all of them. 





Berzerker's Beard said:


> And there you go with your 'ists' and 'isms' and your NPC talking points. GWB lied us into war. Obama lied about ACA. Every president has lied or has done something dishonest either in the name of self preservation or to further their political agenda. Yet I don't see you calling them dictators.



You do know to call people NPCs makes you look bad right because you are just projecting on yourself. Its never even clever, you just do it because you can't refute my points




Berzerker's Beard said:


> You might think that what Trump is doing is unprecedented, but there are those that think what the media is doing is unprecedented. You don't like Fox News but if it weren't for them we would have the entirety of mainstream media all reporting the same message and trashing the president 24/7. No other president has ever had THIS much resistance from the media.




What Trump is doing is unprecedented LOL If any other president did what Trump is doing they would be destroyed for it. But the GOP lets Trump get away with it. Trump is also by far the dumbest president we have ever had. Just listen to the stupid shit he ways on a daily basis. Its just funny you take fox news serious. They just psot BS and lies. But that is why Trump likes them because he backs his BS lying narrative. The stuff Trump is getting trashed for he should be trashed for. You want a dictatorship where everyone kisses Trump ass even when he is lying and you don't want the news to call him out on it.







Berzerker's Beard said:


> You don't think it's an issue because you agree with them, but you are also incapable of being objective as clearly evidenced. I don't think I've ever seen you say anything even remotely positive about Trump. You are a full blown mark for the left.


I agree with the Truth, unlike you and Trump supporters. You are the one not being objective because you ignore the truth and the facts. The projection by people like you is hilarious. You can deny the facts and evidence all you want but it just makes you look bad for defending Trump and his lies and claim others are not being objective when its you who can't be objective. Its just even funnier you are talking about being objective while defending fo news. Only on WF lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's not the same thing. Fox has always been propaganda tabloid "news" who makes up shit, Obama was calling that out. Trump calls signs that are facts and even quotes they have him on tape saying as fake news and lies.
> 
> Fox news was never legit to begin with. Everyone knows that.
> 
> ...


Truth in bold.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

LOL at saying because Fox news outdraws CNN and MSNBC means they are legit news and not propaganda. You keep proving how you can't be objective. Ratings have nothing to do with what is objective facts something Fox news does not care about. 

You keep defending fox news so it seems to me you are taking them seriously.

And of course, you ignore all the other stuff because you can't refute it.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at saying because Fox news outdraws CNN and MSNBC means they are legit news and not propaganda. You keep proving how you can't be objective. Ratings have nothing to do with what is objective facts something Fox news does not care about.
> 
> You keep defending fox news so it seems to me you are taking them seriously.
> 
> And of course, you ignore all the other stuff because you can't refute it.


I am not defending Fox News, I have said repeatedly and ad nauseum that they are fake news. 

I am telling you that CNN and MSNBC are no better.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I am not defending Fox News, I have said repeatedly and ad nauseum that they are fake news.
> 
> I am telling you that CNN and MSNBC are no better.


How can you claim they are the same thing when you just said this



Berzerker's Beard said:


> You don't like Fox News but if it weren't for them we would have the entirety of mainstream media all reporting the same message and trashing the president 24/7. No other president has ever had THIS much resistance from the media..



Make up your mind. Fox news and CNN/MSNBC both say opposite things about Trump, so both can't be wrong and both cant be right. 

You just dont like how CNN and MSNBC call out Trump for his BS. And You said has ever has this much resistance from the media that is because no president has ever done the shit that Trump has done and no president has ever called the media the enemy of the people over and over like Trump does for reporting the Truth

You claim you admit Fox news is propaganda yet Trump defends Fox and claims they are the only true and fair news

So you dont have a problem with that knowing Fox News is BS


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

They all look the same to me.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL ignore the facts and evidence, yet I am not the one who is being objective. Good one.


You once compared gang rape to Disneyland to prove an argument against Kavanaugh.

And you really are surprised people say you aren't objective.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You once compared gang rape to Disneyland to prove an argument against Kavanaugh.
> 
> And you really are surprised people say you aren't objective.


quote what you are talking about


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> How can you claim they are the same thing when you just said this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought my point was pretty clear. Fox News offers an alternate perspective that you don't often find in most mainstream news. If not for them there would be a huge, almost unanimous left leaning slant. All the major news orgs would be parroting the same talking points and spreading the same message. 

Fox News, for all their BS, adds much needed variety. But again in order to understand this you would need to know what it means to be *objective.*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I thought my point was pretty clear. Fox News offers an alternate perspective that you don't often find in most mainstream news. If not for them there would be a huge, almost unanimous left leaning slant. All the major news orgs would be parroting the same talking points and spreading the same message.
> 
> Fox News, for all their BS, adds much needed variety. But again in order to understand this you would need to know what it means to be *objective.*


Yeah fox news offers alterative fakes aka lies. Where as CNN and MSNB most of the time report the truth unlike fox where most of the stuff fox says is lies. 

when you are talking about left-leaning news you are talking about the truth. Thus you keep proving you don't want to ber objective because you want a known propaganda station to post fake news because its right leaning. Thanks for making my point once again.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> quote what you are talking about


I don't feel like finding the actual quote so i can paraphrase... and you can complain about it later:

You said that it was ok that Christie Ford didn't remember all the details of her sexual assault because you couldn't remember everything that happened to you when you went to Disneyland when you were 8.

I am sorry, it was sexual assault you were comparing sexual assault to Disneyland, want to make sure I actually preference that.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah fox news offers alterative fakes aka lies. Where as CNN and MSNB most of the time report the truth unlike fox where most of the stuff fox says is lies.
> 
> when you are talking about left-leaning news you are talking about the truth. Thus you keep proving you don't want to ber objective because you want a known propaganda station to post fake news because its right leaning. Thanks for making my point once again.


Okay everyone wrap it up. Nothing else to see here.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't feel like finding the actual quote so i can paraphrase... and you can complain about it later:
> 
> You said that it was ok that Christie Ford didn't remember all the details of her rape because you couldn't remember everything that happened to you when you went to Disneyland when you were 8.
> 
> I am sorry, it was sexual assault you were comparing sexual assault to Disneyland, want to make sure I actually preference that.



And how is that not being objective, when you are talking about remembering every little detail of something?

You are not even making any sense.





Berzerker's Beard said:


> Okay everyone wrap it up. Nothing else to see here.


Once again, you troll because you can't refute what I said. Thanks for making my point yet again.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> And how is that not being objective, when you are talking about remembering every little detail of something?
> 
> You are not even making any sense.


Because when talking about sexual assault, Disneyland isn't exactly the most direct comparison, yet you think it is a good one.

Never change BM, never change.

I mean, I don't see the correlation between being held down and forced to do something vs. riding in a tea cup, but maybe you do, who knows.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Because when talking about sexual assault, Disneyland isn't exactly the most direct comparison, yet you think it is a good one.
> 
> Never change BM, never change.
> 
> I mean, I don't see the correlation between being held down and forced to do something vs. riding in a tea cup, but maybe you do, who knows.


We have already been over the whole memory thing when it comes to sexual assault and rape. Go back and read that thread if you want a refresher.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Okay everyone wrap it up. Nothing else to see here.


L O Fucking L


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> We have already been over the whole memory thing when it comes to sexual assault and rape. Go back and read that thread if you want a refresher.


I like your definition better, its just like going to Disnyeland.

Just like if you can't remember if you got the turkey leg when you were 8 years old.

Main point is: you have a hard time being objective, period, even if the source is obviously 100% wrong, you try to spin it.

On topic:
Fox news is propaganda, all news is, anyone who believes any of the big 3 stations is setting themselves up for failure more and more.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I like your definition better, its just like going to Disnyeland.
> 
> Just like if you can't remember if you got the turkey leg when you were 8 years old.
> 
> ...


What source was 100% wrong that I tried to spin? Citation, please. Quote me

As for all news is propaganda, Fox news lies and reports on bullshit as if its true. Fox news is not legit news like CNN or MSNBC. sure CNN and MSNBC are puppets for the corporate left, but they are not fake news like Fox news is.

Fox news is tabloid news like the national enquirer. They are not even in the same categories. Hell fox news is sometimes in Infowars territory. .


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> What source was 100% wrong that I tried to spin? Citation, please. Quote me



Once again, i don't care to quote you, I can just wait until you do it again.

It's not like it isn't a common occurrence.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Right you wont quote me because you are just making shit up. If its so common you should be able to pull up numerous examples. So put up or shut up.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Right you wont quote me because you are just making shit up.


We are sensitive today... you feeling ok?

I said the word if.

If you do it, I will be sure to look out for it, but I am not going down your post history.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/troops-us-mexico-border-come-home-1005510
> 
> 
> 
> What a waste of money.


Not to mention those troops missing Thanksgiving with their families.

But hey, gotta make a big show about the "invasion". fpalm


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Not to mention those troops missing Thanksgiving with their families.
> 
> But hey, gotta make a big show about the "invasion". fpalm


California here they come! Wonder if they will keep them beyond the 15th Dec deadline and cost them Christmas too.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/20/military-backpedals-on-winding-down-border-mission-985213



> *The military backpedaled Tuesday on the declaration by the general overseeing the deployment to the U.S.-Mexico border that some of his 5,800 troops would begin heading home in the coming days.*
> 
> “No specific timeline for redeployment has been determined,” a spokesman for the Army component of U.S. Northern Command said in an emailed statement. “We will provide more details as they become available.”
> 
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.apnews.com/d214d66a374f4c7ca1d1dd85fc9d2404


Trump says no penalty for Saudi prince for Khashoggi murder
By DEB RIECHMANN
27 minutes ago


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump declared Tuesday he would not further punish Saudi Arabia for the murder of U.S.-based columnist Jamal Khashoggi — making clear in an exclamation-filled statement that the benefits of good relations with the kingdom outweigh the possibility its crown prince ordered the killing.

The president condemned the brutal slaying of Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul as a “horrible crime ... that our country does not condone.” But he rejected calls by many in Congress, including members of his own party, for a tougher response, and also dismissed reports from U.S. intelligence agencies that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman must have at least known about such an audacious and intricate plot.


“It could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event,” the president said. “Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!”

In many ways, the statement captured Trump’s view of the world and foreign policy, grounded in economic necessity. It began with the words “America First!” followed by “The world is a very dangerous place!”

It came after weeks of debate over whether the president would or should come down hard on the Saudis and the crown prince in response to the killing of the Saudi columnist for The Washington Post who had criticized the royal family.


President Donald Trump defended his decision not to punish Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman or cut arms sales to Saudi Arabia for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. insisting it would be "foolish" to cut ties. (Nov. 20)
The U.S. earlier sanctioned 17 Saudi officials suspected of being responsible for or complicit in the Oct. 2 killing, but members of Congress have called for harsher actions, including canceling arms sales.

Trump said “foolishly canceling these contracts” worth billions of dollars would only benefit Russia and China, which would be next in line to supply the weapons. Critics denounced Trump’s statement saying he ignored human rights and granted Saudi Arabia a pass for economic reasons.

Asked by a reporter if he was saying that human rights are too expensive to fight for, he responded, “No, I’m not saying that at all.” But then he switched the subject to the “terrorist nation” of Iran rather than any actions by Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. needs a “counterbalance” to Iran, “and Israel needs help, too,” he said. “If we abandon Saudi Arabia, it would be a terrible mistake.”

The mistake was Trump’s, said Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, contending the administration has “blinders on” in comparing Iran and Saudi Arabia.


“It’s a sign of weakness not to stand up to Saudi Arabia,” Paul said in an interview. “Sometimes when you have two evils, maybe you don’t support either side.”

Republican Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator who is close to Trump, also disagreed with the president’s statement, saying America must not lose its “moral voice” on the international stage.

“It is not in our national security interests to look the other way when it comes to the brutal murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi,” Graham said.

Likewise, Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said that to suggest that U.S. silence can be bought with arms sales “undermines respect for the office of the presidency, the credibility of our intelligence community and America’s standing as a champion of human rights.”

Trump’s statement, issued just before he pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey at the White House and left for the long holiday weekend in Florida, underscored his world view of putting U.S. interests — both financial and geopolitical — above all else.

He told reporters on the South Lawn that oil prices would “skyrocket” if the U.S. broke with the Saudis, and he was not going to “destroy” the world’s economy by being “foolish with Saudi Arabia.”

Asked about any personal financial involvement, he said, “Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with me. What does have to do with me is putting America first.”

Trump said that King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed both “vigorously deny” any knowledge of the planning or execution of the killing. He also said the CIA has not made a conclusive determination about whether the crown prince ordered it.

A U.S. official familiar with the case told The Associated Press last week that intelligence officials had concluded that the crown prince, the kingdom’s de facto leader, did order the killing. Others familiar with the case, however, have cautioned that while it’s likely the crown prince had a role there continue to be questions about the degree.

“We may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi,” Trump said. “In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran.”

Saudi prosecutors say a 15-man team sent to Istanbul exceeded its authority when the lead negotiator in the team decided to kill Khashoggi for refusing orders to return. The Saudis say the agents dismembered his body, which has not been found.

Democrats on Capitol Hill called on the CIA and other top intelligence agencies to publicly report what it has learned about the killing.

The CIA had no comment on the president’s statement. However, former Director John Brennan, a frequent Trump critics, tweeted:

“Since Mr. Trump excels in dishonesty, it is now up to members of Congress to obtain & declassify the CIA findings on Jamal Khashoggi’s death. No one in Saudi Arabia — most especially the Crown Prince —should escape accountability for such a heinous act.”

Trump said he knew some members of Congress would disagree with his decision. He said he would listen to their ideas, but only if they were focused on U.S. national security.

Late last week, a bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation that calls for suspending weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, for sanctions on people who block humanitarian access in Yemen or support the Houthi rebels, and mandatory sanctions on those responsible for Khashoggi’s death.

Democrats harshly criticized Trump’s decision Tuesday and called on Congress to cut off arm sales to Saudi Arabia and end support for Saudi Arabia’s war against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen, which is facing a humanitarian crisis.

“Standing with Saudi Arabia is not ‘America First!’” said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia where Khashoggi lived. “President Trump has sided with a murderous regime over patriotic American intelligence officials.”

Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, said Khashoggi was killed by agents of the Saudi government in a “premeditated murder, plain and simple,” and she said she would introduce legislation requiring intelligence agencies to release an unclassified public assessment.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended Trump’s decision, saying, “We are determined to ensure that we continue to make sure that we take care of the American people in all of the strategic decisions we make about with whom we work with around the world.”

The president opened his eight-paragraph statement chastising Iran for its proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, its activities in Iraq, its backing of the Syrian government of Bashar Assad and its support of militant groups, which Riyadh has pledged billions to fight.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Circling back to the caravan for a moment, there is little doubt that the sitting president has rather embarrassingly used it as a political football, so to speak, rather than display genuine teeth in the realm of the subject. It is also fair to say at this juncture that Trump, for all of his rhetoric, has been little more than an orange paper tiger in the realm of illegal immigration. 

As _The Washington Post_ noted recently, during fiscal year 2018, concluding at the end of September, 107,212 members of what are referred to as "family units" crossed over into the U.S. illegally, "obliterating the previous record of 77,857 set in 2016." The newspaper cited DHS figures, writing, "Border patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members in September alone, the highest one-month total on record and an 80 percent increase from July." 

Trump caved on the single most defining matter of his candidacy and presidency when put under the merciless barrage of political attacks earlier this year and suspended what had been referred to as the "zero tolerance" policy which was ostensibly seldom-understood by the vast majority of people on either side of the issue at the time. Unfortunately for the U.S. the message became a kind of "illegal immigration Bat Signal" to those south of the Rio Grande. As presently set illegal aliens are crossing over the border in record-shattering numbers with their children, for now the children will have to stay with them and cannot be held for more than a mere twenty days. As several members of this present caravan stated in Spanish to reporters with their small children, they know that their family unit will be swiftly restored. As millions of others have the chances are tremendous that they can and will vanish into the general U.S. population, never being sent back. 

Trump has been big on talk and he enjoys issuing out blistering tweets toward the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, as well as make spectacles out of troop deployments and the like, but when the heat was deemed too great he unfortunately did not serve his countrymen well on this at all. Trump wants to be the twenty-first century's Andrew Jackson but he seems to lack the fortitude to make it happen.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> What a waste of money.


False. Putting up barb wire was a great idea.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Not to mention those troops missing Thanksgiving with their families.
> 
> But hey, gotta make a big show about the "invasion". fpalm


Plus some of the troops are leaving right as the caravan is arriving. What was the point of them even being there. Trump does not care anymore since he just used it to fear monger his racist base for the election.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> False. Putting up barb wire was a great idea.
> 
> - Vic


200mil to put up barb wires. They should just hire illegals to put them up at a fraction of the costs.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> As thousands of Tijuana residents are marching in protest of the caravan and many are screaming "Tijuana First!" this occurs.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064603792107294720
> :lmao :lmao :sodone


Mean Gene's looking great since taking that position.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

LOL and people still want to claim Trump is not a fascist 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html

Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton

WASHINGTON — President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.

The encounter was one of the most blatant examples yet of how Mr. Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies. It took on additional significance in recent weeks when Mr. McGahn left the White House and Mr. Trump appointed a relatively inexperienced political loyalist, Matthew G. Whitaker, as the acting attorney general.

It is unclear whether Mr. Trump read Mr. McGahn’s memo or whether he pursued the prosecutions further. But the president has continued to privately discuss the matter, including the possible appointment of a second special counsel to investigate both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, according to two people who have spoken to Mr. Trump about the issue. He has also repeatedly expressed disappointment in the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, for failing to more aggressively investigate Mrs. Clinton, calling him weak, one of the people said.

Please disable your ad blocker.
Advertising helps fund Times journalism.
Unblock ads
A White House spokesman declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. declined to comment on the president’s criticism of Mr. Wray, whom he appointed last year after firing Mr. Comey.

“Mr. McGahn will not comment on his legal advice to the president,” said Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck. “Like any client, the president is entitled to confidentiality. Mr. McGahn would point out, though, that the president never, to his knowledge, ordered that anyone prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey.”

You have 4 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times
It is not clear which accusations Mr. Trump wanted prosecutors to pursue. He has accused Mr. Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with The New York Times in a memo that Mr. Comey wrote about his interactions with the president. The document contained no classified information.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers also privately asked the Justice Department last year to investigate Mr. Comey for mishandling sensitive government information and for his role in the Clinton email investigation. Law enforcement officials declined their requests. Mr. Comey is a witness against the president in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Mr. Trump has grown frustrated with Mr. Wray for what the president sees as his failure to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s role in the Obama administration’s decision to allow the Russian nuclear agency to buy a uranium mining company. Conservatives have long pointed to donations to the Clinton family foundation by people associated with the company, Uranium One, as proof of corruption. But no evidence has emerged that those donations influenced the American approval of the deal.

Mr. Trump has expressed disappointment in the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, for failing to more aggressively investigate Mrs. Clinton.
Credit
Al Drago for The New York Times


Image
Mr. Trump has expressed disappointment in the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, for failing to more aggressively investigate Mrs. Clinton.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times
In his conversation with Mr. McGahn, the president asked what stopped him from ordering the Justice Department to investigate Mr. Comey and Mrs. Clinton, the two people familiar with the conversation said. He did have the authority to ask the Justice Department to investigate, Mr. McGahn said, but warned that making such a request could create a series of problems.

Mr. McGahn promised to write a memo outlining the president’s authorities. In the days that followed, lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office wrote a several-page document in which they strongly cautioned Mr. Trump against asking the Justice Department to investigate anyone.

The lawyers laid out a series of consequences. For starters, Justice Department lawyers could refuse to follow Mr. Trump’s orders even before an investigation began, setting off another political firestorm.

If charges were brought, judges could dismiss them. And Congress, they added, could investigate the president’s role in a prosecution and begin impeachment proceedings.

Ultimately, the lawyers warned, Mr. Trump could be voted out of office if voters believed he had abused his power.

Mr. Trump’s frustrations about Mr. Comey and Mrs. Clinton were a recurring refrain, a former White House official said. “Why aren’t they going after” them?, the president would ask of Justice Department officials.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

SIGN UP
For decades, White House aides have routinely sought to shield presidents from decisions related to criminal cases or even from talking about them publicly. Presidential meddling could undermine the legitimacy of prosecutions by attaching political overtones to investigations in which career law enforcement officials followed the evidence and the law.

Perhaps more than any president since Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Trump has been accused of trying to exploit his authority over law enforcement. Witnesses have told the special counsel’s investigators about how Mr. Trump tried to end an investigation into an aide, install loyalists to oversee the inquiry into his campaign and fire Mr. Mueller.

In addition, Mr. Trump has attacked the integrity of Justice Department officials, claiming they are on a “witch hunt” to bring him down.

More significant, Mr. Mueller is investigating whether the president tried to impede his investigation into whether any Trump associates conspired with Russia’s campaign to sow discord among the American electorate during the 2016 presidential race.

Mr. Trump has accused the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with reporters.
Credit
Justin Tang/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press


Image

Mr. Trump has accused the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with reporters.CreditJustin Tang/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press
Mr. Trump stoked his enmity for Mrs. Clinton during the campaign, suggesting during a presidential debate that he would prosecute her if he was elected president. “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” Mr. Trump said.

“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton replied.

“Because you would be in jail,” Mr. Trump shot back.

During the presidential race, Mr. Whitaker, a former United States attorney, also said he would have indicted Mrs. Clinton, contradicting Mr. Comey’s highly unusual public announcement that he would recommend the Justice Department not charge her over her handling of classified information while secretary of state.

“When the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted,” Mr. Whitaker wrote in an op-ed in USA Today in July 2016.

Two weeks after his surprise victory, Mr. Trump backed off. “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Times. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious.”

Nonetheless, he revisited the idea both publicly and privately after taking office. Some of his more vocal supporters stirred his anger, including the Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro, who has railed repeatedly on her weekly show that the president is being ill served by the Justice Department.

Ms. Pirro told Mr. Trump in the Oval Office last November that the Justice Department should appoint a special counsel to investigate the Uranium One deal, two people briefed on the discussion have said. During that meeting, the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, told Ms. Pirro she was inflaming an already vexed president, the people said.

Shortly after, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote to lawmakers, partly at the urging of the president’s allies in the House, to inform them that federal prosecutors in Utah were examining whether to appoint a special counsel to investigate Mrs. Clinton. A spokeswoman for the United States attorney for Utah declined to comment on Tuesday on the status of the investigation.

Mr. Trump once called his distance from law enforcement one of the “saddest” parts of being president.

“I look at what’s happening with the Justice Department,” he said in a radio interview a year ago. “Well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton and her emails and with her, the dossier?” He added: “I am not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I am very frustrated.”


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Bets on Trump's comments on his daughter's email Crooked Hillary impression?

* I'm not aware of the circumstances around that, I do know she's committed to MAGA. Next question.

* Fake News!

* Unfortunately she was the victim of incorrect advice from an aide no longer with us.

* If she wasn't my daughter I'd definitely bang her, and pay her to be my wife. In fact I'm not sure she actually is.....


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> Circling back to the caravan for a moment, there is little doubt that the sitting president has rather embarrassingly used it as a political football, so to speak, rather than display genuine teeth in the realm of the subject. It is also fair to say at this juncture that Trump, for all of his rhetoric, has been little more than an orange paper tiger in the realm of illegal immigration.
> 
> As _The Washington Post_ noted recently, during fiscal year 2018, concluding at the end of September, 107,212 members of what are referred to as "family units" crossed over into the U.S. illegally, "obliterating the previous record of 77,857 set in 2016." The newspaper cited DHS figures, writing, "Border patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members in September alone, the highest one-month total on record and an 80 percent increase from July."
> 
> ...





birthday_massacre said:


> ***


Trump talks bigly but doesn’t back it up. He threatens to shut the government down regarding budget bills and signs them anyway. Iran and North Korea ignore his threats. And he is not going to have prosecuted his good friend Hillary Clinton because who would he have to blame for everything? 

It’s talk, tough talk but merely talk.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump talks bigly but doesn’t back it up. He threatens to shut the government down regarding budget bills and signs them anyway. Iran and North Korea ignore his threats. And he is not going to have prosecuted his good friend Hillary Clinton because who would he have to blame for everything?
> 
> It’s talk, tough talk but merely talk.


That is how it starts and wanting to lock up your political opponents is fascism 101


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is how it starts and wanting to lock up your political opponents is fascism 101


Trump won't do it...all he is doing is blowing hot air to deflect from what is not getting done. Besides, if he has any chance of being good friends again with his pals the Clintons going after them with the DOJ probably would put a damper on those get-togethers in the Hamptons.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

Finished reading the Woodward book, is very interesting, nothing hugely surprising that wasn't leaked/discussed in the media.

Weirdly lavishs some praise on Trump towards the beginning and attacks the media for being unfair to him. There were a couple of things I'd thought he'd done he hadn't actually. 

The later half or so of the book is brutal though. It makes him sound useless and effectively senile.

Apparently he would regularly say stuff like "lets do x", and his staff would be like "yeah totally" then as soon as they left his office they'd all just agree to not do it and wait until he forgot about it, which apparently almost always worked.

Probably the most interesting thing for me is that apparently he watches a lot of CNN and MSNBC and those sorta more left leaning news sources.

Also apparently Australia got out of the steel tariffs because our then PM made a huge song and dance about how the US has a trade surplus with us.

Though while objectively this is probably superior journalism with better sources, I still say if you're gonna read one Trump book make it Fire and Fury, still by far and away the most entertaining.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Plus some of the troops are leaving right as the caravan is arriving. What was the point of them even being there. Trump does not care anymore since he just used it to fear monger his racist base for the election.


That's all it is. It's a dog whistle to the racists to unite behind the republicans. 

Republicans may not be racists but the racists certainly know that they have their backs.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> That's all it is. It's a dog whistle to the racists to unite behind the republicans.
> 
> Republicans may not be racists but the racists certainly know that they have their backs.


Our joke of an Aussie PM is doing the same over here too. Based on a recent attack by a weirdo muslim guy, apparently the whole muslim community and leaders have to answer for it and now do more in their communities to combat these sorts of things. Ofcourse, that narrative has moved on to halting immigration - probably the main platform he'll run on for re-election.

He's a big christian but never been any hint of suggestion the 'christian community' should answer for kiddy fiddler priests for example.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Finished reading the Woodward book, is very interesting, nothing hugely surprising that wasn't leaked/discussed in the media.
> 
> Weirdly lavishs some praise on Trump towards the beginning and attacks the media for being unfair to him. There were a couple of things I'd thought he'd done he hadn't actually.
> 
> ...


My boss is like that with stuff too. Don't think it's a senile thing. Think it's a trying to do too much thing.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I thought my point was pretty clear. *Fox News offers an alternate perspective that you don't often find in most mainstream news. If not for them there would be a huge, almost unanimous left leaning slant.* All the major news orgs would be parroting the same talking points and spreading the same message.
> 
> Fox News, for all their BS, adds much needed variety. But again in order to understand this you would need to know what it means to be *objective.*





Alkomesh2 said:


> *Probably the most interesting thing for me is that apparently he watches a lot of CNN and MSNBC and those sorta more left leaning news sources.*


Y'all really need to get past this notion that CNN and MSNBC are left leaning in any way, shape, form or fashion. Yeah, center-right is to the left of far right but for fuck's sake, there is no such thing as a mainstream news organization in the USA that is even remotely leftist. There's been enough Jimmy Dore clips that have been shown in here to know what leftist media is and he is fairly moderately leftist himself. If you want to know what a real deal far leftist looks like, watch anything with Richard Wolff in it. See if you can tell the difference between what he covers and what CNN or MSDNC covers.

The reason I bring this up is because if CNN and MSNBC are what is being presented as leftist in the USA, no fucking wonder people on the right hate the left. I'd hate the left too if that's what the left meant. Fuck Tuck Choad and Rachel Madcow. They're every bit an enemy of the left as the Sean Hannitys of the world.

ETA:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065289231977738240
Tulsi calling Trump "Saudi Arabia's bitch". 

:sodone


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:banderas :banderas 

Tulsi is the m'fucking queen. 

In b4 the far right snowflakes of WF start whining about "civility" :mj4


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I did find out something about Tulsi I didn't like, her stance on Assad and Syria. Obviously anti interventionist is the important thing but she did suck off* Assad and his dictatorship.

This is an idiom and does not denote any sexual thoughts about Tulsi and Assad rogering each other.



> Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?


Even IF you don't believe in all the science around man made climate change, we all know the world is warming and only a fucking idiot would say something like this.

A real fucking idiot.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Y'all really need to get past this notion that CNN and MSNBC are left leaning in any way, shape, form or fashion. Yeah, center-right is to the left of far right but for fuck's sake, there is no such thing as a mainstream news organization in the USA that is even remotely leftist. There's been enough Jimmy Dore clips that have been shown in here to know what leftist media is and he is fairly moderately leftist himself. If you want to know what a real deal far leftist looks like, watch anything with Richard Wolff in it. See if you can tell the difference between what he covers and what CNN or MSDNC covers.
> 
> The reason I bring this up is because if CNN and MSNBC are what is being presented as leftist in the USA, no fucking wonder people on the right hate the left. I'd hate the left too if that's what the left meant. Fuck Tuck Choad and Rachel Madcow. They're every bit an enemy of the left as the Sean Hannitys of the world.


90% of their political coverage and opinion shows are anti-Trump, anti-republican. They are not objective in the slightest. There is nothing 'center' about "Republicans bad, Democrats good". 

Their top stars and are all open and proud democrats, they operate in conjunction with democrats, and they pander to an audience of democrats.

So yea, LEFT leaning.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I did find out something about Tulsi I didn't like, her stance on Assad and Syria. Obviously anti interventionist is the important thing but she did suck off* Assad and his dictatorship.
> 
> This is an idiom and does not denote any sexual thoughts about Tulsi and Assad rogering each other.
> 
> ...


Trump just showing how truly stupid he is, he does not even know the difference between climate and weather, something any 5th grader knows.




Berzerker's Beard said:


> 90% of their political coverage and opinion shows are anti-Trump, anti-republican. They are not objective in the slightest. There is nothing 'center' about "Republicans bad, Democrats good".
> 
> Their top stars and are all open and proud democrats, they operate in conjunction with democrats, and they pander to an audience of democrats.
> 
> So yea, LEFT leaning.


what does CNN and MSNB bash Trump for that they shouldn't? Not a day goes by that Trump does not do or say something stupid, illegal, or fucked up

Should Trump not get bashed for say something like this?


Trump on Saudi Arabia and Jamal Khashoggi: "Do people really want me to give up hundreds of thousands of jobs? And frankly, if we went by this standard, we wouldn't have anybody as an ally." (via ABC)


Trump is saying, sure SA had a journalist killed but he won't do anything about it since SA gives the US jobs and billions of dollars.

You don't think he should get called out for those kinds of comments?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> 90% of their political coverage and opinion shows are anti-Trump, anti-republican. They are not objective in the slightest. There is nothing 'center' about "Republicans bad, Democrats good".
> 
> Their top stars and are all open and proud democrats, they operate in conjunction with democrats, and they pander to an audience of democrats.
> 
> So yea, LEFT leaning.


Everything to the left of far right is technically left leaning. Center right is "left leaning" when compared to the far right. It doesn't make center right a leftist party.

Being anti-Trump =/= being a leftist. There are plenty of anti-Trump Republicans too. The idea you've got in your head that being a Democrat means someone is a leftist is laughably retarded. The 2 parties of the duopoly in the USA range from center right authoritarian to far right authoritarian. The furthest to the left any major politician in the USA goes is Bernie and that dude is the most centrist guy ever. You'd know that if you had any understanding of the political spectrum whatsoever and weren't brainwashed by the MSM you hate so much.

Oh and just to try to be nice to you here, you're not actually wrong about CNN and MSNBC being garbage and not objective in the slightest. Where you go flying off the rails is when you call them leftist. If you want to see what an actual leftist party platform looks like, check out Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour manifesto. You probably won't agree with it but at least you can educate yourself on what an actual leftist platform looks like. https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

When people like berzerker's Beard complain about left-leaning or liberal-leaning they are really talking about truth leaning.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump just showing how truly stupid he is, he does not even know the difference between climate and weather, something any 5th grader knows.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry you lose your chance at having a discussion when you expose yourself as an angry, extremely bias poster whose incapable oh having an honest conversation. You are a fascist just without the power. If you HAD power you would be incredibly dangerous. 

You'll have to save those awesome retorts for someone else this time. Happy thanksgiving.



Tater said:


> Everything to the left of far right is technically left leaning. Center right is "left leaning" when compared to the far right. It doesn't make center right a leftist party.
> 
> Being anti-Trump =/= being a leftist. There are plenty of anti-Trump Republicans too. The idea you've got in your head that being a Democrat means someone is a leftist is laughably retarded. The 2 parties of the duopoly in the USA range from center right authoritarian to far right authoritarian. The furthest to the left any major politician in the USA goes is Bernie and that dude is the most centrist guy ever. You'd know that if you had any understanding of the political spectrum whatsoever and weren't brainwashed by the MSM you hate so much.
> 
> Oh and just to try to be nice to you here, you're not actually wrong about CNN and MSNBC being garbage and not objective in the slightest. Where you go flying off the rails is when you call them leftist. If you want to see what an actual leftist party platform looks like, check out Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour manifesto. You probably won't agree with it but at least you can educate yourself on what an actual leftist platform looks like. https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/


You're complicating the argument for no reason.

We are all aware that the political spectrum can be broken down into several groups. But for the sake of discussion and brevity, dems = left and repubs = right. It's a generalization but who cares. You know what I'm trying to communicate.

If it bothers you that much fine define them however you please. Instead of calling them left leaning call them 'democrat leaning'. Whatever suits you. The original underlying point, which you agree with, is that they are snakes and they report propaganda.

As for Bernie he is an admitted socialist, so I would have a hard time placing him in the center.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Sorry you lose your chance at having a discussion when you expose yourself as an angry, extremely bias poster whose incapable oh having an honest conversation. You are a fascist just without the power. If you HAD power you would be incredibly dangerous.
> 
> You'll have to save those awesome retorts for someone else this time. Happy thanksgiving.


LOL You are the only biased on here, and you keep proving it. You claim i am biased yet can't show any evidence of it. But thanks for proving my point about you. I call you out to back your claims and you run away.

Well, I am truth biased, where sadly you are not. And that is why you won't debate me .


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Thursday Nov 22nd, 2018
11:14 AM EST



birthday_massacre said:


> When people like berzerker's Beard complain about left-leaning or liberal-leaning they are really talking about truth leaning.


Thursday Nov 22nd, 2018
11:32 AM EST



birthday_massacre said:


> You claim i am biased yet can't show any evidence of it..


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Thursday Nov 22nd, 2018
> 11:14 AM EST
> 
> 
> ...


Right you won't debate me, because I am truth biased and you don't like that. Thanks for admitting you know i am right


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> 90% of their political coverage and opinion shows are anti-Trump, anti-republican. They are not objective in the slightest. There is nothing 'center' about "Republicans bad, Democrats good".
> 
> Their top stars and are all open and proud democrats, they operate in conjunction with democrats, and they pander to an audience of democrats.
> 
> So yea, LEFT leaning.


To be fair when you have someone as flip floppy who bends the truth as much as Trump, constantly firing people in his cabinet, labels the media as an enemy of the state, retaliates against people who don't support him like an 11 year old - it makes it a hell of lot easier to expose Trump for that crap, which of course can be taken as Anti-Trump.

It's not like he doesn't deserve half the shit he gets IMO, he's not some innocent demonised for no reason.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> To be fair when you have someone as flip floppy who bends the truth as much as Trump, constantly firing people in his cabinet, labels the media as an enemy of the state, retaliates against people who don't support him like an 11 year old - it makes it a hell of lot easier to expose Trump for that crap, which of course can be taken as Anti-Trump.
> 
> It's not like he doesn't deserve half the shit he gets IMO, he's not some innocent demonised for no reason.


No I'm with you. Trump is an extreme and so I think the media has reacted in kind. I also don't think the left leaning media is used to a republican candidate sticking it back to them like he does and so it's causing them to push back harder.

But at this point I think both sides are in on the work. When I saw the Acosta incident I couldn't help but feel like everyone was just putting on a show. The media bashes Trump because they think the people love it, and Trump bashes the media because he also thinks the people love it. No one operates on principle. It's all about the two teams.

But let's be honest there was never any principle to begin with, we've known this. They've been playing the same game forever, Trump has just amplified the hypocrisy. But the media has sunk to his level and it's exposed them for what they really are.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> No I'm with you. Trump is an extreme and so I think the media has reacted in kind. I also don't think the left leaning media is used to a republican candidate sticking it back to them like he does and so it's causing them to push back harder.
> 
> 
> .


what exactly is Trump doing to stick it back to them? Trump is a huge baby, is a liar. Trump can't stand it when people stand up to him and push back, so he becomes an even bigger baby and liar.




Berzerker's Beard said:


> But at this point I think both sides are in on the work. When I saw the Acosta incident I couldn't help but feel like everyone was just putting on a show. The media bashes Trump because they think the people love it, and Trump bashes the media because he also thinks the people love it. No one operates on principle. It's all about the two teams.
> 
> .


No both sides are no in no the work. Trump is a clown and a national embarrassment. The media bashes Trump because of all his lies, he can't go a day without lying at least 10 times. they don't call Trump out because think they people love it, they call Trump out because they are exposing how full of shit he is, and again how stupid he is, not to mention how corrupt he is. No president in hisstory has lie as much as Trump that is why the media is always calling him out. Not sure what you dont understand about that. You seem to act like the media calling out Trumps miles is unwarranted. that is why you bitch about it so much.




Berzerker's Beard said:


> But let's be honest there was never any principle to begin with, we've known this. They've been playing the same game forever, Trump has just amplified the hypocrisy. But the media has sunk to his level and it's exposed them for what they really are.
> .



Trump has pushed the lies and corruption further than anyone in history, it's not even close. The problem is the GOP just lets him get away with it. The media has not sunk to any level, they are just calling Trump out for what he is. There is a reason why you wont answer my questions because its exposes you and your agenda.

what has the media called Trump out for that they shouldn't have. Give me your examples. Of course, you won't because you know pretty much everything they call him out for is warranted.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

So at this point I have to beg the question: when can we start calling Donald Trump the second worst President in the history of the United States? 

I say second because the undisputed worst will always be James Buchanan, and it's impossible to beat a man who had a ton of political experience entering office and completely fucking up tensions between the North and South even more and doing nothing about it. But at this point, Trump has failed on almost all of his campaign promises. He's done little to nothing in his first two years of office, to the point where he's piggybacking off of work done by others and claiming it's his own doing. All of the positive things that happened so far aren't even because of him. He's made a complete ass of himself on a large number of occasions. He has shown he has little to no interest in helping those who don't share his political beliefs. I really can't think of any man at this point who has done a worse job in office than him besides Buchanan. This hasn't been as bad as I'd thought it would be. It's been worse. 

And what's funny is that just saying the sentence "hey, a guy who never had to work for anything in his life and was the stereotypical definition of a spoiled rich man is running for one of the most stressful jobs in the world where things you want to do won't always happen" makes it sound like electing him is a terrible idea and America did it anyways. For people who have regretted their support for Trump (and just google Trumpgret to find out there's a lot of them), I have to ask: what the hell did you expect? It amazes me that he was the worst possible person for the job and he still got elected. 

What this is at this point is a joke. An absolute fucking joke. It's beyond laughable that anyone would try to defend this man and the dumbshit he's done in his two years so far. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence to be decent enough people to take those claims seriously. He has been terrible. And there's no possible way you could argue otherwise. The sooner this fallacy is over with, the better America will get from here. Very ironic considering what his campaign slogan was. 

On a side note, it's 2 in the morning and I'm drunk as fuck. And I somehow typed this in somewhat decent grammar. I actually don't even know why I'm ranting about this. I'm sure I'll know tomorrow. Either way, Trump is bad and his voters should feel bad.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> No both sides are no in no the work. Trump is a clown and a national embarrassment. The media bashes Trump because of all his lies, he can't go a day without lying at least 10 times. they don't call Trump out because think they people love it, they call Trump out because they are exposing how full of shit he is, and again how stupid he is, not to mention how corrupt he is. No president in hisstory has lie as much as Trump that is why the media is always calling him out. Not sure what you dont understand about that. You seem to act like the media calling out Trumps miles is unwarranted. that is why you bitch about it so much.


Maybe, but I think it would have to do more with the fact that Trump is ratings gold.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2018/04/18/the-ratings-bump-of-donald-trump/#50b6fc2e7ec1

Some highlights, since i doubt you read the article:



> Since Trump became president, cable news networks have enjoyed strong ratings. With late-breaking news from Washington seemingly a daily occurrence, Fox News has been the top-rated cable network in 2016, 2017 and the first quarter of 2018, averaging about 2.5 million viewers in prime time.* MSNBC has also benefited from the heightened news cycle. In 2017, MSNBC had its best year ever, increasing its prime-time viewing by 550,000 viewers compared with the previous year. In 2017, MSNBC was the third-most-watched cable network in prime time. In the first quarter of 2018, MSNBC was the second-most-watched cable network in both prime time and broadcast day.* CNN also ranks in the top 10 with audience delivery among cable networks.





> This month, the Stephanopoulos interview of Comey, the former FBI director, averaged 9.8 million viewers. *While the ratings were less than half those of the Stormy Daniels telecast, it was the most-watched telecast on ABC News since the Caitlyn Jenner interview three years prior.* By comparison, there were 3.6 million more viewers in the Sunday 10-11 p.m. time period than the previous week. More recently, Comey's appearance with Stephen Colbert on CBS generated his third-highest-rated program since his debut in September 2015.





> After a 20-year hiatus, Roseanne returned to ABC in March 2018; the premiere averaged 18.5 million viewers, the most-watched comedy telecast since 2014. The show added an additional* 6.7 million viewers when three-day DVR playback is included*. In the episode, Roseanne, a working-class mother, was a supporter of President Trump.





> Traditional television is facing competition from streaming video, social media and other platforms, so you can expect television to be all-in on all things Trump for the foreseeable future because that's where the viewers are.


Trump=ratings, I think they care more about that then whether or not he lies, like you are eluding to here.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Maybe, but I think it would have to do more with the fact that Trump is ratings gold.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2018/04/18/the-ratings-bump-of-donald-trump/#50b6fc2e7ec1
> 
> ...


Especially considering the media made him. During the campaign they gave him all the free publicity he could handle. Hell the Morning Joe show was practically a Trump SuperPAC unto itself.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Maybe, but I think it would have to do more with the fact that Trump is ratings gold.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2018/04/18/the-ratings-bump-of-donald-trump/#50b6fc2e7ec1
> 
> ...


Nothing you said speaks to what we were even talking about, and that was CNN and MSNBC being anti-Trump and not being objective. 

Also with your oh its for the ratings logic,well wouldn't even make more sense for CNN and MSNBC to kiss Trumps ass like FOX does so Trump wouldn't call them fake news and talk shit about them, which would affect their ratings with Trump supporters.

Also, funny how you googled Trump rating gold yet ignored the one about Fox News pulling Trump rallies from primetime because he is no longer ratings gold for them.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/trump-tv-ratings-fox-news-891621


So I will ask you the same question, since you deflected my points, show me how MSNBC and CNN has treated Trump unfairly and has not been objective when reporting the shit he says and does.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> As for Bernie he is an admitted socialist, so I would have a hard time placing him in the center.


You can call a turd a candy bar but it doesn't make it taste sweet. :shrug


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



AlternateDemise said:


> So at this point I have to beg the question: when can we start calling Donald Trump the second worst President in the history of the United States?
> 
> I say second because the undisputed worst will always be James Buchanan, and it's impossible to beat a man who had a ton of political experience entering office and completely fucking up tensions between the North and South even more and doing nothing about it. But at this point, Trump has failed on almost all of his campaign promises. He's done little to nothing in his first two years of office, to the point where he's piggybacking off of work done by others and claiming it's his own doing. All of the positive things that happened so far aren't even because of him. He's made a complete ass of himself on a large number of occasions. He has shown he has little to no interest in helping those who don't share his political beliefs. I really can't think of any man at this point who has done a worse job in office than him besides Buchanan. This hasn't been as bad as I'd thought it would be. It's been worse.
> 
> ...


Right, I remember why I ranted about this.

I saw someone wearing a Trump hat while I was drunk and got annoyed. 

Either way, let this be known to his supporters: the man has been a failure.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nothing you said speaks to what we were even talking about, and that was CNN and MSNBC being anti-Trump and not being objective.


WTF are you talking about?

These are your EXACT words:



> The media bashes Trump because of all his lies, he can't go a day without lying at least 10 times. they don't call Trump out because think they people love it, they call Trump out because they are exposing how full of shit he is, and again how stupid he is, not to mention how corrupt he is.


It has been shown by multiple sources other than this one, that none of the big 3 have any care about journalistic integrity, and everything about ratings.

Remember Van Jones saying "Russia is a nothing burger" on hidden camera? The question is rhetorical btw



> Also with your oh its for the ratings logic,well wouldn't even make more sense for CNN and MSNBC to kiss Trumps ass like FOX does so Trump wouldn't call them fake news and talk shit about them, which would affect their ratings with Trump supporters.


So I am going to assume you know about wrestling, since you are on a wrestling board about it. 

I am also going to assume that you know people love booing a heel as much as cheering a face.

Trump is the ultimate heel to CNN and MSNBC and their narrative, no different than what Fox News making Obama the ultimate heel to their cause before Trump



> Also, funny how you googled Trump rating gold yet ignored the one about Fox News pulling Trump rallies from primetime because he is no longer ratings gold for them.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/trump-tv-ratings-fox-news-891621


Whats funny is how you predictably didn't read the article that I put in that said Fox news has been number 1 in news because of Trump. They ride the Trump train harder than CNN and MSNBC do, you think that anyone with two eyes can't see that?




> So I will ask you the same question, since you deflected my points, show me how MSNBC and CNN has treated Trump unfairly and has not been objective when reporting the shit he says and does.


I will say this the nicest way possible:

Half the time you post, I don't even think you have a point.

Even this post, is off topic of what I am saying, and doesn't address the actual point I am making:

Trump is a ratings getter, that is why he gets the attention he does, you are trying to make it about him being treated unfairly, which is nothing about what I am saying, If I actually wanted to answer the other points I would have quoted them

The fact I didn't should have told you that


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> These are your EXACT words:
> 
> ...


You keep claiming CNN and MSNBC have no journalistic integrity, and everything they report about Trump negativity is true. So the news reporting the news, and the fucked up shit Trump is doing means they lack journalistic integrity? WTF are you talking about. You are not even making any sense




DMD Mofomagic said:


> So I am going to assume you know about wrestling, since you are on a wrestling board about it.
> 
> I am also going to assume that you know people love booing a heel as much as cheering a face.
> 
> Trump is the ultimate heel to CNN and MSNBC and their narrative, no different than what Fox News making Obama the ultimate heel to their cause before Trump


Trump is not loved, his approval rating is one of the lowest ever for a president at this point. You still have not shown have CNN and MSNBC don't have any journalistic integrity when it comes to Trump, since all they have to do is report the dumb shit he says and does. You still are not making any sense




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Whats funny is how you predictably didn't read the article that I put in that said Fox news has been number 1 in news because of Trump. They ride the Trump train harder than CNN and MSNBC do, you think that anyone with two eyes can't see that?


Again Fox and their ratings have NOTHING to do with how CNN and MSNBC report all the fucked up shit Trump says and does and how people like you and BB claim they are not being objective and dont have any journalistic integrity.

So AGAIN show how the stuff they are reporting about Trump is not true and shows how they lack journalistic integrity. The reason why you keep deflecting this question is because you know you have zero evidence.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I will say this the nicest way possible:
> 
> Half the time you post, I don't even think you have a point.
> 
> ...


Just more deflection from you because you can't show how they lack journalistic integrity and are not being objective when it comes to Trump

I am not the one who is making it out that Trump is treated unfairly, that is Berzerker's Beard's claim to which my post was refuting until you went off topic and deflected to talk about ratings.

So you agree then MSNBC and CNN are not treating Trump unfairly and are being objective when they report all the dumb shit he say and does. I

The reason why you don't think I make a point in my posts half teh time is because I will be talking about one thing and you reply to me replying to someone else and try to make it about something else.

Try sticking to the topic we are debating instead of going off track, maybe you won't get so confused


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

People are forgetting just how bad Richard Nixon was if they think Trump is the worst president in modern history:

* The Watergate Scandal
* Launched The War on Drugs
* Ending the Bretton Woods system where he terminated US dollars being able to be converted to gold.


All much worse than anything Trump has done thus far. Let's not forget George W Bush with the Iraq war and the biggest financial crash since 1929......speaking of which Hoover was terrible too. That's three I've just named off the top of my head.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> You keep claiming CNN and MSNBC have no journalistic integrity, and everything they report about Trump negativity is true. So the news reporting the news, and the fucked up shit Trump is doing means they lack journalistic integrity? WTF are you talking about. You are not even making any sense


Where have I said anything about them reporting anything about Trump. That's a lie. Oh and btw there is thi littel nugget from CNN that I knew you would ignore:






That is a CNN anchor stating Russia is a nothing burger. So, yes I do believe spreading propaganda without substance does lack journalistic integrity.

You are literally the only person I have seen on here fighting that CNN and MSNBC don't fluff stories for ratings




> Trump is not loved, his approval rating is one of the lowest ever for a president at this point. You still have not shown have CNN and MSNBC don't have any journalistic integrity when it comes to Trump, since all they have to do is report the dumb shit he says and does. You still are not making any sense


Interesting that I never called Trump the face to them, and specifically called him the heel.

You can go read the quote again, I am going to assume you just didn't last time




> Again Fox and their ratings have NOTHING to do with how CNN and MSNBC report all the fucked up shit Trump says and does and how people like you and BB claim they are not being objective and dont have any journalistic integrity.


Cool, show me where I made a correlation between Fox news and CNN's ratings, I can wait for that.



> So AGAIN show how the stuff they are reporting about Trump is not true and shows how they lack journalistic integrity. The reason why you keep deflecting this question is because you know you have zero evidence.







I think Van Jones still works at CNN



> I am not the one who is making it out that Trump is treated unfairly, that is Berzerker's Beard's claim to which my post was refuting until you went off topic and deflected to talk about ratings.


I didn't make it about Trump being unfairly or not.

I pointed out to you that Trump draws ratings for the networks, and it isn't 100% them talking about him to "educate the American people"

I would love how you think that CNN and MSNBC have never said something false about Trump or fluffed a story to get ratings. I want to hear this argument



> So you agree then MSNBC and CNN are not treating Trump unfairly and are being objective when they report all the dumb shit he say and does.


Yeah, now you are just making things up as you go along 



> The reason why you don't think I make a point in my posts half teh time is because I will be talking about one thing and you reply to me replying to someone else and try to make it about something else.
> 
> Try sticking to the topic we are debating instead of going off track, maybe you won't get so confused


No, you don't make sense because you don't read quotes, or articles, even when you post them.

I mean that is obvious to everyone. By the way, the topic of this thread is Donald Trump.

How is talking about Donald Trump in a Donald Trump thread off-topic

I am going to put the over/under at 6 on your cliches btw, so, don't disappoint please


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> People are forgetting just how bad Richard Nixon was if they think Trump is the worst president in modern history:
> 
> * The Watergate Scandal
> * Launched The War on Drugs
> ...


Lets not forget Andrew Johnson


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> People are forgetting just how bad Richard Nixon was if they think Trump is the worst president in modern history:
> 
> * The Watergate Scandal
> * Launched The War on Drugs
> ...


You should have a little faith in Trump. He'll win so much you'll get tired of him winning. You just wait, when the economy collapses and the invasion of Iran happens, Trump will have cemented himself as most bigly worst prez of all time.

:trump3


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You should have a little faith in Trump. He'll win so much you'll get tired of him winning. You just wait, when the economy collapses and the invasion of Iran happens, Trump will have cemented himself as most bigly worst prez of all time.
> 
> :trump3


:lol I guess we'll see what happens. Am honestly though a bit tired of the over the top reactions to Trump, that either he is amazing and one of the best presidents ever or the worst thing to ever happen. At the moment he's neither, in a lot of ways he's a standard Republican president, in others he's just continued what presidents in the past have done.

Maybe by the end of the 2nd term which I think he'll get because the Democrats are useless my opinion will change. Policy wise though it's felt like status quo a lot of the time which is disappointing, it's the rhetoric and Trump's attitude which has made his presidency feel different from others.

I don't care what anyone says by the way, Nixon will always be the worst modern president in US history. It'll take a lot to topple the bullshit he did :lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Where have I said anything about them reporting anything about Trump. That's a lie. Oh and btw there is thi littel nugget from CNN that I knew you would ignore:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The conversion I was having with Berzerker's Beard was all about CNN and MSNBCs reporting on Trump and him claiming it's not fair or objective, then you butt into the conversion and bring up ratings and other shit, and now you are trying ty claim yoru replies are not about their reporting.

Stop trying to go off topic then about the conversation we were having if you are not talking about their reporting and if they are objective or not. You are replying to posts talkig about that, thus why its implied you are referring to those topics.

Stop playing your litltle troll games where you reply to us talking about something, then claim you are not talking about the same topic we are





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Cool, show me where I made a correlation between Fox news and CNN's ratings, I can wait for that.


You were just talking about Trumps being rating gold. LOL You were saying the reason why CNN and MSNBC talk about Trump so much is for ratings, are you really going to claim that is not what you were saying?



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I didn't make it about Trump being unfairly or not.
> 
> I pointed out to you that Trump draws ratings for the networks, and it isn't 100% them talking about him to "educate the American people"
> 
> I would love how you think that CNN and MSNBC have never said something false about Trump or fluffed a story to get ratings. I want to hear this argument



This is what me and BB were debating about you and went off topic and brought up ratings which had NOTING to do with what we were talking about. 

If you want to claim the stuff CNN and MSNBC are reporting about Trump is unfair or untrue then show it. It should be easy if that is what you are going to claim. If you want to make this claim you have to provide evidence, that is why I asked for examples, of Trump being treated unfairly and so far no one has given any examples because, we all know for a fact, pretty much everything they report on Trump is true because they just quote his own words and how stupid he is. So AGAIN if you want to claim they are lying about what Trump says or does, then show the evidence.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> No, you don't make sense because you don't read quotes, or articles, even when you post them.
> 
> I mean that is obvious to everyone. By the way, the topic of this thread is Donald Trump.
> 
> ...


You are the one who does not make sense because like you keep doing, you are replying with something that is not what we were talking about then you try to blame me because you went off topic and try to associate you with BB because you were trying to defend Trump with ratings when we were talking about if CNN or MSNBC are objective or not when it comes to Trump.

I just told you how you are going off topic.
We are talking about if CNN and MSNBC is objective or not, and you bring up ratings. That is going off topic about if Trump is being treated unfairly.

If you are not going to talk about that then this conversion is over.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> :lol I guess we'll see what happens. Am honestly though a bit tired of the over the top reactions to Trump, that either he is amazing and one of the best presidents ever or the worst thing to ever happen. At the moment he's neither, in a lot of ways he's a standard Republican president, in others he's just continued what presidents in the past have done.
> 
> Maybe by the end of the 2nd term which I think he'll get because the Democrats are useless my opinion will change. Policy wise though it's felt like status quo a lot of the time which is disappointing, it's the rhetoric and Trump's attitude which has made his presidency feel different from others.


There's no chance in hell the economy lasts another 2 years before the next collapse happens. I know it looks like now that Trump is set up for a 2nd term but opinions can change awful fast when a depression hits. Here's a couple of examples of the house of cards the economy is built on.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063060785994366976

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063260400098164737
Stock buybacks are creating massive bubbles everywhere in the stock market and the housing bubble is getting ready to pop again. The fact that the collapse hasn't happened yet only means it's going to be much worse when it does happen. There's only so long this kind of fake growth can last. The bigger the bubbles, the bigger the pop. 

Lots of other very alarming economic info in Stockman's feed. https://twitter.com/DA_Stockman

A lot can change in 2 years. We could be in such bad shape economically that the only person who could actually lose to Trump is if Hillary steals the nomination again.



> I don't care what anyone says by the way, Nixon will always be the worst modern president in US history. It'll take a lot to topple the bullshit he did :lol.


I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nixon was GOAT!


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/418045-trump-denies-report-hes-unhappy-with-mnuchin

Another day, another media scoop of Trump being unhappy about someone in his administration and Trump tweeting back against the report...only to fire the person in the future proving the reports correct. Feels almost like the individual feeding the media these leaks in order to goad Trump into firing them.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The conversion I was having with Berzerker's Beard was all about CNN and MSNBCs reporting on Trump and him claiming it's not fair or objective, then you butt into the conversion and bring up ratings and other shit, and now you are trying ty claim yoru replies are not about their reporting.
> 
> Stop trying to go off topic then about the conversation we were having if you are not talking about their reporting and if they are objective or not. You are replying to posts talkig about that, thus why its implied you are referring to those topics.
> 
> ...


So, you can't talk about two different subjects at once?

Well, at least you are honest enough to admit it, I appreciate that

I counted 4 cliches btw... so I definitely overshot that number.


----------



## Mifune Jackson (Feb 22, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DOPA said:


> People are forgetting just how bad Richard Nixon was if they think Trump is the worst president in modern history:
> 
> * The Watergate Scandal
> * Launched The War on Drugs
> ...


I'm not a Trump fan, but people were calling him the "worst president" before he even took the oath. He's done a number of things I don't approve of, but none of it compares to Bush's worst, nor Nixon's general corruption. 


When Trump passes another Patriot Act or starts another war or two, I'll be willing to reconsider, but I'm having my doubts that he even gets to a second term after the midterms. Bush did all that in his first term with his high approval rating momentum (with both parties having his back).


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

In terms of historical comparisons. Trump hasn't done as much shady shit as say Warren G. Harding, whose advisors mostly seemed to be con artists and outright criminals, and whose nymphomnia led to him stashing his mistresses in the Oval Office closet. Now, just as Trump is hated in his own time, in his own time Harding was lauded, and huge crowds lined the streets when he died - it was only with the passing of time that the true depths of his corruption and lack of character came to light.

Am I saying this to infer that Trump is a saint? Certainly not. But when Bush was in power, people called him a Nazi. Now? In 2018? They're posting on Twitter about how cute his paintings are and how nice it is to see him be friends with the Obama family.
For what it's worth, I think Trump's diplomatic gains in Korea will define his Presidency for future historians, especially if his actions eventually lead to Korean unification over the coming generations.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Ron Paul is blocking a multi-billion dollar package to Israel?

Someone is clearly anti-Semitic!


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Trump isn't even the worst president in out of the last few let alone in history.

The idea that he is just shows that maybe TDS is a real thing and that the revisionism of Bush continues.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump isn't the worst president in history yet mainly because he hasn't been in office long enough to earn that title. He's certainly laying the groundwork for it though. In another couple of years when these policies play themselves out, a lot of even his most ardent supporters will be reconsidering their opinions.

And I feel like I still need to remind people when talking about this, that most of this is not Trump's doing. He's not the one writing the economic policies and he's not the one making the foreign policy decisions, not in any real sense. The deep state deserves more credit for the crash course we're on than anyone else but the history books will record it as being mostly Trump's fault because that's just how this works. I'll put it another way... if Trump were to wake up tomorrow a brand new man who wanted to implement sane policies that would get us out of the wars and actually help the lives of ordinary Americans, he wouldn't be able to do it because the real powers in this country wouldn't let him.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Trump isn't even the worst president in out of the last few let alone in history.
> 
> The idea that he is just shows that maybe TDS is a real thing and that the revisionism of Bush continues.







"Oh Bush was just a lovable jackass! It was Dick Cheney pulling the strings!"

I know it's just a movie but... sadly a lot of people get their history from movies. Especially young people who weren't alive or old enough to understand what was happening at the time.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> "Oh Bush was just a lovable jackass! It was Dick Cheney pulling the strings!"


This isn't true at all.

Bush is a *retarded* jackass.

The rest of the statement is accurate.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Obviously the problem is much more systematic than related to who the President is, but America should've kept a larger British cultural influence solely for the fact that the whole world deserves to see massive celebrations on your streets when Bush dies, like what happened with Thatcher. Unfortunately I don't think that would ever happen, especially not now that Democrats are so intent on rehabilitating him and succeeding.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Martins said:


> Obviously the problem is much more systematic than related to who the President is, but America should've kept a larger British cultural influence solely for the fact that the whole world deserves to see massive celebrations on your streets when Bush dies, like what happened with Thatcher. Unfortunately I don't think that would ever happen, especially not now that Democrats are so intent on rehabilitating him and succeeding.


Haha, I chuckled at this.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> WASHINGTON — Whatever happened to trying to impeach President Donald Trump?
> As House Democrats begin laying out the vision for their new majority, that item is noticeably missing from the to-do list and firmly on the margins.
> The agenda for now includes spending on public works projects, lowering health care costs and increasing oversight of the administration.
> It's the balance that Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is trying to strike in the new Congress between those on her party's left flank who are eager to confront the president, and her instinct to prioritize the kitchen-table promises that Democrats made to voters who elected them to office.
> ...


http://archive.is/lCUgl#selection-317.0-429.136


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

^^^Goddamn, the Democrats are pathetic. fpalm


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> ^^^Goddamn, the Democrats are pathetic. fpalm


We knew that for a while.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1066289341914243072
:lmao

Trump for all of his clumsiness is truthfully giving the game away here. :lol


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1066289341914243072
> :lmao
> 
> Trump for all of his clumsiness is truthfully giving the game away here. :lol


Well at least he's honest about it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1066289341914243072
> :lmao
> 
> Trump for all of his clumsiness is truthfully giving the game away here. :lol


Shit like this is exactly why the Establishment hates Trump so much. It's not because he doesn't help carry out the policies they want. He does that in spades. It's because he shines a light on how fucked up those policies are. He makes it a lot more difficult for them to shine up the turd and pretend to be good guys.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

What happened to Impeach Trump is that Trump is running the country almost exactly the way Hillary would have been ... Maybe with a few less wars. 

Some of us have been seeing that for a while. 

But some of the most hardcore Trump supporters and members of the "resistance" still haven't clued in.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

More hilarity. :lmao

The _Huffington Post_'s resident pet "model Syrian refugee" columnist Aras Bacho is now on trial in Germany, accused of six cases of groping and sexually molesting girls and women. The trial began last week. On Friday he denied all of the allegations at the trial (which is in Lemgo). Having read the transcripts his defense does not seem terribly convincing but it is good that he is being given his day in court.

This is the same fellow who was saying, publicly, a couple of years ago that it was the fault of German women that they were molested and harassed by migrants in the streets because they were unaccompanied. :lmao

It all sounds like some MAGA-spewing 'Murican's fever dream but apparently this is what is happening. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> More hilarity. :lmao
> 
> The _Huffington Post_'s resident pet "model Syrian refugee" columnist Aras Bacho is now on trial in Germany, accused of six cases of groping and sexually molesting girls and women. The trial began last week. On Friday he denied all of the allegations at the trial (which is in Lemgo). Having read the transcripts his defense does not seem terribly convincing but it is good that he is being given his day in court.
> 
> ...



I linked an article where a migrant got off on raping a little boy because he said he didn't understand "No". There's been so much fuckery that it's sad.


I'm interested to see Israel stand on it's own, we keep sending them money and military weapons, it needs to stop.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm interested to see Israel stand on it's own, we keep sending them money and military weapons, it needs to stop.


Israel *can't* stand on it's own. The only reason it exists today is because it has the backing of the USA; partly for military/oil reasons, partly for religious ones. If we ever completely withdrew from the ME and left them to fend for themselves, they wouldn't last.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Israel *can't* stand on it's own. The only reason it exists today is because it has the backing of the USA; partly for military/oil reasons, partly for religious ones. If we ever completely withdrew from the ME and left them to fend for themselves, they wouldn't last.


:larry

Not sure how I feel about the US pumping billions upon billions of dollars and handing over military equipment to a State we have to fight for 24/7.

Besides it's the Holy Land and God's chosen children and all that so, God will protect them! 0


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> :larry
> 
> Not sure how I feel about the US pumping billions upon billions of dollars and handing over military equipment to a State we have to fight for 24/7.
> 
> Besides it's the Holy Land and God's chosen children and all that so, God will protect them! 0


I'm 100% certain how I feel about it. Forgetting the oil and military reasons for just a moment... you've got certain delusional assholes who believe they have to have Jews owning all of a particular bit of land because it's written in their book of fairy tales that when that happens, it will bring about the apocalypse and cause the return of their imaginary friend.

The oil and military reasons are bad enough. It reaches whole new levels of retardation when you add in their dumbass religious mythology to it.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Two years after being elected and only two months shy of the two-year anniversary of his inauguration, at this point in time the definitive verdict is in as far as Trump's handling of the Middle East. There is a reason why Mitt Romney has been saying for about a year now that Trump's presidency is not especially different from what a Romney presidency would be, and why he was enthusiastically supportive of Trump, especially in the Middle East.

The Trump administration altered the U.S.'s long-established policy stance regarding Syria's strategic Golan Heights. The Golan Heights allow for the headwaters of the Jordan River and about a fifth of Israel's water from the north. The Israelis have and will continue to utilize Golan as a logical base of operations for firing artillery into Syria. The Israelis--wisely, on this score--continuously monitor all troop activity and spy on various factions brutalizing one another, some of whom the Israelis clandestinely and not-so-clandestinely support with aid and training. 

The Trump administration executed a campaign promise in moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Now, however, the White House has rather silently condoned complete and permanent Israeli dominion over Golan. Since the Nixon administration the policy was to at least make a showing of demanding that the Israelis give Golan back after they annexed it in exchange for the U.S. tax-deductible expenditures which would always be used to expand the settlements of Jews. 

Unfortunately Trump's White House is honeycombed with neoconservatives and hardliners who agitate almost ceaselessly on behalf of Israeli expansion. This latest and most incendiary of policy shifts makes the U.S. all the more culpable in the inevitable bloodbaths which will ensue and which will greatly infuriate millions of Muslims who already detest both the U.S. and Israel. More immediately the move positions the Israelis to have something of a toehold from which to continue to fundamentally drive policy in Israel with the Americans providing plenty of assistance and further resources for training (mostly radical jihadists). 

There is a reason why Bill Kristol and several other prominent neocons are spending most of their time arguing on behalf of--believe it or not--regime change in China at some point over the next twenty years, with Kristol being the most vocal. They have no reason to complain about Trump's Middle East policies.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The reason why Israelis were given Israel was the same reason as why Muslims were giving Pakistan. 

The Brits were consolidating their wealth and giving away whatever they could to whomever wanted it without any regard for anything except how much they could steal from their colonies in one last push. 

Israel did not end up with the Jews because it's the Jews' holy land ... maybe when they were bartering for land, someone proposed the idea, but at the time that land was fully abandoned by the Muslims. In fact, Jeruselam has had no significance for Muslims since Schizo Mo was told by this inner voice inside his head that Muslims should rub their noses in the dirt with their asses in the air towards the Ka'aba, and not Jeruselam. 

Israelis offered asylum and citizenship to all remaining villagers in that region, Syria and Jordan also did the same. The Muslims banded together against the creation of Israel (but notice how no attention was paid to any minorities in all the Muslim countries that were butchered and subjugated by the Muslims when the Brits gave them huge swaths of land as well) and then spent decades creating and funding terrorism in the region - including launching a couple of military wars against Israel. 

Imagine if India had decided that it wanted Pakistan back and refused to acknowledge whatever treaties were made at the time - frequently launching constant terrorist attacks inside Pakistan and trying to subvert the idea that "Muslims shouldn't have a separate ethno-state"? And then everyone else created all kinds of anti-Muslim conspiracies around it etc etc.

A lot of what happens in the world is an outcome of poorly thought out decisions, but also based on the reactions to those decisions by other groups. Making the Israeli and middle-eastern issue over oil is an oversimplification and completely ignores the religious nature of the fight against Jews by the Muslims. 

Israel is expanding now because in the past when they gave the land back, that land was used to fund terrorism. Also, someone answer me what Israelis are going to do, or supposed to do when terrorists use children's schools and hospitals as ammunition/bomb warehouses and use children as body shields ... if you ignore them, they'll continue to grow in number. 

Lastly, given how easily the world gets swayed by Anti-Jew rhetoric, where are they supposed to go?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Hey MAGA folks, how you feeling about all that winning at General Motors today? Still happy about all those jobs coming back?


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Today, with the successful landing of Insight on Mars, I wonder if Trump will go even further in his support for the space program? As much as people derided him for his "Space Force" concept, it showed an enthusiasm for America's forays into other worlds. Hopefully this great success will rejuvinate national enthusiasm in America for space exploration. Figures like Elon Musk are already talking about humans going to Mars within seven years, and if Trump could seize upon this moment, he could really help NASA achieve some great things.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> Two years after being elected and only two months shy of the two-year anniversary of his inauguration, at this point in time the definitive verdict is in as far as Trump's handling of the Middle East. There is a reason why Mitt Romney has been saying for about a year now that Trump's presidency is not especially different from what a Romney presidency would be, and why he was enthusiastically supportive of Trump, especially in the Middle East.
> 
> The Trump administration altered the U.S.'s long-established policy stance regarding Syria's strategic Golan Heights. The Golan Heights allow for the headwaters of the Jordan River and about a fifth of Israel's water from the north. The Israelis have and will continue to utilize Golan as a logical base of operations for firing artillery into Syria. The Israelis--wisely, on this score--continuously monitor all troop activity and spy on various factions brutalizing one another, some of whom the Israelis clandestinely and not-so-clandestinely support with aid and training.
> 
> ...


Can you imagine the headlines if Trump did something that was anti-Israel in any way? :lol The same people who cried that moving the embassy would trigger WW3 would be digging up every Trump supporter with controversial views-about-Jews to make him look like an anti-Semite, as they tried at various points throughout his candidacy, despite his Jewish son-in-law, daughter, and grandchildren.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> Today, with the successful landing of Insight on Mars, I wonder if Trump will go even further in his support for the space program? As much as people derided him for his "Space Force" concept, it showed an enthusiasm for America's forays into other worlds. Hopefully this great success will rejuvinate national enthusiasm in America for space exploration. Figures like Elon Musk are already talking about humans going to Mars within seven years, and if Trump could seize upon this moment, he could really help NASA achieve some great things.


I'm a science nerd, so I'm relieved that Trump hasn't managed to completely fuck up NASA, but I highly doubt all those people having their factories shut down are going to give a fuck. _I'm sorry you all lost your jobs but hey, we landed a robot on Mars!_ Yeah, that'll go over real well in the Rust Belt.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067142820388052993
Don't worry about GM news folks, we have a fake crisis here to talk about.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067142820388052993
> Don't worry about GM news folks, we have a fake crisis here to talk about.


Oh look Trump shows off his fascism even more


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look Trump shows off his fascism even more


Democrats should agree with Trump on this and then push for why stop at cable news? Do the same for insurance and push for Medicare for all. :lol


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

Hey guys, my first time outside the wrestling section of the forum.

I’m from Australia. Basically, everyone here knows nothing about Trump accept that he’s a racist and anyone who supports him is a racist with low IQ.

So I was surprised to discover that the more I paid attention to American politics, the more I realise it’s generally the average liberal who seems to exhibit signs of simple, condescending, and uncritical low resolution analysis of the world. And 90% of what is said about Trump is a lie. 

When I observe forums around the world on non-political frame, they invariably laugh at you guys for how ridiculously PC some of you are. They think you’re crazy. 

But once you mention politics, they revert to the “racist Trump supporters” mantra.

So I’ve come to the conclusion that Trump won they election for his anti-PC attitude. The liberals are trying to increase race consciousness in the population (increase PC norms) because that environment strongly favours them winning votes from the white majority virtue signalling to society on behalf of the minority (they already get the minority votes). 

And basically, due to democracy being democracy, the people of America saw through it and therefore power pivoted away from the liberals. Thus, Trump’s reign says more about the value of democracy than anything else.

How is my casual analysis from a distance?
Are there any major holes?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IronMan8 said:


> Hey guys, my first time outside the wrestling section of the forum.
> 
> I’m from Australia.
> 
> ...



Trump and Hillary were the two least popular presidential candidates of all time. If Trump would have faced Bernie he would have gotten destroyed. it had more to do with Hillary acting like she was entitled and Bernie supporters not voting for him out of spite than the stuff you mentioned. Sure Trump got his racist supporters to vote for him by being openly racist, but the PC had nothing to do with it, since most of the country is against Trump and his racist views. trump also pretended he was a populist during the primary which was BS. 

But you are right somewhat since Hillary focused more on why Trump is bad instead of focusing on what she stood for, which Bernie would have done. 

And no, 90% what is said about Trump is not a lie. It's pretty much all true. No one lies more than Trump. And that is a fact

The country is way more liberal than conservative.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I'm a science nerd, so I'm relieved that Trump hasn't managed to completely fuck up NASA, but I highly doubt all those people having their factories shut down are going to give a fuck. _I'm sorry you all lost your jobs but hey, we landed a robot on Mars!_ Yeah, that'll go over real well in the Rust Belt.


I suppose it would be little consolation, wouldn't it?
Still, just once it would be nice to see a little optimism for our species, and a real desire to make history and take us to the next stage in our evolution - which surely must be the colonisation of other worlds.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Hey MAGA folks, how you feeling about all that winning at General Motors today? Still happy about all those jobs coming back?


Trump can't keep winning when it comes to farms in the upper midwest as well. Though the was going to help them.


https://apnews.com/70498f1fe7af463284c3706b65032cf6

Farm bankruptcies on the rise in Upper Midwest

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The number of farms filing for bankruptcy is increasing across the Upper Midwest, following low prices for corn, soybeans, milk and beef, according to a new analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

*The analysis found that 84 farms filed for bankruptcy in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana in the 12 months that ended in June. That’s more than double the number over the same period in 2013 and 2014.
*
“Current price levels and the trajectory of the current trends suggest that this trend has not yet seen a peak,” said Ron Wirtz, an analyst at the Minneapolistheed.

he increase in Chapter 12 filings reflect low prices for corn, soybeans, milk and beef, The Star Tribune reported. The situation has gotten worse for farmers since June because of the retaliatory tariffs that have closed the Chinese market for soybeans and held back exports of milk and beef. Chapter 12 bankruptcy allows for repayment of debt over three years.

“Dairy farmers are having the most problems right now,” said Mark Miedtke, the president of Citizens State Bank in Hayfield. “Grain farmers have had low prices for the past three years but high yields have helped them through. We’re just waiting for a turnaround. We’re waiting for the tariff problem to go away.”

Miedtke said the underlying problem began before the trade issues, with farmers being too efficient for their financial good and demand not keeping pace with the production.

“The picture could start changing this spring,” Miedtke said. “We do what we can to try to work with farmers.”

___

Information from: Star Tribune, http://www.startribune.com


https://www.bizjournals.com/twincit...ankruptcies-take-root-at-minnesota-farms.html

Bankruptcies take root at Minnesota farms


By Mark Reilly – Managing Editor, Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal
11 hours ago
The number of farm bankruptcies has doubled in Minnesota and other north-central states over the past four years, and experts fear the trend will get worse as farmers cope with the fallout from the Trump Administration's trade war with China.

The Star Tribune reports on the results of a recent survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which found that 84 farms had filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy (a type of bankruptcy favored by farmers) in the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana in the 12 months ended in June. In Minnesota, the number was 20.

In a similar 12-month period in 2013-2014, just 8 Minnesota farms had a Chapter 12 filing; the increase was similar in the region as a whole.

RELATED: A $12 billion program to help farmers stung by Trump’s trade war has aided few

What's more, bankers say more farms are falling behind on payments, meaning more bankruptcies could be coming. And some farmers are just getting out of the business; the number of licensed dairy farms in Wisconsin has dropped by 13 percent since 2016.

Some of the problems predate the U.S.-China trade war. Demand for products like corn and soybeans haven't kept pace with the gains in production that farms have been making. But the soybean market has taken a big hit this year as China (once the United States' biggest soybean buyer) closed off its markets in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese raw materials.

Their soybeans piling up, farmers hope trade war ends before beans rot
Soybeans in temporary storage at the Maple River Grain & Agronomy terminal in Casselton, N.D., Oct. 28, 2018. North Dakota’s soybean crops are flourishing. But China has stopped buying. (Dan Koeck/The New York Times)
Soybeans in temporary storage at the Maple River Grain & Agronomy terminal in Casselton, N.D., Oct. 28, 2018. North Dakota’s soybean crops are flourishing. But China has stopped buying. (Dan Koeck/The New York Times)


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IronMan8 said:


> Hey guys, my first time outside the wrestling section of the forum.
> 
> I’m from Australia. Basically, everyone here knows nothing about Trump accept that he’s a racist and anyone who supports him is a racist with low IQ.
> 
> ...


You've probably gotten that impression from paying attention to the more mainstream narratives. You're not entirely wrong about it either. A lot of the criticisms of the Trump administration and the portrayal of his supporters from the standard liberal sources are often bullshit.

Believe me when I tell you though, there are plenty of accurate reasons to criticize Trump without the need to make things up. The reason you don't hear it from Democrats is because they mostly support what's going on and the reason you don't hear it from your basic liberal is because they are too brainwashed by mainstream media propaganda to really know what's going on in the world.

The two major holes in your conclusion are 1) that Trump won because he was anti-PC; he won because the status quo is badly broken and he was running against someone a large portion of the country, left and right, holds a seething hatred for, and 2) your belief that the USA has anything even remotely resembling a democracy.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



IronMan8 said:


> Hey guys, my first time outside the wrestling section of the forum.
> 
> I’m from Australia. Basically, everyone here knows nothing about Trump accept that he’s a racist and anyone who supports him is a racist with low IQ.
> 
> ...


Hey mate, always good to see a fellow Aussie on here, I too am a proud Australian.

I respect your opinion but firstly I would take up with you your point about the 90% of criticism towards Trump being lies. Was that just over the top hyperbole or are you happy with that figure? From Trump's own mouth he tells falsehoods all the time which can be easily fact checked and proven wrong, and these can be easily looked up. Whether you call that outright lies or plain ignorance is up to you.

But I would say with outright conscious lies a generous figure would be more like 50/50. Again a big chunk of them is Trump completely flip flopping on statements that have a different answer to what he said two weeks ago.

Moving on I appreciate your analysis of the liberal mindset and tendencies. I'm interested to know your take on the opposite which I suppose we would call conservatives?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Hey mate, always good to see a fellow Aussie on here, I too am a proud Australian.
> 
> I respect your opinion but firstly I would take up with you your point about the 90% of criticism towards Trump being lies. Was that just over the top hyperbole or are you happy with that figure? From Trump's own mouth he tells falsehoods all the time which can be easily fact checked and proven wrong, and these can be easily looked up. Whether you call that outright lies or plain ignorance is up to you.
> *
> ...


its way more than 50/50 for what Trump says that are lies. Trump lies an average of 9 times per day

its more like 80% lies to 20% half-truths/truths

https://www.businesstoday.in/curren...ump-lied-in-about-two-years/story/293087.html

in 640 days he has lied 6,420 times


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yup. America is a Corporate Social Welfare State


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> its way more than 50/50 for what Trump says that are lies. Trump lies an average of 9 times per day
> 
> its more like 80% lies to 20% half-truths/truths
> 
> ...


I was speaking to my fellow Aussie. We have a unique language you wouldn't understand.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> I was speaking to my fellow Aussie. We have a unique language you wouldn't understand.


Oh right you don't want to deal in facts, just made up numbers. Got it


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> Yup. America is a Corporate Social Welfare State


Memes are not always the best source of information but there is a lot of truth in this one.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The times we live in just keep getting weirder and weirder, I can't believe I just saw a video of Tucker Carlson interviewing Angela Nagle on fucking Fox News :lmao

The segment itself ain't worth much, as Nagle's point - that the liberal talking point of facilitating immigration, while coming from a good place, ultimately ends up serving the purpose of allowing employers to keep on ruthlessly exploiting migrant workers, and draining the possibilities for both American workers and those migrant workers themselves to actually focus on building proper labour movements in all countries involved - is much better explained in this very interesting article of hers:

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders


TL;DR: Liberals are the useful idiots of capitalists when they advocate for open borders.

The problem is capitalism itself. Capitalists will always be in search of paying lower wages to increase their profits. If they can't bring in cheap labor to do the jobs, they will ship the jobs to the cheap labor. Their loyalty is not to any country, only to how much money they can make for themselves.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

IronMan8 said:


> And basically, due to democracy being democracy, the people of America saw through it and therefore power pivoted away from the liberals. Thus, Trump’s reign says more about the value of democracy than anything else.
> 
> How is my casual analysis from a distance?
> Are there any major holes?


It didn't have much do with PC at all, you had Hillary as one of the worst candidates possible against a guy running on anti-establishment and draining the swamp rhetoric. 

Sadly Trump came in to power and basically pushed the establishment even further in to the Whitehouse, escalated wars around the world and increased the national debt to fund the military. He's also outsourced more jobs than Obama, failed to build the wall or repeal Obama care, constantly and consistently lied and fundamentally just made the US a bit of an embarrassment.

Objectively, a vast majority of what he says is lies or empty rhetoric.

The midterms aren't a disaster for Trump, but the conservatives are far less jovial now than on election day when it looked closer, the democrats took a record margin in terms of total votes and took 40 seats. It was not the blue wave but it was definitely more favorable for the dems.

I think the word democracy is a complete misnomer, let's not use that when taking about American politics.

I don't think most Trump voters are racist and I don't think Trump is a racist at heart, but racists like Trump, which says a lot.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

"trump lies an average of 7 times a day"

:Trump


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> Yup. America is a Corporate Social Welfare State


This is IRL the best thing you've ever posted.


also brb growing hair out like that atm


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Hey MAGA folks, how you feeling about all that winning at General Motors today? Still happy about all those jobs coming back?


Sounds like they could use another federal bailout!

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Martins said:


> The times we live in just keep getting weirder and weirder, I can't believe I just saw a video of Tucker Carlson interviewing Angela Nagle on fucking Fox News :lmao
> 
> The segment itself ain't worth much, as Nagle's point - that the liberal talking point of facilitating immigration, while coming from a good place, ultimately ends up serving the purpose of allowing employers to keep on ruthlessly exploiting migrant workers, and draining the possibilities for both American workers and those migrant workers themselves to actually focus on building proper labour movements in all countries involved - is much better explained in this very interesting article of hers:
> 
> https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders


All open borders does is give the Politicians disposable voters and workers. It's why nobody will do anything about immigration. Both sides benefit from it, even the most "progressive" of companies replace American workers with workers they can pay next to nothing and replace. 

Besides helping Politicians and Corporations it helps the wealthy stay wealthy. They get to keep more while everyone else fights over for the scraps. During the depression and the expansion of the West in America you had people killing each other for jobs, people would get into riots over it. Sure lots of people lost money but those who kept their money got insanely rich.

Open borders, Globalization and recessions are great for the Elites and the Corporations, even goofy people are starting to realize how bad it is. Sadly it's much too late.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> TL;DR: Liberals are the useful idiots of capitalists when they advocate for open borders.
> 
> The problem is capitalism itself. Capitalists will always be in search of paying lower wages to increase their profits. If they can't bring in cheap labor to do the jobs, they will ship the jobs to the cheap labor. *Their loyalty is not to any country, only to how much money they can make for themselves*.


Interesting because I agree with the bolded part. but not that capitalism is a problem.

I did a philosophy paper in college, and the subject was one i agreed with: Why everything we do in life is self serving.

Do you really believe that another system wouldn't cause the same thirst for total hoarding of resources?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I don't think most Trump voters are racist and I don't think Trump is a racist at heart, but racists like Trump, which says a lot.


Gillum may have failed to win the election, but he definitely gave us the quote of the year. Best statement about some Republican supporters ever.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Do you really believe that another system wouldn't cause the same thirst for total hoarding of resources?


I have my opinions about where we should go from here but I don't know if it will work. No one knows until we try. What I do know with absolute certainty is that what we're doing now is unsustainable, both economically and ecologically. Anyone who thinks infinite growth on a planet of finite resources will work out in the long run is not very good at math. Even if technology wasn't going to render most forms of human labor obsolete, as long as profit is the primary goal of those running society instead of a future habitable planet, what kind of economy we have will be rendered a moot point by the lack of a human species.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> > I have my opinions about where we should go from here but I don't know if it will work. No one knows until we try.
> 
> 
> I am interested in hearing them, if you don't mind. No such thing as a bad idea.
> ...


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am interested in hearing them, if you don't mind. No such thing as a bad idea.


That's a much longer conversation but the gist of it is decentralization of power. Concentrated power will always be dangerous, be it in the hands of the state or a private entity.



> You have to pardon my ignorance... but is anyone really saying that? I look at Elon Musk as the epitome of the "crazy technology guy" and he seems to want to use more natural resources than anyone. Admittedly, I could be dead wrong on this, so i will try to see what i can do in regards to research later.


Actions speak louder than words. Maybe they're not saying it with their words but they are with their actions.



> But that goes back to what i was saying.
> 
> Profit, and the ability to get as much for yourself and your family, is literally the goal ALL THE TIME. That doesn't change because of technology, that won't change no matter if capitalism or socialism, or any other economic structure is put in.
> 
> I guess i may have worded my question wrong,or you could be giving me the answer and I am missing it, but I don't see how capitalism is the driving force that changes how humans are wired. there are places that don't have capitalism where people still do what they can to survive on their own, no matter what.


Not everyone is a sociopath. The desire to get as much for you and yours and fuck everyone else who can't get enough for themselves is not everyone's driving motivation. Some people don't actually feel the need to hoard resources for themselves while leaving too little for everyone else.

That point aside, I'll provide you with an example of how capitalism is destroying the planet. Capitalism as an economic system is designed to provide the most rewards to the ones who generate the most profit. Everything else is secondary to that. That creates a conflict between what is best for the planet and society and what is going to earn the most profit. We've known about climate change for something like 40 years. The reason we have not done anything about it is because there is too much profit in the fossil fuel industry. That's why the USA has put so much effort into wars in the Middle East. The military itself is a major contributor to pollution and they're doing it to control resources that cause even more pollution. Oh yeah, and millions of people have been killed in the pursuit of something that will ultimately destroy our habitat.

If profit were not the primary deciding factor in energy production, we'd have been working on and developing new energy technologies for the past 40 years and we'd probably be more or less off fossil fuels at this point. Our environment would be more healthy and there would be a few less dead people in the world.

The problem with capitalism is that it concentrates power into the hands of an ever increasingly small group of people who will choose profit over what is best for everyone else. An economic system without that concentrated power, one with a more democratic system that allows for society to decide it's fate for itself instead of having those decisions made by profit seekers, might end up with a better outcome for all.

Or, humanity could be hardwired to self destruct. We'll be finding out sooner rather than later.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> That's a much longer conversation but the gist of it is decentralization of power. Concentrated power will always be dangerous, be it in the hands of the state or a private entity.


Ok, I can agree with this... so we will move on.



> Actions speak louder than words. Maybe they're not saying it with their words but they are with their actions.


I am going to put that part of the convo on hold until I find out more about Musk, and other guys, like I said... i don't know enough to have a dog in the fight. But i appreciate the feedback



> Not everyone is a sociopath. The desire to get as much for you and yours and fuck everyone else who can't get enough for themselves is not everyone's driving motivation. Some people don't actually feel the need to hoard resources for themselves while leaving too little for everyone else.


this is the fun part. I don't think that is being a sociopath

I do think that you have to think of yourself first before living a healthy life. We have to think of ourselves first, that doesn't even mean "fuck everyone else"

that could mean you go to the soup kitchen on thanksgiving day because the feeling of euphoria you get for being congratulated, it could mean you help an old lady across the street, because of the warmth of memories you get from the memories of someone in your life. 

I get where you are coming from when it comes to capitalism, though, i don't agree, but I get it. 



> That point aside, I'll provide you with an example of how capitalism is destroying the planet. Capitalism as an economic system is designed to provide the most rewards to the ones who generate the most profit. Everything else is secondary to that. That creates a conflict between what is best for the planet and society and what is going to earn the most profit. We've known about climate change for something like 40 years. The reason we have not done anything about it is because there is too much profit in the fossil fuel industry. That's why the USA has put so much effort into wars in the Middle East. The military itself is a major contributor to pollution and they're doing it to control resources that cause even more pollution. Oh yeah, and millions of people have been killed in the pursuit of something that will ultimately destroy our habitat.
> 
> If profit were not the primary deciding factor in energy production, we'd have been working on and developing new energy technologies for the past 40 years and we'd probably be more or less off fossil fuels at this point. Our environment would be more healthy and there would be a few less dead people in the world.
> 
> ...


So you are of the ilk that capitalism is the driving force for more climate change? Ok, I can see that.

While I am going to 100% avoid the climate change argument, because honestly, it bores me to tears. I will say that I appreciate your insight on it. 

I don't foresee any of this happening as soon as you do (I am sure) but pone way or another, I think things will come to a head.

Good discussion man, i am excited for the next one.

Edit: I agree with you about the more energy efficient technology, I hope that the next generation finds a way of using more natural resources.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067439366383923202

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067509659530133505
Reminder, the author of today's article in the Guardian is the same Luke Harding who got embarrassed by Aaron Mate when he couldn't back up any of the claims in his book Collusion; one of the more hilarious claims being that Russia had been grooming Trump as an a presidential puppet since 1987. His book was just as fact free as today's article. And as Greenwald pointed out, if Manafort visited Assange all those times, it would be the most easily proven thing in the world, considering how much surveillance is in London and specifically on the Ecuadorian embassy. Russiagate has been going on for over 2 years. If there was video of Manafort visiting Assange, we most likely would have seen it by now.






The article from today also states factually that Russia hacked the DNC, which also has never been proven and has been thoroughly disputed by VIPS and Bill Binney. The links in the article for both the claims that Russia hacked the DNC and the claim that Russia then gave the emails to Wikileaks go to the same Vox article about the indictments, which again is not any sort of proof.






The part where I literally LOL'd was when it referenced the Steele Dossier. I thought that thing had been proven so massively full of shit that even the hardcore Russiagaters weren't referencing it anymore.

Guys, really, I'm starting to feel sorry for the rubes who continue to fall for these fact free "bombshells".


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Interesting because I agree with the bolded part. but not that capitalism is a problem.
> 
> I did a philosophy paper in college, and the subject was one i agreed with: Why everything we do in life is self serving.
> 
> Do you really believe that another system wouldn't cause the same thirst for total hoarding of resources?


I don't think Capitalism is evil, it exploits greed to get things done. The issue is when it becomes corrupted and the power centralized to people who have no interest in real innovation or economic or technological progress that betters us as a Society. Some companies are a plus to society, some are leeches and will do anything to increase profit. 

If you don't mind a look at History, I think the best example of Political and Economic corruption is with the last days of the Eastern Roman Empire. It was a Military, Political and Economic giant, had the corners on much of the trade, was a juggernaut of a power. Near the end they couldn't afford to pay their own troops or for advancement. They weren't poor, the money simply flowed into a few people's pockets and Politicians and Merchants took money from *everyone*. They basically fucked themselves with greed.

This is pretty much happening with the US right now, Politicians are bought and paid for by Corporations and Foreign powers. Corporations fucking over their own country and people, the Environment taking hits and the introduction of wage slavery. The US won't be invaded with an actual army but an Economic war will be just as devastating and our Corporate and Political masters are ready and willing to sell us out!


Another issue with Capitalism/Globalism is that it's stagnated the developing world. Unfettered "Altruism" has seen places like Africa have massive population booms in areas that cannot sustain the population. That's good though, with the chaos from population explosion comes profit! Now the West/China/Russia can use the population to strip their own resources and never stand on it's own without that foreign aid in the form of food and medicine. Those people have no choice now, it's serve or die. 

The picks of the litter get to come to the West and be scientists and doctors! The second picks get to be underpaid cogs in the Corporate machine.. The third picks get to be serfs and the rest? They get to wallow in their own country endlessly breeding to produce workers for Nations and Corporations too greedy for profits!

Corrupted Capitalism has turned developing Nations into breeding farms, their host nations as nothing more than something to leech off of until they don't have to anymore. It's why Corporations are so desperate to make China the next big thing. 

Sorry, very long! :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067587589539069953:heston


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Not everyone is a sociopath. The desire to get as much for you and yours and fuck everyone else who can't get enough for themselves is not everyone's driving motivation. Some people don't actually feel the need to hoard resources for themselves while leaving too little for everyone else.


Sorry I call bullshit on this. When the chips are down people put themselves, their families and their kin above everyone else. You know this.

We all get one life, it's not up for you to decide how I should live it. If I wanna ball the fuck out and provide for me and my future generations then let me live my life. I've not stolen from anyone, I've earned my money through hard work and mutual and honest transactions.

Your goal SHOULD be to make life as best for you and your family.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Sorry I call bullshit on this. When the chips are down people put themselves, their families and their kin above everyone else. You know this.


As well you should. That's not the topic at hand.



> We all get one life, it's not up for you to decide how I should live it.


Don't much give a fuck how you live your personal life nor do I have any desire to decide how you live it. That's your own business, buddy.



> If I wanna ball the fuck out and provide for me and my future generations then let me live my life. I've not stolen from anyone, I've earned my money through hard work and mutual and honest transactions.


If life were that simple, I would have no objection. That has no basis in the reality we live in though.

Over here in the land of reality, the brothers and sisters of the Walton clan own more than the bottom 40% of the country, wealth they inherited, didn't earn through their own hard work and mutual and honest transactions, and they do not pay their workers enough to survive.

You and I might have very different definitions of what stealing is and it might just have something to do with some people taking just a wee bit more than their fair share.



> Your goal SHOULD be to make life as best for you and your family.


Thanks, Captain Obvious. I never coulda figured that one out on my own. Here I was thinking me and my family should all live shitty lives so the Waltons of the world can buy their third yacht. Thanks for straightening me out.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Over here in the land of reality, the brothers and sisters of the Walton clan own more than the bottom 40% of the country, wealth they inherited, didn't earn through their own hard work and mutual and honest transactions, and they do not pay their workers enough to survive.
> 
> You and I might have very different definitions of what stealing is and it might just have something to do with some people taking just a wee bit more than their fair share.


Their family earned it so they are entitled to it. 

Create Wal-Mart and you too could have what they have.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Everyone is self-serving, even the different cells in your own body are self-serving and fight against each other for continuance.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Can't wait until I have a yacht. :mark: I think I'll name it _My Fair Share_.

Not sure what I'll name my second yacht tho.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://apnews.com/dc435c2047fe4b10a91f33003fa1cd27



> *The Latest: US nixed FBI checks for teen migrant camp staff*
> 
> TORNILLO, Texas (AP) — The Latest on a desert detention camp for migrant children (all times local):
> 
> ...


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067623816921272325
LMAO :laugh:

His Twitter is just so good at times.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Their family earned it so they are entitled to it.
> 
> Create Wal-Mart and you too could have what they have.


So then I suppose you have no problem with them using slave labor in third world hell holes to produce their products. Laws against that sort of thing would go against your stated ideology. I mean, what right do we have as a society to tell them otherwise? They paid those people 10 cents an hour fair and square. And then when the Wal-Mart employees do not make enough money to survive and we the taxpayers have to foot that corporate subsidy bill, the Waltons earned that fair and square too because they earned enough money to buy the politicians to write the laws in their favor. We have no right to tell them they can't buy the government with their money. They have the right to live their lives as they see fit to do the best by their family. I'm just following your own logic here.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The idea that taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart was the claim in a report in 2014 by Americans For Tax Fairness. It's been thoroughly debunked numerous times but lefties keep bringing up the same report as if it has any resemblance to reality. It doesn't. Of course, you would only need to have some basic economic sense to quickly realize why the claim is bullshit (what would be happening if Walmart didn't employ anyone who took welfare?), but some of us don't have that. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...s-and-7-8-billion-in-tax-breaks/#1b3ff1747a9c

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...and-every-year-its-still-untrue/#1ff57bb241fe

https://www.investors.com/politics/...yers-are-not-subsidizing-wal-marts-low-wages/

The Waltons are crony capitalists though, of that there's no doubt. The problem isn't capitalism itself though, it's that we have a government that is able to intervene in the market to such a degree that it becomes almost necessary to pay them off or use them against one's competitors before they use the government against you.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> The idea that taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart was the claim in a report in 2014 by Americans For Tax Fairness. It's been thoroughly debunked numerous times but lefties keep bringing up the same report as if it has any resemblance to reality. It doesn't. Of course, you would only need to have some basic economic sense to quickly realize why the claim is bullshit (what would be happening if Walmart didn't employ anyone who took welfare?), but some of us don't have that.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...s-and-7-8-billion-in-tax-breaks/#1b3ff1747a9c
> 
> ...


You need to work on your link skills, bro. Every one of those links openly admits we subsidize Wal-Mart's low wages. Their only argument is that we don't subsidize them as much as some report said we do and that we shouldn't call a subsidy a subsidy. GTFO with that nonsense. :lol



> The Waltons are crony capitalists though, of that there's no doubt. The problem isn't capitalism itself though, it's that we have a government that is able to intervene in the market to such a degree that it becomes almost necessary to pay them off or use them against one's competitors before they use the government against you.


Your argument here is that capitalists shouldn't be capitalists. It's hilarious every time you make the argument that it's totally cool to allow capitalists to amass enough power to control the government but at the same time criticize crony capitalism. That's like throwing a necrophiliac onto a pile of corpses and expecting him not to fuck them.

You really crack me up sometimes.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> You need to work on your link skills, bro. Every one of those links openly admits we subsidize Wal-Mart's low wages. Their only argument is that we don't subsidize them as much as some report said we do and that we shouldn't call a subsidy a subsidy. GTFO with that nonsense. :lol


No you just are failing to understand why it's not a subsidy for Walmart. The money ain't going to Walmart. It's going to their employees. The same (or more, since they'd be unemployed) amount of money would be going to these people even if they didn't work at Walmart. Walmart isn't a part of the equation at all. Calling it a subsidy for Walmart is retarded and completely ignorant of the facts.

The argument that we're picking up Walmart's slack implies Walmart has some obligation to cover all of a person's financial needs because they agreed to bag groceries for them. The fact is if Walmart had to pay that much to their low level employees, they'd automate those jobs even quicker and raise their hiring standards so that a lot of the people we're talking about wouldn't even be able to get jobs at Walmart. 



> Your argument here is that capitalists shouldn't be capitalists. It's hilarious every time you make the argument that it's totally cool to allow capitalists to amass enough power to control the government but at the same time criticize crony capitalism. That's like throwing a necrophiliac onto a pile of corpses and expecting him not to fuck them.
> 
> You really crack me up sometimes.


That's not what I said at all. I guess it's easier to argue against positions you hallucinated than what someone actually said though. Kind of like how you twisted the meaning of the articles I linked and completely ignored all of the facts which utterly destroyed your lie that we are subsidizing Walmart because the government gives money to poor people, who would be getting even more welfare if they didn't have a job at Walmart. :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> No you just are failing to understand why it's not a subsidy for Walmart. The money ain't going to Walmart. It's going to their employees.


That's what corporate welfare is, genius. fpalm

Corporate welfare is a term that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor.

It's not my fault if you reject the basic definition of terms.



> The fact is if Walmart had to pay that much to their low level employees, they'd automate those jobs even quicker and raise their hiring standards so that a lot of the people we're talking about wouldn't even be able to get jobs at Walmart.


Fantastic! I consider this good news indeed!

Nothing is going to stop the jobs from disappearing. The sooner all the jobs get automated out of existence and capitalism collapses, the better off we'll all be.



> That's not what I said at all. I guess it's easier to argue against positions you hallucinated than what someone actually said though. Kind of like how you twisted the meaning of the articles I linked and completely ignored all of the facts which utterly destroyed your lie that we are subsidizing Walmart because the government gives money to poor people, who would be getting even more welfare if they didn't have a job at Walmart. :lol


The only thing I've done is laid bare your delusions about massive wealth and power in the hands of capitalists who will not use it to manipulate government into serving their interests.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> So then I suppose you have no problem with them using slave labor in third world hell holes to produce their products. Laws against that sort of thing would go against your stated ideology. I mean, what right do we have as a society to tell them otherwise? They paid those people 10 cents an hour fair and square. And then when the Wal-Mart employees do not make enough money to survive and we the taxpayers have to foot that corporate subsidy bill, the Waltons earned that fair and square too because they earned enough money to buy the politicians to write the laws in their favor. We have no right to tell them they can't buy the government with their money. They have the right to live their lives as they see fit to do the best by their family. I'm just following your own logic here.


Of course I am against corporate welfare and corrupt crony capitalism, but that is not what I thought we were debating. 

In principle there is nothing wrong with the children of billionaires inheriting billions. Their families earned it and decided to leave it to them, so it's theirs. There's nothing 'unfair' about that in practice.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Of course I am against corporate welfare and corrupt crony capitalism, but that is not what I thought we were debating.


Ah yes but that's the problem. Some libertarians are rabidly anti-regulation when it comes to economic laws. They give a spiel similar to yours, my life, my money, I earned it, I can do what I want with it, etc., but then they claim to oppose crony capitalism as well. Except, without some kind of laws governing this sort of thing, there is nothing to stop capitalists who gain massive amounts of wealth and power from using it to manipulate government into serving their needs.

It's relevant to what we were debating because someone is *always* going to be making economic decisions for your life in some way. It's never going to be as simple as you laid it out; the I earned it fair n square argument. The only two choices are to have those decisions made by private interests or public interests but you're never going to be able to live in a bubble and be the sole purveyor of economic decisions for your life.



> In principle there is nothing wrong with the children of billionaires inheriting billions. Their families earned it and decided to leave it to them, so it's theirs. There's nothing 'unfair' about that in practice.


In theory, there is nothing wrong with parents leaving their earnings to their children. In practice, when you have extreme amounts of wealth inequality, what you end up with is generational aristocracy. If you know the history of hereditary rule passed down by kings and queens, you know that doesn't end well. Trump may be a good con man but he is not very intelligent. If he wasn't born into money, he would have spent his life as a used car salesman. Even if some people amass lots of wealth and power by being good leaders, there's nothing that guarantees their idiot children will be. I dunno about you but I don't want to be ruled by the Paris Hiltons of the world.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Ah yes but that's the problem. Some libertarians are rabidly anti-regulation when it comes to economic laws. They give a spiel similar to yours, my life, my money, I earned it, I can do what I want with it, etc., but then they claim to oppose crony capitalism as well. Except, without some kind of laws governing this sort of thing, *there is nothing to stop capitalists who gain massive amounts of wealth and power from using it to manipulate government into serving their needs.*


What do you propose?




Tater said:


> In theory, there is nothing wrong with parents leaving their earnings to their children. In practice, when you have extreme amounts of wealth inequality, what you end up with is generational aristocracy. If you know the history of hereditary rule passed down by kings and queens, you know that doesn't end well. *Trump may be a good con man but he is not very intelligent. If he wasn't born into money, he would have spent his life as a used car salesman.*Even if some people amass lots of wealth and power by being good leaders, there's nothing that guarantees their idiot children will be. I dunno about you but I don't want to be ruled by the Paris Hiltons of the world.


Whatever you think about Trump you can't deny he's a hustler. Even if he were a car salesman he would have no doubt been a successful one.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I dunno about you but I don't want to be ruled by the Paris Hiltons of the world.


Given how many people suck off Hollywood, far too many people already are.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> What do you propose?


I propose we stop repeating the same mistakes of the past and start decentralizing when the next collapse happens instead of continuing to prop up the same broken system that got us into this mess in the first place.



> Whatever you think about Trump you can't deny he's a hustler. Even if he were a car salesman he would have no doubt been a successful one.


I don't deny this. He'd have been a successful small time hustler somewhere. He wouldn't, however, be the President, had he not been born into money.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Don't care if you think it's man made or not but this is the most powerful man in the planet taking this childish prattle about one of the most important subjects.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Trump may be a good con man but he is not very intelligent. *If he wasn't born into money, he would have spent his life as a used car salesman.*


Nice fan fiction. :hazard2


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Don't care if you think it's man made or not but this is the most powerful man in the planet taking this childish prattle about one of the most important subjects.


Sometimes I wonder just how much of that is stupidity, ignorance and/or paid to have that opinion.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Ah yes but that's the problem. Some libertarians are rabidly anti-regulation when it comes to economic laws. They give a spiel similar to yours, my life, my money, I earned it, I can do what I want with it, etc., but then they claim to oppose crony capitalism as well. Except, without some kind of laws governing this sort of thing, there is nothing to stop capitalists who gain massive amounts of wealth and power from using it to manipulate government into serving their needs.


I know i talked about centralization of funds. But I have no problems with crony capitalism.

I love the fact that people can be bought for money, does it affect how i live? Absolutely... and it may be the downfall, but I have a morbid cynical sense of how humans are. 

I believe in my heart of hearts in order to get to the top, you have to step on some good people to get there, maybe some bad people too, but if you are willing to do what it takes, why shouldn't you spoil yourself.

Power begets power, and ultimately it becomes absolute power,and it corrupts... but sometimes it doesnt.



> It's relevant to what we were debating because someone is *always* going to be making economic decisions for your life in some way. It's never going to be as simple as you laid it out; the I earned it fair n square argument. The only two choices are to have those decisions made by private interests or public interests but you're never going to be able to live in a bubble and be the sole purveyor of economic decisions for your life.


The issue i have is in this vein, walmart is offering something in order to become rich. 

people aren't just going to their store, putting money into a jar and walking away. 

Wal-Mart is notoriously cheap and inexpensive, and can make it so that you get all your shopping done in one place. That is an ingenious idea that helps give people a finite resource we all have and that is time.

They also have had numerous innovations, and other businesses that they run that have done for the greater good.

it would be nice if people didn't make only 10.00 an hour there, but let's be honest, those are low skilled jobs that literally anyone can do. Wal-mart offers a lot of opportunities to people that they wouldnt be able to get anywhere else.

I met a woman who worked at McDonald's since she was 16, I met her in 2001, and her salary was 175k a year. mcDonald's is paying her what she earned, and is taking care of her in a healthy manner.

i met another lady the same day who worked at McDonald's for 10 years and was making $9.50 an hour. Sometimes we make our own beds. 



> In theory, there is nothing wrong with parents leaving their earnings to their children. In practice, when you have extreme amounts of wealth inequality, what you end up with is generational aristocracy. If you know the history of hereditary rule passed down by kings and queens, you know that doesn't end well. Trump may be a good con man but he is not very intelligent. If he wasn't born into money, he would have spent his life as a used car salesman. Even if some people amass lots of wealth and power by being good leaders, there's nothing that guarantees their idiot children will be. I dunno about you but I don't want to be ruled by the Paris Hiltons of the world.


but sometimes it does work.

look at the Kardashians, heck look at Stephanie and Shane McMahon.

Sometimes being born into wealth doesn't mean you can rest on your laurels, and just wait for money to roll in.

Becoming a billionaire is really hard, staying a billionaire (or even a millionaire) is tougher than that. Trump may be a lot of things, but he is good at business, i am sure he has learned enough from the right people to do that.

heck, he promoted himself so well, he is now president of the united States, who would have ever said he could have done that.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> staying a billionaire (or even a millionaire) is tougher than that.


Actually, no it's not. When you have that kind of money, you can simply do nothing and live off the interest.

The rest of your post is too absurd to bother responding to.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I'm sat here imaging the hardships of trying to stay rich with a billion dollars lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> Don't care if you think it's man made or not but this is the most powerful man in the planet taking this childish prattle about one of the most important subjects.









Trump is such an embarrassment. I can't believe anyone thinks Trump is smart


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

Tater said:


> Actually, no it's not. When you have that kind of money, you can simply do nothing and live off the interest.
> 
> The rest of your post is too absurd to bother responding to.


It's cool if you don't want to respond, I am very clear in saying that you and I look at income inequality very differently, and I accept that.

As for this part of the post, this is a load of crap, and I know even you dont believe it

70% of lottery winners go bankrupt within 5 years. It is easy to play with imaginary money and say it is easy to keep it until you realize that everyone wants to take it away from you.

That is just the tip of the iceberg, anything else I type will be sure to go over your head, since you really think interest pays as much as you think it does.

edit: I will also refer you to the article about Ted Turner (a smart billionaire) who lost 8 billion dollars, making what people said was a sound investment that would set him up for life



Draykorinee said:


> I'm sat here imaging the hardships of trying to stay rich with a billion dollars lol.


Here is Ted Turner... he lost 8 billion

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/06/usnews.media


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> It's cool if you don't want to respond, I am very clear in saying that you and I look at income inequality very differently, and I accept that.
> 
> As for this part of the post, this is a load of crap, and I know even you dont believe it
> 
> ...


The bolded part has nothing to do with what he said. The 70% number you mentioned didn't do nothing with the money, so your point is invalid.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> The bolded part has nothing to do with what he said. The 70% number you mentioned didn't do nothing with the money, so your point is invalid.


I apologize, but I am 100% sure this conversation is out of your league, you have shown when it comes to matters of income equality, that you have little to offer in the form of argument or sources.

I appreciate you wanting to chime in, but it is unnecessary at this time, thank you.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I apologize, but I am 100% sure this conversation is out of your league, you have shown when it comes to matters of income equality, that you have little to offer in the form of argument or sources.
> 
> I appreciate you wanting to chime in, but it is unnecessary at this time, thank you.


LOL you are the one who keeps getting things wrong. Your projection is astounding.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Donald Trump would have been successful no matter where he started on the economic ladder. 

You don't parlay millions into billions because of luck. You don't go from becoming a real estate developer to a mogul to a president because of luck.

He obviously wouldn't have become president, but if he was born to a working class person it's not unreasonable to think he still would have found a way to become a millionaire.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL you are the one who keeps getting things wrong. Your projection is astounding.


Ok, you obviously want to be involved, so go ahead... 

What would you like to add to this subject? Anything? Now is your chance... if not, I can move on, it literally doesn't matter to me.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Donald Trump would have been successful no matter where he started on the economic ladder.
> 
> You don't parlay millions into billions because of luck. You don't go from becoming a real estate developer to a mogul to a president because of luck.
> 
> He obviously wouldn't have become president, but if he was born to a working class person it's not unreasonable to think he still would have found a way to become a millionaire.


Trump was not successful LOL

He went bankrupt 6 times and he bankrupted a casino. He got over 400 million from his father. Trump is a huge failure, whose daddys money kept bailing him out


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Donald Trump would have been successful no matter where he started on the economic ladder.
> 
> You don't parlay millions into billions because of luck. You don't go from becoming a real estate developer to a mogul to a president because of luck.
> 
> He obviously wouldn't have become president, but if he was born to a working class person it's not unreasonable to think he still would have found a way to become a millionaire.


80% of millionaires are first generational millionaires

https://www.guidevine.com/newsroom/...generation-millionaires-wasting-time-garbage/

Mark Cuban is a first generation billionaire, worth 3.9 billion dollars, and started selling products door to door at 12 years old.

This idea that these people just woke up in the morning and got lucky is absurd and ludicrous. 

I have a friend who is a millionaire, first generation, lived homeless for 2 years, and people consistently tell him he only did it because he was white.

Most people don't have what it takes to become that rich, and it is not easy, I don't get the idea where people think shit like this happens with any type of ease


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> It's cool if you don't want to respond


If you know Trump's entire business history, you view it objectively and you actually still believe he is a good businessman, then it's not a matter of whether or not I want to respond, but more a matter of I feel like I would waste less time explaining how evolution works to Ken Ham.

Not that I am opposed to wasting time, mind you, but some endeavors are just entirely pointless.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> 80% of millionaires are first generational millionaires
> 
> https://www.guidevine.com/newsroom/...generation-millionaires-wasting-time-garbage/
> 
> ...


Yep. The vast majority of millionaires earned their millions. Not to say working hard and making sound decisions always pans out but more far often than not it does.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067906106746376192
:bjpenn

I'm impressed. Bernie got every Dem and enough of the GOP to vote yes to get this to the next stage. I'll be very interested to see if they are able to go all the way with this and actually force the executive branch to stop supporting the Saudi genocide in Yemen.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Here is Ted Turner... he lost 8 billion
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/06/usnews.media


:bunk

Here's a man who lost more wealth than the GDP of Rwanda and he's STILL a multi-billionaire.

Yeah, I'm still sat here finding your notion that its tougher to keep a billion than it is to get it utterly absurd.

Anyway, I was mainly being facetious about the wording of tougher, like its some challenge to sit on a golden throne with more wealth than any normal person can spend in a life time and still struggle to keep it.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

Tater said:


> If you know Trump's entire business history, you view it objectively and you actually still believe he is a good businessman, then it's not a matter of whether or not I want to respond, but more a matter of I feel like I would waste less time explaining how evolution works to Ken Ham.
> 
> Not that I am opposed to wasting time, mind you, but some endeavors are just entirely pointless.


WTF?

I never mentioned Trump.

I was talking to you about the Waltons, Corporate greed, people who inherited wealth, and billionaires losing money

I never said anything about Trump, as a businessman, BB did.



Draykorinee said:


> :bunk
> 
> Here's a man who lost more wealth than the GDP of Rwanda and he's STILL a multi-billionaire.
> 
> ...


I understood it was in jest.

It was just an incorrect statement.

"You have a bunch of money no you will be set for life with no worries" is a phrase uttered by many people who run out of money and are broke within 5 years.

We will agree to disagree



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Yep. The vast majority of millionaires earned their millions. Not to say working hard and making sound decisions always pans out but more far often than not it does.


I am sure to offend someone in here, but it is because the majority of people are lazy.

They want the cheat codes to life, and always use group think to justify where they are.

There are a lot of failures to get to successes in life, and then even then failures within the success.

This is literally shown in the wrestling industry.

It isn't hard to live good in this country, even working at McDonald's, or Wal-Mart.

But you have to bring some skills to the table, I just hear how these companies owe things to people.

Why should a person make $15 an hour to stand at a door and say hi to you, how is that any type of special skill?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am sure to offend someone in here, but it is because the majority of people are lazy.
> 
> They want the cheat codes to life, and always use group think to justify where they are.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%. A lot of people living in poverty or on welfare are there because they don't want to work/are scamming the system/are lazy. Again not to generalize that applies to everyone but working hard is a huge contributor to success and being lazy is a huge contributor to being poor. If you work hard you're vastly more likely to have skills worth paying for.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> *Trump may be a lot of things, but he is good at business*





DMD Mofomagic said:


> WTF?
> 
> I never mentioned Trump.
> 
> ...


I think we're done here.

uttahere


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I think we're done here.
> 
> uttahere


I stand corrected. My apologies.

But I agree we are done with this subject


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067906106746376192
> :bjpenn
> 
> I'm impressed. Bernie got every Dem and enough of the GOP to vote yes to get this to the next stage. I'll be very interested to see if they are able to go all the way with this and actually force the executive branch to stop supporting the Saudi genocide in Yemen.


We could use some more Ron Pauls and Bernies honestly. I don't think Bernie would be a great leader but he does care about American workers and getting the US out of war.

When Trump talked about redoing trade deals, Bernie was one of the first to volunteer to help even though many of his supporters bitched and moaned. That's because he was focused on getting the best deals for America period, regardless of Political side or grandstanding.

Paul also has stood up against wars, endless spending for Israel and looked for ways to benefit Americans. It's sad there's only a handful of Politicians who I can say, "I don't agree with them but they are doing what they think is best for the Citizens" and that's so sad. :crying:


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> If you know Trump's entire business history, you view it objectively and you actually still believe he is a good businessman, then it's not a matter of whether or not I want to respond, but more a matter of I feel like I would waste less time explaining how evolution works to Ken Ham.
> 
> Not that I am opposed to wasting time, mind you, but some endeavors are just entirely pointless.


He turned his inheritance of $40m - 200m into $4bn. That shows business acumen.

Ill-informed people LOVE to knock him for his bankruptcy. This was corporate bankruptcy however and done as a means to protect his personal assets and restructure his business. The Trump Organisation has been a brand (at least the 90s), so you credit stuff like the $200m worth of book deals as business acumen.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> He turned his inheritance of $40m - 200m into $4bn. That shows business acumen.
> 
> Ill-informed people LOVE to knock him for his bankruptcy. This was corporate bankruptcy however and done as a means to protect his personal assets and restructure his business. The Trump Organisation has been a brand (at least the 90s), so you credit stuff like the $200m worth of book deals as business acumen.


Trump's dad gave him 400 million. And if he just invested that money he would be worth more than he is today. Trump is a terrible businessman. He not only went bankrupt 6 times, look at all the other failed businesses he had. What kind of idiot makes a casino fail. That is what a joke Trump is when it comes to business.

It's also perfectly valid to knock Trump for his 6 corp. bankruptcies if you want to claim he is a good businessman. It shows he is not. the only reason why Trump is now in the billions is because he rode the coattails of his father's real estate empire. Trump had nothing to do with that.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Don't look at his business failures, look at how well he protected his own wealth to see how good he is at business.

:bunk


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> *I am sure to offend someone in here, but it is because the majority of people are lazy.*
> 
> They want the cheat codes to life, and always use group think to justify where they are.
> 
> ...


Do you know many nurse millionaires? Many fireman millionaires? Many teacher millionaires? Many plumber millionaires? Are they lazy? I'd love to see you tell them to their faces you think they're lazy. 

I know you said not 'majority' but I could list so many more professions where people don't make much but are far from being lazy. Believe or not as well, not all people are prepared to ditch these professions they are passionate about because they are stuck in systems that don't pay enough, nor should they.

What about the corporate world, okay so you can say they don't 'owe' their workers more money, but are you happy with them paying first and second tier workers 10% (being generous) of what the executives make at the top? Let me tell you, those executives certainly don't work 10 times as hard as the bottom tier.

Why should those guys make so much more when they spend half their day in meetings talking about strategy rather than action?

P.S I don't even know where to begin with your wrestling comparison.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump's dad gave him 400 million. And if he just invested that money he would be worth more than he is today. Trump is a terrible businessman. He not only went bankrupt 6 times, look at all the other failed businesses he had. What kind of idiot makes a casino fail. That is what a joke Trump is when it comes to business.
> 
> It's also perfectly valid to knock Trump for his 6 corp. bankruptcies if you want to claim he is a good businessman. It shows he is not. the only reason why Trump is now in the billions is because he rode the coattails of his father's real estate empire. Trump had nothing to do with that.


He leveraged the bankruptcies against the state, so that he could restructure his business. It was shrewd to take advantage of a loophole that was their to be exploited.

It depends whether you want to judge him by his successes or failures, but the overall has him in profit.

The investment thing is nonsense and relies on hindsight as many of them arbitrarily pick different points of where to invest for him to have a bigger fortune. It's also unclear how much Trump actually received and when.



yeahbaby! said:


> Why should those guys make so much more when they spend half their day in meetings talking about strategy rather than action?


I guess it's just supply of workers. You can easily replace someone who makes $10 an hour stacking shelves, lifting boxes etc with someone with relevant experience. The same can't be said for people who have experience in management roles and strategy.

There are also things like you can get a job in some areas with no experience and just have someone run you through a brief. Other places you need a college degree from a target, experience in the sector and other stuff they like.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> He leveraged the bankruptcies against the state, so that he could restructure his business. It was shrewd to take advantage of a loophole that was their to be exploited.
> 
> It depends whether you want to judge him by his successes or failures, but the overall has him in profit.
> 
> The investment thing is nonsense and relies on hindsight as many of them arbitrarily pick different points of where to invest for him to have a bigger fortune. It's also unclear how much Trump actually received and when.


The investment thing is not nonsense its objective fact. And they pick the packages everyone else picked over that time. Trump is a huge failure in business. And no its not unclear how much he received, its 400 million, that is very clear. I just love how you make excuses for Trump's bankruptcies. When your business goes bankrupt it means you are a failure.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Do you know many nurse millionaires? Many fireman millionaires? Many teacher millionaires? Many plumber millionaires? Are they lazy? I'd love to see you tell them to their faces you think they're lazy.
> 
> I know you said not 'majority' but I could list so many more professions where people don't make much but are far from being lazy. Believe or not as well, not all people are prepared to ditch these professions they are passionate about because they are stuck in systems that don't pay enough, nor should they.
> 
> ...


There is no defining correlation between hard work and amount of money earned. That's a myth invented by the elite to convince useful idiots to defend them when people start questioning why they have such a disproportionate share of society's wealth.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> There is no defining correlation between hard work and amount of money earned. That's a myth invented by the elite to convince useful idiots to defend them when people start questioning why they have such a disproportionate share of society's wealth.


You can't quantify hard work really, so it's subjective and down to opinions and anecdotes really. I guess it makes sense for you to have that opinion if that's how the cookie has crumbled from people in your life.

Personally I believe there is a correlation, although you need to have a good starting base.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

yeahbaby! said:


> Do you know many nurse millionaires? Many fireman millionaires? Many teacher millionaires? Many plumber millionaires? Are they lazy? I'd love to see you tell them to their faces you think they're lazy.
> 
> I know you said not 'majority' but I could list so many more professions where people don't make much but are far from being lazy. Believe or not as well, not all people are prepared to ditch these professions they are passionate about because they are stuck in systems that don't pay enough, nor should they.


First off, I never said "If you arent a millionaire you are lazy, that is blatantly trying to change the argument to fit a narrative

The median income of Americans last year was a little over 61k. Nurses make on average 70k a year, and can make up to 108k a year on the top end

Average firefighter can make up to 57k, of course that number can be inflated just based on overtime

Average plumber makes 55k, and if a plumber happened to own his own business can become a millionaire (I do know a millionaire construction worker, if you need to know)

If these jobs are stuck in sytems that don't pay enouh, then where are they going to go. All 3 are within 10% of median income, and nurses on average make more than the median income makes.

Btw, I know a teacher personally who has a 60k per year salary

That doesn't take away what I said, so save the bleeding heart speech. Also, keep in mind that most of those jobs require special schooling you have to take in order to get to those income levels. 



> What about the corporate world, okay so you can say they don't 'owe' their workers more money, but are you happy with them paying first and second tier workers 10% (being generous) of what the executives make at the top? Let me tell you, those executives certainly don't work 10 times as hard as the bottom tier.


Define 1st and 2nd tier workers... before I answer this, I want to make sure you mean what I really think you mean



> Why should those guys make so much more when they spend half their day in meetings talking about strategy rather than action?


If you think this is what a CEO does all day, then I have swampland in NY to sell you.

I have a personal friend of mine who has a million dollar company, which is actually his second. Needless to say I saw with my own two eyes what he does day to day, and if you think he is spending all day in meetings eating lobster and talking strategy, you just don't know what you are talking about.



> P.S I don't even know where to begin with your wrestling comparison.


ok



birthday_massacre said:


> The investment thing is not nonsense its objective fact. And they pick the packages everyone else picked over that time. Trump is a huge failure in business. And no its not unclear how much he received, its 400 million, that is very clear. I just love how you make excuses for Trump's bankruptcies. When your business goes bankrupt it means you are a failure.


So if any owner of a company had a business that didn't survive, even if he had a successful business before or after that, he is a failure?

I just want to clarify, unless you are holding Trump to a different criteria


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugrat said:


> You can't quantify hard work really, so it's subjective and down to opinions and anecdotes really. I guess it makes sense for you to have that opinion if that's how the cookie has crumbled from people in your life.
> 
> Personally I believe there is a correlation, although you need to have a good starting base.


It amuses me that you believe you know something about how the cookie has crumbled for people in my life based on my political opinions.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> There is no defining correlation between hard work and amount of money earned. That's a myth invented by the elite to convince useful idiots to defend them when people start questioning why they have such a disproportionate share of society's wealth.


It's not "just hard work" no more than it is "just luck"

There is luck involved in business, you have to be in the right place at the right time with the right deal.

If anyone tells you that you just have to work hard, they are blowing smoke. 

Here is a question for you:

What would be "equality"? What numbers would make you happy and make you go "ok, this is fair" Profit sharing? Bonuses? What would that be?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> What would be "equality"? What numbers would make you happy and make you go "ok, this is fair" Profit sharing? Bonuses? What would that be?


I don't advocate for equality of outcome. But nice try.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I don't advocate for equality of outcome. But nice try.


Then what are you advocating for?

Just because you want to use snark, doesn't mean I will stop asking.

You have been preaching how the wealthy shouldn't have so much income, this is what you believe, so I am interested with what would make you happy.

All I have learned is that you think capitalism is destroying the planet, but I am intrigued with how you think so much wealth going to people should be fixed, since you obviously have an issue with it


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> It amuses me that you believe you know something about how the cookie has crumbled for people in my life based on my political opinions.


I wasn't suggesting anything about your life lel, so I guess your amusement was ill-founded.

I was saying that people's opinions on whether hard work gets to the top is based on their life experience. You have your experience I have mine.

As I mentioned you cannot quantify _hard work_ so it is SUBJECTIVE and based on what has happened in your time on Earth, hence how the cookie has crumbled in your life


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> So if any owner of a company had a business that didn't survive, even if he had a successful business before or after that, he is a failure?
> 
> I just want to clarify, unless you are holding Trump to a different criteria



Trump has had more than one failed business and bankruptcy. The only success is some of the real estate stuff and like I said that was all from his dad. Do I really have to list all of Trumps failures

its just funny you would claim someone is successful who has 6 bankruc[ies and like 20 failed businesses and the only successful thing he did was handed to him from his daddy


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Then what are you advocating for?
> 
> Just because you want to use snark, doesn't mean I will stop asking.
> 
> ...


It can't be fixed, at least not in any sane way. We'll keep chugging along on our crash course until the next collapse happens. Hopefully enough people will come to their senses then instead of getting right back on the same path.



Rugrat said:


> I wasn't suggesting anything about your life lel....


Claims to not be suggesting anything about my life...



> I was saying that people's opinions on whether hard work gets to the top is based on their life experience. You have your experience I have mine.
> 
> As I mentioned you cannot quantify _hard work_ so it is SUBJECTIVE and based on what has happened in your time on Earth, hence how the cookie has crumbled in your life


...then says my political opinions are based on my life experience.

unk2


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> There is no defining correlation between hard work and amount of money earned. That's a myth invented by the elite to convince useful idiots to defend them when people start questioning why they have such a disproportionate share of society's wealth.


So you don't think there is any correlation between hard work and success? Or you are saying that there are no studies that confirm it?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> So you don't think there is any correlation between hard work and success? Or you are saying that there are no studies that confirm it?


I said there is no defining correlation between hard work and amount of money earned. Maybe I should have said definitive instead of defining if that would have made it clearer. There's a lot of people working their asses off and barely scraping by, while others earn millions doing the easiest work possible. Just because the work is hard doesn't mean you're going to make a lot of money from doing it and vice versa. Point being, hard work is not a defining trait of earning a lot of money.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

Tater said:


> Claims to not be suggesting anything about my life...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stating whether or not hard work gets to the top isn't a political opinion. You are absolutely dense



Undertaker23RKO said:


> So you don't think there is any correlation between hard work and success? Or you are saying that there are no studies that confirm it?


It's just nonsense Tater is saying really. You can't decide whether there's a correlation between two variables without quantifying the unit measurement of either.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I said there is no defining correlation between hard work and amount of money earned. Maybe I should have said definitive instead of defining if that would have made it clearer. There's a lot of people working their asses off and barely scraping by, while others earn millions doing the easiest work possible. Just because the work is hard doesn't mean you're going to make a lot of money from doing it and vice versa. Point being, hard work is not a defining trait of earning a lot of money.


Okay that clarifies things for me. I agree with the first half.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> Do you know many nurse millionaires? Many fireman millionaires? Many teacher millionaires? Many plumber millionaires? Are they lazy? I'd love to see you tell them to their faces you think they're lazy.


Teachers are out of work by 230PM and have entire summers off. They do not work nearly as much as your typical business owner and carry nowhere near the same responsibility or accountability.

Business owners are attached to their business 24/7. Not only that but in order to start that business they likely invested out of their own pocket and took financial risk. The greater the risk, the greater the reward.

Salary employees punch in and they punch out. They perform a service for a fee. That's not to say they aren't hardworking, but they have sacrificed less and have taken no risk. That is why they don't earn as much.

Self made millionaires/billionaires are also typically workaholics and work FAR more than 40 hours a week anyway. Or at least that was likely the case before they finally made it.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I said there is no defining correlation between hard work and amount of money earned. Maybe I should have said definitive instead of defining if that would have made it clearer. There's a lot of people working their asses off and barely scraping by, *while others earn millions doing the easiest work possible.* Just because the work is hard doesn't mean you're going to make a lot of money from doing it and vice versa. Point being, hard work is not a defining trait of earning a lot of money.


What job is this?

There is a level of behind the scenes to every job out there.

I dont know a single person who is making millions and did the easiest work possible to get there


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Hard work and luck are essentially the same thing, viewed through different point of views.

Even one's proclivity towards hard work is down to what genes one inherits and how they get expressed. And that can be characterised as pure luck.

(Conditioning also plays a large role, but that is also luck imo).


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Teachers are out of work by 230PM and have entire summers off. They do not work nearly as much as your typical business owner and carry nowhere near the same responsibility or accountability.
> 
> Business owners are attached to their business 24/7. Not only that but in order to start that business they likely invested out of their own pocket and took financial risk. The greater the risk, the greater the reward.
> 
> ...


Elon Musk is notorious for saying this in 2010:



> “If other people are putting in 40 hour workweeks and you’re putting in 100 hour workweeks, then even if you’re doing the same thing … you will achieve in four months what it takes them a year to achieve.”


Musk is a psycho, but he is also a billionaire, he knows what it takes to get to the top, and I am sure that he failed a lot more than 6 times before getting to where he needed to be.



Goku said:


> Hard work and luck are essentially the same thing, viewed through different point of views.
> 
> Even one's proclivity towards hard work is down to what genes one inherits and how they get expressed. And that can be characterised as pure luck.
> 
> (Conditioning also plays a large role, but that is also luck imo).


I was told a quote a long time ago:

"The harder I work, the luckier I got"

It's more about working hard to be prepared.

You could work at Wal-Mart and get hired on for $11 an hour, work your ass off, and never become a manager if the opportunity never presents itself.

But if you take those skills somewhere else (Target) you can make 80k within 5 years, with full benefits, stock options and the like. 

How is that a bad thing?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Teachers are out of work by 230PM and have entire summers off. They do not work nearly as much as your typical business owner and carry nowhere near the same responsibility or accountability.
> 
> Business owners are attached to their business 24/7. Not only that but in order to start that business they likely invested out of their own pocket and took financial risk. The greater the risk, the greater the reward.
> 
> ...


You're making a LOT of assumptions here about professions you've mentioned, unsure where you got these ideas.

Teachers are out of work at 2:30pm and then just do nothing from then? Ever heard of marking papers? Admin work they can't do out in class times? Dealing with extra student problems? Speak to actual teachers and ask them if they do nothing after work and all summer.

'Salary' workers often have to work unpaid overtime well past their finish time, otherwise there's a chance they'll find themselves replaced - I can tell you this is a reality in the corporate world, there is always more work than you can fit in to a day. Plenty of workaholics there too, they're not lazy and they're not making bucketloads. They can sacrifice A LOT.

If I apply the popular mindset others have said, then all self made business owners need to do is work hard all the time and they'll succeed and make tons of money right? They won't fail as long as they put the time in.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I was told a quote a long time ago:
> 
> "The harder I work, the luckier I got"
> 
> ...


People who aren't happy with their own lives resent successful people. They envy them and are jealous of them.

Notice how they routinely make a habit of portraying rich people as 'privileged' idiots who barely work and just occasionally sit around in meetings. This is a cartoonishly simple perception of a wealthy person with the sole intent to paint them as a villain. Similarly poor people are always painted as oppressed victims.

But the richest thing in this thread is that we have someone that once claimed $25 was a lot of money... is now the authority on what it means to be successful in business. :lol


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I was told a quote a long time ago:
> 
> "The harder I work, the luckier I got"
> 
> ...


It's not? I don't follow the relevance of what you say wrt to the post you quoted.

Simply put, your appearance is based on genetics. There are things you can do to improve it.

Your intelligence is based on genetics. There are things you can do to improve it.

Your desire and ability to work hard and stick to it is based on genetics. There are things you can do to improve it.

But I would argue that anything you do to improve it is also decided by the genetics that lay the foundation for your personality and interests (I am not excluding the importance of conditioning here).

You can work hard. You can be lucky. You can work hard some of the time and be lucky some of the time. Most of it is pure chance as the genes you inherited were.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



yeahbaby! said:


> You're making a LOT of assumptions here about professions you've mentioned, unsure where you got these ideas.
> 
> Teachers are out of work at 2:30pm and then just do nothing from then? Ever heard of marking papers? Admin work they can't do out in class times? Dealing with extra student problems? Speak to actual teachers and ask them if they do nothing after work and all summer.
> 
> ...


Salary workers do not make anywhere near the sacrifice that business owners make. They invested none of their money and took none of the risk. Some business owners operate at a loss for several years before finally breaking through.

I mean I don't even know what point you are trying to make. What are you saying, that salary employees should be making equal to what their bosses make?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> People who aren't happy with their own lives resent successful people. They envy them and are jealous of them.
> 
> Notice how they routinely make a habit of portraying rich people as 'privileged' idiots who barely work and just occasionally sit around in meetings. This is a cartoonishly simple perception of a wealthy person with the sole intent to paint them as a villain. Similarly poor people are always painted as oppressed victims.
> 
> But the richest thing in this thread is that we have someone that once claimed $25 was a lot of money... is now the authority on what it means to be successful in business. :lol


Lookout here comes the strawman train!!! Oh dear, have we upset you snowflake?

Let me turn that over and go completely OTT in return.

I LOVE HOW elite privileged right wing conservatives look down on the 'regular' people. 

They live their champagne sipping lives believing the great unwashed citizen's lack of wealth comes down simply to people being lazy - they're just unmotivated and don't have the smarts and drive the money makers have. There can't be any other reasons, it's black and white. 

They're just welfare loving layabouts who lean on the economy while the hardworking job creators prop the economy up. They're just so unskilled don't work anywhere near as much as the elite do - otherwise they would be successful like the elite, no question. When it comes down to it, what good are they really?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> People who aren't happy with their own lives resent successful people. They envy them and are jealous of them.


Makes cartoonishly simple portrayal...



> Notice how they routinely make a habit of portraying rich people as 'privileged' idiots who barely work and just occasionally sit around in meetings. This is a cartoonishly simple perception of a wealthy person with the sole intent to paint them as a villain. Similarly poor people are always painted as oppressed victims.


...whines about cartoonishly simple portrayals.

unk2


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

yeahbaby! said:


> You're making a LOT of assumptions here about professions you've mentioned, unsure where you got these ideas.
> 
> Teachers are out of work at 2:30pm and then just do nothing from then? Ever heard of marking papers? Admin work they can't do out in class times? Dealing with extra student problems? Speak to actual teachers and ask them if they do nothing after work and all summer.


You are making just as many assumptions.

My grandmother worked at a university in HR, and knew the salaries of most professores.

In the 80's all the professors in her building were making 6 figures, and had over 10 years experience.

Yes, the work that they put in got them to a pinnacle of monetary success that is higher than normal.

Keep in mind, in 2018, only 20% of people make over 100k, that is still very successful.

The issue is that it just isn't millionaires we are talking about, if you make over 450k, you are in the 1%, that is still a lot of money today. 

Picking the outliers like Bezos, and the Waltons is saying that the problem is with 1 or 2 people, but ignoring the guy who works 75 hour weeks, and makes 125k a year is also not giving him enough credit



> 'Salary' workers often have to work unpaid overtime well past their finish time, otherwise there's a chance they'll find themselves replaced - I can tell you this is a reality in the corporate world, there is always more work than you can fit in to a day. Plenty of workaholics there too, they're not lazy and they're not making bucketloads. They can sacrifice A LOT.


Most salary workers like that work in management.

Depending on the company you can salary at 60k, and then make bonuses (which is usually why people work the extra overtime)

I dated a chick who worked at American Eagle, made 60 k, and about 1,500 a month in bonuses... that is about the same thing a nurse makes on average a year... but she works hard to get what she wants, at least harder than the lower wage worker in her store



> If I apply the popular mindset others have said, then all self made business owners need to do is work hard all the time and they'll succeed and make tons of money right? They won't fail as long as they put the time in.


This is defined on what is working hard to you:

In business, you will fail.

Businesses have like a 20% success rate, and major businesses, even less than that.

I know when I mean working hard, it is getting over the failure, which is the hardest part.

People will mock you, tell you you are doing things wrong, or even worse, tell you what you SHOULD be doing

Even now, you are saying that the Waltons should give the greeter(which is a job with no skill) $15 an hour, while ignoring the store manager, and head of Loss Prevention and the people who have higher than normal salaries.

I always hear "fight for 15" but never "fight for 125k" for the store managers"

It's the mental strain of it too. The majority of people can't see they owe investors 4 million dollars, have no way to get product out, and still want to move forward.

It's not easy.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> People who aren't happy with their own lives resent successful people. They envy them and are jealous of them.
> 
> Notice how they routinely make a habit of portraying rich people as 'privileged' idiots who barely work and just occasionally sit around in meetings. This is a cartoonishly simple perception of a wealthy person with the sole intent to paint them as a villain. Similarly poor people are always painted as oppressed victims.
> 
> But the richest thing in this thread is that we have someone that once claimed $25 was a lot of money... is now the authority on what it means to be successful in business. :lol


It's akin to the people who see the guy in shape at the gym and says "He must be on steroids"

There is always some underlying reason to the person's success in some eyes

Here is the problem, success is relative.

Like I said, if you make 500k building a company, you are in the 1%, you are a poor person compared to Jeff Bezos, but people still look at you as if you should give to the janitor at wal-mart because "he works hard at his job"

That last person also thinks that failing at a business more than once means that you don't understand business.

There are plenty of billionaires who had businesses fail MULTIPLE time, including the ones they are in now.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I won't use Trump's failures as why he is not a good businessman. I would use why and how he failed in some of his ventures as examples of why he is a bad one. He is the perfect example of the Chinese idiom of drawing a snake and adding feet to it. Buying up his competition in Atlantic City, and then wasting millions to jazz up both casinos competing with himself. Setting up a charity foundation for tax evasion purposes, only to not even do any real charity work because he was too cheap. Trying MLM scams with his Trump university, but without even a low quality legit product to avoid legal troubles. He always go too far when he has a good thing going, ending up destroying a great thing for everyone. One way to look at it is him being ambitious, but I tend to look at it as being reckless. Also what would cripple most didn't do him him harm because his Daddy was able to bail him out of the biggest mistake of his career in the 90's.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I've noticed in the past that however you see this question tends to be the barometer of your political beliefs. It seems to me that people on the right tend to think the majority of rich people worked hard for their money and a good portion of poor people tend to be lazier, while the left think the majority of the rich only gained money through privilege/on the backs of others and the poor are poor because they are held down.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> I've noticed in the past that however you see this question tends to be the barometer of your political beliefs. It seems to me that people on the right tend to think the majority of rich people worked hard for their money and a good portion of poor people tend to be lazier, while the left think the majority of the rich only gained money through privilege/on the backs of others and the poor are poor because they are held down.


Poor people aren't lazy, just less ambitious obviously. Or they just lack the know-how.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Poor people aren't lazy, just less ambitious obviously. Or they just lack the know-how.


That's better phrasing, yes.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Also 'poor' is a state of mind. It's not about how much you earn, it's about how much you spend and how much you save.

There are plenty of families earning what you might consider 'low income' that are perfectly happy with their lot in life. They don't waste what they have on trivial things like iPhones and designer clothes. They live within their means.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Also 'poor' is a state of mind.


What a retarded thing to say. 

I guess cancer is a state of mind. 
Not being able to get cancer treatment is a state of mind. 
Hunger is a state of mind. 
Malnutrition is a state of mind. 
Dying is a state of mind. 

You know what else is a state of mind? Political views that sound like mental AIDs. Just repeat whatever the politicians tell you to repeat like fucking mindless parrots


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Also 'poor' is a state of mind. It's not about how much you earn, it's about how much you spend and how much you save.
> 
> There are plenty of families earning what you might consider 'low income' that are perfectly happy with their lot in life. They don't waste what they have on trivial things like iPhones and designer clothes. They live within their means.


You can be happy and poor, but it still doesn't mean you are not poor. Being poor has nothing to do with if you are happy while being poor or being sad while being poor. Poor is an economical thing, being happy or sad is not. You can be super rich and not be happy.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Also 'poor' is a state of mind. It's not about how much you earn, it's about how much you spend and how much you save.
> 
> There are plenty of families earning what you might consider 'low income' that are perfectly happy with their lot in life. They don't waste what they have on trivial things like iPhones and designer clothes. They live within their means.


To your first point:

It matters how you define the word lazy.... like i said, if you want the cheat codes to life and think you should be making $15 an hour putting fries in a container for no other reason then you have been there for a while, and that the company makes a lot of money, that is lazy.

The same thing happens in other parts of life, because hard work can seem relative. Scrubbing toilets is hard work, but it requires little skill. The hard work comes from learning things about the business, and finding information to make it higher on the totem pole.

As for your actual quote, this is a great point. For whatevr reason people like to tell others how to live. My best friend from high school is a minimalist, doesnt have or want a car, lives in a $500 a month room, and loves his life. 

He only wants to smoke weed, and watch UFC, he goes some days without eating because he is just enjoying what he is doing. he doesn't care if he is making $12 an hour or $15, he will make it work.

The people I look down on is the "single mom" still working at McDonalds after 8 years making $12 an hour screaming how it isn't fair she doesn't make more.

There are a ton of low skill jobs you can go to, or better yet, get a higher skill job within the company, they pay pretty well, all things compared.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> What a retarded thing to say.
> 
> I guess cancer is a state of mind.
> Not being able to get cancer treatment is a state of mind.
> ...


Tell me then in your own words what defines a poor person. How much do you need to be earning a year 'not' to be considered poor.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

Reaper said:


> What a retarded thing to say.
> 
> I guess cancer is a state of mind.
> Not being able to get cancer treatment is a state of mind.
> ...


I am not following you here... are you saying that a person making less than 25K a year can not be content with that because it makes them poor still?

The other things you talk about are things that are diagnosed, they can be told in absolutes.

Apples and oranges, unless you want to go in further detail.

your last sentence is something everyone agrees with, not sure why you think it is some type if mic drop



birthday_massacre said:


> *You can be happy and poor, but it still doesn't mean you are not poor.* Being poor has nothing to do with if you are happy while being poor or being sad while being poor. Poor is an economical thing, being happy or sad is not. You can be super rich and not be happy.


Wow, that is a great way to thinnk of poor people.

"I know you are happy with who you are and comfortable, but don't forget your place, you are still a poor person, so it doesn't mean anything"

Showing your true colors again i see.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am not following you here... are you saying that a person making less than 25K a year can not be content with that because it makes them poor still?
> 
> The other things you talk about are things that are diagnosed, they can be told in absolutes.
> 
> ...


A person making 25k a year in the U.S. might as well be Bill Gates to someone living under a tent in some third world country where food and water is scarce.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Wow, that is a great way to thinnk of poor people.
> 
> "I know you are happy with who you are and comfortable, but don't forget your place, you are still a poor person, so it doesn't mean anything"
> 
> Showing your true colors again i see.


Oh look another strawman argument, how cute. Your trolling just makes you even more embarrassing when you are losing a debate.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look another strawman argument, how cute. Your trolling just makes you even more embarrassing when you are losing a debate.


Rather be accused of using strawmen than actually be judgmental to people because of their income.

But that's who you are and you can't help yourself.

I am not debating you right now, just calling you out.

I gave you a chance to debate, you mysteriously had nothing to say. 

Should have spoke up then.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Rather be accused of using strawmen than actually be judgmental to people because of their income.
> 
> But that's who you are and you can't help yourself.


another strawman argument, since I did not judge anyone lol but ok. Keep trolling


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> another strawman argument, since I did not judge anyone lol but ok. Keep trolling


You are right, you were using prejudice....

I think it was you who likes using the dictionary:



> prejudice noun
> prej·​u·​dice | \ˈpre-jə-dəs \
> Definition of prejudice (Entry 1 of 2)
> 
> 2a(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion


Werent you the person who said that "poor people can't afford $25 to get an ID"

So I know your underlying tone when you say "You can be happy and poor, but it still doesn't mean you are not poor."


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I have never seen a more dedicated troll on any form than BM. His dedication to his gimmick is unprecedented. 

I was pondering whether I should put him on ignore but then I would be losing out on the entertainment. Guess I'm a sucker for a good squash match. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You are right, you were using prejudice....
> 
> I think it was you who likes using the dictionary:
> 
> ...


what is wrong with that statement, happiness has nothing to do with if you are rich or poor. Not sure what you don't understand about that. Being happy or poor is a state of mind, being rich or poor is an economical thing. Being rich or poor is not a state of mind.

Keep trolling all you want because you are badly losing the debate.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I have never seen a more dedicated troll on any form than BM. His dedication to his gimmick is unprecedented.
> 
> I was pondering whether I should put him on ignore but then I would be losing out on the entertainment. Guess I'm a sucker for a good squash match. :lol


My boy BM is a fighter, gonna fight til the last breath...or until you can admit your wrong which its a joke you cant do and shows that theres no point even debating since you cant be objective (think thats the BM BINGO of phrases he uses). 

I enjoy a good BM debate, keeps me on my toes.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I have never seen a more dedicated troll on any form than BM. His dedication to his gimmick is unprecedented.
> 
> I was pondering whether I should put him on ignore but then I would be losing out on the entertainment. Guess I'm a sucker for a good squash match. :lol


"You are just projecting at this point"
"Stop trolling with your lies"
"I just find it funny you don't get that i am right and you are wrong"
"It's not my fault you don't know the difference between what i say and what is wrong"
"That argument doesn't make sense because CNN said it doesn't"
"Trump is the single worst person in the history of the United States, and you know that"
"You should believe women, except the ones that don't agree with me"

Honestly man, we are all characters, that is what i love about this forum, I hope no one gets personally angry on the other side of the keyboard, because these discussions are awesome.

I actually like BM, and a lot of the people I legit don't agree with on here, I love when some give it back too. Like that is the best part of all this.

Now back to insulting people due to political affiliation


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I have never seen a more dedicated troll on any form than BM. His dedication to his gimmick is unprecedented.
> 
> I was pondering whether I should put him on ignore but then I would be losing out on the entertainment. Guess I'm a sucker for a good squash match. :lol


Everyone is a gimmick poster on these forums, you are just a shit one whereas I am a good one who can back up my points with facts unlike you


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> "You are just projecting at this point"
> "Stop trolling with your lies"
> "I just find it funny you don't get that i am right and you are wrong"
> "It's not my fault you don't know the difference between what i say and what is wrong"
> ...


Please tell me he negged you for this...he negged me for mine, the tool...It was a compliment with a little joke, its what buddies do and I consider BM a buddy after all the debates and back and forth we have had...maybe we cant be buddies bc Im a conservative and hes one of those tolerant liberals I keep hearing about.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> what is wrong with that statement, happiness has nothing to do with if you are rich or poor. Not sure what you don't understand about that. *Being happy or poor is a state of mind*, being rich or poor is an economical thing. *Being rich or poor is not a state of mind.*
> 
> Keep trolling all you want because you are badly losing the debate.


You know what you meant and now you are trying to backtrack, cute.

Either way man, i don't really feel like hearing you try to wiggle your way out of your own words.

you won the debate, let me know where to send your trophy



blaird said:


> Please tell me he negged you for this...he negged me for mine, the tool...It was a compliment with a little joke, its what buddies do and I consider BM a buddy after all the debates and back and forth we have had...maybe we cant be buddies bc Im a conservative and hes one of those tolerant liberals I keep hearing about.


He hasn't negged me in a couple of days. I kinda look forward to them at times.

I usually get enough positive rep to offset it, not that it matters either way, lol.

But yeah, i enjoy all posts from everyone, i have lost my cool here a few times, and lost my privileges for it (rightly so)

But overall this forum(especially this section) is a lot of fun


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> He hasn't negged me in a couple of days. I kinda look forward to them at times.
> 
> I usually get enough positive rep to offset it, not that it matters either way, lol.
> 
> ...


Ha I spend more of my time here vs the actual wrestling part. I love a good debate, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068559988115812353The still shot makes Trump look so left out. His pals are hanging out without him. :crying:


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am not following you here... are you saying that a person making less than 25K a year can not be content with that because it makes them poor still?
> 
> The other things you talk about are things that are diagnosed, they can be told in absolutes.
> 
> ...


Where did the 25k figure come from? And how much lower do you want to go before you say that real poverty exists? And why define poverty as based on what the government has told you is poverty? Why can't you realize that someone making 50k in one state could have a worse lifestyle than someone making 10k in another state? Why is everything so arbitrary and over-simplified for you to have a political opinion about it? 

"Poverty is a state of mind" is a Republican line. If you're not a republican, then why are you defending that line? Why haven't you questioned or critically examined it further?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> Where did the 25k figure come from?
> And how much lower do you want to go before you say that real poverty exists? And why define poverty as based on what the government has told you is poverty? Why can't you realize that someone making 50k in one state could have a worse lifestyle than someone making 10k in another state? Why is everything so arbitrary and over-simplified for you to have a political opinion about it?


You are all over the place here, so i will try to breakit down best i can.

25k is an arbitrary number based on statistic, no more than you later in the paragraph throwing out two numbers

i don't know how you correlated that to me saying real poverty doesn't exist. There is a big jump between poverty and the 1% though, i don't get why you are saying i have to acknowledge one without acknowledging the other. 

I can't compare lifestyles, if a person is making 100k a year and has 250k in debt, they do not live better than a debt free person making 30k in another state. You are taking a general statement, trying to push it as fact, and then using it as evidence.

Will a person be happier making 50k over 10, theoretically yes, if you believe that income streams is a motivating factor of being happy. 

I don't know where political opinions came along, and this is where I am annoyed with your post, because it has nothing to do with political conversation unless you want to make it that way. 



> "Poverty is a state of mind" is a Republican line. If you're not a republican, then why are you defending that line? Why haven't you questioned or critically examined it further?


is it as republican as "throw money at the problem to make it go away"

it is hilarious how "Poverty is a state of mind" can be a republican statement just because it says that making less money isn't as important as being content but "Look at that poor person, they just need more of our money and they will be happy" is perfectly fine. 

So you want to know why i defend that line, because i believe it, i have lived it, and i have experienced it.

I have had people who tell me that I shouldn't be happy in a one bedroom room because I worked for a corporation, even though i was thoroughly happy just building myself up. 

I didn't believe that when I was a democratic, or now, even though I am not republican, i don't like labels honestly. 

I have my reasons for how i feel, and i am sure you have yours.

i think money is important, i just don't think that it is more important than being happy.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

When are you going to start calling them pooh pooh heads?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Good to see all the deflection away from trumps continued failures.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

it's hard for me to take Saudi royalty seriously cause they look like they're wearing a picnic cloth on their head

that pattern just screams july 4th hot dogs and fireworks to me :lol


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> it is hilarious how "Poverty is a state of mind" can be a republican statement just because it says that making less money isn't as important as being content but "Look at that poor person, they just need more of our money and they will be happy" is perfectly fine.
> 
> So you want to know why i defend that line, because i believe it, i have lived it, and i have experienced it.
> 
> ...


If you're happy with what you had at that point, that's great. Were you living comfortably at that time though? What I mean by that is that you were able to pay all your bills and didn't really have to worry about any extraordinary debt or something of the sort.

Regardless though, is anybody going to be happy if they are barely making ends meet and paying bills? Or if they suddenly have a ton of debt thanks to emergency medical bills, or an accident that totalled their car unexpectedly, etc? 

There are so many varying factors here, just about every place somebody lives and the factors surrounding their lives are going to be different. Because of that, it seems rather ignorant to proclaim "poverty is a state of mind." For many people and their varying situations, its their entire lives.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Dr. Middy said:


> If you're happy with what you had at that point, that's great. Were you living comfortably at that time though? What I mean by that is that you were able to pay all your bills and didn't really have to worry about any extraordinary debt or something of the sort.
> 
> Regardless though, is anybody going to be happy if they are barely making ends meet and paying bills? Or if they suddenly have a ton of debt thanks to emergency medical bills, or an accident that totalled their car unexpectedly, etc?
> 
> There are so many varying factors here, just about every place somebody lives and the factors surrounding their lives are going to be different. Because of that, it seems rather ignorant to proclaim "poverty is a state of mind." For many people and their varying situations, its their entire lives.


Poverty is a state of mind because it is learned. Hunger is not learned. Cancer is not learned. Malnutrition is not learned. Death is not learned.

The idea of being poor is learned. This happens when you compare your life situation to others or a criteria in general.

Of course, if you don't see this, then "poverty is a state of mind" will probably translate to "poor people aren't really poor".


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> Where did the 25k figure come from? And how much lower do you want to go before you say that real poverty exists? And why define poverty as based on what the government has told you is poverty? Why can't you realize that someone making 50k in one state could have a worse lifestyle than someone making 10k in another state? Why is everything so arbitrary and over-simplified for you to have a political opinion about it?
> 
> "Poverty is a state of mind" is a Republican line. If you're not a republican, then why are you defending that line? Why haven't you questioned or critically examined it further?


If being poor can't be tied to any specific number or earned income then clearly it is subjective. It depends on your outlook and also your lifestyle.

If you disagree then please we are waiting for you to designate a specific number. Please tell us how much of an annual salary constitutes someone being poor and how much constitutes 'not' being poor.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

My entire life revolves around poverty. I can't earn enough to pay all my bills each month, which leads to choosing between heat and food or buying a bus pass versus walking more than an hour each way to work in cold weather.

I will always be poor going forward because I now lack the intelligence and skills for anything but bottom tier, minimum wage part time jobs. I've learnt to accept that; it wasn't what I expected from life but it's how things are. 

I have endless stress - homelessness is a constantly looming concern - but I still have moments of happiness. Would I like a better life without the financial pressure? Of course, and I'd be more than overjoyed to have just enough to live knowing my rent, food and utilities would be covered every month, but I can survive even as things are. Perhaps poverty is at least partly a state of mind. :smile2:


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



GothicBohemian said:


> My entire life revolves around poverty. I can't earn enough to pay all my bills each month, which leads to choosing between heat and food or buying a bus pass versus walking more than an hour each way to work in cold weather.
> 
> *I will always be poor going forward because I now lack the intelligence and skills for anything but bottom tier, minimum wage part time jobs.* I've learnt to accept that; it wasn't what I expected from life but it's how things are.
> 
> I have endless stress - homelessness is a constantly looming concern - but I still have moments of happiness. Would I like a better life without the financial pressure? Of course, and I'd be more than overjoyed to have just enough to live knowing my rent, food and utilities would be covered every month, but I can survive even as things are. Perhaps poverty is at least partly a state of mind. :smile2:


Is there a reason for that? You can always increase your intelligence and become more skilled over time. It's not easy and takes work but it is doable. I'd hate for you to live stressed out your whole life if there is a chance you can live a better one.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



GothicBohemian said:


> My entire life revolves around poverty. I can't earn enough to pay all my bills each month, which leads to choosing between heat and food or buying a bus pass versus walking more than an hour each way to work in cold weather.
> 
> I will always be poor going forward because I now lack the intelligence and skills for anything but bottom tier, minimum wage part time jobs. I've learnt to accept that; it wasn't what I expected from life but it's how things are.
> 
> I have endless stress - homelessness is a constantly looming concern - but I still have moments of happiness. Would I like a better life without the financial pressure? Of course, and I'd be more than overjoyed to have just enough to live knowing my rent, food and utilities would be covered every month, but I can survive even as things are. *Perhaps poverty is at least partly a state of mind*. :smile2:


It IS a state of mind.

Look at your attitude. "I will always be poor", "I have no intelligence and no skills"... that is how a loser thinks. A winner says "I may be poor RIGHT NOW... I don't have the skills RIGHT NOW." Then they take the necessary steps to better their situation.

If you want more money, go out and get it. Nobody is stopping you except yourself. There are plenty of trades out there you can learn in a short time that pay good money.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

And if you can't get a trade sell your body.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> And if you can't get a trade sell your body.


To science!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> If being poor can't be tied to any specific number or earned income then clearly it is subjective. It depends on your outlook and also your lifestyle.
> 
> If you disagree then please we are waiting for you to designate a specific number. Please tell us how much of an annual salary constitutes someone being poor and how much constitutes 'not' being poor.


Poverty is tied to a certain number, they have a thing called the poverty line. It just happens to vary by state since the cost of living varies by state.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068926291896864776
:lmao:lmao:sodone apparently at 0:16 he says "get me out of here".


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

:lmao :lmao :lmao

there was also this:


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

This isn't the first time he done this sort of thing. Sure seems like signs of dementia to me to forget simple ceremonial procedures he should know by now after 2 years on the job. Or his staff are incompetent in briefing him on what is supposed to go on.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/bu...ers-measure-to-postpone-shutdown-13437152.php

Congress is willing to sign another temporary budget bill that will finance the government for a week beyond December 7's deadline as they are preparing for the ceremonies of Bush 41 lying in state and getting a state funeral. Trump has said he might be willing to push it out two weeks but details will be hashed out when he returns to Washington from the G-20 summit. This way there is no disruption for the ceremonies. 

Now...while I appreciate the gesture as they are willing to put their differences aside temporarily, I think it's time to point out that Trump seemed to never be serious about his wall (or serious enough that he didn't actually start pushing for it until it's too late). 

This was his BIG campaign promise, he promised the American people that if elected he would build a wall. I knew making Mexico paying for it was hyperbole as there was no way the Mexican government was going to cut a check for it. However, Trump had multiple opportunities to get that funding and kept threatening shutdowns of the government unless he got the funding for it. He kept signing those budgets. 

Meanwhile...for all the talk about illegal immigration being the issue it was, the Trump administration and our government have done jack shit about it. Illegal immigration levels are almost the highest since the Obama administration. There has been nothing about making E-Verify mandatory, nothing in regards to punishment for companies that hire illegals. DACA is still here (and spare me the rhetoric of But Judges). He told us day one he would rescind the DACA executive order. We are now at Day 681 and it's still here. It wasn't until September 2017 he actually agreed to do anything, and it was just to kick the can down the road and tell Congress to deal with it. 

So, the question must be asked...was Trump serious about this or was illegal immigration a boogeyman? Because at this rate, "We're going to build a wall" is looking to be his "Read my lips, no new taxes" moment. If he loses in 2020, that will be one of the biggest reasons. I have a feeling that his willingness to postpone a shutdown for another two weeks is cover for once again he will eventually sign another budget and possibly piss away for good ANY chance of funding for the wall.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46413196

Hopefully these talks lead to a deal that is good for the US. (Y)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069584730880974849
rip President Trump it has been real


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069584730880974849
> rip President Trump it has been real


LOL at Trump saying that after he just signed a huge bill to increase the military budget.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

It really beggars belief.

This is the guy that has escalated the spending, now he's whinging it's costing too much.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

it's a welcome pivot for sure 

might never hear about it again tho

woo trump


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46413196
> 
> Hopefully these talks lead to a deal that is good for the US. (Y)




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069616824059289600
Simpleton Donald. :lol


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Interesting set of expressions here:


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> Interesting set of expressions here:


Bolton always looks unhappy if he isn't war mongering.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://itk.thehill.com/homenews/administration/419584-mattis-says-war-in-afghanistan-needs-to-end-40-years-is-enough



> *Mattis calls for help in ending war in Afghanistan: ‘40 years is enough’*
> 
> Secretary of Defense James Mattis on Monday called for the international community to help end the war in Afghanistan and aid regional leaders in their efforts to bridge longstanding disagreements, saying that conflicts in Afghanistan have now gone on for “40 years.”
> 
> ...


John Bolton, comment?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/jp...rted-china-deal-appear-completely-fabricated/



A new note from investment bank JPMorgan advises traders to not buy into the hype that President Donald Trump has ended his own trade war with China.

*As reported by CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla, JPMorgan is telling investors that Trump’s declaration this week that China will immediately drop all tariffs on American cars has no basis in reality.*


In particular, the note said that investors should have “valid reason for caution” when it comes to investing on the hopes that Trump is on the verge of a major breakthrough with China.

*“It doesn’t seem like anything was actually agreed to at the dinner and White House officials are contorting themselves into pretzels to reconcile Trump’s tweets (which seem if not completely fabricated then grossly exaggerated) with reality,” the note states.*

Shortly after a dinner meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping during the G-20 summit in Argentina, Trump excitedly declared that China would eliminate tariffs on American cars and would also start bulk buying American soy beans once again.

However, the only concrete measure to have come out from the meeting seems to have been a decision to not further escalate trade tariffs while the United States and China try to hammer out a new deal.

See an excerpt from JPMorgan’s note below.



Trump is such a clown


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Tariff Man...sounds like either a failed Stan Lee comic or a Weird Al song. 

Funny how Trump takes credit when the Dow was up, but when it dropped nearly 800 points today he isn’t taking blame. His tweet about tariffs plus concerns about a slowdown in business is no doubt making Wall Street nervous. General Motors felt it enough to cut jobs, Will Ford follow suit?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> Tariff Man...sounds like either a failed Stan Lee comic or a Weird Al song.
> 
> Funny how Trump takes credit when the Dow was up, but when it dropped nearly 800 points today he isn’t taking blame. His tweet about tariffs plus concerns about a slowdown in business is no doubt making Wall Street nervous. General Motors felt it enough to cut jobs, Will Ford follow suit?




Yeah Trump is a dolt. The drop was a direct result of him lying about the tariffs


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> Funny how Trump takes credit when the Dow was up, but when it dropped nearly 800 points today he isn’t taking blame. His tweet about tariffs plus concerns about a slowdown in business is no doubt making Wall Street nervous. General Motors felt it enough to cut jobs, Will Ford follow suit?


Still above 25,000. Gained a lot this year. Gets down to 23,000 then start to worry.

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Vic Capri said:


> Still above 25,000. Gained a lot this year. Gets down to 23,000 then start to worry.
> 
> - Vic


We have more issues than just the Dow. We have a slowing real estate market, falling oil prices, the yield curve straightening out, and all the posturing regarding tariffs and protectionism is getting our allies to do the same. Are we headed there...most likely this will all come together early next year to really cause headaches for our economy. 

Not to mention the Democrats taking over the House means more regulation and oversight, plus Trump’s tax cuts did nothing to simplify the tax code or address the issues of why businesses are heading overseas when most want to do business here. Now we see companies like GM heading over to avoid tariffs. 

We are running out of road to kick the can down


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump’s tax cuts did nothing to simplify the tax code or address the issues of why businesses are heading overseas when most want to do business here. Now we see companies like GM heading over to avoid tariffs.


They're not shipping jobs out of the country to avoid tariffs. They're doing it for cheap labor. And this bipartisan trend started decades before Trump took office.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> @charliekirk11
> Follow Follow @charliekirk11
> More
> There are riots in socialist France because of radical leftist fuel taxes
> ...


I'll guess... things that never happened.

Also loving the radical leftists in France...Radical.

:bunk


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> I'll guess... things that never happened.
> 
> Also loving the radical leftists in France...Radical.
> 
> :bunk


I'd heard the name Charlie Kirk before, I think probably from Kyle, but I'd never seen a tweet or a vid of him or anything before. I just checked his twitter and holy shit, is this is a for real person or a parody account? Serious question.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

He is supposed to be serious but he is a joke.

Watch this to see what a clown he is against a Seder.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Yeah, of the people I've seen on the conservative debate side Charlie is near the bottom of the list for me.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Kirk is Candace Owens-level, both from Turning Point, both garbage.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069616824059289600
> Simpleton Donald. :lol


This is the man America elected to be President.

Just want to make sure everyone is aware of that.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HollyJollyDemise said:


> This is the man America elected to be President.
> 
> Just want to make sure everyone is aware of that.


to be fair the EC elected him not Ameria since he lost by 3 million votes


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HollyJollyDemise said:


> This is the man America elected to be President.
> 
> Just want to make sure everyone is aware of that.


Still better than electing Hillary. :shrug


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Tater said:


> HollyJollyDemise said:
> 
> 
> > This is the man America elected to be President.
> ...


:na


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Still better than electing Hillary. :shrug


LOL no its not. As every day goes back, you are more and more wrong about that. Its funny you cant admit you how wrong you are.

On SCOTUS picks alone Trump has been a disaster. That is not even going into how far he is setting our country back with his policies and rolling back regulations, and now the rest of the world is turning against the US


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Draykorinee said:


> :na


Electing Hillary would have given Republicans enough control in 2020 to call for a constitutional convention. Unless you consider the Koch Bros rewriting the Constitution to be a good thing, then we're better off that Trump won because now things can start going in the other direction.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Electing Hillary would have given Republicans enough control in 2020 to call for a constitutional convention. Unless you consider the Koch Bros rewriting the Constitution to be a good thing, then we're better off that Trump won because now things can start going in the other direction.


That never would have happened lol


----------



## CorbinConsultant (Dec 5, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Sitting Presidents always lose seats in first midterm,with the map the D's had to defend 60 seats is not all that unrealistic if Hilary had squeaked it out in 2016. If Hilary is President Sessions has that seat not Dem Jones.AZ,NV,MI,WV,MT,OH are all realistic losing possibilities in a Non Blue Wave Year and NJ is an outside chancewith Menendez not being able to be a defacto anti Trump seat with him not President.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> Still better than electing Hillary. :shrug





birthday_massacre said:


> LOL no its not. As every day goes back, you are more and more wrong about that. Its funny you cant admit you how wrong you are.
> 
> On SCOTUS picks alone Trump has been a disaster. That is not even going into how far he is setting our country back with his policies and rolling back regulations, and now the rest of the world is turning against the US


Technically, Tater isn't really wrong, but he's not right either. We have no way of knowing how Hilary would have turned out as President. His guess is as good as mine and yours. 

But given her background in politics, as well as the fact that her own husband was the President at one point, I imagine she would have at the very least given a more modest effort to work with Republicans in order to carry out any policies she had planned, rather than badmouth them like Trump did on numerous occasions. 

Trump has one major accomplishment under his belt so far, and it's the Tax Cuts. And so far, it's looking more and more like the tax cuts are backfiring and could cause us major problems down the road. With the Republican's in control of the house and senate at the time of the 2016 elections, it would have been hard to imagine Hilary getting much done in comparison to Trump. But the thing is, she wouldn't have to. Trump has done nothing to improve the economy other than ride the policies put in place by Obama. Hilary likely would have done the same thing. North Korea worked their own issues out and like Trump, Hilary would have most likely taken them up on their offer of peace (and thus people would have given her credit for it like people did with Trump, when in reality he had nothing to do with it and she wouldn't have either). 

A lot of the speculation at this point would be based on how Hilary would do in regards to her campaign promises. She, like Trump, most likely would have failed in carrying out on a lot of these promises, but she would get somewhat of a pass since the house and senate were controlled by Republicans. In Trump's case, he failed on a lot of his promises due mostly to incompetence on his part. But the key difference is that she would still continue to roll along with the policies Obama had in place, something Trump promised to put an end to most of (and failed or simply hasn't tried). And apart from Obamacare, she would be in the right to continue on with a lot of these policies.

The main thing that I think really makes me think Hilary would be better off than Trump at this point is their views on the climate. The planet is on a potential crash course for disaster at the end of the century, possibly even earlier, and so far Trump has made every effort to roll back on protections implemented to help protect the environment in favor of economic benefits. By this point, Hilary would have already put in place more regulations and laws to protect the environment. How much is up for debate. But never the less, his views on climate change are a very serious problem, more serious than any issues people might have had with Hilary. At this point I could care less how corrupt she is, at least she knows Climate Change is a very real thing and it's something a lot of people didn't care to consider. 

And even if you don't necessarily share the same views and beliefs as me regarding what I just said above...

Hilary at the very least would have never been stupid enough to say something like this:






This happened months ago and I STILL can't believe he was dumb enough to say this. I just can't wrap my head around it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HollyJollyDemise said:


> Technically, Tater isn't really wrong, but he's not right either. We have no way of knowing how Hilary would have turned out as President. His guess is as good as mine and yours.


It doesn't take a genius to look at the historical trends and make an educated prediction on how things would have played out. The argument is not that Trump is better than Hillary in the short term. The argument is that Hillary winning now would have royally fucked us in the future.

After 8 years of disastrous Dubya policies, the USA was so disgusted with Republicans that they gave Democrats complete control of the government. Democrats, in all their wisdom, governed as a center right corporatist party. With their newfound power, they promptly bailed out the big banks by giving them trillions in free money while millions got kicked out of their homes. Oh and they passed the right wing Romneycare healthcare reform. It's not too difficult to figure out that when you fuck over the people who put you into office to change things and instead protect the people who fucked you over to begin with, you're going to get wiped out electorally.

That's why the Democrats lost both houses of Congress, a majority of governorships and a thousand state seats nationally during Obama's time in office. And that was *before* Trump defeated Hillary. Hillary, who is to the right of Obama, would have continued this trend of national Dem losses. Even if she did want to actually change things for the better, she wouldn't have been able to with Republicans controlling Congress, and since a disproportionate amount of blame goes to the President when things go bad, she'd have been out in 4 years and you'd have ended up with a GOP White House, a GOP Senate, a GOP House and enough GOP states to rewrite the Constitution.

I don't know if you know how constitutional conventions work but you need control of 34 states to call for one and Republicans were about a state away from being able to do that. That's been the Koch Bros plan all along. People think we're fucked now with Trump in office. We would have been a whole lot more fucked had Hillary won. Since she didn't, the House has flipped and just as importantly, Democrats have gained more state power nationally, to prevent Republicans from calling for a constitutional convention.

When I say we're better off that Trump won, I'm not saying it because I like Trump or hate Hillary. I'm saying it because I don't want the fucking Koch Bros remaking the Constitution in their own image.



> The main thing that I think really makes me think Hilary would be better off than Trump at this point is their views on the climate. The planet is on a potential crash course for disaster at the end of the century, possibly even earlier, and so far Trump has made every effort to roll back on protections implemented to help protect the environment in favor of economic benefits. By this point, Hilary would have already put in place more regulations and laws to protect the environment. How much is up for debate. But never the less, his views on climate change are a very serious problem, more serious than any issues people might have had with Hilary. At this point I could care less how corrupt she is, at least she knows Climate Change is a very real thing and it's something a lot of people didn't care to consider.


This would be laughable if it weren't such a serious topic. Hillary is the woman who exported fracking around the world. You've got to be the biggest rube in existence if you think she would have taken the steps needed to actually address the problem in any meaningful way. All she would have done is give lip service and take little baby steps. The Paris Climate Agreement, which in itself was not nearly enough to solve this crisis, is something Obama couldn't get through Congress. Hillary would have done no better even if she wanted to and once again, see above, Republicans wouldn't have let her and we'd have been headed full bore in the wrong direction come 2020.

If the USA is ever going to fix itself, people are going to have to stop thinking beyond one election cycle. Hillary squeaking out a win would have only been slightly less shitty in the short term. We got a gift when Trump when because he's such a incompetent fucking moron. You *do not* want to see what President Pence or President Cruz would do in the WH with complete control of Congress.

ETA:

Because Democrats care sooooo much about the environment.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HollyJollyDemise said:


> Technically, Tater isn't really wrong, but he's not right either. We have no way of knowing how Hilary would have turned out as President. His guess is as good as mine and yours.
> 
> But given her background in politics, as well as the fact that her own husband was the President at one point, I imagine she would have at the very least given a more modest effort to work with Republicans in order to carry out any policies she had planned, rather than badmouth them like Trump did on numerous occasions.


Either he is right or he is wrong, he can't be both like you are claiming. We do know how Hillary would have turned out, it wouldn't be all the crazy shit Trump is doing that is for sure. It would have been more of the same of the Bill Clinton and Obama era type things. 

She would not be rolling back all the regulations Trump has, she would not be denying climate change and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement and she wouldn't be saying all the dumb shit Trump does on a daily basis just to name a few.




HollyJollyDemise said:


> Trump has one major accomplishment under his belt so far, and it's the Tax Cuts. And so far, it's looking more and more like the tax cuts are backfiring and could cause us major problems down the road. With the Republican's in control of the house and senate at the time of the 2016 elections, it would have been hard to imagine Hilary getting much done in comparison to Trump. But the thing is, she wouldn't have to. Trump has done nothing to improve the economy other than ride the policies put in place by Obama. Hilary likely would have done the same thing. North Korea worked their own issues out and like Trump, Hilary would have most likely taken them up on their offer of peace (and thus people would have given her credit for it like people did with Trump, when in reality he had nothing to do with it and she wouldn't have either).


Like I said before he tried to do the tax cuts, its going to be a disaster, and crash the economy and it's already starting to happen. You just admitted Trump has not really gotten anything done, except for the tax cuts, all he got done was stuff he could do from executive orders, so Hillary could have done the things she wanted that were allowed by executive orders. Plus the GOP blocking everything else would have stll given us the blue wave we got in the 2018 elections. It would have blown up in their faces. 




HollyJollyDemise said:


> A lot of the speculation at this point would be based on how Hilary would do in regards to her campaign promises. She, like Trump, most likely would have failed in carrying out on a lot of these promises, but she would get somewhat of a pass since the house and senate were controlled by Republicans. In Trump's case, he failed on a lot of his promises due mostly to incompetence on his part. *But the key difference is that she would still continue to roll along with the policies Obama had in place, something Trump promised to put an end to most of (and failed or simply hasn't tried).* And apart from Obamacare, she would be in the right to continue on with a lot of these policies.


This is the biggest thing, she would not have undone all the things Obama did that helped the American people and the environment like Trump has done. The shit Trump undid is setting the US back decades. 



HollyJollyDemise said:


> The main thing that I think really makes me think Hilary would be better off than Trump at this point is their views on the climate. The planet is on a potential crash course for disaster at the end of the century, possibly even earlier, and so far Trump has made every effort to roll back on protections implemented to help protect the environment in favor of economic benefits. By this point, Hilary would have already put in place more regulations and laws to protect the environment. How much is up for debate. But never the less, his views on climate change are a very serious problem, more serious than any issues people might have had with Hilary. At this point I could care less how corrupt she is, at least she knows Climate Change is a very real thing and it's something a lot of people didn't care to consider.


Trump anti-science stance on the climate, is a huge disaster, now is one of the most critical times to take action and Trump is saying fuck it, I don't care, I just want to make money, ill be dead in 10 years and this stuff wont effect me. Hillary never would do that stuff and we are all going to suffer for it. Hell Trump is anti-truth and anti-facts on everything. Not to mention Trump is way more corrupt than HIllary ever was


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070376816131694593
:mj4


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

lmao who in their right minds thinks Trump is an evangelical Christian


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Tater said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > :na
> ...


Good point actually, I was thinking more in terms of her doing the job (Not that she'd be great) instead of the fact that no matter what she did the Republicans would clean house.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

that twitter clip actually makes me like trump more


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> It doesn't take a genius to look at the historical trends and make an educated prediction on how things would have played out. The argument is not that Trump is better than Hillary in the short term. The argument is that Hillary winning now would have royally fucked us in the future.
> 
> After 8 years of disastrous Dubya policies, the USA was so disgusted with Republicans that they gave Democrats complete control of the government. Democrats, in all their wisdom, governed as a center right corporatist party. With their newfound power, they promptly bailed out the big banks by giving them trillions in free money while millions got kicked out of their homes. Oh and they passed the right wing Romneycare healthcare reform. It's not too difficult to figure out that when you fuck over the people who put you into office to change things and instead protect the people who fucked you over to begin with, you're going to get wiped out electorally.
> 
> ...


Most of what you just said is what I was saying before, so I'm going to ignore all of that. A constitutional convention would not have happened. At this point you sound like you're looking for reasons to say Hilary would have been bad as a president. 



Tater said:


> This would be laughable if it weren't such a serious topic. Hillary is the woman who exported fracking around the world. You've got to be the biggest rube in existence if you think she would have taken the steps needed to actually address the problem in any meaningful way. All she would have done is give lip service and take little baby steps.


That is significantly better than what we have right now. 



Tater said:


> The Paris Climate Agreement, which in itself was not nearly enough to solve this crisis, is something Obama couldn't get through Congress. Hillary would have done no better even if she wanted to and once again, see above, Republicans wouldn't have let her and we'd have been headed full bore in the wrong direction come 2020.


You don't need to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement to take steps needed to make your country more environment friendly. The environmental friendly policies already put in place by Obama that Trump got rid of would still be around. Again, it's a small step but it's an important one. 



Tater said:


> If the USA is ever going to fix itself, people are going to have to stop thinking beyond one election cycle. Hillary squeaking out a win would have only been slightly less shitty in the short term. We got a gift when Trump when because he's such a incompetent fucking moron. You *do not* want to see what President Pence or President Cruz would do in the WH with complete control of Congress.


So now you are in fact saying that Hilary would have been a better option after you just got done saying Trump was the better choice. So which is it? If you're talking what would have happened AFTER their terms were over, that is not only a baseless assumption on your part, but clearly not what you were talking about when you first made the statement. 



Tater said:


> Because Democrats care sooooo much about the environment.


I love how you take the things one man says and attribute that to the entire democratic party. It doesn't work like that. It's a well known fact at this point that a large majority of the Democrats care about the environment, including Obama who continuously warned Trump about its dangers. All this video really proves is that Obama backtracks, and is a hypocrite, and that was never really put into question.



birthday_massacre said:


> Either he is right or he is wrong, he can't be both like you are claiming. We do know how Hillary would have turned out, it wouldn't be all the crazy shit Trump is doing that is for sure. It would have been more of the same of the Bill Clinton and Obama era type things.
> 
> She would not be rolling back all the regulations Trump has, she would not be denying climate change and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement and she wouldn't be saying all the dumb shit Trump does on a daily basis just to name a few.
> 
> ...


My point is that a lot of what we are saying is baseless speculation. But with that said, Tater has good reasons to believe that Hilary wouldn't be better off than Trump due to Republicans already controlling the house and senate. In that aspect alone he's right. I'm basically saying that he's right for the wrong reasons. It's not to say that Trump is better fit to run a country. It's pretty common knowledge at this point that Hilary is much more qualified and fit for that position than Trump and Tater knows that. But she would have entered office at a significant disadvantage, and given how much Republicans and Conservatives at the time hated Hilary, this would have made Democrats taking back the house in 2018 unlikely. If Hilary was running for election during a point and time where Democrats controlled the house and the senate, it would have been a much different story.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> My point is that a lot of what we are saying is baseless speculation. But with that said, Tater has good reasons to believe that Hilary wouldn't be better off than Trump due to Republicans already controlling the house and senate. In that aspect alone he's right. I'm basically saying that he's right for the wrong reasons. It's not to say that Trump is better fit to run a country. It's pretty common knowledge at this point that Hilary is much more qualified and fit for that position than Trump and Tater knows that. But she would have entered office at a significant disadvantage, and given how much Republicans and Conservatives at the time hated Hilary, this would have made Democrats taking back the house in 2018 unlikely. If Hilary was running for election during a point and time where Democrats controlled the house and the senate, it would have been a much different story.


You are not making any sense. The fucked up shit Trump is doing, Hillary never would have done. So that alone we would be better off. If everything stayed the same as it was under Obama because Hillary's hands were tied bc the GOP wouldn't let her get anything done, are you going to claim that would be worst than the shit Trump has been doing? And you are wrong about Hillary winning would have made it unlikely that the Dems take back the house in 2018. They still would have taken it back since the GOP would have blocked Hillary at every turn and that would backfire on them.








fpalmfpalmfpalm:shrug:shrug:lol:lol

Trumps dementia showing more and more every day


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



HollyJollyDemise said:


> So now you are in fact saying that Hilary would have been a better option after you just got done saying Trump was the better choice. So which is it? If you're talking what would have happened AFTER their terms were over, that is not only a baseless assumption on your part, but clearly not what you were talking about when you first made the statement.


My position on this has not wavered over the past 2 years since Trump won. Hillary would have only been the lesser evil in the short term but would have completely fucked us in the long run because Dems would have continued losing nationally with her in the WH and the GOP would have a complete lockdown on the country in 2020 with the ability to rewrite the Constitution. I can only explain it to you. I can't help you understand it.



> You don't need to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement to take steps needed to make your country more environment friendly. The environmental friendly policies already put in place by Obama that Trump got rid of would still be around. Again, it's a small step but it's an important one.
> 
> I love how you take the things one man says and attribute that to the entire democratic party. It doesn't work like that. It's a well known fact at this point that a large majority of the Democrats care about the environment, including Obama who continuously warned Trump about its dangers. All this video really proves is that Obama backtracks, and is a hypocrite, and that was never really put into question.


The only "large majority of Democrats" that care about the environment are the voters. It sure as shit ain't the Establishment. They have proven time and time again that they don't give two shits about what their base wants. Here's what you are seemingly unable to grasp concerning the environment... small steps, are not, good enough. 4 years of small steps with Hillary in office followed by the GOP driving us off a cliff in 2020 and beyond still leaves us just as fucked.

Here's what you really need to hammer into your brain. It's not just the GOP that needs to be defeated in order to win on this issue. You have to defeat the Establishment Dems as well. Otherwise, we'll just repeat the Obama years with Dems getting wiped out and by then it'll be too late.

I know this is very difficult for some people to understand in the era of TDS but if you replace Trump with the very same people with the very same ideology as the ones who facilitated his rise in the first place, then it's going to keep happening in an ever increasingly worse fashion.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Anark said:


> that twitter clip actually makes me like trump more


Same! Was like hmm, a President who's not that Religious? I'm ok with that! :dance2


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Same! Was like hmm, a President who's not that Religious? I'm ok with that! :dance2


he just lies about being religious like we have always said. And he caters to the religious. Do you love that? LOL


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*










Remember when these same liberals were screaming "racist" "Hitler" garbage at Bush? 

Yeah. 

Americans. 

Nothing to see here.

Carry on.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reaper said:


> Remember when these same liberals were screaming "racist" "Hitler" garbage at Bush?
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> ...


Disgusting, but not just American. The fawning over Thatcher was not quite so grim but was still hard to stomach.

The people had celebration parties to see off the bitch.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

y'all could use Thatcher right about now :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> y'all could use Thatcher right about now :draper2


We don't have any public services left to sell for half the asking price, nor do we have any desire for a fucking poll tax again. Surprised that a libertarian would be a fan of Thatcher. But then, I would guess you don't have a clue about Thatcher, I'm sure you're a big fan of Section 28 or the trade union laws she implemented and her supporting of the Khmer Rouge, or her push against drugs.

Thatcher was an authoritarian populist, but then, you support Trump so why would you not support another one, oh and she used her position to enrich her families coffers, sound familiar?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

ye she sounds like a g


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> ye she sounds like a g


:larry Could you at least capitalise your troll posts.


----------



## TheBananaman (Dec 6, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> y'all could use Thatcher right about now :draper2


no


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

TheBananaman said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> > y'all could use Thatcher right about now <img src="http://i.imgur.com/7KU7Fqx.png" border="0" alt="" title="Draper" class="inlineimg" />
> ...


You don't want a doubling of the unemployment rate, destruction of an entire industry, an interest rate of 18% and a sell off of social housing that not only utterly short changed the public and spiked house prices but also left the country without enough social housing for its poor? Come on, surely we all need that right now.

When they sold the houses the council were told they couldn't use the money to build more social housing, how fucking mental is that. 

Imagine if Trump just flat out destroyed the coal industry in America because we can buy it all cheaper from China like Thatcher did (although in our case America and Australia). All the miners who worked during the strikes, they all had their pits closed too, even the profitable ones. 

Thatcher destroyed entire communities and industries in pursuit of her goal of silencing the unions and the working class.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> Remember when these same liberals were screaming "racist" "Hitler" garbage at Bush?
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> ...


It was trendy to bash Bush then, now it's trendy to say nice things. 

Hack fraudsters just saying and doing whatever they think will go over well with their target audience.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> It was trendy to bash Bush then, now it's trendy to say nice things.
> 
> Hack fraudsters just saying and doing whatever they think will go over well with their target audience.


Corporate media shapes the narrative and people follow. Always. 

Corporate media agenda is to make sure that Americans have a very short-term and selective memory with regards to american foreign policy and war-mongering because they are owned by the same few companies at the top that all have their hands in the war machine.

Most Americans don't even know how many countries America is bombing right now.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> Corporate media shapes the narrative and people follow. Always.
> 
> Corporate media agenda is to make sure that Americans have a very short-term and selective memory with regards to american foreign policy and war-mongering because they are owned by the same few companies at the top that all have their hands in the war machine.
> 
> Most Americans don't even know how many countries America is bombing right now.


It's pretty telling when people ignore all the dubious and outright illegal stuff the previous two Presidencies did and consider them as being successful and not bad in the least. We're two years into this Presidency and already 16 years have been forgotten. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Miss Sally said:


> Presidency and already 16 years have been forgotten. :laugh:


And by 2030 Trump will be a saint too because now he's 100% toeing the same establishment line as his predecessors.

All he needs to do is give someone a piece of candy. Millions of dead people will be forgotten in a heartbeat.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Thatcher did a job imo, obviously with Thatcher it depends on where you stood. A lot of parallels between her time and Reagan's.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> And by 2030 Trump will be a saint too because now he's 100% toeing the same establishment line as his predecessors.
> 
> All he needs to do is give someone a piece of candy. Millions of dead people will be forgotten in a heartbeat.


I don't see Trump being welcomed back to the mainstream akin to Bush. The vitriol towards Donald is much stronger. Bush was very well liked from 2001 to the Iraq fiasco,


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Rugreindeer said:


> Thatcher did a job imo, obviously with Thatcher it depends on where you stood. A lot of parallels between her time and Reagan's.


Yeah, if you stand for the elite and rich Thatcher is a legend if you stand for the poor and the working class dancing on her grave should be a fun pass time.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



> I don't see Trump being welcomed back to the mainstream akin to Bush. The vitriol towards Donald is much stronger. Bush was very well liked from 2001 to the Iraq fiasco,


Just nature of the beast as people like to forget / easy to forgive. Look at Jimmy Carter. He was one of the worst President in this country's history and he's treated like a saint because he built a couple of houses. 

- Vic


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugreindeer said:


> I don't see Trump being welcomed back to the mainstream akin to Bush. The vitriol towards Donald is much stronger. Bush was very well liked from 2001 to the Iraq fiasco,


I wonder how much social media plays into this. Ive been on FB and twitter for 8 years or so, so it would really be the last handful of Obama years. I remember his last term was about when so much political stuff started popping up from all my friends, some were ripping him, some were praising him, kinda similar to how it is today with Trump.

I gotta imagine it would have been fairly similar to almost any president had politics and information and social media been as readily available way back in the day. I can see both sides ripping both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, etc...Ha would have loved to have seen my die hard conservative friends during the Clinton impeachment.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugreindeer said:


> I don't see Trump being welcomed back to the mainstream akin to Bush. The vitriol towards Donald is much stronger. Bush was very well liked from 2001 to the Iraq fiasco,


Bush was hated until Trump, by 2030 the American Government will be so fucked up Trump will be forgiven too. Mass hysteria goes as easily as it comes. Not a huge fan of memes in here but this pretty much sums up the type of outrage people and why it will be forgotten. 












Reaper said:


> And by 2030 Trump will be a saint too because now he's 100% toeing the same establishment line as his predecessors.
> 
> All he needs to do is give someone a piece of candy. Millions of dead people will be forgotten in a heartbeat.


If the Korean peace happens it's 100% of a chance.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugreindeer said:


> I don't see Trump being welcomed back to the mainstream akin to Bush. The vitriol towards Donald is much stronger. Bush was very well liked from 2001 to the Iraq fiasco,


The attacks and accusations against Trump are more frequent and more intense now but the lib mainstream said all the exact same things about Bush Jr. 

- He stole the election
- He was a stupid oaf
- He was a privileged rich boy
- He was a racist
- He was a war criminal
- He was an embarrassment to America

Nothing has changed, it's the same plan as before. They just turned up the volume from 7 to 10.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

edit: wrong forum


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The attacks and accusations against Trump are more frequent and more intense now but the lib mainstream said all the exact same things about Bush Jr.
> 
> - He stole the election
> - He was a stupid oaf
> ...


And everyone still thinks all th'ose same things about Bush Jr.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> And everyone still thinks all th'ose same things about Bush Jr.


Nah. The liberals are divided not unanimous.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The attacks and accusations against Trump are more frequent and more intense now but the lib mainstream said all the exact same things about Bush Jr.
> 
> *- He stole the election
> - He was a stupid oaf
> ...


I don't think Dubya is a racist. The rest are true though.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Reaper said:


> Nah. The liberals are divided not unanimous.


no they are not , not about Bush.


----------



## TheBananaman (Dec 6, 2018)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugreindeer said:


> Thatcher did a job imo, obviously with Thatcher it depends on where you stood. A lot of parallels between her time and Reagan's.


She was the woat, well till Theresa May came along


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070765627462336512
:lmao


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Shapiro breaks down the 3 Democratic factions going into the 2020 election and who the likely presidential nominees are. 

Thinks it'll be Joe Biden (establishment), Beto O'Rourke (Bernie bros), and Kamala Harris (Intersectional radicals). 

Of those three I'd probably be most worried about Beto if I were Trump. Could end up being our Justin Trudeau, a scathing indictment of the female franchise.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Shapiro breaks down the 3 Democratic factions going into the 2020 election and who the likely presidential nominees are.
> 
> Thinks it'll be Joe Biden (establishment), *Beto O'Rourke (Bernie bros)*, and Kamala Harris (Intersectional radicals).
> 
> Of those three I'd probably be most worried about Beto if I were Trump. Could end up being our Justin Trudeau, a scathing indictment of the female franchise.


I don't know where he's getting his information but I have seen nothing but criticism of Beto coming from the left. Beto supported Hillary in 2016 and voted for deregulating banks and to fast track the TPP as a congressman. If he thinks Bernie supporters would support that, then he's not as smart as he thinks he is. Beto's presidential chances are entirely an invention of the MSM and not based on real support from the base.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> I don't know where he's getting his information but I have seen nothing but criticism of Beto coming from the left. Beto supported Hillary in 2016 and voted for deregulating banks and to fast track the TPP as a congressman. If he thinks Bernie supporters would support that, then he's not as smart as he thinks he is. Beto's presidential chances are entirely an invention of the MSM and not based on real support from the base.


Eh just promise the right free stuff and the Bernie bros will fall into line.


----------



## Nolo King (Aug 22, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

I have really been enamored by Trump's accomplishments, but I don't foresee him winning in 2020 due to how increasingly stubborn people have become.

People are still clinging on this Russia conspiracy crap for goodness sakes. There's also the problem with Democrats obstructing the USMCA deal. Yikes! It doesn't matter how many facts you show left leaning people, they just want to be activists and stand up for some non-existent boogey man. It's embarrassing. The world, specifically North America, would be much better if everyone took individual responsibility for their lives rather than blaming "the man." 

I applaud the French citizens for standing up. Contrast that to American "liberals" involved in weekly protests that will only lead to degradation. Let's just hope in 2020 that enough of the silent conservatives protest in the most meaningful manner, through their votes..


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Eh just promise the right free stuff and the Bernie bros will fall into line.


A: Bernie polls better with women and minorities than he does with white men, so your use of the slur Bernie Bros shows your laughable ignorance on the topic.

B: If Bernie supporters were the type of people to fall in line, Hillary would be president right now.

C: They'll be too busy voting for Bernie himself to vote for Beto.

Bonus: Shapiro separating Kamala and Biden into separate camps when they are both uber Establishment is almost as stupid as his claim that people from the Bernie camp will support Beto.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Lmao Bernie Bro is a joke, I know it's a lot of women, I went to school with them during the 2016 primaries and election, I know these people very well. They aren't that informed on the issues, they want the free stuff. If Beto promises the free stuff, they'll support him.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Shapiro breaks down the 3 Democratic factions going into the 2020 election and who the likely presidential nominees are.
> 
> Thinks it'll be Joe Biden (establishment), Beto O'Rourke (Bernie bros), and Kamala Harris (Intersectional radicals).
> 
> Of those three I'd probably be most worried about Beto if I were Trump. Could end up being our Justin Trudeau, a scathing indictment of the female franchise.


Shapiro picked Ted Cruz to win the 2016 election and still backs the 2003 Iraq war to this day.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Lmao Bernie Bro is a joke, I know it's a lot of women, I went to school with them during the 2016 primaries and election, I know these people very well. They aren't that informed on the issues, they want the free stuff. If Beto promises the free stuff, they'll support him.


That's your prediction. Mine is that Beto will get 1-2% of the vote and drop out early (if he runs at all and even makes it to Iowa). Time will tell which one of us is right.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Shapiro picked Ted Cruz to win the 2016 election and still backs the 2003 Iraq war to this day.


yeah he's wrong a lot, didn't say otherwise or even that I thought he was right here



Tater said:


> That's your prediction. Mine is that Beto will get 1-2% of the vote and drop out early (if he runs at all and even makes it to Iowa). Time will tell which one of us is right.


I'm not convinced he'll even run (at least not in 2020, I'm sure he eventually will). If he did though, yeah I think he'd definitely be more competitive than say an O'Malley type run. Depends on the rest of the field really.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> Lmao Bernie Bro is a joke, I know it's a lot of women, I went to school with them during the 2016 primaries and election, I know these people very well. They aren't that informed on the issues, they want the free stuff. If Beto promises the free stuff, they'll support him.


Bernie is the most popular politician in the country had the dems not screwed him we'd be calling president Sanders. Also a Trump supporter telling anybody they're not informed is hilarious since Trump tells his base that Fox News is the only real news.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Bernie is the most popular politician in the country had the dems not screwed him we'd be calling president Sanders. Also a Trump supporter telling anybody they're not informed is hilarious since Trump tells his base that Fox News is the only real news.


I don't know why people are being so defensive of Bernie when I didn't even say anything negative about him lmao, so sensitive. It's a fact he promises a lot of "free stuff". It's a fact that a lot of people supported him because they wanted their student debts forgiven and "free" healthcare, in addition to other hand-outs and "wealth redistribution" (read: stealing) policies. 

Your second point is just you lazily trying to put me in a category. Weak.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070376816131694593
> :mj4


To be fair, though, I know a lot of people who don't recite the prayers in church or sing when cued to do so. I noticed more of the "I don't want to be here" vibe he seemed to give while sitting in the front pew with his arms folded. Reminds me of my daughters pouting when we tell them they are going to church and that's that. :lol 

But the evangelicals did vote for this man, yet they overlook (or ignore) that he continues to sign budgets that give federal money to Planned Parenthood (and one of his promises was that he was going to cut federal money away from that group). Not to mention they are hoping the SCOTUS picks will eventually overturn Obergfell vs. Hodges yet Trump has gone on record to say he considers that matter settled law (translated, he has no issue with same-sex marriage). 

Just more disappointments and broken promises by a President who while has gotten some things accomplished has failed on THE big ticket items. Obamacare is still the law of the land, the wall hasn't been built, the deficit and national debt continue to skyrocket, and so on.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know why people are being so defensive of Bernie when I didn't even say anything negative about him lmao, so sensitive. It's a fact he promises a lot of "free stuff". It's a fact that a lot of people supported him because they wanted their student debts forgiven and "free" healthcare, in addition to other hand-outs and "wealth redistribution" (read: stealing) policies.
> 
> Your second point is just you lazily trying to put me in a category. Weak.


Yeah he wants to end the pointless wars that we're in and help out the poor in the country. Also Trump is still selling weapons to the Saudis.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> To be fair, though, I know a lot of people who don't recite the prayers in church or sing when cued to do so. I noticed more of the "I don't want to be here" vibe he seemed to give while sitting in the front pew with his arms folded. Reminds me of my daughters pouting when we tell them they are going to church and that's that. :lol
> 
> But the evangelicals did vote for this man, yet they overlook (or ignore) that he continues to sign budgets that give federal money to Planned Parenthood (and one of his promises was that he was going to cut federal money away from that group). Not to mention they are hoping the SCOTUS picks will eventually overturn Obergfell vs. Hodges yet Trump has gone on record to say he considers that matter settled law (translated, he has no issue with same-sex marriage).
> 
> ...


It was majority WHITE evangelicals that voted for Trump. Evangelical votes actually reflect the voting patterns of the rest of America. It started with the tea party, and has resulted in voting for Trump. Many of the voters that voted for Trump have anxiety about the demographic changes and what it could mean to the social hierarchy in their lives.

The issues you raised, they were just dog whistles that the GOP used in the past to avoid being overtly pandering to this anxiety. Trump ironically was more honest in campaigning on what is the most important issue GOP voters vote for the party.

After so many years, are you still convinced the tea party was energised by disgust with Wall Street and not a response to the election of the first non-white American President?


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> It was majority WHITE evangelicals that voted for Trump. Evangelical votes actually reflect the voting patterns of the rest of America. It started with the tea party, and has resulted in voting for Trump. Many of the voters that voted for Trump have anxiety about the demographic changes and what it could mean to the social hierarchy in their lives.
> 
> The issues you raised, they were just dog whistles that the GOP used in the past to avoid being overtly pandering to this anxiety. Trump ironically was more honest in campaigning on what is the most important issue GOP voters vote for the party.
> 
> After so many years, are you still convinced the tea party was energised by disgust with Wall Street and not a response to the election of the first non-white American President?


The Tea Party started during the final days of the Bush administration, when they saw the government spending still going out of control. I joined a local outlet of the Tea Party and renounced my membership in the Republican Party right after the bailout that Bush pushed through Congress. They jumped on board the Trump train as they felt marginalized by the Congressional establishment and thought Trump would shake things up. He has,but I feel he is doing way more harm then good. They have lost their way as the deficit and national debt keep going up. 

Was there some racial opposition to Obama? There were some who went down that road without question. It was a small number of people though compared to many who didn’t agree with his policies. I would sit down and have a beer and a chat with him, just don’t agree with his political views. 

What really scares me is that Trump will lead to a Democratic President who makes Obama look like a Reagan conservative. Then I fear we will be done as a nation. Self-fulfilling prophecy for those who felt a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been curtains for America.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> The Tea Party started during the final days of the Bush administration, when they saw the government spending still going out of control. I joined a local outlet of the Tea Party and renounced my membership in the Republican Party right after the bailout that Bush pushed through Congress. They jumped on board the Trump train as they felt marginalized by the Congressional establishment and thought Trump would shake things up. He has,but I feel he is doing way more harm then good. They have lost their way as the deficit and national debt keep going up.
> 
> Was there some racial opposition to Obama? There were some who went down that road without question. It was a small number of people though compared to many who didn’t agree with his policies. I would sit down and have a beer and a chat with him, just don’t agree with his political views.
> 
> What really scares me is that Trump will lead to a Democratic President who makes Obama look like a Reagan conservative. Then I fear we will be done as a nation. Self-fulfilling prophecy for those who felt a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been curtains for America.


Final days of Bush presidency would mean during the time of President-elect Obama? You can't be that naive to think the election of the non-white guy as President is what energised the movement from just small group of policy wonks into taking over the GOP. What you claim is a small number of people evidently isn't small enough. A self-proclaimed decentralised movement that abuses super PAC dark money to win power. Irony can't be lost there.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> I would sit down and have a beer and a chat with him, just don’t agree with his political views.


Well you can't have a beer with Trump because he is too Christian to consume alcohol like some degenerate sinner.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> Final days of Bush presidency would mean during the time of President-elect Obama? You can't be that naive to think the election of the non-white guy as President is what energised the movement from just small group of policy wonks into taking over the GOP. What you claim is a small number of people evidently isn't small enough. A self-proclaimed decentralised movement that abuses super PAC dark money to win power. Irony can't be lost there.


The bailout took place in October 2008 shortly before the election. There are the origins and that was before we knew Obama would be elected (although the financial meltdown pretty much gave the election to him at that point). 



CamillePunk said:


> Well you can't have a beer with Trump because he is too Christian to consume alcohol like some degenerate sinner.


Trump hardly acts like a Christian anyway.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> The bailout took place in October 2008 shortly before the election. There are the origins and that was before we knew Obama would be elected (although the financial meltdown pretty much gave the election to him at that point).


It didn't really get popular until after the non-white President elect became president and didn't immediately solve all the problems within the year. How did a movement that started as outrage over bailouts in 2008 become more concerned with birtherism within a year?

I would point to Sarah Palin handing the election to Obama. The meltdown didn't stain either of them. Palin made McCain look incompetent in choosing a capable running mate.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

A Fox News Anchor is going to be our UN Ambassador :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Trump is off the rails with his tweets today even more so than usual. I think he knows its the end for him soon, and he is really panicking now.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://apnews.com/73e93b30c49a4349aea32f2f42249cc5?utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow



> *Record imports push US trade gap to $55.5 billion in October
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Record imports in October drove the U.S. trade deficit to the highest level in a decade.
> 
> ...


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> It was majority WHITE evangelicals that voted for Trump. Evangelical votes actually reflect the voting patterns of the rest of America. It started with the tea party, and has resulted in voting for Trump. *Many of the voters that voted for Trump have anxiety about the demographic changes and what it could mean to the social hierarchy in their lives*.


'Many' of the voters?

That's like saying 'many' of the people that voted for Hillary are man hating feminists. 

People voted for Trump because they weren't in favor of the alternative. Same reason people voted for Hillary.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*






Don't bother after 2:18, just talking heads reacting to Tillerson's comments.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rex-tillerson-on-trump-his-firing-we-did-not-have-a-common-value-system/



> *Rex Tillerson reflects on firing, working for "undisciplined" Trump
> *
> HOUSTON -- Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is speaking publicly about what led to his firing in March by President Trump, who Tillerson described as "pretty undisciplined."
> 
> ...


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stephen90 said:


> Yeah he wants to end the pointless wars that we're in and help out the poor in the country. Also Trump is still selling weapons to the Saudis.


Bernie wouldn't have ended anything. He'd just get stonewalled into compliance because the American people are too dumb to vote anyone out. Bernie would get blamed for doing nothing, he'd be another Trudeau except not a jackass who culturally appropriates and dances like a buffoon. 

This faith in Bernie is like every other Politician that's come before, all huff and no puff.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Bernie didn't have the resolve to stand up to Hillary Clinton, the DNC, or random BLM protesters who hijacked his event. But sure, he would've stood up to the military industrial complex. :heston


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is off the rails with his tweets today even more so than usual. I think he knows its the end for him soon, and he is really panicking now.


Still banging on the impeachment train? :lol You've been talking about impeachment since 2016 and have been saying he's "close" to it for well over a year now. You've also stated he'd be impeached by the end of 2017(more than once) . I think your predictions don't hold a ton of weight lol . Hell, you've even stated that if he wasn't impeached within his first term you wouldn't talk anymore politics and even be okay with being banned from politics threads :lol

You've been in hysterics since the election .It's Donald Trump, he says a lot of stuff that may or may not have any meaning behind them. I don't buy for a second that he's "signaling" to "the end" of his presidency . He's Donald Trump, you don't need to "read between the lines" with him lol you've done this before about "the end", will you ever learn? lol


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> 'Many' of the voters?
> 
> That's like saying 'many' of the people that voted for Hillary are man hating feminists.
> 
> People voted for Trump because they weren't in favor of the alternative. Same reason people voted for Hillary.


You seem triggered by the truth. Anxiety is several steps lower below hating yet here you are trying to equate both. I hope you can learn to cope with this anxiety about demographic changes in the country for your own sake.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071132880368132096
Just in case anyone forgot, we have a president with the emotional maturity of a toddler.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

The real reason why the unemployment rate is what it is today.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



CamillePunk said:


> yeah he's wrong a lot, didn't say otherwise or even that I thought he was right here


Why post him if you don't believe in him and he isn't reliable?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Rugreindeer said:


> Why post him if you don't believe in him and he isn't reliable?


Because it's interesting?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> Still banging on the impeachment train? :lol You've been talking about impeachment since 2016 and have been saying he's "close" to it for well over a year now. You've also stated he'd be impeached by the end of 2017(more than once) . I think your predictions don't hold a ton of weight lol . Hell, you've even stated that if he wasn't impeached within his first term you wouldn't talk anymore politics and even be okay with being banned from politics threads :lol
> 
> You've been in hysterics since the election .It's Donald Trump, he says a lot of stuff that may or may not have any meaning behind them. I don't buy for a second that he's "signaling" to "the end" of his presidency . He's Donald Trump, you don't need to "read between the lines" with him lol you've done this before about "the end", will you ever learn? lol


Trump is going to be impeached, or he is going to quit before it happens like I have been saying. I said I wouldn't be surprised if he was impeached by the end of 2017, and the fact is, he could have been and should have been for breaking the emoluments clause. 

Here is why Trump has been off the trails today

Mueller's says Manafort lied about:
* Interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik
* Kilimnik's participation in count two of superseding information
* A wire-transfer to a firm working for Manafort
* Info pertaining to another DOJ investigation
* Manafort's contact with admin officials

Mueller's office says that the president's former personal lawyer had communications during the campaign with someone who claimed to be a "trusted person" in the Russian Federation who offered the Trump campaign "political synergy" and "synergy on a government level."


Mueller's office lays out the Michael Cohen's "received the contact information for, and spoke with, a Russian national who claimed to be a 'trusted person' in the Russian Federation who could offer the campaign 'political synergy' and 'synergy on a government level.'"

During his proffer sessions, the defendant admitted ... that he had in fact conferred with Individual 1 about contacting the Russian government before reaching out to gauge Russia’s interest in such a meeting. The meeting ultimately did not take place."


Prosecutors say Trump's lawyer lied to Congress about potential Moscow deal worth "hundreds of millions" that was negotiated amid Kremlin's pro-Trump interference campaign. Meanwhile, @realDonaldTrump was pushing for a relaxation of sanctions.

Cohen now admits he "conferred" with Trump "about contacting the Russian government" before Cohen used a radio interview to suggest meeting with Trump and Putin.











Do I even need to go on? 


You can ignore all the facts you want, its what you do best


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> You seem triggered by the truth. Anxiety is several steps lower below hating yet here you are trying to equate both. I hope you can learn to cope with this anxiety about demographic changes in the country for your own sake.


Did I sound angry or emotional in any way at all? Why would you assume I'm triggered? Because I challenged your belief and offered a counterpoint? 

Because I don't agree with your assessment of Trump voters, your knee jerk reaction was to call me a racist? 

And you think _I'm_ triggered?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Did I sound angry or emotional in any way at all? Why would you assume I'm triggered? Because I challenged your belief and offered a counterpoint?
> 
> Because I don't agree with your assessment of Trump voters, your knee jerk reaction was to call me a racist?
> 
> And you think _I'm_ triggered?


You sound angry and emotional when you equate people with racial anxiety to man-HATING feminists. Can't it be pro-white on one side and pro-women on the other? Why only hate? If that's not being triggered, what is?

When did I call you a racist? Stop being triggered. Being anxious about changing social status due to demographic changes is not the same as being a racist, although the two can overlap.

Your default jump to the extremes of each case is the best example I can show of how triggered you are.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> It didn't really get popular until after the non-white President elect became president and didn't immediately solve all the problems within the year. How did a movement that started as outrage over bailouts in 2008 become more concerned with birtherism within a year?
> 
> I would point to Sarah Palin handing the election to Obama. The meltdown didn't stain either of them. Palin made McCain look incompetent in choosing a capable running mate.


The rumblings of fiscal conservatism were definitely felt long before the start of the Great Recession and the election. Throughout Bush 43's second term, people sounded the alarm that government spending was still spiraling out of control and we couldn't keep things up especially with the government financing two wars. The chickens finally came home to roost when the market melted down, not to mention the bubble on the real estate market burst as well. 

Originally, Palin fired up the GOP base. For all her faults, one could not argue she had passion and people flocked to her. Eventually, though...fatigue of 8 years of Bush 43 topped by the collapse of the market is what did McCain in. He really had a fighting chance to win the election until the market dropped. Obama's election was a repudiation of Bush 43, much like Trump's election was a repudiation of Obama (as well as Hillary not being an acceptable option)

Now...here's a Tea Party group's platform...

https://www.teapartypatriots.org/ourvision/

The Tea Party was strictly all about financial and fiscal issues with our government. A reduced national debt and deficit, as well as pushing for a balanced-budget Amendment to the Constitution is what the Tea Party stands for. Granted, there are those members of this movement that have strong views on social issues, but the Tea Party itself was originally about monetary issues only and they didn't cross over into issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage/birtherism, etc. It was strong enough to help the GOP gain control of both the House and Senate. 

The issue of birtherism was out there before the Tea Party took hold...but somewhere along the way what the Tea Party stood for got muddled with the arrival of social conservatives. Many of them saw common ground as far as they were concerned with the outrageous spending of our government but others were worried about what they saw as deterioration of our values. It's not just issues like abortion, but same-sex marriage and the legalization/tolerance of marijuana. As a result, the Tea Party has been unfairly painted with the brush of being a social conservative or a nutjob who just refers to Obama as that "Dirty Muslim from Kenya". They didn't do enough to separate themselves. 



Reaper said:


> A Fox News Anchor is going to be our UN Ambassador :lmao





Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071132880368132096
> Just in case anyone forgot, we have a president with the emotional maturity of a toddler.


Trump hires the best TV people apparently for his administration? 

As much as people really seem to love when Trump owns the libs...people really need to take a look at how stupid he looks when he does shit like this. When our Presidency is downgraded to stuff like this, we are in a bad spot. All that is left is to hear him say, "My dad can lick your dad."

But again, it's all distraction that points to the fact that the big ticket items aren't getting done. In fact, I can see it now...Trump 2020's campaign slogan is..."We Will Build That Big Beautiful Wall...No, Really...We Know We Didn't Mean It Then But We Mean It Now."


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

A Fox News anchor is about the level of seriousness the UN deserves


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



FriedTofu said:


> You sound angry and emotional when you equate people with racial anxiety to man-HATING feminists. Can't it be pro-white on one side and pro-women on the other? Why only hate? If that's not being triggered, what is?


Maybe they aren't man hating feminists, maybe they just get 'anxiety' when they're around straight masculine men.



FriedTofu said:


> When did I call you a racist? Stop being triggered. Being anxious about changing social status due to demographic changes is not the same as being a racist, although the two can overlap.
> 
> Your default jump to the extremes of each case is the best example I can show of how triggered you are.


"I'm not calling you a racist I'm just saying you wish there were less non-white people".

"I'm not calling you a racist I'm just saying you get _anxiety_ around non-white people".


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Obama had campaign donors as Ambassadors, pretty sure if you look back several have had silly picks. 

Did Presidential History just start with Trump or what?

Doesn't make it less silly but the UN is a joke in itself.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/ammon-bundy-helped-bolster-the-militia-movement-now-hes



> *Ammon Bundy Is Quitting The Militia Movement After Breaking With Trump On Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric*
> 
> "The vast majority seemed to hang on to what seemed like hate, and fear, and almost warmongering, and I don't want to associate myself with warmongers."
> 
> ...


O.K. whatever parallel timeline we crossed into a few of years ago, I want to go home. This one's too bat shit unpredictable for me.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/ammon-bundy-helped-bolster-the-militia-movement-now-hes
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. whatever parallel timeline we crossed into a few of years ago, I want to go home. This one's too bat shit unpredictable for me.


So a man in a militia is *for* immigration? Why does that not make sense?


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/ammon-bundy-helped-bolster-the-militia-movement-now-hes
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. whatever parallel timeline we crossed into a few of years ago, I want to go home. This one's too bat shit unpredictable for me.





virus21 said:


> So a man in a militia is *for* immigration? Why does that not make sense?


Sounds like Bundy is woke now. Immigration is good for the country and if our government was serious about reform they would do something about it. Of course no one is serious about it as we continue to see the same old dog whistles to rile up the masses to distract from the fact nothing is getting done.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Stinger Fan said:


> You've been in hysterics since the election .*It's Donald Trump, he says a lot of stuff that may or may not have any meaning behind them.* I don't buy for a second that he's "signaling" to "the end" of his presidency . He's Donald Trump, you don't need to "read between the lines" with him lol you've done this before about "the end", will you ever learn? lol


I lolled.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Oh no the president allegedly broke blatantly unconstitutional campaign finance laws.

How awful. :trump must surely be done this time! 

I want to be president just so I can have fake charges leveled against me so I am pressured to appoint a special counsel who will find zero evidence of the fake charges but will spend years trying to trip me up on entirely unrelated bullshit.

Wait, I want to be president so I can be pressured and tell everyone to fuck off, they're not getting a special counsel and they can lick my balls. Special counsels exist for the purpose of political prosecutions. Ken Starr, Pat Fitzgerald, Bob Mueller. All three investigated crimes that never occurred or were extraordinarily petty, and then tried to destroy the president they were investigating through revelations of picayune bullshit unrelated to the charges they were given power to investigate. Willingly aided and abetted by politicians and media figures consumed with hate for the president at the time. The kind of people who should have no more power and responsibility than a teenage cashier at McDonald's.


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Forget about impeachment. Regardless of what evidence there is against him, he'll say it's fake or have an excuse and if the House impeaches him the Senate won't convict. He'll portray that as him being found innocent.

What I don't understand why he still has so much support. There were several major promises I can remember him making in the campaign.

1) He would bring in a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until the US's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
2) He would repeal and replace Obamacare, replacing it with something terrific, something much cheaper and better than Obamacare
3) He would build a great wall along the United States border with Mexico which was made out of concrete/rebar and a heck of a lot higher than the ceiling in the Moores Opera Center (45 feet), which Mexico would pay for
4) He would appoint a special prosecutor to put Hillary Clinton in jail

1) He did in a very half way, imposing restrictions on a few countries.
2) He hasn't done at all, Obamacare still exists. Even Barack Obama said he would support Trump if Trump would bring in something better, but Trump still didn't do it.
3) This doesn't seem like it's going to happen either, and Trump keeps asking Congress for the money to pay for it. That's not the Mexican Congress he's asking, it's the United States Congress. Why? He said many times that Mexico would pay for it.
4) He hasn't

I can understand Democrats not criticising him for these things - they don't want these things to go through after all - but why the hell do Republicans take it from this guy? Is the job he's doing in areas such as the economy deemed to be so phenomenal that he can lie through his teeth on the campaign and break all his promises and they don't care?


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Nothing Finer said:


> Forget about impeachment. Regardless of what evidence there is against him, he'll say it's fake or have an excuse and if the House impeaches him the Senate won't convict. He'll portray that as him being found innocent.
> 
> What I don't understand why he still has so much support. There were several major promises I can remember him making in the campaign.
> 
> ...


Don't forget that the bills that came out regarding the Obamacare repeal was nothing even close to repeal. In fact, for eight years the GOP promised repeal...not skinny repeal aka repeal on a diet. As for the wall...Trump has had the chance to get financing but continues to sign budget bills that don't finance the wall. 

Other promises he has broken...he talked about bringing troops home from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. They are still there and no intention of bringing them home anytime soon. 

Speaking of...he talked about how we were going to be no longer leading from behind and let the world see that poking the US in the eye was no longer acceptable. So what has he done...bombed a couple of empty airfields in Syria. He has sung the praises of Kim Jong Un in North Korea, but it looks like Un has no intention of denuclearizing. He talks tough against Iran, but all it is has become just talk. It's no better then Obama...tougher talk but all talk no action. 

He talked about defunding Planned Parenthood of federal money. The budget bills continue to provide federal money to that organization. For a man who talks about being THE most pro-life president ever but has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prove that. 

For many, the tax cuts are tax increases especially as he has eliminated a ton of deductions. For individuals and families, the cuts are temporary. He did nothing to simplify the tax code which was actually another promise of his during the campaign. 

But of course, Trump supporters continue to think that "owning the libs and taking the fight to them" means they are winning. I'd be fine with that were the winning to actually start.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> Sounds like Bundy is woke now. Immigration is good for the country and if our government was serious about reform they would do something about it. Of course no one is serious about it as we continue to see the same old dog whistles to rile up the masses to distract from the fact nothing is getting done.


What kind do you mean? Not sure the country needs more unskilled labor. We have enough people and not enough jobs for that. Then again the US Government likes it's people being more chattel than anything else. 

A welfare State and lots of people with no skills and no jobs isn't exactly sustainable. We cannot even put the people we have to work in decent jobs.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1' - Speak Murican, Build Wall, Don't Smock*

To all you sinners, Stop dranking and stop Smocking.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1' - Speak Murican, Build Wall, Don't Smock*



Reaper said:


> To all you sinners, Stop dranking and stop Smocking.


Nothin wrong with bein a sinner. World's full of 'em


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*The Official Donald Trump Thread III*

I want some of what Trump is smocking


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*Re: The Official Donald Trump Thread III*



Draykorinee said:


> I want some of what Trump is smocking


All I know is that he just likes blowing smock.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Today is a prime example proving my theory correct about how things are going to play out in the next political cycle. Seeing all the praise Chuck and Nancy are getting from the resistance liberal crowd is mindnumbingly retarded. These brain dead morons are going to replace Trump with the very same people who lost to Trump in the first place, nothing is going to change for the better, and another Trump is going to get elected after Dems shit the bed again.

We're repeating the same cycle of stupidity in this country and the resistance liberals are too caught up in TDS to see it. Their solution to Trump is to elect people who are to the right of the guy they are rioting against in France for being too far right. fpalm


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



deepelemblues said:


> Oh no the president allegedly broke blatantly unconstitutional campaign finance laws.
> 
> How awful. :trump must surely be done this time!
> 
> ...


Do you want to be President also so you can have a brain explosion and say you're going to build a giant wall somehow but someone else will pay for it; say one thing and then the opposite the next day (oh sorry, I mean misspeaking); fire basically anyone in your cabinet who talks in words too complicated for you; get laughed at when you say absurd grand delusions like you've accomplished more in 2 years than any other administration; hire buffoons like Guliani who explode into insanity on live TV by saying truth isn't truth; then go on Fox n Friends yourself and waste time there until you become too much for even them to bear?

Actually it sounds kinda fun if you're a blue ribbon narcissist.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Trump has consistently hired the shittest people to high positions, no wonder his business went bust. Even admitting one was as dumb as rocks.

Great business man.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*

Once again, Trump is threatening shutdown if he doesn't get the funding for the wall and border security. In spite of the fact he has had several budget bills that hit his desk that didn't provide said funding yet signed them anyway after all the talk about shutdown...now he claims to be serious about it and will really shut the government down this time. Pinky swear. :lol 

Mr. President, we've seen this movie already. In the end, you are going to once again cave and sign a bill that does the same thing. You had the political capital to get this done and blew it on stupid fights that mean nothing. And then you wonder why people see you as a joke. 



Miss Sally said:


> What kind do you mean? Not sure the country needs more unskilled labor. We have enough people and not enough jobs for that. Then again the US Government likes it's people being more chattel than anything else.
> 
> A welfare State and lots of people with no skills and no jobs isn't exactly sustainable. We cannot even put the people we have to work in decent jobs.


We can get people here to make better lives for themselves...that has always been the American ideal and the American Dream. And some of them have nothing when they come here but are able to turn that into something and make it. I had a roommate in college from Africa, he became a doctor, went back to his home country and is very successful. Among my friends is a couple who came here from Mexico who had absolutely nothing and no skills to speak of but now own a restaurant that is doing quite well and is a pillar of our community. 

I get the idea of the concern of people coming here being a drain on our resources, but the fact we are now making them out to be villains for wanting a better life is ridiculous. Yes, there are some criminals in those that are coming here, but that's just the nature of the beast unfortunately and unless we are just going to shut the doors completely (which I have suggested is an option on a temporary basis if we were dead serious about resolving the immigration issue) then we will have to deal with that. We should be pointing out that really nothing has been done to solve the issue. We have no mandatory E-verify, no stricter penalties for companies that knowingly hire illegals, etc. And we are certainly not getting Mexico to fund a wall that hasn't been built and will never be built. 

Trump is another in a line of politicians that is "Talk a big game, do jack shit" about it. It's tougher talk then his predecessors, but it's still just all talk.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



BruiserKC said:


> We have no mandatory E-verify, no stricter penalties for companies that knowingly hire illegals, etc.


This would solve the problem once and for all and it wouldn't require wasting tons of resources on a wall that won't do jack shit to fix anything. All they gotta do is crack down on the businesses who hire illegal immigrants and make it impossible for someone not in the country legally to get a job. They'll never do that though because it's not in the interests of the donor class. Trump's wall has always been a dog whistle to rile up the base. They've never intended to take the necessary steps to address this issue. Or build the wall, as far as that goes.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*Re: Donald Trump Thread III - 'Individual 1'*



Tater said:


> This would solve the problem once and for all and it wouldn't require wasting tons of resources on a wall that won't do jack shit to fix anything. All they gotta do is crack down on the businesses who hire illegal immigrants and make it impossible for someone not in the country legally to get a job. They'll never do that though because it's not in the interests of the donor class. Trump's wall has always been a dog whistle to rile up the base. They've never intended to take the necessary steps to address this issue. Or build the wall, as far as that goes.


I believe in paying attention to what he is doing rather then what he is saying. In some cases, it's what he is not doing. A new President's political capital is at its peak usually in the first year of their administration. This is where the stuff really gets done. People elected Trump to shake up the system and hoped that he would be able to get things moving. Instead, while his base loved how he trolled the liberals and the naysayers it actually turned off a lot of people who were probably willing to work with him. And now that the GOP has lost the House, a lot of the big-ticket promises made are going to be just more empty ones. 

At this rate, Trump's 2020 slogan will be, "Trump 2020...We Will Repeal Obamacare and Build The Wall...This Time, I Mean It. We Didn't Mean It Before But This Time I Really Mean It And Will Pinky Swear On It."


----------



## greasykid1 (Dec 22, 2015)

I'm confused.

Trump threatens lockdown if he doesn't get funding for his wall ... but his entire racist-rousing rant about his precious fucking wall always used to end with "and Mexico is gonna pay for it!" ... didn't it?

How are Trump supporters so happy to completely ignore the countless _actual recorded_ lies and u-turns that he has made since the start of his campaign? I never claimed that Obama never told a lie, but fucking hell, has Trump ever said ANYTHING truthful?! The man is an absolute joke.


----------



## SexiestOfAllTime (Dec 12, 2018)

You do realise since trump became president he is making America even more racist btw when trump became president America is destroying their reputation even through mass shootings increased in 2015 but trump is the reason why it has been even worse yes even when Obama was president shooting increased in 2015 but it gotten worse when trump got in trump can have all excuses for everything but the way he treats Latinos pisses me off the only reason trump won is a fluke Hillary was close to beating trump Fact is as much as I hate Hillary I rather see her as pres than a idiot like trump


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

greasykid1 said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> Trump threatens lockdown if he doesn't get funding for his wall ... *but his entire racist-rousing rant about his precious fucking wall always used to end with "and Mexico is gonna pay for it!*" ... didn't it?
> 
> How are Trump supporters so happy to completely ignore the countless _actual recorded_ lies and u-turns that he has made since the start of his campaign? I never claimed that Obama never told a lie, but fucking hell, has Trump ever said ANYTHING truthful?! The man is an absolute joke.


And that is why it pisses me off that schumer and pelosi didn't ask him that during the press conference with Trump when they were face to face. The dems have the house now, they dont need push overs like those two weak ass clowns running it. Get someone that will stand up to Trump.

About Trump ever saying anything truthful, in his two years as president he has told over 6,000 lies. Its probably closer to 7,000 now since the number was like 6500 at the start of Nov.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Presented without comment.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

What's weak is government shutdowns are never anything close to being actual government shutdowns. :mj2 Do it for real pussies.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Reaper said:


> Presented without comment.


I can remember a time when I said you always blindly defended Trump.

Well shit man, you've been bashing him more than I do.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

@HollyJollyDemise ; - I didn't bash Trump. Trump bashed Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> Presented without comment.


Its good to see you on "the dark side" when it comes to Trump lol


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its good to see you on "the dark side" when it comes to Trump lol


Even throughout 2016-2018, I always said after every few posts where people called me a Trump supporter that I will give him a chance and if he fucks up then I will become his harshest critic :draper2 

I enjoyed the memes and the early anti-Trump hysteria. I was always about the _policies _and his policy positions. I saw the outcome of the Tax cut myself. I realized it was a bad idea. I saw his feeble flacid dicked attempts at reigning in America's war machine, to full fledghed neocon war mongering. I saw his flaccid dicked head bowing to his Saudi Masters. I saw him betray the American people over and over again. First with the tax cuts that benefited the corporate overlords instead of the majority of workers. His continue suppression of labor unions and rights, his horrendous trade war that has erased any gains americans thought they'd get and his foundation for the next big economic crash etc etc. 

There's too much there for any rational human to continue to support him. 

Turned out he's a gutter snake like the rest of the establishment fucktards so I decided to call him what he is :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> E*ven throughout 2016-2018, I always said after every few posts where people called me a Trump supporter that I will give him a chance and if he fucks up then I will become his harshest critic :draper2 *
> 
> I enjoyed the memes and the early anti-Trump hysteria. I was always about the _policies _and his policy positions. I saw the outcome of the Tax cut myself. I realized it was a bad idea. I saw his feeble flacid dicked attempts at reigning in America's war machine, to full fledghed neocon war mongering. I saw his flaccid dicked head bowing to his Saudi Masters. I saw him betray the American people over and over again. First with the tax cuts that benefited the corporate overlords instead of the majority of workers. His continue suppression of labor unions and rights, his horrendous trade war that has erased any gains americans thought they'd get and his foundation for the next big economic crash etc etc.
> 
> ...


I give you total credit for that. Which is more than I can say for the people that still support Trump now.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> I give you total credit for that. Which is more than I can say for the people that still support Trump now.


At this point, I don't have my eggs in any particular political camp. It seems that the American situation is far too complex for either political party to truly get a hold on this massive behind the scenes juggernaut (corporate lobbyism in particular combined with an unelected bureaucracy) that controls things for any political movement to be able to eradicate.

All we can do is try to find individuals in local politics that seem to have their hearts in the right place. Politics at the federal level are now _completely_ out of the normal american's ability to control.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Can Trump's presidency just end already? I mean, honestly, I'm ready for this thing to just end. I'm convinced he's not accomplishing anything for the rest of his tenure and watching him fail is getting tiring. I want to see some positives from the person in charge. 

Something, anything that doesn't cost Trump his life or the life or anyone else, just end the man's term in office already so we can move on. Worst fucking President of my lifetime and possibly in the history of this country. I can only hope that the dumb shit he does doesn't fuck us over too badly in the upcoming years.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Can Trump's presidency just end already? I mean, honestly, I'm ready for this thing to just end. I'm convinced he's not accomplishing anything for the rest of his tenure and watching him fail is getting tiring. I want to see some positives from the person in charge.
> 
> Something, anything that doesn't cost Trump his life or the life or anyone else, just end the man's term in office already so we can move on. Worst fucking President of my lifetime and possibly in the history of this country. I can only hope that the dumb shit he does doesn't fuck us over too badly in the upcoming years.


Get rid of Trump and Pence becomes president. That's not an improvement.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Can Trump's presidency just end already? I mean, honestly, I'm ready for this thing to just end. I'm convinced he's not accomplishing anything for the rest of his tenure and watching him fail is getting tiring. I want to see some positives from the person in charge.
> 
> Something, anything that doesn't cost Trump his life or the life or anyone else, just end the man's term in office already so we can move on. Worst fucking President of my lifetime and possibly in the history of this country. I can only hope that the dumb shit he does doesn't fuck us over too badly in the upcoming years.


What's got you bothered today? :lol

What are the things in his agenda you would like him to accomplish? (Surely you don't expect him to accomplish things not on his agenda, that'd be an unfair expectation)


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> What's got you bothered today? :lol
> 
> What are the things in his agenda you would like him to accomplish? (Surely you don't expect him to accomplish things not on his agenda, that'd be an unfair expectation)


Probably realized that :trump is not finished again despite the monthly ritual hyperventilating over nothingburgers. THIS TIME... THIS TIME... IT'S (NOT) THIS TIME (AGAIN)

I listened to a former US attorney on NPR being interviewed a couple days ago and he actually said that Michael Cohen's trip to Prague that never happened has been proved to have happened because something something Cohen took a plea deal something something. Of course, the trip never happened and Mueller has already admitted as much. A former US attorney. Who should know better. But there he was, saying that it is now :fact that Cohen went to Prague and coordinated the release of the DNC emails with Russian government agents. His evidence? Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... well I guess he thought the assumption that Cohen was going to change his story on that allegation now that he's signed the plea deal was his evidence. Again, despite Mueller already discounting that particular allegation and moving on some time ago :draper2

These people have lost their damn minds. Well they did two years ago but they haven't found them yet 

Meanwhile economic uncertainty is rising and if they hadn't lost their damn minds they'd realize that the way to finish :trump is right under their noses as the next global recession is almost certainly going to start before his first term ends. But they've lost their damn minds and will go on and impeach him over picayune "campaign finance violations" because that's all they have, they'll spew their bile all over themselves in front of the body politic, get the :trump voters mega (MAGA?) pissed off which will get :trump re-elected. Because they've lost their damn minds

They will never, ever figure it out. Ever


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


> Get rid of Trump and Pence becomes president. That's not an improvement.


There isn't an improvement on either side of the isle, and those who could possibly be better will never get power because those who have power will do what they can to prevent those who can change things for the masses from gaining any power. 

And this isn't a pessimistic/cynical POV.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

Tater said:


> Get rid of Trump and Pence becomes president. That's not an improvement.


It gets rid of the personality cult around Trump, which is an improvement tbh.


In b4 Trump signs a bill legalizing weed in 6-9 months, takes all the credit for it, and gets reelected. I don't care what your opinion is on legalization of cannabis, but if you can't acknowledge that it's a winning issue in 2020 you might need to reconsider.

In b4 you can't in b4.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

dele said:


> It gets rid of the personality cult around Trump, which is an improvement tbh.
> 
> 
> In b4 Trump signs a bill legalizing weed in 6-9 months, takes all the credit for it, and gets reelected. I don't care what your opinion is on legalization of cannabis, but if you can't acknowledge that it's a winning issue in 2020 you might need to reconsider.
> ...


Wrong, it will be his announcement of the withdrawal of soldiers from Afghanistan that will get him re-elected. Oh, and being impeached, because the foresight and emotional level of his opposition is at a 14 year old mean girl level

Legalizing weed won't get through the Senate


----------



## SexiestOfAllTime (Dec 12, 2018)

Trump’s presidency is terrible tbh I like Total divas 1000 more times better than trump and I hate total divas I rather watch total bellas for 48 hours than voting for trump that’s how I feel Tbh I hate total divas and total bellas but I like them way more than trump hell I wouldn’t vote for trump if my life depended on it look I understand some of you like him but I Rather see someone else he’ll I would vote for cena to be president if he is running the election


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

dele said:


> It gets rid of the personality cult around Trump, which is an improvement tbh.


Trump is an incompetent buffoon. Pence is not. He would be able to get much more devastating policies through Congress.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

dele said:


> It gets rid of the personality cult around Trump, which is an improvement tbh.


If you think a corrupt politically motivated investigation (true or not, that's the perception of tens of millions of people) ousting our elected president will merely dispel the cult of personality and pave the way back to normalcy, you're tragically mistaken. 



SexiestOfAllTime said:


> Trump’s presidency is terrible tbh I like Total divas 1000 more times better than trump and I hate total divas I rather watch total bellas for 48 hours than voting for trump that’s how I feel Tbh I hate total divas and total bellas but I like them way more than trump hell I wouldn’t vote for trump if my life depended on it look I understand some of you like him but I Rather see someone else he’ll I would vote for cena to be president if he is running the election


Such an enlightening take, thank you. I do hope you remember to vote. It's crucially important that the will of the people be heard so we can build a glorious future together with our great ideas concerning Total Divas, Total Bellas, and President Cena.

WE THE PEOPLE.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

deepelemblues said:


> Wrong, it will be his announcement of the withdrawal of soldiers from Afghanistan that will get him re-elected.


Meh, he's painted himself into a corner with regards to the military. A withdrawal of troops would mean that he's admitting defeat. It would also be (in a fucked up way) portrayed that he doesn't believe in the troops. If anything, him starting a new war would be more likely.



deepelemblues said:


> Oh, and being impeached, because the foresight and *emotional level of his opposition is at a 14 year old mean girl level*


Pot, meet kettle. What were you up to in fall/winter 2010?



deepelemblues said:


> Legalizing weed won't get through the Senate


>implying the Republican senate has a backbone

I think you drastically downplay how popular of an issue legalization is with both sides of the aisle. Regardless of whether Trump or the Senate "support" it or not: it is a winning issue in 2020, particularly for the Democrats. Michigan put a good recreational bill up for referendum, got it passed, and elected a democrat governor. Wisconsin put cannabis on the ballot as a ballot issue in Green Bay, Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, and La Crosse (i.e. the most populous areas) and finally voted Walker out. You take cannabis off of the controlled substances act and you take a lot of the wind out of the Democrats sails.

You can say what you want about how "his base" would react but you already know that he could do this, come out and literally say "I did this to spite the Democrats" and his supporters would be okay with it.



Tater said:


> Trump is an incompetent buffoon. Pence is not. He would be able to get much more devastating policies through Congress.


Pence can't lie like Trump can. People would actually hold Pence accountable. Trump can say/do whatever he wants and his supporters do all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to justify it. Once the bloom is off the rose and they have to deal with someone who has the personality of a wet towel, things would be different.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

dele said:


> Pence can't lie like Trump can. People would actually hold Pence accountable. Trump can say/do whatever he wants and his supporters do all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to justify it. Once the bloom is off the rose and they have to deal with someone who has the personality of a wet towel, things would be different.


Pence doesn't need to lie like Trump. The people can't do shit to hold the government accountable. They do whatever they damned well please. The Establishment would be much happier with Pence than Trump. Don't let TDS fool you into thinking otherwise.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Aah, Bernie and the Senate finally do something right:

https://www.businessinsider.com/ber...tarving-child-during-yemen-war-debate-2018-12



> *Bernie Sanders stood beside an image of a Yemeni child as the debate on ending US involvement in the Saudi-led war intensifies
> *
> Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Wednesday displayed a giant photo of an emaciated child impacted by the Saudi-led war in Yemen as the Senate voted overwhelmingly to advance a resolution to end US involvement in the bloody conflict.
> The Senate voted 60-39 to further the debate. A final vote is expected for Thursday.
> ...


And this here is the real reason why he was not going to be President.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

And we're off to a great start. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

Vic Capri said:


> And we're off to a great start. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Jesus Christ Trump might be the biggest man child ever.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Vic Capri said:


> And we're off to a great start. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Looks like Mike Pence sent a cardboard cutout of himself to attend the meeting.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> What's got you bothered today? :lol
> 
> What are the things in his agenda you would like him to accomplish? (Surely you don't expect him to accomplish things not on his agenda, that'd be an unfair expectation)


Threats of shutdown. Constant reasoning to roll my eyes at his dumbassery. Constant listening to his gloating about things he hasn't accomplished. It's getting old. People wanna shit on Obama? Fine, Obamacare sucked. But at least he GOT IT DONE. He had a goal in mind, he set out to do it, and he did it. No if's and or butt's about it. Same can be said about a lot of other things he set his sights on accomplishing. 

You're asking me what I want him to do? How about fixing Obamacare, something he claimed would be easy to repeal and here we are two years later? How about improving the student loan issue that is still affecting the country and he's done literally nothing about. And don't tell me that's not on his agenda. It is a serious issue in the country and needs to be fixed. That automatically makes it part of his agenda. If not, he's not a good President. Stop worrying about the issues he's obviously not going to be able to fix (and wouldn't fix our issues anyways) like the wall and focus on the problems that are continuing to plague the country. Work on the social divide. Find a way to fix the large gap between the healthy and the poor. Prove to everyone that he truly is a President for the American people and not just himself.

In other words, stop being an absolute shit show of a President and showcase that he actually knows what the hell he's doing. We aren't asking him to be Teddy Roosevelt. But we are asking him to at the very least be on Obama's level. You know, that guy he spent years shitting on? 

THAT would be a start. 



CamillePunk said:


> If you think a corrupt politically motivated investigation (true or not, that's the perception of tens of millions of people) ousting our elected president will merely dispel the cult of personality and pave the way back to normalcy, you're tragically mistaken.


Those tens of millions of people are the reason Trump is in office. We don't care if they think it's a corrupt investigation. It obviously isn't and if they want to continue to blindly believe this then so be it. It's pretty obvious at this point that it's not. 



deepelemblues said:


> Probably realized that :trump is not finished again despite the monthly ritual hyperventilating over nothingburgers. THIS TIME... THIS TIME... IT'S (NOT) THIS TIME (AGAIN)


I'm actually one of those people who don't think he'll ever get impeached. Republicans aren't going to vote to impeach him, because that would cap off what will undoubtedly go down as one of the worst Presidental terms of all time and they know they would look idiotic since this was, technically, "the best they could come up with".


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1073313602587770882
Nice work, Bernie. It'd be great to see this actually land on Trump's desk so he can veto it.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

And like I said earlier, this is the real reason why Bernie isn't ever going to win the elections.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1073313602587770882
> Nice work, Bernie. It'd be great to see this actually land on Trump's desk so he can veto it.


Then Trump can answer to supporting terrorists.


----------



## SexiestOfAllTime (Dec 12, 2018)

I hate wars I want peace trump is wrecking America this is why I rather Hillary be in charge though I hate her guts trump is slowly wrecking America I hope 2020 every county in America votes for democrats hell I vote a potato against trump if I have to I even vote Eva Marie if that’s what it takes for trump leaving thank god the senate gone against trump Hillary won the popular vote don’t get me wrong I hate her but she is the one that kicked trump’s fat ass the election was close trump victory is a fluke trump did not win Hillary lost trump never truly deserve anything he wouldn’t been president if weren’t for Texas, Pennsylvania,Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida and Arizona just remember trump don’t have real fans I said it once I say it again without those states trump will be in sham next presidency trump will lose and lose bad


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

SexiestOfAllTime said:


> I hate wars I want peace trump is wrecking America this is why I rather Hillary be in charge though I hate her guts trump is slowly wrecking America I hope 2020 every county in America votes for democrats hell I vote a potato against trump if I have to I even vote Eva Marie if that’s what it takes for trump leaving thank god the senate gone against trump Hillary won the popular vote don’t get me wrong I hate her but she is the one that kicked trump’s fat ass the election was close trump victory is a fluke trump did not win Hillary lost trump never truly deserve anything he wouldn’t been president if weren’t for Texas, Pennsylvania,Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida and Arizona just remember trump don’t have real fans I said it once I say it again without those states trump will be in sham next presidency trump will lose and lose bad


Have you ever heard of sentences? You should try them.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Jared Kushner under consideration for White House chief of staff*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

2 Ton 21 said:


> *Jared Kushner under consideration for White House chief of staff*


In an alternate universe somewhere, Hillary is president, Chelsea's husband is being considered for COS and right wingers are having a full blown meltdown.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Seems like an excuse to get upset about something that won't actually affect your life in any way.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> Seems like an excuse to get upset about something that won't actually affect your life in any way.


Considering all the other fucked up things going on in the world today, Kushner potentially being the COS doesn't even make the list of things to be upset about.


----------



## SexiestOfAllTime (Dec 12, 2018)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Have you ever heard of sentences? You should try them.


Yes but what I am saying is my opinion. btw holly trump is wrecking America. I hate trump’s guts and btw you do realise he is get involved with evil people. Trump is probably the most evil president so of modern era.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Tater said:


> Considering all the other fucked up things going on in the world today, Kushner potentially being the COS doesn't even make the list of things to be upset about.


It's an outrage culture. I don't remember people (and by people I mean the general public, not the political nerds) getting worked up over whoever Obama or Bush's Chiefs of Staff were. Who cares? Both sides do it. Conservatives are mad that Joe Scarborough's girlfriend called Pompeo Trump's butt-buddy. Yawn. Every day there's something people are upset about and it's rarely anything important. 

I think we've allowed the press to make us addicted to being outraged every day. Every day we need a new news story about how this person on "the other side" did or said x and isn't it outrageous. Come back tomorrow for another drip. Nah, I'm out.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> It's an outrage culture. I don't remember people (and by people I mean the general public, not the political nerds) getting worked up over whoever Obama or Bush's Chiefs of Staff were. Who cares? Both sides do it. Conservatives are mad that Joe Scarborough's girlfriend called Pompeo Trump's butt-buddy. Yawn. Every day there's something people are upset about and it's rarely anything important.
> 
> I think we've allowed the press to make us addicted to being outraged every day. Every day we need a new news story about how this person on "the other side" did or said x and isn't it outrageous. Come back tomorrow for another drip. Nah, I'm out.


This was one of the few times I was critical of Greenwald. He was all upset at Mika. There's a lot more important issues in the world to be spending that energy on instead of language policing.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> It's an outrage culture. I don't remember people (and by people I mean the general public, not the political nerds) getting worked up over whoever Obama or Bush's Chiefs of Staff were. Who cares? Both sides do it. *Conservatives are mad that Joe Scarborough's girlfriend called Pompeo Trump's butt-buddy. Yawn.* Every day there's something people are upset about and it's rarely anything important.
> 
> I think we've allowed the press to make us addicted to being outraged every day. Every day we need a new news story about how this person on "the other side" did or said x and isn't it outrageous. Come back tomorrow for another drip. Nah, I'm out.


No they aren't, they're upset by the clear display of double standards.

Conservatives that are public figures don't have the luxury of being able to say what they want. They can't afford a 'slip up'. If Jesse Waters had used that word on Fox News in a derogatory way like she did then no amount of apologizing would be enough. The View would have his face on a dartboard. Rachel Maddow would be lecturing the country about the evils of Trump and Fox News and how gays are still being persecuted. They would accuse Waters of being the ultimate symbol of evil white homophobic straight men. And Fox News would fall under tremendous pressure to have him fired.

I don't think conservatives wish to see anyone fired, it's just a huge 'fuck you' when they can clearly see that standards are only being imposed on _them_.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> No they aren't, they're upset by the clear display of double standards.
> 
> C*onservatives that are public figures don't have the luxury of being able to say what they want.* They can't afford a 'slip up'. If Jesse Waters had used that word on Fox News in a derogatory way like she did then no amount of apologizing would be enough. The View would have his face on a dartboard. Rachel Maddow would be lecturing the country about the evils of Trump and Fox News and how gays are still being persecuted. They would accuse Waters of being the ultimate symbol of evil white homophobic straight men. And Fox News would fall under tremendous pressure to have him fired.
> 
> I don't think conservatives wish to see anyone fired, it's just a huge 'fuck you' when they can clearly see that standards are only being imposed on _them_.


Aww, the poor conservatives can't be openly bigoted, against minorities, women, LBGT etc without getting blowback. Such a tragedy.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> Aww, the poor conservatives can't be openly bigoted, against minorities, women, LBGT etc without getting blowback. Such a tragedy.


Self proclaimed 'gimmick poster' thinks it's possible to take him seriously after he openly admits he's a 'gimmick poster'.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Aww, the poor conservatives can't be openly bigoted, against minorities, women, LBGT etc without getting blowback. Such a tragedy.


Are you ok with what was said about Pompeo being Trump's butt buddy?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> Are you ok with what was said about Pompeo being Trump's butt buddy?


No, that person is an adult and shouldn't say stupid shit like that. he shouldn't be lowering himself to Trumps level.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> No, Pompeo is an adult and shouldn't say stupid shit like that. he shouldn't be lowering himself to Trumps level.


Well put...agreed...you had to go back and edit and add the lowering to Trumps level didnt you


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> Well put...agreed...you had to go back and edit and add the lowering to Trumps level didnt you


That was already there, the edit was to take out the Pompeo part since it was about him, he was not the one who said it. It was Mika Brzezinski who said it. 



Not to mention, if she is supposed to be a liberal, it makes it even worse since she is supposed to be about using terms like that, it would be like a liberal calling someone a "***" to bash them. IMO if libs use these kinds of terms they should be treated more harshly than conversations since we expect that kind of talk from conservatives. LIbs are supposed to be against that kind of shit.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> That was already there, the edit was to take out the Pompeo part since it was about him, he was not the one who said it. It was Mika Brzezinski who said it.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention, if she is supposed to be a liberal, it makes it even worse since she is supposed to be about using terms like that, it would be like a liberal calling someone a "***" to bash them. IMO if libs use these kinds of terms they should be treated more harshly than conversations since we expect that kind of talk from conservatives. LIbs are supposed to be against that kind of shit.


Ha you and I have been back and forth on a bunch of issues the last few months so I cant tell if that paragraph is sarcasm or not since I agree with it...well mabye not the more harshly part, to me it should just say "as harshly".

With that said, I think she sent out a tweet apology...this good enough for you? Would that get her out your doghouse?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

virus21 said:


>


This is definitely the tipping point though.

It's the beginning of the end and the walls are closing in.

Fact...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> Ha you and I have been back and forth on a bunch of issues the last few months so I cant tell if that paragraph is sarcasm or not since I agree with it...well mabye not the more harshly part, to me it should just say "as harshly".
> 
> With that said, I think she sent out a tweet apology...this good enough for you? Would that get her out your doghouse?


I am serious. When so-called liberals use anti-LBGT terms or say something racist they should be held to a higher standard than conservatives since that is apart of their platform. It only gets her out of the dog house if she does not use that term again, if she keeps saying stuff like that, then no it wouldn't.




Draykorinee said:


> This is definitely the tipping point though.
> 
> It's the beginning of the end and the walls are closing in.
> 
> Fact...


everyone favorite useful idiot Jimmy Dore. Not sure how much evidence he needs to see Trump is guilty as hell.

UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION:

&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP Jr.
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP Organization
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP Foundation
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP Campaign
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP NatSec Advisory Committee
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP Shadow NatSec Advisors
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP Transition
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP Inaugural Committee
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP Administration
&#55357;&#57001; TRUMP Allies (e.g., MBS)



CONVICTED:

✅ TRUMP Campaign Manager (Manafort)
✅ TRUMP Campaign Manager Associate (Kilimnik)
✅ TRUMP Deputy Campaign Manager (Gates)
✅ TRUMP Deputy Campaign Manager Associate (van der Swaan)
✅ TRUMP Lawyer (Cohen)
✅ TRUMP NSA (Flynn)
✅ TRUMP NatSec Adviser (Papadopoulos)


CRIMES COLLUSION CAN LEAD TO:

1️⃣ Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud
2️⃣ Conspiracy to Defraud US
3️⃣ Aiding/Abetting Computer Crimes
4️⃣ Bribery
5️⃣ Money Laundering
6️⃣ Illegal Solicitation of Donations
7️⃣ Obstruction
8️⃣ Witness Tampering
9️⃣ Making False Statements
&#55357;&#56607; FARA Crimes

COUNTRIES TRUMPS ILLEGALLY COLLUDED WITH PRE-ELECTION:

&#55356;&#56823;&#55356;&#56826; RUSSIA
&#55356;&#56824;&#55356;&#56806; SAUDI ARABIA
&#55356;&#56806;&#55356;&#56810; THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
&#55356;&#56814;&#55356;&#56817; ISRAEL
&#55356;&#56825;&#55356;&#56823; TURKEY

COUNTRIES TRUMPS ARE SUSPECTED OF COLLUDING WITH PRE-ELECTION:

&#55356;&#56810;&#55356;&#56812; Egypt
&#55356;&#56813;&#55356;&#56826; Hungary

COUNTRIES TRUMPS COLLUDED WITH POST-ELECTION:

&#55356;&#56822;&#55356;&#56806; QATAR
&#55356;&#56808;&#55356;&#56819; CHINA


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> I am serious. When so-called liberals use anti-LBGT terms or say something racist they should be held to a higher standard than conservatives since that is apart of their platform. It only gets her out of the dog house if she does not use that term again, if she keeps saying stuff like that, then no it wouldn't.


Agreed on the if she will stop saying stuff that will help her, I would just expect the same on the other side. An apology for a slip of words, move on, if it is repeated or something similar, then handle it. To me, its how it should be handled on both sides.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

So Congess can give $56 billion to Iraq, but can't spare $5 billion for The Wall?

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> Agreed on the if she will stop saying stuff that will help her, I would just expect the same on the other side. An apology for a slip of words, move on, if it is repeated or something similar, then handle it. To me, its how it should be handled on both sides.


The problem is when it comes to policy the GOP is anti-women and anti-LGBT. That is why their apologies most times are not taken seriously because we know its an empty apology since they turn around and try to push a law against planned parenthood or LBGT rights, for example.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

blaird said:


> Are you ok with what was said about Pompeo being Trump's butt buddy?


Honestly I don't think she said anything wrong. It was crass but it's not morally objectionable. 

I disagree with her of course and I think she's a dumb bitch, but she shouldn't be crucified for what she said. What's the crime in insinuating that he's Trump's butt boy? Is it the idea or the word that offends people? Either way I'm not buying it.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Honestly I don't think she said anything wrong. It was crass but it's not morally objectionable.
> 
> I disagree with her of course and I think she's a dumb bitch, but she shouldn't be crucified for what she said. What's the crime in insinuating that he's Trump's butt boy? Is it the idea or the word that offends people? Either way I'm not buying it.


Offends because its mean to gays apparently.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Honestly I don't think she said anything wrong. It was crass but it's not morally objectionable.
> 
> I disagree with her of course and I think she's a dumb bitch, but she shouldn't be crucified for what she said. What's the crime in insinuating that he's Trump's butt boy? Is it the idea or the word that offends people? Either way I'm not buying it.


This is kind of how I feel but it seems that by not really caring or objecting stronger it will continue the idea that conservatives are homophobic or anti LGBT because we dont make a big stink of what she said.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> This is kind of how I feel but it seems that by not really caring or objecting stronger it will continue the idea that *conservatives are homophobic or anti LGBT* because we dont make a big stink of what she said.


Because the facts show conservatives are homophobic or anti-LGBT LOL Are you really going to deny that?


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> The problem is when it comes to policy the GOP is anti-women and anti-LGBT. That is why their apologies most times are not taken seriously because we know its an empty apology since they turn around and try to push a law against planned parenthood or LBGT rights, for example.


Ahh it was fun while it lasted.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> Ahh it was fun while it lasted.


True or false, Conserartive polices are anti-LBGT.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Because the facts show conservatives are homophobic or anti-LGBT LOL Are you really going to deny that?


And here we go...

No I do not think conservatives are homophobic or anti LGBT. Nor do I think they are anti women, I dont even know if you can be homophobic and anti women as a conservative male.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> And here we go...
> 
> No I do not think conservatives are homophobic or anti LGBT. Nor do I think they are anti women, I dont even know if you can be homophobic and anti women as a conservative male.


yet their policies and actions show otherwise.

Here are some conservative polices.

Anti-same-sex marriage
Anti-right to choose
Anti-Trans rights
Think you should be able to fire someone because they are gay
Anti-planned parenthood
Against paid Maternaitive leave.

But suuuree they are not anti-LBGT and Anti-women


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> True or false, Conserartive polices are anti-LBGT.


I say false because I have not seen or read about any policies going in that are anti LGBT, maybe the closest thing is some counties/cities/states denying gay marraige certificates. Can you point me to other policies violating rights of LGBT people?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

virus21 said:


> Offends because its mean to gays apparently.


It's not mean to gays though. 

**** relationships have dominant and submissives just like hetero ones do. What's the problem? I'm sure plenty of gay people are okay with being butt boys. 

Again it was crass but I don't see how it's hurtful. Nobody could possibly be hurt by what she said unless they are pretending to be.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> I say false because I have not seen or read about any policies going in that are anti LGBT, maybe the closest thing is some counties/cities/states denying gay marraige certificates. Can you point me to other policies violating rights of LGBT people?


I just listed some, you are not paying attention. And did you forget the biggest one of all the not baking a cake for a gay couple? And again just google trans bathroom rights.

And again like I pointed out being able to fire someone because they are gay. How is that not violating the rights of an LGBT person?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I mean, not thinking conservatism policy is anti lgbt is ridiculous.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> yet their policies and actions show otherwise.
> 
> Here are some conservative polices.
> 
> ...


Im gonna group PP and right to choose in the same to address those...Im gonna ask for a better argument than that to show me GOP is anti women. Thats like me saying dems are anti human rights since they are ok with murder of unborn babies. Also, Im not sure that conservatives are anti planned parenthood as much as they are anti abortion. I think they would be ok with neo natal healthcare being provided to people who needed it including birth control tho some of the more "radical" Christian people may have issues with it, but I dont agree with them.

Anti Trans rights...what rights? Calling them by their preferred pronoun? What rights is the GOP violating of trans people?

I have not seen a policy go thru that allows employers to fire someone based on sexual orientation. Is this actual politicians or lawyers pushing this or some yahoo in Alabama? Or did 1 moron say something like this and you are taking this as a representative of the entire GOP?

Same sex marriage...what states are not allowing it now? Im generally asking mostly bc Im too lazy to look it up. I live in a deep red state and even our state issues same sex marriage certs. Even so, is marriage a right? If I was told I couldnt have a government recognized marriage, then ok so be it. But I do agree the government should recognize same sex marraiges if they are recognizing traditional marriages.



birthday_massacre said:


> I just listed some, you are not paying attention. And did you forget the biggest one of all the not baking a cake for a gay couple? And again just google trans bathroom rights.
> 
> And again like I pointed out being able to fire someone because they are gay. How is that not violating the rights of an LGBT person?


Stop with the "youre not paying attention" crap, I posted the question before you could finish your edit. 

If there are people pushing for the right to fire someone bc they are gay, I will stand with you to fight that issue but I have not heard Trump, Pence, or any other important, influential GOP representative push that agenda.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> Im gonna group PP and right to choose in the same to address those...Im gonna ask for a better argument than that to show me GOP is anti women. Thats like me saying dems are anti human rights since they are ok with murder of unborn babies. Also, Im not sure that conservatives are anti planned parenthood as much as they are anti abortion. I think they would be ok with neo natal healthcare being provided to people who needed it including birth control tho some of the more "radical" Christian people may have issues with it, but I dont agree with them.
> 
> .


Planned Parenthood is not just about abortion since you cannot lump them into the same thing. Conseratces are not only against abortion they are also against contraceptives and even sex ed in schools. Planned Parenthood does things like contraception, mammograms, cancer screen, hormone therapy, and even general healthcare, just to name a few things. You also ignore how they are against paid maternity leave.



blaird said:


> Anti Trans rights...what rights? Calling them by their preferred pronoun? What rights is the GOP violating of trans people?
> 
> 
> .


I told you, trans bathroom rights. Just look up the bathroom bill they want to enact. You don't think trans people should be able to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with? Conservatives don't. 



blaird said:


> I have not seen a policy go thru that allows employers to fire someone based on sexual orientation. Is this actual politicians or lawyers pushing this or some yahoo in Alabama? Or did 1 moron say something like this and you are taking this as a representative of the entire GOP?
> 
> 
> .


You can fire someone based on sexual orientation. Liberals are trying to make sexual orientation protected and the conservatives keep blocking it. There is a huge debate about this if it's protected or not and we all know what side conservatives are on.




blaird said:


> Same sex marriage...what states are not allowing it now? Im generally asking mostly bc Im too lazy to look it up. I live in a deep red state and even our state issues same sex marriage certs. Even so, is marriage a right? If I was told I couldnt have a government recognized marriage, then ok so be it. But I do agree the government should recognize same sex marraiges if they are recognizing traditional marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Are you going to try to deny conservatives are not against same-sex marriages? Just because its now legal in all states does not mean conservatives and red states are not against it. Abortion is legal in every state but conservatives are against it. Your logic here is seriously flawed.






blaird said:


> Stop with the "youre not paying attention" crap, I posted the question before you could finish your edit.
> 
> If there are people pushing for the right to fire someone bc they are gay, I will stand with you to fight that issue but I have not heard Trump, Pence, or any other important, influential GOP representative push that agenda.


You are not paying attention if you are claiming conservatives are not anti-LBGT. Its comical you are even trying to dispute this.

Also please dont tell me you think Trump and Pence are pro-LBGT rights.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Planned Parenthood is not just about abortion since you cannot lump them into the same thing. Conseratces are not only against abortion they are also against contraceptives and even sex ed in schools. Planned Parenthood does things like contraception, mammograms, cancer screen, hormone therapy, and even general healthcare, just to name a few things. You also ignore how they are against paid maternity leave.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I grouped them together since my main argument was that most conservatives are anti abortion and that is the part of planned parenthood they dont agree with. I went on to say the pre/neo natal healthcare being provided and other services are probably supported by conservatives, just not the abortion side. I dont think there would be a problem if planned parenthood did away with the abortion part of their services.

Its a right to use the bathroom of the gender you identify as/with? Hmmm didnt know that was a protected right...either way use the bathroom of the gender that you are. You can argue gender and sex are different all you want but to me, its still just man and woman and you are what you were born as. I also think it can lead to a slippery slope of pervs using it as an excuse to go into the others bathroom

I have never seen or heard of someone being fired because they are gay, well not in the last 15 years (not saying it hasnt happened). I now want to know why the conservatives are trying to block it, and I think its a bit deeper than cons want to be able to "fire the gays". Theres probably a bit more to it, but if not then I will stand with you that you should not be fired because of who you date/sleep with.

Some cons may be against same sex marriages. I just dont think any modern GOP governor or person in a place of influence cares enough about the issue. Not one conservative friend of mine, and I got some "off the chain, Trump die hard" conservative friends, give a crap about who marries whom.

And no I really dont think Trump or Pence is anti LGBT. I find it hard to believe that they could get support from ANY LGBT person if they truly were. And you can say "well the majority hate Trump" and that would be true since most are dems anyways, but to be able to get any support from the gay community while being so anti LGBT is a bit far stretched for me.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> I grouped them together since my main argument was that most conservatives are anti abortion and that is the part of planned parenthood they dont agree with. I went on to say the pre/neo natal healthcare being provided and other services are probably supported by conservatives, just not the abortion side. I dont think there would be a problem if planned parenthood did away with the abortion part of their services.
> 
> Its a right to use the bathroom of the gender you identify as/with? Hmmm didnt know that was a protected right...either way use the bathroom of the gender that you are. You can argue gender and sex are different all you want but to me, its still just man and woman and you are what you were born as. I also think it can lead to a slippery slope of pervs using it as an excuse to go into the others bathroom
> 
> ...



Most conservatives are also anti-contraception like I pointed out. So you are wrong, its not just being against the abortion part of PP. And taxpayer money given to PP does not go toward abortions.

You have not heard of anyone being fired for being gay? Again you are not paying attention. You can google fired for being gay and see all the people that were fired for being gay. Seriously dude, do a little research FFS.

Mike Pence is against gay marriage LOL There are a ton of people in the GOP against gay marriage. It does not matter if you dont think they can influence it, they are still against it. 

If you dont think Trump and Pence are not anti-lbgt then you are even more clueless than I thought.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Vic Capri said:


> So Congess can give $56 billion to Iraq, but can't spare $5 billion for The Wall?
> 
> - Vic


Or propose giving 28 billion to fucking Israel but there are places in the US that are bankrupt, without clean water and massive poverty. Nothing like giving handouts to these fucking countries when our own citizens need help.

These Politicians need to go down in the worst possible way.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Vic Capri said:


> So Congess can give $56 billion to Iraq, but can't spare $5 billion for The Wall?
> 
> - Vic


Thought Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Vic Capri said:


> So Congess can give $56 billion to Iraq, but can't spare $5 billion for The Wall?
> 
> - Vic


No. First off he promised everyone Mexico would pay for it. It's his fault, as well as his supporters fault, for thinking Mexico would actually pay for something so stupid. Second, the idea is stupid, and would be a waste of money. You don't make up for one bad spending by creating another like you're suggesting.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Most conservatives are also anti-contraception like I pointed out. So you are wrong, its not just being against the abortion part of PP. And taxpayer money given to PP does not go toward abortions.
> 
> You have not heard of anyone being fired for being gay? Again you are not paying attention. You can google fired for being gay and see all the people that were fired for being gay. Seriously dude, do a little research FFS.
> 
> ...


Typing on an iPad so I'll make it quick...

Giving money to PP regardless of its purpose is supporting abortion, I'm not anti contraception but those who are I don't consider anti women.

Found a handful of cases, some look to be fired by religious schools and bam back at the wedding cake scenario. The other couple cases were weird and one involved being forced to hire back a guy who had quit. Like I said I'm not a fan of firing someone bc of who they are with.

Legit forgot about pence, but if you are in a place to do something about it and don't even if you disagree with it, that should be praised no? Realizing the better of society over your own personal beliefs? Pence is a damn hero!!

And no I really don't...call me when they won't let anyone from the lgbt community vote, work, makes them wear special clothes, and sit on the back of the bus.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reminder: Only something like 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion and it's illegal for any taxpayer funding to be used for abortion, so the right wing talking point that the money is going to "kill babies" is an outright lie on multiple levels.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> Typing on an iPad so I'll make it quick...
> 
> Giving money to PP regardless of its purpose is supporting abortion, I'm not anti contraception but those who are I don't consider anti women.
> 
> ...


Giving money to PP does not mean you support abortion, you are just talking about of your ass now. 

stop making excuses for Pence, he is full on against LBGT and stop making shit up that he he realizing the better of society over your own personal beliefs. I can't even take you seriously when you say BS like that.

Its still funny you don't think Trump and Pence are anti-LBGT, es[eicaly with the shit Pence voting record in Indiana and what Trump was trying to do with trans people in the military. But keep denying facts and evidence.

You really need to inform yourself better on these matters. Just because Trump and Pence don't succeed in some of their anti LBGT stances does not mean they are not anti-LBGT.

PS for shits and giggles here is Pences record on LGBT while in Indiana.

2000: During his congressional campaign, Mike Pence said, “Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage.”

2000: Pence also supported the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only if federal dollars were excluded from organizations who “celebrate” and “encourage” behavior that facilitates spreading of the HIV virus. Further, Pence supported this reauthorization only if “those institutions provided assistance to those looking to change their sexual behavior”, an off-the-cuff endorsement for ex-gay conversion therapy.

2004: Mike Pence co-sponsored a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as solely between one man and one woman.

2007: Pence voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

2010: Mike Pence voted against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal which allowed LGBT Americans to openly serve their country in military service.

2012: Pence refused to say on the record if he supported a same-sex couple raising a child together.

2014: Gov. Pence supported HJR-3, a bill to add an amendment banning same-sex marriage to Indiana’s Constitution.

2015: Governor Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a closed-door ceremony surrounded by special interest lobbyists.

2015: Governor Pence said on ABC’s “This Week” that it was “absolutely not” a mistake to sign RFRA, throwing Indiana into a $250 million economic panic and putting Indiana’s “Hoosier Hospitality” reputation in jeopardy.

2015: Even after his approval rating plummets from RFRA, Mike Pence on July 22 told the media he is “studying” the issue of LGBT rights and whether or not he’d support across the board protections for the LGBT community.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Tater said:


> is an outright lie on multiple levels.


And that just about sums up the majority of what they say.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Trump creates council to boost 'opportunity zones' in depressed areas

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...to-boost-opportunity-zones-in-depressed-areas

Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/

The Media Should End Its Obsession With Trump Allegations, Says … Nancy Pelosi?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/12/13/media-end-obsession-trump-allegations-says/


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

If Nancy Pelosi is jumping to protect Trump then you know he's nothing but an establishment puppet at this point.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Saw this and thought it was interesting. Curious to see how it all plays out in California and Texas.

https://ktla.com/2018/12/14/trump-administration-pursuing-deportation-of-thousands-of-vietnamese-war-refugees/



> *Trump Administration Pursuing Deportation of Thousands of Vietnamese War Refugees*
> 
> The Trump administration is moving to deport thousands of Vietnamese immigrants who arrived before 1995 and have criminal convictions, leaving many long-time residents fearful, officials say.
> 
> ...


Article on California Republicans worried it will hurt them by losing the conservative Vietnamese vote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/15/trump-vietnam-war-refugees-california-gop-orange-county-1066639



> *Trump push to deport Vietnam War refugees scalds California GOP*
> 
> Anti-Trump sentiment helped Democrats topple every Republican House member in Orange County last month in the storied California conservative stronghold.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

2 Ton 21 said:


> Saw this and thought it was interesting. Curious to see how it all plays out in California and Texas.
> 
> https://ktla.com/2018/12/14/trump-administration-pursuing-deportation-of-thousands-of-vietnamese-war-refugees/
> 
> ...


Wow. Not much in politics surprises me anymore but I had no idea there were a bunch of Vietnamese Republican voters in Orange County of all places.

Is it just me or does this story read like Republicans in Orange Country are mainly concerned about having their voters deported? It kinda sounds like the exact same thing the Democrats are always being accused of in other parts of the country. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Tater said:


> Wow. Not much in politics surprises me anymore but I had no idea there were a bunch of Vietnamese Republican voters in Orange County of all places.
> 
> Is it just me or does this story read like Republicans in Orange Country are mainly concerned about having their voters deported? It kinda sounds like the exact same thing the Democrats are always being accused of in other parts of the country. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.


You have every right to be cynical. Not much to be optimistic about anymore.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Self proclaimed 'gimmick poster' thinks it's possible to take him seriously after he openly admits he's a 'gimmick poster'.


"I can't factually refute what's being said, so I'll resort to ad hominem and call the person a gimmick poster."



Vic Capri said:


> So Congess can give $56 billion to Iraq, but can't spare $5 billion for The Wall?
> 
> - Vic


1. I thought Mexico was going to pay for it?

2. A wall doesn't stop this new technical innovation called planes. And b4 "muh customs," it's really easy to get a tourist visa.



blaird said:


> I say false because I have not seen or read about any policies going in that are anti LGBT, maybe the closest thing is some counties/cities/states denying gay marraige certificates. Can you point me to other policies violating rights of LGBT people?


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43525549

https://www.gq.com/story/trump-vs-lgbt-americans?verso=true

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...owa-state-university-civil-rights/1572199002/

Those took me 3 minutes to find. If I had to guess, you'll either

1. Not read them

2. Counter with a few news articles from Breitbart/National Review and say "see???!!!1"

Oh, also, his vice president is rabidly anti lgbt.



2 Ton 21 said:


> Saw this and thought it was interesting. Curious to see how it all plays out in California and Texas.
> 
> https://ktla.com/2018/12/14/trump-administration-pursuing-deportation-of-thousands-of-vietnamese-war-refugees/
> 
> ...


Funny, especially considering many refugees (i.e. Hmong) tend to be very conservative.


----------



## AustinRockHulk (Dec 22, 2013)

*Donald Trump's New White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney Trashes Donald Trump*


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

Good thing no one was talking to you.

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

AustinRockHulk said:


> *Donald Trump's New White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney Trashes Donald Trump*


Trump tore Cruz a new one during the election campaign, then sucked him off* during the Senate race. These guys would sell out to anyone to get a job. If he thinks he's a terrible human being then he shouldn't be anywhere near being his chief of staff. Maybe I'm just too idealistic.

*euphemism, not fantasizing about trump.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Lol. They're all snakes.

Or am I being mean to snakes by comparing then to politicians :hmmm


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

dele said:


> "I can't factually refute what's being said, so I'll resort to ad hominem and call the person a gimmick poster."


I didn't call him a gimmick poster. He did.

He's also negged me over 20 times in the last 2 months.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> I didn't call him a gimmick poster. He did.
> 
> *He's also negged me over 20 times in the last 2 months*.


yeah for troll comments like that, and your other troll posts you constantly make. Also ironic how you did not put the whole gimmick poster comment in context





Berzerker's Beard said:


> I have never seen a more dedicated troll on any form than BM. His dedication to his gimmick is unprecedented.
> 
> I was pondering whether I should put him on ignore but then I would be losing out on the entertainment. Guess I'm a sucker for a good squash match. :lol





birthday_massacre said:


> Everyone is a gimmick poster on these forums, you are just a shit one whereas I am a good one who can back up my points with facts unlike you


Stop embarrassing yourself. 


Also, no one in this thread is more of a gimmick poster than you are.

Lastly, his comment still stands, you couldn't refute my point so you made an ad hominem, you may want to look up that word.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

It bothers you that I don't take you seriously. I can tell.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> It bothers you that I don't take you seriously. I can tell.


LOL why would I care if you take me seriously, you just prove over and over how uninformed you are and how you can never back up your points with facts and evidence. Like I said, you are one of the worst gimmick posters on this forum, at least other gimmick posters are entertaining.



CamillePunk said:


> Trump creates council to boost 'opportunity zones' in depressed areas
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...to-boost-opportunity-zones-in-depressed-areas
> 
> ...


Do you ever post articles for legit websites?





Reaper said:


> Lol. They're all snakes.
> 
> Or am I being mean to snakes by comparing then to politicians :hmmm


skip to 1:36


----------



## Trixdee (Nov 11, 2017)

The man was a crook when he was still in his Dad's nut sack. To support him either means you're just like him, or very stupid.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

Trixdee said:


> The man was a crook when he was still in his Dad's nut sack. To support him either means you're just like him, or very stupid.


That’s gov’t for you. A lot of corrupt and/or stupid people out there voting.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

CamillePunk said:


> *Trump creates council to boost 'opportunity zones' in depressed areas
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...to-boost-opportunity-zones-in-depressed-areas*
> 
> ...



Council sounds great especially, however this left me a touch suspicious from that article....



> News reports have noted that Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner have significant landholdings and might benefit from the opportunity zones.





Berzerker's Beard said:


> I didn't call him a gimmick poster. He did.
> 
> He's also negged me over 20 times in the last 2 months.


lol I still don't know how to neg people. I guess I couldn't be bothered even if I did.

I prefer to argue with half baked ideas based on a warped view of the reality around me. It actually tends to work out well, that's really a maximum of what you need to prove Trump's underhanded buffoonery.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1073911188214276096
Where do the conspiracy theorists go from here?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Not surprised now that Trump is less impactful than a neutered establishment mule.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

dele said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43525549
> 
> https://www.gq.com/story/trump-vs-lgbt-americans?verso=true
> 
> ...


I would never use Breitbart or National Review. I use more credible sources like InfoWars (this is sarcasm).

Anywhoo....I dont know if you read those articles but none of them really prove anything, to me at least.

1. The bathroom issue is a touchy one but until every detail can get perfectly ironed out, use the bathroom youre supposed to, not the one you identify with. While I do agree I dont want Bruce/Katilyn Jenner walking into my bathroom, I also dont want some guy to just say "I identify as a girl" and go into the women's restroom while someones daughter is in there. 

2. The military is allowed to discriminate against people of various issues. Putting trans people on that list doesnt prove they are anti trans people, just like I dont think the government is anti any other issue that keeps people from serving in the military. 

3. I read this article a dozen times and couldnt understand the point or what it was trying to tell me. Maybe it was so poorly written I just couldnt follow it, but I dont have any idea what the point was.



birthday_massacre said:


> Giving money to PP does not mean you support abortion, you are just talking about of your ass now.
> 
> stop making excuses for Pence, he is full on against LBGT and stop making shit up that he he realizing the better of society over your own personal beliefs. I can't even take you seriously when you say BS like that.
> 
> ...


You negged me for that you tool?? Geez can you please stop negging people for posting stuff from the other side of the argument. Just because you disagree with them, doesnt mean its a troll post. Well maybe my Pence line was a little trolly but come on man, have a sense of humor...now Im going to earn my negs, and hopefully not cross the line...

And yes, it 100% does show it supports abortion. Imagine if I paid the Aryan Brotherhood's power bill and tried to convince you I didnt support racism. Wouldnt work, but let me guess...not the same thing bc you cant think of anything better...neg me for that.

Pence may disagree or even be "anti" in your opinion, but hes not writing any more policy against the LGBT community. Most of what you cited is from LONG ago, so maybe his policies changed. And please read up on your RFRA, shortly after the bill went thru, he signed in an ammendment to it protecting LGBT people. But in the grand scheme this brings us back to the gay wedding cake case.

And what did big bad Trump do to the trans people in the military? Not allow them to serve? You do know the military does discriminate against all sorts of various issues, does that make them anti those issues? No!! Unless you want to consider Trump anti diabetes, or even anti cant rotate extremeties a certain amount a certain way...see how ridiculous that sounds? Find a better argument.
And dont get me started on the bathroom issue, I get youre ok with the KKK in your business so Im sure youre ok with anyone identifying as a woman just to go into the women's bathroom, but I am not ok with either of those. 

I really wish you could see issues from the other side. I hate to break it to you, but your view isnt the only one and isnt the correct one, just like mine isnt.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

:mj4


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> You negged me for that you tool?? Geez can you please stop negging people for posting stuff from the other side of the argument. Just because you disagree with them, doesnt mean its a troll post. Well maybe my Pence line was a little trolly but come on man, have a sense of humor...now Im going to earn my negs, and hopefully not cross the line...
> 
> And yes, it 100% does show it supports abortion. Imagine if I paid the Aryan Brotherhood's power bill and tried to convince you I didnt support racism. Wouldnt work, but let me guess...not the same thing bc you cant think of anything better...neg me for that.
> 
> ...


Why do you keep making excuses for Trump, Pence, and conservatism being ant-LGBT. just admit you were wrong and move on.

There is no issue on the ohter side when it comes to Trump, Pence, and conservatism being ant-LGBT, it's an objective fact they are ant-LGBT. Sorry but my view on that is the correct one since its true.





blaird said:


> The bathroom issue is a touchy one but until every detail can get perfectly ironed out, use the bathroom youre supposed to, not the one you identify with. While I do agree I dont want Bruce/Katilyn Jenner walking into my bathroom, I also dont want some guy to just say "I identify as a girl" and go into the women's restroom while someones daughter is in there.


How is it a touchy one? There is nothing to iron out. You say use the bathroom you are supposed to not the one you identify with, 

So you think this person should use the women's bathroom then?









Which bathroom do you think that person would cause a bigger issue with, the mens bathroom (where they identify with or the womens where they were born, which is the one you claim they should be using. 

The fact is people have been using the bathroom they identify with for decades and no one has ever even noticed 

People don't just walk into a bathroom of the opposite sex and claim I identify as a girl to wrongly use a female bathroom while someone's daughter is in there, stop using debunked scared tactics that never happen unless its a right winged troll just doing it to try and prove their flawed point that never happens in real world scenarios.

Not to mention, there are stalls in female bathrooms, so its not like they can watch someone's daughter go to the bathroom and the parent would be in the bathroom with the child anyways, so again that BS scare tacit does not even make sense.


Your line of reasoning has been dunked over and over again, its asinine you still try to use it.




blaird said:


> The military is allowed to discriminate against people of various issues. Putting trans people on that list doesnt prove they are anti trans people, just like I dont think the government is anti any other issue that keeps people from serving in the military.


LOL, your logic is so awful, so putting trans people on the same list where the military discriminates against other things, does not mean its discrimination or that they are anti-trans? Next, you are going to say facts are not facts. Do you even listen to the BS you are peddling? You are contracting yourself in the same sentence.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Why do you keep making excuses for Trump, Pence, and conservatism being ant-LGBT. just admit you were wrong and move on.
> 
> There is no issue on the ohter side when it comes to Trump, Pence, and conservatism being ant-LGBT, it's an objective fact they are ant-LGBT. Sorry but my view on that is the correct one since its true.


I have admitted that they may have been but have not been putting forth policies showing it now currently. We must just have different definitions of anti LGBT. I really dont get how there would be ANY support from the LGBT community (which Trump has some) if he was so openly against the LGBT community. 

And I wasnt talking specifically this issue that you cant see the other side, its any issue with you. If someone poses a different view, instead of having a debate or a conversation you jam down their throat how wrong they are and how right you are no matter how much evidence shows how wrong you are.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> I have admitted that they may have been *but have not been putting forth policies showing it now currently*. We must just have different definitions of anti LGBT. I really dont get how there would be ANY support from the LGBT community (which Trump has some) if he was so openly against the LGBT community.
> 
> And I wasnt talking specifically this issue that you cant see the other side, its any issue with you. If someone poses a different view, instead of having a debate or a conversation you jam down their throat how wrong they are and how right you are no matter how much evidence shows how wrong you are.


You are wrong on that too, we already showed you the evidence of that. FFS dude, stop ignoring all the facts and evidence. All you have to do is google Trump anti-lbgt and you get tons of hits of stuff he is currently trying to do. 

Again there is no other side to this, Trump is NOT pro-LBGT, YOu need to deal in facts and objective truth. There is no different view on this, you need to look at facts and evidence and you are ignoring all that and say look at the another side where Trump and his admin isn't anti-LBGT.
*
You have shown zero evidence where Trump and conservativism are pro-LBGT.*


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Why do you keep making excuses for Trump, Pence, and conservatism being ant-LGBT. just admit you were wrong and move on.
> 
> There is no issue on the ohter side when it comes to Trump, Pence, and conservatism being ant-LGBT, it's an objective fact they are ant-LGBT. Sorry but my view on that is the correct one since its true.
> 
> ...


Wish you would stop editing after I respond to your original...makes you more of a pain...

Ok, reading comprehension time...thats why I said "IRON OUT". Yes I agree that guy/girl should probably be in the mens room just like I said I wouldnt want Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner in my bathroom, there are going to be cases that are different, wish you could get this. Ha oh yea those pesky stalls stop anybody from popping a camera over or under. And what if its a girl out with her dad? Dad cant go into the womens restroom, well under your laws he could just "identify" as a female and go right on in. 

And your last sentence makes zero sense...all I am saying is bc the militray does not allow people in on other conditions does not make Trump anti trans for not allowing them to serve either. Of if it does, youd better start bitching and complaining about all the other things that rule out others from serving.



birthday_massacre said:


> You are wrong on that too, we already showed you the evidence of that. FFS dude, stop ignoring all the facts and evidence. All you have to do is google Trump anti-lbgt and you get tons of hits of stuff he is currently trying to do.
> 
> Again there is no other side to this, Trump is NOT pro-LBGT, YOu need to deal in facts and objective truth. There is no different view on this, you need to look at facts and evidence and you are ignoring all that and say look at the another side where Trump and his admin isn't anti-LBGT.
> *
> You have shown zero evidence where Trump and conservativism are pro-LBGT.*


Well he did say that same sex marriage was settled law so I would go with that being pro LGBT.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> Well he did say that same sex marriage was settled law so I would go with that being pro LGBT.




LOL yet Trump Administration will deny visas to same-sex partners of diplomats so much for that right? Trump also said marriage is between one man and one woman. He never said he supports same-sex marriage. 

Trump does nothing to support the LBGT community.




blaird said:


> Ok, reading comprehension time...thats why I said "IRON OUT". Yes I agree that guy/girl should probably be in the mens room just like I said I wouldnt want Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner in my bathroom, there are going to be cases that are different, wish you could get this. Ha oh yea those pesky stalls stop anybody from popping a camera over or under. And what if its a girl out with her dad? Dad cant go into the womens restroom, well under your laws he could just "identify" as a female and go right on in.


LOL again you and your BS made up scare tacit stories like oh someone is going to pretend to be a girl so they can take pics over a stall in a bathroom, that shit pretty much never ever happens. You just totally kill any credibility when you try to use that type of reasoning. And the times it does happen is when its conservatives doing it, to try to say SEE this happens. These cases are super rare, its just dumb you use it to say wel this is why trans people should not using the bathroom they identify with. You do know that girls go into their dad's bathrooms all the time when they are out with their dads right? ARe you going to pretend that does not happen? As for you claiming oh a dad can just say he is a women to go into a women's bathroom FFS dude, again you are just killing any credibility you have when you use stupid reasoning like this.

Also loved how you ignore my question about the person in the pic and what bathroom them using would cause a bigger commotion. 








blaird said:


> And your last sentence makes zero sense...all I am saying is bc the militray does not allow people in on other conditions does not make Trump anti trans for not allowing them to serve either. Of if it does, youd better start bitching and complaining about all the other things that rule out others from serving.


Trump trying to ban trans in the military does make him anti-LBGT. Its a joke yo would even claim that. That is like saying, if someone bans blacks for being in the military, they are not anti-black people.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yet Trump Administration will deny visas to same-sex partners of diplomats so much for that right? Trump also said marriage is between one man and one woman. He never said he supports same-sex marriage.
> 
> Trump does nothing to support the LBGT community.
> 
> ...


You really cant read can you? Either that or youre so excited to make a point you completely skip over where I address that and explain a bit farther.

Anyhoo...yes I know its rare but still happens and you got nothing to say that it couldnt happen more frequently should someone just one day say "I identify as a woman" and start hanging in the women's bathroom. Hell I may even do that, you see how much cleaner it is in there vs a mens room??

Do you have to follow a strict medicine schedule if youre black? Seems like you do if youre transitioning, and that seems like a lot of hormonal imbalance and emotional issues for a person with a rifle in their hands. You a fan of that?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> You really cant read can you? Either that or youre so excited to make a point you completely skip over where I address that and explain a bit farther.
> 
> Anyhoo...yes I know its rare but still happens and you got nothing to say that it couldnt happen more frequently should someone just one day say "I identify as a woman" and start hanging in the women's bathroom. Hell I may even do that, you see how much cleaner it is in there vs a mens room??
> 
> Do you have to follow a strict medicine schedule if youre black? Seems like you do if youre transitioning, and that seems like a lot of hormonal imbalance and emotional issues for a person with a rifle in their hands. You a fan of that?


I missed the first part of your post because you went right into how you don't want Kaitlyn Jenner in your bathroom.

There is no evidence it will happen more frequently since more and more trans people are using the bathrooms of their choice. People are not going to just claim the are a woman to hang out in the womens bathroom. Why do you use faulty points like this? As for women's bathrooms being cleaning than mens, um sorry to break it to you, but ask most women their bathrooms are way more disgusting then the mens. 

so if the person is not transitioning then that is ok if they are trans and want to be in the military? Because Trump and his admin is against that too?

The trans ban has nothing to do with your claim its about a strict medicine schedule. It also was not about that when it was about gays being banned from the military.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL again you and your BS made up scare tacit stories like oh someone is going to pretend to be a girl so they can take pics over a stall in a bathroom, that shit pretty much never ever happens. You just totally kill any credibility when you try to use that type of reasoning. And the times it does happen is when its conservatives doing it, to try to say SEE this happens. These cases are super rare, its just dumb you use it to say wel this is why trans people should not using the bathroom they identify with. You do know that girls go into their dad's bathrooms all the time when they are out with their dads right? ARe you going to pretend that does not happen? As for you claiming oh a dad can just say he is a women to go into a women's bathroom FFS dude, again you are just killing any credibility you have when you use stupid reasoning like this.


So its a made up scare tactic that has actually happened? Talking about me not making any sense, this literally contradicts itself...if its made up then it is fictional but you go on to say it has happened.

Yes I get the kids go to the bathroom with their parents but that also stops at a certain age unless its normal for a 20 year old dude to go to the bathroom with his mom. I get that girls around 4 or 5 may go to the mens room when out with thier dad but what about when they are 9/10/11/12, I would think they use their own bathroom and dad cant go in. Thats why I MOCKED your approach, it wasnt literal, I dont know why I am surprised you didnt get that.



birthday_massacre said:


> I missed the first part of your post because you went right into how you don't want Kaitlyn Jenner in your bathroom.
> 
> There is no evidence it will happen more frequently since more and more trans people are using the bathrooms of their choice. People are not going to just claim the are a woman to hang out in the womens bathroom. Why do you use faulty points like this? As for women's bathrooms being cleaning than mens, um sorry to break it to you, but ask most women their bathrooms are way more disgusting then the mens.
> 
> ...


Yes I do not want Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner in my bathroom nor do I want that guy in the girls room, thats why I said some things need to be ironed out bc there are going to be certain cases (again, whole reading thing). 

Im not gonna argue on whose bathroom is cleaner (cant believe you would want to), Im just gonna say Ive never seen a woman pee from the oustide of her stall because it was so gross inside the stall.

So, lets go back to my question...are you ok with a transitioning person not being allowed in the military because of the hormonal imbalance and mental issues associated with taking the medicine? Or are you still an advocate for allowing transitioning people into the military and giving them a gun and gun training knowing there are mental issues going on? I have a hard time believing that Trump just said "I hate trans people lets ban them from the military".


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> So its a made up scare tactic that has actually happened? Talking about me not making any sense, this literally contradicts itself...if its made up then it is fictional but you go on to say it has happened.
> 
> Yes I get the kids go to the bathroom with their parents but that also stops at a certain age unless its normal for a 20 year old dude to go to the bathroom with his mom. I get that girls around 4 or 5 may go to the mens room when out with thier dad but what about when they are 9/10/11/12, I would think they use their own bathroom and dad cant go in. Thats why I MOCKED your approach, it wasnt literal, I dont know why I am surprised you didnt get that.


The scare tacit is its going to happen all the time because trans will be allowed to use the bathroom they identify with. Men have been sneaking into women's bathrooms long before this trans issue ever came out, so no shit it happens on rare occasions, and guess what people that do that go to jail and get arrested. Its not going to become a daily occurrence like you are claiming it will. That is the scare tacit. 

I love how every time I tear your argument you move the goal posts. First, it was oh is a dad going to go into the women's bathroom with his child, then i bring up um they just go into the mens room, then you change the age to a 9 10 12-year-old. If a girl was 9 10 12 their mon would not be going into the bathroom with them either, so your point is null and void.

The reason why I took your point as literal is because of all the other stupid shit you have been saying about this topic is just as stupid.



blaird said:


> Yes I do not want Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner in my bathroom nor do I want that guy in the girls room, thats why I said some things need to be ironed out bc there are going to be certain cases (again, whole reading thing).
> 
> Im not gonna argue on whose bathroom is cleaner (cant believe you would want to), Im just gonna say Ive never seen a woman pee from the oustide of her stall because it was so gross inside the stall.
> 
> So, lets go back to my question...are you ok with a transitioning person not being allowed in the military because of the hormonal imbalance and mental issues associated with taking the medicine? Or are you still an advocate for allowing transitioning people into the military and giving them a gun and gun training knowing there are mental issues going on? I have a hard time believing that Trump just said "I hate trans people lets ban them from the military".


If you don't want a trans person using the bathroom they identify with you are a bigot against trans people. There is nothing to iron out. There are already laws against people taking pictures in bathrooms and sexual assaulting people in bathrooms. What exactly is there is iron out?

What mental issues are there with people transitioning? Are you really going to claim everyone who is trans has some sort of mental issue? 

Trump wants to ban trans people from the military, thus that makes him anti-trans. It's not that difficult.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> The scare tacit is its going to happen all the time because trans will be allowed to use the bathroom they identify with. Men have been sneaking into women's bathrooms long before this trans issue ever came out, so no shit it happens on rare occasions, and guess what people that do that go to jail and get arrested. Its not going to become a daily occurrence like you are claiming it will. That is the scare tacit.
> 
> I love how every time I tear your argument you move the goal posts. First, it was oh is a dad going to go into the women's bathroom with his child, then i bring up um they just go into the mens room, then you change the age to a 9 10 12-year-old. If a girl was 9 10 12 their mon would not be going into the bathroom with them either, so your point is null and void.
> 
> ...


Ok Im gonna try and spell it out for you, if you cant get it then, then I dont know what to do other than maybe mail you a pop up book with pictures...

I dont understand how Im moving goal posts by pointing out everyday things...and yes most moms go in the bathroom with their 9/10/11/12 yo daughter, maybe not in the stall istelf but definitely in the actual bathroom unless its one of those single stall bathrooms but I wouldnt worry about someone else being in one of those. THe dad going in was not literal so I dont know why you keep focusing on something absurd that was not meant to be taken literal, maybe because thats the only argument you have, I dont know. Not moving goal posts here, just addressing what youre saying. I really thought you would understand the age thing, but again its something that has to be spelled out exactly for you, guess common sense aint so common anymore. 

The iron out part, is to figure out which ones should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice. The person you posted, Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner should prob use the bathroom they identify as...some guy who decides to all of a sudden identify as a woman, probably not (and woman to man). Thats why I kept saying its a case by case basis, not just let someone decide one day "i identify as the opposite sex" and then that day start using the other bathroom. 

So lets say tomorrow they make a law that says "use the bathroom you identify with" and I decide to identify as a woman and start using the womens bathroom. You ok with all 6', 200 lbs of me being in the womens bathroom, beard and all?? I would love a yes/no answer but Ill get the standard BM deflection of how its not the same or some other crap, or youlll be too excited to make a point youll gloss right over this.

And lastly, if you are transitioning, pumping a guy full of estrogen or a girl full of testosterone has to play with a persons mentality and emotions no? Plus look at how high the suicide rate is amongst transgenders...are these the people you want to have a gun and be trained how to use the gun? 

I dont think wanting someone to use the bathroom they are supposed to is being a bigot nor do I think not allowing trans people in the military is anti trans. This is where we will have to agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Trump couldn't even run a charity. 

Great businessmen always defraud their charities.


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

Trump caves on the wall again :mj4

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/12/18/white-house-signals-it-will-back-down-on-president-trumps-demand-for-border-wall-funding-and-avert-a-partial-government-shutdown/

He also banned bump stocks.



> The Trump administration is issuing a final rule that bans bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said Tuesday.
> 
> The rule comes almost a year after President Trump ordered the DOJ to take action after multiple mass shootings.
> 
> ...


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/421875-trump-administration-to-issue-rule-banning-bump-stocks?fbclid=IwAR2MvGsZj2Wo1uj10AWF30D9zOVu71f-nG2yCRodsgvojNpO77EhVcq_My8&fbclid=IwAR2ziBEFTd3JLLWMa3LxYwRxKXfUIqOuCqMx6oM3HOqOnh6UzlvAGbYHNEQ&fbclid=IwAR3JiI8-iPS7ql5yjh9o1Wl6cxIKgZ34WN6_MEQVXhf545nin7cTaFZuOWQ

Conservatives must be thrilled.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Trump loves big government.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Don't see the point of banning bump stocks when zip ties or belt loops creates the same effect.

*EDIT:*

Just realized that this means Trump has now done more to restrict gun rights than Obama did during his two terms.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

DaRealNugget said:


> Trump caves on the wall again :mj4
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/12/18/white-house-signals-it-will-back-down-on-president-trumps-demand-for-border-wall-funding-and-avert-a-partial-government-shutdown/
> 
> ...


Im a conservative (though I lean left/center on some issues) and a "gun nut" but this bump stock ban doesnt bother me too much. I think its a bit of a knee jerk reaction and hes doing this to appease the gun control people more so than an actual concern that this/these will be used again in another mass shooting. 

I dont know if it has, but I can see this being challenged and possibly getting over turned. The bump stock is cosmetic, even if it gives it similar characteristics to a full auto gun. If it cant or doesnt get challenged any further and it goes into effect, then so be it. I almost ordered one a year or so ago just for giggles but didnt and not terribly upset that I wont be able to. 

I read an article about this on another site...Im wondering what the punishment is if someone is caught with one of these. I cant imagine it would be similar to being found with an NFA gun or something along that line.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> k Im gonna try and spell it out for you, if you cant get it then, then I dont know what to do other than maybe mail you a pop up book with pictures...


And you wonder why you get negged lol You are the one who is not getting it, and you make childish comments like this.





blaird said:


> I dont understand how Im moving goal posts by pointing out everyday things...*and yes most moms go in the bathroom with their 9/10/11/12 yo daughter*, maybe not in the stall istelf but definitely in the actual bathroom unless its one of those single stall bathrooms but I wouldnt worry about someone else being in one of those.


You are moving the goal posts because you make one claim, its gets refuted/debunked then you change it slightly. You moving them again right here lol You just said at 9-12 the girls can use their own bathroom, so if they dont need thier dad they dont need their mom. Stop contacting yourself. 




blaird said:


> THe dad going in was not literal so I dont know why you keep focusing on something absurd that was not meant to be taken literal, maybe because thats the only argument you have, I dont know. Not moving goal posts here, just addressing what youre saying. I really thought you would understand the age thing, but again its something that has to be spelled out exactly for you, guess common sense aint so common anymore.


Your whole anti-trans bathroom line of reasoning is all absurd. That is the whole ironic thing about this. As for the age thing, you keep contracting yourself on the age thing. The only one confused here is you.



blaird said:


> The iron out part, is to figure out which ones should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice. The person you posted, Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner should prob use the bathroom they identify as...some guy who decides to all of a sudden identify as a woman, probably not (and woman to man). Thats why I kept saying its a case by case basis, not just let someone decide one day "i identify as the opposite sex" and then that day start using the other bathroom.


There is nothing to iron out LOL Not sure how many times this needs to be said. Trans people have been using the bathroom of the gender they identify with since trans has been a thing, and none of the things you are claiming will happen rarelly ever happen. And AGAIN there are laws against the stuff you are saying. Why don't you understand this simple thing? Maybe it's you that needs the pop-up book.

Since you like to keep peddling this predator in a bathroom BS...


Predators in bathrooms

The claim: Sexual predators will take advantage of public accommodations laws and policies covering transgender people to attack women and children in bathrooms.

The facts: Anti-discrimination protections covering gender identity have been around for years, and there is no evidence they lead to attacks in public facilities.

Explained: As of March 2017, 19 states, the District of Columbia and more than 200 municipalities have anti-discrimination laws and ordinances allowing transgender people to use public facilities that correspond to their gender identity.


CNN found one case of a Seattle man who allegedly undressed in a women's locker room in 2016, citing Washington's anti-discrimination law as motivation.
Otherwise, whenever the topic comes up in the news, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and state human rights commissions have consistently denied that there is any correlation between such policies and a spike in assaults.
CNN reached out to 20 law enforcement agencies in states with anti-discrimination policies covering gender identity. None who answered reported any bathroom assaults after the policies took effect.


Michael Dunton, chief records clerk of Rhode Island's Cranston Police Department, told CNN his department was "hard-pressed" to find such a case: "We track our sex offenders very carefully and we haven't seen any instance of sexual predators assaulting in bathrooms."

In Maine, which has had gender identity protections in its state civil rights law for more than 11 years, the state Human Rights Commission was unaware of a single incident.

"I know there is a lot of anxiety associated with this issue, but it seems to be based on fear rather than facts. Given this, it is really disheartening to see so many states (and now our federal government) choose to treat people who are transgender with what looks like hatred," Maine Human Rights Commission Executive Director Amy Sneirson said.

More common, civil rights groups say, are reports of transgender people being assaulted in bathrooms that don't match their gender identity.
In one of the largest surveys of transgender and gender non-conforming Americans ever conducted, 70% of respondents reported being denied access, verbally harassed, or physically assaulted in public restrooms. The survey, conducted by UCLA's Williams Institute in 2013 before the nation's capital passed anti-discrimination protections, built on previous research with similar outcomes.

So stop with your BS predator in the bathroom scare tacit, it just does not happen like you claim it will.





blaird said:


> So lets say tomorrow they make a law that says "use the bathroom you identify with" and I decide to identify as a woman and start using the womens bathroom. You ok with all 6', 200 lbs of me being in the womens bathroom, beard and all?? I would love a yes/no answer but Ill get the standard BM deflection of how its not the same or some other crap, or youlll be too excited to make a point youll gloss right over this.


Its funny you make an absurd comment like this and think I should take it literally when you just said earlier I was wrongly taking the father taking their daughter to the bathroom literally, which is way more reasonable than this laughable example You make so many absurb comments when it comes to you being anti-trans I dont know what I should take seriously. 

There are already laws that protect trans from using the bathroom of their choice, and your example pretty much never happens. You think it would happen so often you should be able to show me hundreds of examples of this happening in those states. So I will wait for those examples




blaird said:


> And lastly, if you are transitioning, pumping a guy full of estrogen or a girl full of testosterone has to play with a persons mentality and emotions no? Plus look at how high the suicide rate is amongst transgenders...are these the people you want to have a gun and be trained how to use the gun?


There are already trans people in the military, so show me any examples of this being a problem for your line of logic

I will wait.

QUOTE=blaird;76573302]


I dont think wanting someone to use the bathroom they are supposed to is being a bigot nor do I think not allowing trans people in the military is anti trans. This is where we will have to agree to disagree and move on.


[/QUOTE]


If you don't think trans people should use the bathroom of their gender identity then yes you are a bigot. You have to make up all these crazy scenarios that don't even happen to defend your bigotry. Everything you claim when it comes to trans and bathrooms has been debunked over and over for years, and I even debunked it yet again. 

And yes you are also a bigot if you don't want trans people in the military, just like the people are bigots who did not want gays in the military.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> And you wonder why you get negged lol You are the one who is not getting it, and you make childish comments like this.
> 
> 
> You are moving the goal posts because you make one claim, its gets refuted/debunked then you change it slightly. You moving them again right here lol You just said at 9-12 the girls can use their own bathroom, so if they dont need thier dad they dont need their mom. Stop contacting yourself.
> ...



If you don't think trans people should use the bathroom of their gender identity then yes you are a bigot. You have to make up all these crazy scenarios that don't even happen to defend your bigotry. Everything you claim when it comes to trans and bathrooms has been debunked over and over for years, and I even debunked it yet again. 

And yes you are also a bigot if you don't want trans people in the military, just like the people are bigots who did not want gays in the military.[/QUOTE]

Told you I was going to earn my negs...your spelling is as bad as your reading comprehension...

I cant keep saying the same thing over and over...again we will agree to disagree...just wish you would have answered my questions.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

To Whom It May Concern,

The dictionary says that 'he' refers to males and 'she' refers to females.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/he
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/she

The dictionary says that male and females are defined and differentiated solely by their sexual organs.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

The dictionary says gender is the equivalent of sex
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

The dictionary says sex is defined by one's sexual organs
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex


Sincerely Yours,

The Dictionary


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The Dictionary used to say sick was being ill but now also contains the use of the word for excellent. Because language evolves.

Sincerely yours,

The Dictionary.

Edit, the Oxford english dictionary clearly says this.



> Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.* The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.*


Yours sincerely,

The Dictionary.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

blaird said:


> If you don't think trans people should use the bathroom of their gender identity then yes you are a bigot. You have to make up all these crazy scenarios that don't even happen to defend your bigotry. Everything you claim when it comes to trans and bathrooms has been debunked over and over for years, and I even debunked it yet again.
> 
> And yes you are also a bigot if you don't want trans people in the military, just like the people are bigots who did not want gays in the military.


Told you I was going to earn my negs...your spelling is as bad as your reading comprehension...

I cant keep saying the same thing over and over...again we will agree to disagree...just wish you would have answered my questions.[/QUOTE]

LOL I totally destroyed all your arguments and this is all you came back with 

I answered all your questions, I think it's you that has the reading comprehension issue.




Berzerker's Beard said:


> To Whom It May Concern,
> 
> The dictionary says that 'he' refers to males and 'she' refers to females.
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/he
> ...


Oh look someone does not understand the difference between sex and gender.

we have already been over this

Sex is biological whereas gender is social and cultural differences not biological ones



https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

gender

Either of the two sexes (male and female), *especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.* The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look someone does not understand the difference between sex and gender.
> 
> we have already been over this
> 
> Sex is biological whereas gender is social and cultural differences not biological ones


Is that Dictionary a common one in America? Seems pretty shit, 



> Definition of gender (Entry 1 of 2)
> 1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
> b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
> c : an inflectional form (see INFLECTION sense 3a) showing membership in such a subclass


Wtf is all this?

And then the important, functional use of it is literally one word: Sex.

:beckywhat


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look someone does not understand the difference between sex and gender.
> 
> we have already been over this
> 
> Sex is biological whereas gender is social and cultural differences not biological ones


That's what BM says, but that's not what the dictionary says.

You are now arguing with the *dictionary*.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> That's what BM says, but that's not what the dictionary says.
> 
> You are now arguing with the *dictionary*.


LOL I quoted a dictionary.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Told you I was going to earn my negs...your spelling is as bad as your reading comprehension...
> 
> I cant keep saying the same thing over and over...again we will agree to disagree...just wish you would have answered my questions.


LOL I totally destroyed all your arguments and this is all you came back with 

I answered all your questions, I think it's you that has the reading comprehension issue.[/QUOTE]

Haha no you didnt you clown...Im tired of repeating myself bc you cant figure out the most basic things...and you didnt come close to answering questions...for the last time ill repeat myself...

If tomorrow I decided to identify as a woman and use the womens bathroom, are you ok with that? I dont care how absurd it is, just a yes or no...heres why you wont answer...if you say yes, its weird af to let me go into a womens bathroom, even if I am just going in to pee...if you say no, then that would make you a bigot. Im not using this as a gotcha to show how bad your logic is, its just an example.

And finally are you ok with trans people having a gun and going thru military training knowing they are in a higher suicide risk bracket and they may not be mentally stable becuase of medications? Even if nothing has happened before, are you ok with this? if you say yes, you are trampling your own gun control logic about wanting mental evals for everyone and not letting anyone suicidal or in a bad mental place own a gun and if you say no youre a bigot.

Again, not a gotcha moment. I get you want everyone to be able to do what they want but its not possible EVERY TIME. These are a couple times you have to step back and look at the big picture of everything and put feelings aside and work using a little common sense. 

People like the guy you showed a pic of and Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner are two of those case by case basis. If I identified as a woman, I would fall into the case of no dont let me use the womens bathroom.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I think you two should just put each other on ignore for all of our sakes lol, only entertaining thing is when you both [/quote] wrong.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Trump backs down on border wall funding. Again. Sigh.

Who fucking cares about shutting down the federal government? First of all, they don't ever even shut down anything important, just superficial shit like national park services and WH tours the media can write sob stories about. We all have state governments that do most of the things people rely on. It's all fear-mongering. Sorry if little Jimmy can't go to his favorite park, we need to be able to control who comes into the country because we have so many insane programs that give free stuff (read: stuff stolen from us by our governments) to illegals, and a stupid war on drugs that attracts all kinds of dangerous traffic.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Draykorinee said:


> I think you two should just put each other on ignore for all of our sakes lol, only entertaining thing is when you both


 wrong.[/QUOTE]

yet the facts back me up.



blaird said:


> .





> Haha no you didnt you clown...Im tired of repeating myself bc you cant figure out the most basic things...and you didnt come close to answering questions...for the last time ill repeat myself...
> 
> If tomorrow I decided to identify as a woman and use the womens bathroom, are you ok with that? I dont care how absurd it is, just a yes or no...heres why you wont answer...if you say yes, its weird af to let me go into a womens bathroom, even if I am just going in to pee...if you say no, then that would make you a bigot. Im not using this as a gotcha to show how bad your logic is, its just an example.
> 
> ...


You do know that women, especially at a sporting event or concert, use the men's bathroom all the time because the lines are shorter right?

If you want to say you are a woman tomorrow, just to use the woman's bathroom, have at it. You keep bringing up how trans people have a high suicide rate, its because of people like you, and how you treat them like you are right now.

Show me all these examples of trans people in the military that are causing issues because of their medication.

You still have not done that. But of course, you won't because you know you can't. 

I have no problem with giving anyone a mental evaluation going into the military. And I really hope you aer not trying to claim that trans people are mentally ill, because that will back up my claim even more about your bigotry for trans people.

This is my last reply to you on this.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

Well since different dictionaries have different definitions, I guess we can't cite them as reliable sources. I guess we will have to rely on good old common sense.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

CamillePunk said:


> Trump backs down on border wall funding. Again. Sigh.
> 
> Who fucking cares about shutting down the federal government? First of all, they don't ever even shut down anything important, just superficial shit like national park services and WH tours the media can write sob stories about. We all have state governments that do most of the things people rely on. It's all fear-mongering. Sorry if little Jimmy can't go to his favorite park, we need to be able to control who comes into the country because we have so many insane programs that give free stuff (read: stuff stolen from us by our governments) to illegals, and a stupid war on drugs that attracts all kinds of dangerous traffic.


Yellowstone is a big deal. So just shutdown the government when Yellowstone is closed because it's too cold for most humans.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Well since different dictionaries have different definitions, I guess we can't cite them as reliable sources. I guess we will have to rely on good old common sense.


Just google gender and you will see it come up over and over it's not biological. Not sure why have such an issue with admitting that sex is biological and gender is not.

Also, things evolve over time. Hundreds of years ago, everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. Using your logic, that can't change because that is how it was first.


----------



## blaird (Nov 1, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Haha no you didnt you clown...Im tired of repeating myself bc you cant figure out the most basic things...and you didnt come close to answering questions...for the last time ill repeat myself...
> 
> If tomorrow I decided to identify as a woman and use the womens bathroom, are you ok with that? I dont care how absurd it is, just a yes or no...heres why you wont answer...if you say yes, its weird af to let me go into a womens bathroom, even if I am just going in to pee...if you say no, then that would make you a bigot. Im not using this as a gotcha to show how bad your logic is, its just an example.
> 
> ...


You do know that women, especially at a sporting event or concert, use the men's bathroom all the time because the lines are shorter right?

If you want to say you are a woman tomorrow, just to use the woman's bathroom, have at it. You keep bringing up how trans people have a high suicide rate, its because of people like you, and how you treat them like you are right now.

Show me all these examples of trans people in the military that are causing issues because of their medication.

You still have not done that. But of course, you won't because you know you can't. 

I have no problem with giving anyone a mental evaluation going into the military. And I really hope you aer not trying to claim that trans people are mentally ill, because that will back up my claim even more about your bigotry for trans people.[/QUOTE]

I had another long response typed out but I just cant anymore...let whoever pee wherever they want, let whoever wants to be in the military join the military (no matter how much the meds may be messing with their mentality). Lets just let everyone do whatever.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

MrMister said:


> Yellowstone is a big deal. So just shutdown the government when Yellowstone is closed because it's too cold for most humans.


But if the government is shutdown, who is going to prevent us from entering Yellowstone even if it's closed? :mj


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

CamillePunk said:


> But if the government is shutdown, who is going to prevent us from entering Yellowstone even if it's closed? :mj


:lol :lol :lol 

touche!

It closes from some date to another date every year because the weather is really bad there. Shutdown then tbhimo.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> Just google gender and you will see it come up over and over it's not biological. Not sure why have such an issue with admitting that sex is biological and gender is not.
> 
> Also, things evolve over time. Hundreds of years ago, everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. Using your logic, that can't change because that is how it was first.


Trans people are not a special class, they aren't a subspecies. They are normal people just like everyone else. 

The human race is made up of males and females. As far as nature is concerned you can only fall into one of those two categories. I'm really not interested in how people choose to identify themselves. My nephew used to think he was Spiderman.

Everyone in the elite ruling class has ties, business or otherwise, to leaders in foreign countries. That would have been true regardless of who was elected, but it's only an unforgivable sin when a republican is in office. 

If you can prove that Trump is a puppet for Putin, or that he's willfully weakening America's standing so that Russia can benefit... that would be another story. But thus far Trump has been tougher on Russia than Obama ever has policy wise, so there's that.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

https://www.rt.com/usa/446863-complete-military-withdrawal-syria/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075397797929775105
Trump wants a total US withdrawal from Syria while his generals advise against it. Expecting an all-out assault from the media on this, and far from confident that Trump will still have this position by the time I finish this post, but it would be a great thing for our country to get out of there. If Hillary was president we would be committed to regime change and would perhaps have already had a major international incident with Russia, given her campaign rhetoric of implementing a no-fly zone where Russian planes were already flying (meaning she would shoot down Russian planes). 

Feeling cautiously hopeful. A withdrawal from Afghanistan to follow by 2020 and I'm not sure how I could vote for anyone else but Trump in 2020.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

:trump has apparently ordered the withdrawal to be completed post-haste, no doubt to prevent the bureaucracy in the PentagonCIAStateDepartment from having the time to successfully fearmonger and drag their feet enough to prevent it.

This is a yuge decision, an American president is actually resisting mission creep. Hopefully Afghanistan next. 

:woo


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Trans people are not a special class, they aren't a subspecies. They are normal people just like everyone else.
> 
> The human race is made up of males and females. As far as nature is concerned you can only fall into one of those two categories. I'm really not interested in how people choose to identify themselves. My nephew used to think he was Spiderman.
> 
> ...


Last reply to you as well. Stop confusing gender and sex, we have been over this a million times. 

As for Trump and Russia, there is a whole thread on it, go read it


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> You do know that women, especially at a sporting event or concert, use the men's bathroom all the time because the lines are shorter right?
> 
> If you want to say you are a woman tomorrow, just to use the woman's bathroom, have at it. *You keep bringing up how trans people have a high suicide rate, its because of people like you, and how you treat them like you are right now.*


This is a hell of a claim. What's the evidence for it? How do you know it's not down to discomfort of the belief of being in the wrong body?

Personally I think the idea of being in "the wrong body" doesn't even make sense, but if you believe your soul or whatever is in the wrong body, if it feels wrong to be in that body, there's only one way to bring that state of affairs to an end.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> Feeling cautiously hopeful. A withdrawal from Afghanistan to follow by 2020 and I'm not sure how I could vote for anyone else but Trump in 2020.


There's a variety of logical reasons why you could vote literally anyone but Trump. I wouldn't expect you to understand though.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Nothing Finer said:


> This is a hell of a claim. What's the evidence for it? How do you know it's not down to discomfort of the belief of being in the wrong body?



LOL at the claim of trans people being bullied isn't a huge factor in why they kill themselves. Also, you do know it can be both right? There isn't just one reason why trans people kill themselves or try to. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...nsgender-people-experience-more-mental-health


What's more, over 41 percent of trans men and women are estimated to have attempted suicide — a rate that's nearly nine times as high as the rate of cisgender Americans. 

*What underlies this astonishingly elevated rate of mental health issues? According to a study published in the July 2016 edition of The Lancet offers significant evidence that the "distress and impairment, considered essential characteristics of mental disorders" among transgender individuals primarily arises in response to the discrimination, stigma, lack of acceptance, and abuse they face on an unfortunately regular basis.*



Nothing Finer said:


> Personally I think the idea of being in "the wrong body" doesn't even make sense, but if you believe your soul or whatever is in the wrong body, if it feels wrong to be in that body, there's only one way to bring that state of affairs to an end.


the idea of a soul does not make any sense. But that is another story. Hope your not claiming killing yourself is the only way to bring the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, because thatis just stupid. There is gender reassignment which some trans people do.


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at the claim of trans people being bullied isn't a huge factor in why they kill themselves. Also, you do know it can be both right? There isn't just one reason why trans people kill themselves or try to.
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...nsgender-people-experience-more-mental-health
> 
> ...


I didn't claim that, I don't doubt that it's a factor, but distress to such an extent as to lead to suicide in such a huge number of cases doesn't seem credible to me. There are many groups which are shunned by society - many of them deservedly so such as sex criminals - none of them have suicide rates that high.

Is the suicide rate lower where trans people are more accepted?



> the idea of a soul does not make any sense. But that is another story. Hope your not claiming killing yourself is the only way to bring the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, because thatis just stupid. There is gender reassignment which some trans people do.


It's certainly a way to stop being "in" the body that's "wrong". 

It seems to me that if you have a group of people whose defining characteristic is that they believe they are in the wrong body that belief would be the best explanation for them ceasing to be in that body.

Statistics on how successful gender reassignment surgery is are strangely difficult to find, but apparently this study suggests the suicide rate is 20 times higher.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Defeated ISIS in Syria lol, what a liar. Still, if it gets America out of another war most will take it.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-syria-evacuation/us-state-department-personnel-being-evacuated-from-syria-us-official-idUSKBN1OI1Z3



> U.S. State Department personnel being evacuated from Syria - U.S. official
> 
> ISTANBUL (Reuters) - All U.S. State Department personnel are being evacuated from Syria within 24 hours, a U.S. official told Reuters, after the White House said it had started withdrawing U.S. forces.
> 
> ...


Two days ago

*Turkish president renews threat to launch offensive against Kurds in U.S.-controlled territory in Syria*

Erdogan's going after the Kurds now, isn't he? I mean Syria is a shit show and it's nice to see us leave, but I feel bad for what might be coming for the Kurds that helped us.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Draykorinee said:


> Defeated ISIS in Syria lol, what a liar. Still, if it gets America out of another war most will take it.


100% accurate of course. ISIS' back was broken in Syria and Iraq by American air power and special forces with a big assist from the Iraqi Army and Kurds providing bodies to hold ISIS forces in place. 

Wasn't Russia, they didn't engage in offensive operations against ISIS until well after the American campaign started. They did help defend the Syrian soldiers besieged by ISIS at the air base in south-central Syria but other than that they entirely avoided bombing ISIS until they'd finished carpet bombing non-ISIS rebels into dust in southwest and northwest Syria. 

The difference in the progress of the campaign against ISIS once Orange Bad Man took office has been quite apparent. They now control a small strip of land about 50 miles east of Palmyra, and a small amount of territory around Abu Kamal (Bukamal). As opposed to the situation when Orange Bad Man took office, when it controlled both banks of nearly the entire course of the Euphrates River inside Syria and extensive territory to either side of said river.

We all know why you feel compelled to deny reality but that doesn't make it any less unseemly.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

Nothing Finer said:


> I didn't claim that, I don't doubt that it's a factor, but distress to such an extent as to lead to suicide in such a huge number of cases doesn't seem credible to me. There are many groups which are shunned by society - many of them deservedly so such as sex criminals - none of them have suicide rates that high.
> 
> Is the suicide rate lower where trans people are more accepted?
> 
> ...


His argument is total bullshit. Trans aren't bullied 20x more or worse than gays/blacks/latinos/whatever. The high suicide rate is obviously mental.


----------



## anirioc (Jul 29, 2015)

*McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

"United States President Donald Trump agreed to shut down his charity called The Trump Foundation which was his own personal charity entity. Allegations have surfaced that the organization funneled charitable money for his own personal gain. The largest donors to that organization were Vince and Linda McMahon. 

Forbes published a story in April 2017 which was titled,“A $5 Million Mystery: How The WWE Became The Trump Foundation’s Biggest Donor.” A sniplet from it reveals this.

"According to the Form 990 filed by the Trump Foundation in 2007, the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) gave 114 times as much to the foundation as Trump did himself. In 2009, the forms show, the WWE gave $1 million more. But the company claims — though will not provide supporting evidence — that the money came from Vince McMahon (the billionaire founder of the WWE) and his family."

The Morning Call today published a story with some further details on the Trump Foundation’s non-charitable spending.

"Trump had given about $5.5 million to his foundation through 2015; his last gift was $35,000 in 2008. Outside donors, many of which did business with the president, have given the foundation about $9.3 million. The biggest donors to the foundation were Vince and Linda McMahon, co-founders of World Wrestling Entertainment, who kicked in $5 million. After becoming president, Trump appointed Linda McMahon to run the Small Business Administration".

On a special edition of Deadline former President Bush Communciatons Director Nicolle Wallace, former FBI Assistant Director of Counterintellgence Frank Figliuzzi spoke about the issue

“We are taking about a crime family. Let’s not forget, we aren’t counting the investigations on all of his associates and associates of associates. If we did that, we’d have a flow chart the size of your back wall. Speaking of spinoff investigations, do you know who the largest singles donors were to the Foundation? Vince and Linda McMahon? Do you know who Linda McMahon is? Linda McMahon was named by Trump as the head of the Small Business Administration. Are we going to have an SBA director who becomes a witness against the president. What was she told about where her money was going? How much does it cost to be named the SBA director. The people in his circle of being investigated. This is unprecedented in our history.”

Source: The Morning Call, Forbes, MSNBC


----------



## InexorableJourney (Sep 10, 2016)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*


----------



## PirateMonkE (Sep 22, 2005)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

That's pretty much how charities run by people with power works nowadays. 

What, you think the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of the goodness of their heart?


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

Buying yourself a spot in a cabinet seems like the seedy rich woman who wants to be a politician thing to do. But if they know that why isn't she in big trouble?


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*



RapShepard said:


> Buying yourself a spot in a cabinet seems like the seedy rich woman who wants to be a politician thing to do. But if they know that why isn't she in big trouble?


I doubt there's anyway to prove intent, if the McMahons were donating long before he became president it would be hard to link those donations to her buying a cabinet seat. That's not to say that isn't exactly how it went down, just that it would be hard to prove in a court of law.


But then again these are the same people who talked openly about a conspiracy to defraud the United States in emails that DJTJr released publicly, so you never know what kind of paper trail they've left.


----------



## yeahright2 (Feb 11, 2011)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

Isn´t it always for some sort of personal gain? Tax reduction, buying influence etc. I can´t even get mad about it.


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

A drop in the ocean for Trump anyway. Why does it matter?

Another piece of “news” designed to enrage


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

Ivanka will be the new Smackdown GM. :O


----------



## Jonhern (Oct 19, 2017)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> I doubt there's anyway to prove intent, if the McMahons were donating long before he became president it would be hard to link those donations to her buying a cabinet seat. That's not to say that isn't exactly how it went down, just that it would be hard to prove in a court of law.
> 
> 
> But then again these are the same people who talked openly about a conspiracy to defraud the United States in emails that DJTJr released publicly, so you never know what kind of paper trail they've left.


Yes, last I looked into this it was pretty clear the payment was for his appearance at wrestlemania, the hair vs hair gimmick. However, if Vince and Linda knew that Trump wanted to do his payment this way to avoid taxes since the foundation was just a slush fund for him, then they could be in some trouble, but that would be hard to prove.


----------



## Bliss World Order (Jul 25, 2018)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

Fake news. Sad!


----------



## Wilcrates675 (Sep 17, 2017)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

People/organizations donating money for charitable cause in order to make themselves FEEL better. I am shocked and VEERY outraged... Come on, people.


----------



## UniversalGleam (Jan 30, 2017)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

all of wwe's charity events and donations probably have some cinical element to them in that it generates a good image for their company which in turn helps to generate more sponsorship deals.

I never get the feeling that their events are done with genuine intent, the silver lining is that the charities at least get some money and exposure from it.


----------



## EC3$$ (Apr 9, 2018)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

RUSSIANS REEEEEEEE IMBEACH NOW


----------



## Unorthodox (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

Has anybody posted that stephanie Philanthropy tweet yet :lmao


----------



## Therapy (Jul 28, 2011)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*



SHIVVY POO IV: THE FINAL CHAPTER said:


> Ivanka will be the new Smackdown GM. :O


I don't have a problem with having to look at that.. As long as she doesn't talk


----------



## Bratista (Jan 18, 2018)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

No shit.


----------



## Xobeh (Dec 11, 2012)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

One, fuck off with politics to somewhere else.
Two, charities are scams usually.


----------



## Hangman (Feb 3, 2017)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

Nah fake news :trump


----------



## Adam Cool (Oct 1, 2012)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

The fact that people here defend lobbying is fucking sad

Lobbying is why so Many American politicians deny Climate Change as their sugar daddies told them to


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> His argument is total bullshit. Trans aren't bullied 20x more or worse than gays/blacks/latinos/whatever. The high suicide rate is obviously mental.


I think we should shut down this whole trans thing in the Trump thread, but where on earth did you you get this idea? Any source to back up any of this at all?

I can't imagine life for an outed trans person would be anything but hell in certain high schools due to bullying. Whether it's worse than this or that doesn't make it any better or easier. It all stacks up with other factors.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Oh yeah I forgot we can't talk about anything trans right now.

So please stop this ongoing argument that I'm not reading.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Nothing Finer said:


> I didn't claim that, I don't doubt that it's a factor, but distress to such an extent as to lead to suicide in such a huge number of cases doesn't seem credible to me. There are many groups which are shunned by society - many of them deservedly so such as sex criminals - none of them have suicide rates that high.
> 
> Is the suicide rate lower where trans people are more accepted?
> 
> ...


Nothing more to talk about since you are going to ignore facts and evidence on this. Facts don't care about your feelings or what you believe.






Draykorinee said:


> Defeated ISIS in Syria lol, what a liar. Still, if it gets America out of another war most will take it.


Trump is doing it as a favor to Putin.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

MrMister said:


> Oh yeah I forgot we can't talk about anything trans right now.
> 
> So please stop this ongoing argument that I'm not reading.


Sorry didn't mean to upset you, just means I have to scroll past tweedle dum and tweedle dee go back and forth on that crap when I would rather be amused by Trump's latest buffoonery.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*



> Buying yourself a spot in a cabinet seems like the seedy rich woman who wants to be a politician thing to do. But if they know that why isn't she in big trouble?


The same reason why celebrities got medals from Obama for donating to Hillary's campaign. Political favors happen in both parties and more people need to be aware of it if they haven't turned a blind eye already.

- Vic


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Nothing more to talk about since you are going to ignore facts and evidence on this. Facts don't care about your feelings or what you believe.


Lose the attitude. I've been nothing but polite to you, I expect the same in return.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is doing it as a favor to Putin.


And who is it in favour of for the United States stay in Syria? This is a favour to the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> And who is it in favour of for the United States stay in Syria? This is a favour to the world.


Cept the US allies its going to kill. Pulling out of Syria is a mixed bag. No one is more happy than Putin.
Trump did the right thing for the wrong reason, personal gain.

And there is this

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/poli...ter-of-intent-rudy-giuliani-moscow/index.html

Trump signed letter of intent for Trump Tower Moscow project despite Giuliani insisting he didn't




CNN)A newly obtained document shows President Donald Trump signed a letter of intent to move forward with negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Russia, despite his attorney Rudy Giuliani claiming on Sunday the document was never signed.

CNN's Chris Cuomo obtained a copy of the signed letter of intent that set the stage for negotiations for Trump condominiums, a hotel and commercial property in the heart of Moscow. The letter is dated October 28, 2015, and bears the President's signature.
When asked on Sunday about the letter, Giuliani incorrectly told CNN's Dana Bash that it had not been signed.
"It was a real estate project. There was a letter of intent to go forward, but no one signed it," Giuliani told Bash.
On Wednesday night, Giuliani admitted he was incorrect.

"I was wrong if I said it," he told Bash. "I haven't seen the quote, but I probably meant to say there was never a deal much less a signed one."
The non-binding document is also signed by Andrey Rozov, owner of I.C. Expert Investment Co., the Russian firm that would have been responsible for developing the property.
READ: How Trump Tower fits into Russian interference

Trump did not tell the public during the 2016 presidential campaign that his company explored the business deal with Russia and instead repeatedly claimed he had "nothing to do with Russia." But the project, which was ultimately scrapped, would've given Trump's company a $4 million upfront fee, no upfront costs, a percentage of the sales and control over marketing and design. The deal also included an opportunity to name the hotel spa after Trump's daughter Ivanka.

The special counsel's team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election alleges the deal could have been lucrative for the Trump Organization.
While the potential Trump Tower Moscow deal was on the table, then-candidate Trump was speaking positively about working with Russian President Vladimir Putin and minimizing Russia's aggressive military moves around the world.

Giuliani suggested on Sunday that Trump had spoken with Michael Cohen, Trump's corporate attorney at the time, later than January 2016 about the proposed Moscow project, and said in an interview with ABC that the conversations may have gone as far as toward the end of the general election period.
"According to the answer that he gave, it would have covered all the way up to November of -- covered all the way up to November 2016," Giuliani said, seemingly referencing Trump's written responses to special counsel Robert Mueller.

On Tuesday, Giuliani told CNN that the question to Trump from Mueller was more generally asking if Trump talked to Cohen about the project. The question was not about specific dates or conversations, Giuliani said.
CNN previously obtained a draft of the letter that Trump eventually signed. In 2017, Cohen told congressional committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election that Trump had signed the letter. Donald Trump Jr. also testified to Congress that his father signed the letter of intent.

Last week, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for crimes that included arranging payments during the 2016 presidential election to silence women who claimed affairs with Trump. Trump has denied the affairs.
CNN's Gloria Borger, Marshall Cohen, Dana Bash and Eli Watkins contributed to this report.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

yeahbaby! said:


> Sorry didn't mean to upset you, just means I have to scroll past tweedle dum and tweedle dee go back and forth on that crap when I would rather be amused by Trump's latest buffoonery.


You didn't upset me. I should've shut it down a long time ago.


----------



## promoter2003 (Nov 1, 2012)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*



UniversalGleam said:


> all of wwe's charity events and donations probably have some cinical element to them in that it generates a good image for their company which in turn helps to generate more sponsorship deals.
> 
> I never get the feeling that their events are done with genuine intent, the silver lining is that the charities at least get some money and exposure from it.














Unorthodox said:


> Has anybody posted that stephanie Philanthropy tweet yet :lmao












Business family looking after another. Simple really.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> Cept the US allies its going to kill. Pulling out of Syria is a mixed bag. No one is more happy than Putin.
> Trump did the right thing for the wrong reason, personal gain.
> 
> And there is this
> ...


I'd wager that more died due to the US's intervention than if they had just left Syria alone. US allies? The 'moderate' jihadist rebels? How do you know the reasons behind the withdrawal? You could just as easily argue that staying in Syria is just for personal gain. Sometimes you've just got to be happy when a good thing happens, even if it 'benefits' somebody you don't like. 

I'm sorry but what exactly did that article prove? A private citizen and businessman looked into doing a deal in a foreign country - a deal that never materialised. It certainly doesn't give any clues as to why the US is now withdrawing from Syria...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Trump getting attacked by the MIC-bought devils, Israeli shills, and useful #Resistance idiots for his 100% correct decision to withdraw from Syria. Jimmy Dore covers it perfectly:






America First. The Middle East Never. Thanks.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

> Defeated ISIS in Syria lol, what a liar.


Well Russia did a lot of the work, but yeah, ISIS has been decimated compared to their forces during Obama's Presidency.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075554399676559360
I don't care about the fact that American declared "victory" to give themselves a pat on the back and I don't even care about the fact that they "defeated" an enemy *they created and funded. *

At least they're _claiming _for _now_ (who knows how long this actually lasts) that they're leaving Syria without a violent regime change. 

To me, at this point in our history, that is ALL that matters.

Tomorrow things might change. Who knows if they even actively withdraw without some sort of a "peacekeeping" permanent presence. 

But at least I can claim that for *one *day, America wasn't a war mongerer on *one* small part of the world 

So :clap I guess.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> I'd wager that more died due to the US's intervention than if they had just left Syria alone. US allies? The 'moderate' jihadist rebels? How do you know the reasons behind the withdrawal? You could just as easily argue that staying in Syria is just for personal gain. Sometimes you've just got to be happy when a good thing happens, even if it 'benefits' somebody you don't like.
> 
> I'm sorry but what exactly did that article prove? A private citizen and businessman looked into doing a deal in a foreign country - a deal that never materialised. It certainly doesn't give any clues as to why the US is now withdrawing from Syria...


The reasons are obvious why Trump left, it's because of Russia and probably Turkey as well because of the arms deal. 

Leaving Syria is a great thing, don't get me wrong but don't act like Trump did it for the right reason, he did it because Russia and Turkey wanted him to.

As for what does that article prove, Trump was running for president when he signed the deal, which makes it illegal. It also shows how Trump was doing business with Russia, make deals for when and if he won the election.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

America: WE CAN'T HELP THE POOR BECAUSE WE'RE POOR!

Also America:


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> The reasons are obvious why Trump left, it's because of Russia and probably Turkey as well because of the arms deal.
> 
> Leaving Syria is a great thing, don't get me wrong but don't act like Trump did it for the right reason, he did it because Russia and Turkey wanted him to.
> 
> As for what does that article prove, Trump was running for president when he signed the deal, which makes it illegal. It also shows how Trump was doing business with Russia, make deals for when and if he won the election.


I disagree. Why is it because of Russia? It seems more likely to me that they are withdrawing because there is now no real reason for American troops to be in Syria; bearing in mind too that military involvement in the Middle East is universally unpopular (except with neo-cons / neo-libs) and that this is an issue that Trump was elected on. 

Whatever the reasoning, I'm glad that we can agree that this is a good thing. 

Why is it illegal? I'd be surprised if CNN didn't pounce upon the opportunity to point out that Trump may have broken a law, but there isn't any indication of that in the article. I don't really understand the obsession with Russia, I'm pretty sure both candidates had dealings with Saudi Arabia for example, (which is a pretty unpleasant regime) yet this doesn't seem to matter at all.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*



Vic Capri said:


> The same reason why celebrities got medals from Obama for donating to Hillary's campaign. Political favors happen in both parties and more people need to be aware of it if they haven't turned a blind eye already.
> 
> - Vic


Did you just try to equivalate buying a presidential cabinet seat with getting a ceremonial trinket?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> I disagree. Why is it because of Russia? It seems more likely to me that they are withdrawing because there is now no real reason for American troops to be in Syria; bearing in mind too that military involvement in the Middle East is universally unpopular (except with neo-cons / neo-libs) and that this is an issue that Trump was elected on.
> 
> Whatever the reasoning, I'm glad that we can agree that this is a good thing.
> 
> Why is it illegal? I'd be surprised if CNN didn't pounce upon the opportunity to point out that Trump may have broken a law, but there isn't any indication of that in the article. I don't really understand the obsession with Russia, I'm pretty sure both candidates had dealings with Saudi Arabia for example, (which is a pretty unpleasant regime) yet this doesn't seem to matter at all.


You can disagree but you really think Trump just woke up today and said on let's move out of Syria? No, Putin and Turkey told him to, so he is doing it, because he owes them. The US did a 4 billion arms deal with Turkey, so Trump said Okie we will leave for Turkey giving the US all that money. 

As for Russia, the US is lifting sanctions on a Russian Alliumiin Company run by a Russian Oligarchy, the same one that paid Manaford $30 million.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/sanctions-oleg-deripaska-russia-trump.html

http://time.com/5484788/trump-administration-set-lift-sanctions-putin-associate-company/

Funny Trump doing a lot for Putin lately especially with all of the Flynn stuff going on and him getting a better deal to give more info on Trump and Russia.


But yes it's a great thing they are pulling out, everyone can agree on that. In the coming weeks, the real reason why he pulled out will rear its head.

You ask why is Trump signing a letter of intent to put a Hotel in Russia and giving Putin the penthouse illegal? Do you really even have to ask? 

You think its ok that Trump makes deals with Russia as president or as a future president, to make money from Russia and Russia possibly helping him win the election by saying he will do them favors as president in return for personal gain and money?

Trump as broken campaign finance laws over and over as well as the Emoluments Clause. That is illegal. Trump cannot profit from his dealings with foreign governments like Russia or SA.

Trump is compromised by Rusia and SA, that is why so many people have a problem with it.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

> Leaving Syria is a great thing, don't get me wrong but don't act like Trump did it for the right reason, he did it because Russia and Turkey wanted him to.


Yes, its part of that diplomacy thing you keep preaching.

- Vic


----------



## Soul_Body (Jun 1, 2016)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

So?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Vic Capri said:


> Yes, its part of that diplomacy thing you keep preaching.
> 
> - Vic


Good to see you admit Trump is Putin's and Turkeys bitch


----------



## Black Metal (Apr 30, 2018)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*



Bliss World Order said:


> Fake news. Sad!


Disgraceful! What a total Disaster!


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

Whaaaa? Nooooo! This is utterly shocking!

Obvious sarcasm aside, and sadly, it doesn't matter.

Trumpets proudly don't care about any of Trump's felonious activities and democrats are too busy tripping over their own shoe laces to do anything about it.


----------



## Hawkke (Apr 2, 2012)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

Philanthropy is not only the future of marketing it's also the future of political careers!

Color me shocked.


----------



## Magicman38 (Jun 27, 2016)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

I’m a huge WWE fan and I appreciate what Vince has done. He’s brought pro wrestling to heights that nobody could have ever dreamed of and he’s created more stars than any other promoter.
However he’s not a good guy. He’s a ruthless businessman who will break laws to make his business successful. Heck, he even gave steroids to his wrestlers and I’ll bet he broke a ton of other laws as well. So this isn’t a surprise to me.


----------



## TAC41 (Jun 8, 2016)

*Re: McMahons Donations To Trump's Charity Organization May Have Been For Personal Gain.*

Linda blew 50 million on a failed senate run. 5 million for a seat in the presidents administration is a steal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Trump has ordered the banning of bump stocks...while it might seem like a small deal it's the idea that the 2nd Amendment can be attacked at any time. Remember, he said before that in some cases we need to take away guns and deal with due process later. 

Trump blasted Obama for cut-and-run in Iraq...apparently Trump just told Obama to hold his cup of covfefe and show how it's really done with how we bailed out on Syria. While our goal was to help with the elimination of ISIS as a threat (it's just gone underground but will eventually rear its head again), Syria is still in chaos with Russia, Iran, and Turkey all fighting for a presence here. The Kurds just got abandoned again. The fire is still smoldering. And ISIS hasn't been fully defeated per analysts but still remains a threat. 

Time and again, Trump kept signing budgets that provided no funding for the wall. He kept threatening shutdowns, but kept signing them anyway. Now, he's surrendering again. If he signs the next temporary budget, it will keep the government open until Feb. 8. That leads to a Democratic House who would control the purse strings. Pelosi has already said she isn't going to earmark funding for the wall. His last chance for the wall is about to evaporate as he found his bluster and posturing did nothing. 

Now...we have North Korea...

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/19/6753...e-helping-north-korea-cheat-nuclear-sanctions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.01c7a68eb28c

Looks like Rocket Man is calling Trump's bluff. 

Remind me to be tired of winning when the winning actually starts.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

It doesn't matter if Trump wants out of Syria because some ancient Old God told him too so they can invade and make tentacle hentai a reality, it's for the best to get out of Syria.

Don't really care about the bumpstock ban, hope North Korea works out, Trump might be the best Democrat president we've had in 20 years!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

So after watching Fox News Trump now saying he won't sign the bill passed by the Senate to avoid the govt shutdown.


Trump is a child.


----------



## Jokerface17 (Feb 22, 2016)

Making America Great Again


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075846949427908608
Trump is so great. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075874751715799040
Accurate


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Mattis quitting now LOL


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46640114


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

When a neocon resigns in protest over our president removing troops from a country we invaded, I think it's a good thing.

Plus he was secretary of defence. Not head of war operations in a foreign country thousands of miles away. Which I know that Americans believe are the same things :shrug


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Secretary Mattis's Resignation Letter:



> Dear Mr. President:
> 
> I have been privileged to serve as our country’s 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.
> 
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> When a neocon resigns in protest over our president removing troops from a country we invaded, I think it's a good thing.
> 
> Plus he was secretary of defence. Not head of war operations in a foreign country thousands of miles away. Which I know that Americans believe are the same things :shrug


He probably left because he knows Trump is working with Russia and Trump is going down soon. Mueller is said to be wrapping up, and should be done by Feb


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> He probably left because he knows Trump is working with Russia and Trump is going down soon. Mueller is said to be wrapping up, and should be done by Feb


fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> fpalm


Sorry if the truth hurts. There is a reason why everyone is jumping ship on Trump lately. Because of the Trump bomb is going to go off very soon and they are all getting as far away as possible


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Sorry if the truth hurts. There is a reason why everyone is jumping ship on Trump lately. Because of the Trump bomb is going to go off very soon and they are all getting as far away as possible


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


>


Typical Reaper ignoring all the facts and evidence of Trump and Russia.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm so confused, we're getting out of Syria, possibly leaving more places and ending the non-stop wars to a degree and people are actually bitching about it? 

People are upset Mattis is stepping down? If it meant getting out of places we don't belong I'd not care if they all step down.

At this point it just seems like people bitching just to bitch and to gloat over nonsense.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> I'm so confused, we're getting out of Syria, possibly leaving more places and ending the non-stop wars to a degree and people are actually bitching about it?
> 
> People are upset Mattis is stepping down? If it meant getting out of places we don't belong I'd not care if they all step down.
> 
> At this point it just seems like people bitching just to bitch and to gloat over nonsense.


Nope..Americans are showing their true colors in that they don't give a fuck about their war empire. They don't give a fuck about thousands of dead fathers. Dead men women and children around the world. They don't give a fuck about dead veterans. They don't give a fuck about suicides amongst soldiers.

Most of us ARE the war mongerers.. we ARE the neocons.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

I wonder who will replace Mattis? 
And whilst I am not a big fan of Trump, I would hope that even his detractors could see that scaling back America's military involvement in other nations - aside from merely being in line with the vision of the founding fathers - is the morally correct thing to do. Military adventurism was wrong when Bush did it in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was wrong when Obama did it in Libya, and it's still wrong now. Any effort to curb these excesses should be welcomed, surely?


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

> Secretary Mattis's Resignation Letter:


Now if only John Bolton would do the same.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

It's been fascinating to see just how war hawkish AMERICANS themselves are. The last couple of days have been scary and enlightening at the same time.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Miss Sally said:


> I'm so confused, we're getting out of Syria, possibly leaving more places and ending the non-stop wars to a degree and people are actually bitching about it?
> 
> People are upset Mattis is stepping down? If it meant getting out of places we don't belong I'd not care if they all step down.
> 
> At this point it just seems like people bitching just to bitch and to gloat over nonsense.





ForYourOwnGood said:


> I wonder who will replace Mattis?
> And whilst I am not a big fan of Trump, I would hope that even his detractors could see that scaling back America's military involvement in other nations - aside from merely being in line with the vision of the founding fathers - is the morally correct thing to do. Military adventurism was wrong when Bush did it in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was wrong when Obama did it in Libya, and it's still wrong now. Any effort to curb these excesses should be welcomed, surely?


Why is Trump withdrawing? Analysts are saying that ISIS is not defeated but is still a threat. Plus, we have chaos with whoever is in charge of Syria. The Kurds, the Russians, the Iranians, etc...all want control over the region. If this withdrawal leads to a power vacuum that the bad guys fill like when Obama pulled out of Iraq, it might come back to bite us plus we look bad in the eyes of the world as more leading from behind. 

Afghanistan was a necessary response, but we never really developed an endgame. If we had a plan with an endgame in place we could have had the troops home years ago.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> Why is Trump withdrawing? Analysts are saying that ISIS is not defeated but is still a threat. Plus, we have chaos with whoever is in charge of Syria. The Kurds, the Russians, the Iranians, etc...all want control over the region. If this withdrawal leads to a power vacuum that the bad guys fill like when Obama pulled out of Iraq, it might come back to bite us plus we look bad in the eyes of the world as more leading from behind.
> 
> Afghanistan was a necessary response, but we never really developed an endgame. If we had a plan with an endgame in place we could have had the troops home years ago.


ISIS has been defeated for over a year. We have no reason to be there. Deciding who controls Syria is not our business. Nobody wants to pay for that. Nobody wants to sacrifice American lives for that. If you do then there's something wrong with you. 

Hopefully Trump follows through on this and withdraws from Afghanistan as well.

People bringing up Russia are clueless clown puppets of the MIC-controlled corporate media. They fucking advertise for them on their shows and citizens can't even buy their products. Come on now.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> ISIS has been defeated for over a year. We have no reason to be there. Deciding who controls Syria is not our business. Nobody wants to pay for that. Nobody wants to sacrifice American lives for that. If you do then there's something wrong with you.
> 
> Hopefully Trump follows through on this and withdraws from Afghanistan as well.
> 
> People bringing up Russia are clueless clown puppets of the MIC-controlled corporate media. They fucking advertise for them on their shows and citizens can't even buy their products. Come on now.


The only one here clueless is you and you have proven that time and time again.

Its good to know you are ok with Trump handing Syria off to his buddy Putin. Trump is leaving Syria because Putin told him to. Its that simple.

I always love the irony when it comes to you, you call others puppets when you are the biggest Trump puppet on this forum.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Lmao fine Putin enjoy Syria.

Not gonna debate warhawks like BM.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Lmao fine Putin enjoy Syria.
> 
> Not gonna debate warhawks like BM.


LOL calling me a Warhawk when I am against all these wars, NIce strawman argument. You can't even be honest, it just shows how disingenuous you are.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Nope, you're for US involvement as you said above. I guess your foreign policy lines up closer to Clinton's than Trump's.

BRAINSSSSS


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

BruiserKC said:


> Obama pulled out of Iraq, it might come back to bite us plus we look bad in the eyes of the world as more leading from behind.


Bruiser. You and I have never gone at each other, but could you stop propagating the lie that Obama pulled out of Iraq. 

Leaving a Garrison of 17,000 personnel (including military) plus another 6000+ defense contractors is not "pulling out". 

Unless you wanted us to maintain something of a 100k strong military presence there forever?


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> ISIS has been defeated for over a year. We have no reason to be there.


ISIS is not defeated. Stop blindly buying into everything Trump says simply because he's your Jesus.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> ISIS is not defeated. Stop blindly buying into everything Trump says simply because he's your Jesus.


Here's where I disagree with you. To me whether ISIS is defeated or not is not my concern as a US Citizen. My concern is that I pay my government to defend me and secure my borders. Not fund terrorists to kill terrorists and then fund other terrorists to kill the terrorists who my government is now telling me that they want to kill me therefore I need to fund another group of terrorists to fight those terrorists who then will turn against other terrorists and the only answer to stop those terrorists is to fund another group of terrorists all the while setting up space defence programs and selling arms to Saudi Arabia and other countries who are killing poor people and their children. 

This cycle needs to end.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> ISIS is not defeated. Stop blindly buying into everything Trump says simply because he's your Jesus.


yawn 

https://www.businessinsider.com/isis-military-defeat-iraq-syria-2017-11

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/18/no-plans-to-withdraw-u-s-troops-even-after-isis-defeat/

Syria's government can mop up the remnants. Zero reason for us to be there. We were funding fucking Al-Qaeda in Syria before Trump put a stop to it. That's not me getting information from Trump, that's fact, and it goes back to Obama.

I'm glad I chose "let's stop funding Al-Qaeda, defeat ISIS, and then pull out" over "let's shoot down Russian planes and pursue regime change" in the 2016 election. Not my plan A foreign policy, but a clearly superior alternative to the latter, which was also bipartisan between the neoliberals and neocons, and now apparently #TheResistance is more pro-war than Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Reaper said:


> It's been fascinating to see just how war hawkish AMERICANS themselves are. The last couple of days have been scary and enlightening at the same time.


I'm sick of the way Americans look at Politics, endless bitching and I don't mean valid complaints - those even if repetitive are worth talking about.

I mean shit like the people who wanted more gun control whining about the bump stock ban or gloating about it and acting like a bunch of mongs. They should be happy, most people supported the ban, the NRA hasn't said much about it and it's a step in the right direction, right? Well they don't care, gonna bitch because why not?

Complain about Wars and Warhawks, now pulling out of Syria but nope, not happy. "MUH ISIS", "P-P-PUTIN!", "MUH RUSSIA!!!" and the list goes on. No bright side, just endless bitching. Then we have the fake news about Obama pulling out of Iraq, haha ok chief! Guess it's because a guy they hate is taking steps to pull the US out of the mideast and that just isn't acceptable to them.

I didn't realize how Warhawkish, deranged, identity political driven and overall stupid most Americans were until after 2016. The sports team mentality makes it even worse, they won't be happy unless it's _*THEIR*_ guy making the choices they want and even then? Still will bitch. Done with these warhawking terrorist supporting asshats. :x


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Americans aren't warhawkish, support for these wars among the public (most of the public don't even know about most of them) is very low. This is just typical "everything Trump does is bad and for Russia" Resistance outrage, manufactured by the MIC-bought corporate media and political establishment, which no, doesn't include Trump. They like when he does stuff they like (just like anyone who isn't suffering from TDS), but they would never want him to do something like this.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> *THEIR*[/I] guy making the choices they want and even then? Still will bitch. Done with these warhawking terrorist supporting asshats. :x


We are too stupid and idealistic (us anti-war types on WF) to falsely believe that Americans as a majority are not hawkish. The majority of Americans are indeed hawkish. 

We are an empire because our population wants to be one. 

https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/how-americans-feel-about-going-to-nuclear-war/

The point of the above exercise is that given the right kind of propaganda and fear mongering, the majority of Americans will choose to be hawkish over pacifist. Plain and simple.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Reaper said:


> Here's where I disagree with you. To me whether ISIS is defeated or not is not my concern as a US Citizen. My concern is that I pay my government to defend me and secure my borders. Not fund terrorists to kill terrorists and then fund other terrorists to kill the terrorists who my government is now telling me that they want to kill me therefore I need to fund another group of terrorists to fight those terrorists who then will turn against other terrorists and the only answer to stop those terrorists is to fund another group of terrorists all the while setting up space defence programs and selling arms to Saudi Arabia and other countries who are killing poor people and their children.
> 
> This cycle needs to end.


Okay, I'll bite: When did I say we should keep our troops there and keep fighting? 

My point goes beyond this and refers to something I've told Camillie to stop doing countless times: people blindly believing what Trump says without bothering to do any actual research themselves. In situations like this, a pass can be made given the circumstances. When it comes to things like our Economy and our Environment? That can seriously fuck us over. We need to have a more open mind. Not everyone is fake news and not everything is hate mongering. Some criticisms of Trump are legitimate, not bias (this last part isn't directed at you per say since you've changed your tune on Trump quite a bit, more so at people who still go on and on with this laughable rhetoric). 



CamillePunk said:


> I'm glad I chose "let's stop funding Al-Qaeda, defeat ISIS, and then pull out" over "let's shoot down Russian planes and pursue regime change" in the 2016 election.


You didn't. ISIS isn't defeated and that isn't why Trump is pulling out (phrasing btw). 

Not bothering with the rest of your post. None of it disproves what I said. Even your links point out ISIS is still around (thanks for showing us you don't read the articles you post). 

FYI:

https://www.theweek.co.uk/islamic-state/59001/what-is-isis-and-can-the-terror-group-be-stopped



> Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw all of the 2,000 US troops stationed in Syria has taken allies by surprise - and has left security experts scratching their heads.
> 
> The US president this week ordered military authorities to begin a “full" and "rapid" withdrawal from the region, declaring that the US has defeated that Islamic State insurgency that has caused devastation in the region since 2014.
> 
> ...


Seriously, do some research. It's not difficult.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I said there were remnants. It's not our job to exterminate them. Assad and his allies can handle what remains. ISIS will only recover if we continue to fight their enemies as we had done under Obama.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)




----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> I said there were remnants. It's not our job to exterminate them. Assad and his allies can handle what remains. ISIS will only recover if we continue to fight their enemies as we had done under Obama.


Nah man the real world is an action movie and it doesn't end until every single bad guy is dead or in jail. 

Of course many of these same people bitching about not mission-creeping forever in Syria would absolutely lose their minds even more than usual if the United States did the only thing that actually achieves ALL the bad guys being dead or totally incapacitated and their ideology totally discredited.

Namely going DOUBLEYA DOUBLEYA TWO and leveling entire cities and killing millions of people and putting the survivors on the brink of starvation so their spirit is broken and they give up to save their very lives because literally everything else has been destroyed.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

More fantastic news for those of us who want peace rather than the callous sacrifice of American lives and the killing of many more others, Trump is pulling half of our forces (7k of 14k) out of Afghanistan. I'll source CNN so everyone can taste the bile and witness the the MIC/Media relationship: 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/afghanistan-withdrawal/index.html

Rachael Maddow has already implied it's what Putin wants. :lmao


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

https://www.cfr.org/blog/115-percent-trumps-china-tariff-revenue-goes-paying-angry-farmers



> *115 Percent of Trump’s China Tariff Revenue Goes to Paying Off Angry Farmers*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Isis defeated haha, some people are so clueless. Why not just put a big banner up saying mission accomplished just for added satire.

Regardless, America doesn't need to be there even if they aren't defeated, so good on Trump for getting out wherever the reason.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

CamillePunk said:


> More fantastic news for those of us who want peace rather than the callous sacrifice of American lives and the killing of many more others, Trump is pulling half of our forces (7k of 14k) out of Afghanistan. I'll source CNN so everyone can taste the bile and witness the the MIC/Media relationship:
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/afghanistan-withdrawal/index.html
> 
> Rachael Maddow has already implied it's what Putin wants. :lmao


I'm honestly not surprised. I wonder if Prison Reform happens if they'll be against that too and say those people need to go back to prison.

These clowns are they reason why we don't have better relations with Russia and are hindering every step of the peace process. You're never going to have a perfect peace, ISIS is never going to fully go away unless you pretty much turn the area to glass. Yet you can at least get something.

They are also super Globalists, like how can you be a Globalist yet act like you did during the Red Scare? We've had more issues with drug cartels than Ebil Russians. :laugh:


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

CamillePunk said:


> ISIS has been defeated for over a year. We have no reason to be there. Deciding who controls Syria is not our business. Nobody wants to pay for that. Nobody wants to sacrifice American lives for that. If you do then there's something wrong with you.
> 
> Hopefully Trump follows through on this and withdraws from Afghanistan as well.
> 
> People bringing up Russia are clueless clown puppets of the MIC-controlled corporate media. They fucking advertise for them on their shows and citizens can't even buy their products. Come on now.





CamillePunk said:


> More fantastic news for those of us who want peace rather than the callous sacrifice of American lives and the killing of many more others, Trump is pulling half of our forces (7k of 14k) out of Afghanistan. I'll source CNN so everyone can taste the bile and witness the the MIC/Media relationship:
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/afghanistan-withdrawal/index.html
> 
> Rachael Maddow has already implied it's what Putin wants. :lmao





Draykorinee said:


> Isis defeated haha, some people are so clueless. Why not just put a big banner up saying mission accomplished just for added satire.
> 
> Regardless, America doesn't need to be there even if they aren't defeated, so good on Trump for getting out wherever the reason.


ISIS has been waiting underground for us to leave...same with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The moment we leave, they are coming back and with a vengeance. I don't want to be the world's policeman either, but this is a cut-and-run that would make Obama proud. Do I want the troops to come home...yes. But I want it done for the right reasons...this isn't it. This will come back to bite us in the ass. 

And you may accuse me of being a warmonger...I'm not a pacifist nor am I one strictly for political reasons. He's doing this to throw more red meat at his supporters and nothing else. The blood was on his hands...although not much of it considering his empty gesture of bombing a couple of empty airfields in Syria. 

I'd rather have courage then run like a coward.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Paranoia does not make one noble not brave. It just makes one clueless and acting out without logic. Yet another defining American trait. Fear. Paranoia. Blood thirst. 

First of all. There is no power vacuum in Syria because America was unable to unseat Assad, like they did with Saddam. Secondly, this is not Afghanistan either which had a power vacuum before America intervened. Assad's military is largely intact. Russia and China have no desire to go head on with the States so Mad Dog Mattis merely is showing how paranoid he is and therefore he should not have the kind if power and influence he does. 

The power vacuum theory and hystrionics do not apply to Sryia.

Mad Dog Mattis just wants to quench is fucking blood thirst and once the blood dried up he went into hibernation throwing a tantrum.

The Putin "gift" theory is beyond laughable. It shows that Americans believe that they already OWN Syria as an occupied terrioty. Talk about being the noble god believing that it is a King Maker.... 

Fucking hell man. Seriously.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

One of the most utterly bizarre arguments in general which I can't get over from people who support endless war in the middle east is that if the US pulls out it will leave a vacuum in the area; all the while ignoring that it is the west's involvement in these wars which in the case of Syria was getting involved in a civil war which we have had little to no understanding of by funding and arming terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Al Nusra is what has caused the conditions for a vacuum to be filled to begin with. 

Syria did not even need to be an issue for American foreign policy. It was a war where there has been no Congressional authorization (the hypocrisy of some so called "Constitutional Conservatives") or voted on that is offensive rather than defensive. Neither the Syrian government nor ISIS who the US has been fighting on both sides of the war attacked the US before they entered the war. The US and the west had no business being involved to begin with.

Same with Iraq, it was an offensive war based on false and phony evidence which the US government and the media propagated. Had the US not toppled a secular dictator and invaded the country, there would have been no "vacuum" to be left in the first place. Same with Libya where now there is now a legitimate slave trade. Neo-Conservatives in justifying these wars and staying there are putting the cart before the horse, they are deliberating forgetting what caused the issue to begin with which was intervening the first place. The damage has already been done and cannot be reversed, just how many more American and civilian lives is worth the cause when there's been no vision on what victory looks like or what sort of exit strategy there would be once the war is over before actually committing to American involvement? There are now more terrorist groups than when the US and it's allies had started. We have become less safe, not more.

Afghanistan is the only intervention at least in the beginning which was justified as a response to 9/11. The mission was to get the people who were behind the biggest terrorist attack in US history. But the mission changed along the way to regime change, to fighting the Taliban and to topple them in Afghanistan which is far away from what was initially voted on. Regardless of my views on 9/11 and where I think the initial story becomes sketchy and where not all of the truth is being told on what actually happened, Bin Laden is dead. The mission is over, it's time to bring the troops home. The US has been there for almost 18 years, just how much more time do the troops need to stay there to repel guerrilla insurgency groups which are hard to pin down? 10? 20? 50? The Taliban as of last year had more ground and were stronger than when the US and the UK initially first started. They are going to come back regardless, is it worth the sacrifices of more good men and women? Absolutely not.

I won't even entertain the ideas of those who have Trump Derangement Syndrome and have completely bought the Neo-McCarthyism propaganda and all of it's bullshit. If you have principles and are against offensive wars which makes the regions effected worse off whilst spending money overseas which should be used to fix problems back at home then you should be happy with the moves Trump has announced.

If he follows through then finally we'll be seeing Trump acting more like the non-interventionist he claimed he was half of the time.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

There is nothing "conservative" about conservatives especially when it comes to the military. Then it's a free for all tax and spend as much as his humanly possible affair. They're almost all hawkish. And claim that it's noble duty and all that crap. Because apparently duty means dying for God and country. Irrespective of whether the death is necessary or not.

I'm.ok with military expenditure. But it's called a DEFENSE budget. not a GO FUCK UP THE WORLD WITH YOUR TANKS AND BOMBS budget.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> ISIS has been waiting underground for us to leave...same with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The moment we leave, they are coming back and with a vengeance. I don't want to be the world's policeman either, but this is a cut-and-run that would make Obama proud. Do I want the troops to come home...yes. But I want it done for the right reasons...this isn't it. This will come back to bite us in the ass.
> 
> And you may accuse me of being a warmonger...I'm not a pacifist nor am I one strictly for political reasons. He's doing this to throw more red meat at his supporters and nothing else. The blood was on his hands...although not much of it considering his empty gesture of bombing a couple of empty airfields in Syria.
> 
> I'd rather have courage then run like a coward.


Taliban isn't waiting underground

I would suggest taking a look at some before and after pictures of Raqqa and Mosul if you think he was doing empty gestures

The ignorance is coming out hard in this thread, people saying simply wholly inaccurate things


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Cut and run just to keep a promise is not the right call. These terrorist organizations know this so they wait us out. And right now chaos is still running wild in Syria and will definitely do so for the foreseeable future. Especially when the players in the game are more interested in stirring up the pot then stabilizing the region. 



deepelemblues said:


> Taliban isn't waiting underground
> 
> I would suggest taking a look at some before and after pictures of Raqqa and Mosul if you think he was doing empty gestures
> 
> The ignorance is coming out hard in this thread, people saying simply wholly inaccurate things


And the Trumpocrat in you is definitely out in full force. I am all for peace and not fighting needless wars, but the Taliban is not finished. They are waiting for us to pull out and once that is done they will come back. They know all they have to do is wait for us to leave. 

It’s just another piece of red meat he is throwing out because he has not kept many of his promises. Like BM said it might be the right thing but for the wrong reason.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.cfr.org/blog/115-percent-trumps-china-tariff-revenue-goes-paying-angry-farmers


Unless tariffs are ended in ten days, government revenue from them will be larger than the two payments to farmers combined. 

The Council on Foreign Relations :heston

Two payments to farmers. That's it. No more. So unless no more tariff revenue is forthcoming, that's it for the period of time when those two payments combined is larger than the tariff revenues. CFR didn't mention either of those two pertinent facts though did it. 

The contempt the CFR and similar organizations hold people in, doing that kind of sleight of hand. Very simple and basic deception. But as we can see, that contempt is apparently justified :draper2


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

Candidate Trump making a wild appearance out of nowhere just when his presidency seemed to be on the ropes. 

One of the first rules of institutions is that they, like all organisms, seek self-preservation. Which is why the bloated, exorbitantly costly and habitually wasteful U.S. military-security axis of the Beltway, Pentagon, intelligence community and their corporate media "amen corner" detest any and all measures which may even conceivably curtail their power. This happened when the Donald Trump's predecessor Barack Obama withdrew from Iraq in 2010, with Fox News trumpeting the downfall of nearly all considerable American foreign policy objectives and now a hyper-ventilating cadre of commentators on CNN and MSNBC are predictably following suit, both sides serving their actual masters while continuing their pathetic and painfully short-sighted partisan shadowboxing.

Speaking of other institutions, such as ISIS, in spite of being to some major extent thumped and thrashed, and their rather spectacular loss of its stronghold of the Islamic State capital of Raqqa in Syria and its Iraqi counterpart Mosul in the past two years in particular, with the caliphate dreamed by true believers a mere figment of their imaginations, naturally ISIS is not dead, nor is it, as a whole, even that close to being so. For ISIS is ultimately simply one of the great manifestations the world knows of the vicious and expansionist political ideology of Islam, which has bedeviled the West since its inception and will continue to do so. However, the U.S.'s ridiculous programs to attempt to topple the Assad regime such as directly arming al-Nusra only strengthened the very radical branch of Islam that poses the threat of which so many speak. At this point ISIS in Syria is largely contained and Assad's government, which has displayed none of the silly qualms the American government--which, as per usual, until the past two years especially was ostensibly doing everything to simply make the war last as long as humanly possible--is easily capable of almost entirely obliterating that which remains of the Islamic State within the borders of the Middle Eastern nation. 

As for the Kurds, it is an unfortunate and unenviable hand they have been dealt. One may indeed feel bad for them. Trump in many ways, a with the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia, deserves credit for being so remarkably plainspoken and cutting through the typically flowery jargon that tends to emanate from Washington, D.C. As he noted before he became president when confronted with the point that Vladimir Putin is a killer, "We have a lot of killers." That sort of honesty in America being rewarded with winning an election is still disorienting to consider. Trump is not interested in dressing up the American selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia as some kind of gesture of nobility, but _realpolitik_-plus-dollars-and-cents calculations. So it is with the selling of several billion dollars' worth in missiles to Turkey. The Kurds were used by the Americans and now they will likely pay a hellish price. It is unfortunate but their situation was never going to be agreeable considering who they are and the power of their enemies. If one feels bad, one must remember that to remain free of unnecessary blood on one's hands, it may be best to at least try to generally mind one's own business. 

At the same time, Trump played the Kurdish card fairly terrifically as far as American interests are concerned. Ultimately he was compelled to make a choice and he made the only reasonable one. Turkey possess NATO's second-greatest army and hugs the Black Sea with the Bosphorus and Dardanelles arteries quite jealously possessed. The Kurds are without a state, they are @CamillePunk;s ideal, and in the end Trump could only serve their interests so much while doing right by his own people in the U.S. 

Then there is the almost hilarious charge that Trump is providing assistance to Putin and Russia. The moronic (but then he is a U.S. Senator so it's a bit of a redundant descriptor) Lindsey Graham wailing, "Russia, Iran, Assad... are ecstatic!" is one of the best comments yet. Trump's deal with Turkey likely means that the Turks will not purchase the S-400 from Russia. Moreover, if Trump were removing U.S. personnel from Syria to benefit Putin, why wait until now? Why is it not possible that Trump--who the U.S. managerial state apologist and court jester Bob Woodward painted as some sort of psychotic madman because he dared to suggest simply withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan long ago while his generals and advisers shrieked to the heavens--wanted to follow through with his campaign rhetoric of bombing the hell out of ISIS (defeated or no, this did happen to the group in Syria) and now that ISIS is a shadow of its former self in that country, do as he suggested the U.S. and "get out--fast"? Whether 23 months is "fast" or not can be left to the observer... 

Syria will always be more important to Russia than she is to the U.S. A strategic Middle Eastern ally with Russia's dating back decades Syria boasts the Russia-coveted warm water port of Tartus. Syria is also important in the Russian sphere for its placement, south of Turkey, west of Iran and Iraq, in the heart of the Middle East. 

Americans do not want to see the U.S. stay in Syria effectively forever to keep Russia out. And Trump was prudent to decisively eliminate the CIA's demented policies of regime change in Damascus, which was more provocative against Russia than anything Russia has done in the Middle East toward the U.S. in a rather long time at this point. 

It remains to be seen just how efficacious and permanent this withdrawal is, but Trump is moving in the correct direction. As he also is in Afghanistan. The man is a narcissist who has probably never cracked open a book he did not have his name and countenance upon but at some sort of instinctual plane he seems to understand that the American moment in the world is at a crossroads, and he is apparently attempting to not simply allow a nearly three-decade-long squandering of U.S. world supremacy on behalf of neocons who never grew out of playing around in a sandbox with toy soldiers or woefully out-of-touch neoliberals who, like their counterparts make intonations about American exceptionalism on behalf of saving the world from itself even if it means funding terror groups or waging wars without end to reach this exalted destination. This has perhaps been the best moment of Trump's presidency to date, and it is good to see it occur, to the extent it has. Let us hope that the consummation is nothing short of complete.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Well Mattis is leaving.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

virus21 said:


> Well Mattis is leaving.


Somehow I don't see that as a bad thing ... The only way I think that's a bad thing that he might be replaced by someone even more blood thirsty and hawkish and then we're going balls deep into Iran - which looks likely now with Bolton having the kind of power he does. 

Rumors have it that Bolton and Mattis were at odds so who knows what's happening behind the scenes. It's all conjecture at this point, but the administration is still not safe from neoconservatives.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> I said there were remnants. It's not our job to exterminate them. Assad and his allies can handle what remains. ISIS will only recover if we continue to fight their enemies as we had done under Obama.


Our "job" was to defeat ISIS, in the words of Trump and you. Trump has not done this yet. And from what I'm getting out of this, he's pulling troops out before the job is done. 

I have no issue with Trump pulling troops out. But again, lets stop painting a false narrative and giving Trump credit for doing something that he's ultimately doing for the wrong reasons. "Trump did what he set out to do, so he's letting the troops leave". No, he didn't. He's doing this to keep support among people like you who blindly believe him. Lets just hope this doesn't come back to bite us in the ass (probably won't, lets hope that's the case).


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

Who leaves next on the NBC's newest hit series - White House Playground reality TV series where politicians make life touching decisions and then force losers to get voted out.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/12/21/mattis-is-out-and-blackwater-is-back-we-are-coming/#.XBzPZNYOPXw.facebook



> *Mattis is out, and Blackwater is back: ‘We are coming’*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speculation, but not an impossible idea. I could see Bolton pushing for it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Take all those trillions of dollars war mongering in the Middle East, spend it on building renewable energy infrastructure in the USA, even put all those troops we brought back home working on it, and as far as the Middle East goes... fuck 'em. I don't give a fuck. I don't give a fuck. I don't give a fuck fuck fuck.

Someone let me know when the Taliban decides to attack Nebraska. Until that time comes, fuck 'em. The world is a fucked up place and it's not our responsibility to fix it. It's our responsibility to take care of the United Goddamned States of America. The only thing our "help" has ever done has fucked up things even worse. So, fuck 'em. Sorry, our bad, we're leaving now, best of luck to ya.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> ISIS has been waiting underground for us to leave...same with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The moment we leave, they are coming back and with a vengeance. I don't want to be the world's policeman either, but this is a cut-and-run that would make Obama proud. Do I want the troops to come home...yes. But I want it done for the right reasons...this isn't it. This will come back to bite us in the ass.
> 
> And you may accuse me of being a warmonger...I'm not a pacifist nor am I one strictly for political reasons. He's doing this to throw more red meat at his supporters and nothing else. The blood was on his hands...although not much of it considering his empty gesture of bombing a couple of empty airfields in Syria.
> 
> I'd rather have courage then run like a coward.





BruiserKC said:


> Cut and run just to keep a promise is not the right call. These terrorist organizations know this so they wait us out. And right now chaos is still running wild in Syria and will definitely do so for the foreseeable future. Especially when the players in the game are more interested in stirring up the pot then stabilizing the region.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't want to be the world's police and you are all for peace and against endless wars but also we have to stay everywhere forever because if we leave something bad might happen. Stop talking out both sides of your mouth. You're a warmongering neocon. You want us to stay in wars that were never even legally authorized. Soooo conservative!  So much for Muh Constitution! 



HollyJollyDemise said:


> Our "job" was to defeat ISIS, in the words of Trump and you. Trump has not done this yet. And from what I'm getting out of this, he's pulling troops out before the job is done.
> 
> I have no issue with Trump pulling troops out. But again, lets stop painting a false narrative and giving Trump credit for doing something that he's ultimately doing for the wrong reasons. "Trump did what he set out to do, so he's letting the troops leave". No, he didn't. He's doing this to keep support among people like you who blindly believe him. Lets just hope this doesn't come back to bite us in the ass (probably won't, lets hope that's the case).


Dude I don't care about giving credit to anyone you partisan loony toon, I care about not sacrificing American lives to enrich the MIC. I care about not being complicit (albeit by force) in the deaths of thousands of people overseas. If Obama had withdrawn from the wars I would've sung his praises. He didn't. He just got us into new ones instead. 

Also @WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster I'm not sure how the Kurds are my ideal given they have a government and want to establish a nation state. :lol This seems like a Somalian strawman to me.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Tater said:


> Take all those trillions of dollars war mongering in the Middle East, spend it on building renewable energy infrastructure in the USA, even put all those troops we brought back home working on it, and as far as the Middle East goes... fuck 'em. I don't give a fuck. I don't give a fuck. I don't give a fuck fuck fuck.
> 
> Someone let me know when the Taliban decides to attack Nebraska. Until that time comes, fuck 'em. The world is a fucked up place and it's not our responsibility to fix it. It's our responsibility to take care of the United Goddamned States of America. The only thing our "help" has ever done has fucked up things even worse. So, fuck 'em. Sorry, our bad, we're leaving now, best of luck to ya.


I think most people of any spectrum can agree with this. Being in the Mid East is pointless, they're not a threat to us. The drug war and cartels have been more of a threat and we don't even bother to secure our border, let alone build bases and do spec op missions on it. 

Real threats to the US are ignored to chase phantom threats across the globe. If you want a real threat, there's plenty in the US and just outside of it's borders. :laugh:

We should be fixing our aging infrastructure and working on the future. We should be fixing the issues Americans face. Though according to some that kind of thinking is probably somehow racist because it's better to virtue signal and get nothing done than to help your own people. :frown2:


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> Dude I don't care about giving credit to anyone you partisan loony toon,


Bullshit, you literally just got done claiming that Trump has earned your vote now for this, BEFORE you proclaimed that ISIS is defeated, despite that obviously not being the case. Don't act like this isn't a case of you singing Trump's praises. You aren't fooling anyone. 

And I ain't partisan. I've made that clear a number of times. Hating Trump doesn't require Democratic loyalty. It requires common sense and an open mind. 



CamillePunk said:


> I care about not sacrificing American lives to enrich the MIC. I care about not being complicit (albeit by force) in the deaths of thousands of people overseas. *If Obama had withdrawn from the wars I would've sung his praises.* He didn't. He just got us into new ones instead.


:mj4 Please, you put the blame on Democrats when a Trump supporter committed an act of violence, even though it was painfully obvious that it happened because Trump encouraged such actions. That's your entire gimmick on this site. You're the same guy who went as far as to say that Trump had been doing "a fantastic job", despite failing on almost all of his goals up to that point :lmao

Don't even try to tell us you would have sung praises for Obama. You would have came up with a reason to shit on him, just like you come up with reasons to think that Trump is a good President and deserves our vote.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

All right dude let your hatred of Trump turn you into a neocon then. Seems to be going around these days.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076100614202028033
TDS


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

CamillePunk said:


> You don't want to be the world's police and you are all for peace and against endless wars but also we have to stay everywhere forever because if we leave something bad might happen. Stop talking out both sides of your mouth. You're a warmongering neocon. You want us to stay in wars that were never even legally authorized. Soooo conservative!  So much for Muh Constitution!
> 
> Dude I don't care about giving credit to anyone you partisan loony toon, I care about not sacrificing American lives to enrich the MIC. I care about not being complicit (albeit by force) in the deaths of thousands of people overseas. If Obama had withdrawn from the wars I would've sung his praises. He didn't. He just got us into new ones instead.
> 
> Also @WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster I'm not sure how the Kurds are my ideal given they have a government and want to establish a nation state. :lol This seems like a Somalian strawman to me.


Another Trumpocrat talks that of which he knows nothing. The job we are in Syria for is not finished. ISIS is still there. If we had wiped it out then fine I would be happy to bring the troops home. As it stands now we are leaving before the job is complete. This is a stupid move to gain political points and nothing else. What is hilarious is that when Obama did it in Iraq, they screamed in outrage. 

As a former military vet, I understand what is at stake and know what the score is. It irritates me when people who have never served feel they know better then those of us that have. And we have yet another President who never served and doesn’t understand what it entails. 

But you will ignore it because the con man in the White House has you all fooled.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> Another Trumpocrat talks that of which he knows nothing. The job we are in Syria for is not finished. ISIS is still there. If we had wiped it out then fine I would be happy to bring the troops home. As it stands now we are leaving before the job is complete. This is a stupid move to gain political points and nothing else. What is hilarious is that when Obama did it in Iraq, they screamed in outrage.
> 
> As a former military vet, I understand what is at stake and know what the score is. It irritates me when people who have never served feel they know better then those of us that have. And we have yet another President who never served and doesn’t understand what it entails.
> 
> But you will ignore it because the con man in the White House has you all fooled.


ISIS will always exist in some form because Islam is an expansionist political ideology that is by design at conflict with the rest of the world, and the more the US interferes in this part of the world the easier it is for them to recruit. It's not our job to kill every last member. Assad's forces and allies are more than capable of handling what is left.

I like how you also didn't respond to the fact it's a completely illegal war in the first place on our part. What happened to being a constitutional conservative? Guess you're fine with violating it if there's a war to be fought.

The fact you've served doesn't give you the right to risk other soldiers' lives in a stupid and illegal war we have no business being in.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

@BruiserKC ; - Maybe you should spend a few years at the other side of the American Guns and Drones and US Tax Payer funded terrorists, so that you know what that's like. Maybe it'll help you appreciate the pull out a little more.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Bruiser doesn't care about American lives let alone a bunch of brown people halfway across the world. :draper2 Thinking Americans should be dying in a Syrian civil war (that is virtually won by Assad, who is vastly preferable to ISIS) is just insane.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

CamillePunk said:


> ISIS will always exist in some form because Islam is an expansionist political ideology that is by design at conflict with the rest of the world, and the more the US interferes in this part of the world the easier it is for them to recruit. It's not our job to kill every last member. Assad's forces and allies are more than capable of handling what is left.
> 
> I like how you also didn't respond to the fact it's a completely illegal war in the first place on our part. What happened to being a constitutional conservative? Guess you're fine with violating it if there's a war to be fought.
> 
> The fact you've served doesn't give you the right to risk other soldiers' lives in a stupid and illegal war we have no business being in.





Reaper said:


> @BruiserKC ; - Maybe you should spend a few years at the other side of the American Guns and Drones and US Tax Payer funded terrorists, so that you know what that's like. Maybe it'll help you appreciate the pull out a little more.





CamillePunk said:


> Bruiser doesn't care about American lives let alone a bunch of brown people halfway across the world. :draper2 Thinking Americans should be dying in a Syrian civil war (that is virtually won by Assad, who is vastly preferable to ISIS) is just insane.


Wow. I care more about our lives then someone like you who has lived in a bubble your whole life and hasn’t bothered to see the world, CP. I disagreed with Obama getting involved there but the purpose is now to finish the job. ISIS has at least 30,000 people ready to stir up shit. Trump said we would defeat ISIs...mission not accomplished. Not to mention I have friends overseas now in Afghanistan and Iraq. You sat on your ass and mocked them. 

But you are a typical liberal Trumpocrat who caters to everything Trump does. So I just have to accept the fact you prefer to wallow in your own ignorance. 

Reap, I understand what you are saying, but it seems the world will howl in outrage for our involvement the moment something happens. Many might be glad the troops are leaving but many more are concerned for what comes next. We embolden the terrorists and then they come after us and you. Been a pattern for years. I want to break that pattern but we keep going down this road


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> Wow. I care more about our lives then someone like you who has lived in a bubble your whole life and hasn’t bothered to see the world, CP. I disagreed with Obama getting involved there but the purpose is now to finish the job. ISIS has at least 30,000 people ready to stir up shit. Trump said we would defeat ISIs...mission not accomplished. Not to mention I have friends overseas now in Afghanistan and Iraq. You sat on your ass and mocked them.
> 
> But you are a typical liberal Trumpocrat who caters to everything Trump does. So I just have to accept the fact you prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.


You don't care about their lives more than I do when I want them home safe defending our country and you're fine with them dying in a desert in an illegal (again, you ignore this point because it exposes you as not being a constitutional conservative like you claim) war that doesn't serve US interests.

I don't need to see the world to know I don't want my country's military occupying half of it, especially when we have enough problems at home. 

I never mocked soldiers for being in Afghanistan or Iraq. Don't make shit up. They're stupid wars we never should have started, but it's the fault of the bought warmongering politicians and their intelligence agencies which are little more than political entities themselves, bought by the same masters. 

I also was against Trump's Syrian airstrikes and his continuing vassal act with the Saudis. Calling me a liberal is hilarious when I'm arguing with actual liberals, progressives, and conservatives about the fact taxation is theft and we shouldn't be paying for any of the social programs they think we can't do without. So liberal, man. Classical liberal, maybe.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075920741990834176
People still acting like the Cold War never ended. :no: I agree with 2012 Obama that the time for Russophobia is over.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

BruiserKC said:


> Another Trumpocrat talks that of which he knows nothing. The job we are in Syria for is not finished.


The United States illegally invaded a sovereign nation and is now illegally occupying that sovereign nation. The "job" we are illegally occupying Syria for is not finished, because that "job" is to topple the Assad regime so Saudi Arabia can run a pipeline through Syria to hurt Russia in an attempt to cut off their fossil fuel sales to Europe.

So go ahead and explain to us again how we are there to fight ISIS.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Trump just cant keep winning.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/21/us-...r-fed-decision-government-shutdown-fears.html

Dow dives 400 points to end its worst week in 10 years

Stocks plunged again on Friday, sending the Dow Jones Industrial Average to its worst week since the financial crisis in 2008, down nearly 7 percent. The Nasdaq Composite Index closed in a bear market and the S&P 500 was on the brink of one itself, down nearly 18 percent from its record earlier this year.

The Federal Reserve's rate hike on Wednesday drove the losses this week and fears of an extended government shutdown only added to the pain on Friday.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 414.23 points to finish at 22,445.37 in turbulent trading that sent the blue-chip index up as much as 300 points earlier in the day, only to trade back in negative territory less than one hour later. The initial rally upward on Friday came as Federal Reserve Bank of New York President John Williams told CNBC that the central bank could reassess its interest rate policy and balance sheet reduction in the new year if the economy slows.

But those gains slowly disappeared as investors used that short-term pop as a chance to sell more. The broader S&P 500 fell 2.1 percent on Friday to close at 2,416.58, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite shed 2.99 percent to 6,332.99 with big losses in technology stocks including Facebook, Amazon and Apple.

Stocks accelerated to their lows after President Donald Trump's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, told Nikkei that it would be "difficult" for the U.S. and China to arrive at a permanent economic agreement after a 90-day ceasefire in the trade tensions.

Here's a tally of the carnage:

The Dow lost 6.8 percent and 1,655 points on the week. It was its worst percentage drop since October 2008.
The Nasdaq lost 8.3 percent on the week and is now 22 percent below its record reached in August, a bear market.
The S&P 500 lost 7 percent for the week and is now down 17.8 percent from its record.
The Dow and S&P 500, which are both in corrections, are on track for their worst December performance since the Great Depression in 1931, down more than 12 percent each this month.
Both the Dow and the S&P 500 are now in the red for 2018 by at least 9 percent.
The selling had conviction. More than 12 billion shares changed hands on U.S. exchanges on Friday, the heaviest volume in at least two years. The expiration of options also added to the volume.

"The message people should take home, especially if there's a government shutdown, is that longer term, the prospects for equities are not good," said Komal Sri-Kumar, president of Sri-Kumar Global Strategies. "There are lots of signs now suggesting that we may be looking at a recession. I would say that the risk here is that a whole lot of confluence is taking place: The trade was is not going to end soon, and the Fed totally misjudged the market in suggesting two more rate hikes next year."


On Thursday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 464.06 points to close at 22,859.6, bringing its two-day declines — which encompassed the market's reaction to the Fed's rate hike — to more than 800 points. The S&P 500 shed 1.58 percent to end Thursday at 2,467.41 while the Nasdaq Composite fell 1.6 percent and closed at 6,528.41.

Friday rollover

Stocks initially caught an early bid Friday morning after New York Fed President Williams said the central bank was listening to the market, and could re-evaluate its outlook for two rate hikes next year.

"We are listening, there are risks to that outlook that maybe the economy will slow further," Williams told Steve Liesman on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" Friday.

"What we're going to be doing going into next year is re-assessing our views on the economy, listening to not only markets but everybody that we talk to, looking at all the data and being ready to reassess and re-evaluate our views," he said.

NY Fed President: 2019 outlook may change, rate hikes not guaranteed	NY Fed President: 2019 outlook may change, rate hikes not guaranteed 
6 Hours Ago | 02:55
But equities quickly staged an about-face thereafter.



The Fed's decision to raise the benchmark overnight lending rate by one quarter point on Wednesday triggered a new wave of selling across Wall Street earlier in the week. That move was widely expected by markets but investors appeared to be taken off guard by Fed Chairman Jerome Powell's comments that the central bank was satisfied with its current path to reduce the balance sheet with no plans to change it.

The Fed currently is allowing $50 billion a month to run off its massive debt balance sheet as its securities mature, tightening financial conditions. The balance sheet is mostly a collection of bonds the central bank purchased to vitalize the economy during and after the financial crisis.

Government shutdown fight

Sentiment was dampened Friday after President Donald Trump aggravated fears of a government shutdown after tweeting:

"The Democrats, whose votes we need in the Senate, will probably vote against Border Security and the Wall even though they know it is DESPERATELY NEEDED. If the Dems vote no, there will be a shutdown that will last for a very long time. People don't want Open Borders and Crime!"

Later on Thursday, the House passed a temporary spending bill with more than $5 billion for Trump's border wall — an inclusion which will likely impede its ability to clear the Senate. The Senate had unanimously approved a bill Wednesday night to keep the government running through Feb. 8 — without border wall money.

However, Trump later told reporters on Friday that there is a very good chance the House funding bill will not pass in the Senate and that the administration is prepared for a long shutdown.

Both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have flatly said congressional Democrats will not approve wall money. As Republicans need Democratic votes to pass spending legislation in the Senate, a partial shutdown is all but assured if the GOP insists on funding for the barrier.

Technology and financial stocks were among the biggest losers on Friday.

Facebook lost 6.3 percent, Apple lost 3.8 percent and Amazon lost 5.7 percent. Chipmakers Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices lost 4 percent and 5.6 percent, respectively.

The big banks of Wall Street also sank, with Goldman Sachs falling 4.9 percent, Citigroup down 3.8 percent and Bank of America down 3 percent. Athletic apparel company Nike was one of the few bright spots rallying nearly 7 percent following strong earnings results.

— CNBC's Sam Meredith, Eustance Huang, Kate Rooney and Jacob Pramuk contributed to this report.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

I feel sorry for Americans who genuinely believed that we were in Sryia to fight the ISIS...

I feel bad for the military. I feel bad for the average soldier. I feel bad for their families. Their fathers. Their sons and daughters and wives. 

Haven't the heart to break their minds because their minds are badly indoctrinated into believing in their nation's propaganda.

Noble causes are the driving force behind military action. It's so easy to give themselves one and just die for it. It sucks that most of our soldiers have actually died in vain. I'm not shitting in their memory. But that's what has happened. 

Too bad for their children who are going to grow up orphaned or raised by people that are not their biological parents. 

Maybe one day Americans will realize that they don't need to keep up with this endless supply to the massive political machine. That would be amazing. But I know that's a pipe dream.

---- 

Also Trump. His madness. And his supporters summed up in a few pictures.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> Also Trump. His madness. And his supporters summed up in a few pictures.


The best part, just a week ago, he said on video with the Dems he is shutting down the GOVT and would take the credit for shutting it down lol And his supporters just ignore that


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> You also missed the best part, just a week ago, he said on video with the Dems he is shutting down the GOVT and would take the credit for shutting it down lol


That's the first image.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> That's the first image.


ha I just edited it, because when I replied it did not load but it did when I refreshed.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

lmao and some people think TDS isn't real


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> lmao and some people think TDS isn't real


You do understand both can be right, right?

Its not that Trump is pulling out of Syria, its how he is doing it. Not sure why people like you don't understand this simple concept. Trump has no plan in how to pull out, he caught everyone off guard, especially US allies, by just announcing this on twitter before having a plan set on how its going to happen.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> You do understand both can be right, right?
> 
> Its not that Trump is pulling out of Syria, its how he is doing it. Not sure why people like you don't understand this simple concept.


How is he doing it? How should he be doing it?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> How is he doing it? How should he be doing it?


Trump does not know how he is doing it, that is the problem. He needs to plan it out with the US military and its allies.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

CamillePunk said:


> You don't want to be the world's police and you are all for peace and against endless wars but also we have to stay everywhere forever because if we leave something bad might happen. Stop talking out both sides of your mouth. You're a warmongering neocon. You want us to stay in wars that were never even legally authorized. Soooo conservative!  So much for Muh Constitution!
> 
> Dude I don't care about giving credit to anyone you partisan loony toon, I care about not sacrificing American lives to enrich the MIC. I care about not being complicit (albeit by force) in the deaths of thousands of people overseas. If Obama had withdrawn from the wars I would've sung his praises. He didn't. He just got us into new ones instead.
> 
> Also @WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster I'm not sure how the Kurds are my ideal given they have a government and want to establish a nation state. :lol This seems like a Somalian strawman to me.


It was meant as a jest and a way to say hi in a large post upon returning after an absence. Although the point that your ideal, however well-intended, will never be realized by more than an infinitesimal number of people is a bit humorous.  



BruiserKC said:


> Wow. I care more about our lives then someone like you who has lived in a bubble your whole life and hasn’t bothered to see the world, CP. I disagreed with Obama getting involved there but the purpose is now to finish the job. ISIS has at least 30,000 people ready to stir up shit. Trump said we would defeat ISIs...mission not accomplished. Not to mention I have friends overseas now in Afghanistan and Iraq. You sat on your ass and mocked them.
> 
> But you are a typical liberal Trumpocrat who caters to everything Trump does. So I just have to accept the fact you prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.
> 
> Reap, I understand what you are saying, but it seems the world will howl in outrage for our involvement the moment something happens. Many might be glad the troops are leaving but many more are concerned for what comes next. We embolden the terrorists and then they come after us and you. Been a pattern for years. I want to break that pattern but we keep going down this road


The most persistent pattern has been the U.S. mistakenly entering quarrels which do not matter to the interests of the American nation as it stands ( @Miss Sally; is right: the slow-motion erosion from within due to powerful drug cartels and variegated undesirables is a much more insidious existential threat, and of course keeping the Muslim population at as small-as-possible percentage of the overall national population would be wise--of course immigration from the Islamic world skyrocketed after September 11, 2001 because the U.S. in the twenty-first century is among other things not a serious nation-state, much like her Western sisters) and forming alliances and funding terrible actors who tend to turn on their handlers before too long. Killing those tens of thousands of ISIS members who continue on may be satisfying but they will be replaced, and with greater alacrity should the U.S. remain so ostentatiously in the region. Islam is an incubator of terror, and has been spread through terror since the seventh century. 

American soldiers deployed have, through no direct fault of their own, helped to spur on greater amounts of Islamic terror. This happened in the 1990s in the Balkans--today through financing from Saudi Arabia and other nefarious Muslim regimes, Kosovo is one of the world's great hubs of international Islamist terrorism. The way for which was paved by the international do-gooderism of the reprehensible Clinton administration. Now Cher and a coterie of other airhead celebrities no one should listen to in matters of politics who insisted that the U.S. and NATO act in the late 1990s are crying about the U.S. withdrawing from Syria--after wailing about the possibility of Trump initiating a nuclear war. 

No, the U.S. is not a serious nation-state, but it could at least start to rediscover what it means to be one with some more baby steps such as the ones Trump appears to be taking.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Be the President and have the government shut down for the 3rd time in your two year tenure ya'll. Say Mexico is going to pay for the wall then close the government and potentially put federal workers in jeopardy because you want the United States to pay for it ya'll. Originally agree to the Senate's bill, then change your mind and reject it because Fox News people lost their minds and gave criticism ya'll. Create an alternative name for the wall: "Steele Slats" and have the diagram look like a bunch of upside down number 2 pencils ya'll. 

Something something damn brown people, something something democrats, something something caravan, something something but Obama, something something asylum, something something Clinton emails, something something lying James Comey, something something Uranium One, something something conflict of interest Bob Mueller, something something our sovereignty, something something we can't let the country become dirtier (as Tucker Carlson said), something something Russian hoax, something something NO COLLISION, something something the FBI & DOJ, something something the 9th court of appeals, something something the globalists, something something muslims, something something CNN & NYT fake news, something something Colin Kaepernick was kneeling in his kitchen, something something Michael Cohen is a rat. 

:lelfold


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

And the shutdown begins. While I think the government is as useless as tits on a bull and normally I could care less, this is on our President for not dealing with his priorities sooner. He has wasted the political capital he had at the beginning on fights that mean very little. He chose to rub his victory in the faces of people that were willing to work with him. And for two years he talked about wanting to resolve the issues regarding illegal immigration but twiddled his thumbs instead. No wall, no mandatory E-Verify, no strong punishments for businesses that hire illegals, etc. He kept threatening to veto bills that failed to provide wall funding, but eventually signed them. It's hilarious that NOW he decides to take a stand when he had the chance to do so before. 



CamillePunk said:


> You don't care about their lives more than I do when I want them home safe defending our country and you're fine with them dying in a desert in an illegal (again, you ignore this point because it exposes you as not being a constitutional conservative like you claim) war that doesn't serve US interests.
> 
> I don't need to see the world to know I don't want my country's military occupying half of it, especially when we have enough problems at home.
> 
> ...


Trump went along with the warmongering with his airstrikes in Syria (granted it was rather pathetic as he ordered the bombing of a couple of empty airfields). He has threatened the leadership of North Korea and Iran yet both continue to build their nuclear programs. During the campaign he talked about a full Muslim ban, yet now has become an apologist for radical Islam with his curtsying to the Saudi monarchy plus his announcement to withdraw troops from Syria came after a discussion with the Turkish President Erdogan (a radical Islamist) and didn't bother to consult with his own military personnel. Plus, IIRC, Trump hammered Obama for his premature withdrawal of US troops from Iraq which eventually led to ISIS foot soldiers committing attacks in Paris, Brussels, and even here in places like Orlando and San Bernadino. Trump/Syria is Obama 2.0. 

Granted, Iraq was a bad decision in '03. Afghanistan was not, a response after 9/11 was warranted. The problem is that we have no endgame...Trump did the same with sending additional troops to Afghanistan last spring but not laying out what the goals were that would eventually bring the troops home. The Taliban is still out there in Afghanistan, ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria. Completely pulling out of both areas will embolden those groups to once again carry attacks out where they could eventually reach American soil again. Then we will be right back over there. 

Of course, you ignore these facts because of your blind support for a man who has...

Failed in his attempts to repeal Obamacare (yes Congress is useless and hasn't done their part, but this is on him...and don't say "But, McCain", when those bills were not repeal or anywhere close). The mandate might be gone, but it is still the law of the land. 

Has done jack shit to resolve the immigration issues. He talks about how the Dems don't care about this country and won't deal with illegal immigration. Those levels are back to where they were under Obama. No E-Verify, no stiffer penalties for businesses who hire illegals, etc. And NO WALL. He continued to sign bills that didn't provide that funding, but only now has decided to do something about it because if he doesn't he is toast for '20. 

Continues to provide federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The bills he signs have not cut that funding off, which was another campaign promise. Not to mention the crybaby squish Kavanaugh (who he chose to die on that hill for) was among the justices to rule on not hearing a case that could have decided on federal funding for PP once and for all. [email protected] this President being pro-life. 

Attacks private businesses for their practices. Amazon, Carrier, Harley Davidson...a President might have an opinion just like the rest of us, but that opinion holds a lot more weight when it comes to issues. When you have a self-avowed socialist in Bernie Sanders supporting the President's war with Amazon, that tells me all I need to know. 

Shown how he truly regards the 2nd Amendment with his statements. He talked about taking guns away from people and dealing with due process later. Now, a ban on bump stocks. Granted, very few people deal with bump stocks but that ban now could lead to others down the road. 

Believes in raising taxes on the middle class. His tax cuts are tax increases for many, especially those in blue states where a lot of deductions have been eliminated. It hasn't simplified the tax code and did nothing to address the issues of why businesses continue to flee overseas and find a way to get them to stay here. Of course, part of that is bribing these companies with taxpayer money...very crony capitalist of him. 

There's quite a few more...I could get into his willingness to let the Clinton crime family walk away unscathed (although at one time he was a good friend and donor and along with George Soros helped Hillary with her campaigns) as well as alienating our allies while showing love for our enemies (he chastised Obama for just that), but I think this is enough for starters. None of these are conservative stances...Trump is not a conservative. Not even close. He is a limousine liberal who lived a sheltered life. Therefore, by your support of this man for his practices, that makes you a liberal (hey, just using the language of the Trumpocrats as anyone who doesn't support Trump to them is a liberal). You can make fun of my values and beliefs, but my goalposts never changed. Trump has already slid over to the left, I refuse to support someone who goes there. Not to mention his lashing out and acting like a child on issues where anyone dares to attack him. 

But, he's owning the libs, right? That must be enough? Please, I'll remember this if the next President is one that makes Obama look like Reagan and push socialist policies. Then I'll remember this as the day that the Grand Experiment died. All because we voted for a progressive New York con man who fooled his followers into believing he was a principled conservative just like them.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Some of your points were legit. Others were questionable. Some were ludicrous. I did get a good chuckle from you calling CP a liberal. But then this little gem came along...



BruiserKC said:


> Trump has already slid over to the left...


:ha

Stop, please. My ribs hurt. 

You would have been more accurate stating that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Tater said:


> Some of your points were legit. Others were questionable. Some were ludicrous. I did get a good chuckle from you calling CP a liberal. But then this little gem came along...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's looking more like a Democrat President but hardly Left. :laugh:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

BruiserKC said:


> But, he's owning the libs, right? That must be enough? Please, I'll remember this if the next President is one that makes Obama look like Reagan and push socialist policies. Then I'll remember this as the day that the Grand Experiment died. All because we voted for a progressive New York con man who fooled his followers into believing he was a principled conservative just like them.


All presidential candidates present themselves one way during the campaign and then switch up once they get elected. Trump's gimmick was that he was different from the rest and that he wouldn't be controlled. 

I don't think people voted for Trump because they thought he was principled, I think people voted for him out of a sheer lack of confidence in the current establishment. They also saw him as an answer to the smothering PC movement.

Since candidates show to be the complete opposite of everything they say once they reach office, I say we should all vote for Bernie Sanders.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-22/trump-said-to-discuss-firing-fed-s-powell-after-latest-rate-hike



> *Trump Discusses Firing Fed's Powell After Latest Rate Hike, Sources Say*
> 
> President Donald Trump has discussed firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell as his frustration with the central bank chief intensified following this week’s interest-rate hike and months of stock-market losses, according to four people familiar with the matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Tater said:


> Some of your points were legit. Others were questionable. Some were ludicrous. I did get a good chuckle from you calling CP a liberal. But then this little gem came along...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Consider the extremes of where you and I are. You are furthest to the left and I am the furthest to the right. Trump is definitely not a conservative and is embracing policies that are anything but. 



Miss Sally said:


> He's looking more like a Democrat President but hardly Left. :laugh:


Might as well have voted for Hillary Clinton if we wanted a Democrat in office. Of course we got her donor so go figure.




Berzerker's Beard said:


> All presidential candidates present themselves one way during the campaign and then switch up once they get elected. Trump's gimmick was that he was different from the rest and that he wouldn't be controlled.
> 
> I don't think people voted for Trump because they thought he was principled, I think people voted for him out of a sheer lack of confidence in the current establishment. They also saw him as an answer to the smothering PC movement.
> 
> Since candidates show to be the complete opposite of everything they say once they reach office, I say we should all vote for Bernie Sanders.


There are different reasons why Trump was elected for different people. One was a repudiation of eight years of Obama and his policies. For some, the idea of Hillary as President was unacceptable. Others felt he would put conservatives on the courts. Many elected him as a great big “fuck you” to the establishment and said to Washington that if you weren’t going to do what We The People want we will get you someone who you have to deal with. 

The conservative pundits said we needed a more conservative candidate for President. We got the exact opposite. Yet, the Trumpamaniacs do the most elaborate mental gymnastics to convince us Trump is the most conservative President ever. For every conservative thing he has done like getting rid of unnecessary regulations we have things like tariffs and bump stocks bans. And any disagreement with him means you are evil in the eyes of his followers. 

He had a lot of political capital at the beginning that he pissed away. The fact he lost the House means people weren’t happy with what was going on. This shutdown is his 5th Avenue moment, if he folds he will lose a lot of support. He already has many nervous with Mattis resigning, not to mention he totes an improved economy but the Dow is having its worst December since 1931. He has not gotten much done and certainly almost none of the big ticket items. 

I gave him a chance but I have never changed my beliefs. I wanted to be wrong but it turns out I wasn’t.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...l-stein-social-media-blitz-help-trump-n951166

Russians launched pro-Jill Stein social media blitz to help Trump win election, reports say
Building support for Stein was one of a “roster of themes” the Moscow-sanctioned internet trolls “turned to repeatedly,” report says.


Two days before the 2016 presidential election, an Instagram account called @woke_blacks posted a message in support of long-shot Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

“The excuse that a lost Black vote for Hillary is a Trump win is bs,” it read. “It could be late, but y’all might want to support Jill Stein instead.”

According to a report commissioned by the Senate, the account was a fake, part of the Russian campaign to sway the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.

The report was one of two that leaked this week saying the Russian effort to disrupt the election specifically targeted black voters and harnessed America’s top social media platforms. But the reports contained another finding that was largely overlooked — the Russians also focused on boosting Stein’s candidacy through social media posts like the one from @woke_blacks.




Russian disinformation during 2016 was worse than you thought
DEC. 17, 201806:57
Building support for Stein was one of a “roster of themes” the Moscow-sanctioned internet trolls “turned to repeatedly” in their effort to disrupt the election, according to a research team led by the New Knowledge cybersecurity firm. The researchers also found that the campaign to bolster Stein gained in intensity in the final days of the presidential campaign and largely targeted African-American voters.

The reports, prepared by separate groups of cyber experts, add to the growing body of evidence that the Russians worked to boost the Stein campaign as part of the effort to siphon support away from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and tilt the election to Trump.

An NBC News analysis found that Russians working under the direction of the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg-based firm run by a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, tweeted the phrase “Jill Stein” over 1,000 times around the time of the election.

The posts were often accompanied by variations of the same hashtag, “Grow a spine and vote Jill Stein.”

“This hasn’t gotten enough attention,” said Andrew Weiss, a Russian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, referring to Moscow’s efforts to promote Stein.

“The fact that the Russian propaganda apparatus helped create awareness and support for her candidacy and promoted her candidacy is critical to our understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“The Russians played this extremely adroitly,” Weiss added.

Image: Jill SteinJill Stein speaks at a town hall-style event at YouTube Space LA in 2016.Gabriel Olsen / Getty Images file
The Green Party did not respond to multiple requests for comment. NBC News also left messages with two Stein spokespersons, but they went unreturned.

There’s nothing in the reports to suggest that Stein was aware of the influence operation, but the Massachusetts physician has long been criticized for her support of international policies that mirror Russian foreign policy goals.

As a frequent guest on the Russian state-owned English language broadcast and online outlets RT and Sputnik, Stein has also benefited from Moscow’s help during her presidential runs in 2012 and 2016.

An NBC News review of the archives of RT and Sputnik, which the CIA has described as part of “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine,” from early 2015 to the 2016 election shows more than 100 stories, on-air and online, friendly to Stein and the Green Party.

Weiss said Moscow's support for Stein in fact began well before she became a presidential candidate.

“The Russian embrace of fringe voices like Stein goes back more than a decade to the earlier days of RT,” said Weiss.

Weiss also noted that the Stein campaign parroted the Russian position on Ukraine in 2016 and criticized the U.S. for installing a government in Kiev “hostile to Russia.”

In Feb. 2015, Stein announced her decision to form a presidential exploratory committee on the U.S.-based RT program “Redacted Tonight."

In the closing weeks of the campaign, RT quoted Stein suggesting that Hillary Clinton could lead the U.S. into a nuclear war with Russia and saying Trump was a safer choice.

"On the issue of war and nuclear weapons," Stein said, according to RT, "it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia."

Most famously, Stein was one of two Americans invited to sit with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the head table of the RT 10th anniversary dinner in Dec. 2015. The other was General Michael Flynn, who was advising then candidate Donald J. Trump and is now awaiting sentencing in the special counsel’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.


The head table of a gala celebrating the tenth anniversary of Russia Today in December of 2015 included Russian President Vladimir Putin, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and Jill Stein of the U.S. Green Party.Mikhail Klimentyev / Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP file
Also at the table: Putin’s chief of staff, a former KGB general who had been sanctioned by the Obama administration for his role in 2014 annexation of Crimea and a deputy chief of staff who U.S. intelligence referred to as Putin's head propagandist.

Stein, in explaining why she traveled to Moscow for the event, has said she had hoped to speak with the Russian president about his policy in Syria, climate change and other issues. The Russian president declined the opportunity, Stein admitted. Stein has repeatedly said she did not accept any Russian support for her trip.

Clint Watts, an NBC News analyst who has been tracking Russian election interference at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says none of what’s in the reports prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee should be seen as surprising.

“Is Stein a fellow traveler or a useful idiot?” Watts asked rhetorically. “I don’t know, but even after the election she played into Russia disinformation by pursuing a recount so heavily and claiming election fraud. This was a post-election coup for Kremlin propagandists.”

Robert Windrem
Robert Windrem is an investigative reporter/producer with NBC News, specializing in international security.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

fpalm ... mods please keep the Russian conspiracy stuff to the Russian conspiracy thread.

We already know now that the Russia gate beliebers want to believe that everything bad that ever happens and everything that contradicts their world view is caused by the Russians. Dont need daily reminders in every political thread.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> fpalm ... mods please keep the Russian conspiracy stuff to the Russian conspiracy thread.
> 
> We already know now that the Russia gate trolls want to believe that everything bad that ever happens and everything that contradicts their world view is caused by the Russians. Dont need daily reminders in every political thread.


Sorry if you don't like facts and evidence when it comes to Russia thing since it goes against your denial of facts. Sorry if my worldview deals in facts unlike you.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Yeah BM I've said before to put the Russian garbage in that other thread.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

MrMister said:


> Yeah BM I've said before to put the Russian garbage in that other thread.


So why aren't you telling the people putting all the Jimmy Dore Russia stuff in that thread too hmm You even liked the Dore Russia video lol


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

birthday_massacre said:


> So why aren't you telling the people putting all the Jimmy Dore Russia stuff in that thread too hmm You even liked the Dore Russia video lol


:lmao so persucuted poor BM

The Dore video is about the hysteria of the story. But yeah it probably could/should go in that thread too.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

MrMister said:


> :lmao so persucuted poor BM
> 
> The Dore video is about the hysteria of the story. But yeah it probably could/should go in that thread too.


it still has to do with Russia. Just pointing out your hypocrisy on the matter. And its cute you are laughing at me when Reaper is the one crying about it.


Also you should sticky the Russia thread since its always a PITA to find when its not posted in for a week or so.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I'm not going to pin the entire section. 

Ok I'm a hypocrite about this. I have Jay Cutler levels of don't care regarding this.

lol just put the Russian articles in the Russian thread please thanks and Merry Christmas!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

MrMister said:


> I'm not going to pin the entire section.
> 
> Ok I'm a hypocrite about this. I have Jay Cutler levels of don't care regarding this.
> 
> lol just put the Russian articles in the Russian thread please thanks and Merry Christmas!


You got it boss, ill just have to bookmark the thread for next time.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

BruiserKC said:


> Consider the extremes of where you and I are. You are furthest to the left and I am the furthest to the right. Trump is definitely not a conservative and is embracing policies that are anything but.


Trump is just as far right as you are. He's just a bit more authoritarian than you might like. Although, considering your views on foreign policy, you're a lot more authoritarian than you would ever admit either. You seem to fancy yourself a far right wing libertarian when it comes to domestic issues but no self respecting libertarian would advocate for war mongering the way you do.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

MrMister said:


> :lmao so persucuted poor BM
> 
> The Dore video is about the hysteria of the story. But yeah it probably could/should go in that thread too.


Posting those Jimmy Dore videos in the Russia thread would result in being banned from the Russia thread, just like any criticism or skepticism of the conspiracy theory/fantasy that Russia influenced the election in any significant way or are somehow behind Trump's policy decisions. I'm banned from that thread and don't remember posting in there.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

That thread is for masturbating to a certain fetish and like any fetish community its particular fetish and how great that fetish is is all that's allowed :ha


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I like reading about what a genius Mueller is and how any day now he's going to drop the bombshell on Trump. :lol He's the great white savior of the anti-Trumpers. They'll be waiting for him to do something about Trump 2000 years from now, insisting we're on the precipice all the way.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076439522924212226
Surely the racism among Trump supporters is so blatant and ever-present that a reporter wouldn't need to just make up such a story? :hmmm


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Dude said the only two films playing at the local movie theater were La La Land and American Sniper

And no one was watching La La Land, American Sniper was packed

Two years after American Sniper came out

Of course they had like 8 movies playing and all of them current :heston 

Not that American Sniper isn't an excellent movie because it is 

This burning desire to prove that everyone white east of LA and west of New York is some kind of self-sheltered ignorant provincial troglodyte by preference shows the self-sheltered ignorant provincial troglodytic nature of those who burn with that desire

I keep wondering if they're going to figure out their own hubris and bigotry is going to someday result in a ne plus ultra :trump being in charge


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Tater said:


> Trump is just as far right as you are. He's just a bit more authoritarian than you might like. Although, considering your views on foreign policy, you're a lot more authoritarian than you would ever admit either. You seem to fancy yourself a far right wing libertarian when it comes to domestic issues but no self respecting libertarian would advocate for war mongering the way you do.


If the military is being used, they need to finish the job. ISIS was on the run but not defeated. Premature pullout could turn Syria into a real clusterfuck. Russia wants to prop up Assad, the Turks could slaughter the Kurds, and Iran could have passage across the country to help Hezbollah and possibly goad Israel into an attack. Then you can have a massive war in the Middle East and back we go. 

I don’t want war, but I am not a pacifist. People like you would never fight no matter what. Trump claims to respect the military but just spit in the face of soldiers for telling them basically not to finish the job.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> I like reading about what a genius Mueller is and how any day now he's going to drop the bombshell on Trump. :lol He's the great white savior of the anti-Trumpers. They'll be waiting for him to do something about Trump 2000 years from now, insisting we're on the precipice all the way.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076439522924212226
> Surely the racism among Trump supporters is so blatant and ever-present that a reporter wouldn't need to just make up such a story? :hmmm


You gonna stop finding ways to criticizing Trump haters and acknowledge the fact that Trump took a massive L by having the Government shut down? You know, the thing he harshly criticized Obama for? And for a wall no less? That's a massive failure on his part. The least you could do is acknowledge it if you want us to take you seriously.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> Posting those Jimmy Dore videos in the Russia thread would result in being banned from the Russia thread, just like any criticism or skepticism of the conspiracy theory/fantasy that Russia influenced the election in any significant way or are somehow behind Trump's policy decisions. I'm banned from that thread and don't remember posting in there.


Being banned from the Russiagate circle jerk thread is something we have in common. It's no secret who doesn't allow people like us in there.



BruiserKC said:


> If the military is being used, they need to finish the job. ISIS was on the run but not defeated. Premature pullout could turn Syria into a real clusterfuck. Russia wants to prop up Assad, the Turks could slaughter the Kurds, and Iran could have passage across the country to help Hezbollah and possibly goad Israel into an attack. Then you can have a massive war in the Middle East and back we go.
> 
> I don’t want war, but I am not a pacifist. *People like you would never fight no matter what.* Trump claims to respect the military but just spit in the face of soldiers for telling them basically not to finish the job.


_*People like me*_ wouldn't illegally invade sovereign nations to topple their governments and steal their resources.

Russia wants to prop up Assad? You mean Russia's ally, Syria? You mean the Russian military that was *invited* into Syria by their *ally* to fight ISIS? Of fucking course Russia wants to be allies with Syria because they sell fossil fuels to Europe and they don't want the American Empire toppling Assad so they can run a pipeline through his country.

The USA has no right to be in Syria and you're a rube if you believe defeating ISIS is the real reason they are there.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Fighting is such a primitive method anyways. It appeals to the brutes inside men. 

Sorry. I appreciate a draft dodger more than a man who foolishly runs off in the name of valor and glory to places by people who simply rule out of authority and play a man's conscience against his own interests.

I respect people who defend me. I don't respect people who falsely believe they're defending me by killing some random brown guy halfway around the world just because he was ordered to do so.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Tater said:


> Being banned from the Russiagate circle jerk thread is something we have in common. It's no secret who doesn't allow people like us in there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Reaper said:


> Fighting is such a primitive method anyways. It appeals to the brutes inside men.
> 
> Sorry. I appreciate a draft dodger more than a man who foolishly runs off in the name of valor and glory to places by people who simply rule out of authority and play a man's conscience against his own interests.
> 
> I respect people who defend me. I don't respect people who falsely believe they're defending me by killing some random brown guy halfway around the world just because he was ordered to do so.


We are not there for oil, we have enough here so that is not an issue. Russia is more interested in squashing the rebels then ISIS. Turkey would rather wipe out the Kurds. Iran would rather cross the country to link up with Hezbollah. Assad might be preferable to an Islamic regime but ISIS will be a far worse option. We stayed out of Afghanistan’s business and we ended up with 9/11. Ceasing military operations in Iraq created ISIS and Trump drove that point home during the campaign. Now he has gone Obama 2.0 in the cut and run department. 

I would love to not have our troops everywhere. I would love to just let the rest of the world figure their shit out. Unfortunately the world as it is now doesn’t afford us that luxury.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

BruiserKC said:


> Premature pullout could turn Syria into a real clusterfuck.


No offense, *Bruiser*. Enjoy reading your posts. However, this seems like satire.



BruiserKC said:


> If the military is being used, they need to finish the job. ISIS was on the run but not defeated. Premature pullout could turn Syria into a real clusterfuck. Russia wants to prop up Assad, the Turks could slaughter the Kurds, and Iran could have passage across the country to help Hezbollah and possibly goad Israel into an attack. Then you can have a massive war in the Middle East and back we go.
> 
> I don’t want war, but I am not a pacifist. People like you would never fight no matter what. Trump claims to respect the military but just spit in the face of soldiers for telling them basically not to finish the job.


The overwhelming majority of these conditions will exist whenever the U.S. finally draws back forces in Syria, whether it be in the next twenty-four hours or in twenty-four years. 

Russia wanting to keep the Assad regime in power is beneficial since it is in Moscow's interests to not see the jihadists in Syria who pine for Assad's overthrow succeed. To make a rough analogy, United States Army General Eisenhower prudently avoided a potential major international kerfuffle by allowing the Soviet Union to have free, unobstructed dominion en route to Berlin from the east. He ordered all U.S. forces into southern Germany so that the _Wehrmacht_ forces which remained well south of the city and to ensure that the Third Reich government would not seek refuge in which to possibly (doubtless ultimately hopelessly but probably problematically) reconstitute itself in Alps. 

It was a callous decision since it meant that the Soviet forces would take Berlin, and while the U.S. and British soldiers were not spotless in their conduct by any means, the Russian Red Army was particularly vicious and rapacious. The Battle of Berlin was one of the most horrific of the entire conflagration, with over 80,000 Soviet soldiers killed, almost 285,000 wounded and over 94,000 German soldiers killed with at least another 220,000 wounded. Recent estimates indicate that over 25,000 civilians were killed and tens of thousands of girls and women were raped and mutilated and killed. 

However, allowing the Soviets to take Berlin meant fewer American casualties. 

The analogy is nowhere near perfect, of course. However, Islamists seeking to stir up trouble in Syria are almost as a whole in direct opposition to Russian interests in Syria, and vice versa. If Russia wants to do battle with them, they may be our guests.

Elsewhere, the Iranians, who are by no means saints and have indeed sponsored terrorism, are at least in opposition to the Sunni radicals who constitute ISIL. The Russo-Iranian-Syrian axis may not be benign but they may also be highly useful in thwarting ISL, as the Russian intervention in the fall of 2015 was largely responsible for the Syrian government retaking Palmyria from ISIL forces. 

If anything, the Iranians combating ISIL takes valuable resources from them in arming Hezbollah. Donald Trump has been nothing if not hard on Tehran. Yet while that issue has been ongoing, the Iranians have sent many troops into Iraq to combat ISIL; they are natural enemies and consequentially in direct conflict with one another. Moreover, the Israelis are better-positioned today in the Middle East than they have been since their state was established in the late 1940s. Their wall has cut terrorism down almost staggeringly. Their alliance with Saudi Arabia and other powerful Mideast nations has them more comfortable than they have ever been. Trump has, for good or ill, been almost painstakingly brutish toward Iran, ripping apart the previous administration's admittedly deeply flawed and--the more one reads about it--rather ill-conceived Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or "Iran nuclear deal." Which has only benefited Israel enormously as well. Elsewhere, while the fate of the Kurds in Syria may be ugly to witness, it is in Israel's interest to see Turkey in stable condition as it keeps a counterbalance to other nation-states to the south so long as Erdogan does not go completely crazy. And while the Arab-Israeli alliance, which has of course been downplayed by both sides and especially the former for myriad valid reasons, has a thorny amorality to it, as alliances between nations do, it serves as a powerful counterbalance to any swelling of Iranian interests, including their nuclear ambitions, which seem to still remain fairly vague.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

@BruiserKC ; middle East not having an oil Monopoly anymore is a result of our nearly 4 decades worth of interference there combined with using that time and financial opportunity to develop our own resources... You make oil so difficult to produce for the countries in that region and keep it destabilized giving your own producers an unfair advantage.l

. So if you're gonna go chicken and the egg, remember that for everything we see now there was a beginning. The beginning was the Arab Oil cartel that dicked with American lives several decades ago and since then America's interference there has resulted in our own oil becoming competitive while theirs no longer is.

Am no spring chicken when it comes to having lived world history myself. The first gulf war was literally an Oil War. Amongst OPEC member states in which America intervened.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

How could OPEC have a near monopoly on ability to grab market share and raise or lower market price at will, and bankrupt the USSR almost entirely on Saudi Arabia opening the spigots all the way at the request of Ronald Reagan, while the United States was simultaneously hindering its ability to produce oil?

Circles are not being squared with this kind of analysis. 

The simple :fact is that the increase in American oil and national gas production was foreseen by only a few and had everything to do with rising demand in China and India making fracking profitable. It had nothing to do with machinations depressing OPEC production.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Saudi Arabia is not the only oil producer in the middle East and is not the only OPEC member state. It is the one that is most favorable to American interests however. And until the other rulers fell in line they were also lauded and supported by the anericans. 

Iraq invaded Kuwait for producing more oil than was agreed upon by the cartel. It was in internal war. It's believed that the cartel's subversion began with the support of the Americans who originally promised Saddam that they will stay out of their business with Kuwait. 

You weaken the members of the OPEC and you weaken its hold. Of course the turnoil made the entire OPEC less powerful over the years.

I already acknoweldged that the US used the weakened OPEC to its advantage. But the process started with the Kuwait/Iraq conflict. Americans saw the opportunity and moved in.

To say that the ongoing wars in the middle East are just about self defense and nothing to do with oil is remarkably naive. It's the kind if naivete that continues to claim thousands of American lives. It's not just about oil. But it's also not just about some sort of noble mission of good and virtue and all that naive bullshit.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> You gonna stop finding ways to criticizing Trump haters and acknowledge the fact that Trump took a massive L by having the Government shut down? You know, the thing he harshly criticized Obama for? And for a wall no less? That's a massive failure on his part. The least you could do is acknowledge it if you want us to take you seriously.


I don't need to find ways, they come by the truckload every single day.

There's no failure, he promised a wall and the Democrats are blocking it. I'd rather he partially (boo!) shut down the government than not fight for the wall that he promised his supporters, and that MOST Americans want to see built. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-if-you-read-drudge/?utm_term=.5eec845f0cf7)



BruiserKC said:


> If the military is being used, they need to finish the job. ISIS was on the run but not defeated. Premature pullout could turn Syria into a real clusterfuck. Russia wants to prop up Assad, the Turks could slaughter the Kurds, and Iran could have passage across the country to help Hezbollah and possibly goad Israel into an attack. Then you can have a massive war in the Middle East and back we go.
> 
> I don’t want war, but I am not a pacifist. People like you would never fight no matter what. Trump claims to respect the military but just spit in the face of soldiers for telling them basically not to finish the job.


Last time I checked the middle east is nowhere near America. I only care about there being a war there if I'm being taxed to pay for it. Get that blood off my hands please. 

I like how you think Syria wasn't already a clusterfuck when we were fighting both sides of the war and funding Al-Qaeda. Like, really dude? You're afraid if we leave it'll make shit worse when we're a big reason for it being so fucked in the first place? Do you even read about what's going on over there or do you just assume if America is bombing somewhere or has troops there it must be for a good reason. It's not. It rarely ever is.

There MUST be a reasonable position somewhere between pacifism (which doesn't describe me, if another country attacks us we should eradicate their military and execute everyone in their government who supported the war) and FIGHTING BOTH SIDES OF A CIVIL WAR IN A COUNTRY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET.

Like, come on dude. Don't ever use conservative to describe yourself again. That's the most radically non-conservative thing I can even imagine.

"Pacifist" is a word used by warmongers to describe reasonable people. Very few people are actually pacifists. The vast majority of people believe in self-defense and retaliation, and so do I. Hit me, I'll hit you back 10 times harder so you never think about hitting me again.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

There's World War III to be getting ready for, playing drones and jihadis in the desert and the mountains isn't doing that

The ChiComs are gonna step eventually


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> I don't need to find ways, they come by the truckload every single day.
> 
> There's no failure, he promised a wall and the Democrats are blocking it. I'd rather he partially (boo!) shut down the government than not fight for the wall that he promised his supporters, and that MOST Americans want to see built. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-if-you-read-drudge/?utm_term=.5eec845f0cf7)



LOL Trump is a huge failure when it comes to the wall. The dems are not blocking anything. Trump said, he would get the wall build and MEXICO would PAY for it. The dems are not blocking Mexico from paying for the wall. Please deal in reality for once.

And again you are lying 60% Americans don't want the wall.

From your own article

Quinnipiac University Poll. June 14-17, 2018: 39 percent support building a wall, 58 percent are opposed.
Pew Research Center. June 5-12, 2018: 40 percent support building a wall, 56 percent are opposed.
CBS News Poll. May 3-6, 2018: 38 percent support building a wall, 59 percent are opposed.

So, since May, five polls have been conducted on the question of building the wall. Exactly one of them shows a bare majority in favor of building the wall if the responses are aggregated. The other four show pretty solid majorities in opposition.

Your own article contracts your claim.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Trump is a huge failure when it comes to the wall. The dems are not blocking anything. Trump said, he would get the wall build and MEXICO would PAY for it. The dems are not blocking Mexico from paying for the wall. Please deal in reality for once.
> 
> And again you are lying 60% Americans don't want the wall.
> 
> ...


Results are probably skewed against the wall by illegals and Americans with family who are illegals. Immigration is seen as the most important issue by American voters. It's not because they think we aren't letting enough people in. It's the same in Europe almost across the board. The US and Europe are getting tired of being overran by the third world.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Results are probably skewed against the wall by illegals and Americans with family who are illegals. Immigration is seen as the most important issue by American voters. It's not because they think we aren't letting enough people in. It's the same in Europe almost across the board. The US and Europe are getting tired of being overran by the third world.


LOL always love how when you are presented with facts and evidence against your BS propaganda you pull a Trump and make up something even more ridiculous.

Just admit you were wrong about Trump being a failure because Mexico is not paying for the wall and that you were wrong about most Americans are for the wall.

You are the Alex Jones of WF at this point.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

BruiserKC said:


> We are not there for oil, we have enough here so that is not an issue.


It's about a natural gas pipeline in large part. Educate yourself please.








> We stayed out of Afghanistan’s business and we ended up with 9/11.


Oh for fuck's sake. Do I really need to explain the absurdity of this statement?



















You know what would help stop terrorism? Oh, I dunno, how about we stop fucking funding and arming them. That would be a good start.



WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster said:


> a powerful counterbalance to any swelling of Iranian interests, including their nuclear ambitions, which seem to still remain fairly vague.


Iran is still living up to it's end of the nuclear deal and has passed every IAEA inspection. 

Just out of curiosity though, think Israel will be admitting it has nukes any time soon? :hmm



CamillePunk said:


> "Pacifist" is a word used by warmongers to describe reasonable people. Very few people are actually pacifists. The vast majority of people believe in self-defense and retaliation, and so do I. Hit me, I'll hit you back 10 times harder so you never think about hitting me again.


AKA: Walk softly and carry a big fucking stick.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

"We stayed out of Afghanistan's business and ended up with 9/11"

:lmao how did I miss that 

what an outrageously uninformed ass-backwards understanding of US foreign policy, like HELLO people are DYING over this bullshit and you're defending it without even a basic understanding of the facts. 

BUT, I didn't serve the mafia and help kill people for them for reasons that had nothing to do with defending our country, so I shouldn't speak on the matter. :nerd: MURICA



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076658521926656000A correct and also funny tweet by everyone's favorite president (love him or hate him, you love to talk about him!).


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

It's "speak softly and carry a big stick."

I'm still kind of trippin that Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. I'm not sure I'll ever get used to it even years after he's out of office.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Bruiser needs to go back study study the Israel/Arab wars and their causes. He needs to study the creation of the PLO which morphed into several terrorist cells .. At the same time, he needs to study the advent of the House of Saud in Arabia which led to the advent of wahabism, which was tacitly supported by the Americans .. which was one of the primary driving forces behind Osama bin Laden. He needs to study about Operation Cyclone which came about as a result of Russia's invastion of Afghanistan while they were looking for a warm water port. 

He needs to study about the creation of the mujahideen as a result of the unending supply of American tax money. 

The creation of Taliban in Pakistan's Waziristan which stormed Afghanistan also happened with that money. 

Thank You Zia Ul Haq and Jimmy Carter. 

Al Qaeda at the time was already an international operation thanks to America's unending supply of funds during their Proxy War with Russia. Their cells and movement was free and without restriction across the world. And I mean across the world. The training was happening pretty much out in the open with US money. 

The same was true of Taliban where some of the funds were gladly given. 

Jimmy Carter is yet another war lord who gets a pass. 

Oh. American History is not a good read for anyone that goes beyond the oversimplified approach of "Oh They are evil. Must kill". But unfortunately, in the American Military, that's all that happens and that's all it takes. 

I doubt that Americans would get any real soldiers if they were actually told that the poor things are funding the very terrorists the Soldiers are meant to be killing. Our soldiers are probably our most victimized class :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

MrMister said:


> It's "speak softly and carry a big stick."
> 
> I'm still kind of trippin that Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. I'm not sure I'll ever get used to it even years after he's out of office.


yeah it's pretty great. hemp legalized, prison reform passed, and out of Syria all in one week. just wait until he's trying to get re-elected.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> yeah it's pretty great. hemp legalized, prison reform passed, and out of Syria all in one week. just wait until he's trying to get re-elected.


Gonna be tough getting reelected with the economy in a deep recession and all of his rich buddies running out the back door with their tax cut money.

But, then again, there is no one better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than an establishment Democrat.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Tater said:


> Gonna be tough getting reelected with the economy in a deep recession and all of his rich buddies running out the back door with their tax cut money.
> 
> But, then again, there is no one better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than an establishment Democrat.


He'll be fine. The Democratic Party is going to rip itself apart in 2020. The in-fighting will be worse than it was in 2016 because at least in 2016 even progressives knew deep down it was always going to be Her Turn. Now they'll think they can actually take over the party and get their guy nominated, and they'll fight even harder, as they should. It'll be good for Trump though, especially as he is uniquely positioned as someone who can go against his party without threatening his own support, which means he can do things that appeal to progressives that corporate Democrats will simply never do. Wouldn't be surprised if he started mentioning Medicare-for-all in a positive light in contrast to Obamacare, not to mention federal legalization of marijuana which I think he will actually push for. (Unlike Medicare for all which I only could see him going as far as paying lip service to). There's also that other 50% of troops in Afghanistan he can and likely will withdraw.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> yeah it's pretty great. hemp legalized, prison reform passed, and out of Syria all in one week. just wait until he's trying to get re-elected.


He could start by releasing the footage of bin Laden's death, or releasing the JFK documents without all the omissions.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> He'll be fine. The Democratic Party is going to rip itself apart in 2020. The in-fighting will be worse than it was in 2016 because at least in 2016 even progressives knew deep down it was always going to be Her Turn. Now they'll think they can actually take over the party and get their guy nominated, and they'll fight even harder, as they should. It'll be good for Trump though, especially as he is uniquely positioned as someone who can go against his party without threatening his own support, which means he can do things that appeal to progressives that corporate Democrats will simply never do. Wouldn't be surprised if he started mentioning Medicare-for-all in a positive light in contrast to Obamacare, not to mention federal legalization of marijuana which I think he will actually push for. (Unlike Medicare for all which I only could see him going as far as paying lip service to). There's also that other 50% of troops in Afghanistan he can and likely will withdraw.


Trump won't even make it to 2020. Even Trump knows that, that is why his tweets are getting crazier and crazier by the day and he is exposing himself even more with all his corruption and illegal activities. 

The progressives in 2020 are taking over, it already started to happen, just wait until they take the house in Jan. And LOL at you thinking Trump can do things that appeal to progressives, everyone, especially progressives know how full of shit Trump is. with his 8000 lies in his first two terms. Only delusional people like you still believe Trump, no progressive or independent voter believes anything Trump says. 

Its just cute you think Trump would get any progressive votes if he even makes it to 2020. The progressive party is already pushing for Medicare for all when Trump has been shown he is trying to kill it. 

Trump is still the most unpopular politician in the country, the dems just need to put up someone half liked and they will beat Trump. You put in someone like Sanders, and he will landslide Trump.

Must be nice living in your delusional world where you think anyone with half a brain believes Trump at this point.


Just look what a clown he is

onald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Dec 21
More
Some of the many Bills that I am signing in the Oval Office right now. Cancelled my trip on Air Force One to Florida while we wait to see if the Democrats will help us to protect America’s Southern Border!










the page is blank FFS and the cap is still on the pen.

Its comical anyone still depends or likes Trump

Trump is just a parody of Alec Baldwin doing a parody of Trump now.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I can't speak to the views of the "Half a brain" crowd . I'm sure you're more familiar with the pulse of that particular demographic than I am.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> I can't speak to the views of the "Half a brain" crowd . I'm sure you're more familiar with the pulse of that particular demographic than I am.


You are the one who does not deal in facts, evidence or reality, if you did, you would not still support Trump. But again, some people are too dumb to know how dumb they are, and Trump and most of his followers fall into that category. And judging from your post history, well.....you are the poster child for that demographic.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

ForYourOwnGood said:


> He could start by releasing the footage of bin Laden's death, or releasing the JFK documents without all the omissions.


yeah that's where the real votes are



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one who does not deal in facts, evidence or reality, if you did, you would not still support Trump. But again, some people are too dumb to know how dumb they are, and Trump and most of his followers fall into that category. And judging from your post history, well.....you are the poster child for that democratic.


yikes


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

> Gonna be tough getting reelected with the economy in a deep recession and all of his rich buddies running out the back door with their tax cut money.
> 
> But, then again, there is no one better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than an establishment Democrat.


This government shutdown card game he's playing with Schumer for The Wall couldn't come at a worst time. One of them is going to fold.

- Vic


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> yeah that's where the real votes are
> 
> yikes


You've been called a liberal and a poster child for a democratic in like a day. 

You gonna be okay there buddy? :lol


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Tater said:


> You've been called a liberal and a poster child for a democratic in like a day.
> 
> You gonna be okay there buddy? :lol


pretty typical day for me tbh. I've watched Stefan Molyneux (An-Cap who panders to conservatives these days), Ben Shapiro (neocon), Kyle Kulinski (progressive), Jimmy Dore (progressive), Sargon of Akkad (classical liberal/centrist), Matt Christiansen (Trump supporter), and Dave Rubin (classical liberal/centrist) today. think it's safe to say I have an understanding of and affinity for positions all over the spectrum so why shouldn't I have the labels thrown at me lol.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Wow, the blind support for Trump has apparently infected everyone here. :lol This is par for the course elsewhere too, ANY criticism of their Dear Leader is grounds for execution. Poor, pathetic Trumpocrats. 

Where do I begin...Bin Laden's path towards hatred of America started with the Saudi government rebuffing his request to use the mujahadeen to defend the Saudi Kingdom from a possible Iraqi invasion after Saddam rolled through Kuwait. While we did fund them to repel the Soviets, it was not until the Saudi monarchy chose to permit American troops on Saudi soil that Bin Laden started down the path he did. 

When the Taliban took over Afghanistan, we decided that wasn't our fight and stayed out of it. That was the stance of Clinton and later Bush 43. The bombing of the USS Cole, and the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were met with a very pisspoor response (bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan). Then came 9/11. Maybe we do become a little bit too involved sometimes, but eventually they know that we will completely try to wash our hands of the situation and leave it alone. It's in our nature, that's part of why this continuously happens. 

Your President was for being a warmonger before he was against it. His airstrikes in Syria (although all we really did was bomb a couple of empty airfields) plus his tough talk in North Korea and Iran is definitely proof of how much he loves war (also said so during the campaign). So, sorry, that blood is on your hands. As for that tweet...it is funny that he blasted Obama for the EXACT SAME THING THAT HE IS DOING NOW! Obama created ISIS per Campaigner Trump, and that is a partially accurate statement as Obama had to remove ALL troops from combat in Iraq despite being warned of the consequences. Therefore, we had ISIS taking credit for attacks all over the world, and their foot soldiers creating massacres here in Orlando and San Bernadino. So, that's why Trump is getting hammered across the entire spectrum. 

Again, I want to make clear I don't want to be the world's policeman, but the world we live in doesn't permit us the luxury of just staying home either. The military needs to be permitted to do their job, and this idea that we are only there for the MIC is just ridiculous. I'm used to the disrespect that many here have shown the military but I'm disappointed that it is coming from a President who claimed to be about the troops (travelling all the way to France to honor fallen soldiers and then just staying in his hotel when he could have honored those here on Veteran's Day). And the par for the course treatment of those who have left the administration as disloyal, etc. We're seeing that now with Mattis. Mattis is a warmonger, a liberal, etc. in the eyes of the pathetic blind Trump sycophants who are as bad if not worse then those who worshipped at the feet of Obama fHor eight years. 

The Russian narrative I could give two shits about. Russia is clearly not our friend and does not have our best interests. However, for all our faults and the stuff our nation doesn't get right, I wanted to think that the United States could be a beacon of good will and try to help others when needed. Trump is shitting all over that legacy and not even bothering to reach for the toilet paper when done. He hammered Obama during the campaign for the same shit he is doing now. For two years, he did nothing regarding the immigration issue but now all of a sudden feels the need to do something and he almost backed away on this one. But of course, the Trumpamaniacs are too stupid to see that. He owns the libs and makes them cry and that's good enough for them. 

If this is where we are headed, we are screwed as a nation. Might as well let the socialists take over with their Medicare-for-all (Trump did promote that during the campaign) and other programs that will permanently bury the Grand Experiment. For electing this con man, maybe this is what we deserve.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> pretty typical day for me tbh. I've watched Stefan Molyneux (An-Cap who panders to conservatives these days), Ben Shapiro (neocon), Kyle Kulinski (progressive), Jimmy Dore (progressive), Sargon of Akkad (classical liberal/centrist), Matt Christiansen (Trump supporter), and Dave Rubin (classical liberal/centrist) today. think it's safe to say I have an understanding of and affinity for positions all over the spectrum so why shouldn't I have the labels thrown at me lol.


Your channel list goes a long ways towards explaining how you can sound rational half the time and batshit crazy the other half.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> yeah that's where the real votes are
> 
> yikes





Tater said:


> You've been called a liberal and a poster child for a democratic in like a day.
> 
> You gonna be okay there buddy?



Oh how cute, you both pretend you don't know that was clearly a autocorrect typo in the context of the conversion. 

But I expect nothing less from either of you two.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

CamillePunk said:


> He'll be fine. The Democratic Party is going to rip itself apart in 2020. The in-fighting will be worse than it was in 2016 because at least in 2016 even progressives knew deep down it was always going to be Her Turn. Now they'll think they can actually take over the party and get their guy nominated, and they'll fight even harder, as they should. It'll be good for Trump though, especially as he is uniquely positioned as someone who can go against his party without threatening his own support, which means he can do things that appeal to progressives that corporate Democrats will simply never do. Wouldn't be surprised if he started mentioning Medicare-for-all in a positive light in contrast to Obamacare, not to mention federal legalization of marijuana which I think he will actually push for. (Unlike Medicare for all which I only could see him going as far as paying lip service to). There's also that other 50% of troops in Afghanistan he can and likely will withdraw.


He's talked about health care for everyone in the recent past.

I missed hemp legalization because of all the winning.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

MrMister said:


> He's talked about health care for everyone in the recent past.
> 
> I missed hemp legalization because of all the winning.


Trump has basically allowed the DOJ to continue the policy of not interfering in the decision of states to legalize marijuana for medical and/or personal use. Didn’t sit too well with his original AG Sessions. :lol


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Bruiser ... If you have to characterise the criticism of American foreign policy as support for Trump then you've already lost the argument. 

None of the events that happened before 9/11 justified what happened on 9/11 and 9/11 does not justify the military invasions that happened after either. It was a barbaric act. The causes include American governments themselves too. There's no point in white washing history. 

To say that we could have done something before 9/11 to prevent 9/11 desp6the fact that there are indications if our intelligence agencies being aware if what happened only indicates our governments' incompetence to protect us and not that going in guns blazing before 9/11 would have prevented it.

How can you say that anyone except our intelligence agencies could have done a thing to prevent 9/11? Like are you seriously listening to yourself? Short of complete Dominion over earth we can't presume to have the power to protect ourselves. And even then protecting ourselves would require a constant authoritarian totalitarian brutality that one only sees in a massive dystopia. What are you even talking about here because that's what it sounds like you're talking about. 

Stop playing hindsight hero. 

There are bad things that happen to good people. But good people know what is a justified response. Invading several and bombing 7 countries for 17 odd years killing tens of thousands and displacing 10s of millions has done nothing to improve the situation and yes the Americans have tried everything from full on invasions to half assed bombing campaigns.

You cannot change the world if you keep doing the same thing that caused the first event I e. Funding terrorism to fight terrorism.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

> Wow, the blind support for Trump has apparently infected everyone here. This is par for the course elsewhere too, ANY criticism of their Dear Leader is grounds for execution. Poor, pathetic Trumpocrats.


This is the remark of someone very unhappy who is wildly lashing out because of it

Shannnn-tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Reaper said:


> Bruiser ... If you have to characterise the criticism of American foreign policy as support for Trump then you've already lost the argument.
> 
> None of the events that happened before 9/11 justified what happened on 9/11 and 9/11 does not justify the military invasions that happened after either. It was a barbaric act. The causes include American governments themselves too. There's no point in white washing history.
> 
> ...


I understand that, and I don’t want to fund terrorism to fight terrorism. Yet, there is a flip side to all of this. The troops want to come home but want to do so when the job is done. Since World War II we seem to lack the will to win a war we are involved in. We repeat this in the ME quite often. 

Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon after the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut. We removed our advisors from Afghanistan before the region could be stabilized after ejecting the Soviets. That gave breeding ground to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Then we had 9/11. 

When Obama pulled forces out of Iraq it led to ISIS being created as nature abhors a vacuum. We pulled troops out of Afghanistan only to send them back in when things went south. And we would have been further along were it not for our troops being handcuffed to not fight the way they were needing to. Mattis informéd the Taliban negotiations was their only hope for survival. We pull the rest of our troops out they can just wait us out. 

Removing troops from Syria does the same thing when none of the players remaining want to get rid of ISIS. We leave Russian and Iranian control of shipping lanes where Iran engages in piracy. At the very least they can hound Israel and at worst start building nukes again. They are developing ICBM capability where they could reach the East Coast from missiles located in Syria. It would be a matter of time before we are dragged back in to the Middle East and be there longer. Next time we won’t have the confidence of the locals to help because they deem us untrustworthy for bailing on them. 

Islamic Radicals havé attacked us over there since we declared independence from Great Britain. Look at the Barbary Wars as an example. We don’t need to provoke them. However we need to understand that cut and run is also a part of the problem. 

I don’t want to be the worlds policeman but we will have to be a counter for Russia and China as they will assert that authority if we don’t. Believe me, people won’t like how it works out. And I want our troops home when the job is done and we can successfully say as such. I have friends in Afghanistan now on multiple tours who say the same thing. If we can’t be allowed to finish the job we will have to go back eventually and be there longer.



deepelemblues said:


> This is the remark of someone very unhappy who is wildly lashing out because of it
> 
> Shannnn-tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii


No triggering here. Just stating truth. Truth is in short supply these days with Trumpocrats. 

But keep drinking those liberal tears and pretend you are winning.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

The only two possible explanations that BM is still unbant despite his incessant baiting and subflaming is that someone feels sorry for him, or someone hopes that the baiting and subflaming will work so the targets post something that gets _them_ bant

It's very silly



BruiserKC said:


> No triggering here. Just stating truth. Truth is in short supply these days with Trumpocrats.





> Wow, the blind support for Trump has apparently infected everyone here. This is par for the course elsewhere too, ANY criticism of their Dear Leader is grounds for execution. Poor, pathetic Trumpocrats.


There is really no possible constructive discussion that would stem from these kinds of remarks, so the only question is whether to ignore them or attempt to gently guide the person making them back to a place where they can be less bitchy :draper2


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> Short of complete Dominion over earth we can't presume to have the power to protect ourselves. And even then protecting ourselves would require a constant authoritarian totalitarian brutality that one only sees in a massive dystopia. What are you even talking about here because that's what it sounds like you're talking about.





BruiserKC said:


> when the job is done.


You keep repeating that phrase as if it's something that can be accomplished.

Reap debunked your entire response before you even responded. This is what you seemingly fail to grasp. The job *can't* be done, not unless you plan on putting the entire world on authoritarian police state lock down.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Tater said:


> You keep repeating that phrase as if it's something that can be accomplished.
> 
> Reap debunked your entire response before you even responded. This is what you seemingly fail to grasp. The job *can't* be done, not unless you plan on putting the entire world on authoritarian police state lock down.


Untrue, all it would require is killing 5-10% of the population and at least 1/3 of the remainder facing imminent starvation 

Today Germany and Japan are delightful places :trolldog

We've forgotten what real brutality is


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> Untrue, all it would require is killing 5-10% of the population and at least 1/3 of the remainder facing imminent starvation
> 
> Today Germany and Japan are delightful places :trolldog
> 
> We've forgotten what real brutality is


All those delights in Germany and Japan hasn't stopped the brutality everywhere else. But sure, go ahead and kill a few hundred million people and force a couple billion more into facing imminent starvation. See how that works out for ya.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

deepelemblues said:


> Untrue, all it would require is killing 5-10% of the population and at least 1/3 of the remainder facing imminent starvation
> 
> Today Germany and Japan are delightful places :trolldog
> 
> We've forgotten what real brutality is


I was going to mention this. The Allies didn't win the War with handshakes and talks of peace, they starved the balkans, leveled entire cities, gave munitions, tanks and arms to the Russians knowing full well what they'd do, bombed and killed civilian populations and dropped two nukes on a country so they'd not have to fight a ground war. 

People think the Middle East Wars are bad, they should look at a War without rules like WWII, the only way to win a War really is to destroy their spirit, destroy their economy and pretty much kill everyone. 

50 million + people died in World War II, you don't get those numbers from simply attacking Soldiers, I'd wager the death toll is far, far higher than that.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> I don't need to find ways, they come by the truckload every single day.


When you're giving him credit for things he has nothing to do with, you're finding ways. 



CamillePunk said:


> There's no failure, he promised a wall and the Democrats are blocking it. I'd rather he partially (boo!) shut down the government than not fight for the wall that he promised his supporters, and that MOST Americans want to see built. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-if-you-read-drudge/?utm_term=.5eec845f0cf7)


First off:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235775/americans-oppose-border-walls-favor-dealing-daca.aspx

I could care less either way about both polls, since none of them specify how many Americans who want the wall also want to be the ones paying for it. I would have no problem at all with there being a wall as long as I'm not the one paying for it. 

Second, yes, it absolutely is a failure. You can't blame Trump's inability to come up with a better compromise on the Democrats. It doesn't work like that. He gave his supporters a promise that he would build a wall that Mexico would pay for. He made that promise. He, as well as his supporters, should have known better to think that Mexico would pay for something like that. They have no one to blame but themselves. And you leaving out critical information like that doesn't change the fact here. Trump failed on his promise. And now he's shut down the Government because he never had a back up plan for what would happen if Mexico were to (predictably) say no to funding the wall. That is a fail. You can't argue otherwise. 

Also who the hell is calling this man a Liberal and Democrat? What the fuck :mj4


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Tater said:


> Your channel list goes a long ways towards explaining how you can sound rational half the time and batshit crazy the other half.


Should try getting out of the echo chamber then.


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

* Trump forces Mattis out two months early, names Shanahan acting defense secretary *



> President Trump, who aides said has been seething about news coverage of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’s scathing resignation letter, abruptly announced Sunday that he was removing Mattis two months before his planned departure and installing Patrick Shanahan as acting defense secretary.
> 
> Shanahan, a former Boeing executive who has been Mattis’s deputy at the Pentagon, will assume the top job on an acting capacity beginning Jan. 1, Trump said. The president made the decision hastily in reaction to negative news coverage, according to senior administration officials, one of whom said Trump was eager to retaliate against Mattis and show up the widely respected former general.
> 
> ...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-forces-mattis-out-two-months-early-names-shanahan-acting-defense-secretary/2018/12/23/b78a0478-06d2-11e9-a3f0-71c95106d96a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f6f218bb233


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> Should try getting out of the echo chamber then.


I follow David Stockman, Daniel McAdams and Ron Paul. The Liberty Report is one of my favorite shows. Not all right wingers are retarded like Shapiro and Mewleineax or however the fuck it is you spell it. 

In other news... Rand Paul is trolling the shit out of damned near everybody today. :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076928042616918017

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076928050481246211

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076928052477726720

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076928054956572672

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076928057657692160

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076928059209601024

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076928064574115840
No words. :lol :clap


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Just read that thread, amazing series of tweets. Glad to know Rand Paul is apparently a big influence on our president. :lol That's about as good as we libertarians can hope for.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Tater said:


> All those delights in Germany and Japan hasn't stopped the brutality everywhere else. But sure, go ahead and kill a few hundred million people and force a couple billion more into facing imminent starvation. See how that works out for ya.


Ummmm

Not really sure where to begin with this :draper2

First I was pointing out the absurdity of these kind of open-ended colonizations with a heavy culture transformation element thousands of miles away like this is still the 19th century

It (sometimes, kind of) worked then

It doesn't now. The only thing that has worked in the 20th century is what I outlined, or something similar like what Stalin did. Mao attempted the Stalin route but pretty much failed on all fronts 

Second, the entirety of the planet isn't in violent opposition to the West so why would it be necessary to firebomb say South American cities and force a large proportion of the population there into a state of imminent mass starvation?

Smoke a blunt to the face or something calm down


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

deepelemblues said:


> The only two possible explanations that BM is still unbant despite his incessant baiting and subflaming is that someone feels sorry for him, or someone hopes that the baiting and subflaming will work so the targets post something that gets _them_ bant
> 
> It's very silly


Your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me, no one baits and subframes more than you and you are still here lol Just look at some of your comments on the last page 



deepelemblues said:


> deepelemblues said:
> 
> 
> > This is the remark of someone very unhappy who is wildly lashing out because of it
> ...



And those are just on this page. 

Pot meet kettle





CamillePunk said:


> Just read that thread, amazing series of tweets. Glad to know Rand Paul is apparently a big influence on our president. :lol That's about as good as we libertarians can hope for.


Sadly Fox News is a bigger influence.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

DaRealNugget said:


> * Trump forces Mattis out two months early, names Shanahan acting defense secretary *
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f6f218bb233


Not shedding one tear for this guy. His resignation letter clearly indicates that he wanted a cold war with Russia and China so he can get fucked.

The fucking warmongering blood thirsty POS American corporate media can also get fucked.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Reaper said:


> Not shedding one tear for this guy. His resignation letter clearly indicates that he wanted a cold war with Russia and China so he can get fucked.
> 
> The fucking warmongering blood thirsty POS American corporate media can also get fucked.


Umm the Cold War was long over dickhead. Honestly, what universe are the people in the WP in?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

virus21 said:


> Umm the Cold War was long over dickhead. Honestly, what universe are the people in the WP in?


I'd say that 95% of Americans live in their own separate but shared universe.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

The wall is and was the most retarded idea in modern history. Besides the simply practical pitfalls of building such a thing - it's a money black hole and any party with a brain should block it - not that you can blame the Dems as it was on the table for a long time with Trump doing nothing. 

It's the kind of thing that would be predicted to take 10 years with a 500 million price tag, then ends up being abandoned 15 years in after wasting a billion.

Not to mention Trump's retardation in promising Mexico's going to pay. You can't actually blame Trump for treating his populace like 6 year olds with delusions of grandeur and constant narcissism when his supporters continue to lap it up with nary a grunt.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> Ummmm
> 
> Not really sure where to begin with this :draper2
> 
> ...


You were the one who said we should kill all those people to show them who's boss. Where'd your eagerness for brutality go? Don't half ass it. Go hard or go home.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

Those Rand Paul tweets were fucking legendary :HA :lmao.

Incredible.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Circling back to what political commentators people consume on the e-webs, I get my news and opinions exclusively from "Tyler Durden" at www.zerohedge.com and promptly believe the opposite of whatever is posted there because the people at that website are fucking crazy.



Tater said:


> You were the one who said we should kill all those people to show them who's boss. Where'd your eagerness for brutality go? Don't half ass it. Go hard or go home.


No no no I did not say that we should kill all those people to show them who is boss. 

I said that's the only way that works and you misunderstood me if you thought I was approving. Some people think you can do it without stacking bodies like cordwood. They're wrong. They should stop thinking that, because if they did, maybe games that never end would stop getting started in the sand dunes and the mountains thousands of miles away.


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

I mean, in concept alone, I could see how a wall would work and how it would be successful. If we could just have the thing built by people who I would trust to get it done without going massively over budget, I'm okay with it.

I just don't trust that it would ever be completed during Trump's presidency if he got elected again, much less in the next few decades. Given the state of a lot of the country's infrastructure, am I supposed to believe that we would successfully build what would end up amounting to one of the largest infrastructure projects since the interstate freeway system? From what I've read, the number would be more near the $20 billion dollar range and counting, and that's a ton of money for something I don't trust will get completed. 

Also, I never got the people who were just a-okay with a shutdown. It strikes me as completely embarrassing for Trump and congress as a whole for something like that to happen. Sure, most of the government doesn't shut down, and the days missed by the ones who aren't paid will get what they didn't have in a bill for retroactive pay, but that must be terrible for those who are living paycheck to paycheck, and suddenly run into the problem of not having a paycheck for this month or week (whatever pay system some of these departments use). I do agree with Cortez when she mentioned that none of congress should be paid until an agreement for the budget is reached.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

It's the height of silliness to insist a wall wouldn't work.

There's a reason walls have been built continuously since the neolithic revolution, around cities, on borders, around homes, around property.

Because they... ummm... work. 

A good wall with good men manning it = good fucking luck getting through, you're gonna need it unless you come with an army and even then it's chancey at best. Been proven countless times over the last 8000 years.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> It's the height of silliness to insist a wall wouldn't work.
> 
> There's a reason walls have been built continuously since the neolithic revolution, around cities, on borders, around homes, around property.
> 
> ...


It's the height of silliness to insist a wall would work, especially considering the fact that the majority of the main reasons for building it aren't coming across the southern border. So, unless you plan on encircling the entire country with a wall and shutting down every airport and shipping port, no, the stupid fucking wall isn't going to work.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

deepelemblues said:


> It's the height of silliness to insist a wall wouldn't work.
> 
> There's a reason walls have been built continuously since the neolithic revolution, around cities, on borders, around homes, around property.
> 
> ...


It's 2018, about to be 2019 in a little over a week.

A wall isn't going to do the job well enough to justify putting in the amount of money we would require just to get it built. It's an idiotic idea. 

On a related note, I'm actually laughing my ass off at the fact that a page was made just to fund the wall through donations. I thought it was "fake news" when I saw how much money has been donated, but no apparently it's legit :lol


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> It's 2018, about to be 2019 in a little over a week.
> 
> A wall isn't going to do the job well enough to justify putting in the amount of money we would require just to get it built. It's an idiotic idea.
> 
> On a related note, I'm actually laughing my ass off at the fact that a page was made just to fund the wall through donations. I thought it was "fake news" when I saw how much money has been donated, but no apparently it's legit :lol


The wall was major selling point of his campaign, coupled with his whole view of illegal immigration at the time. I'm sure a ton of voters whose main selling point was the illegal immigration problem would have happily donated money for the wall to be constructed, which I would guess is where the majority of that money is coming from.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Dr. Bexmas said:


> The wall was major selling point of his campaign, coupled with his whole view of illegal immigration at the time. I'm sure a ton of voters whose main selling point was the illegal immigration problem would have happily donated money for the wall to be constructed, which I would guess is where the majority of that money is coming from.


Some people are donating. There's a GoFundMe page. Its at a few million at the moment


----------



## InexorableJourney (Sep 10, 2016)

The President wants a wall, Donald Trump owns a construction company.

Maybe he could do it at cost, or is granting yourself a $5bn public works contract just too tempting?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Tater said:


> It's the height of silliness to insist a wall would work, especially considering the fact that the majority of the main reasons for building it aren't coming across the southern border. So, unless you plan on encircling the entire country with a wall and shutting down every airport and shipping port, no, the stupid fucking wall isn't going to work.


I have never heard anyone say that a wall would prevent people from overstaying their visas

I have never heard anyone say that a wall would solve every illegal immigration problem

I have heard people saying greater enforcement of visa limits and a tightening of the deportation process would better handle the visa problem

I have heard people saying that a wall would cut down on illegal border crossings

The best estimates are that about 45% of those residing illegally in the United States entered legally and have not left after their visas expired or were revoked

This means that about 55% did not enter legally and overstay, they entered illegally in the first place 

Some large portion of that 55% crossed the border with Mexico illegally

Get angry and call things stupid all you like, it's obvious you're arguing this issue based on what you can come up with off the top of your head instead of actually examining the details


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> I have never heard anyone say that a wall would prevent people from overstaying their visas
> 
> I have never heard anyone say that a wall would solve every illegal immigration problem
> 
> ...


I get *angry* at the war mongering this country does around the world.

I :lmao at the stupid fucking wall that will never be built and wouldn't solve the problems even if it were.

You've already made my arguments for me. There are quite a lot of people entering the country illegally via other means or over staying their visas. Building a giant wall along the southern border is a retarded idea and does not get to the root of the problem. 

You don't want people in the country illegally? Make it impossible for them to find jobs by cracking down on the employers who hire people who don't have a right to work in this country. It's a lot easier to arrest 1 employer than it is to deport the thousand workers he has out in the fields. You take away their means to survive and they have no reason to be here. And you can bet your sweet ass that it'll only take one capitalist getting arrested to stop every other one from hiring illegal workers. They like those low wage workers but they like staying out of prison even more.

Then you end the drug war and the other half of your problem is solved without building your stupid fucking wall. You also get the added bonus of destroying the cartels by taking away their business too. That's got winning written all over it and it didn't take wasting a shit ton of resources on something that wouldn't work anyways.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The wall is a daft concept that appeals to the stupid, the only people it hinders is the chancers.

It doesn't stop criminals, it doesn't stop mass immigration like the caravans, it is a costly pointless construction that just makes America look like an insecure paranoid country.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest South American immigration, particularly Mexican is decreasing, these guys are barely fucking each other anymore with fertility rates like the west.

The wall is a symbolic gesture by Trump and I'm sure he actually knows that, it's a political stunt with no merit.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

virus21 said:


>



1 - The spell casting shit against Trump is silliness.
2 - Wiccans are generally kinda silly, so I'm betting they birthed this idea. They have friends in this game but who dreamt it up? I bet it was them. 
3 - Witches are not all "self-identified". Most aren't, they're initiated. However, a lot of Wiccans and Hedgewitches ARE because a lot of them are exactly as described in that video.
4 - Witchcraft ≠ religion. For instance, most Hedgewitches aren't Pagan.
5 - I don't hate Wiccans - they're generally sweet, idealistic people who agonize about hurting anyone, even unintentionally - but I do hate that they dominate the Pagan narrative these days. The rest of the Pagan world isn't all milk, cookies and kindness.
6 - Obviously I'm Pagan, a witch even. Otherwise, why would I be mad on the internet about goddamn Wiccans acting Wiccan? That said, I think this 'magical resistance' movement is goofy ramped up to 10, same as I'd feel about, say, Christians who banded together online every week to pray Hilary Clinton goes to jail. _Just be a witch (or whatever faith is your brand of soul therapy) who joins a regular political action group and leave your spells at home, 'k nutters. _
7 - Christians (and Muslims) versus the evil, evil Witches is hilarious. Or, it is in places where no one ends up being stoned or burned at the stake. Hand-wringing on Fox News and the like is comedy. 

Oh, and Trump's Beautiful Wall is never going to happen and could never work in the modern world. Not without creating a huge militarized zone on either side of it and, even then, all it accomplishes is heightened security at one entry point. Closing off a large land mass to the outside world would cost more than any nation can afford, the US included. I'm not only thinking of building and maintenance costs but also the economic losses from decreased trade, tourism, productivity and innovation. It's a connected, mobile planet now - the clock can't be rolled back. 

The best way to combat illegal entry and employment (if you really care about that, which I don't. I'm in favour of nationless, border-free society) is cracking down on employers and temporary visa follow-up, not building a wall.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

deepelemblues said:


> It's the height of silliness to insist a wall wouldn't work.
> 
> There's a reason walls have been built continuously since the neolithic revolution, around cities, on borders, around homes, around property.
> 
> ...





Tater said:


> I get *angry* at the war mongering this country does around the world.
> 
> I :lmao at the stupid fucking wall that will never be built and wouldn't solve the problems even if it were.
> 
> ...


What is the height of silliness is to believe that this wall was actually a priority for our President. For nearly two years Trump has been dealing with (or not dealing with) a ton of other issues. For all the talk about dealing with the immigration issues, he has done absolutely JACK SHIT in pushing his agenda and actually addressing the matter. And again, Congress is also to blame as they are as useless as tits on a bull these days. But a President's political capital is at its highest usually within the first year and that's when he gets the most done. He pissed that away fighting battles that meant nothing in the overall realm of things. Yes, his supporters cheered his owning the libs, but they were a major distraction at the same time. That year would have been better served actually pushing for his wall funding, etc. 

So much for his dealmaking...he was offered $25 billion for border security/the wall...all he had to do was provide a path to citizenship to the Dreamers. While I have been opposed to amnesty, I would have been OK with it in this case provided they meet specific criteria. He rejected that offer (although again if he was serious about addressing the matter he would have ended DACA on Day 1 as he promised he would) and now look at where we are. 

I don't necessarily see you need to arrest an employer for hiring illegals...but it would be just as effective if you hit them in the wallet. Severe fines plus sanctions against the business would clearly offset any financial benefit and profit from hiring them in the first place. Capitalists love money...they hate losing money even more. Make it a zero sum game and they won't hire illegals. 

We could also have this resolved with making E-Verify mandatory, not to mention reforming the visa program to address the issue of people that overstay them whether intentionally or not. Also, to me one of the biggest concerns that completely gets overlooked is that the INS needs a massive overhaul. We also need to find an effective way to streamline the system so that we can properly vet those coming in and get them through the process in a timely manner. You can cut down on line jumping that way. 

For two years, the President had the opportunity to get this done. It didn't get done, so that is his failure.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

If these stupid american governments can throw away a trillion bucks in fake "enemies" of America halfway around the world, they can build the wall for 5 billion bucks. 

And then build a bunch of tourist attractions too. It'll pay for itself sooner or later. I went to this government maintained Sebastian Inlet the other day and it was 8 bucks per vehicle. 

I'm sure Trumptards would pay more than that to go to their Great Wall Pilgrimage given how religious they are about their dear leader. Heck it might even pay for itself. Maybe it can only be a tax on Republicans and Trump Supporters. They want it. Make them pay for it. 

Let them out their fucking money where their mouths are. 

I still don't mind the wall idea :Shrug

But yeah, also arrest the fucking corporatists that hire illegals. 

That would probably mean a bunch of Trump's own contractors. And maybe even Trump :Given that he's a hypocrite about chain migration, I'm sure he has a bunch if low wage illegals working for him across his financial empire.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...r-club-undocumented-workers/index.html?espv=1

Hiring illegals is as much a part of American culture as anything else. It's deeply ingrained in this society and it is the fuel that runs capitalism.


----------



## Adam Cool (Oct 1, 2012)

Reaper said:


> If these stupid american governments can throw away a trillion bucks in fake "enemies" of America halfway around the world, they can build the wall for 5 billion bucks.
> 
> And then build a bunch of tourist attractions too. It'll pay for itself sooner or later. I went to this government maintained Sebastian Inlet the other day and it was 8 bucks per vehicle.
> 
> ...


Amazon literally enslaves third world Kids and all the Politicians try to justify it 

This what happens when you allow Lobbying to grow out of control


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

BruiserKC said:


> I don't necessarily see you need to arrest an employer for hiring illegals...but it would be just as effective if you hit them in the wallet. Severe fines plus sanctions against the business would clearly offset any financial benefit and profit from hiring them in the first place. Capitalists love money...they hate losing money even more. Make it a zero sum game and they won't hire illegals.


If a monetary fine is the only punishment, it'd probably be just like these stories you see all the time about corporations where they are fined 25 billion or so for 500 billion in illegal gains. Without the threat of actual prison time, they'd just lobby their way into continuing to profit from low wage illegal workers. It's far too easy to buy favorability from the government in this country.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Tater said:


> If a monetary fine is the only punishment, it'd probably be just like these stories you see all the time about corporations where they are fined 25 billion or so for 500 billion in illegal gains. Without the threat of actual prison time, they'd just lobby their way into continuing to profit from low wage illegal workers. It's far too easy to buy favorability from the government in this country.


That is why the fine has to be very steep so there is absolutely no profit from hiring them. A $25 billion fine is nothing if the company makes $500 billion from illegal gains. Now if you fine a company at least the amount of the potential profit, that gets their attention bigly. That will dry up the pipeline pretty quick


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Reaper said:


> If these stupid american governments can throw away a trillion bucks in fake "enemies" of America halfway around the world, they can build the wall for 5 billion bucks.
> 
> And then build a bunch of tourist attractions too. It'll pay for itself sooner or later. I went to this government maintained Sebastian Inlet the other day and it was 8 bucks per vehicle.
> 
> ...


Yup! I think we discussed this before where we talked about virtue signaling people putting their money where their mouth is. Same should go for those that want the wall. I'm happy to put tax money to things I believe in, how about the rest of the peanut gallery? Then again the Wall GoFundMe made millions.. probably more than all of the dogooders who believe in a utopia but will not pay for it. :laugh:

Illegal labor is great, people love slave labor, people love the reason that Americans cannot find jobs is because those companies don't want to pay them what they're worth. Seems to be the case because anytime illegal slave labor is brought up, they mention "Mericans just don't want those jobs" Yup, it's why Muricans didn't work in coal mines etc or put kids to work.. oh wait. I guess we can justify slave labor because, well Americans don't want the jobs so thus the abuse of foreign labor is justified! :serious:

I talked to Tater about this but the whole population decline was caused by the Politicians and crony Capitalists, making it too expensive for having kids. They spent so much time convincing people to not have kids to save the earth, women's rights!, child free life is super great! and so forth.. but I think they realize without those bodies.. Who will fight their wars? Who will put money into that scheme of Social Security? Who will be the cheap labor? We *NEED* migration now! It's those damn Millenials etc not having kids! :x

Eventually people will put 2 and 2 together but by that time it will be much too late.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

BruiserKC said:


> That is why the fine has to be very steep so there is absolutely no profit from hiring them. A $25 billion fine is nothing if the company makes $500 billion from illegal gains. Now if you fine a company at least the amount of the potential profit, that gets their attention bigly. That will dry up the pipeline pretty quick


It sounds good in theory but you know how good these people are with loopholes. As long as the threat is only a fine, they'll always find a workaround. :shrug



Miss Sally said:


> I talked to Tater about this but the whole population decline was caused by the Politicians and crony Capitalists, making it too expensive for having kids. They spent so much time convincing people to not have kids to save the earth, women's rights!, child free life is super great! and so forth.. but I think they realize without those bodies.. Who will fight their wars? Who will put money into that scheme of Social Security? Who will be the cheap labor? We *NEED* migration now! It's those damn Millenials etc not having kids! :x
> 
> Eventually people will put 2 and 2 together but by that time it will be much too late.


And thus the problem with capitalists. It's never enough. They always need more. It doesn't function if it's not growing. An actual level, balanced and sustainable system is of no interest to them. It's always more more more. So now that an entire generation has been turned into debt slaves who cannot afford to have children, buy houses and generally participate in the economy, the whole system is fucked. Since the pure greed of those at the very top will never allow them to willingly bring balance back to society, we'll continue on our crash course until the entire system collapses in on itself.

My only hope is that enough people figure out what went wrong this time and they don't just build back up the same flawed system as they have done in the past. The saying is just as true as ever. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Trump has a strong Dow Jones he takes the credit, the second it starts going to shit it's someone else's fault.

No surprise.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Draykorinee said:


> Trump has a strong Dow Jones he takes the credit, the second it starts going to shit it's someone else's fault.
> 
> No surprise.


"Worst Christmas Eve in history."

:lmao

No one could have seen this coming. Like, totally. I'm shocked, I tell ya! Shocked!


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


> It sounds good in theory but you know how good these people are with loopholes. As long as the threat is only a fine, they'll always find a workaround. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Centrally Planned economy of China is doing much better now than most countries because they do keep evolving from their mistakes. 

It looks so much like capitalism now that it has fooled capitalists into thinking that it's laissez faire capitalism at work, when in fact, China's economy is still highly controlled by the Party. 

It's just gotten very good at it. Meanwhile we're still trying to wonder if *planning* is a good thing at a mass level - despite knowing the fact that lack of planning at the micro level leads to financial disaster and ruin. 

Funny thing is, lack of planning at the macro level also leads to financial disaster and ruin for those who don't already have wealth. But the useful idiots here are too stupid to realize that the capitalists are fully planning their wealth while encouraging the roobs to ignore how they control "laissez faire" economies.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tater said:


> "Worst Christmas Eve in history."
> 
> :lmao
> 
> No one could have seen this coming. Like, totally. I'm shocked, I tell ya! Shocked!


Trump can't just stop winning.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Time to abolish the Fed. :mj


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077265346703220736
No one could have seen this coming. Totally.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> Time to abolish the Fed. :mj


Not blaming Trump I see. What a shocker.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Not blaming Trump I see. What a shocker.


That'd be silly given the stock market started declining once the fed started raising rates, which they didn't do when Obama was president so the illusion of the recovery could be maintained. :mj


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Tater said:


> And thus the problem with capitalists. It's never enough. They always need more. It doesn't function if it's not growing. An actual level, balanced and sustainable system is of no interest to them. It's always more more more. So now that an entire generation has been turned into debt slaves who cannot afford to have children, buy houses and generally participate in the economy, the whole system is fucked. Since the pure greed of those at the very top will never allow them to willingly bring balance back to society, we'll continue on our crash course until the entire system collapses in on itself.
> 
> My only hope is that enough people figure out what went wrong this time and they don't just build back up the same flawed system as they have done in the past. The saying is just as true as ever. *Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.*


If only it were that simple, History is being disregarded as racist or wrong, facts aren't facts now and everything is debatable based on feelings. This is done so we don't learn, ever. So we keep repeating mistakes and act surprised when it blows up in our collective faces. 

It's crazy to think that at one time in America that people could afford their own homes etc, I mean OWN, not rent, not borrow but own. Even the poor dirt farmers who grossly endebt, Starbucks drinking Collective people would turn their noses up at, owned their land. 

While I'm not one for the blame game, it was Boomers who completely fucked everyone with their greed and general incompetence. I been looking at house costs and they keep rising every year, it's insane! These lunatics took what was given to them and pretty much made sure nobody else but them could benefit. Refusing to retire, making loads of school needed for the same jobs they didn't need schooling for, taking over Academia and pushing ideological nonsense blaming some phantom menace that in reality is *them* and the system they created.

Much like the Pharaohs, these Boomers and mega rich Capitalists are going to try and take all their wealth with them. Thomas Sowell warned of a lot of this, if you watch some older debates (Which are vastly superior to the one up style debates) he pointed out serious flaws with many Government programs and Academia.

In reality Government Programs aren't there to help, they're used much like debt to control. Control people by denying them what they can't survive without or to call in that debt, keep the slaves in check. It's an elaborate scheme that seems to have worked. Most Americans are slaves now, the debt and GP trap has ensnared us. There doesn't seem to be a way out except by losing everything.:laugh:


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> That'd be silly given the stock market started declining once the fed started raising rates, which they didn't do when Obama was president so the illusion of the recovery could be maintained. :mj


:swaggyp

Do you even read the shit you type up? Serious question.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077375011600678912
This fuckin' guy. :lmao


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> > That'd be silly given the stock market started declining once the fed started raising rates, which they didn't do when Obama was president so the illusion of the recovery could be maintained. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/wF4wJF8.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" />
> ...


It's funny, the market started to recover in the morning but when Trump tweeted the economy has problems there was a big sell off.

Its almost like the president tweeting the economy has problems would have an impact on faith in the economy from investors.

Throw in the trade war that we know negatively affected the economy and he still blames others.

Cam will always find a way to blame someone else, it's pathetic really, throw in the Obama bit just for added bullshit, no one increased rates during the recovery because that's stupid, it had nothing to do with Obama being in power.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Draykorinee said:


> It's funny, the market started to recover in the morning but when Trump tweeted the economy has problems there was a big sell off.
> 
> Its almost like the president tweeting the economy has problems would have an impact on faith in the economy from investors.
> 
> ...


Trump tweeted that? How fucking stupid is this man :mj4


----------



## Mr.Monkey (Jul 12, 2014)

If he's gonna take credit for the stock market up don't know why he can't take some criticism if it's on a down turn. I mean yeah the fed is a major reason but i wouldn't want to be guilty by association.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny, the market started to recover in the morning but when Trump tweeted the economy has problems there was a big sell off.
> ...


Not only that but Mnuchin told everyone he rang the banks to reassure them but it actually had the opposite effect and just added to uncertainty.

Yes the feds rate rises have had an impact but the desperation to defend Trump is laughable when it's clear him and his appointments have had the biggest impact.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Draykorinee said:


> Not only that but Mnuchin told everyone he rang the banks to reassure them but it actually had the opposite effect and just added to uncertainty.
> 
> Yes the feds rate rises have had an impact but the desperation to defend Trump is laughable when it's clear *him and his appointments have had the biggest impact.*


I would beg to differ. 

I really don't believe Trump's tweets and Munchkin's phone calls really had all that much impact. I believe the hype surrounding them to be a smoke screen to keep people focused on something other than the system that has these crashes built into it by design. The crash was always coming, Trump's tweets or not.

The Fed hiking rates is an actual factor but it's just part of a problem with the system itself more than the sole deciding factor. A much bigger issue is the fact that the entire stock market is nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme built on fake growth fueled in recent years by shady techniques such as stock buybacks instead of real investment into a stable economy.

Lee Camp had 2 excellent interviews on Redacted Tonight VIP last week with the always insightful Prof. Wolff and a guy named Tan Liu who wrote a book about the ponzi scheme that is the stock market. They know a lot more about this topic than I do.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Tater said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Not only that but Mnuchin told everyone he rang the banks to reassure them but it actually had the opposite effect and just added to uncertainty.
> ...


I wasn't talking specifically about his tweets but everything he's done including the trade wars which started the initial concern with the Dow Jones.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Draykorinee said:


> I wasn't talking specifically about his tweets but everything he's done including the trade wars which started the initial concern with the Dow Jones.


And I'm telling you that if you take Trump out of the equation, take his trade wars and everything else he has done out of the equation, put in a Hillary presidency and we would have still ended up with a crash at some point. The Obama administration had already set us on this path after the last crash a decade ago by building back up the same system run by the same people with the same capitalist ideology that crashed it last time. Trump could have literally done nothing and allowed all of Obama's policies stay in place and we'd still be facing an economic crash.

It's not Trump. It's not Obama. It's the system. 

Watch the vid when you get a chance.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tater said:


> And I'm telling you that if you take Trump out of the equation, take his trade wars and everything else he has done out of the equation, put in a Hillary presidency and we would have still ended up with a crash at some point. The Obama administration had already set us on this path after the last crash a decade ago by building back up the same system run by the same people with the same capitalist ideology that crashed it last time. Trump could have literally done nothing and allowed all of Obama's policies stay in place and we'd still be facing an economic crash.
> 
> It's not Trump. It's not Obama. It's the system.
> 
> Watch the vid when you get a chance.


A big part of the crash is Trumps tax cuts for the rich, like I said would happen, and its starting to crash now. If Hillary didn't cut taxes for the rich, then the market wouldn't be crashing under her.

Its a joke to not blame Trump for what is happening with the market. The last time the market crashed was because of tax cuts for the rich. That is why we knew it would crash after Trump did that.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

Merry Christmas, WF.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077597317249683457
Me every Christmas


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077597317249683457
> Me every Christmas


Our President ladies and gentlemen...our President.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077375011600678912
> This fuckin' guy. :lmao


Did Fox News call out Trump yet for his war on xmas?




CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077597317249683457
> Me every Christmas


Trump is right, he is a disgrace.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

No clue why poor people from the middle and lower classes are obsessed with the stock market. 

It's not for you. The only thing that impacts the middle and lower classes is the games played at the top that sink companies through their inefficiencies - after which they pay themselves big bonuses before going out of business putting poor people out of work. 

Whenever I see poor people talking about stock market gains and losses, I'm reminded of the little matchstick girl looking at rich people eating while she starves to death in the cold. When there are gains, the rich people reward themselves. When there are losses, the rich people punish their workers. So that's all that you need to know about the stock market. 

If you're strictly middle class, you're always either a loser or just not impacted no matter if the stock market gains, or loses. It's not designed to benefit you in any way. Never forget that.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> No clue why poor people from the middle and lower classes are obsessed with the stock market.
> 
> It's not for you. The only thing that impacts the middle and lower classes is the games played at the top that sink companies through their inefficiencies - after which they pay themselves big bonuses before going out of business putting poor people out of work.
> 
> ...


Stock effects everyone 401k and middle-class people have 401k do they not?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Stock effects everyone 401k and middle-class people have 401k do they not?


Stocks only impact the 401k IF companies have designed their employees 401k investments so that they're part of the stock market. Usually, they are not. This is why financial education at the high school level is so important for Americans, but it never happens. 

_Most _401ks are in low - medium risk mutual funds that are not as volatile or greatly impacted by stock market ups and downs. It's your money. You need to learn how to manage it. 

As an employee you have every right to demand that your 401k should not be managed by a firm that makes it stock market heavy. Just have it in the money market to keep it secure.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> Stocks only impact the 401k IF companies have designed their employees 401k investments so that they're part of the stock market. Usually, they are not.
> 
> Most 401ks are in low risk mutual funds that are not as volatile or greatly impacted by stock market ups and downs.
> 
> As an employee you have every right to demand that your 401k should not be managed by a firm that makes it stock market heavy. All you can do is just have it in the money market to keep it secure.


Oh, that is right, because when I picked my 401k I choose the low risk one. Good point, thanks.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh, that is right, because when I picked my 401k I choose the low risk one. Good point, thanks.


Just the whole thing around stock market ... I sometimes feel like the rich people want to create a situation where poor people who are not impacted by the stock market would put in rich fuckers who are and therefore give them more power to make policies happen that will favor them. 

One of the reasons why the stock market boomed was the tax cut. Once they got the tax cut, they've been slowly correcting it. Which is basically a layman term for profiteering by those who bought cheap and are now selling high. These profits basically make money change hands from one rich fucker to another - and the middle class sees none of that money. 

Take a look at normal people however. Neither the tax cut, nor the stock market boom meant anything to them because they're not impacted by any of it. It's all a game they play to get the roobs to vote them into power. 

"Booming economy" means absolutely *nothing *if wage rates are not increasing and in the US they are not. 

I seriously wonder how many people in the last 2 years had some sort of a major lifestyle upgrade. Probably no one.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reaper said:


> Just the whole thing around stock market ... I sometimes feel like the rich people want to create a situation where poor people who are not impacted by the stock market would put in rich fuckers who are and therefore give them more power to make policies happen that will favor them.
> 
> One of the reasons why the stock market boomed was the tax cut. Once they got the tax cut, they've been slowly correcting it. Which is basically a layman term for profiteering by those who bought cheap and are now selling high. These profits basically make money change hands from one rich fucker to another - and the middle class sees none of that money.
> 
> ...


The stock market was artificially inflated by all the stock buybacks after the tax cuts for the rich. And like we said when it happened, it's going to crash because of it, and now that is happening.

Also, all that BS said about how the middle class would see a wage increase because of the tax cuts, saw a 2 cent increase per hour in their paychecks.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> No clue why poor people from the middle and lower classes are obsessed with the stock market.
> 
> When there are gains, the rich people reward themselves. When there are losses, the rich people punish their workers.


Seems like to me you answered your own question. When the stock market booms, those gains only go to the top. But when it tanks, it's everyone else who gets fucked over.

The reason for poor people from the middle and lower classes to care what happens at the stock market is because even though they won't feel any of the gains, they'll definitely feel the losses.


----------



## DesoloutionRow (May 18, 2014)

The game is rigged and they are destroying the middle class.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The stock market crashing started ten years of austerity in my country, kinda had an impact on me particularly as an employee of the government.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Draykorinee said:


> The stock market crashing started ten years of austerity in my country, kinda had an impact on me particularly *as an employee of the government.*


boooooooooooooo

hiss


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

Here's a solution for you wall hungry people.

Donnie Trumbone never stated how high the wall needs to be right?

Build a miniature version of it on the border. Fight stupid with stupid imo.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Banez said:


> Here's a solution for you wall hungry people.
> 
> Donnie Trumbone never stated how high the wall needs to be right?
> 
> Build a miniature version of it on the border. Fight stupid with stupid imo.


Quick, somebody build a 2 foot brick wall to troll him. I bet you could get at least that much with the 17 mil they have raised on gofundme so far.

https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall

:lol _Jackasses._


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Tater said:


> Quick, somebody build a 2 foot brick wall to troll him. I bet you could get at least that much with the 17 mil they have raised on gofundme so far.
> 
> https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall
> 
> :lol _Jackasses._


It's silly but at least people are actually paying for something they believe in, unlike some who talk a big game on helping and changing stuff but won't part with their own money. :laugh:


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

So what happened to Trumps tax records? Did they get lost in mail?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Miss Sally said:


> It's silly but at least people are actually paying for something they believe in, unlike some who talk a big game on helping and changing stuff but won't part with their own money. :laugh:


The problem with this argument is that the vast majority of people living in this country don't have enough money to part with, not in any amount that would significantly change how the system functions. Most people are already living paycheck to paycheck as it is. A little bit of charity here and there isn't going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Until the system itself is changed, the problem will remain.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Draykorinee said:


> The stock market crashing started ten years of austerity in my country, kinda had an impact on me particularly as an employee of the government.


Also Trumptards in a nutshell. 










Fascinating how much in love poor people are with rich people's wealth. 

I suppose it makes them feel like it could be them one day and that all wealth was warned by "hard work".

Have you studied Mary Kay like MLM scams and "Hun" culture? Pro-capitalists are kinda like brainwashed "Huns" who go around buying their entire lifestyle on credit and then act like anyone else who doesn't do the same "just didn't work hard enough".


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


> The problem with this argument is that the vast majority of people living in this country don't have enough money to part with, not in any amount that would significantly change how the system functions. Most people are already living paycheck to paycheck as it is. A little bit of charity here and there isn't going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Until the system itself is changed, the problem will remain.


It also shows that "voluntary" support for an idea never works. 50 million + Trumptards can't even donate a dollar each "voluntarily" for a project they voted their president in for. [emoji38]


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

Banez said:


> Here's a solution for you wall hungry people.
> 
> Donnie Trumbone never stated how high the wall needs to be right?
> 
> *Build a miniature version of it* on the border. Fight stupid with stupid imo.


I was reminded of this:





 :beckylol


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Tater said:


> Quick, somebody build a 2 foot brick wall to troll him. I bet you could get at least that much with the 17 mil they have raised on gofundme so far.
> 
> https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall
> 
> :lol _Jackasses._


Does the guy that started it get to keep the money? If so, I respect his grift game.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

2 Ton 21 said:


> Does the guy that started it get to keep the money? If so, I respect his grift game.


Wait for the pro-capitalist "huns" come in and claim that this guy is a great capitalist for "earning" all that "money" for his "idea".


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> It also shows that "voluntary" support for an idea never works. 50 million + Trumptards can't even donate a dollar each "voluntarily" for a project they voted their president in for. [emoji38]


I had this interaction on Twitter a little bit ago.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077952164985659392

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077957181658431488
I agree with the outcome of local businesses for local needs but the idea that monopolies such as Amazon would voluntarily give up their power is a bit insane. While corporations like Amazon receive most of the attention, it gets even more crazy when you dig underneath the surface and realize just how much monopolization has taken place of every day goods. Nestle is one of the vicious corporations that does not get nearly the attention is deserves. Lee Camp is pretty much the only person I have seen cover them.

When one thinks of monopolies, most generally envision the big ticket items but it happens with a lot of small ticket items as well. That local organic farmers are having a bit of success is a nice story but it's not exactly going to make a dent in the overall problem with the system. 

This was the original tweet quoted in the tweet I initially responded to.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077946901356597250
It makes me want to hang my head in shame for my fellow humans. 

I get it though; the point of the tweet I was responding to. It's sad to see all the lemmings signing up for monopolization instead of doing things themselves for their own communities. But at the same time, and this goes back to my post you responded to, people simply do not have the means to just stop participating en masse with the corporations. 

Critics will cry, _oh yeah you don't like it then part with your own money or start your own business_. It really isn't that simple though. It's not just about the money either. A lot of it is access to resources. So much is owned and patented these days that it would be virtually impossible for all the peasants of society to have an awakening one day and decide to break away from corporate rule because they don't have the means to do so and those that run things now aren't going to give up their power voluntarily.



2 Ton 21 said:


> Does the guy that started it get to keep the money? If so, I respect his grift game.


I don't know how things like this work in general on GFM but with this case, I remember reading that the guy would refund everyone's money if they didn't get to the 1 billion mark. I'm not sure of the legalities of it either if he just decided to pocket the money instead of using it for it's stated purpose.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

fraud is for communists and has been rhetorically justified in every major communist ideology 

surely well-versed communists aware of that so i won't belabor them with the 50,000 or so major (mass human misery-causing) examples of it in communism



> It also shows that "voluntary" support for an idea never works. 50 million + Trumptards can't even donate a dollar each "voluntarily" for a project they voted their president in for.


i'm sure they're all aware of this obscure gofundme campaign :heston

the sheer incompetence when communists try to employ scorn and ridicule is just :ha

the inability of communist ideology to accommodate free thought basically rules out competent humor from communists, like competence is essentially ruled out by communism in general


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

deepelemblues said:


> fraud is for communists


Fraud is for _anyone_. 

Since you're _already _in full on disingenuous BS mode within the first 4 words, the rest of the tripe you typed up is obviously not worth reading


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

the second law of thermodynamics is less absolute than the axiom that communists are inferior at literally everything 

it's just science sorry :draper2


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

Loucifer said:


> The game is rigged and they are destroying the middle class.


Whenever a new policy or law is introduced, the first question should always be "how will this effect the middle class". If it's good for the middle class then it's good for everyone.

The middle class should always be the most catered to group no matter what. Not the upper class, not the lower class.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Tater said:


> The problem with this argument is that the vast majority of people living in this country don't have enough money to part with, not in any amount that would significantly change how the system functions. Most people are already living paycheck to paycheck as it is. A little bit of charity here and there isn't going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Until the system itself is changed, the problem will remain.


I don't disagree. Just saying lots of the College Commies and Hollywood elites and the "Utopia" shills tend not to buy into anything they say or put their money where their mouth is. Talk about change on forums and twitter but make no effort to do anything, in fact if they were asked to help they'd have some excuse as to why they couldn't. Reminds me of when they asked for voluntary extra taxes in some Nordic area and they got like an extra 10k. That's it. 

The problem will remain because the system is broken and most don't really care enough. Just talk like they do. People only really change if they're forced to.
:draper2


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Miss Sally said:


> People only really change if they're forced to.


This is the key line. I am well aware that the system cannot be changed until the system collapses. The things I am talking about are how we should do things after the collapse happens. There's certainly no changing it now. Our crash course is already set.

As the old saying goes, true change only happens during times of crisis.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Tater said:


> This is the key line. I am well aware that the system cannot be changed until the system collapses. The things I am talking about are how we should do things after the collapse happens. There's certainly no changing it now. Our crash course is already set.
> 
> As the old saying goes, true change only happens during times of crisis.


Yup! I wish it wasn't so, greed and laziness are such big issues. The whole "I want this but don't take the money from me, I don't want to actually deal with issue but want to look good." mentality is so annoying. 

Oh did you see Russia is blaming Israel for some airstrikes in Syria? Wonder now if Israel is going to cause trouble to try and force the US to stay. "W-we didn't mean to bomb anyone, d-don't go US, they'll attack us if you go!"


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Trump bringing soldiers home is a fantastic thing. I hope he brings every single one of them home.*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Miss Sally said:


> Oh did you see Russia is blaming Israel for some airstrikes in Syria? Wonder now if Israel is going to cause trouble to try and force the US to stay. "W-we didn't mean to bomb anyone, d-don't go US, they'll attack us if you go!"




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078007551948718081
Hmm...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078039001452498945
oh okay

also can I just say shut the fuck up to the people who are like "herp derp Trump takes credit when the market is good but won't accept blame when it's bad"? the whole reason the stock market ever got brought up re: Trump in the first place is because after Trump won the market fell and the media acted like it was a sign of things to come. The anti-Trumpers started this shit, not Trump. Then the market was crazy good for a long time starting before Trump even got inaugurated. so yeah, Trump will take credit because the media STARTED criticizing him for the stock market before he even took office. hacks. just another example of Trump catching blame for counter-punching. 

I don't care about the stock market and don't think presidents do nearly as much to affect the economy as people seem to think. the government can really only fuck up the economy is the way I see it, and we are obviously heading for a crash due to reasons stemming from before Trump ever took office. and when it happens, the media will full-throatedly blame Trump. so yeah, can you really blame him or his supporters for touting the stock market knowing how y'all are when it's the other way around?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078039001452498945
> oh okay


Its just a dead cat bounce. 

Its still 2,000 points lower than it was on Dec 3rd, and 4000 behind the high for the year.




CamillePunk said:


> also can I just say shut the fuck up to the people who are like "herp derp Trump takes credit when the market is good but won't accept blame when it's bad"? the whole reason the stock market ever got brought up re: Trum in the first place is because after Trump won the market fell and the media acted like it was a sign of things to come. Then the market was crazy good for a long time starting before Trump even got inaugurated. so yeah, Trump will take credit because the media STARTED criticizing him for the stock market before he even took office. hacks.


And yes Trump can take credit for leaving the country and not tweeting and look what happened lol


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077597317249683457
> Me every Christmas


The Federal Reserve system, its branches and the main organization in DC, have generally been run by honest, sober, intelligent men.

And they've spent 100+ years proving that honest, sober, intelligent men can fuck up just like anyone else. Repeatedly.

End the Fed. Its functions should be carried out by the market, not by bureaucrats.

When the next crash comes, it will be caused by the same reason the last one was, endless cheap money caused by the decisions of the Fed. Last time it took less than ten years of endless cheap money to create an acute debt crisis. So what did they do? Made money (okay, credit) even cheaper! So now it's been almost twenty fucking years of extremely cheap money (credit). Pile up that debt who gives a shit? Everyone knows that the vast bulk of it will never be repaid, but everyone acts like it will be because if they don't it all comes crashing down more or less instantly. This way they can kick the can down the road another few decades, or centuries, or who the fuck knows how long.

Eventually just gonna have to Tyler Durden it and set everything back to zero. Boy will that be fun, hopefully I'll be dead or transferred into a computer by then. Where I will die when the computer gets its electricity shut off or it is scavenged for parts or _something_ happens to it because the people not living in computers had to go all Tyler Durden.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

But I thought it was the Fed's fault? 

Either way, what he says that about not being the world's policeman is a bigger news story. From a president that has escalated the wars let's hope he's not just all talk.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078039001452498945
> oh okay
> 
> also can I just say shut the fuck up to the people who are like "herp derp Trump takes credit when the market is good but won't accept blame when it's bad"? the whole reason the stock market ever got brought up re: Trump in the first place is because after Trump won the market fell and the media acted like it was a sign of things to come. The anti-Trumpers started this shit, not Trump. Then the market was crazy good for a long time starting before Trump even got inaugurated. so yeah, Trump will take credit because the media STARTED criticizing him for the stock market before he even took office. hacks. just another example of Trump catching blame for counter-punching.
> ...


Taking credit for the stock market when it does good and laying blame when it doesn't is not new with Trump. It doesn't make him any less stupid for doing it. By taking so much undeserved credit for the soaring stock market, he opened himself up to too much undeserved credit for when it tanks. TBF, he would have been blamed either way for simply being in office but it was an unforced error to amplify that effect by spending so much time boasting about it when it was on the rise.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Tater said:


> Taking credit for the stock market when it does good and laying blame when it doesn't is not new with Trump. It doesn't make him any less stupid for doing it. By taking so much undeserved credit for the soaring stock market, he opened himself up to too much undeserved credit for when it tanks. TBF, he would have been blamed either way for simply being in office but it was an unforced error to amplify that effect by spending so much time boasting about it when it was on the rise.


It literally wouldn't matter. There's no force amplification lol, they'll blame him as much as possible regardless. The fake left has no limits to its hysteria and hyperbole when it comes to Trump. He loses nothing by taking credit for its gains and can credibly blame the Fed for its losses, because the truth is, and Trump knows this based on his past comments about the Fed, they are to blame for much of what is wrong with the economy.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Why not credit the Fed when it was going so well? 

Which is it?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> It literally wouldn't matter. There's no force amplification lol, they'll blame him as much as possible regardless. The fake left has no limits to its hysteria and hyperbole when it comes to Trump. He loses nothing by taking credit for its gains and can credibly blame the Fed for its losses, because the truth is, and Trump knows this based on his past comments about the Fed, they are to blame for much of what is wrong with the economy.


LOL No one has to do hysteria and hyperbole with Trump, he does stupid shit all on his own that you don't need to. Trump is so bad, something you have to double check a source just to make sure its not an onion article at all the crazy things Trump says and does.

Trump tax cuts for the rich are 100% to blame, the crash happens every time after the rich get their tax cuts. But keep making excuses for Trump its what you do best.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Draykorinee said:


> Why not credit the Fed when it was going so well?
> 
> Which is it?


The Fed should get all the credit and blame it deserves.

One side of that ledger is far longer than the other.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> It literally wouldn't matter. There's no force amplification lol, they'll blame him as much as possible regardless. The fake left has no limits to its hysteria and hyperbole when it comes to Trump. He loses nothing by taking credit for its gains and can credibly blame the Fed for its losses, because the truth is, and Trump knows this based on his past comments about the Fed, they are to blame for much of what is wrong with the economy.


Think about what you're arguing here. You're saying it's okay that Trump did the same thing that every other politician does because it doesn't matter. It was just a few weeks ago that Obama was out there bragging about the stock market rise during his administration. You don't think behaving like Obama or any other standard politician hurts his street cred amongst his base because he was supposed to be different outsider guy?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Tater said:


> Think about what you're arguing here. You're saying it's okay that Trump did the same thing that every other politician does because it doesn't matter. It was just a few weeks ago that Obama was out there bragging about the stock market rise during his administration. You don't think behaving like Obama or any other standard politician hurts his street cred amongst his base because he was supposed to be different outsider guy?


No, he could shoot a guy on fifth avenue. His base is rock solid. Republicans at large will vote for him over whoever the Democrats pick as well.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> No, he could shoot a guy on fifth avenue. His base is rock solid. Republicans at large will vote for him over whoever the Democrats pick as well.


Okay, I shouldn't have said his base. I should have said, the swing voters who put him into office. Shit like this won't hurt him at all in Alabama. It will in Ohio. It will in Michigan. What will hurt him even more is the factories continuing to be shut down and jobs continuing to be shipped overseas, because that's the main reason he won the Rust Belt and got into office. I'm talking about the people who voted to say fuck you to the system and got the same old shit. I'm talking about the people who will see Trump behaving like Obama and think to themselves, I might as well have voted for Hillary because that's what I got.

Speaking of witch...






fpalm


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078007551948718081
> Hmm...


Have to do something because the false flag gas attacks didn't work.

Israel has been using the US as a cover for it's operations and aggression so with the US leaving, they have to do anything they can to keep the US in the Mid East. Without the US scapegoat they're going to get exposed.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Miss Sally said:


> Have to do something because the false flag gas attacks didn't work.
> 
> Israel has been using the US as a cover for it's operations and aggression so with the US leaving, they have to do anything they can to keep the US in the Mid East. Without the US scapegoat they're going to get exposed.


Yeah... I'm not so sure the US "leaving" Syria wasn't a ruse and Israel is doing this at the direction of the deep state to try to find any reason they can sell to go directly after Assad. Don't think for one second their desire to topple him has gone away.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1077620447276089344
Russians spending $100,000 on Facebook ads to influence a $5,000,000,000 campaign: OMG DEMOCRACY IN DANGER RED ALERT RED ALERT LAUNCH THE NUKES OBAMA 'CAUSE HILLARY WON'T BE ABLE TO 'CAUSE SHE LOST 'CAUSE DUH RUSSIANS

Democrats spending $100,000 to create the impression that Russia was trying to "influence" a $51,000,000 campaign: meh, whatever, 100 grand is a meaningless pittance :draper2

Sidenote: this "research project" achieved its objective, there was much media coverage about "Russians" trying to "influence" the Alabama Senate special election

And some stupid people wonder why there is such a large audience for vicious :trump remarks about the media



Miss Sally said:


> Have to do something because the false flag gas attacks didn't work.
> 
> Israel has been using the US as a cover for it's operations and aggression so with the US leaving, they have to do anything they can to keep the US in the Mid East. Without the US scapegoat they're going to get exposed.


:aries2

Israel has zero concerns about being "exposed" by the "US scapegoat" not being there. Israel has never been stopped and never will be stopped from bitchslapping wannabe Nazis in keffiyehs by the presence or lack of presence of American military forces in the Middle East. 

Leaving the fever dreams of false flags alone, these Luap Nor-ist fantasies about Israel never fail to amuse :trolldog


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Tater said:


> As the old saying goes, true change only happens during times of crisis.


The current climate change crisis is a perfect example of this. Hell, we've had quite a number of big companies in the past couple months already begin switching to more environment-friendly ways of running their business after the report came out saying we're fucked in twelve years if we don't act now. And I expect that trend to continue with pressure being mounted for other companies to follow suit.


----------



## AustinRockHulk (Dec 22, 2013)

> *Doctor Admits Donald Trump Bribed Him and Lied About Having Bone Spurs To Dodge The Draft During The Vietnam War*
> 
> "In the fall of 1968, Donald J. Trump received a timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam.
> 
> ...


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/us/politics/trump-vietnam-draft-exemption.html


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Like I said on Twitter, saving your kid from having to serve in a dumb war is just good parenting.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Yeah, lets be real honest here, not one of us would want our kids to go to a shithole country to fight some pointless war. 

IDGAF that Trump draft dodged a war.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> Like I said on Twitter, saving your kid from having to serve in a dumb war is just good parenting.


I see why some people would be angry that the rich kid had his daddy buy his way out of the war when all the poor kids were forced to go fight but I'd lying if I said I wouldn't do the same thing if it was my kid.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Like I said on Twitter, saving your kid from having to serve in a dumb war is just good parenting.


Trump lied to took the pussy way out, saying he had bone spurs and had daddy write him a note to get out of it. Just shows what a loser Trump is and how full of shit he is that he supports the military.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

Oops.

- Vic


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

MSM continuing to make themselves look stupid by lying about Trump visiting the troops over Christmas. Seriously, it's this kind of shit which is why Trump has polled higher than the MSM even when Trump's approval ratings were incredibly low.

Also Trump being a draft dodger over a war that was initiated based on a false flag attack (Gulf of Tonkin) and ultimately sacrificed thousands of troop and civilian lives for no good reason is not something I particularly care about. I would do the same if I was in that position, the draft shouldn't even be a thing anyway.

In other news, the DOW rose back up just as fast as it came crashing down. It seems like Trump's twitter finger caused a panic in the market and now things have calmed down and proceeded as it has done for the past 2 years. Much like when ABC posted the fake news about Michael Flynn's supposed massive testimony against Trump which would have caused an indictment. It basically shows the stock market is not and never has been a good indicator on how well an economy is really doing because it is largely based on stock holders confidence.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> MSM continuing to make themselves look stupid by lying about Trump visiting the troops over Christmas.


Vic is being disingenuous. He posted a headline from Christmas day, the day before Trump visited the troops.

But even if they did lie, is it really worse than Trump lying to the troops about their wages during his visit?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Here's a radical thought. Maybe we should stop invading and occupying countries. 

And if we do then maybe we should worry about bringing them home for Christmas instead if sending our Presidents there so that maybe, just maybe almost everyone can have a NORMAL fucking Christmas instead of trying to finding unique ways to criticize everyone over "breaking tradition" and actually having a normalized experience for once.

Very, very radical. I know. America actually allowing its soldiers to have families instead of being slave to the state? Wow. 

I know I just gave the nationalist neocons a heart attack.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump lied to took the pussy way out, saying he had bone spurs and had daddy write him a note to get out of it. Just shows what a loser Trump is and how full of shit he is that he supports the military.


I feel like you're criticizing him here just for the sake of criticizing him.

The draft was a disgrace and something that never should have happened. I would have done the exact same thing for my kid if I were in that situation. I give Trump crap for a lot of things. This is not going to be one of them.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

The problem is that Trump talks a big game and acts like he's the most military friendly President ever (via lies and normal con man statements) yet when it was his time to serve he backed out like a bitch. You cant bitch out then come back 50 years later like you're the military's best friend. You cant bitch out then insult someone like John McCain for being captured, you cant insult Admiral McRaven or any other military person who gave their life to the US and sacrificed in ways this dude will never understand because he was born and raised in wealth and privledge.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Oh boy. 

Pathetic if true.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> Here's a radical thought. Maybe we should stop invading and occupying countries.
> 
> And if we do then maybe we should worry about bringing them home for Christmas instead if sending our Presidents there so that maybe, just maybe almost everyone can have a NORMAL fucking Christmas instead of trying to finding unique ways to criticize everyone over "breaking tradition" and actually having a normalized experience for once.
> 
> ...


Or, and just hear me out here, we get rid of Christmas too while we're at it and go for the full win.



Headliner said:


> The problem is that Trump talks a big game and acts like he's the most military friendly President ever (via lies and normal con man statements) yet when it was his time to serve he backed out like a bitch. You *cant* bitch out then come back 50 years later like you're the military's best friend. You *cant* bitch out then insult someone like John McCain for being captured, you *cant* insult Admiral McRaven or any other military person who gave their life to the US and sacrificed in ways this dude will never understand because he was born and raised in wealth and privledge.


Well, clearly you _*can*_, because that's what he's done. :lol


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Headliner said:


> The problem is that Trump talks a big game and acts like he's the most military friendly President ever (via lies and normal con man statements) yet when it was his time to serve he backed out like a bitch. You cant bitch out then come back 50 years later like you're the military's best friend. You cant bitch out then insult someone like John McCain for being captured, you cant insult Admiral McRaven or any other military person who gave their life to the US and sacrificed in ways this dude will never understand because he was born and raised in wealth and privledge.


This is it. I don't care that he dodged the draft, war is stupid and only stupid people support it. However, his whole persona is built on this faux macho alpha bullshit of LOVING the military.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

> "I said: 'No. Make it 10%. Make it more than 10%.' Because it's been a long time, it's been more than 10 years."


:bunk



> But as a number of US commentators noted, armed forces personnel have in fact received a pay rise in each of the past 10 years.


It just beggars belief how often he's either lying or completely and utterly wrong due to ignorance.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


> Or, and just hear me out here, we get rid of Christmas too while we're at it and go for the full win.


:lol: Nah man. I'm ok with celebrating some secularized holidays  

Though I'm still trying to figure out why celebrating anything is important because the "joy" of celebration isn't something I personally find value in. 

Won't deny others the feeling thiugh. It's a harmless thing. 

(As long as we ignore the sweatshops but I'm not willing to go there right now)


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> :lol: Nah man. I'm ok with celebrating some secularized holidays


WF's resident communist doesn't want to get rid of capitalism's hallmark orgy? You disappoint me.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


> WF's resident communist doesn't want to get rid of capitalism's hallmark orgy? You disappoint me.


Except that you can celebrate Christmas without giving gifts. Just have a nice sit down meal and exchange the warmth of each other's company :cudi












(I know... I know...)


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> Just have a nice sit down meal and exchange the warmth of each other's company


Yeah... that can be done any day of the year. Added bonus, you get to piss off the Christians by taking away their national holiday that they stole from the pagans in the first place.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

Eh I think you can still be supportive of the military without actually having served. Not everyone has the balls or the honor to serve. I know I don't, which is why I admire those that do.

Several U.S. presidents haven't served.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

Tater said:


> Yeah... that can be done any day of the year. Added bonus, you get to piss off the Christians by taking away their national holiday that they stole from the pagans in the first place.


Thanksgiving should be the holiday where we all exchange gifts. I mean it's already in the name of the holiday. It's the day of giving and showing thanks. Families should get together, exchange gifts and then celebrate with a huge feast.

Christmas is the celebration of Jesus who was compassionate and selfless. The best way to honor that would be for everyone to commit an act of good will. Either a charitable donation or service of some kind.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Christmas is the celebration of Jesus who was compassionate and selfless. The best way to honor that would be for everyone to commit an act of good will. Either a charitable donation or service of some kind.


You wanna celebrate the birth of the guy from your book of fairy tales, who you have no way of knowing what day he was born on even if he existed, during the winter solstice festival that was stolen from pagans in the first place, you go ahead and do that on your own time. You don't deserve a national holiday for your imaginary friend.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

Tater said:


> You wanna celebrate the birth of the guy from your book of fairy tales, who you have no way of knowing what day he was born on even if he existed, during the winter solstice festival that was stolen from pagans in the first place, you go ahead and do that on your own time. You don't deserve a national holiday for your imaginary friend.


I am not a christian and I do not believe that Jesus was real. It is a matter of what he stands for. 

The founders of the U.S. were christian. The majority of the U.S. also identifies as christian, hence why they observe christian holidays. As time passes it is becoming less and less about Jesus anyway. It's just tradition now, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Martins (May 4, 2011)

Tater said:


> WF's resident communist doesn't want to get rid of capitalism's hallmark orgy? You disappoint me.


It's just celebrated differently, that's all.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> The founders of the U.S. were christian.


You should check your sources on this statement.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

Tater said:


> You should check your sources on this statement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faiths_of_the_Founding_Fathers



> The main thesis of the book, found on page 134, is that the U.S. Founding Fathers fell into three religious categories:
> 
> 1. The smallest group, founders who had left their Judeo-Christian heritages and become advocates of the Enlightenment religion of nature and reason called "Deism". These figures included Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen.
> 
> ...


In other words the majority of them celebrated and observed Christmas.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

America is a Christian country when it comes to celebrating Christmas and things like abortion but it's no longer politically correct to claim that american's slavery and witch burning past was also justified through Christianity lest we trigger the Christians here.

America has always been a Christian country. From it's misogyny to slavery to capital punishment to the idea of "God and country" being equated religiously. 

Sure they said that we should be allowed to practice different religions but there is no reason to claim that our founders weren't just relatively more relaxed Christians than the majority that actually populate the country.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faiths_of_the_Founding_Fathers
> 
> In other words the majority of them celebrated and observed Christmas.


You just debunked your own argument. :lmao

You're not even quoting your source accurately either. Going by that, the two smaller groups were the deists and the Christians with the largest group being "Deistic Christians" who believed in little to none of the supernatural bullshit.

Oh yeah, and if you're going to use the founding fathers as your basis for Christmas being a national holiday, maybe some of them would have been involved in making Christmas a national holiday. But nope, fail on that front too, because that didn't happen until Grant in 1870.

Game, set, match.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

Tater said:


> You just debunked your own argument. :lmao
> 
> You're not even quoting your source accurately either. Going by that, the two smaller groups were the deists *and the Christians with the largest group being "Deistic Christians" who believed in little to none of the supernatural bullshit*.
> 
> ...


Plenty of people who identify as christian and celebrate Christmas don't believe in the miracles or the supernatural stuff either.

The majority of the founding fathers, while not literal bible believers, still observed christian holidays and practices. Which is no different than most people today.

Your serve.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

I also love how they just want to pretend that "thou shall not kill" is something they can pick and choose to implement how they will. 

Hey, I'm all for self defense. I don't care if it's Christian or not. It doesn't matter to me. But don't call yourselves Christians and support massive wars and expansionary invasions in other countries. 

We're Christians when we celebrate Christmas but not when John drone bombs Abdullah. How dare you criticize my right to celebrate Christmas and also butcher Fatima and her children!


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078086319883145218
The level of petty bitterness the corporate media have toward Trump. :lol Let's get troops who are in a combat zone in trouble for daring to show support for their president.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

The orange man’s bad so the troops are too


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078086319883145218
> The level of petty bitterness the corporate media have toward Trump. :lol Let's get troops who are in a combat zone in trouble for daring to show support for their president.


Yahoo is the worst. I never use Yahoo but it's been my default homepage for years. I dunno I always just kinda liked the layout and prefer to see all the trending news stories when I first log on.

But they are blatantly and unabashedly anti-Trump. Like more than any other outlet. It's pretty comical. They don't even pretend. 

Trump could bring about World Peace and the main headline when you first log on would read _"Does Donald Trump's Breath Stink? World Leaders At Peace Summit Appear To Think So!"_


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Plenty of people who identify as christian and celebrate Christmas don't believe in the miracles or the supernatural stuff either.
> 
> The majority of the founding fathers, while not literal bible believers, still observed christian holidays and practices. Which is no different than most people today.
> 
> Your serve.


There is no serve because the game is already over. You never even made a coherent argument to begin with.

"Because the founders celebrated Christmas is not an argument" (they had slaves too so epic fail on this point). "Because the founders were Christian", deist, practicing or otherwise, is not an argument, because they sure as fuck did not found a Christian nation. That part is inarguable.

Keep your big government out of my holiday life. If everyone wants to take the day off of their own free will, let them do that.

@CamillePunk :nod


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078086319883145218
> The level of petty bitterness the corporate media have toward Trump. :lol Let's get troops who are in a combat zone in trouble for daring to show support for their president.


It's such a mystery why there is a large audience for mean-spirited mocking of and insults aimed at the media by prominent public figures. Like, say, the President of the United States :Trump

* * *

Arguments over the faith or lack thereof of the Founding Fathers are greatly amusing. The country's population was greatly Christian from the beginning, it went through two* massive Christian revivals in its history, and is today religious (Christian) by a large majority. Professing, adhering, practicing, whatever you like 

What would be a very small minority of the Founders would be the group that would, if it were possible to ask them, deny the Judeo-Christian foundation of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution

Those trying to diminish the role of Christianity in the Revolutionary period and in the body politic then or any time since up to and including now betray their real intentions without much fuss, and those trying to diminish the Jewish role, well, we all know what they are up to don't we :cena5

*Possibly three


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

I love how some people ignore the founding fathers, put into the constitution, separation of church and state where they said Congress *shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,* or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

As an history graduate and an atheist, I would say with a high degree of certainty that Jesus was a real person. Any person who believes otherwise is being willfully ignorant of the documented facts. It's just whether you believe that he was the son of God, something which can not be verified and something that I personally can not believe. Regardless, Jesus was a great philosopher for his time and his actually message of peace and love amongst all men should always be commended and if Christians throughout history had actually followed those principles, then the world would have been a better place and perhaps too there would be a lot less hostility towards Christians.

Re: Trump visiting the troops in Iraq, it seems like another situation where whatever he does he is criticised by the media and those with TDS. I think he's done quite well recently, one of my main criticisms was that he had failed to deliver on his promise to withdraw American troops from the middle east. It was one of the main criticisms too from those on the left, then when he finally follows through, he's suddenly reckless and subservient to Russia! It's laughable, and if they carry on going against Trump even when he's in the right, they will end up losing again in 2020! Thankfully I think most can see through the media's BS and know that getting out of Syria is 100% the right thing to do.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

So a billionaire early investor of Facebook and co-founder of LinkedIn has apologized for "unknowingly" funding the group that perpetrated a well-disseminated fraud on the people of Alabama and the United States re: MUH RUSSIANS trying to influence the Alabama special election for a US Senate seat. 

Weird, I'm not hearing much about a left-wing billionaire admitting to his money being used to influence an election in a shady way. Left-wing billionaires, multi-hundred-billion dollar multi-national corporations founded and/or run by left-wing billionaires, actually influencing elections in shady ways, ehhhh whatever.

The Koch brothers openly expressing their opinions and being forthright in their completely legitimate political activities, my God the horror and the danger to our free and democratic political system! :bearer

At least this dude admitted it and said sorry unlike Zuckerborg, Cuck Dorsey and the various assortment of fascist androids at Google who are running on an infinite denial loop :draper2


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

"Trump could ... and they still will ..." is becoming quite the WF meme. :mj

It's literally a persecution complex. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> As an history graduate and an atheist, I would say with a high degree of certainty that Jesus was a real person. Any person who believes otherwise is being willfully ignorant of the documented facts. It's just whether you believe that he was the son of God, something which can not be verified and something that I personally can not believe. *Regardless, Jesus was a great philosopher for his time and his actually message of peace and love amongst all men should always be commended* and if Christians throughout history had actually followed those principles, then the world would have been a better place and perhaps too there would be a lot less hostility towards Christians.


Please stop. You know not of that which you praise this man. This is modern day white-washing of Jesus as some sort of pacifist buddhist monk or something, but it's quite far from the truth.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> As an history graduate and an atheist, *I would say with a high degree of certainty that Jesus was a real person. Any person who believes otherwise is being willfully ignorant of the documented facts*. It's just whether you believe that he was the son of God, something which can not be verified and something that I personally can not believe. Regardless, Jesus was a great philosopher for his time and his actually message of peace and love amongst all men should always be commended and if Christians throughout history had actually followed those principles, then the world would have been a better place and perhaps too there would be a lot less hostility towards Christians.
> 
> Re: Trump visiting the troops in Iraq, it seems like another situation where whatever he does he is criticised by the media and those with TDS. I think he's done quite well recently, one of my main criticisms was that he had failed to deliver on his promise to withdraw American troops from the middle east. It was one of the main criticisms too from those on the left, then when he finally follows through, he's suddenly reckless and subservient to Russia! It's laughable, and if they carry on going against Trump even when he's in the right, they will end up losing again in 2020! Thankfully I think most can see through the media's BS and know that getting out of Syria is 100% the right thing to do.


What documented facts are those and please don't say the bible. Anything n the bible written about Jesus as written hundreds of fo years after he was supposedly around. This topic needs its own threat but we have been over this stuff before in other threads over the years.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

Reaper said:


> Please stop. You know not of that which you praise this man. This is modern day white-washing of Jesus as some sort of pacifist buddhist monk or something, but it's quite far from the truth.


Please enlighten me. I think you would find it very difficult to find anything he said which didn't promote peace! Why do you have such contempt for him, some might say he was an early prototype communist


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> What documented facts are those and please don't say the bible. Anything n the bible written about Jesus as written hundreds of fo years after he was supposedly around. This topic needs its own threat but we have been over this stuff before in other threads over the years.


Sorry I was just responding to what a couple of other posters had said! Parts of the bible were written earlier than you might think, it is a source of sorts, even if a large part of it concocted. The Koran / Hadith is evidence of the existence of Mohammad is it not? Besides that there were pagan Roman historians which refereed to Jesus not too long after his crucifixion, what reason would they have write about him if he didn't exist. Almost all biblical scholars would agree on the existence of Jesus and of his baptism and crucifixion being real historical events, its just the general public which seems to be ignorant.

Read this if you're genuinely interested : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Sorry I was just responding to what a couple of other posters had said! Parts of the bible were written earlier than you might think, it is a source of sorts, even if a large part of it concocted. The Koran / Hadith is evidence of the existence of Mohammad is it not? Besides that there were pagan Roman historians which refereed to Jesus not too long after his crucifixion, what reason would they have write about him if he didn't exist. Almost all biblical scholars would agree on the existence of Jesus and of his baptism and crucifixion being real historical events, its just the general public which seems to be ignorant.
> 
> Read this if you're genuinely interested : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died


The parts about Jesus were all written after his death, none of it was an eyewitness account. They are all just stories. As for Roman historians which referred to Jesus not too long after his crucifixion, again they wrote about him after his death, they never saw him alive, so they were writing about stories they heard about him. That is not evidence of him existing. And people write about things that don't exist all the time. So that is not a good argument for Jesus really existing.

All those biblical scholars have zero evidence for Jesus, so it does not matter what they believe to be true. They are the ones that are ignorant for acting like he existed where there is no evidence of him existing.

The bible is just a bunch of stories and fables, it's just like Greek mythology. Also, I love when people say well Jesus could have been real but he probably wasn't the son of god, didn't rise from the dead, didn't perform miracles or magic tricks etc. If you are going to take all those things away from Jesus then it's not really even Jesus anymore. It's just some random guy who helped the poor. 

Not to mention there are tons of stories of people just like Jesus before Jesus was even supposed to be born. Christianity like they did with everything else, stole their lore from other relgions.

Now on to your link, point my point.


How confident can we be that Jesus Christ actually lived?

So again, all their so-called evidence is people talking about him after his death, zero evidence of Jesus being alive when he was supposed to be alive, and they try to compare Jesus to King Arthur, King Arthur was not real either. It's just myth. 


What do Christian writings tell us?

This is all you need to know " the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. "

Again zero eyewitness account of Jesus when he was alive


What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?


We can just stop right here

As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because* it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes *...

So even with the so-called non-Christian authors, they were corrupted by Christians.




Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?

They were commenting on stories about Jesus not the actual person. People acted like the greek gods were real but we all know its all just myth. People today still think there is a god and act like god is real, but does that mean god is real? Of course not, there is zero evidence for god, just like there is zero evidence for Jesus.

How controversial is the existence of Jesus now?

Irrelevant

Is there any archaeological evidence for Jesus?. 


They go in a roundabout way of saying no there is no real archaeological evidence for Jesus, which makes it even funnier they then say These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died..

Again just because people talk about Jesus after his death like he was real, like people talking about the current god or even the Greek gods, it does not mean they were ever real.

There is no legit hard evidence for Jesus, no eyewitness accounts, just a bunch of stories that cannot be verified


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Many believed to be 100% historical events and figures are only known through accounts written centuries after they happened or after their deaths

Of course some people do not know that

There being accounts of Jesus written 50-100 years after His death is actually a pretty small amount of time between a person's death and their first known appearance in a written record of any kind, for someone who lived 2000 years ago

Of course, some people do not know that

I wonder how many people know just how history that occurred beyond living memory is determined

Most of the time it is by reading things written hundreds or thousands of years ago and accepting them as being true. Because other than corroborations or denials found in other writings, sometimes through archaeological finds, there are very few ways to confirm or refute the great bulk of centuries- or millenia-old writings that our knowledge of the details of the past very largely relies on 

Of course, some people do not know that


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

deepelemblues said:


> Many 100% historical events and figures are only known through accounts written centuries after they happened or after their deaths
> 
> Of course some people do not know that
> 
> ...




What are some examples?

Also when it comes to Jesus, he was supposed to be this supernatural person, the son of god. And most of what was written about him was in the bible, a book we know to be BS and just a bunch of stories and fables.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

There are lots of things lots of people don't know :draper2


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Sorry I was just responding to what a couple of other posters had said! Parts of the bible were written earlier than you might think, it is a source of sorts, even if a large part of it concocted. The Koran / Hadith is evidence of the existence of Mohammad is it not? Besides that there were pagan Roman historians which refereed to Jesus not too long after his crucifixion, what reason would they have write about him if he didn't exist. Almost all biblical scholars would agree on the existence of Jesus and of his baptism and crucifixion being real historical events, its just the general public which seems to be ignorant.
> 
> Read this if you're genuinely interested : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died


I don't really dispute that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified but the stories about "Jesus" are largely an amalgamation of different people combined with a bunch of superstitious bullshit.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tater said:


> I don't really dispute that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified but the stories about "Jesus" are largely an amalgamation of different people combined with a bunch of superstitious bullshit.


Exactly and when you stip all of the main things about Jesus of the bible, like son of god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead etc, it's not even the same Jesus anymore and just some random guy. So anyone claiming the Jesus of the bible was real while trying to strip away anything the bible claimed about him, isn't even talking about the same person anymore


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> The parts about Jesus were all written after his death, none of it was an eyewitness account. They are all just stories. As for Roman historians which referred to Jesus not too long after his crucifixion, again they wrote about him after his death, they never saw him alive, so they were writing about stories they heard about him. That is not evidence of him existing. And people write about things that don't exist all the time. So that is not a good argument for Jesus really existing.
> 
> All those biblical scholars have zero evidence for Jesus, so it does not matter what they believe to be true. They are the ones that are ignorant for acting like he existed where there is no evidence of him existing.
> 
> ...


You are holding Jesus as a historical figure to an impossible standard. It was not uncommon at all for written documents to emerge a generation or even two after the events or people had happened/died. By your standard Roman emperors such a Caligula did not exist. The first Crusade too did not happen because the first accounts were not written at the time of the event, but rather years after when those on crusade had returned home. You can question the reliability of such sources, but when several different sources are telling basically the same story, we must assume that those basic universal facts were true. The fact that Jesus and his death is corroborated by Roman historians such as Tacitus and Josephus is significant, they were professional historians essentially and took their work seriously, I find it doubtful that they would write about someone that they did not believe existed and that there was no evidence for their existence. They wrote at a time too where there probably were eyewitnesses that were still alive, often second hand accounts were merely a corroboration of several eyewitness accounts. That's what I think Jesus was - a great philosopher who helped the poor, it's easy to see why many would look to this man as a messiah and attribute miracles/ prophesies to him following his death. The historians/ scholars are not the ignorant ones on this topic believe me - they almost universally agree Jesus was a real person. If you want to disagree with the experts that's fine, but you're the one who will come across as ignorant, not them!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> You are holding Jesus as a historical figure to an impossible standard. It was not uncommon at all for written documents to emerge a generation or even two after the events or people had happened/died. By your standard Roman emperors such a Caligula did not exist. The first Crusade too did not happen because the first accounts were not written at the time of the event, but rather years after when those on crusade had returned home. You can question the reliability of such sources, but when several different sources are telling basically the same story, we must assume that those basic universal facts were true. The fact that Jesus and his death is corroborated by Roman historians such as Tacitus and Josephus is significant, they were professional historians essentially and took their work seriously, I find it doubtful that they would write about someone that they did not believe existed and that there was no evidence for their existence. They wrote at a time too where there probably were eyewitnesses that were still alive, often second hand accounts were merely a corroboration of several eyewitness accounts. That's what I think Jesus was - a great philosopher who helped the poor, it's easy to see why many would look to this man as a messiah and attribute miracles/ prophesies to him following his death. The historians/ scholars are not the ignorant ones on this topic believe me - they almost universally agree Jesus was a real person. If you want to disagree with the experts that's fine, but you're the one who will come across as ignorant, not them!


I am not holding Jesus to an impossible standard. There is physical evidence of the first Crusade and there is physical evidence of Caligula being real, there is no physical evidence of Jesus. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that. 

So let me ask you, do you think Jesus was really born of a virgin, was the son of god, did all those miracles magically and rose from the dead?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Please enlighten me. I think you would find it very difficult to find anything he said which didn't promote peace! Why do you have such contempt for him, some might say he was an early prototype communist


Simply understand that the schizophrenic madman believed that everyone who didn't believe in him being the son of his father and preached that his father told him that if we don't believe in him then we're all going to be tortured for eternity is all I need to know about how wonderfully psychopathic his imagination and ideology was.

Jesus was just another one of a line of crazy mad men who sought to control people through fear so he can get fucked and so can his super whitewashed modern image.

I don't care but the way religious figures are absolved of their followers crimes is remarkably disingenuous. The man creates a religion. The religious followers commit all kinds of horrifying crimes. The man gets admired for the good. But not admonished for the bad. 

I know how this goes. 

People do it to Mohammad all the time too.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

If Jesus were not the founder of a religion that some people are bigoted against, His historical existence would not be questioned even by kooks, considering the wealth of historical sources attesting to His existence. 

But since He was the founder of a religion that some are bigoted against, His existence, the question of which is the most thoroughly examined historical question ever, answered in the affirmative time and time again over 2000 years of inquiry, is dismissed by said bigots.

The particular bigot in this thread is expending a lot of words showing his ignorance and bigotry. No serious historian would ever make the kind of statements he is making. But he is not a historian, he is a bigot. Holding him to the higher standard is probably unfair.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> I am not holding Jesus to an impossible standard. There is physical evidence of the first Crusade and there is physical evidence of Caligula being real, there is no physical evidence of Jesus. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that.
> 
> So let me ask you, do you think Jesus was really born of a virgin, was the son of god, did all those miracles magically and rose from the dead?


You are you're essentially saying that if you don't have a bust then there's no evidence of your existence in classical history... What evidence of a fisherman would you expect to survive 2,000 years? The writings of Roman historians is physical evidence too, it's just not good enough for you for some unknown reason. 

No, no, no, and also no. As I mentioned before I am an atheist, though I do not profess to know the answers to life. All I know is that the teachings of Jesus in the bible are way ahead of their time: and so to my understanding of the universe, a guy called Jesus who helped the poor and might be considered a great philosopher almost certainly existed, and his impact has echoed throughout history (like it or not) It really isn't that unlikely when you think about it... Did that person perform miracles/ was the son of God - I haven't seen any evidence to believe in miracles etc, so I'm going to say no. But that in turn does not mean that Jesus is totally made up, more likely (to me anyway) that his 'greatness' was exaggerated by those who knew him, loved him and idolised him.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

deepelemblues said:


> If Jesus were not the founder of a religion that some people are bigoted against, His historical existence would not be questioned even by kooks, considering the wealth of historical sources attesting to His existence.
> 
> But since He was the founder of a religion that some are bigoted against, His existence, the question of which is the most thoroughly examined historical question ever, answered in the affirmative time and time again over 2000 years of inquiry, is dismissed by said bigots.
> 
> The particular bigot in this thread is expending a lot of words showing his ignorance and bigotry. No serious historian would ever make the kind of statements he is making. But he is not a historian, he is a bigot. Holding him to the higher standard is probably unfair.


No serious historian would ever claim stories about a person being born of a virgin, being the son of god, did miracles and rose from the dead was real. 

its just funny you try to claim that type fo person really existence with no evidence for it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> You are you're essentially saying that if you don't have a bust then there's no evidence of your existence in classical history... What evidence of a fisherman would you expect to survive 2,000 years? The writings of Roman historians is physical evidence too, it's just not good enough for you for some unknown reason.
> 
> No, no, no, and also no. As I mentioned before I am an atheist, though I do not profess to know the answers to life. All I know is that the teachings of Jesus in the bible are way ahead of their time: and so to my understanding of the universe, a guy called Jesus who helped the poor and might be considered a great philosopher almost certainly existed, and his impact has echoed throughout history (like it or not) It really isn't that unlikely when you think about it... Did that person perform miracles/ was the son of God - I haven't seen any evidence to believe in miracles etc, so I'm going to say no. But that in turn does not mean that Jesus is totally made up, more likely (to me anyway) that his 'greatness' was exaggerated by those who knew him, loved him and idolised him.


So if you are saying Jesus was not the son of god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead etc, then the Jesus of the bible was not a real person and we agree on that. So why are you disagreeing with me that Jesus was not real? That is the Jesus we are talking about that was not a real historical figure. 

You are just saying there was some random guy named Jesus who helped the poor and was a great philosopher, that could be anyone and it's not who people are talking about when they talk about the Jesus in the bible being real.

We are talking about two different people. the made-up Jesus is the one in the bible. You are just talking about some random guy named Jesus.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

Reaper said:


> Simply understand that the schizophrenic madman believed that everyone who didn't believe in him being the son of his father and preached that his father told him that if we don't believe in him then we're all going to be tortured for eternity is all I need to know about how wonderfully psychopathic his imagination and ideology was.
> 
> Jesus was just another one of a line of crazy mad men who sought to control people through fear so he can get fucked and so can his super whitewashed modern image.
> 
> ...


I think you are confusing the organised Christian Church with Jesus the historical figure. Give me a quote in which Jesus said any of the stuff that you just ascribed to him. I do not like organised religion at all but most Christians I know are good and kind people, those that committed crimes in the past used religion to excuse their villainy, but truly if they were following the teaching of Jesus e.g Do not cast the first stone, love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek etc, then they would not have committed such acts. Those teachings were just hijacked by the Catholic (and later protestant) church for personal gain essentially. 

Mohammad the historical figure married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, owned slaves, slaughtered those who would not follow him/Allah and bent the rules for his own personal gain (E.g stated that the prophet was the only person allowed more than 6 wives) 

What bad can you say Jesus did in his life? Be specific.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> So if you are saying Jesus was not the son of god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead etc, then the Jesus of the bible was not a real person and we agree on that. So why are you disagreeing with me that Jesus was not real? That is the Jesus we are talking about that was not a real historical figure.
> 
> You are just saying there was some random guy named Jesus who helped the poor and was a great philosopher, that could be anyone and it's not who people are talking about when they talk about the Jesus in the bible being real.
> 
> We are talking about two different people. the made-up Jesus is the one in the bible. You are just talking about some random guy named Jesus.


We probably aren't too far apart here, but we are not talking about 'some random guy called Jesus' It's the same Jesus that people around the world believe is the son of God and the same Jesus who's teachings are the basis for the Western world as we know it. He's a very important and very real historical figure, whether we believe in him or not!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> I think you are confusing the organised Christian Church with Jesus the historical figure. Give me a quote in which Jesus said any of the stuff that you just ascribed to him. I do not like organised religion at all but most Christians I know are good and kind people, those that committed crimes in the past used religion to excuse their villainy, but truly if they were following the teaching of Jesus e.g Do not cast the first stone, love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek etc, then they would not have committed such acts. Those teachings were just hijacked by the Catholic (and later protestant) church for personal gain essentially.
> 
> Mohammad the historical figure married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, owned slaves, slaughtered those who would not follow him/Allah and bent the rules for his own personal gain (E.g stated that the prophet was the only person allowed more than 6 wives)
> 
> What bad can you say Jesus did in his life? Be specific.


If you want to pretend Jesus was real here are a few

he loved to turn people against their families

I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Matthew 10:35-36

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30


he said all Jews are going to hell which is funny since Jesus was Jewish if he was real

But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 8:12


He was pro war

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51-53



Do I even need to go on


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> We probably aren't too far apart here, but we are not talking about 'some random guy called Jesus' It's the same Jesus that people around the world believe is the son of God and the same Jesus who's teachings are the basis for the Western world as we know it. He's a very important and very real historical figure, whether we believe in him or not!


We are talking about two different things at this point. yes, there was a guy named Jesus who helped the poor and had teachings that were the basis of Christianity but he was not the son of god and didn't rise from the dead. But that is the Jesus people are claiming existed (the supernatural one) and those people are wrong.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

I'm sorry, two bigots in this thread embarrassing themselves over Jesus of Nazareth

Well, He did do this:










(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

I bet it was pretty scary

The violence and repression that can be laid at the feet of the Catholic Church from circa 1000 to circa 1700 has been greatly exaggerated and distorted as well, but what can you expect in this age of ignorance and bigotry :draper2

Calvinism, Lutheranism and some of their offshoots were the only inherently tyrannical popular Christian theologies and they either lost their tyrannical aspects or died out over the centuries since their founding. Not that bigots know that either


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

deepelemblues said:


> I'm sorry, two bigots in this thread embarrassing themselves over Jesus of Nazareth.
> 
> Well, He did do this:
> 
> ...


its nice to know you believe in fairy tales, you have even less credibility than I realized


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

The Founding Fathers weren't exactly Christian, sure some were but many were just Religious at best. 

During that time belief in a higher power was pretty much 100%. They weren't Religious blowhards but recognized that there was some good to it and acknowledging that there were forces and things greater than themselves wasn't a weakness. (Forces such as physics etc.)

The Founding Fathers set it up in such a way that the Government couldn't control Religion nor force it upon it's people and so that Religion could not force itself upon the Government nor the people. It's probably one of the best thought out implications of Government to ever be put pen to paper!

The Founding Fathers weren't huge on organized Religion, too much Government, fighting Wars for other Nations, letting Foreign Powers influence the Government, getting involved with dealings of Foreign Nations and didn't like/want moronic mob rule over reason. So in other words, they'd fucking hate what America is today.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> If you want to pretend Jesus was real here are a few
> 
> he loved to turn people against their families
> 
> ...


We can give him all the examples he wants, relate all of Jesus's own stories back to how it created the organized religion, how Jesus's own supernatural beliefs led to the beliefs that created the witch hunters etc etc, but none of that would matter. It would be a waste of time. 

First they used the old testament to justify their violence. But then that got too violent and they couldn't defend it anymore, so they went to the new testament and crafted a new image of Jesus that looks more and more like Gautama Buddha than Jesus of Nazerath. 

But some sources:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

Also, I mean you don't have to go to the "what would Jesus do" idocracy in order to white-wash Jesus when you look at the violence of his father. He advocated the worship of a vengeful, psychopathic deity that kills innocent children. That alone is enough for me to understand that that was not a moral man. 

It's curious how he called himself a historian and an atheist but then goes on to defend christianity and give us everything that the local pastor would say about Jesus. He wants to separate jesus the man, from jesus the monster god's son as though somehow the son of a vengeful god that came here to "warn" us about his father's eternal torture cells as some sort of a moral man and not a misguided fool who projected his own imaginary fears, psychosis and paranoid hysteria onto other people. 

Clearly not having developed his own ideas around why prophets create the religions and religious fervor amongst their followers that lead to the people acting much like the violent, vengeful being they worship. 

They take the worst traits of humanity and attribute it to their god so that they can continue to act like butchers in his name. This happened in pretty much all abrahimic religions. They're all founded upon the idea of worshiping a monster.



birthday_massacre said:


> its nice to know you believe in fairy tales, you have even less credibility than I realized


Good thing people like him no longer have the power to scream BLASPHEMY and lynch "bigots".


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Miss Sally said:


> The Founding Fathers weren't exactly Christian, sure some were but many were just Religious at best.
> 
> During that time belief in a higher power was pretty much 100%. They weren't Religious blowhards but recognized that there was some good to it and acknowledging that there were forces and things greater than themselves wasn't a weakness. (Forces such as physics etc.)
> 
> ...


The Founders who did not believe in the beliefs Christianity asks its adherents to take on faith would give full credit to the Christian religion for the role it played in developing the ideas that informed their political thinking. 

The Founders were educated in a different tradition than the two bigots venting their hate for the last 2 pages of this thread. A tradition where disagreement and disbelief were not synonymous with babyrage.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

deepelemblues said:


> The Founders who did not believe in the beliefs Christianity asks its adherents to take on faith would give full credit to the Christian religion for the role it played in developing the ideas that informed their political thinking.
> 
> The Founders were educated in a different tradition than the two bigots venting their hate for the last 2 pages of this thread. A tradition where disagreement and disbelief were not synonymous with babyrage.


You do actually think Christianity is a good religion, do you?

Also, I think its funny you think its an insult to say I am a bigot of Christianity. Even though you cutely don't use bigotry in the spirit of the world, oh I am 100% against Christianity, all religion in fact. Since religion is just a means to control people via indoctrination.


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> If you want to pretend Jesus was real here are a few
> 
> he loved to turn people against their families
> 
> ...


Should have just posted the link bud : https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/11/reasons-to-be-ashamed-and-not-fan-of.html 
:Trump

If you had actually read the bible before, instead of just copying and pasting from the internet (I literally typed in "Jesus bad quotes" and it was the top result) you would know that the teachings of Jesus actually were good and as much as they have been misappropriated in the past, they still hold value today. Think for yourself! Jesus was pro - war made me chuckle though, I have to admit XD


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Jesus was pro-war :ha

The word metaphor is a bigger mystery than that of Jesus to some :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

deepelemblues said:


> Jesus was pro-war :ha
> 
> The word metaphor is a bigger mystery than that of Jesus to some :draper2


I always love when people can't defend things in the bible they don't like they say well that part is just a metaphor but all the good stuff oh that was real. 





Hoolahoop33 said:


> Should have just posted the link bud : https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/11/reasons-to-be-ashamed-and-not-fan-of.html
> :Trump
> 
> If you had actually read the bible before, instead of just copying and pasting from the internet (I literally typed in "Jesus bad quotes" and it was the top result) you would know that the teachings of Jesus actually were good and as much as they have been misappropriated in the past, they still hold value today. Think for yourself! Jesus was pro - war made me chuckle though, I have to admit XD


LOL I have actually read the bible. You asked for examples and you got them. What did you want me to post them from memory? LOL you asked for specific examples. 

It's just weird you are now making excuses when I showed you his teachings were not all good. Its hilarious you are even trying to claim otherwise when I gave you direct quotes from the bible.

It seems to me like you are the one not thinking for yourself since like Reaper said you are just pretty much regurgitating what any paster would say to defend Jesus

How are they misappropriated when they are direct passages from the bible?

As for chuckling at Jesus being pro-war, funny how you ignore the example I gave where he is pro-war

If you are going to deny direct bible quotes that disprove your points, then there is nothing to debate. I have already torn your points to shreds about Jesus being all good and not doing any bad in his life.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Raptor Jesus was a violent killer

And probably a scavenger of the dead

But that's because Raptor Jesus was an obligate carnivore


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

How the fuck did Jesus become a point of discussion in a thread about Donald fucking Trump :mj4

Mods, sort this shit out.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Jesus is a cult of personality. 
Trump is a cult of personality. 

See the connection? It's an interesting psychological analysis for the aspiring Freud in me :hmmm


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL I have actually read the bible. You asked for examples and you got them. What did you want me to post them from memory? LOL you asked for specific examples.
> 
> It's just weird you are not making excusings when I showed you his teachings were not all good. Its hilarious you are even trying to claim otherwise when I gave you direct quotes from the bible.
> 
> ...


So when you read the bible, what you took from it was that Jesus was an evil, warmonger? 

Because I wouldn't even say they were particularly bad, the first ones seem to be comforting to those who have been shunned by their families for following him, and the last two are in direct contrast to the vast majority of his teachings: ie. that any person can be redeemed and belief in non-violence. 

I have never been to a church service in my life so that's surprising, I think though that you should think beyond 'Christianity bad therefore Jesus bad' which is simplistic and frankly dumb, and believe what seems most appropriate to you. I don't really care as I just wanted to set the record right regarding Jesus being a real person, but I happen to think he was a good person too, and if most people followed his teachings, then the world would be a better place. 

As for reaper, it's very ironic for him to call Christianity a psychotic ideology and to accuse me of needing to think for myself, when he is a blind supporter of an ideology which has directly lead to the misery and deaths of *millions* of people in the 20th century alone. When I said Christianity had misappropriated the teachings of Jesus I was referring to Slavery, Holy Wars etc, rather than the milquetoast examples you gave. I chuckled because it's ludicrous! You can't possibly believe that Jesus was pro-war based on one vague, metaphorical quote.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> So when you read the bible, what you took from it was that Jesus was an evil, warmonger?
> 
> Because I wouldn't even say they were particularly bad, the first ones seem to be comforting to those who have been shunned by their families for following him, and the last two are in direct contrast to the vast majority of his teachings: ie. that any person can be redeemed and belief in non-violence.
> 
> ...


What I take from the bible is its all made up propaganda. And Jesus like god was selfish and just cared about Christians and no one else. If you were not with them you were against them. Jesus was not perfect like you claim he was, he was also a jealous, mean asshole. If you don't think turning people against them families is bad then I don't know where you get your morality from. 

Jesus of the bible was not real, its all just BS made up stories. It's just weird you know he was not being born of a virgin, not being the son of god, not doing miracles and not rising from the dead even though the bible claims he is but you then believe all the other stuff the bible says about him that is not supernatural. You can't believe anything the bible claims since a committee had to approve anything that went in the bible. 

I just think its funny I gave you a bunch of examples fo how Jesus was bad, you even posted the link with like 50 more examples and you still cannot see what an asshole Jesus could be

And sorry but no, you are wrong if more people followed Jesus teachings the world wouldn't be a better place. The more people that shed religion are in a better place. That is why the secular countries all have lower crime rates and a better quality of life index. Secular counties do way better than religious ones.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Reaper said:


> Jesus is a cult of personality.
> Trump is a cult of personality.
> 
> See the connection?


I hate you.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Cult of personality?!






Pharisee Cena couldn't believe it either.

But CM Christ proved his worth at the Temple, in the summer of slam.















How much longer are these two going to embarrass themselves with this 9th grade edgelordery :hmmm


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> What I take from the bible is its all made up propaganda. And Jesus like god was selfish and just cared about Christians and no one else. If you were not with them you were against them. Jesus was not perfect like you claim he was, he was also a jealous, mean asshole. If you don't think turning people against them families is bad then I don't know where you get your morality from.
> 
> Jesus of the bible was not real, its all just BS made up stories. It's just weird you know he was not being born of a virgin, not being the son of god, not doing miracles and not rising from the dead even though the bible claims he is but you then believe all the other stuff the bible says about him that is not supernatural. You can't believe anything the bible claims since a committee had to approve anything that went in the bible.
> 
> ...


I actually agree in that it's one of the things I dislike most about religious people, that they believe 100% that they are right and that every person who disagrees is judged. I suppose though many atheists are equally guilty of that too though to some extent. I didn't say that he was perfect, I just said that he was good, and his teachings are good. We disagree on that one clearly, but that's ok. Also it sounds as though he was addressing people whose families had turned on them? Families can be assholes too, and sometimes it is actually the right thing to do to cut them out of your life..

I don't believe most of the things in the bible, but I do feel that there is a good message in there. I think it is quite reasonable to question the parts which sound unbelievable (miracles etc), whilst simultaneously respecting what has been verified (the existence of Jesus) and much of the message which can be applied today (love and peace etc.) 

I wasn't talking about the religious teachings more the philosophical teachings - if everyone actually followed them there would be no war, crime, hate, etc. Perhaps it goes against Human nature to act in such a manner, who knows. I agree with the separation of church and state - that's not necessarily true though regarding secular countries, I mean the US technically is secular.. So too was the Soviet Union, China etc and look at what happened there.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> I actually agree in that it's one of the things I dislike most about religious people, that they believe 100% that they are right and that every person who disagrees is judged. I suppose though many atheists are equally guilty of that too though to some extent. I didn't say that he was perfect, I just said that he was good, and his teachings are good. We disagree on that one clearly, but that's ok. Also it sounds as though he was addressing people whose families had turned on them? Families can be assholes too, and sometimes it is actually the right thing to do to cut them out of your life..
> 
> I don't believe most of the things in the bible, but I do feel that there is a good message in there. I think it is quite reasonable to question the parts which sound unbelievable (miracles etc), whilst simultaneously respecting what has been verified (the existence of Jesus) and much of the message which can be applied today (love and peace etc.)
> 
> I wasn't talking about the religious teachings more the philosophical teachings - if everyone actually followed them there would be no war, crime, hate, etc. Perhaps it goes against Human nature to act in such a manner, who knows. I agree with the separation of church and state - that's not necessarily true though regarding secular countries, I mean the US technically is secular.. So too was the Soviet Union, China etc and look at what happened there.


Stop saying Jesus has been verified he has not. You even agree Jesus is not the son of god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead etc, so even you admit that has not been verified. So stop pretending the Jesus of the bible has been verified since almost everything about him is just BS. 

I don't think you have read the bible because if you did then you would know "if everyone actually followed them there would be no war, crime, hate, " isn't true.

If you actually read and understood the bible you would know all the rules about no killing, no hate etc is just in your own tribe. You can do all that to people outside your tribe. Not sure how you don't understand this.

The no hate thing is hilarious when the bible tells people to hate gays for example.

Have you even read the bible?

And no the US is not secular FFS where did you get that BS? they have in god we trust on their money.

The US is a Christian nation, its funny you would even claim otherwise. The US may be trending toward being more and more secular but they are still a Christian nation.

Sure the US has separation of church and state but that is ignored all the time, again just look at in god we trust is on the money, and under god being in the pledge. 

The US isn't even close to being a secular country like the Nordic countries are. There is a reason why pretty much every president has been Christian. The vast majority of the people in the US are Christian. So its not a secular nation.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

The last 5 pages of this thread are like a Ku Kluxer giving a dissertation on why the mud people are bad

Or a Louis Farrakhan sermon about the Jews

Or saying that someone is a despicable animal abuser because he killed a dog. Leaving out the part where the dog was mauling a child

It's so incredible you almost have to think it's a trolljob but then you realize that kind of semi-coherent vehemence is really hard to fake


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> Stop saying Jesus has been verified he has not. You even agree Jesus is not the son of god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead etc, so even you admit that has not been verified. So stop pretending the Jesus of the bible has been verified since almost everything about him is just BS.


Sorry if I believe nearly every single scholar and historian on the topic over some guy on a wrestling forum. Even you admitted just before there probably was a 'random guy called Jesus', whatever that means.



birthday_massacre said:


> I don't think you have read the bible because if you did then you would know "if everyone actually followed them there would be no war, crime, hate, " isn't true.
> 
> If you actually read and understood the bible you would know all the rules about no killing, no hate etc is just in your own tribe. You can do all that to people outside your tribe. Not sure how you don't understand this.
> 
> ...


We are talking about Jesus not the entire bible. Your whole problem is that you can't seem to separate the two. 



birthday_massacre said:


> And no the US is not secular FFS where did you get that BS? they have in god we trust on their money.
> 
> The US is a Christian nation, its funny you would even claim otherwise. The US may be trending toward being more and more secular but they are still a Christian nation.
> 
> ...


The US has been influenced by Christianity sure, but it was founded on secular ideals, and as I said, technically, remains secular. If you meant majority atheist - as you seem to imply - then that is something different to being a secular country.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Christians ahktuallee run the United States government and its politics as a theocracy because "In God We Trust" is on the nation's money and "One nation, under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance

Did you know that in many places in the United States, it is considered acceptable by the vast bulk of the citizenry for displays celebrating Christian holidays (HOLY DAYS OHMEHGAWD MOAR PROOF!) to be set up on PUBLIC PROPERTY?!

The :trump thread has gone off the rails even harder than the MUH RUSSIA thread :woo


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

> Eh I think you can still be supportive of the military without actually having served. Not everyone has the balls or the honor to serve. I know I don't, which is why I admire those that do.
> 
> Several U.S. presidents haven't served.


Anybody who mocks people with bone spurs are pieces of crap since they're very painful. 



> But even if they did lie, is it really worse than Trump lying to the troops about their wages during his visit?


Military service members received more money once Trump got into office. This is a fact.

https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Basic-Pay/AnnualPayRaise/

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Sorry if I believe nearly every single scholar and historian on the topic over some guy on a wrestling forum. Even you admitted just before there probably was a 'random guy called Jesus', whatever that means.
> 
> .


I love how you keep saying scholars but fail to mention its actually biblical scholars so they are biased. And like I said the few non-Christians scholars, were influenced by Christianity, so you can't even take those scholars work seriously. 

Ok let's break down your logic here

The bible claims Jesus was* born of a virgin, was the son of god, did miracles and rose from the dead*, also was a philosopher who helped the poor.

And even you agree the bolded parts are not true, and there is no evidence for any of that, and no real scholar and historian have ever said a real person existed like that with those magical powers, yet you want to claim that Jesus of the bible was a real person just because some random guy who didn't have all those traits may have helped the poor and preached about Christianity? 

You don't even make any sense. You are stripping away 90% of what the Jesus of the bible was and claiming he still existed because a couple of that could match what some other guy who could be named Jesus did. If you strip away 90% of the Jesus of the Bible, we are not even talking about the same Jesus at that point.

And yes I admitted there was probably some guy who could be named Jesus that helped the poor and preached about Chrisitanit8y but that does not mean the Jesus described in the bible 90% fo which you said is not true existed and that version of Jesus was verified to have existed by historians but they didn't





Hoolahoop33 said:


> We are talking about Jesus not the entire bible. Your whole problem is that you can't seem to separate the two.
> 
> .



And where do we get all the info about Jesus we are talking about? The Bible. You can't separate Jesus from the bible if you are talking about Jesus of the bible and what he supposedly did. You are getting all you info on the so-called good stuff he did from the Bible, it's just funny you claim I can't use that the same bible to show the bad shit. Your whole argument is falling apart if you are going to claim I can't use the bible to show examples to back up how Jesus was not all good. It's hilarious you would even make this claim. Jesus's teachings came from the bible.






Hoolahoop33 said:


> The US has been influenced by Christianity sure, but it was founded on secular ideals, and as I said, technically remains secular. If you meant majority atheist - as you seem to imply - then that is something different to being secular.
> 
> .



Most of the US laws and so-called values were founded upon Christianity. Hell we still see it today with the whole well the bible says is a sin to be gay and how for hundreds of years gays could not even get married because people said well the bible says marriage is between man and a woman

Don't act like Christianity as not the basis for all the US laws. It was not founded upon secular ideals they ripped them from the ten commandments.

When you have to say technically it's secular you know that means it really not and that is my point. The US is not secular, especially when it comes to America when something like over 70% of Americans are Christan





Vic Capri said:


> Anybody who mocks people with bone spurs are pieces of crap since they're very painful.
> 
> - Vic


And anyone is an even bigger piece of crap for lying about having them like Trump did.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Vic Capri said:


> Anybody who mocks people with bone spurs are pieces of crap since they're very painful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Considering that today there are large numbers of young diabetics and others generally unhealthy to the point that the military would not accept them, I can't wait for in 25 years when people are saying "that fat fuck wasn't in the army because he was so fucking fat, fatty wants to be president? Too fat to be a soldier, too fat to be president. Fat bitch."


----------



## Hoolahoop33 (Nov 21, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you keep saying scholars but fail to mention its actually biblical scholars so they are biased.
> 
> Ok let's break down your logic here
> 
> ...


It's not just biblical scholars though, it's basically any person who is of sound mind and reason who looks into the topic. That includes secular biblical scholars too. So Christians are not reliable when looking at religious history now? That is such a close-minded and ignorant implication, surely you could say the same of anyone looking at the subject, if they are atheist, Muslim, Jewish etc. Face it you are wrong.

It's the same guy, even if I don't believe in him as my 'Lord and saviour'. They aren't different people because some have a different perspective on who he was, he still existed, he still gave the exact same teaching and did the exact same things. It's just there is a debate as to what those teachings mean and what things he did exactly. For example, in your mind BM makes perfect sense, while I may think you're talking nonsense. You suddenly aren't two separate people, even if I have a very different perspective on who you are, what you represent etc. In the same way Jesus, existed whether you think 10% is accurate or 100%, or somewhere in the middle, and as a historical figure, perhaps had a larger impact than any other person in history. You don't get much more real than that. verified.





birthday_massacre said:


> And where do we get all the info about Jesus we are talking about? The Bible. You can't separate Jesus from the bible if you are talking about Jesus of the bible and what he supposedly did. You are getting all you info on the so-called good stuff he did from the Bible, it's just funny you claim I can't use that the same bible to show the bad shit. Your whole argument is falling apart if you are going to claim I can't use the bible to show examples to back up how Jesus was not all good. It's hilarious you would even make this claim. Jesus's teachings came from the bible.


Your quoting from Leviticus though on why Homosexuality is a sin, when that has nothing to do with Jesus. Of course you can separate his teachings from the other parts of bible, you just haven't made any attempt to - I'm not a Christian remember so referring to other parts of the bible doesn't prove anything to me, we're strictly talking about the teachings of Jesus. You'll find they are actually quite different from most of the rest of the bible interestingly.







birthday_massacre said:


> Most of the US laws and so-called values were founded upon Christianity. Hell we still see it today with the whole well the bible says is a sin to be gay and how for hundreds of years gays could not even get married because people said well the bible says marriage is between man and a woman
> 
> Don't act like Christianity as not the basis for all the US laws. It was not founded upon secular ideals they ripped them from the ten commandments.
> 
> ...


*Secular states do not have a state religion (e.g. an established religion) or an equivalent, although the absence of an established state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular in all respects. For example, many secular states have religious references in their national anthems and flags. * Sounds like the US might be a secular state  I'm not going to argue with you here because we don't actually disagree, you just don't know what a secular sate is.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Hoolahoop33 said:


> It's not just biblical scholars though, it's basically any person who is of sound mind and reason who looks into the topic. That includes secular biblical scholars too. So Christians are not reliable when looking at religious history now? That is such a close-minded and ignorant implication, surely you could say the same of anyone looking at the subject, if they are atheist, Muslim, Jewish etc. Face it you are wrong.
> 
> It's the same guy, even if I don't believe in him as my 'Lord and saviour'. They aren't different people because some have a different perspective on who he was, he still existed, he still gave the exact same teaching and did the exact same things. It's just there is a debate as to what those teachings mean and what things he did exactly. For example, in your mind BM makes perfect sense, while I may think you're talking nonsense. You suddenly aren't two separate people, even if I have a very different perspective on who you are, what you represent etc. In the same way Jesus, existed whether you think 10% is accurate or 100%, or somewhere in the middle, and as a historical figure, perhaps had a larger impact than any other person in history. You don't get much more real than that. verified.


No Christians are not reliable when looking at religious history when it comes to the bible. They are biased. I am not wrong, there is zero evidence the Jesus of the bible existed. At this point you are sounding more and more like a creationist where you keep claiming all these people proved god exists yet never have.

And no its not the same guy, if all the things in the bible about him are not true. It's ironic you claim I am not of sound mind and reason yet you are making silly statements like this. He didnt do the exact same things, He didn't rise from the dead, he didn't do all those miracles eh said to have done, how can you be honest and claim he did all the same things. You dont think he really touched blind peoples eyes and healed them do you?

Using your logic Superman/Clark Kent was a real person because some guy just happened to be named Clark Kent and came from Smallville but did not have any of the powers of Superman and was a reporter.

No those would be two different people.







Hoolahoop33 said:


> our quoting from Leviticus though on why Homosexuality is a sin, when that has nothing to do with Jesus. Of course you can separate his teachings from the other parts of bible, you just haven't made any attempt to - I'm not a Christian remember so referring to other parts of the bible doesn't prove anything to me, we're strictly talking about the teachings of Jesus. You'll find they are actually quite different from most of the rest of the bible interestingly.


Jesus teaches about the 10 commandments and guesses what those are also in the old testament. Again you keep ignoring Jesus got all his teaches from the bible, so the bible has everything to do with Jesus. Stop acting likt the bible and Jesus are not connected. I am directly quoting the book Jesus got his teaching from.







Hoolahoop33 said:


> Secular states do not have a state religion (e.g. an established religion) or an equivalent, although the absence of an established state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular in all respects. For example, many secular states have religious references in their national anthems and flags. Sounds like the US might be a secular state  I'm not going to argue with you here because we don't actually disagree, you just don't know what a secular sate is.



We are talking about two different things. Maybe I did not make myself clear. If the US was more secular meaning the people of the US it would be much better off than it is now when the US population is mostly religious aka mostly Christan.

The US is 75% Christian, if it was 75% secular it would be a much better country. That is what I was getting at.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Jesus is the most important human being to have ever lived.

Someone had to be! 

An examination of the appeal of early (pre-Edict of Milan) Christianity to the masses of the Roman Empire should be more than sufficient to discover the main points of Christian theology closest in time and in character to the teachings of Jesus. The reports of Romans like Pliny the Younger to the emperor Trajan on Christianity and Christians leave little doubt that Christianity represented a moral force of incalculable potential. 

Psychopaths and phantoms do not create systems that last for 2000 years with no end in sight (please don't bring up Mohammed, many of the aspects of Islam that are most appealing are adopted direct from Christianity and to a somewhat lesser degree Judaism). The loss of (non-Muslim) religiosity in Western Europe, and the possible beginning of it in the United States, is more than offset by the solidity of the Christian faith in South America and Eastern Europe, and its growth in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. One day, the congregation of Chinese Christians will stun the world with their strength and devotion, when they have been unfettered.

There is nothing miraculous or requiring a taking of faith in any of that. There is a true appeal to the teachings of Jesus, and it is not because he was an asshole, and it is not because a bunch of people over 300 years or so from the middle of the first century AD to the middle of the fourth came up with a really good lie about this guy named Jesus.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> How the fuck did Jesus become a point of discussion in a thread about Donald fucking Trump


*raises hand* I believe this one was on me. I was trolling about getting rid of Christmas as a national holiday and it kinda snowballed from there.

To be fair though, and this is something Kyle covers from time to time on his show, there are a whole bunch of real kool-aid drinking Jesus humpers who believe Trump was elected by their god. I dunno how surprised you would be but there's a fair amount of people in this country who vote solely for religious reasons. They'd vote for a daily kick to the crotch if it meant gay people couldn't get married and women couldn't get abortions.



deepelemblues said:


> Considering that today there are large numbers of young diabetics and others generally unhealthy to the point that the military would not accept them, I can't wait for in 25 years when people are saying *"that fat fuck wasn't in the army because he was so fucking fat, fatty wants to be president? Too fat to be a soldier, too fat to be president. Fat bitch."*


Regardless of anything else that happened in this thread today, this line right here cracked me the fuck up. :lmao



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It's not just biblical scholars though, it's basically any person who is of sound mind and reason who looks into the topic. That includes secular biblical scholars too. So Christians are not reliable when looking at religious history now? That is such a close-minded and ignorant implication, surely you could say the same of anyone looking at the subject, if they are atheist, Muslim, Jewish etc. Face it you are wrong.
> 
> It's the same guy, even if I don't believe in him as my 'Lord and saviour'. They aren't different people because some have a different perspective on who he was, he still existed, he still gave the exact same teaching and did the exact same things. It's just there is a debate as to what those teachings mean and what things he did exactly. For example, in your mind BM makes perfect sense, while I may think you're talking nonsense. You suddenly aren't two separate people, even if I have a very different perspective on who you are, what you represent etc. In the same way Jesus, existed whether you think 10% is accurate or 100%, or somewhere in the middle, and as a historical figure, perhaps had a larger impact than any other person in history. You don't get much more real than that. verified.
> 
> ...


Some friendly advice... just let it go. Arguing with BM is pointless. He doesn't listen to the points you are making and no amount of facts will have any bearing on his responses to you. He'll just keep responding with the same recycled semi-incoherent babble until you eventually give up. It's best to just not engage in the first place.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

The absolute state of Russiagate. :heston


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Jimmy Dore looks like he does cocaine

Possibly lots of cocaine

I'd probably like him

When he had cocaine on him


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

My only take on Jesus was that he was a real person who only comes across as some great philosopher because he was written that way by a group of men who stole everything off other religions and stories.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tater said:


> Some friendly advice... just let it go. Arguing with BM is pointless. He doesn't listen to the points you are making and no amount of facts will have any bearing on his responses to you. He'll just keep responding with the same recycled semi-incoherent babble until you eventually give up. It's best to just not engage in the first place.


Your projection never ceases to amaze me. And LOL at you thinking he has given facts for the existence of Jesus. Even he admits 90% of things said about Jesus are not even true. He has still not shown one shred of evidence for Jesus being real. He was just some character in a fake book, just like the Greek gods.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Mother Merkel recently made a truly execrable speech in Berlin where she allowed the mask to slip a little bit and the condescending arrogance and denigration of democracy that is a hallmark of our betters to shine through. Macron also made a similar speech that killed his alrwady on life support popularity and was a major impetus to the yellow vests. These speeches can both be summed up as whatever whatever we do what we want you dirty backwards peasant dirt, deal with it.

It is like she and Macron secretly want Marine le Pen and whoever the hell runs the AfD to be in charge of France and Germany within 5 years. Like they're hellbent on :trump being the beginning, not the end.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Draykorinee said:


> My only take on Jesus was that he was a real person who only comes across as some great philosopher because he was written that way by a group of men who stole everything off other religions and stories.


Those are two more claims (the Jesus was largely the creation of Paul of Tarsus and men like Origen, developed over centuries, and the Jesus was just a wholesale ripoff of Tammuz and Osiris theories) that have been extensively examined and rejected by scholars time and again over centuries of inquiry, but remain semi popular for some reason :draper2


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

So what's all this about Trump wanting to shut the border down entirely? If the government isn't functioning at the moment, is it even possible for him to do that? And wouldn't doing something like that as a bargaining tool against the Dems be kind of an abuse of power? I mean, it's probably en empty threat to scare them back to the table, right?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

Tater said:


> There is no serve because the game is already over. You never even made a coherent argument to begin with.
> 
> "Because the founders celebrated Christmas is not an argument" (they had slaves too so epic fail on this point). "Because the founders were Christian", deist, practicing or otherwise, is not an argument, because they sure as fuck did not found a Christian nation. That part is inarguable.
> 
> ...


I wasn't making an argument initially. All I did was make a harmless suggestion as to how people can celebrate the holidays differently. You are the one that got triggered and went off on a tangent about fake fairy tales.

Christmas is an American tradition. If you don't want to celebrate, nobody is forcing you.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> I wasn't making an argument initially. All I did was make a harmless suggestion as to how people can celebrate the holidays differently. You are the one that got triggered and went off on a tangent about fake fairy tales.
> 
> Christmas is an American tradition. If you don't want to celebrate, nobody is forcing you.


When you overuse a word, it begins to lose it's meaning.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

ForYourOwnGood said:


> So what's all this about Trump wanting to shut the border down entirely? *If the government isn't functioning *at the moment, is it even possible for him to do that? And wouldn't doing something like that as a bargaining tool against the Dems be kind of an abuse of power? I mean, it's probably en empty threat to scare them back to the table, right?


The government is still functioning. It's only a partial shutdown, as usual whenever there's some gridlock and the media wants to fear-monger about it for ratings and to do political damage to whoever they dislike (President Trump). 

Government "shutdowns" are largely bullshit. Sure some federal workers go without pay but they get reimbursed later. 

Just more political theater.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Hey @CamillePunk, remember when I told you Shapiro was retarded for suggesting Bernie supporters would get behind Beto? Have you been following along Greenwald's Twitter the past couple of weeks? Seen the Sirota stuff?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078680903919063049
Told ya so. Beto is an establishment darling backed by the MSM. Anyone who thinks Bernie people will enthusiastically get behind that is either pushing a narrative or a fucking moron.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Tater said:


> Hey @CamillePunk, remember when I told you Shapiro was retarded for suggesting Bernie supporters would get behind Beto? Have you been following along Greenwald's Twitter the past couple of weeks? Seen the Sirota stuff?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078680903919063049
> Told ya so. Beto is an establishment darling backed by the MSM. Anyone who thinks Bernie people will enthusiastically get behind that is either pushing a narrative or a fucking moron.


About a year and some change too early for this "I told you so". :lol Also I don't recall "enthusiastically" being a part of the conversation.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Christianity has been so demolished in this thread I don't know how it is still functioning

Just like the president :trolldog

Somehow, the two will just have to keep on keeping on

Like after all their other demolishings :bryanlol

Long after we are all dead, people will be wondering how Christianity survived the 8 demolishings it took last week. Twice on Sundays doncha know

Maybe "long after" will end up being forever

Wouldn't that be a real stinker









Stranger things have happened


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> About a year and some change too early for this "I told you so". :lol Also I don't recall "enthusiastically" being a part of the conversation.


The establishment people believe that can woo Bernie supporters like a cheap ad on TV that says something along the lines of, if you liked X, then you're gonna love Y! And then go about dangling Beto in front of them like a shiny set of keys in front of a baby. Trying to trick people who believe in Bernie's policies into supporting someone who doesn't but pretends like he does is the best plan they can come up with because they know they can't attack him directly on the policy substance itself.

What I see is either Bernie winning the nomination or having the primaries rigged again like last time. His backers aren't going to get behind Beto no matter how hard the MSM tries to shape the narrative. Their ability to shape opinion is gone. That ship has sailed. The proverbial toothpaste is not going back in the tube.

They *will* try though. They've already been out in force smearing everyone not toeing the establishment line as one of Putin's puppets and it's not even 2019 yet. I know you've seen it. Since the only way they're going to keep Bernie from winning the nomination fair and square is to back a candidate who genuinely supports those policies, which would defeat the whole purpose of keeping Bernie from winning the nomination, my money is on them resorting to cheating again. Watch for massive amounts of voter suppression, messing with the polling places and lots of suspicious results from unaccountable voting machines. Basically, the same playbook they used to rig it for Hillary last time. 

He could still win but it'll have to be by more than what they steal.

What it won't be, contrary to what Ben Retardo believes, is him losing his supporters to fake left guy Beto.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Tater said:


> The establishment people believe that can woo Bernie supporters like a cheap ad on TV that says something along the lines of, if you liked X, then you're gonna love Y! And then go about dangling Beto in front of them like a shiny set of keys in front of a baby. Trying to trick people who believe in Bernie's policies into supporting someone who doesn't but pretends like he does is the best plan they can come up with because they know they can't attack him directly on the policy substance itself.
> 
> What I see is either Bernie winning the nomination or having the primaries rigged again like last time. His backers aren't going to get behind Beto no matter how hard the MSM tries to shape the narrative. Their ability to shape opinion is gone. That ship has sailed. The proverbial toothpaste is not going back in the tube.
> 
> ...


I agree nobody is jumping ship from Sanders to Beto in any significant numbers IF Bernie runs. I believe what I said before was that if there's no Sanders to vote for, a lot of his supporters would vote for Beto rather than going third party, assuming he uses a good deal of Bernie's rhetoric. 

It does seem increasingly likely that Sanders will run though. Should make things very interesting. No I'm not going to vote for him, before anyone asks. :lol Where was his defense of our Syria withdrawal? :hmmm


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> I agree nobody is jumping ship from Sanders to Beto in any significant numbers IF Bernie runs. I believe what I said before was that if there's no Sanders to vote for, a lot of his supporters would vote for Beto rather than going third party, assuming he uses a good deal of Bernie's rhetoric.
> 
> It does seem increasingly likely that Sanders will run though. Should make things very interesting. No I'm not going to vote for him, before anyone asks. :lol Where was his defense of our Syria withdrawal? :hmmm


First of all, I don't trust Trump's Syria withdrawal for one bit. The MIC is too powerful to let one jackass stop their trillion dollar war machine. They're not going to give up and go home based on Trump's decision alone. We'll just have to wait and see on this one because I strongly suspect there is more going on than what they are presenting this as.

Secondly, it was Bernie's bill that just got through the Senate about forcing the Trump administration to stop aiding Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen. A bill, mind you, that Trump said he would veto if it got to his desk.

Regardless of what you might personally believe about Bernie's domestic policies, he's not someone who can be described as a hawk.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Or he's just too busy making tweets like this:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078704166464307204
 Too concerned with being a partisan and his own presidential ambitions to give credit where it's due in the name of peace and scaling back our empire.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> Or he's just too busy making tweets like this:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078704166464307204
> Too concerned with being a partisan and his own presidential ambitions to give credit where it's due in the name of peace and scaling back our empire.


That's pretty fucking lame and you know it. You're going to feign outrage because Bernie didn't suck up to Trump on Syria instead of giving credit for his actions regarding Yemen?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

It would be sucking up to Trump to say withdrawing from Syria is a good thing at a time when the establishment in both parties and their corporate media attack dogs are ripping him for it and suggesting we must have endless war to be safe? :hmmm Interesting viewpoint but I don't agree. I think it would just be the right thing to do, and an obligation of someone with good intentions in the government.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> It would be sucking up to Trump to say withdrawing from Syria is a good thing at a time when the establishment in both parties and their corporate media attack dogs are ripping him for it and suggesting we must have endless war to be safe? :hmmm Interesting viewpoint but I don't agree. I think it would just be the right thing to do, and an obligation of someone with good intentions in the government.


If Bernie spent all his time making comments about what Trump does, he wouldn't have time for anything else.

I don't get the problem here. Trump announced a Syria withdrawal and Bernie didn't make a comment on it. So? We haven't even seen the entire story here yet. Could be Bernie knows more than we do and doesn't want to make a jackass out of himself praising Trump for withdrawing from Syria when the intention all along was to amass troops for attacking Iran or some other equally disastrous plan.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

"All his time". :lol Takes like 5 seconds to write a tweet, or a few minutes to have an interview. 

Seems pretty clear Sanders doesn't want to risk getting the Gabbard treatment. Just one of many instances where Bernie showed his lack of a spine (joining in on the brain-dead identity politicking with "if you're white you don't know what it's like to be poor", surrendering his stage to disrespectful BLM hijackers, endorsing Clinton). 

Not someone I would hire for an executive position where you might have to make decisions that will cause some people to be upset with you. Don't think he has the personal fortitude at all. Explains why his political instincts are to justify every victim complex and promise free stuff in return. Much easier than giving people hard truths and enduring the necessary scorn.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> "All his time". :lol Takes like 5 seconds to write a tweet, or a few minutes to have an interview.
> 
> Seems pretty clear Sanders doesn't want to risk getting the Gabbard treatment. Just one of many instances where Bernie showed his lack of a spine (joining in on the brain-dead identity politicking with "if you're white you don't know what it's like to be poor", surrendering his stage to disrespectful BLM hijackers, endorsing Clinton).
> 
> Not someone I would hire for an executive position where you might have to make decisions that will cause some people to be upset with you. Don't think he has the personal fortitude at all. Explains why his political instincts are to justify every victim complex and promise free stuff in return. Much easier than giving people hard truths and enduring the necessary scorn.


I love how scared you are of Bernie, Its why you always have to make up dumb shit about him.


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

Tater said:


> The establishment people believe that can woo Bernie supporters like a cheap ad on TV that says something along the lines of, if you liked X, then you're gonna love Y! And then go about dangling Beto in front of them like a shiny set of keys in front of a baby. Trying to trick people who believe in Bernie's policies into supporting someone who doesn't but pretends like he does is the best plan they can come up with because they know they can't attack him directly on the policy substance itself.
> 
> What I see is either Bernie winning the nomination or having the primaries rigged again like last time. His backers aren't going to get behind Beto no matter how hard the MSM tries to shape the narrative. Their ability to shape opinion is gone. That ship has sailed. The proverbial toothpaste is not going back in the tube.
> 
> ...


I'm a single issue voter. I want weed legalized. It sounds dumb and childish, but if a democrat isn't willing to stand up and say "I will legalize weed in my first year," I will not vote for them. Not "it needs more study." Not "I'm still evolving."

If Beto can get the elites in the democrat party to get behind that message, I will vote for him. If not, I'll vote for Bernie again.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how scared you are of Bernie, Its why you always have to make up dumb shit about him.


What did I make up?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> "All his time". :lol Takes like 5 seconds to write a tweet, or a few minutes to have an interview.


Jesus tap dancing Christ. Do you have any idea how silly you look trying to portray Trump as better than Sanders on foreign policy based solely on Bernie not praising Trump on Twitter for the Syria announcement?

What's more important, a tweet, or getting a bill through the Senate that would force Trump to stop supporting genocide in Yemen? Something Trump wants to continue. I mean, it's retarded that we are even comparing them at all on foreign policy.



> Seems pretty clear Sanders doesn't want to risk getting the Gabbard treatment. Just one of many instances where Bernie showed his lack of a spine (joining in on the brain-dead identity politicking with "if you're white you don't know what it's like to be poor", surrendering his stage to disrespectful BLM hijackers, endorsing Clinton).
> 
> Not someone I would hire for an executive position where you might have to make decisions that will cause some people to be upset with you. Don't think he has the personal fortitude at all. Explains why his political instincts are to justify every victim complex and promise free stuff in return. Much easier than giving people hard truths and enduring the necessary scorn.


I'm not going to defend him for stuff I have my own criticisms of. Personally, I still think he's a bitch for not attacking the Dems for rigging the primary against him. I don't like that he's played along with the Russiagate nonsense either.

You just sound a little ridiculous over there trying to hold Trump up as someone good on foreign policy while taking shots at Bernie over the lack of a tweet.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

dele said:


> I'm a single issue voter. I want weed legalized. It sounds dumb and childish, but if a democrat isn't willing to stand up and say "I will legalize weed in my first year," I will not vote for them. Not "it needs more study." Not "I'm still evolving."
> 
> If Beto can get the elites in the democrat party to get behind that message, I will vote for him. If not, I'll vote for Bernie again.


Beto is an establishment Politician. Not sure why people keep thinking he's a progressive.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

:rock1

:rockwut

That's the acrid stink of fear and loathing surrounding Tater :trump3



CamillePunk said:


> What did I make up?


You made up the online betting markets currently sitting :trump as a 2:1 favorite over Jumpin Joe Biden or Beto O'NotActuallyHispanic and a 3:1 favorite over BernieOld or Kamala Bigot :bryanlol


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> "All his time". :lol Takes like 5 seconds to write a tweet, or a few minutes to have an interview.
> 
> Seems pretty clear Sanders doesn't want to risk getting the Gabbard treatment. Just one of many instances where Bernie showed his lack of a spine (joining in on the brain-dead identity politicking with "if you're white you don't know what it's like to be poor", surrendering his stage to disrespectful BLM hijackers, endorsing Clinton).
> 
> Not someone I would hire for an executive position where you might have to make decisions that will cause some people to be upset with you. Don't think he has the personal fortitude at all. Explains why his political instincts are to justify every victim complex and promise free stuff in return. Much easier than giving people hard truths and enduring the necessary scorn.


This is some of the dumbest shit I have ever seen you spew up in your continued attempts to defend Trump. I am in no way saying that I expect anything else from you at this point. What I will say is that I at least expect you to believe what you're saying. No sane person would ever think this. At this point I'm convinced you're trolling us. That, or you really are going so far out of your way as to defend Trump, even in situations like this where it makes no logical sense.

Jesus fucking hell. Criticizing a man for not tweeting his support over a controversial decision. I have truly seen it all.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> This is some of the dumbest shit I have ever seen you spew up in your continued attempts to defend Trump. I am in no way saying that I expect anything else from you at this point. What I will say is that I at least expect you to believe what you're saying. No sane person would ever think this. At this point I'm convinced you're trolling us. That, or you really are going so far out of your way as to defend Trump, even in situations like this where it makes no logical sense.
> 
> Jesus fucking hell. Criticizing a man for not tweeting his support over a controversial decision. I have truly seen it all.


So you think it's justified not to tweet about something if it's controversial. :lol I'm sure he'd make a great president!


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> So you think it's justified not to tweet about something if it's controversial. :lol I'm sure he'd make a great president!


:kobe I'm not trying to justify anything. There's nothing to justify. He's choosing not to tweet about the Syria ordeal. That's not a crime, and it's not a bad thing. It's literally the most nothing thing you could possibly complain about. It would be like me complaining that Trump sips his tea out of a blue cup because he's a Republican and it should be red. 

A great president wouldn't even tweet in that situation. A great president would spend his free time thinking of ways he can further improve the country. If Trump did this he wouldn't be the worst President this country has seen since Buchanan.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> So you think it's justified not to tweet about something if it's controversial. :lol I'm sure he'd make a great president!


You're supposed to be feeling ashamed and submissive, did you not recognize how upset the poor man is?

Are you so heartless that you don't understand your responsibilities to his emotions?


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak (Aug 5, 2013)

Even though I think CamillePunk is being a bit silly with this thing...

I don't get how people are still supporting Bernie in 2018.... He was a total wimp in the 2016 election with the way he bowed to Hillary after the DNC screwed him. You might like his ideas and policies.... But he's still a coward.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

There are times where silence speaks volumes. This was one of those times. Sanders chose political calculation over doing what's right, just like he did when he endorsed Hillary. He lacks strength of character.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

Tater said:


> When you overuse a word, it begins to lose it's meaning.


Well if it's used in the right context then it keeps it's meaning. You seemed bothered by the fact that americans like to celebrate christmas. At least that's how I read you. Otherwise I apologize.

But to add on to your point.

"Racist"
"Sexist"
"Nazi"
"Sexual Assault"

Now _those_ words are in danger of losing their meaning. 

Also you ever notice that you hear something so often that you don't even think to question it anymore? Like "diversity is our strength". They say it all the time. Sounds great... but is it really? I mean diversity is great, but shouldn't *unity* be a country's strength? Could be the ultimate divide and conquer tactic. 

Just something to think about.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

https://www.facebook.com/Ian.Furgeson/videos/2049554871768249/

This video sums up 2018 in a nutshell. :lol

- Vic


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> There are times where silence speaks volumes. This was one of those times.


No it isn't. He's choosing not to tweet about something Trump did. This literally means nothing in regards to his character.



CamillePunk said:


> Sanders chose political calculation over doing what's right


:mj4 Why is saying Trump did something good here the right decision? Because you said so? You are talking about something that Trump did that is based on a lie. There is nothing to praise here. Do I want troops home? Yes. That isn't going to stop me or any other reasonable person from criticizing Trump for doing it at not only the wrong time but for the wrong reasons. 



CamillePunk said:


> He lacks strength of character.


:LOL

You're seriously going to say that Bernie lacks strength of character, when the guy you are spending 99% of your time on this site defending is a 70 year old man child who whines on social media whenever something doesn't go his way, shut down the government because congress wouldn't give him funding for his wall, and blames everyone else for his failures? Are you fucking serious right now?

I just fucking can't right now with you. There is no way you're being serious at this point.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Lmao that high-pitched scream fucking hell :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Vic Capri said:


> https://www.facebook.com/Ian.Furgeson/videos/2049554871768249/
> 
> This video sums up 2018 in a nutshell. :lol
> 
> - Vic


I think I hate you now

My ears and my head do anyway thanks to the splitting headache from that fabric of space-time tearing screech. Black holes ain't got nothin on that bitch


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

The whole Twitter thing blowing up really is amazing.

Trump gets criticized for using Twitter like he does. It's 'not presidential' they say. Well okay... what prominent politician ISN'T using Twitter right now? 

These future presidents and vice presidents are ALREADY living on twitter and yapping about bullshit. ALREADY declaring their opinions on every little thing. ALREADY playing cheerleader. You expect them to drop the act once they're president and they have an even larger following? 

Trump changed the game and taught these people how to market themselves. You watch when it comes time for primaries and how many of them start aping Trump's whole gimmick. I expect a lot of nicknames thrown around and a lot of brash things being said. And rest assured whoever gets through will have a huge twitter presence. You have to now.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I'm pretty hyped for the Democratic primary debates, not gonna lie. SOMEBODY is gonna try the Trump playbook.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> The whole Twitter thing blowing up really is amazing.
> 
> Trump gets criticized for using Twitter like he does. It's 'not presidential' they say. Well okay... what prominent politician ISN'T using Twitter right now?


No one cares that he uses twitter. Obama did it when he was President.

It's the matter in which he uses twitter that makes people angry. A president throwing temper tantrums and making rants every time something happens that he doesn't like is not something every prominent politician does. In fact almost no politician does it. So lets just stop with that nonsense right now.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Hey President Trump. Any love and support for our veterans? 

Nope. Doesn't make for a good photo op to be seen with what happens to our vets after they are raped and discarded by the war machine. 

Only to be replaced by another generation of young men who will also be raped and discarded at the alter if American imperialism. 



















PS. It costs more to drone bomb Abdullah's wedding party than it would to give a man a home for a year. But yeah we're bombing brown men halfway around the world in order to keep Americans safe.

Biggest lie ever.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> I'm pretty hyped for the Democratic primary debates, not gonna lie. SOMEBODY is gonna try the Trump playbook.


Jumpin Joe Biden at your service

Raised on the mean streets of Wilmington, Delaware (not mocking) 

I'd love to see him try to thread the needle between the Maoism taking over the American Left, and sanity

Watching his primary poll numbers sink and being treated with amusement, then scorn and derision, for his old white maleness. Until he flips out and unloads with a full :trump broadside 

Jumpin Joe is maybe the last Democrat in existence who was raised in a left-wing household at a time when the left wing in this country was not beholden to Clintonite triangulation, or Marxist REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEing. 

image from the future of Jumpin Joe at the February 2020 "FUCK DESE OFAY BITCHES" Democratic debate (on the right)


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Reaper said:


> Hey. Any love and support for our veterans?
> 
> Nope. Doesn't make for a good photo op to be seen with what happens to our vets after they are raped and discarded by the war machine.
> 
> Only to be replaced by another generation of young men who will also be raped and discarded at the alter if American imperialism.


We do more for illegals, economic migrants and refugees than our own people. I mean is this really all that shocking? The homeless Vet issue was brought up during the Obama Admin and nothing became of it, it was brought up after Vietnam and nobody cared. :shrug

Homeless Vets, poor whites and blacks and areas left looking like a third world shit hole don't matter to any of our Politicians nor to their horde of drooling "Go Team!" mouth breathers. :laugh: (Unless they can use it for political advantage of course!  )


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> We do more for illegals, economic migrants and refugees than our own people. I mean is this really all that shocking? The homeless Vet issue was brought up during the Obama Admin and nothing became of it, it was brought up after Vietnam and nobody cared. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> Homeless Vets, poor whites and blacks and areas left looking like a third world shit hole don't matter to any of our Politicians nor to their horde of drooling "Go Team!" mouth breathers. [emoji23] (Unless they can use it for political advantage of course!  )


Why are you putting in illegals, economic migrants and refugees in the same bracket? The US does nothing for economic migrants and refugees lol. At most they get temporary Medicaid support and for that they have to pass very specific requirements and economic migrants are not dependent on the government at all. They come here already having jobs, bring their own money or are sponsored by someone who has money.

Sure the illegals who overstay should be deported and they should be stopped from coming in but don't tell me you believe that all migrants are depending on government? What. 

If so, then where the fuck I'd my government support ... LMAO. I've paid like 4000 bucks to the government just for processing my paperwork. And they want a thousand more for my citizenship. If anything, I've paid far more to the American government then I've gotten in benefits.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> No one cares that he uses twitter. Obama did it when he was President.
> 
> It's the matter in which he uses twitter that makes people angry. *A president throwing temper tantrums and making rants every time something happens that he doesn't like is not something every prominent politician does.* In fact almost no politician does it. So lets just stop with that nonsense right now.


Uh.. yes they are. They are already ranting and complaining over every little thing.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078702409973723137

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1073434407829209089
In some cases getting even more and more brash and using more aggressive language.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076520389407313921
These aren't prominent politicians? These aren't possible candidates?


----------



## dele (Feb 21, 2005)

Miss Sally said:


> Beto is an establishment Politician. Not sure why people keep thinking he's a progressive.


Not sure why you're conflating me wanting legal weed and progressive thought. I want legal weed, and will vote accordingly.



Stupid_Smark said:


> Even though I think CamillePunk is being a bit silly with this thing...
> 
> I don't get how people are still supporting Bernie in 2018.... He was a total wimp in the 2016 election with the way he bowed to Hillary after the DNC screwed him. You might like his ideas and policies.... But he's still a coward.


Yeah, he gave up when he shouldn't have. He's also a standard bearer in the progressive cause; unfortunately he's also in his mid-70s. No way should he run. The democrats need to run someone who will win. Maybe, just maybe, if progressives/Bernie Bros show up at the fucking ballot box during primaries they'll listen.



Vic Capri said:


> https://www.facebook.com/Ian.Furgeson/videos/2049554871768249/
> 
> This video sums up 2018 in a nutshell. :lol
> 
> - Vic


I fucking rage quit 0:40 in. Well done.



Miss Sally said:


> We do more for illegals, economic migrants and refugees than our own people. I mean is this really all that shocking? The homeless Vet issue was brought up during the Obama Admin and nothing became of it, it was brought up after Vietnam and nobody cared. :shrug
> 
> Homeless Vets, poor whites and blacks and areas left looking like a third world shit hole don't matter to any of our Politicians nor to their horde of drooling "Go Team!" mouth breathers. :laugh: (Unless they can use it for political advantage of course!  )


That's a false equivalency. I agree that veterans should have subsidized housing and health care. What's so wrong that everyone can't have at least subsidized health care?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Well if it's used in the right context then it keeps it's meaning. You seemed bothered by the fact that americans like to celebrate christmas. At least that's how I read you. Otherwise I apologize.
> 
> But to add on to your point.
> 
> ...


Bothered? :lmao

Christmas is retarded for both religious and capitalistic reasons but I don't particularly give a shit one way or the other way holidays people celebrate and I'd be a complete fucking moron to believe it could ever be gotten rid of. I was trolling more than anything else. But since you wanted to jump into the conversation, okay, I can have some fun embarrassing your argument that Christmas should be a national holiday because the founders were Christian and celebrated Christmas. Then after your epic, spectacular fail, you whimpered back with... oh yeah, well you were triggered! I mean, c'mon man. Have some dignity here and stop overusing the word before it loses all punch.

BTW, I agree with you about the "diversity is strength" point. Democrats use that shit with their identity politics all the time. Man, woman, black and white, you should all be poor together.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Uh.. yes they are. They are already ranting and complaining over every little thing.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078702409973723137
> ...



It's comical you think those tweets are even remotely the same as Trump's incoherent ramblings of a madman tweets.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> It's comical you think those tweets are even remotely the same as Trump's incoherent ramblings of a madman tweets.












_*"This shutdown was completely avoidable. Now, hundreds of thousands of federal employees will go without a paycheck over the holidays as Pocahontas continues to make stupid statements and totally ignore border security. Democrats latest attempt to divide and distract us."*_

^ If Trump actually tweeted this, which isn't very far off from his usual rants, you would cry and hold it against him. Another 'incoherent rambling'.

But when Elizabeth Warren says it...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> _*"This shutdown was completely avoidable. Now, hundreds of thousands of federal employees will go without a paycheck over the holidays as Pocahontas continues to make stupid statements and totally ignore border security. Democrats latest attempt to divide and distract us."*_
> 
> ^ If Trump actually tweeted this, which isn't very far off from his usual rants, you would cry and hold it against him. Another 'incoherent rambling'.
> 
> But when Elizabeth Warren says it...



What Liz Warren said is super far off from Trump's rants, but you are right about one thing Trump would have put a racist comment in his tweet something Warren does not do. But also if Trump tweeted out something like that it would have had random capital letters and something stupid like SAD at the end of it

No politician speaks like a child like Trump does on twitter.

Also, the shutdown is Trump's fault, so he would look like an even bigger idiot if he tweeted something like that and that is why people would bash the tweet, in addition to his being racist in it like you added.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> *What Liz Warren said is super far off from Trump's rants*, but you are right about one thing Trump would have put a racist comment in his tweet something Warren does not do. But also if Trump tweeted out something like that it would have had random capital letters and something stupid like SAD at the end of it
> 
> No politician speaks like a child like Trump does on twitter.
> 
> Also, the shutdown is Trump's fault, so he would look like an even bigger idiot if he tweeted something like that and that is why people would bash the tweet, in addition to his being racist in it like you added.


Do you not realize that I copied and pasted Liz Warren's exact tweet? From the post that you directly quoted?

:lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Do you not realize that I copied and pasted Liz Warren's exact tweet? From the post that you directly quoted?
> 
> :lol


Instead of trolling learn to read.

My post makes its obvious it was a Liz Warren tweet, you even bolded me saying WHAT LIZ WARREN SAID...
so I am confused how you are claiming I did not realize it was a Liz Warren tweet, except for LIKE I SAID you changed Trump to his favorite racist name for Liz Warren.

You like Trump are not making any sense. Stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

_*Instead of building a wall, how about hiring the veterans that come back from Iraq to do the work for you. Give them a home to live and they will do a good job for you. Look at the government. They work hard as well. Sadly, this world is going further down toilet. *_


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

Beto at this time seems to me to be much like Obama: a smooth talking politician who knows how to say the right things when it comes to election time but ultimately will do very little which will make progressives happy.

Could he steal some votes from 2016 Bernie supporters? Perhaps. It's not like all of Bernie's supporters are ingrained in politics every day of their lives, in fact few people really are. Plus Beto does not have the amount of stench and obvious corruption which made Hillary all the more detestable. Having said that it is far too early to be making concrete predictions. Not everyone who is likely running has announced yet and it's looking like a huge field. I remember when the Republican race was starting and the establishment predicted either Scott Walker or Jeb Bush would be the likely nominees. They could have not been more wrong :lol. I will say if Bernie runs which is likely then he has to be an early favourite.

Speaking of Bernie, I'll give him credit for pushing the bill which got the Senate to vote on withdrawing support for the Yemen conflict. Though I do find it funny that Rand Paul was pushing for a vote on ending the US's involvement for over a year only for Bernie to come swooping in at the last minute to take all the credit. Something which progressives obviously ignore for their own benefit. Again, good on Bernie for campaigning on the right side of the issue but to call him a leader on this issue is pretty laughable.

Especially considering that he is not a principled non-interventionist and will act more like a hawk when it suits his interests. Case in point: pushing for even more sanctions against Russia to appease the establishment Dem's pushing the Russiagate conspiracy.....the same people who screwed him out of the 2016 Democratic nomination. Even Kyle Kulinski sided with Rand and called Bernie a cuck for doing that.

Neither Bernie nor Trump are principled anti-war politicians, there are very few that I trust when it comes to foreign policy.




Vic Capri said:


> https://www.facebook.com/Ian.Furgeson/videos/2049554871768249/
> 
> This video sums up 2018 in a nutshell. :lol
> 
> - Vic


I saw this on facebook earlier :lmao :HA.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is still in full force with this one.

By the way, the employee got fired after the company got wind of the video. Seems as though they disagreed with his reasoning for refusal of service.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Uh.. yes they are. They are already ranting and complaining over every little thing.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078702409973723137
> ...


How does one tweet from three different people disprove my point?


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Vic Capri said:


> https://www.facebook.com/Ian.Furgeson/videos/2049554871768249/
> 
> This video sums up 2018 in a nutshell. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Adding embed






opcorn

That was one of the better public freakouts in recent memory. Halfway through when they both start going through the transaction at the top of their lungs. :lmao

Did anyone else think the clerk called him racist in the hope that the black customer would jump in on his side? He wasn't having it. "This is about money." He just wanted to buy his shit and leave. 



dele said:


> I fucking rage quit 0:40 in. Well done.


I highly recommend finishing it. Halfway through it gets really funny.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard (Nov 20, 2012)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> How does one tweet from three different people disprove my point?


You said that there weren't any prominent politicians ranting and raving on Twitter like Trump. You are flat out wrong. Go look for yourself.

It's not one tweet. It's not like I had to browse their feeds and dig up those specific examples. They are tweeting all the time, multiple times a day. They share their opinion on everything. And they either always have a solution or they have someone to blame and demonize. 

If they were parroting Trump's talking points instead of their own, how would it be any different?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Berzerker's Beard said:


> You said that there weren't any prominent politicians ranting and raving on Twitter like Trump. You are flat out wrong. Go look for yourself.
> 
> It's not one tweet. It's not like I had to browse their feeds and dig up those specific examples. They are tweeting all the time, multiple times a day. They share their opinion on everything. And they either always have a solution or they have someone to blame and demonize.
> 
> If they were parroting Trump's talking points instead of their own, how would it be any different?


There you go misusing words again. Only one of those 3 is anywhere close to "ranting and raving", for Warren saying Trump had a "temper tantrum", and that in itself is a stretch.

The other 2 are standard political tweets that point out something they consider wrong and offer up policy positions to fix the problem. And unlike Trump, who watches FOX at 3 in the morning and impulse tweets, most of these politicians have staffers that tweet out prepared statements, so it's not like they're spending all day on Twitter "ranting and raving", as you claim.

Yeah, the Twitter accounts of politicians send out many tweets daily about what they agree with and disagree with and what they believe should be done differently. Most of the time it's not "ranting and raving". Mostly, it's common political practice. Get used to it.

You really need to work on your source game and your misuse of words.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The only similarity between those 3 tweets and trumps is that they were written in English. Not comparable in any other way especially in tone.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

So we think the silence from the left is just coincidence over them refusing to praise Trump?


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Rugreindeer said:


> So we think the silence from the left is just coincidence over them refusing to praise Trump?


What is there to praise?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> Speaking of Bernie, I'll give him credit for pushing the bill which got the Senate to vote on withdrawing support for the Yemen conflict. Though I do find it funny that Rand Paul was pushing for a vote on ending the US's involvement for over a year only for Bernie to come swooping in at the last minute to take all the credit. Something which progressives obviously ignore for their own benefit. Again, good on Bernie for campaigning on the right side of the issue but to call him a leader on this issue is pretty laughable.


Indeed, given Bernie's lack of courage and conviction on any matter not related to offering "free stuff" to people, I'm not sure why I should want to vote for him as someone who is successful in our heavily restrained and manipulated capitalist system. I don't want his "free stuff", that just means paying higher taxes to get services of lower quality than I could've gotten from the private sector. I want freer capitalism, not less capitalism. 

Anyway, it's not like he's gonna have the balls to pull us out of wars and risk the ire of the MIC-controlled media and establishment who will rake him over the coals for it. He can't even stand up and say it's right to get out of Syria when someone else does it for him, I'm supposed to believe he'd take leadership on the issue himself? Why? They'll just shout at him until he goes into the fetal position like he did with the BLM hijackers.

Bernie's not a leader, or someone who can make tough decisions and stand up to the criticism. He's good at pushing an easy message that people who are or feel disadvantaged in a rigged system will eat up. 

Perhaps the reason Bernie has been silent is that he already took the wrong, neoliberal/neocon side of this issue back in April when Trump was talking about getting out: 

Bernie Sanders: Trump is right that US can't stay in Syria forever, but Americans can't 'pull out tomorrow'

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-forever-but-americans-cant-pull-out-tomorrow

We'll leave..._eventually._ Your dove, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Draykorinee said:


> The only similarity between those 3 tweets and trumps is that they were written in English. Not comparable in any other way especially in tone.


Trumptards don't know like for like.

Also, I've always been a critic of Bernie and I will remain a critic of Bernie. He isn't the kind of "left" that the American left should rally behind. You need someone with a lot more anger in his politics than him and someone that can really tap into the despair of the American middle and working class.

Bernie is not our guy. We don't have any in America. We need someone who can actively say no to lobbyists and corporatism .. also hold them accountable for the shrinking middle class and the fact a lot of our working class needs food stamps despite working full time. 

No such person actively exists within the political left.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> He can't even stand up and say it's right to get out of Syria when someone else does it for him


Why do you keep pushing this narrative that Bernie personally thinks pulling out of Syria was the right move?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Why do you keep pushing this narrative that Bernie personally thinks pulling out of Syria was the right move?


He's the progressive icon that everyone holds up as the gold standard. The no-brainer 2020 presidential candidate for progressives. But a part of being a progressive is being anti-war. Continuing an illegal war is completely antithetical to being anti-war. Either he's a progressive and does want to get out of Syria and is just remaining silent while the warmongers attack Trump for doing the right thing, or he's not really a progressive and is just a fraud who promises free stuff for political power. I wouldn't be surprised in either case, seeing as we're talking about a bum who never worked a real job for any significant amount of time until he got into the scam known as government. 

I'm not saying anything I haven't already seen basically said by folks like Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore, I'm just more honest about it because I'm not trying to protect Bernie's image. :lol The guy is either a coward or a fraud and there's no reason to think he'd fight for any of the stuff he runs on as president once the heat is truly on him.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Your piece of shit in chief, folks.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079082188665171971


CamillePunk said:


> He's the progressive icon that everyone holds up as the gold standard. The no-brainer 2020 presidential candidate for progressives. But a part of being a progressive is being anti-war. Continuing an illegal war is completely antithetical to being anti-war. Either he's a progressive and does want to get out of Syria and is just remaining silent while the warmongers attack Trump for doing the right thing, or he's not really a progressive and is just a fraud who promises free stuff for political power. I wouldn't be surprised in either case, seeing as we're talking about a bum who never worked a real job for any significant amount of time until he got into the scam known as government.
> 
> I'm not saying anything I haven't already seen basically said by folks like Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore, I'm just more honest about it because I'm not trying to protect Bernie's image. :lol The guy is either a coward or a fraud and there's no reason to think he'd fight for any of the stuff he runs on as president once the heat is truly on him.


Trump is far worse than Bernie on foreign policy, yet you're constantly in here worshiping at the feet of the orange clown, and somehow Bernie deserves to be trashed because he didn't tweet praise over Trump announcing we'd be leaving Syria.

I hadn't heard Kyle's clip yet when this conversation started. Now I know who told you what to think. I can actually think for myself and I stand by my original "who gives a shit?" assessment. Actions speak louder than words.

Let it be repeated, I still do not trust this Syria withdrawal. The deep state has something planned. Mark my words.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Of course the deaths of children brought across the border are on the parents and the ridiculous open borders Democrats who encourage illegals to come here and get free stuff, which they absolutely do receive in my state of California. Sorry if facts upset you but Trump is completely right, and right to say it. Don't bring your child on long treks across the desert to in order to illegally enter our country. I don't know how much more clear we can make it.


Tater said:


> Trump is far worse than Bernie on foreign policy, yet *you're constantly in here worshiping at the feet of the orange clown*, and somehow Bernie deserves to be trashed because he didn't tweet praise over Trump announcing we'd be leaving Syria.
> 
> I hadn't heard Kyle's clip yet when this conversation started. *Now I know who told you what to think. I can actually think for myself* and I stand by my original "who gives a shit?" assessment. Actions speak louder than words.


Blocking you for a spell.  I have higher standards when it comes to who I converse and exchange ideas with. Fakes like Reap and people who can't think outside of their own ideology and result to personal attacks and assumptions toward anyone who disagrees with them such as yourself don't make the cut.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> Of course the deaths of children brought across the border are on the parents and the ridiculous open borders Democrats who encourage illegals to come here and get free stuff, which they absolutely do receive in my state of California. Sorry if facts upset you but Trump is completely right, and right to say it. Don't bring your child on long treks across the desert to in order to illegally enter our country. I don't know how much more clear we can make it.


I'm sure it has nothing to do with the USA's foreign policies constantly fucking up Central and South America for the past century but okay, let's blame the Democrats for political points instead of showing compassion for dying children. Weren't you the one just decrying Bernie for playing politics because he didn't praise Trump for the Syria withdrawal? Hypocrite much?



> Blocking you for a spell.  I have higher standards when it comes to who I converse and exchange ideas with. Fakes like Reap and people who can't think outside of their own ideology and result to personal attacks and assumptions toward anyone who disagrees with them such as yourself don't make the cut.


Enjoy your safe space.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

People on the left say "bernie isn't our leftist icon". The corporate media feeds everyone the lie that "he's the progressive icon" which the right wing sheeps on an internet forum and then creates a safe space for himself when people criticise some aspects of this "left wing icon". It's almost like it's a like he deliberately wants to push on here because it's the only thing that fits the narrative he specifically wants to push. 

And we're the ones who are told _what _to think and just repeat it :lol this guy is a hilarious parody of right wing anti-intellectualism.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Of course the deaths of children brought across the border are on the parents and the ridiculous open borders Democrats who encourage illegals to come here and get free stuff, which they absolutely do receive in my state of California. Sorry if facts upset you but Trump is completely right, and right to say it. Don't bring your child on long treks across the desert to in order to illegally enter our country. I don't know how much more clear we can make it. Blocking you for a spell.  I have higher standards when it comes to who I converse and exchange ideas with. Fakes like Reap and* people who can't think outside of their own ideology and result to personal attacks and assumptions toward anyone who disagrees with them* such as yourself don't make the cut.


Oh, the irony in this sentence. Projection and irony are your two biggest traits.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> He's the progressive icon that everyone holds up as the gold standard. The no-brainer 2020 presidential candidate for progressives. But a part of being a progressive is being anti-war. Continuing an illegal war is completely antithetical to being anti-war. Either he's a progressive and does want to get out of Syria and is just remaining silent while the warmongers attack Trump for doing the right thing, or he's not really a progressive and is just a fraud who promises free stuff for political power. I wouldn't be surprised in either case, seeing as we're talking about a bum who never worked a real job for any significant amount of time until he got into the scam known as government.
> 
> I'm not saying anything I haven't already seen basically said by folks like Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore, I'm just more honest about it because I'm not trying to protect Bernie's image. :lol The guy is either a coward or a fraud and there's no reason to think he'd fight for any of the stuff he runs on as president once the heat is truly on him.


Okay, next question: why does Bernie need justification for not tweeting about something Trump did? 



CamillePunk said:


> Of course the deaths of children brought across the border are on the parents and the ridiculous open borders Democrats who encourage illegals to come here and get free stuff, which they absolutely do receive in my state of California. Sorry if facts upset you


Here's a fact: Donald Trump promised a wall. Rather than find a compromise and a better way to improve border security now like any smart leader would do, he's holding out until he gets what he wants. He's had two years to get this situated. And not only has no progress been made, he's actually even farther away from accomplishing that goal now than ever before because he knows he won't get the support he needs for it. 

You can't blame Democrats for his incompetence.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

:lol

This thread always delivers. 

*Our President is indeed a monster if this what he really said. I'm beginning to see why his non-white support remains so low for recent US presidents: 
*
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...-migrant-child-deaths-federal-custody-n952976


> *Trump shirks blame for migrant child deaths in federal custody
> *
> By The Associated Press
> President Donald Trump on Saturday tried to deny that his administration bears any blame for the deaths of children detained trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, even as his Homeland Security secretary was traveling in Arizona to meet with medical staff.
> ...


Ok. So say the children could have died anyways. Let's assume that that could be true. 

*But *they still died in US Government Custody under Trump's Federal Government. 

But of course, I'm not expecting the die hard Trumptards to lay any blame on his fucking government. Even those who claim to be anti-government have learned to separate Trump as someone who is separated from the inadequacies of his own administration. Kinda like prophets. 

Like someone here famously admitted, Trump at this point could literally shoot someone at point blank range and his supporters will not budge.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

It takes a real cunt to blame the democrats for deaths that happened on the border years later. Only the lowest of the low would pull that bipartisan hackery.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Draykorinee said:


> It takes a real cunt to blame the democrats for deaths that happened on the border years later. Only the lowest of the low would pull that bipartisan hackery.


It's basically a trickle down effect.
Your president and his supporters claim that these people are monsters, low life's, etc. The psychological make up of the current federal employee is one of deep disdain and so is the national mindset.

Of course the kids were likely mistreated to some degree. Or at the very least neglected by this very anti refugee administration. 

It begins at the nationalist mindset. 

And Trump is showing his callousness to full effect. Using deaths of children to dog whistle to his constituents.

This was supposed to be a nation built on compassion and empathy but clearly that was either a lie or that empathy was only for a specific group of protected people.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Blaming the Democrats isn't the right thing to do.

The child died while under Government watch so there is plenty of blame to go around, part of the blame does fall on the parents. We put the blame on anti-vaxxers when their children suffer so don't see why this would be any different. The people working at the border really need to pay better attention to the people there so things like this don't happen.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> Blaming the Democrats isn't the right thing to do.
> 
> The child died while under Government watch so there is plenty of blame to go around, part of the blame does fall on the parents. We put the blame on anti-vaxxers when their children suffer so don't see why this would be any different. The people working at the border really need to pay better attention to the people there so things like this don't happen.


None of the blame goes to the parents GTFO with that BS. How is this example any comparison to anti-vaxxers? No deaths happened in the past 10 years until this month, and its because of Trump and his policies they died. 

And LOL at saying people working at the border really need to pay better attention to the people there so things like this don't happen, like that will ever happen when Trump openly says the people cross the boarder are subhuman basically.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> None of the blame goes to the parents GTFO with that BS. How is this example any comparison to anti-vaxxers? No deaths happened in the past 10 years until this month, and its because of Trump and his policies they died.
> 
> And LOL at saying people working at the border really need to pay better attention to the people there so things like this don't happen, like that will ever happen when Trump openly says the people cross the boarder are subhuman basically.


Stop.

Yes, part of the blame is on the parents for dragging their kids with them on a dangerous journey. It's comparable because it's parents putting their kids in danger due to their own neglect or stupidity. Of course since this is political now suddenly that neglect is forgiven, because want to place blame solely on the Government. (Most of it is on the Government fyi.)

Eh, think most people in the US view others as subhuman to some degree, else we wouldn't have our own massive poverty, homeless and poor education and even malnutrition problems. So let's not get too high and mighty, after all some here think people from the South are basically subhuman. :x


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> Stop.
> 
> Yes, part of the blame is on the parents for dragging their kids with them on a dangerous journey. It's comparable because it's parents putting their kids in danger due to their own neglect or stupidity. Of course since this is political now suddenly that neglect is forgiven, because want to place blame solely on the Government. (Most of it is on the Government fyi.)
> 
> Eh, think most people in the US view others as subhuman to some degree, else we wouldn't have our own massive poverty, homeless and poor education and even malnutrition problems. So let's not get too high and mighty, after all some here think people from the South are basically subhuman. :x


No, you stop with your nonsense

The parents wanted a better life for their kids, you can't blame them for that. The journey is not what killed those kids, it was Trump and his admin's neglect and polices. The parents have zero blame. 

Trump is the POTUS and has way more power than the average American that may also think that way. Its a joke you would even try to compare the two. 

who thinks people from the south are subhuman? LOL


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Absolving parents of blame is a nonsense.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> :lol
> 
> This thread always delivers.
> 
> ...


Trump said it was "strictly the fault of Democrats" that the kids died, but...



> The DHS says U.S. Border Patrol leadership has instituted more thorough medical screenings for migrants after the two Guatemalan children died this month in government custody.


Hmm, if they were already doing everything they should be doing, maybe they wouldn't need to do more thorough medical screenings.

Between the military, the CIA, sanctions, the drug war, etc., the USA has spent the past century screwing up everything they possibly could in Central and South America in the name of empire. To act like the only reason people are trying to escape that hell is due to the immigration policies of modern day Democrats is beyond disingenuous. There has been no talk of trying to change the USA's involvement in what helps fuck up those countries so bad to begin with. It's just a given that the USA gets to rape and pillage those countries as they please. But the people trying to escape that hell? Fuck 'em, build a giant wall to prevent them from getting away from the hell the USA helped create. And if a few dead kids happen along the way, that's just partisan ammunition to score political points.

Call me crazy but if you really don't want people trying to enter the country from the south, maybe a more effective solution would be to help change the reasons why they want to leave in the first place. Just a thought.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Draykorinee said:


> Absolving parents of blame is a nonsense.


Right because the parents should be blamed for wanting a better life for their kids and doing something about it. 

Oh the logic of WF.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> No, you stop with your nonsense
> 
> *The parents wanted a better life for their kids*, you can't blame them for that. The journey is not what killed those kids, it was Trump and his admin's neglect and polices. The parents have zero blame.
> 
> ...


And anti-vaxxers think not vaccinating is better for their children :shrug

So yeah I can partly blame parents when their choices lead to the harm and death of their children. Again I said the majority of the blame falls on the Government. I'd like a full investigation as to why this happened and why this wasn't caught. It seems like common sense that the children would be evaluated first. 

We all know who thinks people from the South are subhuman, come on now. >


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

None of you know what disease the children died of because they didn't release that info. 

This argument is a circle jerk of perceptions and assumptions. Wait till we know more. 

In any case, even if parents are antivaxx the government should be inoculating everyone anyways 

The children should be getting treatment if they're going to be detained in a government facility in a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY run by supposed compassionate people who are not racist.

So which is it you nationalidts? Are we a first world country where everyone wants to come to or are they coming to a third world country where they are treated by an incompetent government?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Reaper said:


> None of you know what disease the children died of because they didn't release that info.
> 
> This argument is a circle jerk of perceptions and assumptions. Wait till we know more.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if you're speaking to me or not but I've already said there needs to be an investigation as to why this happened. Also said children should be evaluated first. Not enough info, but still not a good look. 


We're closer to a third world country than a first world one. We're basically a whiter, richer Mexico. Corrupt Politicians, rampant gang and cartel violence, leeching off other countries to line our pockets, slave labor, people not getting paid enough for labor.. I mean I could go on. :laugh:

I really don't get why these people come here, there's not enough jobs unless you want to work for 5 dollars an hour, live in a shitty neighborhood and get fed the same lies as everyone else does about "opportunity'.

:draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> And anti-vaxxers think not vaccinating is better for their children :shrug
> 
> So yeah I can partly blame parents when their choices lead to the harm and death of their children. Again I said the majority of the blame falls on the Government. I'd like a full investigation as to why this happened and why this wasn't caught. It seems like common sense that the children would be evaluated first.
> 
> We all know who thinks people from the South are subhuman, come on now. >


If the Trump admin was not such a shit show, those kids would not be dead. 

Name the people on the forum who you claim think the people from the south are subhuman and post your evidence.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> I'm not sure if you're speaking to me or not but I've already said there needs to be an investigation as to why this happened. Also said children should be evaluated first. Not enough info, but still not a good look.
> 
> 
> We're closer to a third world country than a first world one. We're basically a whiter, richer Mexico. Corrupt Politicians, rampant gang and cartel violence, leeching off other countries to line our pockets, slave labor, people not getting paid enough for labor.. I mean I could go on. :laugh:
> ...


I gave Berserker a very lengthy response about immigration and perceptions. I should probably book mark that post because imo a lot needs to be done to debunks the ideas around American Exceptionalism and it's link to immigration. 

A lot of illegals come here because they think that they'll have better lives. Some do but some don't. The reality is going to take time to sink in.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Miss Sally said:


> I really don't get why these people come here, there's not enough jobs unless you want to work for 5 dollars an hour, live in a shitty neighborhood and get fed the same lies as everyone else does about "opportunity'.


A lot of these people are trying to escape areas run by cartels thanks to the drug war or from a country that had their government toppled to install a puppet dictator friendly to the interests of empire. Risking death crossing the border to work for 5 dollars an hour seems like a more appealing alternative to many people.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Tater said:


> A lot of these people are trying to escape areas run by cartels thanks to the drug war or from a country that had their government toppled to install a puppet dictator friendly to the interests of empire. Risking death crossing the border to work for 5 dollars an hour seems like a more appealing alternative to many people.


And then they end up living in areas that may as well be ran by them. :laugh: It's sad but funny, funny because it's so sad. 



Reaper said:


> I gave Berserker a very lengthy response about immigration and perceptions. I should probably book mark that post because imo a lot needs to be done to debunks the ideas around American Exceptionalism and it's link to immigration.
> 
> A lot of illegals come here because they think that they'll have better lives. Some do but some don't. The reality is going to take time to sink in.


I'm a Nationalist but I'm not blind, the country could certainly be better. I have no issues with American Exceptionalism if we actually met the standards. Now America does get judged and compared unfairly in many cases, we're not really comparable to Europe because we have different demographics and systems and populations and cultures around the country. 

I think America got off to a great start, the Founding Fathers had good ideas and America sprinted out the gate, yet we've tripped up and our momentum is just carrying us along the track until we eventually stop. Which seems to be getting closer and closer.

As for immigration I support it, 100% do not support illegal immigration because people with far less opportunities, education and from far worse places manage to immigrate here legally just fine and succeed. That being said 99% of illegal immigration could be stopped if we just stopped using desperate people as slave labor and stopped fucking with their countries. :shrug

I also don't support brain draining other Nations, it's like a giant merry go round of fuckery. We steal skilled workers from one nation, so they have to steal from someone else and it goes on and accomplishes nothing. Meanwhile we ignore the fact we have a population who could be skilled if we just invested in them. :laugh:


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

"This storm is one of the wettest, from the standpoint of water" wut :mj4


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Lol


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Reaper said:


> Lol


This is probably true.. He did expose the Government was illegally spying on us.. but never mentioned aliens :crying:


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Unless........Trump is an alien!!!!!


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I chuckled at that cartoon, but there can still be aliens imo. Such a thing is possible, yes it is.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak (Aug 5, 2013)

virus21 said:


> Unless........Trump is an alien!!!!!


Forget little green men, get ready for the orange men invasion. It's going to be great, they will make earth great again :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> Lol





Miss Sally said:


> This is probably true.. He did expose the Government was illegally spying on us.. but never mentioned aliens :crying:





virus21 said:


> Unless........Trump is an alien!!!!!





MrMister said:


> I chuckled at that cartoon, but there can still be aliens imo. Such a thing is possible, yes it is.





Stupid_Smark said:


> Forget little green men, get ready for the orange men invasion. It's going to be great, they will make earth great again :lol


Oddly enough, I'd just posted this in the politics thread earlier today and then the topic of aliens came up in this thread, so I'm posting it here too for relevance. It's always a good time when Jesse talks aliens!






If this guy is to be believed, they wouldn't even have told Trump. I dunno about aliens but I am certain there are operations with the government/military/intelligence community that is on a need to know basis not including the president.


----------



## ChampionWrestler (Dec 30, 2018)

Trump has been a mixed bag so far.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Damn Jesse Ventura is really old :brady6

Still alive and kicking though! :mark:


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Tater said:


> Oddly enough, I'd just posted this in the politics thread earlier today and then the topic of aliens came up in this thread, so I'm posting it here too for relevance. It's always a good time when Jesse talks aliens!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If anyone would know it's Jesse, being a former Man in Black and all.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-john-kelly-exit-interview-20181230-story.html

Jesus, read how they frame the idea of wanting to leave Afghanistan as if it's some awful idea. We've been there SEVENTEEN YEARS. When can we leave?! 

Trump should just pull us out like he's wanted to do all along. Fuck these warhawks and their useful idiots who lap up the establishment's reasons for having us be everywhere all the time.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-john-kelly-exit-interview-20181230-story.html
> 
> Jesus, read how they frame the idea of wanting to leave Afghanistan as if it's some awful idea. We've been there SEVENTEEN YEARS. When can we leave?!
> 
> Trump should just pull us out like he's wanted to do all along. Fuck these warhawks and their useful idiots who lap up the establishment's reasons for having us be everywhere all the time.


Pulling out is not a bad thing if we have a reasonable timeline, and a plan in place to make the transition as smooth as possible. For example, we are going to start winding down operations and in a year have our troops out with the responsibility of future matters fully in the hands of Afghani and allied forces. The issue is a sudden abrupt withdrawal which throws everything into chaos. 

Also, Trump criticizes Obama for sudden departure of our forces in Iraq (rightfully so). Trump basically did the same thing in Syria. Both were poorly timed and in Iraq it allowed for the formation of the Islamic State. If the remaining players are committed to finishing off ISIS off that’s one thing, but that is up in the air. Trump would own any future incidents where ISIS foot soldiers carry out attacks here.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

BruiserKC said:


> Pulling out is not a bad thing if we have a reasonable timeline, and a plan in place to make the transition as smooth as possible. For example, we are going to start winding down operations and in a year have our troops out with the responsibility of future matters fully in the hands of Afghani and allied forces. The issue is a sudden abrupt withdrawal which throws everything into chaos.
> 
> Also, Trump criticizes Obama for sudden departure of our forces in Iraq (rightfully so). Trump basically did the same thing in Syria. Both were poorly timed and in Iraq it allowed for the formation of the Islamic State. If the remaining players are committed to finishing off ISIS off that’s one thing, but that is up in the air. Trump would own any future incidents where ISIS foot soldiers carry out attacks here.


Of course the remaining players want to finish off ISIS. They've been trying to do it for years, we've just been attacking them and funding their enemies. Makes it kind of difficult! Good job US! Like creating the conditions for ISIS in the first place wasn't bad enough.

"A year" will become another ten years. Afghanistan has been an abysmal failure and there's no sign of it improving. Time to pack up and go home.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tater said:


> If this guy is to be believed, they wouldn't even have told Trump. I dunno about aliens but *I am certain there are operations with the government/military/intelligence community that is on a need to know basis not including the president*.


Plausible deniability, its to protect the president if it ever goes sideways. 




CamillePunk said:


> https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-john-kelly-exit-interview-20181230-story.html
> 
> Jesus, read how they frame the idea of wanting to leave Afghanistan as if it's some awful idea. We've been there SEVENTEEN YEARS. When can we leave?!
> 
> Trump should just pull us out like he's wanted to do all along. Fuck these warhawks and their useful idiots who lap up the establishment's reasons for having us be everywhere all the time.


LOL at you pretending Trump is not a war hawk like all the people you bash. Trump had more drone strikes in his first two years than Obama did


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you pretending Trump is not a war hawk like all the people you bash. Trump had more drone strikes in his first two years than Obama did


I don't care what Trump is, I want the US to get out of the middle east and our tax dollars to stop going towards weapons for terrorists (including Saudi Arabia) and killing people overseas. 

Partisan talking points don't interest me. Putting an end to our involvement in stupid wars does.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

BruiserKC said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-john-kelly-exit-interview-20181230-story.html
> ...


I just wish Trump senior had thought like this.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Despite the best lies of various useful idiots like Amnesty International, the lower civilian casualty ratio from drone strikes as compared to conventional bombing, even guided bombs, is incredible. For the first time in history, the combatant:civilian casualty ratio from aerial bombing in a particular conflict has a higher combatant number than civilian number. 

Useful idiots no like this.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

How many Trump threads have we made in this section? I've definitely lost count.


----------

