# Donald Trump Thread



## MrMister

Like I said in the closed thread, I've lost count how many TRUMP threads there have been.


----------



## Tater

This is the 4th main thread.

I don't expect any improvement over the previous 3.


----------



## deepelemblues

> Donald J. Trump is still President in 2019


Are you sure about that?

I have it on good authority* that gay frog General Dunford has awwkchooally been in charge of the country since the super-secret Joint Chiefs of Staff gay frog military coup of 2015. The second American Revolution - the invisible one

*This good authority may or may not be Alex Jones

Or Colonel Hunter Gathers

Don't @ me


----------



## CamillePunk

Thank God for that, as well.  We wouldn't be leaving Syria right now if Hillary, Cruz, or even Bernie were president. Likely wouldn't be winding down in Afghanistan either.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079445010821640193
Tax cuts for billionaires? Yeah, we can afford that. Pay raises for the working class? Nah, that's not fiscally sustainable. Donald Trump, the people's champ.


----------



## deepelemblues

Everyone remembers the paradisos for proletarian wages and standard of living that were the nations where the government set wages and prices 

Like the Soviet Union, or pre-Deng China, or the Current Year paradisos for workers that are Venezuela or Cuba :bryanlol


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Thank God for that, as well.  We wouldn't be leaving Syria right now if Hillary, Cruz, or even Bernie were president. Likely wouldn't be winding down in Afghanistan either.


Oh man, that totally makes up for Obamacare still being around, our debt continuing to rise, our economy heading for a recession, wages being stagnant, our chances of surviving climate change slimming by the day, and our government being shut down because our President can't come up with a better idea for border security than building a wall because he's too stupid to do so. 

But sure, keep focusing on this one narrative that not only has yet to happen, but we have yet to see what the results of this planned move is. For all we know, it could easily come back to bite us in the ass.



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079445010821640193
> Tax cuts for billionaires? Yeah, we can afford that. Pay raises for the working class? Nah, that's not fiscally sustainable. Donald Trump, the people's champ.


It's an absolute shame that Buchanan allowed the Civil War to happen (not for political reasons like what I'm about to say here, it's a shame regardless). If he didn't, I could confidently call Trump the absolute worst President this country has ever seen. And it wouldn't be arguable.


----------



## Stalingrad9

He should go full Nate Diaz and publicly say "I'm not surprised motherfuckers"


----------



## Draykorinee

This really confused me.

Looking forward to more Trump 2019 wins and fails.


----------



## deepelemblues

We already have a sterling example of why :trump is president in this thread, and why more :trumps are the immediate and medium-term future of Western politics

Glorious :trump2


----------



## CamillePunk

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Oh man, that totally makes up for Obamacare still being around, our debt continuing to rise, our economy heading for a recession, wages being stagnant, our chances of surviving climate change slimming by the day, and our government being shut down because our President can't come up with a better idea for border security than building a wall because he's too stupid to do so.
> 
> But sure, keep focusing on this one narrative that not only has yet to happen, but we have yet to see what the results of this planned move is. For all we know, it could easily come back to bite us in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an absolute shame that Buchanan allowed the Civil War to happen (not for political reasons like what I'm about to say here, it's a shame regardless). If he didn't, I could confidently call Trump the absolute worst President this country has ever seen. And it wouldn't be arguable.


Obamacare still being around is on the courts. You're blaming him for not overstepping his powers. :lol

Blaming any impending recession or stagnant wages on Trump is outrageously illegitimate. 

Climate change won't be talked about in a decade because innovative tech companies will have solved any issues already, unless the government interferes.

The wall isn't the only part of the Trump administration's border security and immigration control efforts. You're under-informed.

Trump has easily been better than Obama, Clinton, or either Bush. It's not debatable.


----------



## deepelemblues

Debate status: not

Argument status: wouldn't be 

/thread

Time for ANOTHER new :trump thread @MrMister this one's over


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Obamacare still being around is on the courts. You're blaming him for not overstepping his powers. :lol


It's not the courts job to come up with a better replacement for Obamacare. That's Trumps job, something he tried, failed, and then gave up on. Don't even try to blame someone else for his failure. 



CamillePunk said:


> Blaming any impending recession or stagnant wages on Trump is outrageously illegitimate.


No it's not. It's HIS economy. Or are you no longer pushing that narrative? 



CamillePunk said:


> Climate change won't be talked about in a decade because innovative tech companies will have solved any issues already, unless the government interferes.


Do you not understand how Climate Change works? Serious question. 



CamillePunk said:


> The wall isn't the only part of the Trump administration's border security and immigration control efforts. You're under-informed.


Never said it was, nor is that what I'm talking about. Don't change the subject. 



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has easily been better than Obama, Clinton, or either Bush. It's not debatable.


Explain one good thing Trump has done that outweighs anything Obama has done. I'll wait.


----------



## deepelemblues

The alleged negative future events of globul warmening are bullshit 

Globul warmening should be encouraged to increase the amount of arable land globally (warmth + humidity = good for agriculture, who knew?!) and to prevent the ice age that will begin within the next few thousand years at the most without human-caused globul warmening



> Do you not understand how Climate Change works? Serious question.


Liars, knaves and fools jigger temperature data. Like they did when they jiggered the data to "conclude" that there "actually" had been a statistically significant rise in the global average, mean, and median temperatures from 2000-present, despite acknowledging only months beforehand that according to the data there had been no statistically significant rise. They achieved this by altering past data to lower figures. No explanation or justification forthcoming as to why the past data was allegedly not accurate, and needed to be altered. There has not been a single case of past temperature data being altered to a higher number than the original. Past temperature data is always altered lower, to make the past look cooler, and the present warmer 

Said faked data is then fed into software programs ("computer models")

Said software programs then make predictions that don't come true

Other liars, knaves, and fools go nutso bananas over said predictions (that don't come true), demanding global central economic planning, a massive reduction in the standard of living globally, a halt to the diminishing of global poverty, idiotic suggestions that the survival of the species is at stake, etc.

Rinse and repeat

Somewhere in there is billions of dollars a year handed over to "scientists," and many millions spent on gala conferences around the world. Nice life if you can swing it

That's how "climate change works"


----------



## Draykorinee

Who the fuck is this 9 year old sounding rejoiner? Edit: he's gone already.

As to trump not being at fault for Obamacare still being here and failing his pre election pledge, have to lol at the rank stupidity of that. He failed to put an alternative forward, it is all on him. 

Anyone saying otherwise is a partisan hack.


----------



## deepelemblues

Obvious rejoiner memory holed slightly faster than expected :thumbsup


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Obamacare still being around is on the courts. You're blaming him for not overstepping his powers. :lol


Trump said he was going to repeal and replace it with something better, he has done neither. And if ACA is defeated in court, then its replaced with something much worst, so Trump is a huge failure on both counts.





CamillePunk said:


> Blaming any impending recession or stagnant wages on Trump is outrageously illegitimate.


that is all on Trump, Trump claim his tax cuts for the rich would lead to higher wages, like I said he was full of shit, and wages did not go up. And when the market keeps crashign like it has that is also on Trump because of all his polices and tax cuts for the rich. 



CamillePunk said:


> Climate change won't be talked about in a decade because innovative tech companies will have solved any issues already, unless the government interferes.


Climate change will be talked about in a decade because it will still be a problem especially if we don't try to fix it now. We already know how to help fix climate change and what does Trump do? Pretneds climate change is not real and does everything to exacerbate the problem with all his deregulations and ignoring the problem.




CamillePunk said:


> The wall isn't the only part of the Trump administration's border security and immigration control efforts. You're under-informed.



The wall is the part Trump focuses on the most and the other parts are a disaster under Trump. Look at the two deaths we just had and all the children that were lost from their parents under Trump. 



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has easily been better than Obama, Clinton, or either Bush. It's not debatable.[


This is one of the most delusional things I have ever hear you say lol


----------



## DoolieNoted

Not my President!


But then I'm not in America...


Long live Emperor Trumpus Maximus!


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> Climate change will be talked about in a decade because it will still be a problem especially if we don't try to fix it now. We already know how to help fix climate change and what does Trump do? Pretneds climate change is not real and does everything to exacerbate the problem with all his deregulations and ignoring the problem.


I don't think Trump is pretending at all. I think he truly believes Climate Change not only is not real, but is just a hoax and is trying everything he can to prevent the people who created said "hoax" from profiting off of it. He sees the changes in policy to help protect the environment as China or whoever the fuck he claims created it as a cash crab for them and a bad thing for the US. It's one of the reasons why he keeps attempting to bring Coal back despite there being almost no realistic chance of that happening. 



deepelemblues said:


> Liars, knaves and fools jigger temperature data. Like they did when they jiggered the data to "conclude" that there "actually" had been a statistically significant rise in the global average, mean, and median temperatures from 2000-present, *despite acknowledging only months beforehand that according to the data there had been no statistically significant rise. *


You wanna share that information on here so I can be convinced you're not bullshitting us? 



deepelemblues said:


> They achieved this by altering past data to lower figures. No explanation or justification forthcoming as to why the past data was allegedly not accurate, and needed to be altered. There has not been a single case of past temperature data being altered to a higher number than the original. Past temperature data is always altered lower, to make the past look cooler, and the present warmer


Again, I need sources to the shit you're spewing here.



deepelemblues said:


> Said faked data is then fed into software programs ("computer models")
> 
> Said software programs then make predictions that don't come true


Once again, I need evidence. 



deepelemblues said:


> Other liars, knaves, and fools go nutso bananas over said predictions (that don't come true), demanding global central economic planning, a massive reduction in the standard of living globally, a halt to the diminishing of global poverty, idiotic suggestions that the survival of the species is at stake, etc.
> 
> Rinse and repeat
> 
> Somewhere in there is billions of dollars a year handed over to "scientists" and spent on gala conferences around the world. Nice life if you can swing it
> 
> That's how "climate change works"


You just fed me a bunch of nonsense and gave me nothing to go off of. I can't take your word for it if you aren't giving me anything to work with.


----------



## deepelemblues

Lindsey Graham doing his best to change :trump's mind on Syria and the rumors are flying that he just might have succeeded.

Stand firm Mr. President. Fuck these Current Year Robert McNamaras.

If the United States goes to war, it should be with the aim of decimating its foes with such force that the trembling, brutalized remnants submit for fear of the alternative being total annihilation. Total war or no war. This half-assed shit that's been sucking blood and treasure for the better part of 3 generations with results few and far between can fuck right off :Out


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> Blaming any impending recession or stagnant wages on Trump is outrageously illegitimate.


He has taken credit for an economy that Obama built numerous times. That also means by default he has to take credit for a potential recession. You can't have it both ways. Presidents have always taken credit or blame for either a good or bad economy. You can't make an exception for him simply because you favor him and buy into his no personal accountability, always blame someone else mindset.


----------



## blaird

Headliner said:


> He has taken credit for an economy that Obama built numerous times. That also means by default he has to take credit for a potential recession. You can't have it both ways. Presidents have always taken credit or blame for either a good or bad economy. You can't make an exception for him simply because you favor him and buy into his no personal accountability, always blame someone else mindset.


Can't it go the other way too?? Those who say it's an Obama economy and trump has nothing to do with it or he's just riding obamas coat tails...if it's obamas economy, wouldn't it be on him if it tanks? 

Either way, it seems like for conservatives it's trumps work why the economy is so good but the democrats fault when it tanks and for the democrats it's obamas work that the economy is doing so good and trumps fault it tanks.


----------



## Headliner

blaird said:


> Can't it go the other way too?? Those who say it's an Obama economy and trump has nothing to do with it or he's just riding obamas coat tails...if it's obamas economy, wouldn't it be on him if it tanks?
> 
> Either way, it seems like for conservatives it's trumps work why the economy is so good but the democrats fault when it tanks and for the democrats it's obamas work that the economy is doing so good and trumps fault it tanks.


I don't view it that way. Because Trump has taken actions that may have an adverse effect on the economy. Therefore he has to own it.


----------



## blaird

Headliner said:


> I don't view it that way. Because Trump has taken actions that may have an adverse effect on the economy. Therefore he has to own it.


So do you think he's done anything good for the economy?? Even if it's just for right now?? Or is all the good Obama and all the bad trump?


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> So do you think he's done anything good for the economy?? Even if it's just for right now?? Or is all the good Obama and all the bad trump?


Trumps first year was still under Obama's economy, once Trump starting making policies and putting them into place it became his, and that was around the start of Trump's second term when the effects started being felt

we are not seeing the huge effects and Trumps tax cuts for the rich and like I said would happen the economy is starting to crash.


----------



## Headliner

blaird said:


> So do you think he's done anything good for the economy?? Even if it's just for right now?? Or is all the good Obama and all the bad trump?


I haven't seen anything that will be beneficial to the economy. The things that people praise seem like short term gains that can turn into long term issues.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Trumps first year was still under Obama's economy, once Trump starting making policies and putting them into place it became his, and that was around the start of Trump's second term when the effects started being felt
> 
> we are not seeing the huge effects and Trumps tax cuts for the rich and like I said would happen the economy is starting to crash.


what do you mean tax cuts for the rich? Is it the tax cut was ONLY for the rich or the rich benefited more bc of it?

And again, you and I go thru this every time, why would you neg me for asking a question?? And please come with something better than your standard "you were defending trump" douchey reason. And if that's all you can come up with then your reading comprehension is worse than I actually thought.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> what do you mean tax cuts for the rich? Is it the tax cut was ONLY for the rich or the rich benefited more bc of it?
> 
> And again, you and I go thru this every time, why would you neg me for asking a question?? And please come with something better than your standard "you were defending trump" douchey reason. And if that's all you can come up with then your reading comprehension is worse than I actually thought.


The tax cuts were only to benefit the rich at the expense of tanking the economy.

As for your other question because you make stupid trolly comments like "Those who say it's Obama economy and Trump has nothing to do with it or he's just riding Obama's coat tails...if it's Obama's economy, wouldn't it be on him if it tanks? "

How would it be Obama's fault two years into Trump's term when Trump's policies are ruining the economy? Trump was trying to take credit for the economy just a few months into his presidency before he did anything. Its a troll comment to try and blame Obama at this point.

Obama is the one who got the economy back on track if it takes a turn for the worst its all on Trump, it's stupid to claim its Obamas fault. Its just like with unemployment, Obama is the one who got it to record lows, going lower and lower. Because of Trump sure its still going down but it has slowed, and that is on Trump and if it starts to go back up again that is Trump's fault but you would make a troll comment trying to blame Obama

Obama got the economy and unemployment back on track that is why he gets most of the credit. Especially for the first 6 months to a year under Trump's first term because it takes about a year for Trump's policies and actions to feel the effects. that is why its a joke for Trump to try to take any credit for the stuff that happened early on. Trump is at the end of his 2nd year, everything is now on him, if he can sustpain the good economy and unemployment Obama gave us, or if he tanks it which is what he is doing.

Asking oh wouldn't it be Obama's fault if all the good he did goes bad because Trump undid everything Obama did, is just trolling, unless you really are that uninformed how thins work


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> The tax cuts were only to benefit the rich at the expense of tanking the economy.


So the tax cuts were put in to help the rich 1-2 years in the future bc the economy isn't tanking, yet anyways? And you know the middle class got helped bc of those cuts as well. I see extra money in my check every month bc of these cuts.


----------



## AlternateDemise

blaird said:


> Can't it go the other way too?? Those who say it's an Obama economy and trump has nothing to do with it or he's just riding obamas coat tails...if it's obamas economy, wouldn't it be on him if it tanks?


No. As the President, he should be able to tell when improvements are needed to the economy and when there are signs of trouble. If he ignores signs of a recession, that's on him.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> The tax cuts were only to benefit the rich at the expense of tanking the economy.
> 
> As for your other question because you make stupid trolly comments like "Those who say it's Obama economy and Trump has nothing to do with it or he's just riding Obama's coat tails...if it's Obama's economy, wouldn't it be on him if it tanks? "
> 
> How would it be Obama's fault two years into Trump's term when Trump's policies are ruining the economy? Trump was trying to take credit for the economy just a few months into his presidency before he did anything. Its a troll comment to try and blame Obama at this point.
> 
> Obama is the one who got the economy back on track if it takes a turn for the worst its all on Trump, it's stupid to claim its Obamas fault. Its just like with unemployment, Obama is the one who got it to record lows, going lower and lower. Because of Trump sure its still going down but it has slowed, and that is on Trump and if it starts to go back up again that is Trump's fault but you would make a troll comment trying to blame Obama


That's what you got out of what I said?


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> So the tax cuts were put in to help the rich 1-2 years in the future bc the economy isn't tanking, yet anyways? And you know the middle class got helped bc of those cuts as well. I see extra money in my check every month bc of these cuts.



The middle class did not get helped in the tax cuts. You really are that uninformed arent you. The middle class got an average of 2 cents in their paychecks each week. Do you call that help? And yes the economy is starting to tank, are you really ignoring all these crashes the stock market is having? It just had the worst December in decades.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> blaird said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean tax cuts for the rich? Is it the tax cut was ONLY for the rich or the rich benefited more bc of it?
> 
> And again, you and I go thru this every time, why would you neg me for asking a question?? And please come with something better than your standard "you were defending trump" douchey reason. And if that's all you can come up with then your reading comprehension is worse than I actually thought.
> 
> 
> 
> The tax cuts were only to benefit the rich at the expense of tanking the economy.
> 
> As for your other question because you make stupid trolly comments like "Those who say it's Obama economy and Trump has nothing to do with it or he's just riding Obama's coat tails...if it's Obama's economy, wouldn't it be on him if it tanks? "
> 
> How would it be Obama's fault two years into Trump's term when Trump's policies are ruining the economy? Trump was trying to take credit for the economy just a few months into his presidency before he did anything. Its a troll comment to try and blame Obama at this point.
> 
> Obama is the one who got the economy back on track if it takes a turn for the worst its all on Trump, it's stupid to claim its Obamas fault. Its just like with unemployment, Obama is the one who got it to record lows, going lower and lower. Because of Trump sure its still going down but it has slowed, and that is on Trump and if it starts to go back up again that is Trump's fault but you would make a troll comment trying to blame Obama
> 
> Obama got the economy and unemployment back on track that is why he gets most of the credit. Especially for the first 6 months to a year under Trump's first term because it takes about a year for Trump's policies and actions to feel the effects. that is why its a joke for Trump to try to take any credit for the stuff that happened early on. Trump is at the end of his 2nd year, everything is now on him, if he can sustpain the good economy and unemployment Obama gave us, or if he tanks it which is what he is doing.
> 
> Asking oh wouldn't it be Obama's fault if all the good he did goes bad because Trump undid everything Obama did, is just trolling, unless you really are that uninformed how thins work
Click to expand...

Okay I’m lost here. Obama INCREASED our national deficit, how in the world is that considered helping us?


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> The middle class did not get helped in the tax cuts. You really are that uninformed arent you. The middle class got an average of 2 cents in their paychecks each week. Do you call that help? And yes the economy is starting to tank, are you really ignoring all these crashes the stock market is having? It just had the worst December in decades.


I fall into our middle class and I got way more than 2 cents per week, as did everyone I work with, maybe I/we are an exception. Crashes?? Bit dramatic for a few big dips isn't it?? Maybe it did have the worse December in history but wasn't there a day that saw a 1,000 point gain?? Either way it's still higher than when trump took over...I'll worry a little if it dips below 20,000 (which is where it was at the start of trumps second year) and worry more when it dips below 16,500 which is where it was when Obama left.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Okay I’m lost here. Obama INCREASED our national deficit, how in the world is that considered helping us?




From Forbes


The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2007 (the U.S. government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (two months before Obama was elected and four months before he was sworn in) to fiscal 2009. It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and has increased in Trump’s first year in office.

Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year and in the teeth of the Recession)
Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
Fiscal 2016: $587 billion
Fiscal 2017: $666 billion (Trump’s first year of his Presidency)
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
Grads of Life BRANDVOICE
Salute to Skills: Workshops for Warriors and Hire Heroes USA Pt. 2
It is clear that the almost $1 trillion jump between fiscal 2008 and 2009 was due to the Great Recession. Tax receipts fell, expenditures rose and Obama and Congress passed the American Economy and Reinvestment Act to combat the recession.


----------



## blaird

Jokerface17 said:


> Okay I’m lost here. Obama INCREASED our national deficit, how in the world is that considered helping us?


Get out stat!! I got sucked into his vortex and wasn't even talking to him.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Jokerface17 said:


> Okay I’m lost here. Obama INCREASED our national deficit, how in the world is that considered helping us?


...it got us out of a recession, that's how.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> I fall into our middle class and I got way more than 2 cents per week, as did everyone I work with, maybe I/we are an exception. Crashes?? Bit dramatic for a few big dips isn't it?? Maybe it did have the worse December in history but wasn't there a day that saw a 1,000 point gain?? Either way it's still higher than when trump took over...I'll worry a little if it dips below 20,000 (which is where it was at the start of trumps second year) and worry more when it dips below 16,500 which is where it was when Obama left.


You do know what average means right? 

You are kidding, right? In Feb the Dow dropped 1600 points, the biggest drop ever, then in Oct it dropped over 800 points, the 3rd biggest drop ever, then it dropped 653 points on xmas eve for its worst xmas eve drop ever. Serious dude, do you ever do any research? Those are not dips when they are some of the biggest crashes ever, all in this one year and I just named three. And its only going to keep crashing.

And sure it gained 1,000 points in one day because all the CEOs were trying to buy low after the crash just days before

the volatile stock market going up and down shows how bad the economy is. Not to mention it's in a bear market.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> You do know what average means right?
> 
> You are kidding, right? In Feb the Dow dropped 1600 points, the biggest drop ever, then in Oct it dropped over 800 points, the 3rd biggest drop ever, then it dropped 653 points on xmas eve for its worst xmas eve drop ever. Serious dude, do you ever do any research? Those are not dips when they are some of the biggest crashes ever, all in this one year and I just named three. And its only going to keep crashing.
> 
> And sure it gained 1,000 points in one day because all the CEOs were trying to buy low after the crash just days before
> 
> the volatile stock market going up and down shows how bade the economy is.


Well you said it didn't help the middle class, I was telling you it did so you're wrong there. You may be right about the avg but you aren't right saying it didn't help the middle class bc it helped a lot of us. Maybe bc we are public sector not private so the trickle down doesn't effect us, though I know guys in the private sector who are singing trumps praises bc of all the money they are making, not on stocks, but they are probably considered upper class. 

Either way I got the answer to the question I asked, that this is all trumps fault and Obama has nothing to do with the negative drop the stock market is about to take. Just out of curiosity let's say something happens and the market climbs over the next year, can trump get some credit if that happens?? Just to be fair if it drops below say 18,000 I'll come back and say it's trumps fault and he should do something else.


----------



## Miss Sally

I'm not sure if printing more money and extending the credit line of our debt is really "helping".

This Syria stuff is great, so many warmongering buffoons trying to ensure we have endless War. 

There is going to be some major false flag attack soon I bet!


----------



## AlternateDemise

blaird said:


> Well you said it didn't help the middle class, I was telling you it did so you're wrong there. You may be right about the avg but you aren't right saying it didn't help the middle class bc it helped a lot of us. Maybe bc we are public sector not private so the trickle down doesn't effect us, though I know guys in the private sector who are singing trumps praises bc of all the money they are making, not on stocks, but they are probably considered upper class.


If the average middle class person didn't benefit from the tax cuts, it didn't help the middle class. You can't just say "it helped me so it helped the middle class". The tax cuts weren't meant for you specifically. 

So for example, one of the main aspects of the tax cuts (or so Trump hoped) was that wages from companies for employees would increase. That hasn't happened, not to the extent that Trump wanted. A lot of companies decided to use the money for something else. Amazon is arguably the most famous company to actually increase their wages, and you can argue that wasn't even due to the tax cuts, but rather extreme public criticism and constant employee complaints about the low pay. 



blaird said:


> Either way I got the answer to the question I asked, that this is all trumps fault and Obama has nothing to do with the negative drop the stock market is about to take. Just out of curiosity let's say something happens and the market climbs over the next year, can trump get some credit if that happens?? Just to be fair if it drops below say 18,000 I'll come back and say it's trumps fault and he should do something else.


It isn't all Trump's fault. But none of it can be blamed on Obama. He is no longer a factor in how things go from here on out with the economy. Trump has been in charge for two years by now. That's plenty of time to leave your footprint on something and Trump has chosen to do barely anything except ride the cocktails of Obama while not doing much to improve the weaknesses that are still within the system.


----------



## blaird

HollyJollyDemise said:


> If the average middle class person didn't benefit from the tax cuts, it didn't help the middle class. You can't just say "it helped me so it helped the middle class". The tax cuts weren't meant for you specifically.
> 
> So for example, one of the main aspects of the tax cuts (or so Trump hoped) was that wages from companies for employees would increase. That hasn't happened, not to the extent that Trump wanted. A lot of companies decided to use the money for something else. Amazon is arguably the most famous company to actually increase their wages, and you can argue that wasn't even due to the tax cuts, but rather extreme public criticism and constant employee complaints about the low pay.
> 
> It isn't all Trump's fault. But none of it can be blamed on Obama. He is no longer a factor in how things go from here on out with the economy. Trump has been in charge for two years by now. That's plenty of time to leave your footprint on something and Trump has chosen to do barely anything except ride the cocktails of Obama while not doing much to improve the weaknesses that are still within the system.


I get your point but you can't say it didn't help the middle class when it helped thousands of us in my state alone. That may not have been the intention or even the overall result but a lot of us were helped. 

My whole point to the original question was really mocking both sides...conservatives are always saying it's trumps economy and Obama has nothing to do with or had nothing to do with the big stock gains, employment etc... While the democrats are saying it's still bc of Obama that the economy is doing good. I get not many of y'all are saying that just what I'm seeing in my social media feeds which I get is a small percentage.

But even the tail end f your post is a bit contradictory...it's Obama economy still bc trump has done little to improve the weakness in the system, so it's trumps fault that he isn't fixing obamas flaws in the system?


----------



## deepelemblues

Since no president has ever proven capable of resisting the urge to claim undeserved credit for the economy when it is doing well, they must shoulder the blame if it is not doing well even if that is not their fault either

And if they did refrain from claiming credit for a good economy, few would allow them to dodge blame for a bad one anyway. So why not claim credit, if credit there is to claim :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Well you said it didn't help the middle class, I was telling you it did so you're wrong there. You may be right about the avg but you aren't right saying it didn't help the middle class bc it helped a lot of us. Maybe bc we are public sector not private so the trickle down doesn't effect us, though I know guys in the private sector who are singing trumps praises bc of all the money they are making, not on stocks, but they are probably considered upper class.
> 
> Either way I got the answer to the question I asked, that this is all trumps fault and Obama has nothing to do with the negative drop the stock market is about to take. Just out of curiosity let's say something happens and the market climbs over the next year, can trump get some credit if that happens?? Just to be fair if it drops below say 18,000 I'll come back and say it's trumps fault and he should do something else.


It didn't help the middle class. Just because it helped you does not mean it helped the majority of the middle class. Again the average person in the middle class got a 2 cent raise. That is NOTHING. It did not help a lot of the middle class, it helped very few not the majority. Not sure what you don't understand about this. Just admit you were wrong and move on. 

How exactly would it be Obama's fault for the drop in the stock market two years into Trumps presidency? If the economy skyrockets next year Trump gets all the credit, why wouldn't he?

lets try this again.

The economy and unemployment were doing great when Trump took over, So that is why Obama gets credit for most of Trumps first year because Trump just kept moving in the same direction under Obama's same policies riding his coattails, but once Trump starting undoing everything Obama did, and made his own policies those take about 8 months to a year to take effect thus why the economy does not start to feel the effects fo Trumps decisions until the beginning of this year. 

Also the reason why Obama gets more credit for the unemployment rate is simple. Obama is what started it going down, Trump is just continuing that trend, yet at a much slower rate.

When Obama took office unemployment was at 7.80, and it was on its way up from 4.7 since 2006. So in Obamas two years the trend continued but he slowed it down, it peaked at 9.8 in Jan 2010. When Obama left office it was at 4.8. So Obama dropped the UE rate 5 points. Trump had UE already going down and when he started it was at 4.8 and its now at 3.7 which is a 1.1 % drop still going in the same direction Obama had it going.

Trump loves to brag how under him UE is the lowest it has ever been but under Obama it was the lowest as well and it just kept doing down under Trump but again UE is slowing but to be fair that is going to happen the lower the number gets.

But you cant think for a second the reason UE is going down is more because of Trump than Obama.

But if it starts going back up before the the bad policies Trump starts to do then its all on Trump.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> It didn't help the middle class. Just because it helped you does not mean it helped the majority of the middle class. Again the average person in the middle class got a 2 cent raise. That is NOTHING. It did not help a lot of the middle class, it helped very few not the majority. Not sure what you don't understand about this. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
> 
> How exactly would it be Obama's fault for the drop in the stock market two years into Trumps presidency? If the economy skyrockets next year Trump gets all the credit, why wouldn't he?
> 
> lets try this again.
> 
> The economy and unemployment were doing great when Trump took over, So that is why Obama gets credit for most of Trumps first year because Trump just kept moving in the same direction under Obama's same policies riding his coattails, but once Trump starting undoing everything Obama did, and made his own policies those take about 8 months to a year to take effect thus why the economy does not start to feel the effects fo Trumps decisions until the beginning of this year.
> 
> Also the reason why Obama gets more credit for the unemployment rate is simple. Obama is what started it going down, Trump is just continuing that trend, yet at a much slower rate.
> 
> When Obama took office unemployment was at 7.80, and it was on its way up from 4.7 since 2006. So in Obamas two years the trend continued but he slowed it down, it peaked at 9.8 in Jan 2010. When Obama left office it was at 4.8. So Obama dropped the UE rate 5 points. Trump had UE already going down and when he started it was at 4.8 and its now at 3.7 which is a 1.1 % drop still going in the same direction Obama had it going.
> 
> Trump loves to brag how under him UE is the lowest it has ever been but under Obama it was the lowest as well and it just kept doing down under Trump but again UE is slowing but to be fair that is going to happen the lower the number gets.
> 
> But you cant think for a second the reason UE is going down is more because of Trump than Obama.
> 
> But if it starts going back up before the the bad policies Trump starts to do then its all on Trump.


TL;DR you win I'm out


----------



## deepelemblues

blaird said:


> TL;DR you win I'm out


You unsucked yourself from the vortex just before reaching event horizon :thumbsup


----------



## blaird

deepelemblues said:


> You unsucked yourself from the vortex just before reaching event horizon :thumbsup


I had to get out!!


----------



## birthday_massacre

HollyJollyDemise said:


> If the average middle class person didn't benefit from the tax cuts, it didn't help the middle class. You can't just say "it helped me so it helped the middle class". The tax cuts weren't meant for you specifically.
> 
> So for example, one of the main aspects of the tax cuts (or so Trump hoped) was that wages from companies for employees would increase. That hasn't happened, not to the extent that Trump wanted. A lot of companies decided to use the money for something else. Amazon is arguably the most famous company to actually increase their wages, and you can argue that wasn't even due to the tax cuts, but rather extreme public criticism and constant employee complaints about the low pay.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't all Trump's fault. But none of it can be blamed on Obama. He is no longer a factor in how things go from here on out with the economy. Trump has been in charge for two years by now. That's plenty of time to leave your footprint on something and Trump has chosen to do barely anything except ride the cocktails of Obama while not doing much to improve the weaknesses that are still within the system.


While Amazon increased their minimum age they took away the stocks they gave out each year as bonus's because their stocks are worth more to them in the long run so they fucked over their workers even more.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> And you wonder why you get negged
> 
> sorry if you can't deal in facts
> 
> That is always your downfall


No you moron I could have understood a neg for that, not for me asking a general question to someone else that had nothing to do with you. Just for future reference, should I expect you to respond to everything I post in this? You know out of all my negs you are responsible for all but one? And evidently you neg anyone who posts something different to your views, but im supposed to believe you're tolerant? What a load of crap!! 

And I haven't disputed any "facts" you have posted. Mostly bc your facts have nothing to do with anything I have asked about. Was it a fact when you said tax cuts didn't help middle class? No that wasn't a fact. Had you said it didn't help majority of middle class, that would have been fine, then you can't even admit you messed that up, that's why I didn't read whatever random crap you posted bc it prob had nothing to do with anything. I just wanted out your vortex which you've somehow managed to suck me back in to again.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> No you moron I could have understood a neg for that, not for me asking a general question to someone else that had nothing to do with you. Just for future reference, should I expect you to respond to everything I post in this? You know out of all my negs you are responsible for all but one? And evidently you neg anyone who posts something different to your views, but im supposed to believe you're tolerant? What a load of crap!!
> 
> And I haven't disputed any "facts" you have posted. Mostly bc your facts have nothing to do with anything I have asked about. Was it a fact when you said tax cuts didn't help middle class? No that wasn't a fact. Had you said it didn't help majority of middle class, that would have been fine, then you can't even admit you messed that up, that's why I didn't read whatever random crap you posted bc it prob had nothing to do with anything. I just wanted out your vortex which you've somehow managed to suck me back in to again.


Your trolling is getting old. 

My facts had everything to do with what you asked, I gave you a perfect example about Obama getting credit and Trump getting blame and you come back with a post saying you didnt even bother reading.

And yes its a fact the tax cuts did not help the middle class, AGAIN the average person in the middle class got a two cent raise, that means the vast majority of the middle class was not helped. Just because it helped a few does not mean it helped the middle class. Teh middle class is more people than just the few you work with. Not sure how many times this has to be an example to you.


----------



## Tater

Headliner said:


> He has taken credit for an economy that Obama built numerous times.





Headliner said:


> Trump has taken actions that may have an adverse effect on the economy.


This is all true. 

But... 

It would be a lot more difficult for Republicans to wreck the economy if Democrats actually built a solid economy when they have the chance. Namely, because if Democrats did that, Republicans wouldn't get this much power in the first place. It wasn't the Republicans running the show when the criminal bankers were given trillions in bailout money while millions got kicked out of their homes. It wasn't the Republicans who decided not to prosecute any of the criminal bankers who helped crash the economy a decade ago.

If Democrats are elected into power, fail to represent the people who put them there and represent the oligarchs who run this country instead, then yeah, they share some of the blame when a troglodyte like Trump gets elected and wrecks everything.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Your trolling is getting old.
> 
> My facts had everything to do with what you asked, I gave you a perfect example about Obama getting credit and Trump getting blame and you come back with a post saying you didnt even bother reading.
> 
> And yes its a fact the tax cuts did not help the middle class, AGAIN the average person in the middle class got a two cent raise, that means the vast majority of the middle class was not helped. Just because it helped a few does not mean it helped the middle class. Teh middle class is more people than just the few you work with. Not sure how many times this has to be an example to you.


And like I said I literally asked for none of that. My original post was asking if some people say that trump is just taking credit for obamas economy, could Obama get some blame if it tanks. Headliner said no, which was who I was talking to in the first place before you inserted yourself. Headliner and I could have had a decent convo prob without your input. 

And lastly, this is what makes me think you can't read, I literally said the tax cuts helped me and the people i work with but we MAY BE THE EXCEPTIONS. You were so eager to "show me who's boss" you went off on another one of your immature tirades and completely bypassed that. And can I get your definition of trolling, you tell me every post is a troll from me but I don't think it is or it's not intended to be, so give me your definition of trolling so I don't have to see that word on the majority of your responses. Also, are you going to respond to every post of mine in here even if not directed at you?


----------



## deepelemblues

Demon Sam Neill wants your soul, @blaird! Don't get sucked back to the event horizon! Morpheus sacrificed himself to stop the hell-spawn from entering our universe, don't make his sacrifice be in vain~


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> blaird said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you moron I could have understood a neg for that, not for me asking a general question to someone else that had nothing to do with you. Just for future reference, should I expect you to respond to everything I post in this? You know out of all my negs you are responsible for all but one? And evidently you neg anyone who posts something different to your views, but im supposed to believe you're tolerant? What a load of crap!!
> 
> And I haven't disputed any "facts" you have posted. Mostly bc your facts have nothing to do with anything I have asked about. Was it a fact when you said tax cuts didn't help middle class? No that wasn't a fact. Had you said it didn't help majority of middle class, that would have been fine, then you can't even admit you messed that up, that's why I didn't read whatever random crap you posted bc it prob had nothing to do with anything. I just wanted out your vortex which you've somehow managed to suck me back in to again.
> 
> 
> 
> Your trolling is getting old.
> 
> My facts had everything to do with what you asked, I gave you a perfect example about Obama getting credit and Trump getting blame and you come back with a post saying you didnt even bother reading.
> 
> And yes its a fact the tax cuts did not help the middle class, AGAIN the average person in the middle class got a two cent raise, that means the vast majority of the middle class was not helped. Just because it helped a few does not mean it helped the middle class. Teh middle class is more people than just the few you work with. Not sure how many times this has to be an example to you.
Click to expand...

He’s not trolling you dude. Just because there’s a difference of opinions doesn’t mean that he’s trolling you haha. Wtf


----------



## blaird

Jokerface17 said:


> He’s not trolling you dude. Just because there’s a difference of opinions doesn’t mean that he’s trolling you haha. Wtf


And I don't really have a different opinion. I asked a question to someone else and he jumps in with his "facts" (which a couple were wrong but I'm not even gonna bring that up). I dont remember saying Obama did nothing for the economy but here comes BM with "facts" I didn't ask for. This is why it's hard to talk politics with people, headliner and holly seem like they could have adult conversations. BM hits you with facts that aren't related and has to declare himself the winner like a 12 year old. It's his way or he's gonna neg everything you say.



deepelemblues said:


> Demon Sam Neill wants your soul, @blaird! Don't get sucked back to the event horizon! Morpheus sacrificed himself to stop the hell-spawn from entering our universe, don't make his sacrifice be in vain~


Evidently I took the wrong colored pill again...I don't know how he does it but I keep coming back for more.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Jokerface17 said:


> He’s not trolling you dude. Just because there’s a difference of opinions doesn’t mean that he’s trolling you haha. Wtf


His main sources of news are The Young Turks and Vox. Maybe some John Oliver sprinkled in.

Try to understand.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> He’s not trolling you dude. Just because there’s a difference of opinions doesn’t mean that he’s trolling you haha. Wtf


Calling someone a moron and saying, I didn't bother reading your reply because it was too long is trolling. 




blaird said:


> And I don't really have a different opinion. I asked a question to someone else and he jumps in with his "facts" (which a couple were wrong but I'm not even gonna bring that up). I dont remember saying Obama did nothing for the economy but here comes BM with "facts" I didn't ask for. This is why it's hard to talk politics with people, headliner and holly seem like they could have adult conversations. BM hits you with facts that aren't related and has to declare himself the winner like a 12 year old. It's his way or he's gonna neg everything you say.


None of my facts were wrong. We already went over that. You don't like talking politics with people like me, headliner and holly because you don't like facts and evidence. You make a BS claim and get show all the facts and evidence and you stll deny them like you are right now. You even have it explained to you then you say yeah i won't even bother reading that. You are the one who doesn't like having an adult conversation

what exactly facts were not related to the debate? Just inform yourself better and things like this won't happen. 





Berzerker's Beard said:


> His main sources of news are The Young Turks and Vox. Maybe some John Oliver sprinkled in.
> 
> Try to understand.


And your point is? sorry you dont like to deal in facts. Then again you defend Trump who had lied over 8,000 times in year years and watch fox news


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Calling someone a moron and saying, I didn't bother reading your reply because it was too long is trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of my facts were wrong. We already went over that. You don't like talking politics with people like me, headliner and holly because you don't like facts and evidence. You make a BS claim and get show all the facts and evidence and you stll deny them like you are right now. You even have it explained to you then you say yeah i won't even bother reading that. You are the one who doesn't like having an adult conversation
> 
> what exactly facts were not related to the debate? Just inform yourself better and things like this won't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is? sorry you dont like to deal in facts. Then again you defend Trump who had lied over 8,000 times in year years and watch fox news


It's sad I have to it this way but you bypass so much...

Yes two of your facts were wrong, tax cuts helped the middle class, maybe not he majority but some yes, here I am, a middle class person telling you I got helped as well as people I work with, do you deny this? (Wont answer this I bet)
Secondly, the market has never closed down 1600, there was a 1600 drop but rebounded around 500 points that afternoon to close down around 1170...this is all prob semantics though. I also found the definition of "stock market crash" and the big drops/dips don't fit into but yet you keep calling it a crash, again prob semantics. 

What bs claim did I make? I remember asking questions to headliner that he answered, and I clearly stated I would like to debate with headliner and holly I don't like to debate with you. You makeup too much crap that has nothing to do with anything. I didn't need to see what good Obama had done bc I didn't ask what good Obama had done or claimed he had done nothing good. 

What kind of person keeps track with how many times the president lies? So immature. I love having adult conversations but I'm not sure you're an adult, and I'm not the only one. If you go back and look at all our convos/debates, it all has to be you're way, if not neg and keep arguing. I was willing to meet in the middle in our gun debate but that wasn't good enough, has to go all your way no matter how nutso that is. 

I literally asked if Obama could be blamed if he's still getting credit for the economy. Holly and headliner offered reasonable answers, you hit me with all the stuff Obama did, the fact that you think that relates to anything I asked or didn't ask should be surprising but seems to be par for u.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> It's sad I have to it this way but you bypass so much...
> 
> Yes two of your facts were wrong, tax cuts helped the middle class, maybe not he majority but some yes, here I am, a middle class person telling you I got helped as well as people I work with, do you deny this? (Wont answer this I bet)
> Secondly, the market has never closed down 1600, there was a 1600 drop but rebounded around 500 points that afternoon to close down around 1170...this is all prob semantics though. I also found the definition of "stock market crash" and the big drops/dips don't fit into but yet you keep calling it a crash, again prob semantics.
> 
> What bs claim did I make? I remember asking questions to headliner that he answered, and I clearly stated I would like to debate with headliner and holly I don't like to debate with you. You makeup too much crap that has nothing to do with anything. I didn't need to see what good Obama had done bc I didn't ask what good Obama had done or claimed he had done nothing good.
> 
> What kind of person keeps track with how many times the president lies? So immature. I love having adult conversations but I'm not sure you're an adult, and I'm not the only one. If you go back and look at all our convos/debates, it all has to be you're way, if not neg and keep arguing. I was willing to meet in the middle in our gun debate but that wasn't good enough, has to go all your way no matter how nutso that is.
> 
> I literally asked if Obama could be blamed if he's still getting credit for the economy. Holly and headliner offered reasonable answers, you hit me with all the stuff Obama did, the fact that you think that relates to anything I asked or didn't ask should be surprising but seems to be par for u.



Why do you keep harping on a broken record, no the tax cuts did not help the middle class. Just because it helped YOU and a few people you know does not mean it helped the middle CLASS. Using your logic, if the tax cuts gave just one person in the middle class a raise that means it helped the middle class, that is not how it works. I am not denying you got a raise at all, I freely believe you, but AGAIN just because YOU and some people you work with got a raise does not mean the tax cuts helped teh middle class. If something does not help 99% of the middle class, you cant pretend it helped. 

For example, if you are building a house, and you build all of it with your friends, then I come along and just nail in the last flood board in the kitchen, are you really going to claim oh I helped you build the house?

using your logic, oh I did. That is not how it works

A drop is a drop but if you want to say it didn't end there that is a fair point. But its still showing how volatile the market is. Also, I keep saying we are headed toward a crash. I also said we are in a bear market which is true.

What exactly did I make up that had nothing to do with the conversation? You asked a question and I gave you an answer which directly answered your question. You just didn't like the answer you got. 

And here we go ago with BS like this, "but I'm not sure you're an adult" you wonder why you get negged lol.

How is it immature to know how many times the president has lied. Guess you don't like to fact check and there is the problem.

I deal in facts and logic, something you don't seem to like. Its funny complain about getting negged but make comments like this "I'm not sure you're an adult"

I just think its funny with all the trolling the Trump supports do on here like Berzerker's Beard and deepelemblues you try to call me out lol. But that's right they have your same opinion so its ok when they do it.

if you don't think all the info I gave you relates to what you were asking, then you are just not paying attention.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He’s not trolling you dude. Just because there’s a difference of opinions doesn’t mean that he’s trolling you haha. Wtf
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone a moron and saying, I didn't bother reading your reply because it was too long is trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blaird said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't really have a different opinion. I asked a question to someone else and he jumps in with his "facts" (which a couple were wrong but I'm not even gonna bring that up). I dont remember saying Obama did nothing for the economy but here comes BM with "facts" I didn't ask for. This is why it's hard to talk politics with people, headliner and holly seem like they could have adult conversations. BM hits you with facts that aren't related and has to declare himself the winner like a 12 year old. It's his way or he's gonna neg everything you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of my facts were wrong. We already went over that. You don't like talking politics with people like me, headliner and holly because you don't like facts and evidence. You make a BS claim and get show all the facts and evidence and you stll deny them like you are right now. You even have it explained to you then you say yeah i won't even bother reading that. You are the one who doesn't like having an adult conversation
> 
> what exactly facts were not related to the debate? Just inform yourself better and things like this won't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> His main sources of news are The Young Turks and Vox. Maybe some John Oliver sprinkled in.
> 
> Try to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point is? sorry you dont like to deal in facts. Then again you defend Trump who had lied over 8,000 times in year years and watch fox news
Click to expand...

Since we’re dealing in facts, where are the facts that trump has lied 8,000 times? Can I neg rep you if you can’t find proof of 8,000 lies?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Since we’re dealing in facts, where are the facts that trump has lied 8,000 times? Can I neg rep you if you can’t find proof of 8,000 lies?


its actually over 6,000 and 8,000 was just hyperbole. but by the time that article that quoted that, Trump could be up to 8,000


----------



## AlternateDemise

blaird said:


> What kind of person keeps track with how many times the president lies? So immature. I love having adult conversations but I'm not sure you're an adult, and I'm not the only one.


I'm not BM's biggest fan, but...

1. He's not keeping track of this. A simple google search will tell you how many lies Trump has made so far as President. It's not an uncommon thing either. This has been the standard for quite some time now, and it should be. You expect the person who is the President to be honest and truthful to you, because he is the one trying to create these policies to make your life better. If he's lying, we have every right to call him out for it, and the people who vote for him have a right to know whether or not the person they picked to lead the office is being honest with them or not. 

2. You claim you're the adult here and he's not, and yet you are the one who called him a moron and admitted that you didn't bother reading his posts at one point. The only one coming off as immature here is you my friend. I suggest you stop dodging his questions and trying to win off of laughable shit like "it helped me out so you're wrong" (seriously man, it doesn't work like that. The Kennedy Family thrived during the Great Depression, it doesn't change the fact that it still fucked up America). 

If you want to act like the adult in this conversation, stop trying to find ways to back your way out of the argument and shit talk him to other posters. All you're doing here is baiting him and giving him a reason to want to keep going.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we’re dealing in facts, where are the facts that trump has lied 8,000 times? Can I neg rep you if you can’t find proof of 8,000 lies?
> 
> 
> 
> its actually over 6,000 and 8,000 was just hyperbole. but by the time that article that quoted that, Trump could be up to 8,000
Click to expand...

I thought we were dealing with facts? Obama brought the economy down lower than any other president ever, Trump has brought it back up to a respectable number. What has he lied about? And where are the facts BM?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> I thought we were dealing with facts? Obama brought the economy down lower than any other president ever, Trump has brought it back up to a respectable number. What has he lied about? And where are the facts BM?


Obama brought us out of Bush's recession. He had to fix how badly Bush fucked up the economy.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Why do you keep harping on a broken record, no the tax cuts did not help the middle class. Just because it helped YOU and a few people you know does not mean it helped the middle CLASS. Using your logic, if the tax cuts gave just one person in the middle class a raise that means it helped the middle class, that is not how it works. I am not denying you got a raise at all, I freely believe you, but AGAIN just because YOU and some people you work with got a raise does not mean the tax cuts helped teh middle class. If something does not help 99% of the middle class, you cant pretend it helped.
> 
> For example, if you are building a house, and you build all of it with your friends, then I come along and just nail in the last flood board in the kitchen, are you really going to claim oh I helped you build the house?
> 
> using your logic, oh I did. That is not how it works
> 
> A drop is a drop but if you want to say it didn't end there that is a fair point. But its still showing how volatile the market is. Also, I keep saying we are headed toward a crash. I also said we are in a bear market which is true.
> 
> What exactly did I make up that had nothing to do with the conversation? You asked a question and I gave you an answer which directly answered your question. You just didn't like the answer you got.
> 
> And here we go ago with BS like this, "but I'm not sure you're an adult" you wonder why you get negged lol.
> 
> How is it immature to know how many times the president has lied. Guess you don't like to fact check and there is the problem.
> 
> I deal in facts and logic, something you don't seem to like. Its funny complain about getting negged but make comments like this "I'm not sure you're an adult"
> 
> I just think its funny with all the trolling the Trump supports do on here like Berzerker's Beard and deepelemblues you try to call me out lol. But that's right they have your same opinion so its ok when they do it.
> 
> if you don't think all the info I gave you relates to what you were asking, then you are just not paying attention.


I said the tax cuts helped thousands of us that's more than just a few, plus I said we work in the public sector and it seems the private sector is the one not benefitting and yes I get there's more working in the private sector but a lot are public workers seeing a cut. Anyway let's let this one go.

Explain to me how the info on what Obama has done has anything to do with "if people are saying it's still obamas economy can he get blame too". That's literally a yes or no answer which Headliner and holly offered reasonable answers to, telling what Obama did years ago has nothing to do with if he can be assigned blame, you say you deal in logic but I don't think you do. 

Again with the trolling word, I'm not trolling anyone. From here on out, I need to you to confidently know nothing I post is a troll effort so please stop using that. It's like you can't make a logical connection so u say troll. I feel like I need to scream at you so you hear all of it instead of seeing one thing and jumping on that instead of the big picture, this is why I question your reading comprehension and age, which again I'm not the only one who thinks that. 

Keeping up with presidents lies is immature af and has nothing to do with fact checking. You say he's lied 8,000 times, what kind of hack ass website keeps up with everything he says. You think Obama was honest 100% of the time and never told a lie? I don't but I don't need to know how many lies he told. You say 8,000 but prob couldn't list ten without googling. 

Again I'm not trolling you dude. I have heard from some on the left (I even said not on here) that trump has nothing to do with the economy it's all obamas still, so I thought it was reasonable to ask if it tanks, since it's obamas economy, could he get some blame...it's simple. They said no trump should have seen it was going to tank and done something about it, which is all I needed for An answer, I keep repeating myself in the most simple terms and yet you still don't get it.

You and I aren't far from goin down in WF hall of shame for worst arguments in WF history, from now on if I have something to say or ask you I will do it directly and do my best not to butt in when you are talking to someone else, please do the same for me and maybe we can stay out the hall of shame.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were dealing with facts? Obama brought the economy down lower than any other president ever, Trump has brought it back up to a respectable number. What has he lied about? And where are the facts BM?
> 
> 
> 
> Obama brought us out of Bush's recession. He had to fix how badly Bush fucked up the economy.
Click to expand...

Fake news. 

How did bush fuck it up so bad that Obama didn’t have it fixed well into his 2nd term? 
There’s a difference in fact and opinion. I suggest you learn the difference.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Fake news.
> 
> How did bush fuck it up so bad that Obama didn’t have it fixed well into his 2nd term?
> There’s a difference in fact and opinion. I suggest you learn the difference.


Your question does not even make any sense.


----------



## Headliner

> I thought we were dealing with facts? Obama brought the economy down lower than any other president ever, Trump has brought it back up to a respectable number. What has he lied about? And where are the facts BM?


You might want to research then re-adjust this post.


----------



## Banez

You peeps can't have one day in a year where you dont debate about politics? :done


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> I said the tax cuts helped thousands of us that's more than just a few, plus I said we work in the public sector and it seems the private sector is the one not benefitting and yes I get there's more working in the private sector but a lot are public workers seeing a cut. Anyway let's let this one go.
> 
> Explain to me how the info on what Obama has done has anything to do with "if people are saying it's still obamas economy can he get blame too". That's literally a yes or no answer which Headliner and holly offered reasonable answers to, telling what Obama did years ago has nothing to do with if he can be assigned blame, you say you deal in logic but I don't think you do.
> 
> Again with the trolling word, I'm not trolling anyone. From here on out, I need to you to confidently know nothing I post is a troll effort so please stop using that. It's like you can't make a logical connection so u say troll. I feel like I need to scream at you so you hear all of it instead of seeing one thing and jumping on that instead of the big picture, this is why I question your reading comprehension and age, which again I'm not the only one who thinks that.
> 
> Keeping up with presidents lies is immature af and has nothing to do with fact checking. You say he's lied 8,000 times, what kind of hack ass website keeps up with everything he says. You think Obama was honest 100% of the time and never told a lie? I don't but I don't need to know how many lies he told. You say 8,000 but prob couldn't list ten without googling.
> 
> Again I'm not trolling you dude. I have heard from some on the left (I even said not on here) that trump has nothing to do with the economy it's all obamas still, so I thought it was reasonable to ask if it tanks, since it's obamas economy, could he get some blame...it's simple. They said no trump should have seen it was going to tank and done something about it, which is all I needed for An answer, I keep repeating myself in the most simple terms and yet you still don't get it.
> 
> You and I aren't far from goin down in WF hall of shame for worst arguments in WF history, from now on if I have something to say or ask you I will do it directly and do my best not to butt in when you are talking to someone else, please do the same for me and maybe we can stay out the hall of shame.



Why are you still on this middle class and tax cuts thing? You claim it helped thousands of you, UM yeah that is just a few when there are tens of millions of people in the middle class.

It's not a yes or no question, about if Obama can get the blame. You have to explain why. That is how things work in a debate. Plus if someone said no, he can, your next logical question would be why would it not?

You are trolling when you keep saying shit like, oh I didn't bother reading your reply, or the shit you keep saying "why I question your reading comprehension and age, which again I'm not the only one who thinks that. " That is trolling. Stick to the debate.

Keeping up with how much the president lies is doing your due diligence, its how you stay informed. Of course, Obama did not tell the truth 100% of the time but no one lies more than Trump and it's not even close.

Its just weird you are trying to defend Trumps lies by claiming its immature to keep track of how much he lies. you should care how much the POTUS lies. I find it funny you claim its a hack website that fact checks what the president lies about. But that just reaffirms my points, you don't care about facts bc you just admitted its immature to keep track of facts

I have already been over the whole economy thing go back and read it this time.

This is a debate forum, I will chime in when I want if you don't like it, then use the ignore button.


----------



## blaird

HollyJollyDemise said:


> I'm not BM's biggest fan, but...
> 
> 1. He's not keeping track of this. A simple google search will tell you how many lies Trump has made so far as President. It's not an uncommon thing either. This has been the standard for quite some time now, and it should be. You expect the person who is the President to be honest and truthful to you, because he is the one trying to create these policies to make your life better. If he's lying, we have every right to call him out for it, and the people who vote for him have a right to know whether or not the person they picked to lead the office is being honest with them or not.
> 
> 2. You claim you're the adult here and he's not, and yet you are the one who called him a moron and admitted that you didn't bother reading his posts at one point. The only one coming off as immature here is you my friend. I suggest you stop dodging his questions and trying to win off of laughable shit like "it helped me out so you're wrong" (seriously man, it doesn't work like that. The Kennedy Family thrived during the Great Depression, it doesn't change the fact that it still fucked up America).
> 
> If you want to act like the adult in this conversation, stop trying to find ways to back your way out of the argument and shit talk him to other posters. All you're doing here is baiting him and giving him a reason to want to keep going.


I prob shouldn't have called him a moron so will apologize for that. As for not reading, what he posted had nothing to do with what I was getting at, there was no point. And nowhere in my op did I post or quote or name BM so him getting involved was unnecessary. What questions has he asked that I dodged? And laughable, so he makes a false statement and I call him out on it, even saying we are prob the exception, which it appears we are , and it's laughable??

As for the first part, looking up how many times the president has lied is still immature. I don't know why the number is important. If something seems off, I look it up, I don't take what trump says as gospel but it seems he's getting way more flack than Obama did. Yes I did see negative stuff towards Obama but not nearly like I do towards trump, maybe it's bc it's cool now to bash the president on social media and posts are more frequently now than a few years ago.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> I prob shouldn't have called him a moron so will apologize for that. As for not reading, what he posted had nothing to do with what I was getting at, there was no point. And nowhere in my op did I post or quote or name BM so him getting involved was unnecessary. What questions has he asked that I dodged? And laughable, so he makes a false statement and I call him out on it, even saying we are prob the exception, which it appears we are , and it's laughable??
> 
> As for the first part, looking up how many times the president has lied is still immature. I don't know why the number is important. If something seems off, I look it up, I don't take what trump says as gospel but it seems he's getting way more flack than Obama did. Yes I did see negative stuff towards Obama but not nearly like I do towards trump, maybe it's bc it's cool now to bash the president on social media and posts are more frequently now than a few years ago.


It had everything to do with what you were asking. It was a perfect analogy. You keep claiming I made a false statement when I didn't. What I said was 100% fact. Its just weird you keep trying to deny it

Trump is getting more flack than Obama because almost everything out of Trump's mouth is a lie. Also, how is the number of times Trump lied not important? If you know Trump lies 75% of the time, you don't think that is important? 

You don't think a president should be called out for his lies?

What things that Trump has been called out for, are unfair?


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Why are you still on this middle class and tax cuts thing? You claim it helped thousands of you, UM yeah that is just a few when there are tens of millions of people in the middle class.
> 
> It's not a yes or no question, about if Obama can get the blame. You have to explain why. That is how things work in a debate. Plus if someone said no, he can, your next logical question would be why would it not?
> 
> You are trolling when you keep saying shit like, oh I didn't bother reading your reply, or the shit you keep saying "why I question your reading comprehension and age, which again I'm not the only one who thinks that. " That is trolling. Stick to the debate.
> 
> Keeping up with how much the president lies is doing your due diligence, its how you stay informed. Of course, Obama did not tell the truth 100% of the time but no one lies more than Trump and it's not even close.
> 
> Its just weird you are trying to defend Trumps lies by claiming its immature to keep track of how much he lies. you should care how much the POTUS lies. I find it funny you claim its a hack website that fact checks what the president lies about. But that just reaffirms my points, you don't care about facts bc you just admitted its immature to keep track of facts
> 
> I have already been over the whole economy thing go back and read it this time.
> 
> This is a debate forum, I will chime in when I want if you don't like it, then use the ignore button.


Fine I'll stay in your vortex and we can keep saying the same thing over and over aggravating other posters....

Again not trolling with the reading comprehension comments, I really think you struggle with it, there have been MULTIPLE times where you attack the first sentence instead of reading the whole paragraph and going from there. It wouldn't have been that hard for you to read where I put we may be the exception and just going "yea y'all prob are but it really didn't help overall"...would you agree to that bc I can.

And tell me again since you haven't (even though I've asked, back to reading comprehension) what obamas old policies have to do with the economy now? I have seen it's trumps economy since he's done away with obamas policies (so no Obama wouldn't get any blame here), and I've seen seen trump is riding obamas coat tails and it's obamas economy (which would slide some blame to Obama). That's all I was asking!! Holly and headliner answered perfectly, for some reason you had to jump in too.

So if it's such a big deal about presidents lying, go dig up where you were pissed about Obama and his lies. This is a double standard. No I don't want trump to lie but it also depends on the lie. I'm sure you care about every little detail but if he mixes up years on a policy or says something goofy, I don't care, although I wish he wouldn't and would stop patting himself on the back all the time,when it's a major lie that can't stay off the news, then I'll care.


----------



## AlternateDemise

blaird said:


> I prob shouldn't have called him a moron so will apologize for that. As for not reading, what he posted had nothing to do with what I was getting at, there was no point. And nowhere in my op did I post or quote or name BM so him getting involved was unnecessary. What questions has he asked that I dodged? And laughable, so he makes a false statement and I call him out on it, even saying we are prob the exception, which it appears we are , and it's laughable??


This is a public forum. No one is exempt from being involved in a conversation. There is no "I wasn't talking to you" deal going on here. If you ask a question, you can't complain when someone you weren't talking to comes in and answers your question. 

And if you didn't read the post, then how do you know it had nothing to do with what you were talking about? 

He didn't make a false statement. So far, the tax cuts have done little to help the middle class overall. This can't be disputed. 



blaird said:


> As for the first part, looking up how many times the president has lied is still immature. I don't know why the number is important. If something seems off, I look it up, I don't take what trump says as gospel but it seems he's getting way more flack than Obama did. Yes I did see negative stuff towards Obama but not nearly like I do towards trump, maybe it's bc it's cool now to bash the president on social media and posts are more frequently now than a few years ago.


Again, how is it immature? Lying is not okay, especially about how well the country is doing and/or your reasoning for doing something. 

He is getting way more flack than Obama, and rightfully so. Obama had more working against him than Trump did, and he still got more accomplished in his first two years than Trump has in his first two. Hell by the end of his first year, Obama had already put an end to the recession and made it easier for people to go to college. So far Trump has been a significantly worse President than Obama and this can't really be argued. Trump has done a lot of the exact things he criticized Obama for doing, has failed on most of his promises, he's set America up for even worse conditions going forward. This was not the case when Obama left office.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Fine I'll stay in your vortex and we can keep saying the same thing over and over aggravating other posters....


yes please try to stay in the facts vortex.



blaird said:


> And tell me again since you haven't (even though I've asked, back to reading comprehension) what obamas old policies have to do with the economy now?


You seem to be the one with the reading comprehension problem.

You just got done saying


blaird said:


> Explain to me how the info on what Obama has done has anything to do with "if people are saying it's still obamas economy can he get blame too". That's literally a yes or no answer which Headliner and holly offered reasonable answers to, telling what Obama did years ago has nothing to do with if he can be assigned blame, you say you deal in logic but I don't think you do.


and now you are claiming you asked for that info but never gave it? And you wonder why I call you out for trolling.




blaird said:


> I have seen it's trumps economy since he's done away with obamas policies (so no Obama wouldn't get any blame here), and I've seen seen trump is riding obamas coat tails and it's obamas economy (which would slide some blame to Obama). That's all I was asking!! Holly and headliner answered perfectly, for some reason you had to jump in too.



I have already answered everything you are talking and spoke to these points.







blaird said:


> So if it's such a big deal about presidents lying, go dig up where you were pissed about Obama and his lies. This is a double standard. No I don't want trump to lie but it also depends on the lie. I'm sure you care about every little detail but if he mixes up years on a policy or says something goofy, I don't care, although I wish he wouldn't and would stop patting himself on the back all the time,when it's a major lie that can't stay off the news, then I'll care.



I bitched about Obama all the time and what a fraud he was. I didn't even vote for Obama in his re-election. It's not a double standard. But nice strawman attempt.

Its amazing the lengths you go to to defend Trumps lies. No one gives a shit about him getting a date wrong or anything like that, he lies about way more important stuff than that.

Like I said, point out to me something Trump got shit for that was undeserved. You must have a huge list of them if you think most of these lies people get him for are petty.


----------



## blaird

HollyJollyDemise said:


> This is a public forum. No one is exempt from being involved in a conversation. There is no "I wasn't talking to you" deal going on here. If you ask a question, you can't complain when someone you weren't talking to comes in and answers your question.
> 
> And if you didn't read the post, then how do you know it had nothing to do with what you were talking about?
> 
> He didn't make a false statement. So far, the tax cuts have done little to help the middle class overall. This can't be disputed.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how is it immature? Lying is not okay, especially about how well the country is doing and/or your reasoning for doing something.
> 
> He is getting way more flack than Obama, and rightfully so. Obama had more working against him than Trump did, and he still got more accomplished in his first two years than Trump has in his first two. Hell by the end of his first year, Obama had already put an end to the recession and made it easier for people to go to college. So far Trump has been a significantly worse President than Obama and this can't really be argued. Trump has done a lot of the exact things he criticized Obama for doing, has failed on most of his promises, he's set America up for even worse conditions going forward. This was not the case when Obama left office.


I quoted headliner when asking a question, it wasn't a question in general. I didn't even ask you for input but your answer answered my question so I went with it, but fair enough, from now on I'll just go with someone jumping in when not quoted or asked.

As for the quote I didn't read, I read the first couple lines and then skimmed the rest, actually read it way later after I told him I didn't read it, to make sure, it had nothing to do with what I asked.

Your line on the tax cuts makes way more sense to me than "tax cuts didn't help the middle class", like I've said its prob semantics but it did help a small percentage and like I also said we are prob the exception. Either which way, I acknowledge that it has not helped the majority of the middle class, that's also been said when I said we work public not private sector so we don't have to deal with trickle down and there's more workers in private vs public, and by public I mean state or county, I'm not 100% onfederal level how those cuts worked.

As for lying, does there really need to be a count? And is this count accurate? Do these people listen to everything he says all day everyday?? No I wish trump wouldn't lie but some don't bother me since they don't effect anything, maybe this is the wrong approach. Ex.. He said something along the lines of democrats wanna bring caravan after caravan and give them free healthcare,medication, food, etc...I get this isn't true, I also think things like this would be better left unsaid, but it doesn't really effect anything. I just think it's dumb he'd say it. Obama told some, but they don't really have an effect so it doesn't really bother me.



birthday_massacre said:


> yes please try to stay in the facts vortex.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be the one with the reading comprehension problem.
> 
> You just got done saying
> 
> and now you are claiming you asked for that info but never gave it? And you wonder why I call you out for trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already answered everything you are talking and spoke to these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bitched about Obama all the time and what a fraud he was. I didn't even vote for Obama in his re-election. It's not a double standard. But nice strawman attempt.
> 
> Its amazing the lengths you go to to defend Trumps lies. No one gives a shit about him getting a date wrong or anything like that, he lies about way more important stuff than that.
> 
> Like I said, point out to me something Trump got shit for that was undeserved. You must have a huge list of them if you think most of these lies people get him for are petty.


Haha facts vortex...funny. The vortex I'm stuck in is repeating myself over and over bc you can't understand the original point. We are now debating trumps lies when this started off as an economic question about Obama/trump policies but some how we are here. 

My original question FOR THE 100TH TIME, was directed at headliner when he said something along the lines of trump is still using obamas policies, so I asked if Obama could get some blame. Obamas policies from ten years ago have nothing to do with the current economy. If they do have anything to do with it, then he would share some blame for his policies doing this just like it would be trumps fault for not changing those policies or for trumps policies driving us here. 


Again you quoted pretty much the same question I asked AND STILL HAVENT ANSWERED IT!! I'm not asking what obamas policies were I was asking what they had to do with the question I asked, the answer is nothing, but yes your comprehension skills are top notch. 

I'm not going to great lengths to defend trumps lies, all I'm saying is most of them have zero effect on the US, or at least I don't think they do. I gave an example in previous post


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Haha facts vortex...funny. The vortex I'm stuck in is repeating myself over and over bc you can't understand the original point. We are now debating trumps lies when this started off as an economic question about Obama/trump policies but some how we are here.
> 
> My original question FOR THE 100TH TIME, was directed at headliner when he said something along the lines of trump is still using obamas policies, so I asked if Obama could get some blame. Obamas policies from ten years ago have nothing to do with the current economy. If they do have anything to do with it, then he would share some blame for his policies doing this just like it would be trumps fault for not changing those policies or for trumps policies driving us here.
> 
> 
> Again you quoted pretty much the same question I asked AND STILL HAVENT ANSWERED IT!! I'm not asking what obamas policies were I was asking what they had to do with the question I asked, the answer is nothing, but yes your comprehension skills are top notch.
> 
> I'm not going to great lengths to defend trumps lies, all I'm saying is most of them have zero effect on the US, or at least I don't think they do. I gave an example in previous post


Your questions have already been answered, yet you act like I am the one with the comprehension problem. 

Trumps lies has tons of effect on the US, you thinking that they don't show how uninformed you are.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Your questions have already been answered, yet you act like I am the one with the comprehension problem.
> 
> Trumps lies has tons of effect on the US, you thinking that they don't show how uninformed you are.


K


----------



## Tater

@MrMister; This is your fault. We had a very good thread where people discussed things calmly and rationally and you had to go and fuck it all up by opening this thread. Nice going.


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> @MrMister; This is your fault. We had a very good thread where people discussed things calmly and rationally and you had to go and fuck it all up by opening this thread. Nice going.


Scrolled through 90% of this thread without bothering to read so far. Shame.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079869309910900736
One of the best living comedians imo


----------



## Tater

Draykorinee said:


> Scrolled through 90% of this thread without bothering to read so far. Shame.


Same here.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079869309910900736
> One of the best living comedians imo


Still waiting for you to name one thing Trump did that was better than anything Obama did.


----------



## CamillePunk

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Still waiting for you to name one thing Trump did that was better than anything Obama did.


I can't think of anything good Obama did.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> I can't think of anything good Obama did.


:mj4 pretty obvious you're trolling at this point. 

Got the US out of the Great Recession, killed Osama Bin Laden, gave a shit ton of people health insurance (even if it did suck).

Oh and for all the praise you've given Trump for pulling troops out of Syria, Obama did the same with Iraq as well as a significant amount in Afghanistan. 

There. That's a few. Go ahead and start naming things Trump did that were better for the country.


----------



## deepelemblues

lol embarrassing defending BM's constant unpleasantness

7/10 :trolldog on trying it tho :bryanlol


----------



## blaird

deepelemblues said:


> lol embarrassing defending BM's constant unpleasantness
> 
> 7/10 :trolldog on trying it tho :bryanlol


I'm out the vortex don't you go and get me sucked back in!!


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> I'm out the vortex don't you go and get me sucked back in!!


Out of the truth vortex again I see and back with the trolls. lol


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Out of the truth vortex again I see and back with the trolls. lol


I am almost convinced to spring for the lifetime membership just so I can change my username to truth vortex


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> This is all true.
> 
> But...
> 
> It would be a lot more difficult for Republicans to wreck the economy if Democrats actually built a solid economy when they have the chance. Namely, because if Democrats did that, Republicans wouldn't get this much power in the first place. It wasn't the Republicans running the show when the criminal bankers were given trillions in bailout money while millions got kicked out of their homes. It wasn't the Republicans who decided not to prosecute any of the criminal bankers who helped crash the economy a decade ago.
> 
> If Democrats are elected into power, fail to represent the people who put them there and represent the oligarchs who run this country instead, then yeah, they share some of the blame when a troglodyte like Trump gets elected and wrecks everything.


People love to talk about how the Democrats help the people but when the banks and shitty ran corporations were on the ropes, who was there to bail them out? 

It's a complete joke giving these businesses more money to run when the reason they're going bankrupt is because how they're ran! :laugh:

That money should have gone to the people, credits for buying new cars, etc. The Government could have taken over people's loans and made it no interest or even bought back houses from people. Those people were victims of predatory lending, the businesses knew those people couldn't pay it back.

They also could have removed the bonuses these higherups gave them selves and even went back a few years and made those fucks pay back every cent back to the company. They should have booted those guys and then found replacements within the company of people who know what they're doing to run stuff. 

Instead we got the opposite.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> That money should have gone to the people, credits for buying new cars, etc. The Government could have taken over people's loans and made it no interest or even bought back houses from people. Those people were victims of predatory lending, the businesses knew those people couldn't pay it back.
> 
> They also could have removed the bonuses these higherups gave them selves and even went back a few years and made those fucks pay back every cent back to the company. They should have booted those guys and then found replacements within the company of people who know what they're doing to run stuff.


Careful, Sally. You're starting to sound like an actual leftist with talk like that.


----------



## Reaper

My new years wish is that Americans will wake up and suddenly realize that Trump is a dumb corporatist tool and so is everyone else because the dumbest retards are pushed for the highest office in the land so the really smart people can pull the strings behind the scenes. 

But it's not going to happen. So New Year's anyways.


----------



## DGenerationMC

I honestly didn't expect him to make to 2018. This glorious trainwreck is dragging on longer than expected.


----------



## Pratchett

Tater said:


> Careful, Sally. You're starting to sound like an actual leftist with talk like that.


OMG it's almost like some of us don't have to be stuck inside of a box constraining ourselves to conform to one particular tribe or mode of thought WTF is this world coming to


----------



## CamillePunk

And now, a word from the President:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079920220410654720
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta. :trump


----------



## Tater

Pratchett said:


> OMG it's almost like some of us don't have to be stuck inside of a box constraining ourselves to conform to one particular tribe or mode of thought WTF is this world coming to


Shut it, *cunt*, unless you want five across the eyes.

unch

Constraining ourselves to tribes and the good guy/bad guy narrative of duopoly politics is just how the ruling elite wants it. They'd be fucked if the proletariat ever woke up one day and realized who their true enemy is.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> And now, a word from the President:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079920220410654720
> Damn it feels good to be a gangsta. :trump


A gangsta who apparently didn't do anything better than what I gave you :mj4 

Thanks for showing us that this is actually just a troll job from you. It explains a lot.


----------



## Draykorinee

HollyJollyDemise said:


> A gangsta who apparently didn't do anything better than what I gave you <img src="http://i.imgur.com/z94oIzN.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Thanks for showing us that this is actually just a troll job from you. It explains a lot.


Took you long enough to notice, Cam's been trolling for a while now, not sure when the change happened.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> Took you long enough to notice, Cam's been trolling for a while now, not sure when the change happened.


He was relatively fine till I was still supporting his views. He's gone off the deep end since I changed. 

Trump is a fucking moron. 










No wait. Calling him a moron is an insult to morons.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Reaper said:


> He was relatively fine till I was still supporting his views. He's gone off the deep end since I changed.
> 
> Trump is a fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No wait. Calling him a moron is an insult to morons.


I want to say that Trump is trolling too. It would explain a lot.

Also, :lol at him still going on about this wall.


----------



## Reaper

HollyJollyDemise said:


> I want to say that Trump is trolling too. It would explain a lot.
> 
> Also, :lol at him still going on about this wall.


Sure. Trump could be trolling, but we know that his followers are the kind of followers we thought couldn't possibly be as dumb as they are. 

There was a time when things like "the earth could be flat" were trolls. Now there are millions of flat earthers. We thought that people who were anti-vaxxers were morons, but now it is a genuine threat. Trump supporters and these kinds of people have a lot in common. :shrug

"Trolling" has essentially extremely effective in gaining political support in much the same way because "trolling" invites the lowest of the lowest common denominator to put their vote in. Since democracy is run by the lowest common denominator ergo society continues to sink into its current state. 

Kinda sad that our president is basically just a more successful Alex Jones.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Reaper said:


> Sure. Trump could be trolling, but we know that his followers are the kind of followers we thought couldn't possibly be as dumb as they are.
> 
> There was a time when things like "the earth could be flat" were trolls. Now there are millions of flat earthers. We thought that people who were anti-vaxxers were morons, but now it is a genuine threat. Trump supporters and these kinds of people have a lot in common. :shrug
> 
> "Trolling" has essentially extremely effective in gaining political support in much the same way because "trolling" invites the lowest of the lowest common denominator to put their vote in. Since democracy is run by the lowest common denominator ergo society continues to sink into its current state.
> 
> Kinda sad that our president is basically just a more successful Alex Jones.


What's even worse is that there are some people I know who are genuinely smart people, but are still supportive of Trump. Whether it be refusal to support a Democrat, or just lack of knowledge of what's going on in this day and age, its scary to see how many people out there still actually believe Trump has been a good president.


----------



## Reaper

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Trump has been a *good president*.


Not to be nit-picky, but there really is no such thing and I don't think it's possible :shrug

I still believe that by and large presidency is a ceremonial role when it comes to the show that's put on for the people, and not a very powerful role when it comes to actually having an impact on our lives on a daily basis. 

What matters the most is the shit that goes on behind the scenes. 

All the president can do is convey the message of his masters and his party's corporate backers in a pleasing or displeasing tone.


----------



## Reaper

https://www.theday.com/article/20181230/OP04/181239984



> *A recession is coming and Trump could make it so very much worse
> *
> 
> Published December 30. 2018 12:01AM
> 
> Catherine Rampell
> 
> The vital signs aren't good. The S&P 500 has fallen more than 10 percent since its September peak, which technically puts us in "correction" territory. In the past few weeks, markets whipsawed over whether we do or do not have a trade deal with China (we don't) and whether President Donald Trump will further jack up tariffs on Chinese-made goods (still unclear).
> 
> Stock wobbles alone don't necessarily imply an immediate downturn, of course. (They "forecast nine of the last five recessions," Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson once quipped.) But consumers also report rising pessimism to pollsters. The Treasury yield curve − which shows interest rates for bonds at different maturity dates − has partially inverted, which can signal that traders think the Federal Reserve will have to slash rates to goose the economy. Virtually every independent forecaster foresees a slowdown once the sugar rush of Trump's tax cuts wears off in the next year or so. And in a recent survey of economists by the Wall Street Journal, more than half predicted that we'd have a full-blown recession by 2020.
> 
> Statistically speaking, given how long the economy has been growing, a recession is overdue − *and the eventual collapse may bear Trump's fingerprints.* After all, his new trade barriers have lifted manufacturing costs, closed off markets and clouded the future for American firms with global supply chains. Economists say Trump's trade war is the biggest threat to the U.S. economy in 2019. In loonier moments, *the president has also threatened to default on our debt, ramp up the money-printing press, reinstate the gold standard or deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Some of those policies would ignite not just a recession but an immediate global financial crisis.*
> 
> *Or perhaps the contraction will follow some non-Trump-related catastrophe, like an oil shock or a wave of defaults in the growing leveraged loan market. It's often impossible to ascribe blame accurately.
> *
> Yet there's one thing we can expect with reasonable conviction: *Even if Trump isn't the direct cause of the next recession, he's likely to make it so, so much worse.
> *
> There are, alas, many ways the administration is likely to bungle a recession response − it may have even done so already. The first issue is that Trump has already shot most of our fiscal bullets, leaving us with less ammunition when we actually need it.
> 
> *At times, it's justified to run up deficits: specifically, during a recession. When the private sector is shrinking, the public sector helps plug the shortfall (through higher spending and/or tax cuts). Republicans and Democrats − including Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama − have followed that standard Keynesian response over the years. When the economy is good, however, economists advise shrinking the deficit as much as possible or even running a surplus. Repair the roof when the sun is shining.*
> 
> *The deficit president
> *
> Instead, Trump has done the opposite. When he entered office, budget deficits were expected to rise steadily over the next decade thanks to (among other factors) more baby boomers claiming Medicare and Social Security.* Trump decided to widen deficits even further, adding $2 trillion over the next decade through tax cuts and spending increases. Now, with gaping budget holes, it will become much harder to provide fiscal stimulus when the time comes.*
> 
> Plus, whatever the actual cost, the Trump-led GOP seems poised to block greater spending during the next recession. National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow opposed Barack Obama's major stimulus package in the last downturn. Outside adviser Stephen Moore recently counseled the president to "veto every spending bill headed his way between now and the 2020 election." Even if Trump ignores such guidance, the tea-party-influenced GOP, which has held onto control of the Senate, will probably have even less appetite for fiscal stimulus than it did in 2009 − when just three Republican senators and zero Republican representatives voted for the Recovery Act.
> 
> *Trump might also pursue policies that would inflict even more damage. As he tweeted recently, he's a "Tariff Man"; he thinks import duties make America richer by shielding struggling industries from foreign competition. (Economic research overwhelmingly says this is wrong.) It's not hard to imagine him trying to fix a contraction by throwing up even more barriers to trade.
> *
> *Tariff like it's 1929
> *
> This beggar-thy-neighbor, protectionist approach has been tried at the start of a downturn before − during the Great Depression. The problems began with the 1930 Tariff Act, sometimes called Smoot-Hawley after the lawmakers who devised it. As with Trump's recent tariffs, the new rules made the cost of doing business much more expensive for U.S. firms that purchased foreign goods as components of their own products. They also triggered a cascade of retaliatory counter-tariffs around the world. Global trade crashed. Economists agree that Smoot-Hawley deepened and extended the Great Depression, not just here but worldwide.
> 
> What if, in a crisis, Trump somehow received − and then listened to − sound economic advice? Even then, he would face a nearly impossible task, especially if the advice required enacting expensive and unpopular measures such as bailouts, which rank-and-file voters on the left and the right have told pollsters that they revile. During the 2008 collapse, Obama and Bush both stuck their necks out to corral votes for politically risky bills, measures that were necessary to stop the panic but that were not obviously beneficial to the short-term interests of politicians. Both also genuinely tried to reach across the aisle to get bipartisan buy-in where possible. Trump has rarely evinced much political courage himself, much less inspired it in others. We're all in it together is not really his vibe.
> 
> Speaking of leadership, there's also the problem of our deteriorating international standing. In the last financial crisis, having good relationships with foreign central banks, finance ministers and other leaders abroad proved crucial for coordinating fiscal and monetary responses. We set up currency swaps with other countries, for example, to stanch the bleeding, and we agreed to synchronized stimulus plans at the Group of 20 meetings in London. Given this experience, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned its members recently that they should start planning and coordinating their responses to "a sharp downturn" far in advance.
> 
> But Trump has picked trade wars with adversaries and allies alike. He's insulted foreign leaders, such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (whom he called "dishonest & weak"), when they even politely object. And he's otherwise proved himself an erratic, unreliable partner, with a dubious grasp of basic economics. He obsesses over bilateral trade deficits, which are driven by macroeconomic factors like savings and investment rates rather than by anyone "taking advantage"; he reportedly thinks countries can pay down their debts by simply printing more money; he says Mexico is paying for his border wall through the NAFTA replacement (it's not). Foreign leaders would understandably be skeptical of U.S. entreaties for multilateral problem-solving.
> 
> If, in fact, we even bother with such overtures. Trump views the world as zero-sum. Anytime another country is improving, it must be at our expense: If Germany runs a trade surplus, for instance, or if German economic growth picks up, that must be because it's stealing business from somewhere else. Given this outlook, he may be suspicious of any multilateral response to a global downturn, as University of California at Berkeley economics professor Barry Eichengreen observed in a recent talk.
> 
> Finally, there's this administration's unusually shallow bench of economic talent. Consider the team that led us out of the 2007-2008 financial panic. Whatever their shortcomings -- and not foreseeing the crisis was surely one of them -- they collectively offered tremendous expertise, experience and relationships. Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke had spent his academic career studying the Great Depression. Bush's treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, had been chief executive of Goldman Sachs; he knew the players on Wall Street, and they respected him. Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and later Obama's treasury secretary, understood the plumbing of both the financial system and the federal government. (In an earlier stint at Treasury in the 1990s, he was involved in responses to financial crises in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand.)
> 
> Trump's bench is thin
> 
> By contrast, Trump chose as his treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin, a guy who had zero policymaking experience and whose top private-sector achievements include investments in "Avatar" and "The Lego Batman Movie." Mnuchin worked on Wall Street − including at Goldman Sachs − but he has largely frittered away whatever trust he built up there. Like other Trump economic officials, he has been frequently, and brazenly, deceptive about administration policies and their consequences: whether tax cuts will reduce deficits, whether we have a deal with China on trade, how quickly the U.S. economy can reasonably be expected to grow over the coming years and so on. On that last point, Mnuchin, Kudlow, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett and other administration officials have repeatedly claimed that 3 or 4 percent growth is "sustainable," despite the fact that every independent economic prognosticator says otherwise.
> 
> Such obvious fibs may seem minor, but they have consequences. If we can't trust officials to tell the truth about little things now, why would anyone trust them when they're trying to calm financial markets? Lack of credibility is a minor inconvenience when times are good; it's a disaster in a crisis.
> 
> To deal with a financial calamity, you need people in charge who not only actually know stuff but also inspire confidence that they know stuff. Trump seems to have selected very senior personnel − when he's selected them, anyway; about half of key Treasury posts remain vacant − based not on expertise or credibility, but how much they praise him, especially in public. His televised Cabinet meetings are flattery sessions. Mnuchin has averred that Trump possesses "perfect genes."
> 
> Trump's appointments at the Fed, mercifully, have been qualified. If all else fails, these politically independent technocrats, led by Chair Jerome Powell, will follow whatever theory and data suggest that economic policymakers should do, regardless of the news cycle or the proximity of the next election.
> 
> Unfortunately, Trump has been busy trying to discredit this one remaining competent economic institution, too. Rather than following decades of precedent − that administrations never comment on monetary policy − he rants about interest rate hikes and says he regrets appointing Powell. Trump seems more invested in setting up the Fed as a scapegoat in case the economy turns than in preserving the credibility it will so desperately need to do something about it.
> 
> And that is what we should be most worried about. Because if Trump destroys the central bank's hard-won political independence and convinces markets that the Fed's choices are based on political arm-twisting, rather than dispassionate analysis, he could hobble the Fed's ability to effectively intercede not only in the next recession but in every single one thereafter.
> 
> Catherine Rampell's column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group.


Well worth the read. She did mention several times that the blame is something that cannot be directly attributable to a president, but Trump's stamp is on several key policies that can exacerbate issues leading to the inevitable recession and also what might transpire during the next one given that Republicans are shitheads when it comes to managing the economy.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

HollyJollyDemise said:


> What's even worse is that there are some people I know who are genuinely smart people, but are still supportive of Trump. Whether it be refusal to support a Democrat, or just lack of knowledge of what's going on in this day and age, its scary to see how many people out there still actually believe Trump has been a good president.


If you concede that these are genuinely smart people, then perhaps they have valid reasons for believing what they believe.


----------



## CamillePunk

it's weird expecting to answer "what good thing has Trump done???" when I was literally just talking about what a great week he had and listed multiple things he did that I liked. :lol Sorry for not answering redundant questions. No it doesn't make me a troll. Go watch some more mainstream news and reinforce your belief that US intervention is sometimes necessary and good when that has literally never been the case, except perhaps in WW2 which was only possible because of US intervention in WW1. Not unhappy we killed those German socialists though.  

I was wrong about Obama though. Killing Osama was a good accomplishment, even if Osama was just a product of decades of god awful US foreign policy. So that's one for him. (Y)


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> it's weird expecting to answer "what good thing has Trump done???" when I was literally just talking about what a great week he had and listed multiple things he did that I liked. :lol Sorry for not answering redundant questions.


I am not asking you what good things has he done. I am asking you what good things has he done that are better than anything Obama has done. These are two different things. Don't try to dodge the question. 

And what YOU like is obviously different from what's good for the country. Explain what he has done that has benefited the country in greater ways than what Obama has. 



CamillePunk said:


> No it doesn't make me a troll. Go watch some more mainstream news and reinforce your belief that US intervention is sometimes necessary and good when that has literally never been the case, except perhaps in WW2 which was only possible because of US intervention in WW1. Not unhappy we killed those German socialists though.


There are definitely cases where US intervention is a must. You can't just stay out of everything and expect things to work themselves out. It doesn't work like that. 

Also, I haven't watched mainstream news in five years. I don't waste my time with that nonsense. 



CamillePunk said:


> I was wrong about Obama though. Killing Osama was a good accomplishment, even if Osama was just a product of decades of god awful US foreign policy. So that's one for him. (Y)


So killing Osama was in fact a good accomplishment, but getting us out of the recession isn't. 

Yeah, you're trolling. Don't try to deny it.


----------



## CamillePunk

HollyJollyDemise said:


> I am not asking you what good things has he done. I am asking you what good things has he done that are better than anything Obama has done. These are two different things. Don't try to dodge the question.
> 
> And what YOU like is obviously different from what's good for the country. Explain what he has done that has benefited the country in greater ways than what Obama has.
> 
> 
> 
> There are definitely cases where US intervention is a must. You can't just stay out of everything and expect things to work themselves out. It doesn't work like that.
> 
> Also, I haven't watched mainstream news in five years. I don't waste my time with that nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> So killing Osama was in fact a good accomplishment, but getting us out of the recession isn't.


I know this is gonna be a radical new idea for you since you only watch MSM, but Obama's stimulus just kicked the can down the road and ensured the economy would crash even harder. Recessions are how the market cures itself. That's why when we had a recession in the early 20s and the government did nothing, it was over very quickly. When we had another recession in 1929, the government did a LOT and it ended up leading to the Great Depression and lasting a decade. People still think FDR's massive spending is what got us out of that. :lol 

The government should not interfere in the economy. It has no idea what it's doing. Politicians are not economists. Their concerns are political and their decisions will be based on political calculations.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080199325295071233
Remember when people were saying Kanye had ditched Trump and all the people who like Trump had been fooled, all because he distanced himself from _Candace Owens?_ :lol Told you so.


----------



## deepelemblues

Obama did so many good things that enough people voted for the guy who campaigned on erasing Obama's presidency to get that guy elected :bryanlol


----------



## birthday_massacre

HollyJollyDemise said:


> I want to say that Trump is trolling too. It would explain a lot.
> 
> Also, :lol at him still going on about this wall.


Trump isn't trolling, he is mentally ill like I have been saying for two years now.

Trump has dementia, and it gets more and more obvious as each day passes


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> I know this is gonna be a radical new idea for you since you only watch MSM, but Obama's stimulus just kicked the can down the road and ensured the economy would crash even harder. Recessions are how the market cures itself. That's why when we had a recession in the early 20s and the government did nothing, it was over very quickly. When we had another recession in 1929, the government did a LOT and it ended up leading to the Great Depression and lasting a decade. People still think FDR's massive spending is what got us out of that. :lol
> 
> The government should not interfere in the economy. It has no idea what it's doing. Politicians are not economists. Their concerns are political and their decisions will be based on political calculations.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080199325295071233
> Remember when people were saying Kanye had ditched Trump and all the people who like Trump had been fooled, all because he distanced himself from _Candace Owens?_ :lol Told you so.


Literally none of the things you just said here answered my question. What did Trump do that was better than anything Obama did? How was Trump a better President? I've asked you this three times now and you still dodge the question, all while pretending as if you already answered it. 

Also, :lol what. The government did nothing. Assuming you're talking about the recession that started in 1920, yeah it's pretty obvious I'm being trolled. Governments absolutely should be involved in recessions. What they should do is increase the countries debut when the economy is doing well, like Trump has.

I think I'll follow suit with Reaper and Tater and stop wasting my time on you.


----------



## CamillePunk

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Literally none of the things you just said here answered my question. What did Trump do that was better than anything Obama did? How was Trump a better President? I've asked you this three times now and you still dodge the question, all while pretending as if you already answered it.
> 
> Also, :lol what. The government did nothing. Assuming you're talking about the recession that started in 1920, yeah it's pretty obvious I'm being trolled. Governments absolutely should be involved in recessions. What they should do is increase the countries debut when the economy is doing well, like Trump has.
> 
> I think I'll follow suite with Reaper and Tater and stop wasting my time on you.


It's a dumb question. You want me to compare different things to each other and ascribe some kind of value to them. I'll say Obama didn't do anything positive on foreign policy while Trump has greatly improved the situation on the Korean peninsula (both country's leaders have praised him so idc about the fake news spin) and stopped arming Syrian "rebels" (many of which were al-Qaeda, yes Obama and Hillary literally gave weapons to al-Qaeda), he's also said we are to withdraw completely and has been standing by that position very strongly which is encouraging, given that our involvement is completely illegal by US and international law. That's Obama for you. 

You're just repeating mainstream media conventional wisdom as if it's certifiable fact. "Yes, the governent should DO SOMETHING!!!~~~ when there's a recession", "Yes, the US must intervene militarily". Why? Do you ever ask yourself?


Meanwhile Kanye is on an absolute pro-Trump tweetstorm. :lol Even said he's going to start performing with his MAGA hat on. Amazing.


----------



## deepelemblues

Obama did so many good things he tried to spend that political capital to stop :trump and utterly humiliatingly failed :bryanlol

After he tried to treat :trump like he was the star QB and :trump the geek in an 80s high school movie, thus doubling his failure and humiliation when :trump asked him how his ass tasted in January 2017 :heston

For being so loud about how correct you are some y'all don't know much about how politics actually works. All those Obama good things you're so mad aren't getting acknowledged didnt count for shit in the clutch. Soooo good :ha

And guess what if :trump loses next year, or if a president is elected in 2024 after campaigning to erase the :trump presidency, then it'll be just as whiny and embarrassing if people get mad trying to say but look at all the good things they think :trump did. That shit don't matter when you get slapped in the face in the end

Like Obama was :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Remember when Obama spied on American journalists?

Remember when he ran on protecting whistleblowers and then proceeded to persecute whistleblowers more than anyone?

Remember when Obama used the IRS to suppress right-wing political groups in the 2012 election? 

Remember when Obama toppled a relatively secular government which was fighting Islamist rebels causing the country to descend to such a state that there is currently a SLAVE TRADE there now? 

Remember when Obama tried to do the same in Syria, and then funded and armed the Islamist rebels there despite their al-Qaeda ties?

Face it, Obama was everything you TDS-sufferers say Trump is. He's the corporate fascist. He's the guy who actually attacked press freedom. He's the guy who suppressed his opposition in an election. He's the guy CAUGHT ON VIDEO making secret deals with Russia that he didn't want Americans to know about. He's the guy who started illegal wars and got tons of people killed around the world. 

Obama was a god awful president.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/sending-vets-to-private-care-isnt-solving-the-vas-problems.html



> *Sending More Veterans to Private Care Isn’t Solving the VA’s Problems*
> 
> On paper, the Veterans Choice Program sounded like a great idea. Pragmatic, even. When it launched in 2014, under the Obama administration, both parties appeared united on its merits; defenders said it would give veterans a way to bypass real problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs by allowing them to seek subsidized, private care in their own communities. In June, legislators replaced the Choice program with the $55 billion MISSION Act, which expanded and allegedly streamlined private care options. But a new report co-authored by Isaac Arnsdorf of ProPublica and Jon Greenberg of PolitiFact suggests that in practice, the Choice program mostly enriched the contractors the VA hired to manage it, while the veterans it purportedly helped still faced obstacles to care. That doesn’t bode well for the MISSION Act, nor for the VA’s broader obligation to veterans.
> 
> Of the $10.3 billion the VA spent on the Choice program since 2014, Arnsdorf and Greenberg report that most of the funds went to two private contractors, TriWest and Health Net. The two companies have spent $1.9 billion on overhead costs alone, and charge the department at least $295 each time they refer a veteran to private care. It’s not obvious, either, what the VA gets for its money, since veterans enrolled in the Choice program didn’t necessarily receive improved care. The VA inspector general and the Government Accountability Office previously found that wait times for Choice patients remained longer than is stipulated by law. As Arnsdorf and Greenberg also noted, the inspector general found that veterans and doctors both say that TriWest and Health Net failed to pay for services on time; for their part, the contractors said that the VA didn’t pay them on time, either.
> 
> The Choice program existed because of an old premise: that private care guarantees higher-quality, more efficient service. In fact, overhead costs for the Choice program are far more expensive than is average for private industry. Tricare, provided by the Department of Defense to cover active-duty service members and their dependents in addition to retirees, activated reserve, and national guard members, is less expensive still; 8 percent of Tricare’s costs go to overhead, compared to 24 percent for TriWest and Health Net. The two companies did incur some extra costs because they were also charged with setting up the Choice program, but even so, their costs remain unusually high. “Even excluding the costs of setting up the new program, the Choice contractors’ overhead still amounts to 21 percent of revenue,” wrote Arnsdorf and Greenberg.
> 
> Health Net no longer works on the Choice program, but TriWest would not provide a full breakdown of its fee to Arnsdorf and Greenberg, meaning that there’s no way to know how much the contractor charged per service. But there are some irregularities:
> 
> In many cases, the contractors’ $295-plus processing fee for every referral was bigger than the doctor’s bill for services rendered, the analysis of agency data showed. In the three months ending Jan. 31, 2018, the Choice Program made 49,144 referrals for primary care totaling $9.9 million in medical costs, for an average cost per referral of $201.16. A few other types of care also cost less on average than the handling fee: chiropractic care ($286.32 per referral) and optometry ($189.25). There were certainly other instances where the medical services cost much more than the handling fee: TriWest said its average cost per referral was about $2,100 in the past six months.
> 
> TriWest and Health Net are both under investigation for overcharging the federal government, by an Arizona grand jury and the Justice Department respectively. Despite this, the Trump administration recently expanded TriWest’s contract, and the company stands to profit significantly from the MISSION Act now that the VA has terminated its contract with Health Net. The VA is set to award Community Care Network contracts to meet its obligations under the MISSION Act, but it has yet to do so. “The VA has said it’s aiming to pick the contractors for the new program in January and February. Yet even if the VA meets this latest deadline, the contracts include a one-year ramp-up period, so they won’t be ready to start in June,” write Arnsdorf and Greenberg. “That means TriWest will by default become the sole contractor for the new program.”
> 
> Veterans’ service organizations and other veterans’ advocates have long feared that Trump intends to privatize the VA’s health care services. Those fears only ratcheted upwards when Trump fired Veterans Affairs secretary David Shulkin over scandals that look relatively mild when compared to the misdeeds of Ryan Zinke and Scott Pruitt, both of whom outlasted Shulkin in the Cabinet. Originally appointed by Barack Obama, Shulkin was widely perceived to be an opponent of privatization. His replacement, Robert Wilkie, is more conservative, and plagued by scandals of his own; a former aide to Trent Lott, Wilkie once praised Jefferson Davis as “a martyr to the ‘Lost Cause’” in a speech to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Nevertheless, the VA itself has disputed the notion that privatization is imminent. In an April statement on its website, the department emphatically asserted that there “is no effort underway to privatize VA, and to suggest otherwise is completely false and a red herring designed to distract and avoid honest debate on the real issues surrounding Veterans’ health care.”
> 
> The Trump administration may not intend to privatize the VA fully, but its expansion of private options like the Choice program complicates the VA’s ability to fulfill its mission to veterans. ProPublica and PolitiFact have provided new evidence that Choice might not work as intended, but there are other warning signs. A recent study by researchers at Dartmouth College found that VA hospitals outperform private facilities in 121 regional markets. As reported by the Military Times, the study “rated more than half of the VA hospitals reviewed as the best local option for death rates among patients with surgery complications and treatment of bloodstream infections after surgery.” From these results, researchers recommended the reconsideration of private care options, or at least the expansion thereof. The VA responded with a press release that mostly praised its own facilities, but pivoted, at the end, to a defense of private community care. “While VA supports most of the study’s findings, the agency does not agree with the authors’ stance on community care, which ignores the fact that for decades it has served as a vital tool for ensuring VA has the ability to provide Veterans the best, most timely health care possible, and that it enjoys strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by passage of the MISSION Act,” it asserted.
> 
> Choice had bipartisan support, and so did the MISSION Act. But while the VA’s medical facilities are hardly flawless, it’s increasingly difficult for anyone to argue that expanding private options will get veterans the health care they need. Private care, it turns out, might not be the gold standard after all.


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> Obama did so many good things he tried to spend that political capital to stop :trump and utterly humiliatingly failed :bryanlol
> 
> After he tried to treat :trump like he was the star QB and :trump the geek in an 80s high school movie, thus doubling his failure and humiliation when :trump asked him how his ass tasted in January 2017 :heston
> 
> For being so loud about how correct you are some y'all don't know much about how politics actually works. All those Obama good things you're so mad aren't getting acknowledged didnt count for shit in the clutch. Soooo good :ha
> 
> And guess what if :trump loses next year, or if a president is elected in 2024 after campaigning to erase the :trump presidency, then it'll be just as whiny and embarrassing if people get mad trying to say but look at all the good things they think :trump did. That shit don't matter when you get slapped in the face in the end
> 
> Like Obama was :lol


For those of you who don't feel like reading this nonsense, this pic just about sums it up.


----------



## deepelemblues

Yeezy calling out people who act like blacks are the property of the Democratic Party and viciously try to destroy any prominent black person who doesn't toe the line (what Democrats used to call acting uppity, for 150 years)

He's not wrong you know :cudi


----------



## Hoolahoop33

HollyJollyDemise said:


> For those of you who don't feel like reading this nonsense, this pic just about sums it up.


You call others trolls, but then you don't reply to the point in hand. If Obama did so many great things for the country, why were the Democrats totally shut out of the Executive, Senate and House of Representatives by 2016. Why did Trump win a presidential campaign basically built upon shitting all over the Obama legacy.

Obama was charismatic and might appear good to some in comparison to Bush jr (who was even worse), but ultimately he was a terrible president who failed to achieve anything of note. The foreign policy of Bush and Obama was literally criminal and left the middle east in a total quagmire and a breeding ground for extremists. 

I used to think he was great. I was wrong.


----------



## deepelemblues

Obama was good for wall street billionaires and tech billionaires and those blood soaked vampires who want to keep fighting the war with Eurasia 

Or Eastasia 

One of the asias anyway

Too bad those people weren't enough to win the 2016 election huh


----------



## AlternateDemise

Hoolahoop33 said:


> You call others trolls, but then you don't reply to the point in hand. If Obama did so many great things for the country, why were the Democrats totally shut out of the Executive, Senate and House of Representatives by 2016. Why did Trump win a presidential campaign basically built upon shitting all over the Obama legacy.


1. Obama wasn't running for President. Hilary Clinton was. She was literally the worst option from the Democratic Party. With the controversy regarding the more favored Bernie Sanders being screwed out of the primary, public perception of the Democratic party in general went to total shit.

2. People bought into most of the garbage Trump spewed about Obama (and most of which was false) as well as believing he'd be anything good for the country as a whole. There were even people who thought Obama was in office when 9/11 happened. It isn't difficult to fool most Trump supporters into believing something negative about Obama, because they will typically buy into it without bothering to fact check or even stop and think for a moment. We're talking about a man who got elected by having one of his own promises be that he would make another country pay for something that would be made on US territory. It's pretty obvious that critical thinking isn't something Trump supporters employed when they voted for him.

3. Undecided voters went mostly to Trump, and rightfully so. Rather than try to actually fix the problems that were created by Obama, Clinton mostly praised them and wanted to keep them. Trump at least gave undecided voters a reason to want to vote for him, because he was at least giving an outlook of what his version of America would look like compared to Clinton, who basically assumed this election was hers for the taking. And in retrospect, it was hers for the taking. Trump had no business winning this election. He did it mostly due to Clinton's inability to be a proper candidate. 

They are trolling because that's basically all Trump supporters can do now. It's pretty obvious at this point that Trump hasn't been anywhere close to the President Obama was. This isn't to say that Obama's time as President didn't leave a poor taste in some people's mouths, more specifically the ones who did not benefit from his ACA. After all it isn't like Obama won his two terms on complete landslides or anything. Most of this comes down to Hilary being the most unpopular candidate to have ever run for President, and unlike Trump who actually did do a decent job of pleading his case for what he'd be better, Clinton had no idea what she was doing. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Obama was charismatic and might appear good to some in comparison to Bush jr (who was even worse), but ultimately he was a terrible president who failed to achieve anything of note. The foreign policy of Bush and Obama was literally criminal and left the middle east in a total quagmire and a breeding ground for extremists.


Cleaning up the mess Bush made, creating healthcare for everyone, making it easier for people to go to college, killing Osama Bin Laden, these are noteworthy achievements. Again I say noteworthy, because once again, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what Trump has done so far that is better than any of this. I shit on Obamacare because it deserves my criticism. It's still a greater achievement than anything Trump's done yet. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I used to think he was great. I was wrong.


Great is not something I would call Obama. Good is even a bit of a stretch. Decent? Sure. Competent? Yes. Better than Trump? Absolutely.



deepelemblues said:


> Obama was good for wall street billionaires and tech billionaires and those blood soaked vampires who want to keep fighting the war with Eurasia
> 
> Or Eastasia
> 
> One of the asias anyway
> 
> Too bad those people weren't enough to win the 2016 election huh


I'm still waiting for your evidence regarding climate change. You know, that time you went on that rambling about how it's not real and gave us no evidence to back that up?

Kind of like what Trump does?

Makes a lot of sense that you'd support him now that I think about it.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

HollyJollyDemise said:


> 1. Obama wasn't running for President. Hilary Clinton was. She was literally the worst option from the Democratic Party. With the controversy regarding the more favored Bernie Sanders being screwed out of the primary, public perception of the Democratic party in general went to total shit.


Bush wasn't running for office in 2008 - you can't deny that the previous administration and how they are perceived has a direct and substantial effect on the outcome of the election. Clinton was a disgrace, and yet Obama endorsed her - he is part of the same party establishment which rigged the Democratic primaries. You only have to see the results of the 2014 mid term elections to see though, that the public perception of the Democrats goes far deeper than Clinton, who for many was just the tip of the iceberg. 



HollyJollyDemise said:


> 2. People bought into most of the garbage Trump spewed about Obama (and most of which was false) as well as believing he'd be anything good for the country as a whole. There were even people who thought Obama was in office when 9/11 happened. It isn't difficult to fool most Trump supporters into believing something negative about Obama, because they will typically buy into it without bothering to fact check or even stop and think for a moment. We're talking about a man who got elected by having one of his own promises be that he would make another country pay for something that would be made on US territory. It's pretty obvious that critical thinking isn't something Trump supporters employed when they voted for him.


Who are these people? Do you personally know them? There are uniformed people on both sides. I don't buy into this assertion that 'my side are so much smarter than the other', we are all equal, we all have one vote. Perhaps the Democrats should have been more enticing to working/middle class people, rather than labelling them as a bunch of backward, racist, troglodytes. The reality is that the people in middle america were hurting a lot - not just due to the recession 8 years prior, but because of the nature of the recovery and that in part, Obama must take responsibility for. 

What I take from that is that Trump supporters in large want to stop illegal immigration. I don't really think they give a damn who pays for the wall, or perhaps even if there even is a wall, as long as the issue is tackled. 



HollyJollyDemise said:


> 3. Undecided voters went mostly to Trump, and rightfully so. Rather than try to actually fix the problems that were created by Obama, Clinton mostly praised them and wanted to keep them. Trump at least gave undecided voters a reason to want to vote for him, because he was at least giving an outlook of what his version of America would look like compared to Clinton, who basically assumed this election was hers for the taking. And in retrospect, it was hers for the taking. Trump had no business winning this election. He did it mostly due to Clinton's inability to be a proper candidate.


Clinton's vision was basically a continuation of Obama's policies - that is to a large extent why Trump was able to win. You are right though, Trump had no business winning, especially with all the scandals surrounding him, and yes Clinton was generally an awful candidate, but many voted for Trump because they hated the establishment and wanted change, the same change that Obama had promised 8 years prior and failed to deliver. 



HollyJollyDemise said:


> They are trolling because that's basically all Trump supporters can do now. It's pretty obvious at this point that Trump hasn't been anywhere close to the President Obama was. This isn't to say that Obama's time as President didn't leave a poor taste in some people's mouths, more specifically the ones who did not benefit from his ACA. After all it isn't like Obama won his two terms on complete landslides or anything. Most of this comes down to Hilary being the most unpopular candidate to have ever run for President, and unlike Trump who actually did do a decent job of pleading his case for what he'd be better, Clinton had no idea what she was doing.
> 
> Cleaning up the mess Bush made, creating healthcare for everyone, making it easier for people to go to college, killing Osama Bin Laden, these are noteworthy achievements. Again I say noteworthy, because once again, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what Trump has done so far that is better than any of this. I shit on Obamacare because it deserves my criticism. It's still a greater achievement than anything Trump's done yet.


Cleaning up the mess Bush made - Wat? If you mean in terms of the economy then you are wrong, he basically did everything that Bush would have done - Bailing out the banks with taxpayer money, with no hope of ever seeing it returned was criminal. The recovery was also pretty slow and there was a 'double dip' recession during his tenure. Furthermore, real wage growth was really slow and most people in middle America felt the pinch - nobody likes working an unfulfilling job, for a subsistence wage and with little hope of new opportunities in the future. Jobs too continued to leave the country and be taken up by poor, exploited workers in third world countries - and yet he did nothing to aid this issue.

In terms of foreign policy, he was totally incompetent. Bush made a total mess of the Middle East, but Obama somehow made it actually worse. Look at the husk of what used to be Libya now. Pretty nice if you like slavery. Look at Syria - the war in which the US was attacking IS terrorists one side as well as the administration fighting IS on the other, whilst also supporting Jihadist 'moderate rebels' who hate the west but are happy for the support and also the kurds who are perpetually at war with US NATO ally Turkey? Thank God Trump is pulling the troops at of that mess - which is not US responsibility. In Iraq troops were actually required since the administration was so weak (much like Libya post-intervention) that leaving created a vacuum - I don't really blame him for this one, but in hindsight it was shortsighted. The Syria situation, imo, is different in that there are actually forces to fill that vacuum - Assad has quite strong support and is backed by the Russians - if they want to waste lives and money mopping up the remnants of IS then they are welcome. 

I will give him credit for giving better access to education as I don't really know much about it other than US college education is v. expensive. I happen to think that in the UK there are too many people who go to University, despite not being clever enough, lacking the will to finish and doing degrees that have no hope of leading to employment - but that is a different situation. The less said about Obamacare the better I think - a total disaster. 

Trump has only been in office for two years, so I think it's hard to make an assessment yet in the same way we can on Obama or Bush. I would say there are some promising signs.

Brinkmanship and then Dialogue with N. Korea - This could be his legacy if this works out. I hope it does.

Pulling out of Syria and eventually Afghanistan - Difficult to say at this point, but I think that this is a good move and that it marks the beginning of the end for US military intervention in foreign, sovereign nations.

Reform of NATO - I am no fan of NATO but I can see why US citizens might be annoyed that they pay huge amounts towards their military and the protection of Europe (protection against Russia) while Germany deals heavily with Russia buying huge amounts of natural gas from them for example, while also paying a tiny amount towards their defence. It's a joke.

Pulling out of NAFTA and TPP - This was a really good move for the American worker although its effects will not be seen for a little while perhaps. The US had to do something about the number of corporations moving jobs abroad as it was really hurting workers across the country. There are jobs, but they are not 'good jobs' this could potentially put a stop to that. USMCA will be an improvement and anyone saying different is a partisan hack. 

'The Trade Wars' - Never understood why people were so critical of Trump for raising tariffs on certain countries. In all circumstances, they had already placed tariffs on the US. It is economically smart for the US to throw its economic weight around, there might be some short term pain, but long term there is much to gain. The key example may be China, they seem willing to come to the table now - the cost was having to subsidise farmers for a while. China's economy on the other hand shrank by 25% in 2018. In agreement can come to pass then it will be much more beneficial for the US than current arrangements.

The border - If his plans go ahead then I think it can only be an improvement. It is really difficult to migrate into the US legally, so it does seem very unfair that so many illegal, and often unskilled immigrants are able to enter the US. I believe that work migration should be based on what the host country wants and not what the immigrant wants - If they want unskilled labour, then congrats it's your lucky day - if not then that's unfortunate, go elsewhere. The immigration system needs to be reformed and the southern border problem is a key part of that. 



HollyJollyDemise said:


> Great is not something I would call Obama. Good is even a bit of a stretch. Decent? Sure. Competent? Yes. Better than Trump? Absolutely.


It's too early to assess Trump yet - I think he could be good, there are certainly some promising things which he has started doing, but they have either not yet come into action or the effects can not yet be seen. I think it is also very difficult when the entire media is constantly negative and the establishment are generally doing everything that they can to stop him from achieving his aims. I don't think I could deal with that at all - so he has done well to remain upbeat and seem to shake it off. It is certainly a hyperbole to say he is the worst president ever, or even close to the worst at this point. Most controversial? maybe. By the next election we can reassess, but at the moment he hasn't been a disaster. (There's still time yet)

Obama we can assess - he was hugely disappointing and when he left, much of the world where he had intervened was a mess. Many innocent people died due to his incompetence, he was not decent. He also failed to achieve nearly all of his campaign aims. He was... poor. Still there have been worse presidents, and he was a charismatic figure who represented the country well abroad I suppose, but in his main role as executive and commander-in-chief, he will always be a disappointment. 

Hope this brief overview answers some of the questions you have been asking :laugh:


----------



## SexiestOfAllTime

Fact is trump fans is so stupid. Trump is gonna be reason why America is worsening. If Putin starts ww3 I blame trump for that mess. Trump should never been elected, I would vote for a crooked woman against him if I could. He is somewhat partly the reason guns are getting worse. If Bernie won the primary Bernie would have been the 45th president instead


----------



## Jokerface17

SexiestOfAllTime said:


> Fact is Trump fans are so stupid. Trump is the reason why America is getting worse. If Putin starts ww3 I blame Trump for that mess. Trump should never have been elected, I would vote for a crooked woman against him if I could. He is partially the reason guns are getting worse. If Bernie had won the primary Bernie would have been the 45th president instead


I’m not going to argue what you’re saying because I’m not really following what your point is exactly but, just so you know a “stupid Trump fan” just made your post legible.


----------



## blaird

Jokerface17 said:


> I’m not going to argue what you’re saying because I’m not really following what your point is exactly but, just so you know a “stupid Trump fan” just made your post legible.


Dat first sentence doe...


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> I’m not going to argue what you’re saying because I’m not really following what your point is exactly but, just so you know a “stupid Trump fan” just made your post legible.


His post was exactly the way Trump talks, guess you missed the irony.


----------



## Draykorinee

SexiestOfAllTime said:


> Fact is trump fans is so stupid. Trump is gonna be reason why America is worsening. If Putin starts ww3 I blame trump for that mess. Trump should never been elected, I would vote for a crooked woman against him if I could. He is somewhat partly the reason guns are getting worse. If Bernie won the primary Bernie would have been the 45th president instead


<img src="http://i.imgur.com/sTCQfPo.gif" border="0" alt="" title="bunk" class="inlineimg" />

Romney having a dig at Trump is fun though.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> I know this is gonna be a radical new idea for you since you only watch MSM, but Obama's stimulus just kicked the can down the road and ensured the economy would crash even harder. Recessions are how the market cures itself. That's why when we had a recession in the early 20s and the government did nothing, it was over very quickly. When we had another recession in 1929, the government did a LOT and it ended up leading to the Great Depression and lasting a decade. People still think FDR's massive spending is what got us out of that. :lol
> 
> The government should not interfere in the economy. It has no idea what it's doing. Politicians are not economists. Their concerns are political and their decisions will be based on political calculations.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080199325295071233
> Remember when people were saying Kanye had ditched Trump and all the people who like Trump had been fooled, all because he distanced himself from _Candace Owens?_ :lol Told you so.


Are you really that desperate for a celebrity to endorse Trump that you take a rapper who self admits he's bipolar?


----------



## deepelemblues

Did i just read some decidedly un woke disparagement on the basis of a mental health condition?

The guy sperging out at a BM level for the last 3-4 pages trolling hard as he can is crying troll. The projection is real


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Did i just read some decidedly un woke disparagement on the basis of a mental health condition?
> 
> The guy sperging out at a BM level for the last 3-4 pages trolling hard as he can is crying troll. The projection is real


Oh the irony coming from one of the biggest trolls on this forum lol

Also nice deflection on Trump.


----------



## Reaper

Kanye's mental retardation with regards to his politics is something we can talk about without talking about him being bipolar.

:draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Kanye's mental retardation with regards to his politics is something we can talk about without talking about him being bipolar.


Its always funny seeig the quality of "celeb" Trump supporters, guys like Kayne, Ted Nugent, Scott Baio, Rosanne, James Woods, Kid Rock, Gary Buesy, Rodman, etc etc

A bunch of winners


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Its always funny seeig the quality of "celeb" Trump supporters, guys like Kayne, Ted Nugent, Scott Baio, Rosanne, James Woods, Kid Rock, Gary Buesy, Rodman, etc etc
> 
> A bunch of winners


I'll happily take them over Rosie, whoopi, Alyssa Milano (no matter how hot she still is) and joy behar


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> I'll happily take them over Rosie, whoopi, Alyssa Milano (no matter how hot she still is) and joy behar


Of course, you would lol the funny thing is the ones i listed are the "best of the best" celeb Trump supporters and they are that pathetic, you just tried to find the worst Hillary supporters and that list is still better than the Trump ones by a country mile. Its funny you even defend them.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, you would lol the funny thing is the ones i listed are the "best of the best" celeb Trump supporters and they are that pathetic, you just tried to find the worst Hillary supporters and that list is still better than the Trump ones by a country mile. Its funny you even defend them.


Where would Amy schumer, Lena Dunham, ja rule, and Kim kardashian fall in the good/bad spectrum?? 

Is it funny that I defend them? You laugh a lot don't you bc everything's funny to you that's different from what you think.

In the end both have absolute ass clowns for defenders, there's a ton of toolbars that support trump who I wish would fall off the planet just like there are Hillary supporters who I wish would do the same.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Where would Amy schumer, Lena Dunham, ja rule, and Kim kardashian fall in the good/bad spectrum??
> 
> Is it funny that I defend them? You laugh a lot don't you bc everything's funny to you that's different from what you think.
> 
> In the end both have absolute ass clowns for defenders, there's a ton of toolbars that support trump who I wish would fall off the planet just like there are Hillary supporters who I wish would do the same.


I laugh because you are defending those losers since they are pro-Trump. Its like you can't think for yourself and anyone that likes Trump you feel the need to defend them and like them too. As for you quetion, I dont care for any of the people you mentioned. Stop defending celebs just because they like Trump.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> I laugh because you are defending those losers since they are pro-Trump. Its like you can't think for yourself and anyone that likes Trump you feel the need to defend them and like them too. As for you quetion, I dont care for any of the people you mentioned. Stop defending celebs just because they like Trump.


So i say there's ass clowns that support trump and that's me defending all trump supporters?


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> So i say there's ass clowns that support trump and that's me defending all trump supporters?


You said and I quote


blaird said:


> I'll happily take them over Rosie, whoopi, Alyssa Milano (no matter how hot she still is) and joy behar


Yes that is defending them.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> I laugh because you are defending those losers since they are pro-Trump. Its like you can't think for yourself and anyone that likes Trump you feel the need to defend them and like them too. As for you quetion, I dont care for any of the people you mentioned. Stop defending celebs just because they like Trump.


You said and I quote "ANYONE that likes trump you feel the need to defend and like them" 

I said trump has ass clown supporters I wish would fall off earth...so that is me defending ANYONE that likes trump?


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080199325295071233

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080209800846176256

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080212949464043520
He's...BACK! :lol

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> Are you really that desperate for a celebrity to endorse Trump that you take a rapper who self admits he's bipolar?


There are a decent number of pro-Trump celebrities. I never mention them. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/celebrities-who-support-trump-2016-11

Kanye is significant because of his message. Also most of Kanye's supporters are probably anti-Trump and will hate him for speaking his mind, and he does it anyway, and that to me is heroic. 

I don't want people to become pro-Trump or Republicans (ew pls no) because of Kanye. But if they start questioning the Democratic plantation, the corporate media, and begin thinking for themselves? That to me is huge towards building a society around freedom and peace.


But ye I came here to share Romney's hit piece on Trump. He's basically a deep state mouthpiece, mad at Trump for daring to act against the MIC's endless war policy and disguising that fact under a bunch of BS about how presidents should be role models. My role models don't kill people. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.6e564beafd90


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080199325295071233
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080209800846176256
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080212949464043520
> He's...BACK! :lol
> 
> - Vic


You mean he's off his meds.


----------



## CamillePunk

Also yeah what's wrong with being a rapper, or being bipolar? :lol Gross post.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Also yeah what's wrong with being a rapper, or being bipolar? :lol Gross post.


Bipolar people tend not to be in the right state of mind half the time.


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> Bipolar people tend not to be in the right state of mind half the time.


Is the "right state of mind" defined by the state of mind you want them to be in? :hmmm


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Is the "right state of mind" defined by the state of mind you want them to be in? :hmmm


Where they aren't tweeting crazy shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> Where they aren't tweeting crazy shit.


"Crazy" meaning stuff you disagree with, right? 

You seem kind of controlling.


----------



## Draykorinee

Imagine thinking a rapper wearing a hat is heroic.

Sad.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> "Crazy" meaning stuff you disagree with, right?
> 
> You seem kind of controlling.


Like comparing yourself to Jesus.


----------



## Reaper

The irony of a far right guy using the word plantation while tokenizing a black man. There are other celebrities too, but it's obvious why he picked Kanye out of all of them :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Imagine thinking a rapper wearing a hat is heroic.
> 
> Sad.


But first you had to imagine that that's what I said, because you couldn't respond to my actual point. :lol Sad. Sadder still is if someone were enough of a sycophant to act like you made a point here. 



Stephen90 said:


> Like comparing yourself to Jesus.


As someone who has read the bible multiple times but isn't a believer, I'm not sure what's controversial about that. We're literally created in God's image according to the bible. :lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> I laugh because you are defending those losers since they are pro-Trump. *Its like you can't think for yourself* and anyone that likes Trump you feel the need to defend them and like them too. As for you quetion, I dont care for any of the people you mentioned. Stop defending celebs just because they like Trump.


Says the guy whose mode of thought and opinions are nearly *100%* in line with the Young Turks. LOL you're the most predictable user here. You spew every far left progressive talking point there is and I have never seen you lean right or even right of center on any issue whatsoever. 

Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Good grief mods can we just make a separate thread for BM going back and forth page after page with the usual suspects?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Says the guy whose mode of thought and opinions are nearly *100%* in line with the Young Turks. LOL you're the most predictable user here. You spew every far left progressive talking point there is and I have never seen you lean right or even right of center on any issue whatsoever.
> 
> Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong.


I dont agree with everything Tyt says. I dont even like Cenk. But yes im super progressive for sure. 




yeahbaby! said:


> Good grief mods can we just make a separate thread for BM going back and forth page after page with the usual suspects?


Stop being so triggered. Love how you are ok when people move blues, cam, beard etc troll supporting Trump but get all pissy when I call them out and debate them. Use the ignore button if you dont like my posts. Ironic how you are calling fie censorship.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-tricksters-invited-a-new-york-times-reporter

It is _such_ a mystery as to why tens of millions of people cheer on when the president makes vicious remarks about the news media

_Such

a

MYSTERY_


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-tricksters-invited-a-new-york-times-reporter
> 
> It is _such_ a mystery as to why tens of millions of people cheer on when the president makes vicious remarks about the news media
> 
> _Such
> 
> a
> 
> MYSTERY_


No one gives more disinformation than Trump. Thats a fact.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Reaper said:


> The irony of a far right guy using the word plantation while tokenizing a black man. There are other celebrities too, but it's obvious why he picked Kanye out of all of them :lol


Who are you calling far right? You can't just classify everyone who supports/ defends Trump as far right. 

Yeah it is pretty obvious, Kanye is the most prominent, relevant, high profile supporter of Trump - unless you can think of any others? There really aren't that many.


----------



## deepelemblues

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Who are you calling far right? You can't just classify everyone who supports/ defends Trump as far right.
> 
> Yeah it is pretty obvious, Kanye is the most prominent, relevant, high profile supporter of Trump - unless you can think of any others? There really aren't that many.


Dude's a racist don't waste your time 

Saying that white :trump supporters bringing up Yeezy is tokenism is nothing more than a transparent way to divide and derail a discussion along racial lines

Classic shady move. An extremely racist tactic intended to shut off an avenue that some blacks and some whites could come together through. Blacks and whites finding common ground through shared left-wing political beliefs = fine. Blacks and whites finding common ground through shared right-wing political beliefs = SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT, ****** MUST BE RUNNING SOME KIND OF SCAM. Extremely racist but racism of that kind is 100% acceptable in Current Year.


----------



## Reaper

Your response was predictable as ever. 

Latching onto a black person who agrees with you is an attempt to give your own views authenticity because you feel like your views don't have the strength to stand on their own merits. 

"Hey, if this black guy believes that Trump isn't a racist, therefore Trump can't be a racist". 

Now I'm not saying that Trump is a racist because it triggers you far right nationalists (or whatever cute little term you're calling yourselves these days). But it doesn't change the fact that you latch on to every brown guy or gal that agrees with you, and project them to greater heights. Conservative non-whites literally only get platforms because they're not white despite the fact they're prattling the same bullshit white conservatives spout and just repeating the words that are fed to them by conservative think tanks. 

They can definitely stand on their own merits, but they get an edge over random blonde white chick amongst the far right because they stand out and give you a brown face to your political positions. 

Your tokenism is transparent as fuck. It's because you are insecure in your whiteness, therefore you need validation from some non-white person.


----------



## deepelemblues

Ruh roh, someone's attempt to keep non-leftie whites and non-leftie blacks divided from each other was called out :draper2


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Ruh roh, someone's attempt to keep whites and blacks in their proper places (divided from each other) was called out :draper2


You can't defend tokenism within the far right because of how similar it is to how it is amongst SJW's, I know. So you resort to the same cliched responses you've been dishing out for years on this site :lol


----------



## dele

Vic Capri said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080199325295071233
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080209800846176256
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080212949464043520
> He's...BACK! :lol
> 
> - Vic


Laaaa, la la la wait til I get my money right. I had a dream that I bought my way to heaven. When I awoke, I spent it on a necklace. I told god I'll be back in a second. Man, it's so hard not to act reckless.



deepelemblues said:


> Obama did so many good things he tried to spend that political capital to stop :trump and utterly humiliatingly failed :bryanlol
> 
> After he tried to treat :trump like he was the star QB and :trump the geek in an 80s high school movie, thus doubling his failure and humiliation when :trump asked him how his ass tasted in January 2017 :heston
> 
> For being so loud about how correct you are some y'all don't know much about how politics actually works. All those Obama good things you're so mad aren't getting acknowledged didnt count for shit in the clutch. Soooo good :ha
> 
> And guess what if :trump loses next year, or if a president is elected in 2024 after campaigning to erase the :trump presidency, then it'll be just as whiny and embarrassing if people get mad trying to say but look at all the good things they think :trump did. That shit don't matter when you get slapped in the face in the end
> 
> Like Obama was :lol


Obama saving this country from an economic black hole that W opened up in 2008 and Obama/Clinton running a horrendous campaign assuming people would vote against Trump just because in 2016 are mutually exclusive in my opinion.

My wife and I clear near $200,000 per year, so of course we'll take a doubling of the standard deduction; does that mean that lowering taxes, blowing up spending, and running up a higher deficit in a boom period is good macroeconomic policy? At some point, "owning the libs" isn't a political platform anymore.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> You call others trolls, but then you don't reply to the point in hand. If Obama did so many great things for the country, why were the Democrats totally shut out of the Executive, Senate and House of Representatives by 2016. Why did Trump win a presidential campaign basically built upon shitting all over the Obama legacy.


Because democrats, particularly at the state level, got lazy and assumed that anyone running under the democrat label would be as popular and organized as Obama.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Obama was charismatic and might appear good to some in comparison to Bush jr (who was even worse), but ultimately he was a terrible president who failed to achieve anything of note. The foreign policy of Bush and Obama was literally criminal and left the middle east in a total quagmire and a breeding ground for extremists.
> 
> I used to think he was great. I was wrong.


To quote Ozzie Guillen:






Obama stopped an economic black hole from opening up and swallowing the great lakes states which makes them voting for Trump all the more ironic. 
Being from Wisconsin and having done my schooling in Michigan, I'd be surprised to see him run the same table again in 2020, particularly with Walker's fuckery in the last month or two.

History will look very kindly upon Obama, especially considering the shit sandwich he was handed. Obamacare gets more and more popular by the day. What's the Republicans' alternative, other than "fuck Obama?" That's right, they don't have one.

Certainly, he deserves criticism regarding the drone program and his refusal to put any bankers in jail over his two terms. As a former worker in Anti Money Laundering, not putting anyone in jail in 2009 over the credit default swaps and in 2016 over the Wells Fargo ID theft bullshit is bad. But comparing that to his predecessors (Clinton repealing Glass Steagal (sic) and Bush cratering the economy), he looks quite good. To label him a failure is laughable at best.


----------



## deepelemblues

I will continue to enjoy Yeezy and talk him up regardless of whether some racist on the internet approves or not 

Because he is a MOTHERFUCKING LYRICAL WORDSMITH MOTHERFUCKING GENIUS and I admire that 

Also because he is the only man to survive contact with the Kardashians. Dude must have some kind of incredible mental and emotional fortitude to not have gone Lamar Odom by now 

Also because he makes racists afraid that black people are forgetting their place as the perpetual property of the political left


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> I will continue to enjoy Yeezy and talk him up regardless of whether some racist on the internet approves or not


I'm glad you admitted to your tokenism. 



> Also because he makes racists afraid that black people are forgetting their place as the perpetual property of the political left


Keep talking. There have always been conservative blacks. No issue with conservatism amongst blacks. But you missed the point because you don't read which is consistently proven over and over again. 

Your first statement is what I'm arguing. Not the fact that blacks can't be conservative. But the fact that you insecure nationalists need a brown face for your politics and you elevate them because of the color of their skin. 

Thank you for proving my point


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> I dont agree with everything Tyt says. I dont even like Cenk. But yes im super progressive for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being so triggered. Love how you are ok when people move blues, cam, beard etc troll supporting Trump but get all pissy when I call them out and debate them. Use the ignore button if you dont like my posts. Ironic how you are calling fie censorship.


What in lord's name are you talking about, getting pissy? Do you think I care enough for that? I stopped reading the majority of your posts a while ago because you're a broken record. Take a break champ.

Your so called debating is just clogging up the thread now constantly going back and forth over and over, and no one, regardless of how ridiculous they may be, even want to debate with you seriously because for some time now you end up insulting them by calling them stupid or ignorant etc. That's your undoing.

Sure I can put you on ignore but others will still quote your same old posts I have to glance at. It's just getting so old at this point man. Maybe I can stomach the others too because they're not on such a high horse.


----------



## deepelemblues

dele said:


> Obama saving this country from an economic black hole that W opened up in 2008 and Obama/Clinton running a horrendous campaign assuming people would vote against Trump just because in 2016 are mutually exclusive in my opinion.
> 
> My wife and I clear near $200,000 per year, so of course we'll take a doubling of the standard deduction; does that mean that lowering taxes, blowing up spending, and running up a higher deficit in a boom period is good macroeconomic policy? At some point, "owning the libs" isn't a political platform anymore.


Did Obama save this country from an economic black hole? The consumer confidence and other indexes of sentiment suggests a disconnect between the masses and that conventional opinion. That disconnect was a major reason :trump was elected...

Pwning the someones is always a viable political platform and always will be. 

Always.

pwnage is always popular.


----------



## dele

deepelemblues said:


> Did Obama save this country from an economic black hole? The consumer confidence and other indexes of sentiment suggests a disconnect between the masses and that conventional opinion. That disconnect was a major reason :trump was elected...
> 
> Pwning the someones is always a viable political platform and always will be.
> 
> Always.
> 
> pwnage is always popular.


1. Obama absolutely saved this country, particularly the great lakes states, from an economic black hole.

2. Trump's election has to do a lot more with Clinton doing Bernie dirty and Clinton/Obama shifting towards identity politics rather than running on their record on the economy and health care. Clinton in particular had no other message than "come on, are you really going to vote for _him?_" Turns out, yes, yes they were.

3. Pissing off moderates, particularly those in WI and MI, isn't the way to win in 2020. He won't have the boogeyman of Clinton to run against in 2020.


----------



## Reaper

Democrats don't have a good enough challenger for 2020. 

We're stuck with Trump till 2024. 

Probably best to just accept it.


----------



## dele

Reaper said:


> Democrats don't have a good enough challenger for 2020.


Probably not.



Reaper said:


> We're stuck with Trump till 2024.


Unless all that delicious fast food he eats finally clogs an artery.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Democrats don't have a good enough challenger for 2020.
> 
> We're stuck with Trump till 2024.
> 
> Probably best to just accept it.


Liz Warren is the 2nd most population politician in the country and Bernie is the first. They have two great people running

Trump won't even make it to 2020, and even if he does, the GOP will primary him and he won't beat Sanders or Warren, they would destroy him.

Trump is one of the least popular politicians in the country.


----------



## deepelemblues

dele said:


> 1. Obama absolutely saved this country, particularly the great lakes states, from an economic black hole.
> 
> 2. Trump's election has to do a lot more with Clinton doing Bernie dirty and Clinton/Obama shifting towards identity politics rather than running on their record on the economy and health care. Clinton in particular had no other message than "come on, are you really going to vote for _him?_" Turns out, yes, yes they were.
> 
> 3. Pissing off moderates, particularly those in WI and MI, isn't the way to win in 2020. He won't have the boogeyman of Clinton to run against in 2020.


1. He reinflated the credit balloon through massive creation of money out of thin air by the Federal Reserve system. Lowest labor force participation rate in decades. Weakest economic recovery from a recession in the country's history. Record low consumer confidence and sentiment. Record low business sentiment. Wealth creation was concentrated in a handful of sectors while the rest stagnated. He saved bankers and internet technology companies from having smaller profits. If a Republican president had done that he would never be portrayed as saving anything.

The country and world would be on much sounder economic footing today if literally trillions and trillions of dollars hadn't been created on the Fed and European central banks' balance sheets to paper over unrecoverable debts. His policies ensured another debt crisis in the future. Possibly the very near future.

2. This is a popular excuse but the reality is that economic concerns elected :trump. He didn't win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio or Michigan because of butthurt BernieBros or distaste for identity politics. He won those states because he promised to end the economic abandonment of non-salaried workers and salaried workers on the low end of the salaried income spectrum, and they believed him. 

3. He'll have a new bogeyman (or woman) to run against.

Elections are a contest of two bogeymen (or women) and the one that is successfully portrayed as the worse bogeyman (or woman) loses.


----------



## Tater

dele said:


> 1. Obama absolutely saved this country, particularly the great lakes states, from an economic black hole.


This praise for Obama "saving" the economy is getting a bit ridiculous. The man himself brags about being a banker/Wall Street friendly moderate Republican. I don't think the millions of people who got kicked out of their homes while the banks were given trillions in taxpayer money aren't too grateful for his economic recovery. All the people who lost their good paying, middle class jobs with the nice benefits, who are now working for crappy low paying jobs with little to no benefits aren't too enamored. I'm sure the people with soaring healthcare costs just love it that the Democrats passed the Republican healthcare reform.

GTFO with this Obama saved the economy bullshit. Obama put the very same bankers who wrecked the economy in the first place in charge of "fixing" it. Oh and fix it they did. For them. To the tune of 33 trillion dollars. Obama put the criminals in charge and they robbed us all blind. What he didn't do was make any serious structural changes to the system. What he did do was rebuild the same system with the same criminals running the show and set us back down the same path to economic ruin as were the last time it happened.

Try to remember that the next time the economy tanks because without the failure of the Democrats, the Republicans would never be in a position to wreck everything.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

:what?


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> :what?


Well, unfortunately, that is now the new version of events for the Trumptards. Their Jesus has spoken.


----------



## deepelemblues

2 Ton 21 said:


> :what?


I don't understand your confusion, literally everything he said was 100% :fact. The USSR was bankrupted by the low price of oil in the 1980s, spending to occupy Afghanistan, money sent to Eastern Europe to try to suppress Solidarity in Poland and democratic movements in other Warsaw Pact countries, and trying to keep up with the large increases in the US military budget all at the same time. Terrorists based in or connected to Afghanistan had been targeting Soviet oil infrastructure in the Caucasus and the Central Asian Soviet republics for decades. The Russian Empire and the Soviets both tried for 100+ years to control Afghanistan through various methods.

He did leave out how Reagan "requested" that the Saudis depress the price of oil so as to cut the USSR's income at the same time it was spending billions in Afghanistan, and trying to match Reagan's much increased military budget. Perhaps :trump gives too much credit to Afghanistan specifically, but it was one of the pillars of the Reagan strategy that broke the USSR. 

1. Saudis depress the price of oil
2. The Pope smuggles hundreds of millions of CIA and Vatican dollars through the Church infrastructure to Solidarity and other democracy movements in Eastern Europe 
3. The United States greatly increases military spending
4. The Soviet Union runs out of money trying to keep the lid on Afghanistan and Eastern Europe, match America's military buildup, and prop up its exhausted Rube Goldberg economy 
5. COCAINE

That was the 1980s


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine thinking a rapper wearing a hat is heroic.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> But first you had to imagine that that's what I said, because you couldn't respond to my actual point. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> Sad. Sadder still is if someone were enough of a sycophant to act like you made a point here.
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like comparing yourself to Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As someone who has read the bible multiple times but isn't a believer, I'm not sure what's controversial about that. We're literally created in God's image according to the bible. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

That is what you said.

How the is it heroic for a rich rapper to wear a Maga hat just because a lot of his fans are anti Trump.

That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Sad.


----------



## DOPA

Speaking of Kanye, apparently he is going to be on the Joe Rogan podcast soon which regardless of what you think about him is a pretty huge deal. Especially for Joe, I'm sure once it comes out it will surpass the Elon Musk interview as his most viewed video on the channel.


----------



## Tater

Rolo Tomassi said:


> Speaking of Kanye, apparently he is going to be on the Joe Rogan podcast soon which regardless of what you think about him is a pretty huge deal. Especially for Joe, I'm sure once it comes out it will surpass the Elon Musk interview as his most viewed video on the channel.


Joe should ask him why he married a hobbit even though he's a gay fish.


----------



## Draykorinee

That will be a hoot, his performance in the white house was enough to make me want to see more, it was one of the most ridiculous performances but also brilliant in its utter nonsense. 

It's why I'm so glad to see him go all MAGA again, it is great theatre but also just highlights how crazy you have to be to support Trump so vociferously.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look Trump can't stop winning Dow down 660 points. His trade wars killing the economy. When will this winning stop


----------



## CamillePunk

Donald Trump perfectly lays out everything that is backwards and retarded about US foreign policy. :lol (Skip past the first minute or so where he's talking about Romney)

Bolton fumes in the background. :lol

Senator Rand Paul exposes some Democratic BS about the shutdown and defends President Trump against Mitt Romney's op-ed:


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Donald Trump perfectly lays out everything that is backwards and retarded about US foreign policy. :lol (Skip past the first minute or so where he's talking about Romney)
> 
> Bolton fumes in the background. :lol


and exposes himself to be even more retarded.

Trump asking did you know Russia used to be the Soviet Union like he just learned this today and thought no one else knew and claiming the Soviet Union was right to invade Afghanistan WTF


----------



## MrMister

I kind of hope Trump hired Bolton just so he can troll the fuck out of him and make him resign.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> and exposes himself to be even more retarded.
> 
> Trump asking did you know Russia used to be the Soviet Union like he just learned this today


lmao unintentionally funny shit like this makes me think you're a troll BM but I know you aren't


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Donald Trump perfectly lays out everything that is backwards and retarded about US foreign policy. :lol (Skip past the first minute or so where he's talking about Romney)
> 
> *Bolton fumes in the background. *:lol


You almost expect his outrageous moustache to fly off his face in frustration.

Bets on how long he'll last should be starting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> lmao unintentionally funny shit like this makes me think you're a troll BM but I know you aren't


Love how you keep defending Trumps stupidity


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Love how you keep defending Trumps stupidity


sorry fam Trump and I are just to the left of you on war and American imperialism apparently


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> sorry fam Trump and I are just to the left of you on war and American imperialism apparently


LOL more deflection about how stupid Trump is, and you even have to lie claiming I am not anti-war.

You keep proving you can't even be honest but that is your MO with all your trolling


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL more deflection about how stupid Trump is, and you even have to lie claiming I am not anti-war.
> 
> You keep proving you can't even be honest but that is your MO with all your trolling


didn't say you weren't anti-war, we're just to the left of you. we're so anti-war we want to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan and be less hostile towards Russia and North Korea. You apparently think all of that is stupid given your reply to the video I shared. 

I don't think Trump is stupid. I think he's a sloppy speaker and exaggerates a lot though. But he seems to understand the middle east quagmire far better than most. That's worth a lot more to me than any issues I have with the former, which I don't really care about at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> didn't say you weren't anti-war, we're just to the left of you. we're so anti-war we want to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan and be less hostile towards Russia and North Korea. You apparently think all of that is stupid given your reply to the video I shared.
> 
> I don't think Trump is stupid. I think he's a sloppy speaker and exaggerates a lot though. But he seems to understand the middle east quagmire far better than most. That's worth a lot more to me than any issues I have with the former, which I don't really care about at all.


Trump is in bed with Russia, he is Putin's bitch, but its good to see you admit this, its weird you are ok with this and that it makes you think you are to the left of me on war because of it lol But you are using Trump logic which never makes any sense so I can see why you think that.

And Trump is a sloppy speaker because he is stupid. All you have to do is read his tweets. Trump is so dumb he couldn't even read briefings, they had to use mostly charts and graphs. Trump thinks climate change is a hoax by China, you can't get any dumber than that. And LOL at Trump understanding the middle east quagmire far better than most, you are delusional if you really think that.

Anyone who can't see how stupid Trump is, makes me wonder about them.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is in bed with Russia, he is Putin's bitch, but its good to see you admit this, its weird you are ok with this and that it makes you think you are to the left of me on war because of it lol But you are using Trump logic which never makes any sense so I can see why you think that.
> 
> And Trump is a sloppy speaker because he is stupid. All you have to do is read his tweets. Trump is so dumb he couldn't even read briefings, they had to use mostly charts and graphs. Trump thinks climate change is a hoax by China, you can't get any dumber than that. And LOL at Trump understanding the middle east quagmire far better than most, you are delusional if you really think that.
> 
> Anyone who can't see how stupid Trump is, makes me wonder about them.


You were critical of the decision to pull troops out of Syria (where they should never have been) and Afghanistan which has been occupied for 17 years now. You are therefore 'to the right' or more 'hawkish' on the issue of war than CamillePunk who is 100% for the withdrawal. What about that doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me.

Wanting better relations with Russia = being Putin's bitch... Are you sure you aren't right wing?  I actually thought allowing Russia to annex part of the Ukraine was 'being Putin's bitch' but I guess if you say the right things that's all that matters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> You were critical of the decision to pull troops out of Syria (where they should never have been) and Afghanistan which has been occupied for 17 years now. You are therefore 'to the right' or more 'hawkish' on the issue of war than CamillePunk who is 100% for the withdrawal. What about that doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me.
> 
> Wanting better relations with Russia = being Putin's bitch... Are you sure you aren't right wing?  I actually thought allowing Russia to annex part of the Ukraine was 'being Putin's bitch' but I guess if you say the right things that's all that matters.


Go back and read my quote on the matter. I was critical on the way Trump is pulling out of Syria (with no plan, no telling anyone in the military before he announced it) not that he was pulling out, which I said is the right move. I said Trump should have had a plain in place before making the announcement. Who said I am not 100% for the withdrawal? You are just lying about my stance. 

Are you really going to claim that me wanting a plan on pulling out of Syria is to the right of someone who just wants to pull out with no plan? That makes zero sense

Putin has Trump under his control, that is the only reason why Trump wants better relations with Russia, and also because of all the money Trump laundered from Russia. 

Are you really ok with that?


----------



## CamillePunk

Hoolahoop33 said:


> You were critical of the decision to pull troops out of Syria (where they should never have been) and Afghanistan which has been occupied for 17 years now. You are therefore 'to the right' or more 'hawkish' on the issue of war than CamillePunk who is 100% for the withdrawal. What about that doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me.
> 
> Wanting better relations with Russia = being Putin's bitch... Are you sure you aren't right wing?  I actually thought allowing Russia to annex part of the Ukraine was 'being Putin's bitch' but I guess if you say the right things that's all that matters.


I think BM said before he voted for Romney so I think it actually makes sense. :lol

Also BM, Trump never said we were withdrawing with no plan. :lol Why do you just assume there isn't a plan?


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Go back and read my quote on the matter. I was critical on the way Trump is pulling out of Syria (with no plan, no telling anyone in the military before he announced it) not that he was pulling out, which I said is the right move. I said Trump should have had a plain in place before making the announcement. Who said I am not 100% for the withdrawal? You are just lying about my stance.
> 
> Are you really going to claim that me wanting a plan on pulling out of Syria is to the right of someone who just wants to pull out with no plan? That makes zero sense
> 
> Putin has Trump under his control, that is the only reason why Trump wants better relations with Russia, and also because of all the money Trump laundered from Russia.
> 
> Are you really ok with that?


Sorry, I was actually wrong about your stance - my apologies. I do feel though that if any person other than Trump had announced it, that you would have received it in a much more positive manner. In a way it was probably a good thing that he didn't listen to Mattis, Bolton, generals, etc. I think you should give Trump a W on this matter (for now) even though you don't like him!

I'm ok with it if it means peace. As it happens I find it extremely unlikely that Putin has any 'control' over Trump, except that Trump maybe admires him. The whole Russia conspiracy is not convincing at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I think BM said before he voted for Romney so I think it actually makes sense. :lol
> 
> Also BM, Trump never said we were withdrawing with no plan. :lol Why do you just assume there isn't a plan?


yeah, it makes sense since Romney did a good job as Governor of MA. Its funny how you wrongly bash em for supporting Obama now you are bashing for me voting for Romney over him. You prove time and time again what a troll you are.

Trump had no plan for withdrawing when he announced it, the military said they were caught off guard and had no idea Trump was even going to announce it and had to scramble to figure something out. Trump has not even given a timeline. Its just funny you think Trump is even smart enough to make a plan by himself. Trump is so dumb he thinks stealth plans are actually invisible. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Sorry, I was actually wrong about your stance - my apologies. I do feel though that if any person other than Trump had announced it, that you would have received it in a much more positive manner. In a way it was probably a good thing that he didn't listen to Mattis, Bolton, generals, etc. I think you should give Trump a W on this matter (for now) even though you don't like him!
> 
> I'm ok with it if it means peace. As it happens I find it extremely unlikely that Putin has any 'control' over Trump, except that Trump maybe admires him. The whole Russia conspiracy is not convincing at all.


I already gave Trump credit for pulling out. I just said he did the right thing for the wrong reasons but its still a good thing he is pulling out. Is that not giving him credit for pulling out?

If you really are not conviced by all the evidence against Trump with Russia then you don't want to be convinced. Just read this tweet with 50 examples. All the evidence shows Trump's ties to Russia. 

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1079514265902567426


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> I already gave Trump credit for pulling out. I just said he did the right thing for the wrong reasons but its still a good thing he is pulling out. Is that not giving him credit for pulling out?
> 
> If you really are not conviced by all the evidence against Trump with Russia then you don't want to be convinced. Just read this tweet with 50 examples. All the evidence shows Trump's ties to Russia.
> 
> https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1079514265902567426


Lmao a lot of these tweets have nothing to do with Russia and most of them are just "this Trump family member or associate once did something with this Russian person...". :lol 

Rachel Madcow level conspiracy theory mongering :lol

FIFTY EXAMPLES :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Lmao a lot of these tweets have nothing to do with Russia and most of them are just "this Trump family member or associate once did something with this Russian person...". :lol
> 
> Rachel Madcow level conspiracy theory mongering :lol
> 
> FIFTY EXAMPLES :lmao


Right, its showing all of Trumps ties to Russia something you claim there are none. Its just funny you claim the tweets have nothing to do with Russia yet turn around and say they show Trumps family members and his associates connections to RUSSIA.

Do you even listen to yourself sometimes? You are too busy trolling you contradict your own post in the same sentence.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah, it makes sense since Romney did a good job as Governor of MA. Its funny how you wrongly bash em for supporting Obama now you are bashing for me voting for Romney over him. You prove time and time again what a troll you are.
> 
> Trump had no plan for withdrawing when he announced it, the military said they were caught off guard and had no idea Trump was even going to announce it and had to scramble to figure something out. Trump has not even given a timeline. Its just funny you think Trump is even smart enough to make a plan by himself. Trump is so dumb he thinks stealth plans are actually invisible.


When did I bash you for supporting Obama? :lol I voted for Obama in '08. If you're trying to say Obama was a good president NOW, ye I'd have to bash you. He was awful. Warmongering corporate puppet through-and-through. 

Anyone saying they were truly caught off guard by Trump's tweet are bs'ing given he had been talking about doing it earlier that year.


birthday_massacre said:


> Right, its showing all of Trumps ties to Russia something you claim there are none. Its just funny you claim the tweets have nothing to do with Russia yet turn around and say they show Trumps family members and his associates connections to RUSSIA.
> 
> Do you even listen to yourself sometimes? You are too busy trolling you contradict your own post in the same sentence.


Russian citizens and the Russian government are not the same thing do you really not get that? :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> When did I bash you for supporting Obama? :lol I voted for Obama in '08. If you're trying to say Obama was a good president NOW, ye I'd have to bash you. He was awful. Warmongering corporate puppet through-and-through.
> 
> Anyone saying they were truly caught off guard by Trump's tweet are bs'ing given he had been talking about doing it earlier that year.Russian citizens and the Russian government are not the same thing do you really not get that? :lmao


You do it all the time when it comes to Obama, you troll so much you forget the BS you spew.

Putin controls everything in Russia you do understand that right? Like with Trump makes deals with the Russia mob. And Don Jr. even said he colluded with Russia to get dirty on Hillary. That alone shows Trump colluded with Russia but you will continue to ignore that.

You can ignore all the Trump connections with Russia all you want, it just makes you look bad


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/us/politics/trump-game-of-thrones-poster.html

:lol


----------



## Reaper

Looks like Trump handed his balls to the establishment GOP once again :lol



> After lunch with Trump, Lindsey Graham shifts course on Syria: ‘I think the president’s taking this really seriously’
> 
> Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday abruptly walked back his criticism of President Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria, a move that he had previously derided as “an Obama-like mistake.”
> 
> Graham, a onetime Trump critic who has become one of the president’s most ardent supporters on Capitol Hill, made the remarks to reporters after lunch with Trump at the White House on Sunday afternoon.
> 
> “We had a great lunch. We talked about Syria. He told me some things I didn’t know that made me feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria,” Graham said.
> 
> *He described Trump’s decision as “a pause situation” rather than a withdrawal, telling reporters, “I think the president’s taking this really seriously.”
> *
> Earlier this month, the White House announced that the United States will move quickly to withdraw its 2,000 troops from Syria, a decision that defied the warnings of Trump’s top advisers.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.6da3ca0368bc

The "withdrawal" was just another lie. 

https://www.rt.com/news/447966-trump-syria-timelling-kurds/

The stupid fucking little establishment bitch is now wavering already. Not surprised at all :lol



> ‘I never said fast or slow’: Trump has vague timeline for ‘sand and death’ Syria withdrawal
> 
> President Donald Trump told reporters that his planned withdrawal of US troops from Syria would take place over an unspecified “period of time,” adding that previous reports of a withdrawal within four months were false.
> 
> The president announced the pullout from Syria on Christmas Eve, leaving Turkish forces to “eradicate whatever is left of ISIS” there. Following the announcement, the New York Times reported on Monday that Trump would give the military four months to extricate itself from Syria completely.
> 
> Speaking at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump denied giving the military a concrete timeline. “I never said fast or slow” he told reporters. “Somebody said four months, but I never said that either,” the president added.


Oh what a cluster fuck this administration is. No balls at all. Or maybe he really is a war hawk after all. Same excuses over and over again. "Oh I didn't say that, I said that. I didn't mean that. I meant that". 

Fuck You. You're all the same.


----------



## deepelemblues

US soldiers in Syria will be replaced with Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and other Gulf state officers and soldiers. Egyptian and Saudi officers are already on the ground meeting with the Kurds and Americans to examine the ground and plan deployments. 

But the president has no plan! 

By the way the cooperation between Kurds and Iraqis to fight the Islamic State and now between other Arab states and the Kurds is the first time since WWI that Arabs and Kurds have worked together instead of being at odds. That :trump, building bridges between peoples. Where's his Nobel peace prize?


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> US soldiers in Syria will be replaced with Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and other Gulf state officers and soldiers. Egyptian and Saudi officers are already on the ground meeting with the Kurds and Americans to examine the ground and plan deployments.
> 
> But the president has no plan!
> 
> By the way the cooperation between Kurds and Iraqis to fight the Islamic State and now between other Arab states and the Kurds is the first time since WWI that Arabs and Kurds have worked together instead of being at odds. That :trump, building bridges between peoples. Where's his Nobel peace prize?


Of course two weeks later there is a plan, but there wasn't when Trump announced it as I said at the time. 

https://www.msnbc.com/brian-william...g-troops-from-syria-border-wall-1402723907885

Trump offers no plans for pulling troops from Syria & border wall

Announcing a quick & full draw down of troops in Syria while pledging Mexico will pay for a border wall & the U.S. military might build it, Trump is offering no detailed plans for how to make these policies happen.


----------



## 777

Jesus, I've been out of the loop for a while. Did @Reaper go full commie or is he working some kind of meme magic.


----------



## birthday_massacre

777 said:


> Jesus, I've been out of the loop for a while. Did @Reaper go full commie or is he working some kind of meme magic.


How is anti-Trump commie? If anything pro-Trump is commie for all his ties to Russia and being Putins puppet.


----------



## 777

birthday_massacre said:


> How is anti-Trump commie? If anything pro-Trump is commie for all his ties to Russia and being Putins puppet.


I was referring to his signature, was wondering how serious he was.

Also, that's something I haven't been able to wrap my head around, why are communists in America so angry about Trump's possible connections to Russia?


----------



## birthday_massacre

777 said:


> I was referring to his signature, was wondering how serious he was.
> 
> Also, that's something I haven't been able to wrap my head around, why are communists in America so angry about Trump's possible connections to Russia?


Oh ok, I thought you were talking about Reapers 180 on Trump.


----------



## Tater

777 said:


> I was referring to his signature, was wondering how serious he was.


He's trolling. :lol



> Also, that's something I haven't been able to wrap my head around, why are communists in America so angry about Trump's possible connections to Russia?


Russia hasn't been communist in decades. They're shitty right wing capitalists like the USA now.


----------



## 777

Tater said:


> Russia hasn't been communist in decades. They're shitty right wing capitalists like the USA now.


I'm not entirely sure the anti-Trump activists are aware of that though. Not quite sure what they're thinking.


----------



## Tater

777 said:


> I'm not entirely sure the anti-Trump activists are aware of that though. Not quite sure what they're thinking.


Russiagaters aren't exactly known for logical thinking.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Russiagaters aren't exactly known for logical thinking.


Coming from the guy who ignores all the evidence against Trump LOL


----------



## deepelemblues

Russians are Russians

They have very Russian things about them like every people does

Looking at the wild stock market swings and the jobs and manufacturing numbers, I'm wondering if the influence of political uncertainty isn't being underestimated by people who were gloomy for most of December like I was. The underlying numbers keep looking good and the stock market has been moving nearly in concert with political blowups and the automatic algorithm-triggered computer trades they set off. Or the lack of political blowups. 

The biggest risks seem to be a Chinese slowdown that is worse than expected, and people plain old panicking too much because Orange Man Bad. He should take weed off the federal drug schedule just so people can chill the fuck out, and the economy gets even more greaterer again?

The debt nuke will kill us all but we'll all be dead by then. It'll kill some generation of our ancestors. There's enough innovation to keep wealth creation going at a high enough clip to keep kicking the can down the road for some time. Good for us, bad for the grandkids. Suckers!


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> Jesus, I've been out of the loop for a while. Did @Reaper go full commie or is he working some kind of meme magic.


Why can't I do both :Shrug 

Seriously though at this point I've intentionally left my real political leanings undeclared. I have tried to explain to a bunch of people, but they can't wrap their heads around it because they like to put people into neat little boxes.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


>


yeah all those part-time seasonal jobs woot


----------



## Reaper

It literally says right there "labor participation rate was higher in December than November" ... And people are like "WOW TRUMP. YAY!" 

I guess Trump created Christmas and Holiday season as well :lol

Might as well start calling him Santa Clause.

jesus fucking christ the desperation of Trumptards to grasp at anything fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> It literally says right there "labor participation rate was higher in December than November" ... And people are like "WOW TRUMP. YAY!"
> 
> I guess Trump created Christmas and Holiday season as well :lol
> 
> Might as well start calling him Santa Clause.
> 
> jesus fucking christ the desperation of Trumptards to grasp at anything fpalm


Well Trumptards do think Trump saved Christmas lol.


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

Weesa only gives yousa a bongo if yousa gets us fair dealsa on tradesa! De Naboo been cheatin usuh for too longsa!


----------



## JasonLives

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah all those part-time seasonal jobs woot





Reaper said:


> It literally says right there "labor participation rate was higher in December than November" ... And people are like "WOW TRUMP. YAY!"
> 
> I guess Trump created Christmas and Holiday season as well :lol
> 
> Might as well start calling him Santa Clause.
> 
> jesus fucking christ the desperation of Trumptards to grasp at anything fpalm


 
First of all, the number is seasonally adjusted. Which means its adjusting for the season. It being the holidays dont really matter. The preliminary actual number of jobs were 440,000 and there after adjusted for the season. 
So you are both wrong in that aspect. 

Now the figure is preliminary and can swing by as much as -/+ 100,000 jobs.

However if we look at the December figures a couple of years back we can see that its in fact a great number. 
No, just because its December doesnt always mean a increase in jobs. So once again, it being the holidays dont matter. For example the two Decembers before this was under 200,000 jobs increase. Hell, in 2013 the preliminary number was just 74,000 jobs in December.
Ive bothered to go back to around 2011-2012(it gets harder to find the actual preliminary figure the more you go back) and this December was in fact the highest since atleast 2011-2012. Maybe even further back.

Now this is just by looking at the preliminary numbers. One December had like 329,000 jobs(2014 or 2015) after it was updated months later.

But to sum up, it was a great month just by looking at the job report. 


I learned this by just simply looking up the figures. Instead of making a bunch of guesses and act like they are facts. 
In this case, you are the "tards" that cant bother to look stuff up. Doesnt matter if you are pro or against Trump, just some basic research(10 minutes) makes you learn a lot. 

Americans should be happy about the numbers. To have such a increase at a time where the overall unemployment is under 4%. At a time where many different group of people has a decrease in unemployment. Where the wages are going up.
Numbers that show that more people were more active looking for jobs. 

BUT in the end, its one report. But a damn good one.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'll concur with the random Swede who jumped in, good numbers are good numbers, looking back previously this is one of the strongest Decembers for a while so why not just be thankful that people are being employed?


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> I'll concur with the random Swede who jumped in, good numbers are good numbers, looking back previously this is one of the strongest Decembers for a while so why not just be thankful that people are being employed?


Because this has nothing to do with the president. And if anyone actually paid attention to my post, they'd see that the context of my criticism wasn't just about the numbers looking good but the fact that people were celebrating this as another victory for Trump.

People who give credit to the president or blame the president for the economy are being incredibly myopic in their analysis if the economy and everything that is involved in it. The word economists use is primitivism. It's the idea that "gods give and God's take away". Most brains are still wired to see Presidents in that kind if light. 

The president is just a figurehead. 

Unless the US adopt a full fledged Keynesian economic system with the president directly responsible for macroeconomic policy decisions independently and the entire economy is centrally planned the government cannot take credit or blame for the economy. 

In any case, High employment, GDP, growth in the stock market etc does not mean anything at all with regards to improvements in living standards. 

We've been over this several times and I'm tired of lecturing people in here about the economy because despite all my predictions and technical savvy my posts get ignored *shrug*.

In a non centrally planned economy like America where there is a high level of economic freedom blaming the government for economic downturns or giving it credit are yet another part of partisan hackery.

The Swede is right from his perspective because swede's lives are run by their government. Not here in America.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

Reaper said:


> Unless the US adopt a full fledged Keynesian economic system with the president directly responsible for macroeconomic policy decisions independently and the entire economy is centrally planned the government cannot take credit or blame for the economy.


_Cough... Federal Reserve... cough._


----------



## Reaper

Loucifer said:


> _Cough... Federal Reserve... cough._


Nope. I also added that it needs to be completely controlled by the president who makes all the decisions. 

The Fed does have a decent amount of control, but then the government does not have control over the fed except some oversight. It is independent from the machinations of congress and the presidential office at it maintains its autonomy to a large extent - which is why whenever the Fed does something the government goes:












> Many people are surprised to learn that the central bank of the United States operates in part independently of the government. The combined public and private structure of the Federal Reserve (Fed) is highly controversial, especially in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007- 2008.
> 
> The monetary decisions of the Federal Reserve do not have to be ratified by the President (or anyone else in the Executive Branch). The Fed receives no funding from Congress, and the members of the Board of Governors, who are appointed, serve 14-year terms. These terms do not coincide with presidential terms, creating further independence.
> 
> However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which aims to ensure it achieves the economic objectives of maximum employment and stable prices. And the Fed Chair must submit a semi-annual report on monetary policy to Congress.
> 
> The primary justification for an independent Federal Reserve is the need to insulate it from short-term political pressures. Without a degree of autonomy, the Fed could be influenced by election-focused politicians into enacting an excessively expansionary monetary policy to lower unemployment in the short-term. This could lead to high inflation and fail to control unemployment over the long-term.
> 
> Advocates of autonomy argue that an independent Fed will better address long-term economic objectives. Independence can also make it easier to execute policies that are politically unpopular but serve a greater public interest.
> 
> Critics argue that it is unconstitutional for Congress to assign a constitutional power to an independent government agency. According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to coin money and regulate its value. In 1913, Congress delegated this power to the Fed through the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. However, some argue that such a delegation is fundamentally unconstitutional. Opponents of Fed independence also suggest that it is undemocratic to have an unelected agency, unaccountable to the US public, dictating monetary policy.
> 
> The Bottom Line
> Fears over the massive expansion of the Federal Reserve balance sheet and questionable bailouts to firms such as American International Group, Inc. (A.I.G.) have led to demands for increased transparency and accountability. Recent calls in Washington to 'audit' the Federal Reserve could potentially undermine the independent status of the US central bank.


I posted an article a few days ago (which was obviously ignored by the people who want to believe that the government controls the economy) which highlighted the potential impacts of some of Trump's policy positions, but even she was reserved in attributing entire blame/credit in her piece.

Saying that job creation, wealth creation etc etc is controlled by the government and that it should be given credit of any of it in hybrid economies like the US is just plain wrong on many levels. The government has some influence with their policy direction, but by and large economies function independently given the autonomy of the private sector.


----------



## Reaper

More corruption from the government:

https://www.thisisinsider.com/gover...mp-administration-officials-get-raises-2019-1



> The government shutdown is going strong, and now there's a group of Washington politicians who might be benefiting from it: Senior Trump appointees who are now set to receive $10,000 raises.
> 
> The Washington Post reported that the pay raise seems to be an intended consequence of the shutdown, benefiting hundreds Trump appointees from deputy secretaries to Vice President Mike Pence, whose salary will jump from $230,700 to $243,500. According to the Post, by failing to pass funding bills on December 21, the day before the shutdown, lawmakers allowed an existing pay freeze to lapse.
> 
> The pay freeze, enacted in 2013, used to be renewed every year and capped pay for top federal executives. The cap will expire without legislative action by Saturday, allowing raises that have accumulated since 2013 to hit paychecks starting next week, according to documents issued by the Office of Personnel Management and experts in federal pay interviewed by the Post.
> 
> The news comes as nearly 800,000 federal employees are either not working or not being paid for their labor during the government shutdown, which has now lasted 14 days.
> 
> Read more: Several House Republicans broke with Trump and voted with Democrats to pass 2 bills that would end the government shutdown
> 
> "I suspect the president isn't aware of the disparity — that political appointees will get a pay raise and no one else will," John Palguta, former career executive in the federal government for human resources, told the Post. "It's going to be seen as terribly unfair."
> 
> The Post reported that the pay freeze's expiration was discussed during a conference call Monday between officials from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. Some officials, including OPM director Margaret Weichert expressed worry about the public perception of the raises.
> 
> "It was definitely a 'this is not going to look good' situation,'" one official said, according to the Post.
> 
> The Post reported that the raises could cost taxpayers $300 million over ten years.


:clap:

Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to those in the inner circles of the upper echelons of corrupt policy-making.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> More corruption from the government:
> 
> https://www.thisisinsider.com/gover...mp-administration-officials-get-raises-2019-1
> 
> 
> 
> :clap:
> 
> Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to those in the inner circles of the upper echelons of corrupt policy-making.


In that case, its Christmas everyday


----------



## DesoloutionRow

Reaper said:


> Nope. I also added that it needs to be completely controlled by the president who makes all the decisions.
> 
> The Fed does have a decent amount of control, but then the government does not have control over the fed except some oversight. It is independent from the machinations of congress and the presidential office at it maintains its autonomy to a large extent - which is why whenever the Fed does something the government goes:


You got it all backwards. The Fed controls everything. The President answers to the Fed and the Elite control the country. It's one big club and you ain't in it. That's what central planning does to a country. It concentrates the power and creates a top class and a peasant class; every damn time. You are a slave to fiat currency. When I was referring to the President originally, I meant the President and Fed Chair Jerome Powell.


----------



## Reaper

Loucifer said:


> You got it all backwards. The Fed controls everything. The President answers to the Fed and the Elite control the country. It's one big club and you ain't in it. That's what central planning does to a country. It concentrates the power and creates a top class and a peasant class; every damn time. You are a slave to fiat currency. When I was referring to the President originally, I meant the President and Fed Chair Jerome Powell.


Unhhh... No. 

That's yet another conspiratorial way of approaching our economy and it goes too far the other way.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

Reaper said:


> Unhhh... No.
> 
> That's yet another conspiratorial way of approaching our economy and it goes too far the other way.


Conspiratorial does not equal fictitious. Look at the purchasing power of your fiat United States Dollars. Look at the rigging of the financial markets by the Fed. Look at the endless wars without congressional approval, due to the ability to print the reserve currency. You don't have to give me a better answer than "Unhhh... No.", but really sit yourself down and think about it.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

President Bolton tells us he's really the one in command.









Trump is an establishment bitch. 

Disappointing but not unexpected.


----------



## Tater

Reaper said:


> President Bolton tells us he's really the one in command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is an establishment bitch.
> 
> Disappointing but not unexpected.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082063355135827968
Remember when our favorite fake ancap was having a triggered snowflake meltdown and ran off to his safe space when Bernie didn't tweet praise for Trump announcing a Syria withdrawal?

:ha


----------



## Miss Sally

Fire Bolton, good lord this guy needs to go.


----------



## deepelemblues

The president should stick to his guns even if it means the resignation of the entire JCS and every bureaucrat in the DoD

Especially if it means that


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-meat-china-putin-idUSKCN1NX1C4



> *Putin says Russia will supply soy beans, poultry meat to China*
> 
> MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday that Russia would supply soy beans and poultry meat to China and that the United States had effectively given up on that market.
> 
> Putin was speaking at the Russia Calling annual investment forum.


----------



## deepelemblues

I do hope China enjoys shitty Russian chicken meat

Before Vladdymir Pootin decided American chickens were a vice Russians must be prevented from enjoying, "Bush legs" (imported chicken from the United States) were quite popular in Russia, because the quality of Russian chicken meat was quite awful (and still is)


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> The president should stick to his guns even if it means the resignation of the entire JCS and every bureaucrat in the DoD
> 
> Especially if it means that


LOL at you thinking Trump gives a shit about peoples needs


----------



## Reaper

People's commitment to Trump has now reached sadcringe level.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> People's commitment to Trump has now reached sadcringe level.


You have the Anti-Trumpers who have nothing but their identity attached to attacking Trump for any and all things. It's madness. I'm not sure what group came first but they feed off each other and neither listen to reason. :serious:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> You have the Anti-Trumpers who have nothing but their identity attached to attacking Trump for any and all things. It's madness. I'm not sure what group came first but they feed off each other and neither listen to reason. :serious:


Yeah. But when the meme wars first started, the pro-trumpers were the ones making fun of the cringe. Now they've gotten worse while the anti-trumpers are scaling back a little bit. 

The pendulum has shifted :shrug

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/...s-syria-withdrawal-are-vanishing-280b0a90b1bb


> *Reasons To Believe In Trump’s Syria Withdrawal Are Vanishing*
> 
> On the first of April last year I published an article titled “Ignore The Words Of US Presidents. Watch Their Actions Instead.”, about Trump’s claim that his administration would be pulling troops out of Syria “very soon”. Watching the actions and ignoring the words is a personal policy I’ve found very useful in dealing with top government figures who understand that power has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with narrative control, and in that particular case the president’s claims were quickly memory holed after a highly suspicious chemical weapons allegation in Douma a few days later. The president’s words said the troops were leaving, and what actually happened was the US bombing the Syrian government for a second time in a year while troops remained where they were.
> 
> Everyone completely lost their shit last month when the president once again made the claim that US troops will be brought home from Syria. Establishment loyalists of the political/media class went into full meltdown, Mattis handed in his resignation, and #Resistance Twitter pundits who’d never typed the word “Kurd” in their lives suddenly became self-appointed experts on the geopolitical dynamics between the Turkish government and the YPG. Support for the president’s words also rushed in from anti-interventionists and anti-imperialists everywhere, as well as from a few surprising places like Democratic Representative Ted Liu and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren.
> 
> So there was a very strong reaction to Trump’s words about Syria. But what have his actions been? If we look at this administration’s actual behavior with the narrative soundtrack on mute, what we see is a significant increasing of the number of troops in Syria, bombing the Syrian government twice, committing war crimes in Raqqa, providing full-throated support for hundreds of Israeli air strikes against Iranian targets in Syria, and a steadily increasing number of indications that the troops won’t be coming home at all.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082021438884798464
> “I never said we’d be doing it that quickly,” press were told on Sunday by the president, who has indeed previously used the words “now” and “quickly” to describe the pace of troop withdrawal.
> 
> “We won’t be finally pulled out, until ISIS is gone,” Trump added.
> 
> National Security Advisor John Bolton has also announced additional conditions which will need to be met before there’s a full withdrawal of US forces from Syria, including the seemingly indefinite need to counter Iranian activity in the region, and the need for an agreement to be reached between the US and Turkey to protect Kurdish militias in northeastern Syria.
> 
> Bolton said the Kurdish factions are being advised by the US to “stand fast now” and refrain from brokering an agreement with the Syrian government or Russia to protect them from Turkey, a deal which has been on the table and seriously contemplated by the Kurds for many months. Such an agreement would help unify a fragmented Syria, would deter an attack from Turkey, and would remove any need for the US to protect its YPG “allies” (read: assets), so naturally the servants of endless war are working against it.
> 
> Bolton also said that the withdrawal only applies to northeastern Syria, and that troops are expected to remain indefinitely in the southern part of the country. Bolton is reportedly expected to explain to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Turkish president Recip Tayyip Erdogan that some of the troops who do end up being withdrawn from Syria will not be going home at all, but will rather be moved across the border to fight ISIS in Iraq.
> 
> John McCain’s testicular clone Senator Lindsey Graham announced last week that Trump is now slowing the withdrawal “in a smart way” after he met with the president, which knowing Graham’s relentless support for limitless war and military expansionism is perhaps not a great sign.
> 
> Empire loyalists are always calling to slow everything down when it comes to agendas which advance the interests of normal human beings, whether it’s single-payer healthcare or an end to military expansionism. Meanwhile they never slow down their attempts to ramp up the war engine and shore up control for the Orwellian oppression machine. When they demand to slow things down they’re only ever buying more time to finish constructing your cage.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080964160131944448
> So there’s that. Trump’s rhetoric on Syria has differed from people in his administration like Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, with the president tending to express more urgency on troop withdrawal and more indifference toward Iranian actions in Syria, but does it make any difference? It really doesn’t matter what noises Trump makes with his mouth if no moves to scale down interventionism actually occur. Either Trump is just saying words he knows his base wants to hear with no intention of following them through, or he is being “outmaneuvered by the Deep State” as Virginia State Senator Dick Black puts it, or he’s run into some other strategic brick wall to immediate troop withdrawal we can’t see, or maybe, perhaps, he will succeed in getting troops out of Syria.
> 
> *I personally do not care about Trump’s motives. Antiwar analysts tend to put a lot of emphasis on what the president’s personal intentions are, but it doesn’t matter how Trump’s feelings feel or what kind of person he is inside, what matters is if America’s unconscionable global military expansionism gets scaled down or not. The power structure behaves the way it behaves, and if the troops don’t come home it’s because Trump is either complicit or impotent. Either way, the power structure and its behavior is what matters.
> *
> I’ll be the first to cheer if US military involvement in Syria does end, but I’m not getting my hopes up. Instead, I will continue ignoring the verbiage and watching the behavior. In a world where narrative manipulation is the key to real power, it’s impossible to take anyone close to power at their word.


----------



## Tater

But Reaper, we should be more upset that Bernie didn't tweet his support for something Trump isn't following through on anyways.


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> But Reaper, we should be more upset that Bernie didn't tweet his support for something Trump isn't following through on anyways.


Too bad he can't see this conversation anymore. It won't be allowed into his safe space :mj4

---- 

A reminder of the horrible crimes of American expansionary foreign policy in a few visuals. 

This is how the American Government "save" people of other countries from "dictators" and "oppressive" regimes. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081994254879121411


----------



## DOPA

Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me that Trump is now seemingly backing down from withdrawal from Syria after pressure from the political establishment and his own neo-con cabinet in Washington.

Whilst his foreign policy has been somewhat consistent in regards to North Korea and Syria, his policies for Syria and Afghanistan have been.....well, bi-polar to say the least. Starting off with were going to defeat ISIS and then pull out, he's attacked Assad forces whether it was the airport base or key Assad buildings in response to chemical attacks which have not been confirmed to be from Assad. From pulling out when ISIS is defeated changed to the US is going to stay indefinitely to this latest announcement of pulling out of Syria entirely to now seemingly backing away from that promise as well. Nobody really knows what the fuck the administration is going to do regarding Syria.

As far as Afghanistan goes, he put in 10,000 more troops only to announce he was cutting the overall number in half to 7,000.....so there's still more there when he first started as president and it makes me wonder what the point was of adding those troops to begin with.

I can only speculate but seems as though there is a fight going on between Trump and some of his foreign policy advisers....most notably Bolton and the now former Defense Secretary James Mattis. I think Trump's instincts overall do appear to be a little more non-interventionist given that he keeps pushing back on the interventionist narrative in terms of his rhetoric but then keeps retracting back when pressure is on him. Which means he's more of a weak leader than a liar but then it could easily be the other way round too. I don't think we truly know. 

If it is the former, one has to wonder why he would have the likes of Bolton, Mattis (former) and Pompeo to begin with. To appease the establishment warhawks? He's not going to please them unless he goes full warhawk and that is not why he was voted in to begin with. To silence the Russiagate conspiracy theorists? That's never going to happen. We've already seen so called non-interventionist leftists who are now using the same tired neo-con arguments against withdrawing from Syria because they are convinced the only reason Trump would announce withdrawal from Syria is to help Russia and their allies. They have zero principles.

Either way, it's a mess.


----------



## birthday_massacre

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081991089932955648


----------



## deepelemblues

Looks like :trump will be getting another Supreme Court nomination sometime before his first term ends :Trump 

Amy Comey Barrett please


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Looks like :trump will be getting another Supreme Court nomination sometime before his first term ends :Trump
> 
> Amy Comey Barrett please


No, he can't since the election is coming up in 2020 and we should let the people choose right? So Trump shouldn't get another nomination until after the election in 2020.


----------



## Reaper

The woman just had surgery and they're already salivating fpalm

Have at least a _shred _of dignity.

This isn't even a partisan thing. It's just a basic human decency thing. C'mon now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> The woman just had surgery and they're already salivating fpalm
> 
> Have at least a _shred _of dignity.
> 
> This isn't even a partisan thing. It's just a basic human decency thing. C'mon now.


There is a reason why Trump supporters are called deplorables.


----------



## MrMister

On one hand I don't want Trump to appoint another justice. On the other hand the schadenfreude of Trump replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg seems tantalizing.

If I'm being realistic the Supreme Court is lost to the corporations. So it doesn't really matter who is on the court. But reading and hearing people irrationally rage about this could be quite entertaining.


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> No, he can't since the election is coming up in 2020 and we should let the people choose right? So Trump shouldn't get another nomination until after the election in 2020.


What if she leaves in 2019?



Reaper said:


> The woman just had surgery and they're already salivating fpalm
> 
> Have at least a _shred _of dignity.
> 
> This isn't even a partisan thing. It's just a basic human decency thing. C'mon now.





birthday_massacre said:


> There is a reason why Trump supporters are called deplorables.


Can we get some clarification as to precisely what level of personal attacks, baiting, and general name-calling is allowed in Anything? Because that's all these two do anymore.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> On one hand I don't want Trump to appoint another justice. On the other hand the schadenfreude of Trump replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg seems tantalizing.
> 
> If I'm being realistic the Supreme Court is lost to the corporations. So it doesn't really matter who is on the court. But reading and hearing people irrationally rage about this could be quite entertaining.


And the Trump supporters will cheer on another terrible SCOTUS pick that will be against their own self-interest but as long as it owns they libs they will cheer it on. Trump supporters love to bite off their nose to spite their face


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> What if she leaves in 2019?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get some clarification as to precisely what level of personal attacks, baiting, and general name-calling is allowed in Anything? Because that's all these two do anymore.


LOL at crying, when you are the biggest troll on this forum. And calling Trump supporters in general deplorables is not an attack on anyone of this forum. You do that shit all teh time when you talk about libs or Bernie supporters


----------



## MrMister

Also there could be more calendars as legitimate excuses in our future. :hmm


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> The Obama pick was held up over 400 days, that is over a year. So this potential pick should also be held up for over a year.


Antonin Scalia died February 13, 2016. 

Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016.

The presidential election was held on November 8, 2016.

:trump was sworn into office on January 20, 2017.

February 13 - November 8 is 269 days. 

March 16 - November 8 is 237 days.

February 13 - January 20 is 341 days.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Antonin Scalia died February 13, 2016.
> 
> Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016.
> 
> The presidential election was held on November 8, 2016.
> 
> :trump was sworn into office on January 20, 2017.
> 
> February 13 - November 8 and March 16 - November 8 are not anywhere near 400 days. Or over.
> 
> Neither does February 13 - January 20.


The GOP refused to do any hearings for anyone that Obama would have nominated. The held up seating anyone for over a year. Facts don't care about your feelings

also

https://www.latimes.com/politics/wa...-been-vacant-longer-1490908519-htmlstory.html

It’s been more than 400 days since Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death left his seat vacant. With Republicans having blocked a vote on then-President Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, and with Senate Democrats now making plans to filibuster President Trump's nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, it could take even longer to replace Scalia.


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> The GOP refused to do any hearings for anyone that Obama would have nominated. The held up seating anyone for over a year. Facts don't care about your feelings


Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016.

Barack Obama left office January 20, 2017. 

That is 311 days.

One year is 365 days. 366 in a leap year.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016.
> 
> Barack Obama left office January 20, 2017.
> 
> That is 311 days.
> 
> One year is 365 days. 366 in a leap year.


It took over 400 days to seat his replacement Love how you keep ignoring the facts
The timer starts when Obama nominated Garland and the timer ends when Gorsuch was seated. That is over 400 days.


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> It took over 400 days to seat his replacement Love how you keep ignoring the facts


You said that the Obama pick was held up for over 400 days.

That is not true.

You then changed it to saying that Scalia's seat wasn't filled until over 400 days after his death.

That is not the same thing. 

Neil Gorsuch was nominated January 31, 2017.

11 days after :trump took office.

Gorsuch was confirmed April 7, 2017, after two months of Senatorial confirmation hearings and debate.

As a comparison, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated June 14, 1993, and confirmed August 3, 1993.

As another comparison, Elena Kagan was nominated May 10, 2010, and confirmed August 5, 2010.

There was no delay in nominating and confirming a replacement once Barack Obama was no longer president.

I understand that your inaccurate position stems from your anger at Barack Obama being denied another Supreme Court pick. As Obama once said, "I won." Another gem, "Elections have consequences." Democrats should have done a better job and not been wiped out in the 2014 elections. Then they would have been better able to get Merrick Garland confirmed. The Senate has an absolute right and power to not confirm any nominee a majority of Senators do not wish to confirm. The Senate has an absolute right and power to not even consider a nominee that a majority of Senators do not wish to even consider. The answer to your discontent is not to angrily say things that are not true. It is to win control of the Senate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> You said that the Obama pick was held up for over 400 days.
> 
> This was not true.
> 
> You then changed it to saying that Scalia's seat wasn't filled until over 400 days after his death.
> 
> That is not the same thing.
> 
> Neil Gorsuch was nominated January 31, 2017.
> 
> 11 days after :trump took office.
> 
> Gorsuch was confirmed April 7, 2017, after two months of Senatorial confirmation hearings and debate.
> 
> As a comparison, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated June 14, 1993, and confirmed August 3, 1993.
> 
> Elena Kagan was nominated May 10, 2010, and confirmed August 5, 2010.
> 
> There was no delay in nominating and confirming a replacement once Barack Obama was no longer president.


It was held up for over 400 days LOL they never even gave him a hearing. You can argue semantics all you want. Im done talking about this because your trolling is getting old


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> It was held up for over 400 days LOL they never even gave him a hearing. You can argue semantics all you want. Im done talking about this because your trolling is getting old


I am prepared to point out that 237, 269, 311, and 341 days are not more than 400 days for as long as you wish to continue insisting that they are.

Another number: 388 days. 

That is the number of days between the nomination of Merrick Garland and the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.

Even by the timeline you insist upon using... less than 400 days. 

Another number: 398 days. April 17, 2017, was Neil Gorsuch's first day on the court.

Even if we extend the timeline you insist on using from the day of Garland's nomination to Gorsuch's first day seated on the Court... still not 400 days. 

This is not an issue of semantics. It is an issue of simple arithmetic.


----------



## 777

As a JSM style liberal, I'm getting more and more fed up with the entire political process. Everybody is voting against their own interests because politicians aren't working towards making anyone's lives better on either side of the aisle...in any country really. The whole thing has devolved into a massive shit show. Urban communities in America have continually voted democrat for a long time now and places like Chicago aren't faring any better. Any politician even approaching actual altruism is either co-opted or rendered ineffective. And yet, what are the alternatives? Communism? No thank you, I'd rather avoid another several million dead bodies...pretty please. The type of person who vies for that type of control is generally the person who shouldn't be given that type of power and those that should generally don't want it.

...and the state of journalism...dear sweet fucking jesus. As someone who took journalism in college and worked as a reporter on the municipal level, I'm continually shocked and appalled at the modern media. I know the money is drying up but is that just cause to devolve into partisan tabloids? Objective reporting isn't actually that difficult, just not profitable I suppose.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> I am prepared to point out that 237, 269, 311, and 341 days are not more than 400 days for as long as you wish to continue insisting that they are.
> 
> Another number: 388 days.
> 
> That is the number of days between the nomination of Merrick Garland and the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.
> 
> Even by the timeline you insist upon using... less than 400 days.
> 
> Another number: 398 days. April 17, 2017, was Neil Gorsuch's first day on the court.
> 
> Even if we extend the timeline you insist on using from the day of Garland's nomination to Gorsuch's first day seated on the Court... still not 400 days.
> 
> This is not an issue of semantics. It is an issue of simple arithmetic.


Love how much you fail at math.

http://time.com/4731066/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-record-vacancy/

For the first time in more than a year, there will be nine Justices on the Supreme Court, a new record for the longest vacancy since Congress settled on a nine-justice high court.

Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, and Gorsuch, who was confirmed Friday, is set to be sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday —* a 422-day vacancy.*

Previously, the longest record for a vacancy on a nine member Supreme Court was 389 days, the period between Abe Fortas’ resignation on May 14, 1969, and Harry Blackmun’s oath of office of June 9, 1970.


checkmate, im done

and welcome to the ignore list


----------



## deepelemblues

777 said:


> As a JSM style liberal, I'm getting more and more fed up with the entire political process. Everybody is voting against their own interests because politicians aren't working towards making anyone's lives better on either side of the aisle...in any country really. The whole thing has devolved into a massive shit show. Urban communities in America have continually voted democrat for a long time now and places like Chicago aren't faring any better. Any politician even approaching actual altruism is either co-opted or rendered ineffective. And yet, what are the alternatives? Communism? No thank you, I'd rather avoid another several million dead bodies...pretty please. The type of person who vies for that type of control is generally the person who shouldn't be given that type of power and those that should generally don't want it.
> 
> ...and the state of journalism...dear sweet fucking jesus. As someone who took journalism in college and worked as a reporter on the municipal level, I'm continually shocked and appalled at the modern media. I know the money is drying up but is that just cause to devolve into partisan tabloids? Objective reporting isn't actually that difficult, just not profitable I suppose.


A Jimmy Swaggart Ministries liberal?


----------



## 777

deepelemblues said:


> A Jimmy Swaggart Ministries liberal?


Scary thought. :laugh:


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> Love how much you fail at math.
> 
> http://time.com/4731066/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-record-vacancy/
> 
> For the first time in more than a year, there will be nine Justices on the Supreme Court, a new record for the longest vacancy since Congress settled on a nine-justice high court.
> 
> Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, and Gorsuch, who was confirmed Friday, is set to be sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday —* a 422-day vacancy.*
> 
> Previously, the longest record for a vacancy on a nine member Supreme Court was 389 days, the period between Abe Fortas’ resignation on May 14, 1969, and Harry Blackmun’s oath of office of June 9, 1970.
> 
> 
> checkmate, im done
> 
> and welcome to the ignore list


I wondered how long it would be before you tried to assert that the entire time between Scalia's death and Gorsuch's first day on the court is the number that should be used.

This is, of course, nonsense, as it would have been impossible to fill the seat between February 13 and March 16. The GOP could not "hold up" anything, as there was nothing to "hold up." No person had been nominated in those 33 days.

Those 33 days takes the number below the 400 days.

I am unsure what explanation can be provided that justifies adding those 33 days in order to get the total number over 400. Since there was no nominee in those 33 days. It is not possible to either "hold up" or move along a nomination that does not exist. 

Happy to see that you have given up attempting to perpetuate this particular falsehood. No doubt before the day is done you will have begun pushing the next angry falsehood of yours.


----------



## Headliner

So ya'll boy is most likely going to declare a national emergency (lol) to build the wall and I'm guessing it will be fought to the supreme court. What a disaster.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> So ya'll boy is most likely going to declare a national emergency (lol) to build the wall and I'm guessing it will be fought to the supreme court. What a disaster.


It's all that reporter's fault for giving Trump the dumb idea.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/07/alabama-false-flag-senate-race/

*crickets from the MUH RUSSIA masturbators*


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> Can we get some clarification as to precisely what level of personal attacks, baiting, and general name-calling is allowed in Anything? Because that's all these two do anymore.


:kobe and you don't?


----------



## Reaper

HollyJollyDemise said:


> :kobe and you don't?


These Trump snowflakes troll all the time and soon as they lose arguments they try to hide behind victimization. It's nothing new.


----------



## deepelemblues

The "experts" seem to think that the "hiccups" in the market seen in December are over now that Jerome Powell has bent the knee to :trump and it is looking like rate hikes are going to be paused for an unknown period of time.

I'm having some trouble being quite so sanguine. We will see. There are rumblings that China GDP growth is _significantly_ smaller than the official numbers, not just a bit smaller like everyone assumes (everyone knows the numbers provided by the Beijing government are lies, the question is how big are the lies). If the Chinese bubble finally pops it will be followed by a period of considerable instability and uncertainty as the world wonders, as it always does, if the American economic engine can keep the global economy going, or when the United States will get the global economy going again.


----------



## birthday_massacre

HollyJollyDemise said:


> :kobe and you don't?


Its funny he said nothing when I got called a moron a couple of days ago by a Trump supporter



blaird;76618536[B said:


> ]No you moron[/B] I could have understood a neg for that, not for me asking a general question to someone else that had nothing to do with you. Just for future reference, should I expect you to respond to everything I post in this? You know out of all my negs you are responsible for all but one? And evidently you neg anyone who posts something different to your views, but im supposed to believe you're tolerant? What a load of crap!!
> 
> And I haven't disputed any "facts" you have posted. Mostly bc your facts have nothing to do with anything I have asked about. Was it a fact when you said tax cuts didn't help middle class? No that wasn't a fact. Had you said it didn't help majority of middle class, that would have been fine, then you can't even admit you messed that up, that's why I didn't read whatever random crap you posted bc it prob had nothing to do with anything. I just wanted out your vortex which you've somehow managed to suck me back in to again.


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> Its funny he said nothing when I got called a moron a couple of days ago by a Trump supporter


Quite frankly I don't read or even skim most posts in this thread by :trump supporters, they usually don't say anything I haven't already thought or said it better than I think I could. 

He should not have called you that, calling you a moron is just as bad as Tater incessantly taunting CamillePunk, or Reaper incessantly baiting with "Trumptards" or "sadcringe" or references to lack of humanity, or AlternateDemise yelling like this: 



HollyJollyDemise said:


> I'm still waiting for your evidence regarding climate change. You know, that time you went on that rambling about how it's not real and gave us no evidence to back that up?
> 
> Kind of like what Trump does?
> 
> Makes a lot of sense that you'd support him now that I think about it.





HollyJollyDemise said:


> For those of you who don't feel like reading this nonsense, this pic just about sums it up.


I am not sure what point there is to such posts other than to be an asshole, or what kind of conversation could possibly continue from them other than being an asshole back. 

Perhaps AlternateDemise could suggest an alternative possibility, and then I might consider responding to his demand for "proof" even though he misrepresented what I said as I never claimed global warming isn't real. 

Or, basically every post you make ever BM which are exclusively open invitations not even to argue but to fling shit. 



HollyJollyDemise said:


> :kobe and you don't?


I do. Never said I didn't. It's not good for me to do it either. I don't give a fuck if people don't like me saying I don't like it going on all the time now.


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> Can we get some clarification as to precisely what level of personal attacks, baiting, and general name-calling is allowed in Anything? Because that's all these two do anymore.


"You're a retard." -not allowed

"You're ideas are retarded." -allowed

Some people struggle differentiating between the two. It's usually when they lose an argument after saying something incredibly retarded.

This thread is a place full of glorious freedom of speech. Don't go ruining it by calling for censorship because some people get their feelings hurt when their retarded ideas get shit all over.


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> "You're a retard." -not allowed
> 
> "You're ideas are retarded." -allowed
> 
> Some people struggle differentiating between the two. It's usually when they lose an argument after saying something incredibly retarded.
> 
> This thread is a place full of glorious freedom of speech. Don't go ruining it by calling for censorship because some people get their feelings hurt when their retarded ideas get shit all over.


This restraint in style is much improved from the recent general tenor. Progress is being made already ositivity

I don't think you're describing the situation particularly accurately though. 

People are really acting like assholes and I have been one of them. It wears thin.


----------



## Reaper

Pretty sure you are only doing what you idolize in your President. 

Keep it up or not is up to you. But don't try to turn into word and tone police when you can't keep it up while constantly egging and baiting others.

I have perfectly good and respectful discussions with 99% of the members of this forum and for me my responses depends on the other person and their boundaries. 

Don't create boundaries after losing debates with me when you don't live by your own fucking rules more than half the fucking time. 

In any case, at this point it's clear that Trump is definitely having an impact in the identities if his followers. Some are trying too hard to build some of the most unpalatable aspects of his personality into their own identity and they start whining just like him when they get pushback for it. It's kinda amusing.


----------



## deepelemblues

I will be trying and I certainly hope you will too!


----------



## Reaper

Ok. I'm skeptical but I'll take the olive branch :shrug


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> People are really acting like assholes and I have been one of them. It wears thin.


It's politics. Discussions get heated. It is what it is. :shrug

If it makes you feel better, when I see you in the Entertainment section, I don't hold your idiotic political opinions against you.


----------



## Hillhank

Trump and Lesnar at Mania cmon you cant tell me that would draw some eye balls seriously have Donald Trump win the Rumble and face Lesnar , you can't tell me that wouldn't get people talking 

Vince won the Rumble once


----------



## Hoolahoop33

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082289526339448832
Trump's reaction to the New York Time article (I believe Reaper shared it) which suggested withdrawal from Syria would take months or even years. Many on here were quick to fly off the handle and say that they knew all along that the withdrawal was bogus, etc. Can we just see what happens please, I would personally be hugely disappointed if Trump did indeed back down and keep forces in Syria, but I'm not going to start believing every speculative article from the mainstream media on the matter. We had the campaign promise, we had the announcement that it was happening and now we await the action. I think it is likely that the promise will be fulfilled within the year but we will see.

Edit: If someone could teach me how to embed a tweet like a pro, then that would be appreciated


----------



## Art Vandaley

Headliner said:


> So ya'll boy is most likely going to declare a national emergency (lol) to build the wall and I'm guessing it will be fought to the supreme court. What a disaster.


If he does hopefully Bernie wins the next election and declares healthcare a national emergency and institutes universal healthcare.

Really not a great precedent for democracy, but also I'd be suprised if it happened. If only because the military would presumably be dead agaisnt it because it isn't really what they're supposed to do and it'd be an administrative/logistical nightmare.


----------



## CJ

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Edit: If someone could teach me how to embed a tweet like a pro, then that would be appreciated


Take everything after status/ & put it between [tweet*] tags.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1082289526339448832

Becomes [tweet*]1082289526339448832[/tweet*] (minus asterisks)


----------



## KingofKings1524

Everyone in here is making so many positive changes and not talking in circles at all. I’m in awe of the sheer amount of progress.

With that being said; has no one started a drinking game to where every time BM says the words “facts”, “troll”, “deflect”, or “straw man” we all take a swig of our favorite alcoholic beverage? If not, I’d like to kick this off. 

Disclaimer: I have nothing against BM personally. I just read through a few pages and found the repetitiveness to be amusing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

KingofKings1524 said:


> Everyone in here is making so many positive changes and not talking in circles at all. I’m in awe of the sheer amount of progress.
> 
> With that being said; has no one started a drinking game to where every time BM says the words “facts”, “troll”, “deflect”, or “straw man” we all take a swig of our favorite alcoholic beverage? If not, I’d like to kick this off.
> 
> Disclaimer: I have nothing against BM personally. I just read through a few pages and found the repetitiveness to be amusing.


Well if those people actually were not trolling, deflecting or ignoring facts, they wouldn't have to be called out for it.

Feel free to point out where any of the times I said that were not true. Ill wait




Hoolahoop33 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082289526339448832
> Trump's reaction to the New York Time article (I believe Reaper shared it) which suggested withdrawal from Syria would take months or even years. Many on here were quick to fly off the handle and say that they knew all along that the withdrawal was bogus, etc. Can we just see what happens please, I would personally be hugely disappointed if Trump did indeed back down and keep forces in Syria, but I'm not going to start believing every speculative article from the mainstream media on the matter. We had the campaign promise, we had the announcement that it was happening and now we await the action. I think it is likely that the promise will be fulfilled within the year but we will see.
> 
> Edit: If someone could teach me how to embed a tweet like a pro, then that would be appreciated


The campaign promise was two years ago, and it still has not happened, now Trump is claiming it still could take a year. What is there not to be skeptical about, especially when almost everything Trump says is a lie.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Well if those people actually were not trolling, deflecting or ignoring facts, they wouldn't have to be called out for it.
> 
> Feel free to point out where any of the times I said that were not true. Ill wait
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The campaign promise was two years ago, and it still has not happened, now Trump is claiming it still could take a year. What is there not to be skeptical about, especially when almost everything Trump says is a lie.


Like 90% of the time when you tell me Im trolling, Im not. And for some reason you think Im serious on the 10% when I am trolling. Weird


----------



## Reaper

Historical record of US Presidents not ending wars is all you need to know that Presidents do not run foreign policy.

Without going to the extreme. I know that the problem isn't Trump himself. Almost all anti-war people know this. It's not like we're sitting in our circles always saying that Trump is a war-hawk. He could be completely against war but also impotent or rendered impotent by other actors. 

That's how it goes.

We do (all of us) need to stop making everything about the president of the country and start thinking about the other actors in play. The only solution is to continue to reshape the Congress and Senate with genuinely anti-war candidates. Forget partisanship when thinking about this.

Wanna vote Republican vote someone that hates war. Want to vote Democrat vote someone that hates war.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Like 90% of the time when you tell me Im trolling, Im not. And for some reason you think Im serious on the 10% when I am trolling. Weird


Like I said show an example, of when I called you out for trolling and you did not make a troll comment.




Reaper said:


> Historical record of US Presidents not ending wars is all you need to know that Presidents do not run foreign policy.
> 
> Without going to the extreme. I know that the problem isn't Trump himself. Almost all anti-war people know this. It's not like we're sitting in our circles always saying that Trump is a war-hawk. He could be completely against war but also impotent or rendered impotent by other actors.
> 
> That's how it goes.
> *
> We do (all of us) need to stop making everything about the president of the country* and start thinking about the other actors in play. The only solution is to continue to reshape the Congress and Senate with genuinely anti-war candidates. Forget partisanship when thinking about this.
> 
> Wanna vote Republican vote someone that hates war. Want to vote Democrat vote someone that hates war.


The problem with the bolded part is Trump makes everything about him, so at least in his case that is why he gets called out/blamed for everything.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

"You're a troll"

Brought to you by the person that argued until he was blue in the face that $25 was an unattainable sum of money for low income workers to spend on a photo ID.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> "You're a troll"
> 
> Brought to you by the person that argued until he was blue in the face that $25 was an unattainable sum of money for low income workers to spend on a photo ID.


LOL at you bringing that up again after you got destroyed on that argument.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> The tax cuts were only to benefit the rich at the expense of tanking the economy.
> 
> As for your other question because you make stupid trolly comments like *"Those who say it's Obama economy and Trump has nothing to do with it or he's just riding Obama's coat tails...if it's Obama's economy, wouldn't it be on him if it tanks? "*
> 
> How would it be Obama's fault two years into Trump's term when Trump's policies are ruining the economy? Trump was trying to take credit for the economy just a few months into his presidency before he did anything. Its a troll comment to try and blame Obama at this point.
> 
> Obama is the one who got the economy back on track if it takes a turn for the worst its all on Trump, it's stupid to claim its Obamas fault. Its just like with unemployment, Obama is the one who got it to record lows, going lower and lower. Because of Trump sure its still going down but it has slowed, and that is on Trump and if it starts to go back up again that is Trump's fault but you would make a troll comment trying to blame Obama
> 
> Obama got the economy and unemployment back on track that is why he gets most of the credit. Especially for the first 6 months to a year under Trump's first term because it takes about a year for Trump's policies and actions to feel the effects. that is why its a joke for Trump to try to take any credit for the stuff that happened early on. Trump is at the end of his 2nd year, everything is now on him, if he can sustpain the good economy and unemployment Obama gave us, or if he tanks it which is what he is doing.
> 
> Asking oh wouldn't it be Obama's fault if all the good he did goes bad because Trump undid everything Obama did, is just trolling, unless you really are that uninformed how thins work


Whats bolded is what you quoted and is pretty much what I had put. There were a few questions but this is about half or so...

Anyways, here is the guy who wrote it telling you its not a troll post, no matter how much you think or say it is, it doesnt change the FACT its not a troll post. There are many more as well, I just dont think its required for me to look them all up.

Also, if it was such a troll post (which youll probably claim it to be), why did Headliner AND Holly have legitimate answers for it?? And even you (yes Im giving you credit) had a legit answer at first then your next post dove down the troll hole. 

I really dont want to get into a debate or argument with you over what I post being trolly or not, I have even asked if every post of mine will be called a troll post by you. It would prob be a lot easier for you and I if you could just realize the majority of my posts are not troll posts.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

CJ said:


> Take everything after status/ & put it between [tweet*] tags.
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1082289526339448832
> 
> Becomes [tweet*]1082289526339448832[/tweet*] (minus asterisks)


Thank you!!



birthday_massacre said:


> The campaign promise was two years ago, and it still has not happened, now Trump is claiming it still could take a year. What is there not to be skeptical about, especially when almost everything Trump says is a lie.


To be fair in January 2017 IS still held a fairly significant chunk of territory, it is only now that IS own virtually nothing that withdrawal has become prudent. The fight against IS had to happen, but it was caused by numerous needless interventions by the US that never should have happened. I thought that was Bolton? As long as they withdraw within a sensible time frame I will be happy - we just don't know what will happen yet, but for a now I think we should be pleased that Trump has indicated his will to leave.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Whats bolded is what you quoted and is pretty much what I had put. There were a few questions but this is about half or so...
> 
> Anyways, here is the guy who wrote it telling you its not a troll post, no matter how much you think or say it is, it doesnt change the FACT its not a troll post. There are many more as well, I just dont think its required for me to look them all up.
> 
> Also, if it was such a troll post (which youll probably claim it to be), why did Headliner AND Holly have legitimate answers for it?? And even you (yes Im giving you credit) had a legit answer at first then your next post dove down the troll hole.
> 
> I really dont want to get into a debate or argument with you over what I post being trolly or not, I have even asked if every post of mine will be called a troll post by you. It would prob be a lot easier for you and I if you could just realize the majority of my posts are not troll posts.


Because that is a total troll comment. Unless you truly don't understand how things work then I guess I gave you too much credit and thought you were just being a wise ass with that comment.

If Obama puts all these things into place that gets the economy back on track, then Trump comes office and under those same policies the economy still does well but Trump then starts to undo them all, then a year later Trumps changes start to take effect how would it be Obama's fault the economy gets worst when Trump undid everything that made the economy get back on track?

I'll just assume your posts like that are not troll posts anymore and you are legit asking



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Thank you!!
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair in January 2017 IS still held a fairly significant chunk of territory, it is only now that IS own virtually nothing that withdrawal has become prudent. The fight against IS had to happen, but it was caused by numerous needless interventions by the US that never should have happened. I thought that was Bolton? As long as they withdraw within a sensible time frame I will be happy - we just don't know what will happen yet, but for a now I think we should be pleased that Trump has indicated his will to leave.


But don't most people believe the US never should have been in Syria in the first place like you said, so why would any of that even matter? Trump should have pulled out as soon as possible.

Trump is claiming he is going to leave, but that remains to be seen if it will even happen. He claimed Mexico was going to pay for the wall and we see how that is going with the govt shut down.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said show an example, of when I called you out for trolling and you did not make a troll comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the bolded part is Trump makes everything about him, so at least in his case that is why he gets called out/blamed for everything.


We can't give up rationality for reactionism.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Berzerker's Beard said:


> "You're a troll"
> 
> Brought to you by the person that argued until he was blue in the face that $25 was an unattainable sum of money for low income workers to spend on a photo ID.


Racism by low expectations. Not surprising really, seeing as its been shown that liberals dumb down their speech for minorities because they view them as being uneducated .


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Because that is a total troll comment. Unless you truly don't understand how things work then I guess I gave you too much credit and thought you were just being a wise ass with that comment.
> 
> If Obama puts all these things into place that gets the economy back on track, then Trump comes office and under those same policies the economy still does well but Trump then starts to undo them all, then a year later Trumps changes start to take effect how would it be Obama's fault the economy gets worst when Trump undid everything that made the economy get back on track?
> 
> *I'll just assume your posts like that are not troll posts anymore and you are legit asking*


Thanks...and thanks for the neg too for no reason, really cool thing to do.

My original point to the question, was that I had seen numerous posts (not in WF) that Trump has done nothing, and that the economy is so decent right now because of Obama's policies, that the stock market is so high right now bc of Obama, not Trump. I have also seen posts (like what you said) saying Trump has undone Obama's policies and its his economy when it tanks. I have no problem throwing blame at Trump when/if the economy tanks like some think it will and I have no problem praising him when/if it climbs or does well. 

Again, Im not debating anything, I get that its Trumps economy now and he has all the responsibility with it.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> But don't most people believe the US never should have been in Syria in the first place like you said, so why would any of that even matter? Trump should have pulled out as soon as possible.
> 
> Trump is claiming he is going to leave, but that remains to be seen if it will even happen. He claimed Mexico was going to pay for the wall and we see how that is going with the govt shut down.


Possibly, I certainly don't agree with the decision to back rebel groups fighting Assad that conflict has nothing to do with the US or the west in general. I also don't think there should have been boots on the ground in Syria to fight IS (in fact I'm pretty sure Congress voted against involvement. I do think once there though it is tricky to withdraw as you don't want to leave a vacuum which is filled by the very people you have been fighting. We can see that with Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq (which I largely supported at the time.) The US should not have been in Iraq - but in hindsight it now seems like a rather naive decision as clearly the Iraqi army were not even ready to fight there way out of a paper bag, never mind to fight the highly motivated, and suspiciously well funded IS militants. So it has been right to be cautious in withdrawing from Syria, but the time is right now to leave - IS are totally defeated and any remnants can be wiped up by localised forces. 

You're right it does remain to be seen - I would personally be very disappointed if it doesn't materialise, but we shall see.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Racism by low expectations. Not surprising really, seeing as its been shown that liberals dumb down their speech for minorities because they view them as being uneducated .


The solution to Election Voter ID is government issued through the billions they collect in taxes instead of fucking spending trillions on war. 

Taxes are always going to exist (so let's forget about that argument entirely), the easier solution to the current problems in America is in re-allocation of those taxes. Resource management of our money is gross and the solution isn't to go "fuck it, abolish everything" but to put in people who are less likely to be run by lobbyists and more independent. 

America's two-party system needs to be broken through a methodical approach of voting in social welfare statists and economists and demanding that people hired into prominent government positions are idealists and not corporatist tools.


----------



## 777

What does American withdrawal even mean? They still have bases in Germany and Japan.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> What does American withdrawal even mean? They still have bases in Germany and Japan.


At this point, it means jack all. The troop withdrawal is generally replaced with garrissons and the threat of sanctions and economic warfare continues to exist. 

Imperialism is a social consciousness issue and I think that at least 60-70% of right wing americans are fully convinced that our wars in the world are justified for various reasons (everything but expansion as that's how they're sold to the masses). At this point, the support for war is around 40-50% amongst democrats as well. 

Don't ask me where I got the figures from. They were in a washpo article that I can't find right now. Maybe will verify later.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> The solution to Election Voter ID is government issued through the billions they collect in taxes instead of fucking spending trillions on war.


I don't disagree about scaling back spending on wars, but I don't think spending money through taxes on government issued ID is the best solution. Canada has a system that is interesting. While I'm not 100% sure how it works, but I do know that if you are a legal citizen, you're automatically registered to vote once you're legal age. You get a card in the mail with your information on it ,instructing you where and how to vote etc etc . You show that and a photo ID when voting and that's it. I get them in the mail at election time every year and I never once went out of my way to register. I'm unsure if that's the best solution , but registering to vote should absolutely be tied into citizenship status in some capacity. Maybe an automatic voter registration upon birth ? IDK but there shouldn't be any state , province, or country , that allows people to vote without ID of any kind, that is just stupidity


----------



## Draykorinee

Blaird still going on about BMs negs...

Anyway, voter ID should be government funded if it's mandatory to vote. Voter fraud is a tiny tiny issue.


----------



## TripleG

Simple solution to the voter ID debate. 

Can't we just use election ink?

Some countries use this. Basically when you go to the booth, you dip your finger in ink, and the stain lasts for 2-4 days or something. If you have that stain, the voting booth knows you voted and can detect anyone trying to vote more than once or cheat the system. 

I gotta believe it is cheapter than producing voter IDs, and it gets rid of the left's argument for decentivizing poor people from getting IDs. Since its all done at the booth and costs nothing to the voters at the booth, then no issue, right? its an effective method of preventing any kind of potential double voting, which by the way, is super easy to do in Maryland where I live. 

Would anybody have any issue with that?


----------



## 777

It's a weird question. Who are these people who don't have ID but are still wanting to vote?

The kind of people I know who don't have ID don't give a flying fuck about politics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TripleG said:


> Simple solution to the voter ID debate.
> 
> Can't we just use election ink?
> 
> Some countries use this. Basically when you go to the booth, you dip your finger in ink, and the stain lasts for 2-4 days or something. If you have that stain, the voting booth knows you voted and can detect anyone trying to vote more than once or cheat the system.
> 
> I gotta believe it is cheapter than producing voter IDs, and it gets rid of the left's argument for decentivizing poor people from getting IDs. Since its all done at the booth and costs nothing to the voters at the booth, then no issue, right? its an effective method of preventing any kind of potential double voting, which by the way, is super easy to do in Maryland where I live.
> 
> Would anybody have any issue with that?


Voter fraud is near zero issue in the US. It does not really ever happen. Plus voter IDs are unconstitutional.


----------



## blaird

Draykorinee said:


> Blaird still going on about BMs negs...
> 
> Anyway, voter ID should be government funded if it's mandatory to vote. Voter fraud is a tiny tiny issue.


Ha its aggravating...cant post in here without getting one of those red badges of courage.

Anyway I agree, I have to show ID where I vote but it doesnt bother me if I did or didnt and like someone says a little lower, voter fraud is not even an issue. I think there are better ways to defraud an election other than having a bunch of people illegally go vote.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

TripleG said:


> Simple solution to the voter ID debate.
> 
> Can't we just use election ink?
> 
> Some countries use this. Basically when you go to the booth, you dip your finger in ink, and the stain lasts for 2-4 days or something. If you have that stain, the voting booth knows you voted and can detect anyone trying to vote more than once or cheat the system.
> 
> I gotta believe it is cheapter than producing voter IDs, and it gets rid of the left's argument for decentivizing poor people from getting IDs. Since its all done at the booth and costs nothing to the voters at the booth, then no issue, right? its an effective method of preventing any kind of potential double voting, which by the way, is super easy to do in Maryland where I live.
> 
> Would anybody have any issue with that?


That would prevent people from double voting, but it doesn't prevent a person who has no right to vote from voting. I'm not sure how much of a problem in the US, but what would prevent me, a UK citizen, from voting in a US election?


----------



## TripleG

Hoolahoop33 said:


> That would prevent people from double voting, but it doesn't prevent a person who has no right to vote from voting. I'm not sure how much of a problem in the US, but what would prevent me, a UK citizen, from voting in a US election?


I don't know how they do it in different counties in different states, but where I am, they basically have a list of all the registered voters and when you get there, they ask you to confirm your address and then you go vote. 

So they have a record of those that are eligiable to vote, but theorhetically, I could vote under my name, then go to a different polling place in my county and claim to be someone else if I knew that person didn't plan on voting. I mean if all they are asking for is to confirm an address, I could just nod and go "Yup, that's right" and be on my merry way. I mean for God's sake, at least ask me what the address is. Don't show it to me and go "Is that right?". 

Or better yet, somebody could show up, claim to be me and vote in my name, and then when I get there, I find out someone already voted under my name, and how would the the voting place be able to tell if I'm telling the truth or the first person? 

Don't know. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it feels simple to cheat.


----------



## blaird

TripleG said:


> I don't know how they do it in different counties in different states, but where I am, they basically have a list of all the registered voters and when you get there, they ask you to confirm your address and then you go vote.
> 
> So they have a record of those that are eligiable to vote, but theorhetically, I could vote under my name, then go to a different polling place in my country and claim to be someone else if I knew that person didn't plan on voting. I mean if all they are asking for is to confirm an address, I could just nod and go "Yup, that's right" and be on my merry way. I mean for God's sake, at least ask me what the address is. Don't show it to me and go "Is that right?".
> 
> Or better yet, somebody could show up, claim to be me and vote in my name, and then when I get there, I find out someone already voted under my name, and how would the the voting place be able to tell if I'm telling the truth or the first person?
> 
> Don't know. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it feels simple to cheat.


Where I am, you show up to your poll place and give them your name, they ask for an ID, I hand it to them and they send me to another table where I have to sign my name next to it on the voter roll and theyll hand me my sheet to take and vote on. 

If what BM is saying is true (im not disputing or anything to start a debate), Im wondering how my city can continue to require an ID to vote. Maybe they are just asking and Im voluntarily showing my ID and I dont really have to? Maybe its never been challenged?


----------



## Deathstroke

I still need an ID to do so many day to day things and yet people still think it's unconscionable to require them to vote? Please.

TripleG is right by the way. When I vote they simply have a list of names and addresses. It would be super easy to walk in and use someone else's name without requiring an ID.


----------



## Tater

Voter fraud isn't the problem. Election fraud is the problem. It's not Russians rigging elections. It's Democrats and Republicans, right here in the good ol' USA.


----------



## Pratchett

Tater said:


> Voter fraud isn't the problem. Election fraud is the problem. It's not Russians rigging elections. It's Democrats and Republicans, right here in the good ol' USA.


"Two Party" system my ass. :mj


----------



## Tater

Pratchett said:


> "Two Party" system my ass. :mj


More like two cheeks of the same ass. And between the two... well, you get the idea.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082849409837223936
Wow...


----------



## Hi-Liter

OMG he breathes! The nerve of him!!!


----------



## deepelemblues

So it has been a year since the apocalypse.

By which I mean, the announcement of the end of "net neutrality."

The regulations were officially ended June 11 2018.

Average internet connection speed grew by about 33% in the USA in 2018. Access to fiber-optic internet service increased about 25%.

No multi-tiered internet has come into existence.

Nothing whatsoever has changed.

Essentially, every single prediction made by those that were very very angry about the end of net neutrality turned out to be completely wrong.

There's a lesson there somewhere :hmmm


----------



## Deathstroke

deepelemblues said:


> So it has been a year since the apocalypse.
> 
> By which I mean, the announcement of the end of "net neutrality."
> 
> The regulations were officially ended June 11 2018.
> 
> Average internet connection speed grew by about 33% in the USA in 2018. Access to fiber-optic internet service increased about 25%.
> 
> No multi-tiered internet has come into existence.
> 
> Nothing whatsoever has changed.
> 
> Essentially, every single prediction made by those that were very very angry about the end of net neutrality turned out to be completely wrong.
> 
> There's a lesson there somewhere :hmmm


If there was no change it makes you wonder why they needed it reversed in the first place? Obviously there was enough of a backlash to this they didn't run right out to do something, but the problem is they can if they ever decided to.


----------



## deepelemblues

Smarkslayer said:


> If there was no change it makes you wonder why they needed it reversed in the first place? Obviously there was enough of a backlash to this they didn't run right out to do something, but the problem is they can if they ever decided to.


There's no reason to keep unnecessary regulations on the books. 

You completely undercut the argument for net neutrality with your statement that the "backlash" caused business to back off.

'If there is no net neutrality ISPs can do whatever the hell they want and we're screwed and can't do anything about it.' That was what the argument for net neutrality boiled down to.

If business responds to consumer sentiment, what need is there for regulation in the first place? 

Of course, there were never any plans to implement anything like the dire predictions.

Only businesses run by stupid people maximize short-term profit in return for alienating their customer base. ISPs don't appear to be run by stupid people. If an ISP was run by stupid people who offered inferior, multi-tiered service with all kinds of other limitations because no net neutrality, its competitors would very happily grab its market share and run it out of business by offering superior service that wasn't multi-tiered with all kinds of other limitations. 

People want the same internet experience they've had since dial-up, except ever-increasingly faster. They won't accept anything else. ISPs know this. No ISP is interested in trying to force people to accept shittier service so their competitors can kick their ass. None of them are interested in all trying to force shittier service together so some billionaire investor or group of investors sees an opportunity, enters the market with a new company, and kicks all their asses.


----------



## Deathstroke

deepelemblues said:


> There's no reason to keep unnecessary regulations on the books.
> 
> You undercut the argument for net neutrality with your statement that the "backlash" caused business to back off.
> 
> 'If there is no net neutrality ISPs can do whatever the hell they want and we're screwed and can't do anything about it.' That was what the argument for net neutrality boiled down to.
> 
> If business responds to consumer sentiment, what need is there for regulation in the first place?
> 
> Of course, there were never any plans to implement anything like the dire predictions in the first place.
> 
> Only businesses run by stupid people maximize short-term profit in return for alienating their customer base. ISPs don't appear to be run by stupid people.


Just because they decided to back off now doesn't mean in a year they won't do something stupid. They clearly fought to remove it for a reason. If ISPs "knew this" the regulations would still be on the books.

I'm generally a less regulations kind of guy, but like the internet is last place without people trying to fuck you over and I'd like to keep it that way. It's bad enough content providers like Netflix and this new Disney platform coming out want to intro multi-tier pricing. I don't even want that on my internet. I pay a good premium to get high speeds for the whole internet. Fuck having to pay more for specific shit.


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> There's no reason to keep unnecessary regulations on the books.
> 
> You completely undercut the argument for net neutrality with your statement that the "backlash" caused business to back off.
> 
> 'If there is no net neutrality ISPs can do whatever the hell they want and we're screwed and can't do anything about it.' That was what the argument for net neutrality boiled down to.
> 
> If business responds to consumer sentiment, what need is there for regulation in the first place?
> 
> Of course, there were never any plans to implement anything like the dire predictions.
> 
> Only businesses run by stupid people maximize short-term profit in return for alienating their customer base. ISPs don't appear to be run by stupid people. If an ISP was run by stupid people who offered inferior, multi-tiered service with all kinds of other limitations because no net neutrality, its competitors would very happily grab its market share and run it out of business by offering superior service that wasn't multi-tiered with all kinds of other limitations.
> 
> People want the same internet experience they've had since dial-up, except ever-increasingly faster. They won't accept anything else. ISPs know this. No ISP is interested in trying to force people to accept shittier service so their competitors can kick their ass. None of them are interested in all trying to force shittier service together so some billionaire investor or group of investors sees an opportunity, enters the market with a new company, and kicks all their asses.


Do you even know how monopolies work?


----------



## ShiningStar

deepelemblues said:


> Only businesses run by stupid people maximize short-term profit in return for alienating their customer base. ISPs don't appear to be run by stupid people.


You are right ISP's are not run by stupid people,they are run by smart people and in many cases have no actual competition in many cities. Pepsi neglects costumer's Coke is there.Target prices to high Wally World swoops in,Wally World too high Dollar Tree/99 Cent Store/ Outlet store's etc will take their custumers. 


Spectrum has shitty costumer sevice.................many places you deal with it or you go without internet.


----------



## Tater

ShiningStar said:


> You are right ISP's are not run by stupid people,they are run by smart people and in many cases have no actual competition in many cities. Pepsi neglects costumer's Coke is there.Target prices to high Wally World swoops in,Wally World too high Dollar Tree/99 Cent Store/ Outlet store's etc will take their custumers.
> 
> 
> Spectrum has shitty costumer sevice.................many places you deal with it or you go without internet.


Spectrum is literally my only option for cable/internet service where I live. And I don't live out in the boonies either. Even in many areas where there technically are options, the so called competition effectively function as an oligopoly.

The changes made by ISPs with net neutrality gone were never going to happen overnight. There would be too much backlash to it. It'll be more of a chipping away effect. A little bit shittier here, a little bit shittier there, the next thing you know, you're paying to visit websites on a package basis similar to how cable bundles work.

As was said above, the ISPs wouldn't have fought so hard to get rid of NN if they didn't plan on making fundamental changes to how the internet works. To act otherwise is exceedingly naive and ignorant.


----------



## BruiserKC

Chuck and Nancy reminded me of something like American Gothic meets The Shining tonight in their rebuttal. :lol

The speech was good, but I must ask this question...Mr. President, if the wall was such a priority why did you piss away two years to get to this point? You signed budget after budget that didn't fund your biggest campaign promise. You threatened veto time after time yet signed them anyway. You could have used the political capital you had built up at the beginning of your administration to push for this. 

Now...for all the talk of a crisis, if this is a crisis then the question bears asking why the hell does it take a crisis for us to actually do something? Or was this not a priority in reality and we are just going through the lip service schtick again just to do nothing on the other side?


----------



## xio8ups

he just keeps on winning


----------



## birthday_massacre

BruiserKC said:


> Chuck and Nancy reminded me of something like American Gothic meets The Shining tonight in their rebuttal. :lol
> 
> The speech was good, but I must ask this question...Mr. President, if the wall was such a priority why did you piss away two years to get to this point? You signed budget after budget that didn't fund your biggest campaign promise. You threatened veto time after time yet signed them anyway. You could have used the political capital you had built up at the beginning of your administration to push for this.
> 
> Now...for all the talk of a crisis, if this is a crisis then the question bears asking why the hell does it take a crisis for us to actually do something? Or was this not a priority in reality and we are just going through the lip service schtick again just to do nothing on the other side?


How was Trumps speech good when most of what he said was BS?


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> Chuck and Nancy reminded me of something like American Gothic meets The Shining tonight in their rebuttal. :lol
> 
> The speech was good, but I must ask this question...Mr. President, if the wall was such a priority why did you piss away two years to get to this point? You signed budget after budget that didn't fund your biggest campaign promise. You threatened veto time after time yet signed them anyway. You could have used the political capital you had built up at the beginning of your administration to push for this.
> 
> Now...for all the talk of a crisis, if this is a crisis then the question bears asking why the hell does it take a crisis for us to actually do something? Or was this not a priority in reality and we are just going through the lip service schtick again just to do nothing on the other side?


There's no crisis. It's all political theater from both sides. They were just out there putting on a show for the people to keep them distracted from the fact that the establishment continues fucking over the common man each and every day.

Something that did strike me as funny though... I think they got the whole good cop/bad cop thing wrong. If Trump is supposed to be the bad cop, why did they pick two more bad cops for the rebuttal? :lol

Seriously though, Chuck and Nancy? No wonder we have Trump with those two corporate lackeys as the leaders of the (pretend) opposition. In a back room somewhere, there are Republicans and Democrats having a good laugh at all the suckers who believe they are enemies.

ETA: If anyone doubts it was political theater, the state of the union address is in 3 weeks. There is nothing that was said now that could not have been said then. It was a coordinated stunt. I feel sorry for anyone stupid enough to take this shit seriously.


----------



## Reaper

It's kinda really weird that people think that there is any real opposition in government when the voting record shows that Democrats and Republicans always say one thing and vote for another. 

You know why Americans know nothing about what's really going on because when our lawmakers vote on stuff no newspaper publishes anything real about their real actions. 

Why doesn't the media give us a full list of a vote ( i.e. which Congress member voted which way for what bill) Everytime there is a vote? Because an informed voter is bad for business. 

There is literally 0 transparency. And it's impossible to get the information. The kind of information we're given is completely useless in helping us make the right decision when it comes to elections.


----------



## Vic Capri

Look up the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.

It was okay with them back then, but when the other political party does it, all of a sudden, it's a problem.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Look up the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.
> 
> It was okay with them back then, but when the other political party does it, all of a sudden, it's a problem.
> 
> - Vic


Love how you ignore the context of the differences between the two. A simple google search would show you that context. But of course that is too much to ask with Trump supporters










Trump is such a fucking idiot, can't even spell forest correctly. And him cutting off aid to CA is fucked up, guess he thinks CA should have raked better


----------



## Reaper

It's only because it's a Blue State and he pandering to his Red subjects. 

This guy is a horrid excuse of a human being. His literal, entire motivation for existence is to pander to his followers. And they soak that shit up.


----------



## jroc72191

Reaper said:


> The solution to Election Voter ID is government issued through the billions they collect in taxes instead of fucking spending trillions on war.
> 
> Taxes are always going to exist (so let's forget about that argument entirely), the easier solution to the current problems in America is in re-allocation of those taxes. Resource management of our money is gross and the solution isn't to go "fuck it, abolish everything" but to put in people who are less likely to be run by lobbyists and more independent.
> 
> America's two-party system needs to be broken through a methodical approach of voting in social welfare statists and economists and demanding that people hired into prominent government positions are idealists and not corporatist tools.



this does not sound like words that would be coming outta a commies mouth... lol its silly to think that we need SOOOOOO many more taxes when the money is there, just needs to be moved around.


----------



## birthday_massacre

jroc72191 said:


> this does not sound like words that would be coming outta a commies mouth... lol its silly to think that we need SOOOOOO many more taxes when the money is there, just needs to be moved around.


We do need more taxes since taxes were just cut. They at the very least need to go back to where they were.


----------



## 777

It's a bullshit number I pulled out of my ass, who knows what the actual stats are, but I do like to say something along the lines of $2 goes down the toilet for every $1 that goes to something useful.


----------



## jroc72191

no, they do not. if we were to cut spending then we would not need anymore taxes. cut our bloated defense budget, cut our bloated welfare safety net, cut our budget to where the only entitlements are smal amounts of welfare, SS, and medicare. 


THAT BUDGET WAY TOO HIGH YOU NEED TO CUT IT! 


THAT BUDGET WAY TOO HIGH YOU NEED TO CUT IT!


----------



## 777

jroc72191 said:


> no, they do not. if we were to cut spending then we would not need anymore taxes. cut our bloated defense budget, cut our bloated welfare safety net, cut our budget to where the only entitlements are smal amounts of welfare, SS, and medicare.
> 
> 
> THAT BUDGET WAY TOO HIGH YOU NEED TO CUT IT!
> 
> 
> THAT BUDGET WAY TOO HIGH YOU NEED TO CUT IT!


You don't even need to do that. Cut the committees, corporate subsidies and waste/corruption.

Social welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to big business welfare and keeping people off the streets as much as possible isn't a bad thing.


----------



## deepelemblues

777 said:


> You don't even need to do that. Cut the committees, corporate subsidies and waste/corruption.
> 
> Social welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to big business welfare and keeping people off the streets as much as possible isn't a bad thing.


Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security alone are $2 trillion a year. Medicare/Medicaid just over $1 trillion, Social Security just under $1 trillion. 

Social welfare is the largest expense on both the federal budget and state budgets by far.

"Big business welfare" runs to the tune of maybe $100 billion a year. 

Maybe. Probably not that much.


----------



## 777

deepelemblues said:


> Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security alone are $2 trillion a year. Medicare/Medicaid just over $1 trillion, Social Security just under $1 trillion.
> 
> Social welfare is the largest expense on both the federal budget and state budgets by far.
> 
> "Big business welfare" runs to the tune of maybe $100 billion a year.
> 
> Maybe. Probably not that much.


I'd love to see the numbers in comparison...I'm having a hard time believing that given the size and scope of government involvement with corporations/business. 

How multi-varied a study would you need to figure that shit out?


----------



## deepelemblues

777 said:


> I'd love to see the numbers in comparison...I'm having a hard time believing that given the size and scope of government involvement with corporations/business.
> 
> How multi-varied a study would you need to figure that shit out?


Not to be flippant but www.google.com

The information is spread out across many different websites but enough is easily found to make clear that federal and state welfare spending is in the trillions and subsidies are in the billions. They are a small fraction of the amount spent on welfare.


----------



## 777

deepelemblues said:


> Not to be flippant but www.google.com
> 
> The information is spread out across many different websites but enough is easily found to make clear that federal and state welfare spending is in the trillions and subsidies are in the billions. They are a small fraction of the amount spent on welfare.


When I say corporate welfare I'm thinking big picture, subsidies, tax breaks/loopholes, incentives, straight up bankrolling/government operated industry and the myriad other ways money goes from taxpayers to corporations.

I got a wife/kids/job/hobbies. I'm not about to start actually investigating at this point. Hell I could actually be wrong on my perception, but I'd rather tax money go to people rather than corporations, especially ones that don't need it. And there are practical reasons why welfare is a good thing, although I'm pretty fucking positive that even that entity is bloated and wasteful...


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is such a fucking idiot, can't even spell forest correctly. And him cutting off aid to CA is fucked up, guess he thinks CA should have raked better


Remember brehs, America first.


----------



## deepelemblues

777 said:


> When I say corporate welfare I'm thinking big picture, subsidies, tax breaks/loopholes, incentives, straight up bankrolling/government operated industry and the myriad other ways money goes from taxpayers to corporations.
> 
> I got a wife/kids/job/hobbies. I'm not about to start actually investigating at this point. Hell I could actually be wrong on my perception, but I'd rather tax money go to people rather than corporations, especially ones that don't need it. And there are practical reasons why welfare is a good thing, although I'm pretty fucking positive that even that entity is bloated and wasteful...


When I say subsidies everything you listed is included in that. 

Your perception _is_ wrong, and if you don't think it matters whether your opinion is based on anything other than your gut feeling, then :draper2

Moving along.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/08/democrat-facebook-campaign-supress/

A good rule of thumb is that anything Democrats accuse Republicans of doing, it is actually Democrats doing it. And doing it worse than they claim the Republicans are.

By the way I have no problem with this. Driving a wedge between a party and its voters is a legitimate and time-honored tactic. It is up to the target to defend itself and keep its voters involved and motivated. 

The hypocrisy and double standard is rather galling though.


----------



## 777

deepelemblues said:


> When I say subsidies everything you listed is included in that.
> 
> Your perception _is_ wrong, and if you don't think it matters whether your opinion is based on anything other than your gut feeling, then :draper2
> 
> Moving along.
> 
> https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/08/democrat-facebook-campaign-supress/
> 
> A good rule of thumb is that anything Democrats accuse Republicans of doing, it is actually Democrats doing it. And doing it worse than they claim the Republicans are.
> 
> By the way I have no problem with this. Driving a wedge between a party and its voters is a legitimate and time-honored tactic. It is up to the target to defend itself and keep its voters involved and motivated.
> 
> The hypocrisy and double standard is rather galling though.


Watch me pivot.

So it's probably a numbers game. Because I see what people on welfare are receiving and it's the bare minimum, with some effort on their part as well. 

As opposed, to 100s of millions to a handful of people.

And I'm not even necessarily opposed to 'corporate welfare', but what we see is exploitative, whereas social welfare even when being exploited by individuals is not nearly as bad especially when combined with the necessary good.

I'm pretty sure we can agree that it all needs to be cleaned up. And we're just talking shit on the internet for fun, yes?


----------



## Hoolahoop33

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46818218?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews

The thing I don't understand about the shutdown is that the Democrats don't seem to have any policy other than making sure Trump doesn't get the wall. But the wall would 'only' cost $5 Billion which really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, so why not try to get something back in return - something which would be a win for the Democrats, such as protecting immigrants already in the country or pushing towards medicare for all. As it stands they look intransigent and really just as bad as Trump. At least Trump is fighting for *something * even if you don't agree with it. What are the Dems fighting for exactly? It is kinda sad that they have never fought as hard for good healthcare as Trump has for his wall.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46818218?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews
> 
> The thing I don't understand about the shutdown is that the Democrats don't seem to have any policy other than making sure Trump doesn't get the wall. But the wall would 'only' cost $5 Billion which really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, so why not try to get something back in return - something which would be a win for the Democrats, such as protecting immigrants already in the country or pushing towards medicare for all. As it stands they look intransigent and really just as bad as Trump. At least Trump is fighting for *something * even if you don't agree with it. What are the Dems fighting for exactly? It is kinda sad that they have never fought as hard for good healthcare as Trump has for his wall.


LOL at thinking the dems look as bad as Trump for standing up to him on something he said Mexico was going to pay for. If the dems caved you would claim they look weak for giving in to him. So either way the dems can't win with people like you. The Dems are fighting for something that is a waste of money and that won't even pay for all of the wall. 

Trump is a child for shutting down the govt over this. It's hilarious you are trying to find a way to blame the dems


----------



## Tater

Hoolahoop33 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46818218?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews
> 
> The thing I don't understand about the shutdown is that the Democrats don't seem to have any policy other than making sure Trump doesn't get the wall. But the wall would 'only' cost $5 Billion which really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, so *why not try to get something back in return - something which would be a win for the Democrats, such as protecting immigrants already in the country or pushing towards medicare for all.* As it stands they look intransigent and really just as bad as Trump. At least Trump is fighting for *something * even if you don't agree with it. What are the Dems fighting for exactly? It is kinda sad that they have never fought as hard for good healthcare as Trump has for his wall.


They'd have to believe in helping people first. They don't. They only care about their donors.


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at thinking the dems look as bad as Trump for standing up to him on something he said Mexico was going to pay for. If the dems caved you would claim they look weak for giving in to him. So either way the dems can't win with people like you. The Dems are fighting for something that is a waste of money and that won't even pay for all of the wall.
> 
> Trump is a child for shutting down the govt over this. It's hilarious you are trying to find a way to blame the dems


I'm not saying they should give in and I can see why they would be opposed to the wall - but it takes two to tango and you can't place the blame 100% on Trump here. The Dems position is not one of negotiation, but that what I don't understand, you might be opposed to the wall, but it is really a relatively small 'waste of money' when you consider the amount the government wastes on other things (the over-bloated military for starters) So why not use Trump's determination to get the wall against him, and score a win for the Dems and the American people. It's hard not to come to the same conclusion as Tater on this one. I'm not trying to find a way to blame the Dems, it's just I don't understand their position. If they believe that the wall is pointless then just let it be built (and actually gain something from the negotiations) and let it fail. As it stands even if Trump backed down (he won't) then nothing of worth would be gained - just seems like a backward strategy. Do you not want them to push for something in return for the wall, or are you happy just to deny Trump even if it doesn't benefit anybody in real terms?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> I'm not saying they should give in and I can see why they would be opposed to the wall - but it takes two to tango and you can't place the blame 100% on Trump here. The Dems position is not one of negotiation, but that what I don't understand, you might be opposed to the wall, but it is really a relatively small 'waste of money' when you consider the amount the government wastes on other things (the over-bloated military for starters) So why not use Trump's determination to get the wall against him, and score a win for the Dems and the American people. It's hard not to come to the same conclusion as Tater on this one. I'm not trying to find a way to blame the Dems, it's just I don't understand their position. If they believe that the wall is pointless then just let it be built (and actually gain something from the negotiations) and let it fail. As it stands even if Trump backed down (he won't) then nothing of worth would be gained - just seems like a backward strategy. Do you not want them to push for something in return for the wall, or are you happy just to deny Trump even if it doesn't benefit anybody in real terms?


The blame is 100% on Trump. Trump even said he would take all the blame and not put it on the dems. Don't give me that it takes two to tango shit. That is like saying, oh someone gets mugged, but you can't put all the blame on the mugger, it takes two to tango.

The Dems already said they would give money for better border security just not for a wall. They are compromising, its Trump who won't compromise. The thing you keep ignoring is Trump said he was going to get a wall made and Mexico was going to pay for it. Why should the taxpayers for a wall that's not needed? 

If something is pointless why waste money on it? That does not make any sense. That 5 billion could go toward something that is needed like better healthcare

I don't want to see one cent wasted of taxpayer money on the wall. Trump is being a child over this, and he is only doing it to save face for his racist base


----------



## red dead2

Hoolahoop33 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46818218?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews
> 
> The thing I don't understand about the shutdown is that the Democrats don't seem to have any policy other than making sure Trump doesn't get the wall. But the wall would 'only' cost $5 Billion which really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, so why not try to get something back in return - something which would be a win for the Democrats, such as protecting immigrants already in the country or pushing towards medicare for all. As it stands they look intransigent and really just as bad as Trump. At least Trump is fighting for *something * even if you don't agree with it. What are the Dems fighting for exactly? It is kinda sad that they have never fought as hard for good healthcare as Trump has for his wall.


I'm sorry but your argument is very simpleton in nature by just assuming that a $5 billion border wall will magically solve immigration problems and not be a dent to the wider US gov't budget and economy.

First of all the $5 billion dollar is just a proposed sum and costs can go way up. Especially with a wall that long - your not just dealing with building a simple wall like any old construction company can do but something that goes through strict tests and an evaluation process for effectiveness. Then you got the technology that goes with it, staffing, making sure construction does not affect cross border trade, which other critical goverment agencies will money divert from in funding the wall, the legal ramifications - what if one section of the wall is built slightly into the Mexican side of the border resulting an International law suit resulting in the construction being halted half way through? There is so much more to this then just simply building something. Trump thinks that the border wall project is like a task in the apprentice when it is not and has much higher ramifications.

And finally - will a wall actually be effective at stopping illegal immigration? People will eventually find other ways to reach the United States maybe using the Gulf Of Mexico and California coast line as an alternate route?

What's the point of building a $5 billion + wall if in the end it has a minimal effect at stopping illegal immigration and you could get better results at the fraction of the price by giving more funding to border security agencies to improve technology, training and surveillance. Opening more investment projects in Mexico where the local citizens can become more wealthier - have less incentive to leave and also provide monetary returns to US corporations and workers involved.


----------



## birthday_massacre

red dead2 said:


> I'm sorry but your argument is very simpleton in nature by just assuming that a $5 billion border wall will magically solve immigration problems and not be a dent to the wider US gov't budget and economy.
> 
> First of all the $5 billion dollar is just a proposed sum and costs can go way up. Especially with a wall that long - your not just dealing with building a simple wall like any old construction company can do but something that goes through strict tests and an evaluation process for effectiveness. Then you got the technology that goes with it, staffing, making sure construction does not affect cross border trade, which other critical goverment agencies will money divert from in funding the wall, the legal ramifications - what if one section of the wall is built slightly into the Mexican side of the border resulting an International law suit resulting in the construction being halted half way through? There is so much more to this then just simply building something. Trump thinks that the border wall project is like a task in the apprentice when it is not and has much higher ramifications.
> 
> And finally - will a wall actually be effective at stopping illegal immigration? People will eventually find other ways to reach the United States maybe using the Gulf Of Mexico and California coast line as an alternate route?
> 
> What's the point of building a $5 billion + wall if in the end it has a minimal effect at stopping illegal immigration and you could get better results at the fraction of the price by giving more funding to border security agencies to improve technology, training and surveillance. Opening more investment projects in Mexico where the local citizens can become more wealthier - have less incentive to leave and also provide monetary returns to US corporations and workers involved.


Exactly, border apprehensions are at a 45 year low.


----------



## red dead2

birthday_massacre said:


> The blame is 100% on Trump. Trump even said he would take all the blame and not put it on the dems. Don't give me that it takes two to tango shit. That is like saying, oh someone gets mugged, but you can't put all the blame on the mugger, it takes two to tango.
> 
> The Dems already said they would give money for better border security just not for a wall. They are compromising, its Trump who won't compromise.* The thing you keep ignoring is Trump said he was going to get a wall made and Mexico was going to pay for it. * Why should the taxpayers for a wall that's not needed?
> 
> If something is pointless why waste money on it? That does not make any sense. That 5 billion could go toward something that is needed like better healthcare
> 
> I don't want to see one cent wasted of taxpayer money on the wall. Trump is being a child over this, and he is only doing it to save face for his racist base


This

Trump essentially lied to the taxpayer and everybody who voted for him and is now engaged in full scale damage control by trying to throw the blame at the democrats.

Trump lied to his own voters, not the democrats.


----------



## Hurricanes18

I am not in the USA, I live in NZ. But far as I can tell both sides have responsiblity to the Government shut down. But its mostly on Trump. He proclaimed Mexico were going to fund the wall, he lied. Then he said in his sit down with Schumer and Pelosi, he would not blame the Democrats for it. But again he lied. Now he wants Bipartsian support for a Wall that is turning out to be one of the most failed promises of his presidency. Personally I Think 5B for a wall is outlandish. This is some white supremency, Neo Nazi Stuff. I am not sure a wall well crack down on the distribution of drugs as it is. All Visas. Funny thing is Governor Georgia Clifford Walker in 1924 spoke at a KKK Rally. And said "America should build a wall of steel, a wall as high as Heaven. Againgst the flow of immigrants". I don't see much difference to what is going on. America was founded by immigrants. Mostly everyone in America, is a descendant of an immigrant. Trump is using Fear, not Facts.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> The blame is 100% on Trump. Trump even said he would take all the blame and not put it on the dems. Don't give me that it takes two to tango shit. That is like saying, oh someone gets mugged, but you can't put all the blame on the mugger, it takes two to tango.
> 
> The Dems already said they would give money for better border security just not for a wall. They are compromising, its Trump who won't compromise. The thing you keep ignoring is Trump said he was going to get a wall made and Mexico was going to pay for it. Why should the taxpayers for a wall that's not needed?
> 
> If something is pointless why waste money on it? That does not make any sense. That 5 billion could go toward something that is needed like better healthcare
> 
> I don't want to see one cent wasted of taxpayer money on the wall. Trump is being a child over this, and he is only doing it to save face for his racist base


It's not like that at all, the parties are between them supposed to be doing everything they can to help the American people and thus work together to some extent. Here by giving Trump the wall they could gain something back in return that could actually help people - but they clearly aren't interested. If the Dems were saying we'll give you your wall but in return we want you to protect the rights of immigrants already in the country - and Trump flat out said no, or wasn't willing to negotiate that point then it would be all on him, but as it stands the Democrats are being totally intransigent and aren't willing to negotiate. That means the shutdown is just as much on them as it is Trump - they aren't compromising at all c'mon!

I'm not sure it is pointless. If illegal immigration is a problem then I don't see why a wall wouldn't work if it was supported by other border security methods. They have walls around prisons and they are pretty efficient in keeping people in and people out. It's just whether you think it's worth it and how big of a problem you think it is. My point is if you think it is a waste/ pointless then why not trade it for something which you believe is not pointless and will actually help people. Let's be honest that money isn't going anywhere important - it's not like it's actually budgeted anyway, just look at the deficit - so why not gain something of worth. The current negotiating position of the Dems (Trump has said he's open to negotiations - and keeps going to pointless meetings with Schumer and Pelosi) currently garners nothing of worth for the American people.


----------



## DOPA

777 said:


> You don't even need to do that. Cut the committees, corporate subsidies and waste/corruption.
> 
> *Social welfare is a drop in the bucket* compared to big business welfare and keeping people off the streets as much as possible isn't a bad thing.


Not saying this to have a go at you or a gotcha moment but that isn't true. Mandatory spending which comprises of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security accounts for about 2/3's of the overall budget. Those three items are by far the biggest in terms of government spending.










This is from 2015 so it's only about three years old. In terms of actually balancing the budget, it would be extremely difficult to get the US's fiscal spending under control without touching any of the mandatory spending simply because it accounts for so much of the budget. As much as I would love to see military spending cut by a significant margin, even if you cut that by 100% you wouldn't balance the budget, even if you cut all corporate welfare which I am also for, you wouldn't balance the budget.

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/budget-ca...-without-touching-social-security-or-medicare



> During this election cycle, candidates may try to claim that it’s possible to bring the federal budget to balance without touching Medicare or Social Security – the two largest and fastest growing programs in the budget. Some may even claim this is possible on top of a large tax cut. For example, Mike Huckabee recently promised that unlike "some in Washington who want to cut benefits for seniors, I will protect Social Security and Medicare. Period" Donald Trump has also pledged that he "will not cut Social Security like every other Republican," while also proposing a $12 trillion tax cut and promising to balance the budget.
> 
> But in reality, doing so would *require enormous cuts to remaining federal programs, far larger than anything that’s been seriously considered. To balance the budget by 2025, the next President and Congress would have to cut spending and/or raise revenue by over $1 trillion (including interest) in 2025 alone, and would likely need about $6 trillion of savings cumulatively over the decade. Achieving balance while excluding two of the largest government programs would be incredibly difficult – particularly if combined with the enactment of tax cuts. Excluding all mandatory programs would make the task harder still.*
> 
> *Outside of Social Security and Medicare, most federal spending goes toward other mandatory programs (including Medicaid, federal and military employee retirement benefits, veterans’ benefits, and a host of programs primarily benefiting people with low incomes), national defense, and annually-appropriated non-defense discretionary programs (including medical research, the Department of Education, the judicial system, and the Department of State).
> 
> To balance the budget from these programs alone would require cutting them by 30 percent on average – which as a practical matter would mean eliminating or drastically curtailing many of them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If one went further and also exempted other mandatory spending including Medicaid, the cut required to balance the budget by 2025 would grow to 60 percent. Thought of another way, we’d have to cut the size and cost of our military by more than half and make equivalent cuts in areas such as education, energy, homeland security, and research.
> These cuts are tremendously unlikely to occur, especially given that recent Congressional action – on a bipartisan basis – has increased discretionary portion of the budget. Yet a number of candidates have proposed tax plans that would make the task harder still.*
> 
> As we recently showed in our tax plan infographic, the GOP tax plans that have been scored so far would cost anywhere from $1.8 to $12 trillion under conventional scoring (and almost as much under dynamic scoring).
> 
> *Assuming a middle-of-the-pack tax plan – costing $3 trillion – policymakers would need to cut all non-Social Security and non-Medicare spending by 45 percent or all discretionary spending by 85 percent to achieve balance. This would not be nearly enough to keep many parts of the government open, and would almost certainly involve massive cuts to national defense and mandatory programs, such as benefits for wounded veterans, Medicaid, food stamps, and promised federal retirement benefits.
> 
> Assuming the $12 trillion tax cut proposed by Donald Trump (the most expensive of the proposed plans), spending outside of Social Security and Medicare would need to be cut by 95 percent. If all mandatory spending were exempt, achieving a balanced budget would be literally impossible even by eliminating the rest of government.
> *
> 
> *Spending cuts will certainly be necessary to bring the federal budget into balance, but it’s not realistic to severely cut discretionary and other mandatory spending to Social Security and Medicare, which are far and away the fastest growing parts of the budget. In short, it is nearly impossible to put the government on a path to a balanced budget without addressing the growth in Social Security and Medicare.*



The reality is, you can't balance the budget or get any form of fiscal control without reforming the entitlement programs, which need reform for other reasons too (especially social security) as SS, Medicaid and Medicare together are over $100 trillion in the hole, which is the real national debt.

If Trump were serious about balancing the budget and the deficits, he would have had to curb spending first before even thinking about initiating any tax cuts but that would have been an unpopular decision to make. It would take someone not caring about being re-elected to initiate those decisions and that's not going to happen with Trump.


----------



## Tater

red dead2 said:


> I'm sorry but your argument is very simpleton in nature by just assuming that a $5 billion border wall will magically solve immigration problems and not be a dent to the wider US gov't budget and economy.
> 
> First of all the $5 billion dollar is just a proposed sum and costs can go way up. Especially with a wall that long - your not just dealing with building a simple wall like any old construction company can do but something that goes through strict tests and an evaluation process for effectiveness. Then you got the technology that goes with it, staffing, making sure construction does not affect cross border trade, which other critical goverment agencies will money divert from in funding the wall, the legal ramifications - what if one section of the wall is built slightly into the Mexican side of the border resulting an International law suit resulting in the construction being halted half way through? There is so much more to this then just simply building something. Trump thinks that the border wall project is like a task in the apprentice when it is not and has much higher ramifications.
> 
> And finally - will a wall actually be effective at stopping illegal immigration? People will eventually find other ways to reach the United States maybe using the Gulf Of Mexico and California coast line as an alternate route?
> 
> What's the point of building a $5 billion + wall if in the end it has a minimal effect at stopping illegal immigration and you could get better results at the fraction of the price by giving more funding to border security agencies to improve technology, training and surveillance. Opening more investment projects in Mexico where the local citizens can become more wealthier - have less incentive to leave and also provide monetary returns to US corporations and workers involved.


Or, as is my suggestion, go after the capitalists who employ illegal workers and end the drug war. If it's impossible to get a job and there is no reason for drugs to be brought into the USA, then the problem is solved without a wall.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hurricanes18 said:


> I am not in the USA, I live in NZ. But far as I can tell both sides have responsiblity to the Government shut down. But its mostly on Trump. *He proclaimed Mexico were going to fund the wall, he lied. Then he said in his sit down with Schumer and Pelosi, he would not blame the Democrats for it. But again he lied. Now he wants Bipartsian support for a Wall that is turning out to be one of the most failed promises of his presidency*. Personally I Think 5B for a wall is outlandish. This is some white supremency, Neo Nazi Stuff. I am not sure a wall well crack down on the distribution of drugs as it is. All Visas. Funny thing is Governor Georgia Clifford Walker in 1924 spoke at a KKK Rally. And said "America should build a wall of steel, a wall as high as Heaven. Againgst the flow of immigrants". I don't see much difference to what is going on. America was founded by immigrants. Mostly everyone in America, is a descendant of an immigrant. Trump is using Fear, not Facts.


So how are Dems partially to blame for this then? You just gave all the examples of why Trump is to blame but then say well the Dems are to blame too. You are not making any sense.




Tater said:


> Or, as is my suggestion, *go after the capitalists who employ illegal workers* and end the drug war. If it's impossible to get a job and there is no reason for drugs to be brought into the USA, then the problem is solved without a wall.


Like Trump?


----------



## Hoolahoop33

red dead2 said:


> I'm sorry but your argument is very simpleton in nature by just assuming that a $5 billion border wall will magically solve immigration problems and not be a dent to the wider US gov't budget and economy.
> 
> First of all the $5 billion dollar is just a proposed sum and costs can go way up. Especially with a wall that long - your not just dealing with building a simple wall like any old construction company can do but something that goes through strict tests and an evaluation process for effectiveness. Then you got the technology that goes with it, staffing, making sure construction does not affect cross border trade, which other critical goverment agencies will money divert from in funding the wall, the legal ramifications - what if one section of the wall is built slightly into the Mexican side of the border resulting an International law suit resulting in the construction being halted half way through? There is so much more to this then just simply building something. Trump thinks that the border wall project is like a task in the apprentice when it is not and has much higher ramifications.
> 
> And finally - will a wall actually be effective at stopping illegal immigration? People will eventually find other ways to reach the United States maybe using the Gulf Of Mexico and California coast line as an alternate route?
> 
> What's the point of building a $5 billion + wall if in the end it has a minimal effect at stopping illegal immigration and you could get better results at the fraction of the price by giving more funding to border security agencies to improve technology, training and surveillance. Opening more investment projects in Mexico where the local citizens can become more wealthier - have less incentive to leave and also provide monetary returns to US corporations and workers involved.


That's probably because I am a simpleton....

Then again when did I say that I am in favour of a wall? All I said was that the Dems negotiating position is highly intransigent and that they should use their leverage to actually help push through their policies which they believe would help the American people - but they don't appear to be interested.

Look at how much the US spends on its military every year and tell me $5 Billion is a significant amount in the grand scheme of things. That is a small price to pay if you can negotiate with Trump and help to improve the lives of your citizens by improving healthcare or passing immigration reform surely.

Why why why should the US open more investment projects in Mexico when there are so many suffering in the US working crap jobs, for crap wages - don't you think that money would be better spent being invested into projects in the US (Like a wall perhaps :x)



Hurricanes18 said:


> I am not in the USA, I live in NZ. But far as I can tell both sides have responsiblity to the Government shut down. But its mostly on Trump. He proclaimed Mexico were going to fund the wall, he lied. Then he said in his sit down with Schumer and Pelosi, he would not blame the Democrats for it. But again he lied. Now he wants Bipartsian support for a Wall that is turning out to be one of the most failed promises of his presidency. Personally I Think 5B for a wall is outlandish. This is some white supremency, Neo Nazi Stuff. I am not sure a wall well crack down on the distribution of drugs as it is. All Visas. Funny thing is Governor Georgia Clifford Walker in 1924 spoke at a KKK Rally. And said "America should build a wall of steel, a wall as high as Heaven. Againgst the flow of immigrants". I don't see much difference to what is going on. America was founded by immigrants. Mostly everyone in America, is a descendant of an immigrant. Trump is using Fear, not Facts.


Immigration is good.
Illegal/ undocumented immigration is bad. For many reasons.

Why is it racist to be against illegal immigration? A country should always have a choice over who it lets into their borders.

Check now how hard it would be for you as a NZ citizen to get a VISA to live and work in the US - why is it fair that you, a person who could very easily integrate into American society has to meet certain requirements to move there, but an illegal immigrant does not have to be subject to such requirements.

Also those who make the journey suffer greatly and when they arrive they are often exploited and subject to crime (which they can't report due to fear of being deported) It is not fair to encourage such migration as it often leads to the suffering of those that you want to help.


----------



## yeahbaby!

The smart money is the wall become a money black hole, 6B is being generous, I would predict it blowing out to however many more billion. 

Huge scale building projects like a massive wall that are most likely a logistical nightmare are just not a good idea most of the time IMO - to be effective you have to guarantee it's going to be done properly and not be 80% over budget, that's just not going to happen with an absurd huge wall.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Trump is full of shit, his defenders are full of shit and his attackers are full of shit. There's no principle whatsoever. This whole fiasco has been a clown show.


----------



## red dead2

Hoolahoop33 said:


> That's probably because I am a simpleton....
> 
> Then again when did I say that I am in favour of a wall? All I said was that the Dems negotiating position is highly intransigent and that they should use their leverage to actually help push through their policies which they believe would help the American people - but they don't appear to be interested.
> 
> Look at how much the US spends on its military every year and tell me $5 Billion is a significant amount in the grand scheme of things. That is a small price to pay if you can negotiate with Trump and help to improve the lives of your citizens by improving healthcare or passing immigration reform surely.
> 
> Why why why should the US open more investment projects in Mexico when there are so many suffering in the US working crap jobs, for crap wages - don't you think that money would be better spent being invested into projects in the US (Like a wall perhaps :x)


Read my post again - $5 billion is just a starting proposed fee and costs could and probably will go up. Also there are many political considerations to take and that includes whether a wall could affect trade with Mexico which totalled an estimated $615.9 billion dollars that could go way down with a wall in place.

And you have totally negated the legal ramifications again that can easily lead to the walls construction being halted half way through. Thus wasting taxpayers money and having a half-built wall if any international border demarcation issues arise.


And then the ultimate question - will a border wall actually solve illegal immigration and how much money will be diverted from other critical federal govmnt services? The Trump administration have not taken into account any possible drawbacks and hits other services may take. Will the wall still be breached and have a minimal affect thus making it useless if people use rubber dingies to across the Gulf Of Mexico and West Coast? Will money be diverted from crucial services provided to Americans like Healthcare and food assistance programs.

Trump thinks that building a border wall is something as easy as putting pieces of Lego together and some people are buying it. I'm sorry but policies like this are much more sophisticated than that. 



> Why why why should the US open more investment projects in Mexico when there are so many suffering in the US working crap jobs, for crap wages - don't you think that money would be better spent being invested into projects in the US (Like a wall perhaps :x)


Oh God you really are a simpleton lol?

an Investment project wont just generate money for Mexicans but for American companies and workers as well who will benefit from the ROI

That ROI can then be used later on to invest money in projects within the US itself

The Dollar is much stronger than the Peso so giving the homegrown workers a good wage won't be a problem. The Idea is that if Mexicans start earning more in their home country they won't have an incentive to go to America and American companies can gain a much stronger foothold in Latin-America.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> It's not like that at all, the parties are between them supposed to be doing everything they can to help the American people and thus work together to some extent. Here by giving Trump the wall they could gain something back in return that could actually help people - but they clearly aren't interested. If the Dems were saying we'll give you your wall but in return we want you to protect the rights of immigrants already in the country - and Trump flat out said no, or wasn't willing to negotiate that point then it would be all on him*, but as it stands the Democrats are being totally intransigent and aren't willing to negotiate.* That means the shutdown is just as much on them as it is Trump - they aren't compromising at all c'mon!


Why should they when Trump has lied about funding the Wall before (Mexico Will Pay for It!!!) and will probably end up lying about more costs as well.

The Democrats will look extremely stupid if they agree to Trumps Proposals only for Trump to turn around in a months time and say "sorry Border wall will now cost $50 billion and other government services and programs will have to take a hit but don't worry, they will get a great return when this magnificent wall is built, MAGA".

They are dealing with a proven liar and egomaniac. If someone is going to to try to bully you into buying a load of shit a Hard No needs to be said from the get go.


----------



## Hillhank

red dead2 said:


> Why should they when Trump has lied about funding the Wall before (Mexico Will Pay for It!!!) and will probably end up lying about more costs as well.
> 
> The Democrats will look extremely stupid if they agree to Trumps Proposals only for Trump to turn around in a months time and say "sorry Border wall will now cost $50 billion and other government services and programs will have to take a hit but don't worry, they will get a great return when this magnificent wall is built, MAGA".
> 
> They are dealing with a proven liar and egomaniac. If someone is going to to try to bully you into buying a load of shit a Hard No needs to be said from the get go.




A politician that lies, what a shocker first I'm hearing of it 

People hate Donald Trump because he's white there I said it.

It's true and we all know it


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083196428254658565
:lmao :lmao :lmao

:sodone

The universe is a simulation.


----------



## BruiserKC

Hoolahoop33 said:


> It's not like that at all, the parties are between them supposed to be doing everything they can to help the American people and thus work together to some extent. Here by giving Trump the wall they could gain something back in return that could actually help people - but they clearly aren't interested. If the Dems were saying we'll give you your wall but in return we want you to protect the rights of immigrants already in the country - and Trump flat out said no, or wasn't willing to negotiate that point then it would be all on him, but as it stands the Democrats are being totally intransigent and aren't willing to negotiate. That means the shutdown is just as much on them as it is Trump - they aren't compromising at all c'mon!
> 
> I'm not sure it is pointless. If illegal immigration is a problem then I don't see why a wall wouldn't work if it was supported by other border security methods. They have walls around prisons and they are pretty efficient in keeping people in and people out. It's just whether you think it's worth it and how big of a problem you think it is. My point is if you think it is a waste/ pointless then why not trade it for something which you believe is not pointless and will actually help people. Let's be honest that money isn't going anywhere important - it's not like it's actually budgeted anyway, just look at the deficit - so why not gain something of worth. The current negotiating position of the Dems (Trump has said he's open to negotiations - and keeps going to pointless meetings with Schumer and Pelosi) currently garners nothing of worth for the American people.


Last year he was offered $25 billion in exchange for protection for the DREAMers. He rejected the offer. Then again, he promised the American people on day one he would rescind protection for the DREAMers. Here we are on day 720 and nothing has been done (and it took him 9 months to actually do something but just kicked the can to Congress). He has had several budgets come across his desk, he kept signing them anyway in spite of not providing funding for the wall and his complaining about it. 

There are plenty of other options to pursue regarding border security that can go hand-in-hand with a physical barrier. There's mandatory E-Verify, severe fines for businesses that hire illegals (not just to cut profit, but to make it unprofitable to hire them), a revamping of our vetting process (which no one talks about but is a big part of this when you have people waiting years to get in), and visa reform. Those alone won't fully solve the problem but will take care of the majority of it. 

The wall was never a priority, it was just pandering to the nth degree. Now that the Democrats have taken over the House and we have split government, he can blame them and try to look good to his supporters. There is plenty of blame to go around, including a pathetic Congress. McConnell and Pelosi both couldn't find their own asses if you put it in their hands and gave a squeeze for them. However, Trump is to blame here as well and he can take a good chunk of the blame. He has had two years to push his agenda. He wasted a lot of the political capital a President gets at the beginning of their terms in stupid pissing contests that don't matter. 

For everyone here that talks about winning...Obamacare is still the law of the land. We have tax cuts that are tax increases for many Americans. The economy is on shaky ground right now and signs show to a slowing down of the government which will eventually bring about recession. And the wall hasn't been built. The GOP lost the House because they failed to keep their promises (their biggest one to repeal Obamacare). Trump's biggest promise was the building of the wall. He broke his promise.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083196428254658565
> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> :sodone
> 
> The universe is a simulation.


This cracked me up so much.


----------



## TripleG

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083196428254658565
> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> :sodone
> 
> The universe is a simulation.


That's it. I can die happy. That is the funniest thing I will ever see!


----------



## njcam

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



njcam said:


>


Trump looks like pastor


----------



## Draykorinee

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46828810



> Mr Pompeo, who has been seeking to reassure allies following Mr Trump's surprise announcement, said: "America will not retreat until the terror fight is over. We will labour tirelessly alongside you to defeat Isis [the Islamic State group], al-Qaeda and other jihadists that threaten our security and yours."
> 
> He added that the US was a "force for good" in the Middle East, adding: "Where America retreats, chaos follows."


:bunk

The biggest issue is that Bernie didn't tweet though.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

red dead2 said:


> Read my post again - $5 billion is just a starting proposed fee and costs could and probably will go up. Also there are many political considerations to take and that includes whether a wall could affect trade with Mexico which totalled an estimated $615.9 billion dollars that could go way down with a wall in place.
> 
> And you have totally negated the legal ramifications again that can easily lead to the walls construction being halted half way through. Thus wasting taxpayers money and having a half-built wall if any international border demarcation issues arise.
> 
> 
> And then the ultimate question - will a border wall actually solve illegal immigration and how much money will be diverted from other critical federal govmnt services? The Trump administration have not taken into account any possible drawbacks and hits other services may take. Will the wall still be breached and have a minimal affect thus making it useless if people use rubber dingies to across the Gulf Of Mexico and West Coast? Will money be diverted from crucial services provided to Americans like Healthcare and food assistance programs.
> 
> Trump thinks that building a border wall is something as easy as putting pieces of Lego together and some people are buying it. I'm sorry but policies like this are much more sophisticated than that.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh God you really are a simpleton lol?
> 
> an Investment project wont just generate money for Mexicans but for American companies and workers as well who will benefit from the ROI
> 
> That ROI can then be used later on to invest money in projects within the US itself
> 
> The Dollar is much stronger than the Peso so giving the homegrown workers a good wage won't be a problem. The Idea is that if Mexicans start earning more in their home country they won't have an incentive to go to America and American companies can gain a much stronger foothold in Latin-America.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they when Trump has lied about funding the Wall before (Mexico Will Pay for It!!!) and will probably end up lying about more costs as well.
> 
> The Democrats will look extremely stupid if they agree to Trumps Proposals only for Trump to turn around in a months time and say "sorry Border wall will now cost $50 billion and other government services and programs will have to take a hit but don't worry, they will get a great return when this magnificent wall is built, MAGA".
> 
> They are dealing with a proven liar and egomaniac. If someone is going to to try to bully you into buying a load of shit a Hard No needs to be said from the get go.


1) No you read my post again - I have never said that I am in favour of a wall. I am simply discussing the Democrats negotiation stance and how I feel they should deal with the reality of the situation that Trump will not back down and that they could in theory gain something from the situation.

2) I am not debating you since you have insulted me twice now - if you can't be amicable then I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> McConnell and Pelosi both couldn't find their own asses if you put it in their hands and gave a squeeze for them.


The only asses they are concerned with is their donors' and the permanent liplock applied to them.



Draykorinee said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46828810
> 
> 
> 
> :bunk
> 
> The biggest issue is that Bernie didn't tweet though.


:lmao

"America will not retreat until the terror fight is over."

He means never.

Trump has been the deep state/MIC's little bitch boy his entire time in office. Imagine being so gullible that you'd fall for the con of him standing up to them and having a triggered snowflake meltdown because Bernie didn't tweet praise over something that Trump was never going to seriously follow through on. Sucks to be that guy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> 1) No you read my post again - I have never said that I am in favour of a wall. I am simply discussing the Democrats negotiation stance and how I feel they should deal with the reality of the situation that Trump will not back down and that they could in theory gain something from the situation.
> 
> 2) I am not debating you since you have insulted me twice now - if you can't be amicable then I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.


Why do you keep claiming the Dems didn't negotiate? Last year the Dems were going to give Trump something like $25 billion for the wall in exchange for the Dream act and Trump said no.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Why do you keep claiming the Dems didn't negotiate? Last year the Dems were going to give Trump something like $25 billion for the wall in exchange for the Dream act and Trump said no.


I could be wrong (please correct me if I am) but I believe that did not include a separate provision for the building of the wall. Rather the $25 Billion was for general border security. I guess the smart thing would be to take that money and say that that includes money towards the building of the wall - but my guess is that they would have got a similar amount from Congress anyway and thus felt they could use the DACA as leverage in any future negotiations. Why won't the Dems exchange $5 Billion now for a wall then in exchange for DACA?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> I could be wrong (please correct me if I am) but I believe that did not include a separate provision for the building of the wall. Rather the $25 Billion was for general border security. I guess the smart thing would be to take that money and say that that includes money towards the building of the wall - but my guess is that they would have got a similar amount from Congress anyway and thus felt they could use the DACA as leverage in any future negotiations. Why won't the Dems exchange $5 Billion now for a wall then in exchange for DACA?



the $25 billion was for border security and the wall. The full amount was not just for the wall but he could have used some of that for the wall.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...or-trumps-wall-as-immigration-fight-continuse

*Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said Schumer had promised a $25 billion figure for the wall and other border security measures, though not all of that would have been immediate funding. He called Schumer’s withdrawal of the offer “a step backward.”*

As for why won't they give Trump the $5 billion now in exchange for DACA later, because the Dems were already burned on a future promise of a bill for passing a spending bill to end the shut down last year and it never happened.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


>


its pretty sad the Dems get behind those two clowns when Bernie and AOCs rebuttals were a million times better and more passionate.


----------



## Headliner

I didnt mind Chuck and Nancy's reply. In fact I thought it was good.

Problem is they are fucking old. Democrats played themselves by not having a youthful face in a top leadership position. In the Republican party you can get away with being old and in a leadership position. It doesn't resonate so well in the Democratic party besides the Bernie exception.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> I didnt mind Chuck and Nancy's reply. In fact I thought it was good.
> 
> Problem is they are fucking old. Democrats played themselves by not having a youthful face in a top leadership position. In the Republican party you can get away with being old and in a leadership position. It doesn't resonate so well in the Democratic party besides the Bernie exception.


But it was just deadpan, and they looked like zombies reading off the prompter.

I did love Nancy's burn the next day about how workers can't just ask their daddy for more money. That was amazing


----------



## Tater

Headliner said:


> I didnt mind Chuck and Nancy's reply. In fact I thought it was good.
> 
> Problem is they are fucking old. Democrats played themselves by not having a youthful face in a top leadership position. In the Republican party you can get away with being old and in a leadership position. It doesn't resonate so well in the Democratic party besides the Bernie exception.


The problem isn't their age. The problem is being Wall Street corporate lackeys.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Headliner said:


> I didnt mind Chuck and Nancy's reply. In fact I thought it was good.
> 
> Problem is they are fucking old. Democrats played themselves by not having a youthful face in a top leadership position. *In the Republican party you can get away with being old and in a leadership position. It doesn't resonate so well in the Democratic party *besides the Bernie exception.


I don't know if I agree with this or not but if it's true that's not something I would be proud of if I were a democrat. 

So long as that person is physically capable, what's wrong with being older?


----------



## Reaper

The *real *problem is that a morality argument is coming from some of the most corrupt individuals in the democrat party.

Can't claim moral superiority when you're morally bankrupt yourself. Plain and simple.


----------



## ShiningStar

Headliner said:


> I didnt mind Chuck and Nancy's reply. In fact I thought it was good.
> 
> Problem is they are fucking old. Democrats played themselves by not having a youthful face in a top leadership position. In the Republican party you can get away with being old and in a leadership position. It doesn't resonate so well in the Democratic party besides the Bernie exception.


On the flip side,whoever is in a leadership position is gonna be hated. It's probably smarter for Democrats to let Pelosi and Schumer be the whipping boy/girl and not someone younger. You probably have to go back 30-40 years to find a Senate Majority/Minority Leader or House Speaker who was beloved by the public or even their own party.


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083196428254658565
> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> :sodone
> 
> The universe is a simulation.


I laughed pretty hard.


----------



## Headliner

Berzerker's Beard said:


> I don't know if I agree with this or not but if it's true that's not something I would be proud of if I were a democrat.
> 
> So long as that person is physically capable, what's wrong with being older?


Democrats have the most success when they appeal to and inspire young people which is why they _try_ to target their messaging toward young people and support youth causes. That includes having leaders and candidates with youthful appearances who seem relate-able.

That never mattered in the Republican Party.


----------



## AlternateDemise

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083378845573677059
:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

All this shutdown BS is just a distraction from Muller's investigations. Dude is holding the federal government hostage over a manufactured crisis to stop an ongoing investigation on his alleged wrongdoings. GOP senate is too chicken to call Trump out on this because they fear losing the votes of their base who clearly bought into his cult of personality. They are using Mitch McConnell as an excuse for their inaction. Blame the whole lot of them.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Headliner said:


> Democrats have the most success when they appeal to and inspire young people which is why they _try_ to target their messaging toward young people and support youth causes. That includes having leaders and candidates with youthful appearances who seem relate-able.
> 
> That never mattered in the Republican Party.


Oh no I totally understand, and you may be right. I'm saying it's a huge flaw within the party and one of the biggest reasons I don't typically vote for democrats. They pander way too much to young people and they care way too much about what young people think. 

Young people are by and large the least experienced, least knowledgeable and most ignorant component of a country. Nobody would ever claim they were more wise and more mature back during their teens and 20's. Even older stupid people... were MORE stupid in their teens and 20's. 

What does it say about the young people in the democratic party if all it takes is someone "hip" to get them excited? Does it really suggest that they are a savvy bunch? Would someone like AOC have gotten over like she did if she weren't young, attractive and hip? Does her lack of experience and insight even matter?


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083411819354558467
Another spectacular fail from Jim Acosta.

*#Deterrent*

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083531644785455104
:lmao :lmao :lmao 

For those who don't get the reference, look it up, it's some funny shit.


----------



## FriedTofu

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Oh no I totally understand, and you may be right. I'm saying it's a huge flaw within the party and one of the biggest reasons I don't typically vote for democrats. They pander way too much to young people and they care way too much about what young people think.
> 
> Young people are by and large the least experienced, least knowledgeable and most ignorant component of a country. Nobody would ever claim they were more wise and more mature back during their teens and 20's. Even older stupid people... were MORE stupid in their teens and 20's.
> 
> What does it say about the young people in the democratic party if all it takes is someone "hip" to get them excited? Does it really suggest that they are a savvy bunch? Would someone like AOC have gotten over like she did if she weren't young, attractive and hip? Does her lack of experience and insight even matter?


Young people's opinion don't matter? They can serve in the military but their opinions are not important? Pandering to young people is a problem to you, but pandering to overly religious folks is not a deal breaker?

A recent study revealed older folks shared more fake news. Dumb old people being dumber when younger doesn't mean young people are more ignorant or less knowledgeable.

It's ironic you are shitting on young democrats getting excited over AOC for being 'hip' when Trump got over with the GOP by being 'hip' just 3 years ago. Does it really suggest they are a savvy bunch? Last I checked it is the conservative media that is overplaying AOC's impact because she is young and attractive. Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin over the years got super over with the GOP because of their attractiveness. Maybe you are too young for their age group and do not find them physically attractive. 

Democrats make their politicians celebrities. Republicans make celebrities their politicians. Are you sure you aren't projecting when you make this post?


----------



## Kiz

wheel was invented before walls.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083547041060380672
"Like sheep, they ran towards the slaughterhouse. And waiting for them was the high priest of fraud."

:lmao



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Would someone like AOC have gotten over like she did if she weren't young, attractive and hip? Does her lack of experience and insight even matter?


Would someone like Bernie have gotten over like he did if he weren't young, attractive and hip? Does his lack of experience and insight even matter?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083564739458990081
oh no


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> h no I totally understand, and you may be right. I'm saying it's a huge flaw within the party and one of the biggest reasons I don't typically vote for democrats. They pander way too much to young people and they care way too much about what young people think.


And why shouldn't they care what young people think? That does not make any sense. Young people are the future of the country. Also their votes matter the most since when younger people vote the democrats tend to win elections. 







Berzerker's Beard said:


> Young people are by and large the least experienced, least knowledgeable and most ignorant component of a country. Nobody would ever claim they were more wise and more mature back during their teens and 20's. Even older stupid people... were MORE stupid in their teens and 20's.


You are totally wrong about young people being least knowledgeable and most ignorant component in the country. Young people are way more knowledge than the older farts that watch fox news. Young people actually do research via the internet to see if the shit people like Trump says is true or not whereas all the old farts that watch fox news or even CNN just take what they say as being true even though its mostly bullshit



Berzerker's Beard said:


> What does it say about the young people in the democratic party if all it takes is someone "hip" to get them excited? Does it really suggest that they are a savvy bunch? Would someone like AOC have gotten over like she did if she weren't young, attractive and hip? Does her lack of experience and insight even matter?


WTF are you talking about it just takes someone hip to get them excited. Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, he is far from young and hip. AOC got over because of her polticy positions, which are in line with Bernie Sanders whose policies are the most popular in the country

It's also ironic when you talk about her lack of experience and insight when you defend Trump all the time.

AOC is way more informed than Trump will ever be.


----------



## Draykorinee

I would have to agree that what bezerker said about young people is actually the ignorant and stupid thing, not the young people.


----------



## Tater

Guys, guys... people are a bunch of fucking morons, regardless of what age they are.


----------



## deepelemblues

AP is reporting that US soldiers are beginning to withdraw from Syria. The numbers are small, but there's only about 2,000 there. Plus maybe another thousand there that aren't there wink wink

I guess Bolton lost and isn't really the real president after all :curry2


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> AP is reporting that US soldiers are beginning to withdraw from Syria. The numbers are small, but there's only about 2,000 there. Plus maybe another thousand there that aren't there wink wink
> 
> I guess Bolton lost and isn't really the real president after all :curry2


Unless Bolton is playing 4D chess knowing withdrawing troops now will result in another ISIS situation similar to withdrawing from Iraq too early and allow him to deploy even more troops in the region in the future. :troll


----------



## Mr.Monkey

I'm not much of a Trump fan.I don't consider myself a conservative but Trump should get the wall.He won the election on the mandate of a wall. Let him build it, if it doesn't work let that be his political legacy. I would want the US to get universal healthcare one day and i wouldn't like it if my president won on the basis of universal healthcare and when his term is up it never goes through. 
Also let the wall be a reminder for people to take politics serious through going out and voting. I mean the dems can negotiate with trump to get wildlife that is going to be affected out of there before the the wall is built.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Mr.Monkey said:


> I'm not much of a Trump fan but Trump should get the wall.He won the election on the mandate of a wall. Let him build it, if it doesn't work let that be his political legacy.


On the mandate that Mexico would pay for it, not the tax payers.


----------



## Mr.Monkey

birthday_massacre said:


> On the mandate that Mexico would pay for it, not the tax payers.


I'm just giving my two cent. You seem to know more than me. You can try to change my opinion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Mr.Monkey said:


> I'm just giving my two cent. You seem to know more than me. You can try to change my opinion.


Why do you think he should get the wall without Mexico paying for it?


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

virus21 said:


>


Gee I wonder why :lol


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083870436352499717
:fuckyeah

I know who I'll be voting for in the primaries.


----------



## DOPA

Putting all of my weight behind Tulsi in the Democratic primaries. Unfortunately I don't expect her to win .


----------



## Tater

Rolo Tomassi said:


> Putting all of my weight behind Tulsi in the Democratic primaries. Unfortunately I don't expect her to win .


I don't expect her to win either but the absolutely fantastic news about her running is that it will force others to talk about foreign policy in ways they would rather not. Just having her on the stage is a win in my book.


----------



## DOPA

Tater said:


> I don't expect her to win either but the absolutely fantastic news about her running is that it will force others to talk about foreign policy in ways they would rather not. Just having her on the stage is a win in my book.


True, as long as they fucking cover it :lol.

You know what TV debates are like content wise unfortunately.


----------



## CamillePunk

Hopefully Tulsi can at least make foreign policy a serious topic of discussion in the Democratic primaries.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083879232466505729
lmao this is all good stuff you dummies


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083870436352499717
> :fuckyeah
> 
> I know who I'll be voting for in the primaries.


If she wins the primaries, I might actually vote. But I doubt she will and the Dems will screw her just like they did with Bernie


----------



## DOPA

The fact that the GOP establishment are already out in full force to smear Tulsi is a good thing, it makes me even more confident that she is worth supporting .


----------



## Stinger Fan

CamillePunk said:


> Hopefully Tulsi can at least make foreign policy a serious topic of discussion in the Democratic primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083879232466505729
> lmao this is all good stuff you dummies


Don't forget, she's super homophobic too but will the progressives care? Or will they ignore it because it's not a straight ,cisgendered, Caucasian male? :lol


----------



## Tater

Rolo Tomassi said:


> The fact that the GOP establishment are already out in full force to smear Tulsi is a good thing, it makes me even more confident that she is worth supporting .


It's not just the GOP establishment. There's plenty of war mongering liberals out there calling her an Assad apologist because she saw through the bullshit false flag chemical attacks.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083535899160399872
lmao Jim Acosta


----------



## deepelemblues

Tulsi Gabbard :ha

If you liked the JEF you'll love Tulsi, bitch is the JEF on steroids from drone strikes and sending special forces to 5, 6 dozen countries a year to ice people to spending mountains of fake money on domestic bullshit :trolldog


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> Don't forget, she's super homophobic too but will the progressives care? Or will they ignore it because it's not a straight ,cisgendered, Caucasian male? :lol


I have looked but I can't find any recent evidence for this, where is this from? The latest I found was this from her religious sect she associates with.




> Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii Democrat, and the first and only Hindu American in the United States House of Representatives, has been taken to task by a Hindu group for supporting gays and lesbians.


----------



## Tater

Draykorinee said:


> I have looked but I can't find any recent evidence for this, where is this from? The latest I found was this from her religious sect she associates with.


Tulsi comes from a very right wing social conservative background. The views she holds now are not the same as the ones she had 10-15 years ago.

What is amusing about this is some of the people attacking Tulsi for her past views are also Hillary supporters who give her a complete pass for being one of the last Democrats to support gay marriage.

People are allowed to have their views evolve. I come from a far right fundamentalist Christian background in Alabama and now I am a libertarian leftist atheist. Anyone holding Tulsi's past views against her are hacks.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Draykorinee said:


> I have looked but I can't find any recent evidence for this, where is this from? The latest I found was this from her religious sect she associates with.


I'm only half joking but if I recall correctly, she doesn't have a great voting record and made comments about "gay extremists" trying to get gay marriage legalized. 

To me its just funny. Obama and Hilary both made comments about marriage being between a man and a woman only, but they both get a free pass. I'm interested in seeing if she does too.


----------



## Kabraxal

Ard pass on Gabbard for me. She hits some social stances, but her financial stances are the same old progressive idiocy and from what I have read, she is a gun control nut. So yeah, not voting for that shitty candidate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Ard pass on Gabbard for me. She hits some social stances, but her financial stances are the same old progressive idiocy and from what I have read, she is a gun control nut. So yeah, not voting for that shitty candidate.


What about Julian Castro.

No Pac Money
Climate change and energy: Rejoin the Paris Climate Treaty. Work with businesses.
education: Establish universal pre-K education. Provide two free years of higher education.
Gun control: Require universal background checks, ban assault weapons.
Health care: Create a universal health care system, “Medicare for all.”
immigration, ICE and the border: Allow a path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants. “Reconstitute” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Social issues: Abortion should remain legal after 20 weeks. Gay marriage is a protected right. Transgender Americans should be able to serve in the military.
Syria: Withdraw U.S. presence over a planned period of time.
Trade: Renegotiate NAFTA.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> What about Julian Castro.
> 
> No Pac Money
> Climate change and energy: Rejoin the Paris Climate Treaty. Work with businesses.
> education: Establish universal pre-K education. Provide two free years of higher education.
> Gun control: Require universal background checks, ban assault weapons.
> Health care: Create a universal health care system, “Medicare for all.”
> immigration, ICE and the border: Allow a path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants. “Reconstitute” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
> Social issues: Abortion should remain legal after 20 weeks. Gay marriage is a protected right. Transgender Americans should be able to serve in the military.
> Syria: Withdraw U.S. presence over a planned period of time.
> Trade: Renegotiate NAFTA.


I do not support gun control.
I do not support taxation for secondary education, social welfare programs, or any type of growth in gov’t.
I will NEVER support universal healthcare run by gov’t. I’ve seen what our gov’t can do in running healthcare in the VA. FUCK THAT.
I do support drug legalisation, gay marriage, and abortion (though I find that last one abhorrent personally... but sadly people can’t say no to sex and no child should be punished to live with idiots for parents). 
I am for military reduction. Also fuck all war hawks.

I could list a few more, but the above must be true if I am ever to vote for anyone. If no candidate matches it, I will not vote. I’m done compromising. It hasn’t made anything better.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> I do not support gun control.
> I do not support taxation for secondary education, social welfare programs, or any type of growth in gov’t.
> I will NEVER support universal healthcare run by gov’t. I’ve seen what our gov’t can do in running healthcare in the VA. FUCK THAT.
> I do support drug legalisation, gay marriage, and abortion (though I find that last one abhorrent personally... but sadly people can’t say no to sex and no child should be punished to live with idiots for parents).
> I am for military reduction. Also fuck all war hawks.
> 
> I could list a few more, but the above must be true if I am ever to vote for anyone. If no candidate matches it, I will not vote. I’m done compromising. It hasn’t made anything better.


what do you consider yourself? It's not a liberal or progressive I take it. Are you more libertarian?

also why would you be against Requiring universal background checks, and banning assault weapons?


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> what do you consider yourself? It's not a liberal or progressive I take it. Are you more libertarian?
> 
> also why would you be against Requiring universal background checks, and banning assault weapons?


Probably more libertarian. But honestly an anarchist that recognises that humanity needs some restrictions to coexist. 

Universal background checks might be fine, but it depends on the qualifiers used to pass/fail such checks. My list would be far less strict than many I suspect. As for assualt weapons... well “assualt” weapon is a term used to instil a guttural fear reaction for semi automatic weapons that are no more dangerous than any other seni auto weapon. Also, I have no qualms with true full auto weapons being more available. Actual mass shootings are rare. Hell, homicides, assaults, and mass shootings are dwarfed by suicides by firearms. It’s tragic when it happens, but I do not support stripping 99 percent of the population of a tool just because 1 percent that causes tragedy.

If I operated off that mindset, guns wouldn’t even be the top of the list. Freedom over the illusion of safety. Always.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Probably more libertarian. But honestly an anarchist that recognises that humanity needs some restrictions to coexist.
> 
> Universal background checks might be fine, but it depends on the qualifiers used to pass/fail such checks. My list would be far less strict than many I suspect. As for assualt weapons... well “assualt” weapon is a term used to instil a guttural fear reaction for semi automatic weapons that are no more dangerous than any other seni auto weapon. Also, I have no qualms with true full auto weapons being more available. Actual mass shootings are rare. Hell, homicides, assaults, and mass shootings are dwarfed by suicides by firearms. It’s tragic when it happens, but I do not support stripping 99 percent of the population of a tool just because 1 percent that causes tragedy.
> 
> If I operated off that mindset, guns wouldn’t even be the top of the list. Freedom over the illusion of safety. Always.


So is ron paul, bill weld weld more your style ?


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> So is ron paul, bill weld weld more your style ?


Eh... there are some red flags that worry me. For a while, Rand Paul said the right things but then proved himself a typical politician theough and through. Ron Paul has had some things written that rose my suspicion. Abd I’ve only started paying attention to possible candidates the past few weeks. Not looking good.


----------



## Tater

Kabraxal said:


> Eh... there are some red flags that worry me. For a while, Rand Paul said the right things but then proved himself a typical politician theough and through. Ron Paul has had some things written that rose my suspicion. Abd I’ve only started paying attention to possible candidates the past few weeks. Not looking good.


The best endorsement I can give for Tulsi is that both Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans hate her for not being enough of a war monger. That alone is a pretty good reason to vote for her.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Kabraxal

Tater said:


> The best endorsement I can give for Tulsi is that both Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans hate her for not being enough of a war monger. That alone is a pretty good reason to vote for her.


I don’t vote on a single issue though. And I don’t like a lot of her stances.


----------



## Tater

Kabraxal said:


> I don’t vote on a single issue though. And I don’t like a lot of her stances.


In general, I would agree about not voting on a single issue. However, when that single issue is scaling back our interventionist wars overseas... I'll put it this way, I'd vote for Ron Paul if I had the chance, even though I vehemently disagree with his domestic policy. As far as that goes, I disagree with a lot of Tulsi's positions as well. But if she can change the debate on our foreign policy even a little, I'd consider that positive change for the good.

Speaking of Ron Paul, I've been seeing a fair amount of right wing libertarians showing some love for Tulsi. It just goes to show, being anti-war is not a left vs right issue.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084237630907260928


----------



## birthday_massacre

So is anybody going to deny Trumps collusion with Russia anymore?


----------



## 777

Why, you got something new?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Haven’t you been paying attention the last two days


----------



## deepelemblues

Tulsi Gabbard is so not a warmonger she's been trying to out-Bolton Bolton on Iran for years. 

Tulsi Gabbard is so not a warmonger she sounds indistinguishable from any other neocon when it comes time to talk Islamic terrorism.

Tulsi Gabbard is so not a warmonger that she has repeatedly voiced her support for aggressive use of drones and special forces kill squads. 

She is so very much not a warmonger.


----------



## 777

birthday_massacre said:


> Haven’t you been paying attention the last two days


Seen lots of stuff about the border non-negotiation and govt shutdown. Didn't hear anything new on Russian collusion.

Edit: I don't actively seek out Trump news mind you.


----------



## deepelemblues

777 said:


> Seen lots of stuff about the border non-negotiation and govt shutdown. Didn't hear anything new on Russian collusion.
> 
> Edit: I don't actively seek out Trump news mind you.


It was revealed that the FBI further dishonored itself and debased American democracy even more than suspected in pursuit of a soft coup by seriously investigating whether the president was literally working for Putin after Comey was fired.


----------



## birthday_massacre

777 said:


> Seen lots of stuff about the border non-negotiation and govt shutdown. Didn't hear anything new on Russian collusion.
> 
> Edit: I don't actively seek out Trump news mind you.


Paul Manafort shared Trump polling data with Russian associate, the same associate that Trump wants to ease sanctions on and Trump concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in the administration also the Trump Team had 100 contacts with Russian Operatives

some pretty big bombshells.

Time for Trump supporters to stop ignoring the mounting evidence.


----------



## 777

Wow, what shitshow. 

Still not seeing any actual evidence though.

I refuse to make any assertion on this positively or negatively without evidence. Did he? I don't fucking know, maybe, but if they had the goods I can't imagine they wouldn't have come for his neck already.


----------



## birthday_massacre

777 said:


> Wow, what shitshow.
> 
> Still not seeing any actual evidence though.
> 
> I refuse to make any assertion on this positively or negatively without evidence. Did he? I don't fucking know, maybe, but if they had the goods I can't imagine they wouldn't have come for his neck already.


yes he did, those docs came from Manaforts own lawyers and yes Trump concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin, that is why it came out.

How is that not evidence?

the funny thing is, if Obama (or if Hillary was president) and did 1/10th the stuff Trump and his people did, everyone would be calling for their impeachment.


----------



## 777

birthday_massacre said:


> yes he did, those docs came from Manaforts own lawyers and yes Trump concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin, that is why it came out.
> 
> How is that not evidence?
> 
> the funny thing is, if Obama (or if Hillary was president) and did 1/10th the stuff Trump and his people did, everyone would be calling for their impeachment.


Then let them impeach if they have the evidence and we can all see/hear it.


----------



## deepelemblues

Those in favor of removing a duly elected American president through use of lies, innuendo and fearmongering about a foreign foe naturally do not enjoy their extremely un-American actions being called out.


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> Those in favor of removing a duly elected American president through *use of lies, innuendo and fearmongering about a foreign foe* naturally do not enjoy their extremely un-American actions being called out.


That's how Trump got elected in the first place. At this point, removing him would be for the best.


----------



## birthday_massacre

What exactly has been a lie against Trump.


----------



## deepelemblues

The text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page show conclusively that there was no belief at the highest levels of the NKVD errr I mean the FBI that collusion occurred, that the FBI had uncovered no evidence that collusion occurred (as it still has not to this day), and that the investigation only existed as a way to execute a soft coup if the candidate they wanted to lose did not lose.

Current Year McCarthyism and the treasonous ventures using it as justification will not be looked back on fondly in the future.


----------



## EraOfGreat

Crazy world we live in


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> The text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page show conclusively that there was no belief that collusion occurred at the highest levels of the NKVD errr I mean FBI, that the FBI had uncovered no evidence that collusion occurred (as it still has not to this day), and that the investigation only existed as a way to execute a soft coup if the candidate they wanted to lose did not lose.
> 
> Current Year McCarthyism and the treasonous ventures using it as justification will not be looked back on fondly in the future.


Yet https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/nyt...-whether-trump-was-compromised-by-russia.html


FBI said to have opened a probe into whether Trump was compromised by Russia as president defends Comey firing

So the FBI did think Trump was colluding with Russia. it had nothing to do with them looking into Trump because the wanted Hillary to win. You are going into Alex Jones territory. 



Also Trump quote after firing Comey 

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to a document summarizing the meeting. *“I faced great pressure because of Russia.* That’s taken off.”

So nice try

also

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/13/trump-russia-collusion-putin-223973


It’s Already Collusion
We don’t need news reports to tell us that Trump is giving Putin what he wants. Take it from this longtime Russia hand: It’s staring us in the face.

On Friday, the New York Times revealed an FBI investigation whether Candidate Trump had colluded—the word he hates and denies—with Russians to help his campaign. The next day, the Washington Post probed into President Trump’s refusal to let his own government in on his sensitive conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among other developments, Congress has renewed calls for the State Department interpreter Maria Gross, the only other American present for Trump’s two-hour private meeting with Putin in Helsinki, Finland, to share what she knows about the contents of their discussion.

As the plot has thickened, so have fallacious distractions. Last year the transcripts of former President Bill Clinton’s numerous meetings with the late Russian leader Boris Yeltsin were declassified, leading to persistent suggestions that Trump’s relationship with Putin is much the same as Clinton’s dealings with Yeltsin in the 1990s.


Nonsense. I was the note-taker during almost all those conversations. The Clinton-Yeltsin connection shares only one similarity with the Trump-Putin one: In both cases, the American president was helping his Kremlin counterpart. Other than that, the differences are as stark as the climate in Miami and Murmansk in January.

Whether he knows it or not, Trump is integral to Putin’s strategy to strengthen authoritarian regimes and undermine democracies around the world. This unprecedented aberration defiles what America stands for at home and abroad; it alienates and dispirits our allies; and—if it is allowed to persist—it will jeopardize our security.

In contrast, Clinton worked tirelessly with Yeltsin for seven years to assist his reforms. Yeltsin wanted post-Soviet Russia to join the community of democratic nations and the circle of major powers that would chart a course for a peaceful twenty-first century. He needed Western aid and encouragement, and Clinton did his best to provide both.

The Bill-and-Boris enterprise had something else in common: The two were building on their immediate predecessors’ vision. Mikhail Gorbachev began the liberalization that led to the collapse of the rigid Soviet system followed by that of the USSR, and Yeltsin’s ascension to the presidency of the newly independent, post-communist Russian Federation. George H. W. Bush, as the American president at the time of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, recognized that both Kremlin leaders were committed to democratization, tearing down the Iron Curtain, and making Europe “whole and free.” Therefore, it was in the U.S. interest to support that massive transformation.

When Clinton was elected in 1992, he picked up where Bush had left off, dedicating much of his own time working directly with Yeltsin on a massive, urgent, and difficult agenda:

bolstering Russia’s shaky economy,
responding to requests for expertise on building a social safety net for workers as privatization replaced massive state enterprises,
helping relocate to Russia retired Soviet-era officers living in what were now independent nations,
sending N.G.O. experts to advise on how to organize free and fair elections,
ensuring that Russia would be the only one of the former Soviet republics with nuclear weapons in exchange for Moscow’s assurance to respect the other new states’ territory and sovereignty,
opening the door for Russia to join the G-8.
These undertakings were heavy lifts, particularly for Yeltsin. Hardest of all was Russia’s partnering with an expanding NATO and providing crucial diplomatic muscle to end the Balkan bloodbath. Both were necessary to stabilize Central Europe.

Flash forward to the current administration.

Under Putin as a revanchist, Russia has reinstated four key ingredients of Soviet politics and geopolitics: the Iron Fist, the Big Lie, the expansion beyond Russian borders and the subversion of Western societies. He is giving another chance to a system that ended up on the ash heap of history in the last century because of its internal failures.

The Cold War is back with several new and ominous features. The tables have turned. Putin is on a roll. Strongmen in Europe are cloning themselves after him and with his help. Democracy is under stress if not crisis. So are regional and global institutions founded under the leadership of the U.S. after World War II, notably NATO and the integration of Western Europe. And then there’s the U.S.’s pullback from the Middle East, potentially leaving Russia the only major power in the region.


Trumpism is a godsend to Putin and a nightmare for governments in his sights—including Trump’s. The U.S. commander-in-chief is out of sync with his own administration, not to mention the government as a whole. Note his stubborn yearning to lift sanctions on Putin’s pet oligarchs.

America’s 45th president has accused his twelve predecessors, going back to Harry Truman, of making Uncle Sam “a sucker of the world.” In place of that legacy, he is shutting down America’s global franchise while building up literal and virtual walls.

READ MORE
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani
WASHINGTON AND THE WORLD
Trump's Risking Financial Disaster for America
By JARRETT BLANC
Julian Castro
2020
Welcome to 2020, Julián Castro! Here’s How To Win by Losing.
By BILL SCHER
Editorial cartoon, circa 1895, depicting American temperance activist Carry Nation glaring at a terrified bartender as she holds a hatchet in a saloon.
HISTORY DEPT.
Why Do We Blame Women For Prohibition?
By MARK LAWRENCE SCHRAD
In Europe, Trump has made it vastly easier for Putin to bury the Gorbachev-Yeltsin concept of partnership with the West and roll back what he sees as its incursion into Russia’s sphere of domination. Instead of shoring up key Atlantic allies, Trump is bullying and belittling them, thereby making them even more vulnerable to the rise of right-wing nationalists who now have a booster and exemplar in Trump.

Trump has an affinity for dictators—as he himself reportedly acknowledged only this week during a lunch with senators, “I don’t know why I get along with all the tough ones and not the soft ones.” He actually does know why: He’s a wannabe. He envies their unchecked power, use of intimidation and penchant for operating in secret, apparently because he doesn’t trust the advisers and agencies who work for him.

This weekend’s Post article zeroed in on the Trump-Putin “one-on-one” last July in Helsinki, without aides or note-takers. Gross, the State Department interpreter, was the only American other than Trump who knows what was said, and she is under wraps. Whatever Trump told his own staff afterward, it would be likely what he wants people to believe, especially if he is hiding something. Take his claim that he “couldn’t care less” if his conversation with Putin became public for what it is worth: nothing. What’s more telling was the smug look on Putin’s face and an uncertain one on Trump’s after the meeting.

The Russian interpreter, in any event, would have probably transcribed the tête-à-tête from memory and notes immediately after the meeting. Putin, moreover, is a skilled interrogator who would have back-briefed his inner team. As a result, the Russian side has yet another advantage in its handling of Putin’s admiring would-be friend.

Future historians will have a serious handicap when the archives of this administration’s foreign policy are opened years from now since so much of the normal process for conducting American diplomacy has been subverted or eliminated. But we already know that that the Kremlin helped put Trump into the White House and played him for a sucker.

Or put it this way: Trump has been colluding with a hostile Russia throughout his presidency. We’ll see if it started before that.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Strobe Talbott is distinguished fellow in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution. He was deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration.


----------



## yeahbaby!

HollyJollyDemise said:


> That's how Trump got elected in the first place. At this point, removing him would be for the best.


Well played dude


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084647050208333825
:heston

I'm not sure he's going to let her make it to the primaries. :lmao Which is funny because she's not actually a general election threat to him so he's just doing it for the laughs.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Funny how you didn’t post the racist first part of Trumps tweet.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Funny how you didn’t post the racist first part of Trumps tweet.


You have about as solid an understanding of what racism is as Tater has of capitalism, which is to say none whatsoever. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

You just love defending racism.

This is totally racist

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
2h2 hours ago
More
If Elizabeth Warren, often referred to by me as Pocahontas, did this commercial from Bighorn or Wounded Knee instead of her kitchen, with her husband dressed in full Indian garb, it would have been a smash!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/084644517238714369
Next you will say calling someone the N word isn't racist.


Also

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-tweets-elizabeth-warren_us_5c3bf1ece4b0922a21d6175f

*Trump Goes On Racist Tirade Against Elizabeth Warren Amid New Russia Scandals*

But sure I don't know what racism is lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Oh well if HuffPo says it's racist....

They're certainly not ones to throw that word around lightly.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084647050208333825
> :heston
> 
> I'm not sure he's going to let her make it to the primaries. :lmao Which is funny because she's not actually a general election threat to him so he's just doing it for the laughs.


How you defend this guy I have no idea. The only thing I can think of is a you like a lot of his other supporters in this thread feel the only way forward is for the US to be more of an anarchist type of country. Which is never going to happen.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Oh well if HuffPo says it's racist....
> 
> They're certainly not ones to throw that word around lightly.


It's comical watching you always defend Trumps racist remarks


----------



## The Hardcore Show

I just can't help at this point look at the people in this thread still giving Trump a thumbs up and feel like they have the same lack of compassion for people like he does.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> How you defend this guy I have no idea. The only thing I can think of is a you like a lot of his other supporters in this thread feel the only way forward is for the US to be more of an anarchist type of country. Which is never going to happen.


There was nothing to defend. 

yes Trump supporters are anarchists fucking lmao


----------



## Draykorinee

The Hardcore Show said:


> How you defend this guy I have no idea.


Expecting Cam to change after a good year of parody posting is asking a lot!


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Expecting Cam to change after a good year of parody posting is asking a lot!


Is your new gimmick to just whine about other posters who actually contribute to and foster discussion? :lol


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Is your new gimmick to just whine about other posters who actually contribute to and foster discussion? :lol


It's better than your "running to your safe space" gimmick.


----------



## Reaper

It's not uncommon for people with poor backgrounds to envy and idolize the rich while blaming poor people for their own problems. It's basically them being mad at their own parents. Why didn't my parents break out of poverty? Therefore everyone who can't do the same thing must also just be losers. It's another form of mommy and daddy issues.


----------



## 777

So conservatives are advocating for anarchy and anarchists are advocating heavy handed social engineering.

What. A. Fucking. Shit. Show.


----------



## CamillePunk

777 said:


> So conservatives are advocating for anarchy


I wish. :sad:

Instead we just have a partial shutdown where nothing is really even shut down, some folks are just having their paychecks delayed.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Is your new gimmick to just whine about other posters who actually contribute to and foster discussion? :lol


If its tiresome and repetitive absolutely, I'll take that gimmick. I said exactly the same about BM when he was back and forthing with Blaird. I still continue to contribute with most of my posts.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084896076954513414
The Russiagate truthers are never going to not believe. It'll be 2045 and they'll be old men yelling "Putin's puppet" at clouds.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Mueller report will simultaneously vindicate both sides, not because of the content but because our brains will interpret the information in a way that protects the ego. You can't just believe a conspiracy theory of this magnitude and engage with it so frequently for years and then go "oh nvm" when reality fails to deliver. Not how we're wired. We didn't evolve to perceive reality, we evolved to survive. 

Trump won't be removed from office (maybe he gets impeached but that's just political theater like it was with Clinton), his detractors will continue to say he's a Russian agent, and then once his final term is over the entire Russiagate story will just be a jab both sides throw at each other from time to time. That's all that will ever come of it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084896076954513414
> The Russiagate truthers are never going to not believe. It'll be 2045 and they'll be old men yelling "Putin's puppet" at clouds.


LOL at still ignoring the mountains of evidence against Trump. Especially the stuff over the last few days

As for Collusion Rudy already admitted there was collusion lol


----------



## CamillePunk

6 Reasons AOC Is The Leftist Trump, by Ben Shapiro

https://www.dailywire.com/news/42161/6-reasons-aoc-leftist-trump-ben-shapiro



> After the 2016 election, political pundits asked whether Democrats would edge toward a new seriousness in order to counteract the manifest amateurism of President Trump – or whether they would instead seek to find their own Trump, a charismatic figure with little or no political experience but the unique capacity to troll others and garner massive media attention in the process.
> 
> Well, the Democrats have decided. They want their own Trump.
> 
> Her name is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
> 
> Here are six reasons Ocasio-Cortez is the Leftist Trump.
> 
> 1. She Accomplished A Thing, And Her Supporters Have Mistaken That Accomplishment For A Qualification. Ocasio-Cortez won a Democratic primary in a totally blue district. This victory was treated by the media as a shocking win, and Ocasio-Cortez, a far more radical politician than Crowley – she was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America – was immediately hailed as the face of the new Democratic Party. Like Trump, her victory in a primary was taken as a qualification for office: she wins! It’s not taking anything away from her victory to point out that her district happened to be majority minority: 18.4 percent white, 49.8 percent Hispanic. The representative in that district, Joe Crowley, was white. Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t. Ocasio-Cortez knocked him off in a primary with precisely 15,987 votes, defeating him by 4,136 votes. The population of the district is nearly 700,000. Her win has been her sole claim to fame, and her prior lack of qualifications as evidence of her unique qualifications. This is rather reminiscent of Trump’s primary victories being scored as qualifications for office by his supporters – but he wins! Lack of qualifications were the qualification – he's an amateur destroying the pros! She's the same way.
> 
> 2. The Media Can’t Stop Covering Her. Because Ocasio-Cortez is young (29) and attractive, the media haven’t been able to stop covering her. Her every utterance has been treated as a pearl of wisdom, her every idiocy treated as a new approach to governance. She’s been treated as the head of a movement that, statistically, does not exist as of yet (her attempts to endorse primary candidates backfired tremendously in 2018). She’s been elevated to the highest ranks of the Democratic Party without ever serving in any important committee in Congress, or indeed, sponsoring a bill. She excels in earned media in the same way Trump did. In 2016, Trump received billions in free media coverage. Ocasio-Cortez is playing the same game, and playing it well.
> 
> 3. She’s Great At Social Media. It’s not just that the mainstream media have made Ocasio-Cortez a star: she’s also terrific at social media (or at least her team is). Her Instagram cooking has become so popular that Elizabeth Warren had to emulate it (poorly). Her dancing video, which supposedly drew right-wing ire (it didn’t), became such a story that Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) unleashed her own weak version. Her Twitter account is active and personal. She plays the politics of personality beautifully. She's essentially a new-fangled reality TV star. She’s likable (no, that’s not sexist), and looks like she’s having a good time. So did Trump, at least early on – and his social media appeal gave him the unique capacity to go over the heads of the media, which forced the media to play his game.
> 
> 4. She Says Incredibly Stupid Things Regularly. Like Trump, her idiocies and errors are legion. She says dishonest things, then claims that her morality ought to outweigh her dishonesty. She doesn’t know anything about economics or foreign policy or domestic governance.
> 
> 
> All of this actually creates more media around her. Were she highly intelligent and fluent in the basics of policy, she wouldn’t draw as much fire from the right. Her unique capacity to draw cameras, combined with her near-incredible ignorance on a variety of topics, makes it almost impossible for the right wing to ignore her. If they ignore, her media allies simply repeat her stupidities verbatim and pretend that the right has no response; if they engage, her media allies claim she’s in their heads. Ocasio-Cortez’s foolishness is actually a political Venus fly trap. Were she competent, conservatives wouldn’t be nearly as tempted to engage. Reverse the politics, and that’s President Trump.
> 
> 5. She’s Got A Massive Victim Complex. President Trump has spent much of his candidacy and presidency complaining about the unfair treatment he receives at the hands of the media. In his own words, he whined until he won. It was nearly impossible to imagine a whinier member of the political class – until Ocasio-Cortez arrived. Rarely has a politician ever received such gushing media coverage without qualification – and yet she’s still whining that she’s being fact-checked, that the media aren’t sufficiently racially diverse to properly cover her, that the right-wing is mean to her. It works for her supporters, who see every complaint as evidence that she’s “fighting the system.” The only difference: Trump was correct to claim that the media hates anyone remotely conservative. Ocasio-Cortez’s complaints about media malfeasance are simply ridiculous. But the far-left is under the impression that the mainstream media are their enemies, rather than their chief bullhorn.
> 
> 6. She’s Terrific At Trolling People. She’s a full-time troll, the same way Trump is. See, for example, this incredibly Trumpian tweet this morning:
> 
> 
> Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
> ✔
> @AOC
> I bartended for *years* in New York City. I understand guys like this like the back of my hand.
> 
> We got under his skin &#55357;&#56834;⬇
> 
> Jim Sciutto
> ✔
> @jimsciutto
> Asked just now about @AOC, Trump says “Who cares?” and gestures dismissively.
> 
> 57.6K
> 7:14 AM - Jan 14, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 11.1K people are talking about this
> So Trump ignores her, and then she says she’s under his skin. She knows this because she served drinks to many men. Trump, by the way, doesn’t drink.
> 
> This is top-notch trollery – particularly because it’s so infuriatingly asinine. That’s the appeal: popular, unintelligent, trollish. And she’s even got a three-letter nickname, just like the Notorious RBG! In today’s political America, that’s a fantastic combination.
> 
> AOC isn’t going anywhere. She’s the new Trump for the Left. The hilarious part is that the same Left that complains about Trump can’t even see that they’ve become what they supposedly hate.


Ben Shapiro reads my WF posts confirmed.

He's right, of course, but I doubt her supporters will be admitting it any time soon. :lol Personally, this independent realization I had about her a while ago actually endears her to me. I still think her politics are mostly garbage, but I can appreciate the technique, and just like in the 2016 election I do enjoy watching an underdog story. :mj


----------



## blaird

Theres a twitter page, "Crazy Ocasio-Cortez", thats worth a follow for some cheap laughs


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> 6 Reasons AOC Is The Leftist Trump, by Ben Shapiro
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/42161/6-reasons-aoc-leftist-trump-ben-shapiro
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Shapiro reads my WF posts confirmed.
> 
> He's right, of course, but I doubt her supporters will be admitting it any time soon. :lol Personally, this independent realization I had about her a while ago actually endears her to me. I still think her politics are mostly garbage, but I can appreciate the technique, and just like in the 2016 election I do enjoy watching an underdog story. :mj


what is garbage about her politics?

This should be fun




blaird said:


> Theres a twitter page, "Crazy Ocasio-Cortez", thats worth a follow for some cheap laughs


We get that from reading your posts on this forum.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> what is garbage about her politics?
> 
> This should be fun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We get that from reading your posts on this forum.


Awww you got me...and this whole time I didnt think you had a funny or sarcastic bone in you...way to prove me wrong


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084570673417138176
:bryanlol

What an embarrassment 

History is not going to look kindly on the first quarter of the 21st century in American politics


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> 6 Reasons AOC Is The Leftist Trump, by Ben Shapiro
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/42161/6-reasons-aoc-leftist-trump-ben-shapiro
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Shapiro reads my WF posts confirmed.
> 
> He's right, of course, but I doubt her supporters will be admitting it any time soon. :lol Personally, this independent realization I had about her a while ago actually endears her to me. I still think her politics are mostly garbage, but I can appreciate the technique, and just like in the 2016 election I do enjoy watching an underdog story. :mj


Ben I got outraged over Black Panther Shapiro really?


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> Ben I got outraged over Black Panther Shapiro really?


Any comment on the content of the article?


----------



## deepelemblues

The difference between :trump and Miss Bug-Eyes is that :trump had 40 years of experience campaigning (not politically, but in a milieu with many similarities) in a environment that was commonly hostile to him. 

Miss Bug-Eyes has experience... doing something, I guess :draper2

Identity politics and being Bug-Eyed isn't going to get her through 8-12 months of campaigning for president. Not successfully, anyway.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084570673417138176
> :bryanlol
> 
> What an embarrassment
> 
> History is not going to look kindly on the first quarter of the 21st century in American politics


yeah because we have Trump who is an absolute embarrassment as president who is Putin's bitch. Its funny how you ignore how Trump concealed all the notes on his meetings with Putin. But suuuree there is nothing nefarious going on there right. 




CamillePunk said:


> Any comment on the content of the article?


Ben Shapiro is a joke. I also asked you a question that you conveniently ignored.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Ben Shapiro is a joke. I also asked you a question that you conveniently ignored.


I think you already know the answer to that question and I don't feel like re-hashing the same argument for the 100th time.


----------



## deepelemblues

Insisting that bringing in a couple hundred billion dollars a year from eating the rich is going to pay for trillions a year in new spending isn't going to get her elected either. 

If socialists were just honest and said "we're going to have significantly increase taxes on the middle class to pay for this but you WILL see major benefits in your life" then they might actually win a chance to try it.

Since they refuse to be honest and continue the lie that "the rich" can pay for all of it, they handicap themselves from the get-go. I mean, even more than being socialists already handicaps them.

Well honest is relative, even much higher middle class taxes fail to pay for all the spending of European welfare states :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I think you already know the answer to that question and I don't feel like re-hashing the same argument for the 100th time.


LOL right you don't have shit, that is what I thought

Your gimmick is so old.




deepelemblues said:


> Insisting that bringing in a couple hundred billion dollars a year from eating the rich is going to pay for trillions a year in new spending isn't going to get her elected either.
> 
> If socialists were just honest and said *"we're going to have significantly increase taxes on the middle class to pay for this but you WILL see major benefits in your life" then they might actually have a chance to try it.*
> 
> Since they refuse to be honest and continue the lie that "the rich" can pay for all of it, they handicap themselves from the get-go. I mean, even more than being socialists already handicaps them.


Bernie Sanders said that LOL He said you will pay more in taxes but in the long run you will save on healthcare. You can't even be honest about this stuff.


----------



## sweepdaleg

I have been wondering about Trump supporters. Do they actually support Trump and think he is doing a great job or does it have more to do with being a republican?


----------



## birthday_massacre

sweepdaleg said:


> I have been wondering about Trump supporters. Do they actually support Trump and think he is doing a great job or does it have more to do with being a republican?


They just support him because the like seeing the libs get mad at all the fucked up shit Trump says and does

It's pretty sad if you think about it


----------



## sweepdaleg

birthday_massacre said:


> They just support him because the like seeing the libs get mad at all the fucked up shit Trump says and does
> 
> It's pretty sad if you think about it


I assume they view him as more of a celebrity and the "I don't give a shit" demeanor is appealing.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Insisting that bringing in a couple hundred billion dollars a year from eating the rich is going to pay for trillions a year in new spending isn't going to get her elected either.


It probably will though. Facts don't matter in politics. AOC and Trump get this, which is why they don't rely on facts to any degree. 



sweepdaleg said:


> I have been wondering about Trump supporters. Do they actually support Trump and think he is doing a great job or does it have more to do with being a republican?


"Trump supporters" aren't a monolithic group, you won't be able to understand Trump's support through this line of thinking.


----------



## birthday_massacre

sweepdaleg said:


> I assume they view him as more of a celebrity and the "I don't give a shit" demeanor is appealing.


and a lot of them love they can be openly racist and bigoted because Trump is


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> It probably will though. Facts don't matter in politics. AOC and Trump get this, which is why they don't rely on facts to any degree.


If the president didn't rely on facts to any degree, he wouldn't be president. 

Get out of the Scott Adams rabbit hole already with this too clever by half shit.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Any comment on the content of the article?


The histrionics of this editorial are off the charts for this guy and his editorial on the matter. It's a huge turnoff and in no way based in any reality.

Number 3 is false. Trump is in no way Great at Social Media. He posts absolute nonsense like Covfefe and reacts to any criticism like an 8 year old. The way he posts 'Sad!' or the like at the end of tweets is ridiculous and again appropriate for no older than a 12 year old girl.

Number 5 is pure slanted speculation.

BTW I'm not saying other commentators haven't written just as absurd pieces against Trump, but this guy is a clown.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> If the president didn't rely on facts to any degree, he wouldn't be president.


He relies on the fact that facts don't matter in politics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> If the president didn't rely on facts to any degree, he wouldn't be president.
> 
> Get out of the Scott Adams rabbit hole already with this too clever by half shit.


Trump doesn't rely on facts, he has lied over 6500 times in two years. Trump supporters don't care about facts.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> He relies on the fact that facts don't matter in politics.


I wonder how he got enough people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin to vote for him to win those states then.

Because it sure wasn't by inaccurately describing their situations and aspirations, or by not accurately identifying their fears and promising to take action against those fears that they believed would be effective.

The presidency is won by making a genuine connection with voters based on the circumstances at the time.

I'm not seeing where the circumstances of 2016 will be repeated in 2024. Or 2028. Or 2032. Or even 2020. 

I guess it's that historical perspective of mine. The shiny new toy may be shiny, but it isn't actually new. :trump and Miss Bug-Eyes have happened before. They've succeeded before. They've failed before. I'm not seeing the evidence that Miss Bug-Eyes is capable of making such a genuine connection with the voters - as opposed to a genuine connection with Twitter and the media. Two contexts that are not exactly synonyms for the electorate. The Bronx and Queens of the 21st century are not exactly in step politically with most of the rest of the country either. 

Let me know when she actually successfully deals with real political adversity since she never has yet in her political career. :trump was dealing with real political adversity for 40 years before he ran for president. Big time real estate is an excellent training for politics. 

You can say all these simplistic things like they're profundities as you please... but they're no substitute for the complexities that :trump successfully understood and managed to become president. Complexities that Miss Bug-Eyes has yet shown no capacity for understanding and managing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> I wonder how he got enough people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin to vote for him to win those states then.
> 
> Because it sure wasn't by inaccurately describing their situations and aspirations, or by not accurately identifying their fears and promising to take action against those fears that they believed would be effective.
> 
> The presidency is won by making a genuine connection with voters based on the circumstances at the time.
> 
> I'm not seeing where the circumstances of 2016 will be repeated in 2024. Or 2028. Or 2032. Or even 2020.
> 
> I guess it's that historical perspective of mine. The shiny new toy may be shiny, but it isn't actually new. :trump and Miss Bug-Eyes have happened before. They've succeeded before. They've failed before. I'm not seeing the evidence that Miss Bug-Eyes is capable of making such a genuine connection with the voters - as opposed to a genuine connection with Twitter and the media. Two contexts that are not exactly synonyms for the electorate. The Bronx and Queens of the 21st century are not exactly in step politically with most of the rest of the country either.
> 
> Let me know when she actually successfully deals with real political adversity since she never has yet in her political career. :trump was dealing with real political adversity for 40 years before he ran for president. Big time real estate is an excellent training for politics.
> 
> You can say all these simplistic things like they're profundities as you please... but they're no substitute for the complexities that :trump successfully understood and managed to become president. Complexities that Miss Bug-Eyes has yet shown no capacity for understanding and managing.


Because Trump lied to them to get their votes. his lies were pointed out over and over again during the primaries and the election. Not sure why you keep ignoring this.


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> Insisting that bringing in a couple hundred billion dollars a year from eating the rich is going to pay for trillions a year in new spending isn't going to get her elected either.


Not being Donald Trump (or Hilary while we're at it) could get not only her elected, but pretty much anyone that the Democrats pick at this point.



deepelemblues said:


> I wonder how he got enough people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin to vote for him to win those states then.
> 
> Because it sure wasn't by inaccurately describing their situations and aspirations, or by not accurately identifying their fears and promising to take action against those fears that they believed would be effective.
> 
> The presidency is won by making a genuine connection with voters based on the circumstances at the time.
> 
> I'm not seeing where the circumstances of 2016 will be repeated in 2024. Or 2028. Or 2032. Or even 2020.
> 
> I guess it's that historical perspective of mine. The shiny new toy may be shiny, but it isn't actually new. :trump and Miss Bug-Eyes have happened before. They've succeeded before. They've failed before. I'm not seeing the evidence that Miss Bug-Eyes is capable of making such a genuine connection with the voters - as opposed to a genuine connection with Twitter and the media. Two contexts that are not exactly synonyms for the electorate. The Bronx and Queens of the 21st century are not exactly in step politically with most of the rest of the country either.
> 
> Let me know when she actually successfully deals with real political adversity since she never has yet in her political career. :trump was dealing with real political adversity for 40 years before he ran for president. Big time real estate is an excellent training for politics.
> 
> You can say all these simplistic things like they're profundities as you please... but they're no substitute for the complexities that :trump successfully understood and managed to become president. Complexities that Miss Bug-Eyes has yet shown no capacity for understanding and managing.


:kobe Do you not know anything at all about politics? You're giving me a good reason to think that's the case.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> I wonder how he got enough people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin to vote for him to win those states then.
> 
> Because it sure wasn't by inaccurately describing their situations and aspirations, or by not accurately identifying their fears and promising to take action against those fears that they believed would be effective.
> 
> The presidency is won by making a genuine connection with voters based on the circumstances at the time.


You're right insofar as he connected with their aspirations and fears and proposed solutions they believed would be effective. You're wrong that he had to be accurate about the facts of the situation. That implies the voters themselves knew the facts. Most people rarely read, and if they do they go with sources who share their biases. We're not as rational as you seem to think we are, I'm afraid.


birthday_massacre said:


> Because Trump lied to them to get their votes. his lies were pointed out over and over again during the primaries and the election. Not sure why you keep ignoring this.


AOC is following the same playbook. She said herself people are too concerned with being factually correct. She'll be effective by doing the main thing you criticize Trump for doing - lying. :lol


HollyJollyDemise said:


> Not being Donald Trump (or Hilary while we're at it) could get not only her elected, but pretty much anyone that the Democrats pick at this point.


Not a predictive filter. You just took the filter people were using going into the 2016 election and added an exception called Hillary Clinton, with the benefit of hindsight. After 2020 you might be adding another one called Beto O'Rourke or Joe Biden.

Bringing up approval ratings for Trump and Clinton isn't a valid counter-argument because they still beat everyone else who ran for president that year in their primaries. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084954858254405633
Today's scandal. *EMPEECH!*



> I have been wondering about Trump supporters. Do they actually support Trump and think he is doing a great job or does it have more to do with being a republican?


Both.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

Eating a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich with the funniest president of all time. :banderas


----------



## Hoolahoop33

CamillePunk said:


> Eating a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich with the funniest president of all time. :banderas


Wouldn't that be the most surreal experience ever lol, eating fast food in the White House with the president - Donald Trump 

:bjpenn


----------



## Headliner

Trump is literally the walking definition of white privilege. Only he can get away with something like that and his supporters laugh and think it's great.


----------



## ChampWhoRunsDaCamp

Headliner said:


> Trump is literally the walking definition of white privilege.


No he isn't and idiotic statements like that are what drives rural working class white area's to him. By talking about none existent concepts like White privilege you only disenfranchise the poor white working class people born into poverty who certainly aren't feeling much privilege.

Trump is the definition of class privilege. attained by his inherited wealth not his skin colour. *Wealth is a much bigger divider than race, gender, sexuality or any other characteristic* etc. If Trump didn't inherit all his wealth he'd been dismissed as a rambling lunatic decades ago, if he was Black and born rich he'd still have millions of fools following him.

I think the strangest part of the Trump presidency is that America has a president who isn't one of its most intelligent 100 million citizens. His IQ can't possibly be more than 105, i'd estimate it around 102 ish meaning while he's not a complete idiot he's of roughly average intelligence but he's significantly less intelligent than almost every single person he comes across in government office and is completely incapable of understanding any argument with a shred of depth.

At times I've thought he was simplifying his rhetoric to appeal to his demographic but the truth is mostly much more simple than that. He just isn't an intelligent man.


----------



## yeahbaby!

ChampWhoRunsDaCamp said:


> No he isn't and idiotic statements like that are what drives rural working class white area's to him. By talking about none existent concepts like White privilege you only disenfranchise the poor white working class people born into poverty who certainly aren't feeling much privilege.
> 
> Trump is the definition of class privilege. attained by his inherited wealth not his skin colour. *Wealth is a much bigger divider than race, gender, sexuality or any other characteristic* etc. If Trump didn't inherit all his wealth he'd been dismissed as a rambling lunatic decades ago, if he was Black and born rich he'd still have millions of fools following him.
> 
> I think the strangest part of the Trump presidency is that America has a president who isn't one of its most intelligent 100 million citizens. His IQ can't possibly be more than 105, i'd estimate it around 102 ish meaning while he's not a complete idiot he's of roughly average intelligence but he's significantly less intelligent than almost every single person he comes across in government office and is completely incapable of understanding any argument with a shred of depth.
> 
> At times I've thought he was simplifying his rhetoric to appeal to his demographic but the truth is mostly much more simple than that. He just isn't an intelligent man.


Lol that was hilarious. I thought you were defending him to begin with, then it was an epic takedown.

He's pretty good with his fast food though, you have to give him that.


----------



## Headliner

ChampWhoRunsDaCamp said:


> No he isn't and idiotic statements like that are what drives rural working class white area's to him. By talking about none existent concepts like White privilege you only disenfranchise the poor white working class people born into poverty who certainly aren't feeling much privilege.
> 
> Trump is the definition of class privilege. attained by his inherited wealth not his skin colour. *Wealth is a much bigger divider than race, gender, sexuality or any other characteristic* etc. If Trump didn't inherit all his wealth he'd been dismissed as a rambling lunatic decades ago, if he was Black and born rich he'd still have millions of fools following him.
> 
> I think the strangest part of the Trump presidency is that America has a president who isn't one of its most intelligent 100 million citizens. His IQ can't possibly be more than 105, i'd estimate it around 102 ish meaning while he's not a complete idiot he's of roughly average intelligence but he's significantly less intelligent than almost every single person he comes across in government office and is completely incapable of understanding any argument with a shred of depth.
> 
> At times I've thought he was simplifying his rhetoric to appeal to his demographic but the truth is mostly much more simple than that. He just isn't an intelligent man.


Stop. If Obama did that publicly like that you'd have white conservatives, bigots and mini bigots calling him ghetto, the fast food thing ghetto, calling him a Food Stamp President and all sorts of other Fox News/Breitbart/Daily Caller white anxiety racial bullshit. 

None of you can tell me otherwise so there's no point in trying. Ya'll don't understand how white privilege works and you never will. So no need to argue. 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084961422822510592
Truth.


----------



## ChampWhoRunsDaCamp

yeahbaby! said:


> Lol that was hilarious. I thought you were defending him to begin with, then it was an epic takedown.
> 
> He's pretty good with his fast food though, you have to give him that.


I'm mostly right wing and tend to hold republican views but i'd never defend him, he's an embarrassment to the party.

If he was born into a middle class family he'd most likely be manager at a fast food place now.

If he was born into real hardship he'd be begging for enough change to buy something from one.


----------



## Tater

ChampWhoRunsDaCamp said:


> Trump is the definition of class privilege. attained by his inherited wealth not his skin colour. *Wealth is a much bigger divider than race, gender, sexuality or any other characteristic* etc. If Trump didn't inherit all his wealth he'd been dismissed as a rambling lunatic decades ago, if he was Black and born rich he'd still have millions of fools following him.


This is one of the dirty little secrets about politics in the USA. It's not about skin color. It's about class. It's about the haves and have-nots. Skin color is just one of many in the bag of tricks that the ruling class uses to divide and conquer the peasants. The only color they care about is the color of money and the only thing they fear is the people uniting against them, which is why they work so hard to keep everyone divided and arguing amongst themselves instead of focusing their attention on the people who are robbing us all blind.

If Trump didn't start with daddy's money and daddy's connections, he'd have been a used car salesman or ended up with some other low level con man hustler career. He's a symptom of the disease of the system but he's not the root problem. The problem is class hierarchy.



Headliner said:


> None of you can tell me otherwise so there's no point in trying.


When you're right, you're right. We can't tell you otherwise and there is no point in trying. No one can dispute that point.


----------



## CamillePunk

Headliner said:


> Trump is literally the walking definition of white privilege. Only he can get away with something like that and his supporters laugh and think it's great.


I'm confused. Obama's supporters would have a problem with Obama serving fast food (that he paid for himself) to a college football team during a government shutdown?


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> I'm confused. Obama's supporters would have a problem with Obama serving fast food (that he paid for himself) to a college football team during a government shutdown?


No. Trump supporters would have the exact opposite reaction if it was Obama. All sorts of white anxiety/racial shit would have been said about food stamps, ghetto, etc.


----------



## CamillePunk

Headliner said:


> No. Trump supporters would have the exact opposite reaction if it was Obama. All sorts of white anxiety/racial shit would have been said about food stamps, ghetto, etc.


Maybe, it's a pretty unique situation to be so confident about a hypothetical. 

What do you think of the non-hypothetical double standard on the left where Democratic members of Congress and people like Louis Farrakhan are allowed to be openly anti-Semitic with their own statements but if any anti-Semite says anything positive about someone on the right that person has to disavow immediately?


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> Maybe, it's a pretty unique situation to be so confident about a hypothetical.
> 
> What do you think of the non-hypothetical double standard on the left where Democratic members of Congress and people like Louis Farrakhan is allowed to be openly anti-Semitic with their own statements but if any anti-Semite says anything positive about someone on the right they have to disavow immediately?


It's not a maybe. My opinion is based on past Fox News/right wing media/other random bigot reactions to past situations. This would have fell in line with the rest of them.

Louis Farrakhan has been denounced multiple times by Democrats in 2018.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/08/louis-farrakhan-democrats-448241

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/che...khan-for-comparing-jews-to-termites-1.6572123

Louis Farrakhan should have been denounced years ago. That's their fault for not effectively doing so. 

Let's not play whataboutisms when one side is clearly worst. But, it's ok cause something something MAGA, birth certificate, our sovereignty, etc.


----------



## Beatles123

Headliner said:


> It's not a maybe. My opinion is based on past Fox News/right wing media/other random bigot reactions to past situations. This would have fell in line with the rest of them.
> 
> Louis Farrakhan has been denounced multiple times by Democrats in 2018.
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/08/louis-farrakhan-democrats-448241
> 
> https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/che...khan-for-comparing-jews-to-termites-1.6572123
> 
> Louis Farrakhan should have been denounced years ago. That's their fault for not effectively doing so.
> 
> Let's not play whataboutisms when one side is clearly worst. But, it's ok cause something something MAGA, birth certificate, our sovereignty, etc.


Listen, I haven't posted here in ages, but you had me up until the very last sentence. You realize that saying that is just mirroring with the side opposing you thinks? You saying that doesn't do anything but enrage those you're talking to the same way as if someone you oppose would if they said "BUT ITS OKAY BE WRONG IF YOU WANT."

it's just bad form and negates the point you want to make.


----------



## Headliner

Beatles123 said:


> Listen, I haven't posted here in ages, but you had me up until the very last sentence. You realize that saying that is just mirroring with the side opposing you thinks? You saying that doesn't do anything but enrage those you're talking to the same way as if someone you oppose would if they said "BUT ITS OKAY BE WRONG IF YOU WANT."
> 
> it's just bad form and negates the point you want to make.


:toomanykobes

With the Trump trolling and shit posting that his supporters have admitted to posting in these threads for the last 3 years, they'll be alright.


----------



## Beatles123

Headliner said:


> :toomanykobes
> 
> With the Trump trolling and shit posting that his supporters have admitted to posting in these threads for the last 3 years, they'll be alright.


but that doesn't make it right on either side. All it does is give more of a reason for feelings of confrontation. You had a perfectly reasonable post aside from that. It wasn't needed any more than the worst of what they say. :flair


----------



## Kiz

ricky bobby hosting dinner at the white house.


----------



## Miss Sally

Why does anyone care about this?

Two scoops and now Hamburger Gate?

I seriously don't get it.


----------



## Tater

When I saw why NATO was trending on Twitter... I was like, fuck, why do these #Resistance assholes so often attack Trump when he says actual sane things? 

The worst thing to come from the Trump presidency is all the useful idiots who think they're on the left and are now pro-imperialism, pro-neocon, pro-McCarthyism, pro-NSA, pro-FBI, etc. These fucking mongs are supporting the biggest evils in the world purely because they don't like Trump the braying jackass. For fuck's sake, man, talk about TDS. It's like they have had their brains so melted by Trump that they have completely forgotten that all these organizations were evil before Trump came along and didn't stop being evil the day he was inaugurated and will still be evil when he is gone.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> No. Trump supporters would have the exact opposite reaction if it was Obama. All sorts of white anxiety/racial shit would have been said about food stamps, ghetto, etc.


Not even Obama, if Bernie did it, can you imagine the shit show it would be from Trump supporters


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> Why does anyone care about this?
> 
> Two scoops and now Hamburger Gate?
> 
> I seriously don't get it.


Well if you get an invitation to a function to honor your achievements and get served fast food served on fancy silverware, I think you would think it was a joke as well.

Not sure why you don't get why people would find it easy to mock or even funny?


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> Well if you get an invitation to a function to honor your achievements and get served fast food served on fancy silverware, I think you would think it was a joke as well.
> 
> Not sure why you don't get why people would find it easy to mock or even funny?


Yeah at least if you are going to serve burgers and fries go all fancy like 5 guys. :nerd:


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah at least if you are going to serve burgers and fries go all fancy like 5 guys. :nerd:


If this isn't fancy I don't know what is.


----------



## Reaper

Both Headliner and the person arguing with him are right. 

Yes, it is absolutely true that talking about race disenfranchises white people because a lot of white people now have developed the same kind of persecution complex they complain about with regards to minorities. So of course, feeling persecuted, they go out and vote for the person who pretends to care about their perceived persecution. Hurr Durr Da Immigraaants are coming . . herrr derr ... scaarrry ... Blah. Blah Blah. 

So while they moan and whine about blacks voting a certain way, they end up voting the exact same way (for whatever white dudes promises to help them retain their class superiority in the same way as anyone who promises salvation to black people as well) as black people do with regards to whomever claims will do the best for each group. 

Yes, the real issue IS class privilege, but while the majority of the majority race continues to benefit from class privilege generation after generation, the majority of the black minority does not therefore it's not as simple as rejecting the connection between race and class privilege when there is clearly one as well in America. White people did not have to deal with slavery, post slavery persecution, decades of laws preventing black people from amassing wealth, having entire towns burned down, mass lynchings, shootings, over-policing, being huddled into ghettos etc etc. So to claim that class privilege is not also further exacerbated by another kind of discrimination specifically faced by one group of people is just plain fucking wrong as well. 

Neither of you are wrong, you are just arguing about an issue where there is a real divide across both class and racial lines. Difference in race contributes significantly to class difference as well.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah at least if you are going to serve burgers and fries go all fancy like 5 guys. :nerd:


It could be worse like Trump steaks served with Trump vodka.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> It could be worse like Trump steaks served with Trump vodka.


With Trump Ketchup.


----------



## CamillePunk

Buy me Five Guys and I'm yours :kobe6


----------



## The Capo

Reaper said:


> With Trump Ketchup.


Don't forget they have to be well done though!


----------



## CamillePunk

:lauren

I won't be voting for him in 2020, or anyone who doesn't make being anti-war (which has always been my most important concern) the core issue of their campaign.


----------



## Reaper

Well at least he finally saw the light. Took him longer than it should have.

Edit. I posted old news.


----------



## CamillePunk

More of a slow creep than a seeing the light moment, but whatever floats your boat. My political views are unchanged, my standards for who I support have just risen above Trump. I don't expect to vote for anyone in 2020.


----------



## skypod

Who the fuck wants to eat nasty ass cold McDonalds like that? McDonalds doesn't even travel well from the counter to your table in the restaurant nevermind through checkpoints at the fucking White House.


----------



## Reaper

The cult is breaking.

Hallelujah!


----------



## FriedTofu

So which cult are you and your fellow deserters latching onto now? :troll


----------



## birthday_massacre

Even Graham and Barr know how dumb Trump is and they were making fun of him during the hearing ha ha ha ha ha


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085258948138160128
They're right, but also Trump could do more than he's doing.


----------



## Dave Santos

CamillePunk said:


> :lauren
> 
> I won't be voting for him in 2020, or anyone who doesn't make being anti-war (which has always been my most important concern) the core issue of their campaign.


Atleast he hasnt been starting new conflicts and ww3 like I heard most of the major news networks saying. Cnn spent close to 3 days talking about Trump pressing the nuclear button. Living outside the usa life is going the same as it was before.


----------



## Hurricanes18

This man is Abhorrent. That Macas pic in front of Lincoln, excuse my french. But Fucking Hell. What did he say? "A House Divided againgst, cannot stand". Well that is not as true as it is today. The GOP had the House and Senate for 2 years. And 90% of the Funding for that wall. Where was the push? And I Find it hillarous, almost genius from Trump. How he has managed to distract away from the actual crisis in America. Gun Control. How many Americans died via Mass Shootings last year? Read a Statistic, 42K. 90% White Male Caucasions. But your throwing your arms in the air for a couple of illegal aliens (Bad Eggs). As it is I expect the House to convict Trump, but unlikely the senate.


----------



## Dave Santos

Reaper said:


> Both Headliner and the person arguing with him are right.
> 
> *Yes, it is absolutely true that talking about race disenfranchises white people because a lot of white people now have developed the same kind of persecution complex they complain about with regards to minorities. So of course, feeling persecuted, they go out and vote for the person who pretends to care about their perceived persecution. Hurr Durr Da Immigraaants are coming . . *herrr derr ... scaarrry ... Blah. Blah Blah.
> 
> So while they moan and whine about blacks voting a certain way, they end up voting the exact same way (for whatever white dudes promises to help them retain their class superiority in the same way as anyone who promises salvation to black people as well) as black people do with regards to whomever claims will do the best for each group.
> 
> Yes, the real issue IS class privilege, but while the majority of the majority race continues to benefit from class privilege generation after generation, the majority of the black minority does not therefore it's not as simple as rejecting the connection between race and class privilege when there is clearly one as well in America. White people did not have to deal with slavery, post slavery persecution, decades of laws preventing black people from amassing wealth, having entire towns burned down, mass lynchings, shootings, over-policing, being huddled into ghettos etc etc. So to claim that class privilege is not also further exacerbated by another kind of discrimination specifically faced by one group of people is just plain fucking wrong as well.
> 
> Neither of you are wrong, you are just arguing about an issue where there is a real divide across both class and racial lines. Difference in race contributes significantly to class difference as well.


Doesnt this happen in other countries also? In Bosnia for example they had an election with 3 candidates. A muslim, catholic and orthodox christian. The countries are divided among those religions and voted similarly. Was like 30 percent each.


----------



## Tater

Dave Santos said:


> Atleast he hasnt been starting new conflicts and ww3


While it's true that Trump hasn't started WW3 (yet), it's not an accurate statement to claim he has taken any real steps to scale back the interventionist wars. The deep state is still just as powerful as ever.


----------



## Martins

https://www.businessinsider.com/sic...rtedly-playing-over-jfks-loud-speakers-2019-1

This is the coolest shit :lmao

Fuck Pete Seeger and Bob Dylan, Travis Scott is America's new protest singer and I for one am all for it


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> More of a slow creep than a seeing the light moment, but whatever floats your boat. My political views are unchanged, my standards for who I support have just risen above Trump. I don't expect to vote for anyone in 2020.





Reaper said:


> The cult is breaking.
> 
> Hallelujah!


I knew who this man was from day one. He didn't represent my values or principles, he provides lip service to them and nothing more. He channeled the anger of many people who didn't like the direction things were going. I know I got made fun of for my conservative stances (my goalposts never moved while Trumpamaniacs' move their goalposts more then an All-Pro Madden challenge), but more and more people are admitting the same. 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ste...t-to-steal-your-winning-message-dont-let-them

Populism and conservatism are incompatible, populism has anger to motivate it but ultimately it's not a sustainable movement as we always find things to be angry about. Trump has no principles or values, originally people loved it and still do as he takes the fight to the left. However, just making libs drink their tears and not doing anything else is not a long-term strategy for success. Limited government is still the answer, not big government and not big government working for us and not them. Trump has never been a conservative, he has no principles to guide him. 

It's good you are finally waking up to what many of us knew all along. I will still have to lay blame on each and every Trump voter if the next President turns out to be a full-blown socialist that ends the Grand Experiment because we have a GOP and conservative movement that compromised their principles, but at least you are woke. 




skypod said:


> Who the fuck wants to eat nasty ass cold McDonalds like that? McDonalds doesn't even travel well from the counter to your table in the restaurant nevermind through checkpoints at the fucking White House.


I think of the scene in Talladega Nights at the start where they are saying grace over a gourmet meal of Domino's and Taco Bell. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

The sympathy showed toward the TSA during this shutdown. :bunk


----------



## Reaper

Yes because what the TSA is is the workers' fault and therefore we shouldn't empathize with workers if we disagree with the organization fpalm 

Disband the TSA sure, but while it exists it doesn't mean that its employees don't deserve to be paid for the work they're doing.



BruiserKC said:


> I knew who this man was from day one. He didn't represent my values or principles, he provides lip service to them and nothing more.


But the thing is that he's losing support for the thing you approve of which is inteventionalism :Shrug


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> Yes because what the TSA is is the workers' fault and therefore we shouldn't empathize with workers if we disagree with the organization fpalm
> 
> Disband the TSA sure, but while it exists it doesn't mean that its employees don't deserve to be paid for the work they're doing.
> 
> 
> 
> But the thing is that he's losing support for the thing you approve of which is inteventionalism :Shrug


I have no issue with a smart withdrawal plan from Syria, Afghanistan,and Iraq. He has no such plan in place. He bounces from withdrawal to staying and back again. And a cut and run won’t help either. Unpredictable behaviors don’t work as President, you need someone who is steady at the helm.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> When I saw why NATO was trending on Twitter... I was like, fuck, why do these #Resistance assholes so often attack Trump when he says actual sane things?
> 
> The worst thing to come from the Trump presidency is all the useful idiots who think they're on the left and are now pro-imperialism, pro-neocon, pro-McCarthyism, pro-NSA, pro-FBI, etc. These fucking mongs are supporting the biggest evils in the world purely because they don't like Trump the braying jackass. For fuck's sake, man, talk about TDS. It's like they have had their brains so melted by Trump that they have completely forgotten that all these organizations were evil before Trump came along and didn't stop being evil the day he was inaugurated and will still be evil when he is gone.


 t's year 3 MAGA so technically to them Trump is the first evil because nothing else of importance happened before 2016 so therefore time didn't exist until they got upset. :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## Berzerker's Beard

BruiserKC said:


> It's good you are finally waking up to what many of us knew all along. I will still have to lay blame on each and every Trump voter if the next President turns out to be a full-blown socialist that ends the Grand Experiment because we have a GOP and conservative movement that compromised their principles, but at least you are woke.


There will be civil war in the U.S. before we turn socialist.


----------



## jroc72191

Headliner said:


> Stop. If Obama did that publicly like that you'd have white conservatives, bigots and mini bigots calling him ghetto, the fast food thing ghetto, calling him a Food Stamp President and all sorts of other Fox News/Breitbart/Daily Caller white anxiety racial bullshit.
> 
> None of you can tell me otherwise so there's no point in trying. Ya'll don't understand how white privilege works and you never will. So no need to argue.
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084961422822510592
> Truth.




ahh yes the privilege of being passed over in college acceptances for people who score 200 points less on the SAT

the privliege of being the only people its socially acceptable to say racist things about in this country

the privilege of beung 18 times more likely to be the victim of an interracial crime than the perpetrator

the privilege of having to pay for your whole entire college experience because some people the same skin color as your ancestors enslaved a race 150 years ago


DAT WYPEOPLE PRIVILEGE!


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> BruiserKC said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's good you are finally waking up to what many of us knew all along. I will still have to lay blame on each and every Trump voter if the next President turns out to be a full-blown socialist that ends the Grand Experiment because we have a GOP and conservative movement that compromised their principles, but at least you are woke.
> 
> 
> 
> There will be civil war in the U.S. before we turn socialist.
Click to expand...

Same here, no one advocates socialism, at best socialism lite with a few public sectors.


----------



## Reaper

jroc72191 said:


> ahh yes the privilege of being passed over in college acceptances for people who score 200 points less on the SAT
> 
> the privliege of being the only people its socially acceptable to say racist things about in this country
> 
> the privilege of beung 18 times more likely to be the victim of an interracial crime than the perpetrator
> 
> the privilege of having to pay for your whole entire college experience because some people the same skin color as your ancestors enslaved a race 150 years ago
> 
> 
> DAT WYPEOPLE PRIVILEGE!


You know where this guy is headed. Might as well put him out of his misery before his restraint completely disappears and he starts with his Stormfront copy paste on here.

Every time one of them gets banned, another one steps up. It's gotten pretty predictable now.



Draykorinee said:


> Same here, no one advocates socialism, at best socialism lite with a few public sectors.


Why bother trying to use terms these people have a completely different view of? I mean, if I said Cat to someone and they think Dog, do I really want to waste my time explaining to them what a dog is? :hmmm


----------



## NotGuilty

I am for border security but as someone affected by the shutdown I hope we start getting paid again soon. Not really a fan of being used as a poker chip.


----------



## jroc72191

Reaper said:


> You know where this guy is headed. Might as well put him out of his misery before his restraint completely disappears and he starts with his Stormfront copy paste on here.
> 
> Every time one of them gets banned, another one steps up. It's gotten pretty predictable now.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother trying to use terms these people have a completely different view of? I mean, if I said Cat to someone and they think Dog, do I really want to waste my time explaining to them what a dog is? :hmmm




notice he didnt refute a single fucking thing i said? just went for the ad hominem generic "stormfront" comment


----------



## Reaper

jroc72191 said:


> notice he didnt refute a single fucking thing i said? just went for the ad hominem generic "stormfront" comment












People like you aren't worth the effort :Shrug


----------



## jroc72191

Reaper said:


> People like you aren't worth the effort :Shrug


STILL not a single fact from the commie, just insults. you people on the left are so predictable..


----------



## Draykorinee

Never thought I'd see the day reaper was labeled a leftie commie. We're now at the peak when it comes to arbitrarily assigning absurd labels to people.


----------



## ChampWhoRunsDaCamp

NotGuilty said:


> I am for border security but as someone affected by the shutdown I hope we start getting paid again soon. Not really a fan of being used as a poker chip.


Border security is one thing.

A laughably self indulgent and expensive wall that wouldn't reduce immigration provide any additional security to anyone is another.

Intelligent people will discuss the issues with one, the mere mention of the other as a plausible idea will get you laughed at by anyone with an IQ above 100.


----------



## Martins

jroc72191 said:


> notice he didnt refute a single fucking thing i said? just went for the ad hominem generic "stormfront" comment


Yeah, *HIS* generic comment is the problem :lmao

I'm sure further discussion would bring to light some most uniquely persuasive arguments on your part. Loved the "WYPEOPLE" testing the waters; how many posts were you planning to make before going for a discreet "dindunuffin"?


----------



## Miss Sally

jroc72191 said:


> STILL not a single fact from the commie, just insults. you people on the left are so predictable..


He's not a commie. :laugh:

Also you can make valid points without meme silliness. 

Like if you want to talk about discrepancies with testing you can easily point out that Asians are by far one of the most discriminated against when it comes to College. 

You could point out that white females are far more likely to be accepted over their male peers into top Colleges or that there's no real programs for poor white students. 

Also could point out that the only white people who appear to be privileged when it comes to College are those who are legacies or rich. That schools exclude whites, asians, middle eastern people to make room for the rich and connected. 

There's quite a few points you can make without sounding bad.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> He's not a commie. :laugh:
> 
> Also you can make valid points without meme silliness.
> 
> Like if you want to talk about discrepancies with testing you can easily point out that Asians are by far one of the most discriminated against when it comes to College.
> 
> You could point out that white females are far more likely to be accepted over their male peers into top Colleges or that there's no real programs for poor white students.
> 
> Also could point out that the only white people who appear to be privileged when it comes to College are those who are legacies or rich. That schools exclude whites, asians, middle eastern people to make room for the rich and connected.
> 
> There's quite a few points you can make without sounding bad.


Igoring class privilege is political death and neither the left, nor the right should ignore it because when wealth gets concentrated, then it allows those that would abuse it (to discriminate against minorities as well as poor white people) the ability to do so. It does not need to be expressed every single time 

"ERMAGURD, yes, I Love you too you white people. Let mama hug you baby. Stop crying". No one's playing favorites here especially when class privilege is a big issue. 

When we talk about class and skin privilege we are not excluded the poor old persecuted whites. They are part of the issue of class-based slavery. 

The fact is that when these people see the word "white privilege" random youtube and twitter fucktards have convinced them that that means they are not part of the class struggle and won't be protected by those who wish to break the current institutions (especially the institution of corporatist government collusion) that oppress *everyone* - in different ways. And yes, some more than others. 

SJW's take it too far and they're actively being corrected by those on the left as well. The conversation that's happening right now has its fringe idiots that seem to get triggered by every mention of race oppression. 

That's where they unfortunately without even knowing it end up pulling shit right out of Stormfront manuals (especially these crime rate statistics they brag about so much - they all do it so this is not some attack on this one particular person. It's a meme now) to post on public forums because that's the easiest thing to post. It requires no brain cells to copy what their favorite youtuber told them to copy.


----------



## CamillePunk

jroc72191 said:


> STILL not a single fact from the commie, just insults. you people on the left are so predictable..


He's not a commie, he's not anything but a fake, a phony. :lol Come back in a few months and his talking points will all be different. He used to be a white nationalist according to his own words (and actually got banned by our black Admin while arguing with him about race) so yeah, just overcompensation on his part. Pay no mind.


----------



## CamillePunk

The latest Russian collusion story from the New York Times which revealed how Manafort gave polling data and information to a Russian oligarch?

Yeah, he actually gave it to Ukrainians, not Russia. And the polling data was largely already public anyway. :lol

This story was touted as the most significant evidence of collusion so far. And it was completely fake news. :lol


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> He's not a commie, he's not anything but a fake, a phony. :lol Come back in a few months and his talking points will all be different. He used to be a white nationalist according to his own words (and actually got banned by our black Admin while arguing with him about race) so yeah, just overcompensation on his part. Pay no mind.


I got banned for a post I made about Corey Booker. Nothing to do with racism. 

It's fascinating to see you continue to suck up to some of the worst posters that show up on here though. So gotten to. Or maybe just not very smart :hmmm Because I've repeatedly stated why I changed my mind as well as explained that there is nothing wrong with contemplating a set of ideas to see if they have merit or not. But of course, the more intellectually inclined individuals on PerC have forgiven me for that, but stay stuck in your own personal anti-Reaper bubble. :mj4

Anything for personal validation I guess. 

Must be lonely now that you're one of the last people to stop sucking Trump's dick. Also, the fact that you keep attacking my credibility despite the fact that others don't is at this point a projection. The fact that you lost your credibility over the years so you can't help but pretend to yourself that I don't have any either. Nice head space you're in CP. 

Keep at it. Or, put me back on ignore so that you can have your safe space again.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

CamillePunk said:


> The latest Russian collusion story from the New York Times which revealed how Manafort gave polling data and information to a Russian oligarch?
> 
> Yeah, he actually gave it to Ukrainians, not Russia. And the polling data was largely already public anyway. :lol
> 
> This story was touted as the most significant evidence of collusion so far. And it was completely fake news. :lol


Why do I get the feeling that the Russia-gaters will ignore this video, just as they have ignored any other inconvenient facts which easily dismiss their embarrassing conspiracy :/


----------



## CamillePunk

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Why do I get the feeling that the Russia-gaters will ignore this video, just as they have ignored any other inconvenient facts which easily dismiss their embarrassing conspiracy :/


because there's just sooooooo much evidence! never mind that every time a "bombshell" gets reported it's debunked and retracted within a day or two, or there's a paragraph buried within the article itself which completely tanks any signifiance of it, and nobody ever circles back. they just feel vindicated and move on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trumpets will do anything to ignore all the russian connections. And keep making excuses.its getting pathetic


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Trumpets will do anything to ignore all the russian connections. And keep making excuses.its getting pathetic


BM will do anything to ignore all the debunking of the ridiculous Russian collusion conspiracy theory, even when it's from progressives who despise Trump. It's getting pathetic. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085673240469663745Encouraging, we'll see if Trump follows through. Questions remain about the other increased interventions, the prospect of getting Blackwater involved (hell no), increased drone strikes, and the neocon appointments to his administration. I'd need to see significant movement on all of these issues in the right direction to consider supporting him for 2020.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Nothing was debunked lol. You ignore half the evidence because it doesn’t fit your narrative.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/konstantin-kilimnik-paul-manafort-mueller-russia-1293712%3famp=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mueller-manafort-alleged-lies-kilimnik-new-court-filing-2019-1


----------



## Pratchett

birthday_massacre said:


> Nothing was debunked lol. You ignore half the evidence because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...ik-paul-manafort-mueller-russia-1293712?amp=1
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...alleged-lies-kilimnik-new-court-filing-2019-1


I dare you to watch or listen to this with an open mind.

I fucking dare you.


----------



## Pratchett

Reaper said:


> People like you aren't worth the effort :Shrug


I maintain it is worth a modicum of effort on the off chance they might be willing to listen and reform their way of thinking. But there is only so much you can do. People have to be willing to listen, first.


----------



## Reaper

Pratchett said:


> I maintain it is worth a modicum of effort on the off chance they might be willing to listen and reform their way of thinking. But there is only so much you can do. People have to be willing to listen, first.


I can tell through the language, tone and exact words being used who is worth talking to and who isn't tbh. :Shrug I spent a year in the kek circles observing, contemplating, assimilating and debunking (myself as well) so I know exactly who's too far gone to waste time on. A lot of people have rightfully turned their backs on Trump, but at the same time I see a very interesting new movement forming which is ever more aware of the corruption in our federal government. Obama's 8 and Trump's 8 will probably bring about America's next big anti-war movement. 

---

And I can see the troll is gone. Bring on the next one.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Pratchett said:


> I dare you to watch or listen to this with an open mind.
> 
> I fucking dare you.


Watching that is like watching a creationist video trying to "debunk" evolution. I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes

You can ignore all the evidence you want about Trump Russia, it just makes you look bad, just like creationists trying to deny evolution.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Igoring class privilege is political death and neither the left, nor the right should ignore it because when wealth gets concentrated, then it allows those that would abuse it (to discriminate against minorities as well as poor white people) the ability to do so. It does not need to be expressed every single time
> 
> "ERMAGURD, yes, I Love you too you white people. Let mama hug you baby. Stop crying". No one's playing favorites here especially when class privilege is a big issue.
> 
> When we talk about class and skin privilege we are not excluded the poor old persecuted whites. They are part of the issue of class-based slavery.
> 
> The fact is that when these people see the word "white privilege" random youtube and twitter fucktards have convinced them that that means they are not part of the class struggle and won't be protected by those who wish to break the current institutions (especially the institution of corporatist government collusion) that oppress *everyone* - in different ways. And yes, some more than others.
> 
> SJW's take it too far and they're actively being corrected by those on the left as well. The conversation that's happening right now has its fringe idiots that seem to get triggered by every mention of race oppression.
> 
> That's where they unfortunately without even knowing it end up pulling shit right out of Stormfront manuals (especially these crime rate statistics they brag about so much - they all do it so this is not some attack on this one particular person. It's a meme now) to post on public forums because that's the easiest thing to post. It requires no brain cells to copy what their favorite youtuber told them to copy.


I was just trying to be nice and offer him some facts that he could work with to show the whole system is messed up and slanted to the Elites and wealthy. I didn't want him to get banned if he was just trying to make a valid point and didn't realize he sounded stormfronty. :nerd:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> I was just trying to be nice and offer him some facts that he could work with to show the whole system is messed up and slanted to the Elites and wealthy. I didn't want him to get banned if he was just trying to make a valid point and didn't realize he sounded stormfronty. :nerd:


I didn't report him but the writing was in the wall. He was just gonna get worse from there. It was unlikely he would have shown any improvement.


----------



## Miss Sally

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...arned-steele-dossier-was-connected-to-clinton

So not sure what this means for the whole thing.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-claims-i-never-said-there-was-no-collusion-in-trump-campaign



> *Giuliani claims 'I never said there was no collusion' in Trump campaign*
> 
> President Trump's personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, claimed Wednesday night that he "never said there was no collusion" between members of President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russian officials -- but he did say that Trump himself never colluded with Russian officials.
> 
> The former New York City mayor also said on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time" that "if the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago. It's either provable or it's not. It is not provable because it never happened ... I'm telling you there's no chance it happened."
> 
> Trump previously denied any member of his campaign conspired with Russian officials. In May 2017, Trump flatly stated: "There is no collusion, certainly myself and my campaign."
> 
> Giuliani made the startling statements during a contentious conversation with host Chris Cuomo about allegations against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort made by Special Counsel Robert Mueller last week. Prosecutors said Manafort lied to them about sharing internal Trump campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian businessman with alleged links to Russian intelligence.
> 
> Giuliani admitted that Manafort was "wrong" to give the data to Kilimnik, but said "polling data is given to everybody."
> 
> "There is not a single bit of evidence the president of the United States committed the only crime you could commit here [and] conspired with the Russians to hack the [Democratic National Committee]," Giuliani said.
> 
> "First of all, crime is not the bar of accountability for a president," Cuomo responded. "It's about what you knew, what was right, what was wrong and what did you deceive about."
> 
> "The president did not collude with the Russians, whatever collusion is," Giuliani shot back, later adding that "I have no idea, never have, what other people [on the campaign] were doing."
> 
> "But [Manafort] ran his campaign," Cuomo said.
> 
> Giuliani also repeated his call for Mueller to wrap up his investigation quickly, saying the probe was "over enough" and calling it "the most inappropriate investigation I’ve ever seen conducted on an ethical level that’s disgusting."
> 
> "We’ve answered all the questions on collusion," Giuliani said. "We don't need a special counsel to investigate a campaign chairman. We have [Mueller] because the President of the United States is involved as a subject."


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-claims-i-never-said-there-was-no-collusion-in-trump-campaign


Its alwahys the same cycle with this stuff

First there is no collusion.
then its there was collusion between members of President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russian officials -- but he did say that Trump himself never colluded with Russian officials.
Then it will be well Trump did collude with Russia but collusion is not a crime


----------



## 2 Ton 21

:lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

Honestly when was the last time Rudy had a mental health checkup and an MRI to check his brain? Reminiscent of Rick James:


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> Honestly when was the last time Rudy had a mental health checkup and an MRI to check his brain? Reminiscent of Rick James:


Same can be asked about Trump


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086054512484278272
The Clinton News Network strikes again.


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> Same can be asked about Trump


Le sigh. I don't know how else to say this but I was really enjoying the fun until you stamped it out.


----------



## Vic Capri

If steak and lobster had been served to the Clemson Tigers, the headlines would have been about how government employees can't eat that good due to the shutdown. The haters are going to complain no matter what.

- Vic


----------



## MrPatriotFan

Vic Capri said:


> If steak and lobster had been served to the Clemson Tigers, the headlines would have been about how government employees can't eat that good due to the shutdown. The haters are going to complain no matter what.
> 
> - Vic


heck yeah!!!


----------



## birthday_massacre

So Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress about his negotiations to build that hotel in Moscow


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> So Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress about his negotiations to build that hotel in Moscow


BM, I'm temporarily taking you off ignore to attempt to have a reasonable conversation with you.

Honest question... what would it take for you to realize that the entire Russiagate narrative has been a scam? 

We're years into it and not one single shred of solid evidence has been produced. How long do you want to play the rube? Don't you think that if there was any real evidence, we'd have found out about it by now?

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you're being played by an Establishment that is desperate to maintain the status quo?

I despise Trump as much as you do... but I do so for legitimate policy reasons, not some made up fantasies about collusion that never happened.

If you still believe Trump won due to Russian collusion, explain how. Do you believe they hacked the voting machines? Do you believe a few thousand in FB ads swung a billions dollar election? How exactly do you think Russia won the election for Trump? Details matter.

Lay the case out in it's entirety. Let's see if it stands up to scrutiny. If you can make a decent case, we'll consider it. If not, then please STFU about it, accept your loss and focus on solving future problems.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Honest question... what would it take for you to realize that the entire Russiagate narrative has been a scam?
> 
> We're years into it and not one single shred of solid evidence has been produced. How long do you want to play the rube? Don't you think that if there was any real evidence, we'd have found out about it by now?
> 
> .


What would it take you to admit you were wrong about Trump ties to Russia. I just find it hilarious with all the evidence of it, you keep pretending there is none. There is a whole thread full of examples of Trump Russia collusion but you just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la al there is no evidence.



Tater said:


> Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you're being played by an Establishment that is desperate to maintain the status quo?
> 
> I despise Trump as much as you do... but I do so for legitimate policy reasons, not some made up fantasies about collusion that never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> .


You are the one being played if you keep ignoring the facts and evidence. You can stick you head in the sand all you want, it won't change the facts here. And even with this new Cohen example, where Trump told him to lie to congress, which is an impeachable offense, its one of the things they were going to impeach Nixon for, you are still going to deny collusion.

Fuck, Rudy just the other day admitted there was collusion between Russia and teh Trump campaign. That is Trump's own lawyer. But sure keep denying the facts and evidence. 



Tater said:


> If you still believe Trump won due to Russian collusion, explain how. Do you believe they hacked the voting machines? Do you believe a few thousand in FB ads swung a billions dollar election? How exactly do you think Russia won the election for Trump? Details matter.
> 
> Lay the case out in it's entirety. Let's see if it stands up to scrutiny. If you can make a decent case, we'll consider it. If not, then please STFU about it, accept your loss and focus on solving future problems.
> 
> 
> .


Russia tried to hack the election that is a fact, we just don't know if they were successful or not. There is no concrete evidence they were successful so on that I would say there is no evidence they were successful.
Its a fact about the FB ads Russia took out and yes easily could have swung the election since Trump won the election by 80,000 votes across three states.

Also its not just about how Russia won the election from Trump, not sure why you keep focusing on that. Its all about What Trump back door deals Trump and Putin are making to benefit each other. Which is illegal.

You asked for info, even though its been given over and over again, here is a condensed version of a lot of it.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079514265902567426
the case has already been made, you just ignore the facts and evidence, so if anyone needs to STFU its you denying the facts


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> What would it take you to admit you were wrong about Trump ties to Russia.


Evidence would prove to me I am wrong. No evidence has been shown.



> I just find it hilarious with all the evidence of it, you keep pretending there is none. There is a whole thread full of examples of Trump Russia collusion but you just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la al there is no evidence.


 @Headliner kicked me out of that thread because he likes his safe space. You want me to read that thread, get him to unban me.



> You are the one being played if you keep ignoring the facts and evidence. You can stick you head in the sand all you want, it won't change the facts here. And even with this new Cohen example, where Trump told him to lie to congress, which is an impeachable offense, its one of the things they were going to impeach Nixon for, you are still going to deny collusion.


What facts? What evidence?



> Fuck, Rudy just the other day admitted there was collusion between Russia and teh Trump campaign. That is Trump's own lawyer. But sure keep denying the facts and evidence.


What facts? What evidence?



> Russia tried to hack the election that is a fact, we just don't know if they were successful or not. There is no concrete evidence they were successful so on that I would say there is no evidence they were successful.
> Its a fact about the FB ads Russia took out and yes easily could have swung the election since Trump won the election by 80,000 votes across three states.


Have you taken the time to look at the facts of this claim?

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Russia commanded by Putin, did pay for these ads...

A few thousand dollars worth of ads defeated the billions that Hillary spent?

Think about it before you make this claim. Did a few grand really defeat billions?



> Also its not just about how Russia won the election from Trump, not sure why you keep focusing on that. Its all about What Trump back door deals Trump and Putin are making to benefit each other. Which is illegal.


No one is denying that Trump has business deals with people in Russia. He's a corrupt businessman. That is not the same thing as colluding with Russia to steal an election.



> You asked for info, even though its been given over and over again, here is a condensed version of a lot of it.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079514265902567426
> the case has already been made, you just ignore the facts and evidence, so if anyone needs to STFU its you denying the facts


Again, show me how they stole the election. Nothing here shows that. Did Russia hack votes in Michigan? 

I'm trying to be nice with you because you hate Republicans. I hate Republicans too. But you have yet to show any kind of proof that the election was stolen by Russians.

For you to believe that Russia installed a puppet into the WH, you have to also believe that our entire intelligence agencies were completely clueless to this fact and have not been able to generate enough proof since it happened to impeach him.

So which is it? Did Russia steal the election or does everyone working for this country's intelligence miss it and are incapable of proving it now?

Because you cannot have it both ways.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Im done with you since there is a whole thread full of evidence you want to ignore. Who cares if you were banned, you can still read it. You are like a creationist who ignores all the evidence for evolution

it does not matter how much evidence you are shown, you just pretend there is none. Its just funny Rudy admits there is collusion and you still say what collusion. LOL I'm done, put me back on ignore.


----------



## Reaper

There is a lot of irony in the above statements ...


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> There is a lot of irony in the above statements ...


With you and Tater, you could have Trump come out and admit he colluded with Russia and you would still deny it.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Im done with you since there is a whole thread full of evidence you want to ignore. Who cares if you were banned, you can still read it. You are like a creationist who ignores all the evidence for evolution
> 
> it does not matter how much evidence you are shown, you just pretend there is none. Its just funny Rudy admits there is collusion and you still say what collusion. LOL I'm done, put me back on ignore.


Show me the proof. I'm waiting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Show me the proof. I'm waiting.


You are ignoring the proof. Not my problem anymore if you are going to ignore it. I am done wasting my time with you. Like I said go read the Russia thread


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> You are ignoring the proof. Not my problem anymore if you are going to ignore it. I am done wasting my time with you. Like I said go read the Russia thread


I'm banned from the Russia thread. Post your proof here or STFU.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

he's right.

when i cast my vote in 2016 there was a big scary russian guy in a fur hat and he said if i didn't vote for trump he would shoot me.

but hey that was just MY experience, i can't speak for the other 62 million that voted for trump.


----------



## deepelemblues

Berzerker's Beard said:


> he's right.
> 
> when i cast my vote in 2016 there was a big scary russian guy in a fur hat and he said if i didn't vote for trump he would shoot me.
> 
> but hey that was just MY experience, i can't speak for the other 62 million that voted for trump.


i didn't vote and that bald motherfucker just glared at me then he got on his great white shark to go hunt whales or some shit 

he looked like this:










buzzfeed getting destroyed over another fake news bombshell with the two authors giving different stories on the sourcing :ha

It's almost like there's a reason tens of millions of people cheer when the president talks mad shit on the media


----------



## birthday_massacre

its always funny how the more info that comes out about Trump's collusion with Russia the more the peanut gallery in here trolls this thread to ignore the evidence. No wonder half teh people in here are banned from the Russia thread.


----------



## 777

Are you familiar with the term 'plausible denial'? Think of it like a court case, evidence needs to be concrete...not here say, not probable, not assertion...but provable and definitive.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Russia probably meddled. We do the same thing to other countries, so it's not shocking. Maybe that knocked votes his way. The solution was to have a good candidate that actually knew how to run for office. How do you not campaign in three swing sates?! Instead go campaign in states you were certain to win. Ridiculous. Howard Dean was a much better head of the DNC. He ran a 50 state campaign. Go everywhere. Sell yourself on everyone. Even if they don';t vote for you this time, they'll remember you fondly later and might change their minds. Debbie Wassermann Schultz was trying to play sabermetrics.

Let's say Russia absolutely interfered, the Ds still need to look in the mirror and fix their issues. They need to find a way to appeal to the white working class. I'll say as a socially liberal guy living in rural north Georgia, there are a lot of us. I have coworkers/friends/family that have gay, POC, Muslim friends, family, co-workers that they get long with just fine. They have no problem with them. They also voted for Trump. Why? Because he embraced them instead of just lumping them in with the Klan because of their geographical location. Now he didn't mean a word of it because he's a bullshit artist, but almost anyone will take a fake smile over a fuck you.

Trump's a real estate developer so he almost automatically corrupt by default and I honestly believe he never thought he'd win. He just wanted to get publicity to launch Trump TV. If Russia did interfere they weren't counting on a win either, they just wanted to sew a little chaos. We sew chaos in other countries sometimes. Chaos is beneficial for getting underhanded shit done.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> he's right.
> 
> when i cast my vote in 2016 there was a big scary russian guy in a fur hat and he said if i didn't vote for trump he would shoot me.
> 
> but hey that was just MY experience, i can't speak for the other 62 million that voted for trump.


BB, you and I have had our fair share of differences but neither one of us is a rube who fell for the Russiagate bullshit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

777 said:


> Are you familiar with the term 'plausible denial'? Think of it like a court case, evidence needs to be concrete...not here say, not probable, not assertion...but provable and definitive.


It is concrete lol


----------



## deepelemblues

The government spied on the :trump campaign for months, rivaling LBJ in 1968 (tapped both the Nixon and Humphrey campaigns' phones, bugs in both campaigns' headquarters, actual spies infiltrating up the ass of both campaigns) for the greatest and most outrageously illegal example of domestic political spying in the history of the country, yet it could not manage to intercept a single communication proving that the Russian government and the campaign worked with each other.

Fascinating.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> The government spied on the :trump campaign for months, rivaling LBJ in 1968 (tapped both the Nixon and Humphrey campaigns' phones, bugs in both campaigns' headquarters, actual spies infiltrating up the ass of both campaigns) for the greatest and most outrageously illegal example of domestic political spying in the history of the country, yet it could not manage to intercept a single communication proving that the Russian government and the campaign worked with each other.
> 
> Fascinating.


yet Rudy admitted Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. And Cohen just said Trump directed him to lie to Congress about the Trump and Russia real estate deal. What else did Trump tell him to lie about. Trump JR even admitted he worked with Russia on getting dirty on Hillary. 

Its just funny all this evidence and you keep pretending its not there.


----------



## 777

"Cohen said' is not evidence...it's an allegation.


----------



## Deathstroke

777 said:


> "Cohen said' is not evidence...it's an allegation.


In 2019 allegations are meant to be believed without question.


----------



## virus21

Who do you trust in government? Not a fucking one. And when do we just this country the United Empire of American? Because we are Rome now.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> yet Rudy admitted Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. And Cohen just said Trump directed him to lie to Congress about the Trump and Russia real estate deal. What else did Trump tell him to lie about. Trump JR even admitted he worked with Russia on getting dirty on Hillary.
> 
> Its just funny all this evidence and you keep pretending its not there.


Still waiting on you to explain exactly how Russia stole the election for Trump.


----------



## Jokerface17

Like someone said before, if Russia’s meddling was significant to any extent Trump would already be out. Face it BM, This isn’t going to get Trump impeached.

People wanted Obama’s birth certificate for years and it never surfaced. That should have been more of an issue than whether or not Trump is building a tower in Russia or whether Russia had some Facebook ads for trump. HAHa come on man get real.


----------



## red dead2

Jokerface17 said:


> Like someone said before,* if Russia’s meddling was significant to any extent Trump would already be out. Face it BM, This isn’t going to get Trump impeached.
> *
> People wanted Obama’s birth certificate for years and it never surfaced. That should have been more of an issue than whether or not Trump is building a tower in Russia or whether Russia had some Facebook ads for trump. HAHa come on man get real.


Huh, there is an ongoing investigation by Special counsel mueller.

Going by your logic anybody who is being investigated from a Murderer to a Rapist is automatically innocent because the investigation has not yet finished and presented it's findings lol wtf?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Like someone said before, if Russia’s meddling was significant to any extent Trump would already be out. Face it BM, This isn’t going to get Trump impeached.
> 
> People wanted Obama’s birth certificate for years and it never surfaced. That should have been more of an issue than whether or not Trump is building a tower in Russia or whether Russia had some Facebook ads for trump. HAHa come on man get real.


Telling someone to lie to Congress, is a felony as well obstruction of justice and an impeachable offense. Its also one of the things they were going to impeach Nixon for.


----------



## red dead2

Tater said:


> Still waiting on you to explain exactly how Russia stole the election for Trump.


there is actually evidence pointing to this way:


Hacking of DNC
Hacking of state-voter registration systems
Hacking of Hillary clinton emails
Russian field agent Marina Butina in NRA/Republican pro-Trump 
influence campaign
alleged hacking of election vote systems in 2 states
various bot accounts dedicated to influence election outcome

Special Counsel Mueller will be taking these factors into account which if 100% corroborated will prove that Russia influenced the election. The main focus is to see if Trump had PRIOR knowledge of these events taking place in conversations with Russian agents. If proven true than Trump will be subjected to impeachment and criminal proceedings as that would be a major crime verging on treason.

The investigation is not over for at least another 2 months. You still have key players and witnesses yet to testify before congress so more factual information incriminating trump can still come out. 

Whatever happens you can't deny this all looks fishy and there certainly was interference on the election from Russia. Did Trump know beforehand? I guess we will have to wait and find out...


----------



## deepelemblues

https://pjmedia.com/trending/bruce-ohr-fbi-doj-knew-dossier-was-dirty-from-the-beginning/

Oh so the NKVD errr I mean the FBI/DOJ knew that the piss dossier was bullshit and paid for by the Clinton campaign but used it in its FISA court warrant applications anyway and hid its origins from the court

What

a

surprise


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086419880025284608
Every. Single. Time. :heston


----------



## deepelemblues

"Disputing"

:heston

It's like these people _want_ :trump to remain president until he's served two full terms

Anyone looking into the possibility that :trump actually owns Buzzfeed, the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.? :Trump


----------



## FriedTofu

Russia meddled in support of Trump AND BERNIE. Was it because Russia expected favours in return from either as Presidents? Mostly likely not. It was because they were anti-establishment and seen as destabilizing influences over American foreign policies that was stacked against Russia. What was probably unexpected by Russia was Trump reached out back to them because Trump is Trump and doesn't gives a shit about anything if it helps him to win. It wasn't as much as Russia stealing the elections for Trump, as the American system was too weak to guard against information warfare conducted by a hostile/foreign entity.

I remember during the 2016 RNC convention Trump's people voted down references to aid Ukraine with weapons in their fight against Russia and rebels. That passed while almost all other isolationist agenda were voted down. Numerous staff that worked for Trump during his campaign has been charged and indicted in the special counsel investigations. During his presidency, Trump has been happy to say shit that is in favor of Russia's views on things from NATO to Syria to the Magnitsky act that helped push the discussions over these among the GOP base.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> Russia meddled in support of Trump AND BERNIE. Was it because Russia expected favours in return from either as Presidents? Mostly likely not. It was because they were anti-establishment and seen as destabilizing influences over American foreign policies that was stacked against Russia. What was probably unexpected by Russia was Trump reached out back to them because Trump is Trump and doesn't gives a shit about anything if it helps him to win. It wasn't as much as Russia stealing the elections for Trump, as the American system was too weak to guard against information warfare conducted by a hostile/foreign entity.
> 
> I remember during the 2016 RNC convention Trump's people voted down references to aid Ukraine with weapons in their fight against Russia and rebels. That passed while almost all other isolationist agenda were voted down. Numerous staff that worked for Trump during his campaign has been charged and indicted in the special counsel investigations. During his presidency, Trump has been happy to say shit that is in favor of Russia's views on things from NATO to Syria to the Magnitsky act that helped push the discussions over these among the GOP base.


And then as president :trump authorized sales of lethal weapons to the Ukraine, including top of the line shoulder-fired anti-tank and -plane missiles that the Obama administration refused to sell to Kiev :draper2

Russia influencing the election enough that :trump won is a fantasy with zero evidence or logic behind it. The evidence actually points the other way as Russia's efforts were infinitesimal in terms of money and reach


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> And then as president :trump authorized sales of lethal weapons to the Ukraine, including top of the line shoulder-fired anti-tank and -plane missiles that the Obama administration refused to sell to Kiev :draper2
> 
> Russia influencing the election enough that :trump won is a fantasy with zero evidence or logic behind it. The evidence actually points the other way as Russia's efforts were infinitesimal in terms of money and reach


Russia, like everyone that worked with Trump, eventually gets screwed over by Trump. Russia also wanted high oil prices. :draper2


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> Russia, like everyone that worked with Trump, eventually gets screwed over by Trump. Russia also wanted high oil prices. :draper2


I'll wait for an actual response

Oh wait no I won't


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086426253777924096
These so-called journalists not even bothering to verify the information they get. :heston I'm sure this report will end up in an "evidence list" along with all the other retracted news reports that people never ever circle back to to find out they were bullshit the entire time.


----------



## deepelemblues

UPDATE from Buzzfeed News: Donald :trump now owns Buzzfeed Inc., and has registered it with the IRS as a political action committee (PAC) under section 501(c)(3) with its purpose being "the reelection of the president, and finding out what orange ass tastes like :trump3"


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> I'll wait for an actual response
> 
> Oh wait no I won't


Trump is transactional. He screwed over Russia in that instance to score points with military hawks and get his messaging of weapon sales = jobs over. :ghost


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086423876668657664

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086428012088840192
Trump-Russian collusion is a religious belief. :heston No matter what it HAS to be true! It just HAS to! 

Well done to the Clinton campaign. More than 2 years later and the hoax is still going strong.


----------



## Jokerface17

red dead2 said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like someone said before,* if Russia’s meddling was significant to any extent Trump would already be out. Face it BM, This isn’t going to get Trump impeached.
> *
> People wanted Obama’s birth certificate for years and it never surfaced. That should have been more of an issue than whether or not Trump is building a tower in Russia or whether Russia had some Facebook ads for trump. HAHa come on man get real.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh, there is an ongoing investigation by Special counsel mueller.
> 
> Going by your logic anybody who is being investigated from a Murderer to a Rapist is automatically innocent because the investigation has not yet finished and presented it's findings lol wtf?
Click to expand...


That’s not what I said at all. Stop saying my logic is flawed and show facts 






birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like someone said before, if Russia’s meddling was significant to any extent Trump would already be out. Face it BM, This isn’t going to get Trump impeached.
> 
> People wanted Obama’s birth certificate for years and it never surfaced. That should have been more of an issue than whether or not Trump is building a tower in Russia or whether Russia had some Facebook ads for trump. HAHa come on man get real.
> 
> 
> 
> Telling someone to lie to Congress, is a felony as well obstruction of justice and an impeachable offense. Its also one of the things they were going to impeach Nixon for.
Click to expand...

Again, answer the question you’ve been asked.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> Trump is transactional. He screwed over Russia in that instance to score points with military hawks and get his messaging of weapon sales = jobs over. :ghost


What is Putin getting in return from the president for more dead Russian soldiers in Donetsk and Luhansk? Theres still skirmishes going on in east Ukraine daily, American weapons make it much easier for Ukrainians to kill Ivans.

Must be something pretty yuuuuuuuge.


----------



## DesolationRow

:lmao Buzzfeed :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086423876668657664
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086428012088840192
> Trump-Russian collusion is a religious belief. :heston No matter what it HAS to be true! It just HAS to!
> 
> Well done to the Clinton campaign. More than 2 years later and the hoax is still going strong.


They probably learnt that from the birther movement and Benghazi.


----------



## deepelemblues

Rick Wilson is a genius, he came up with a new way to say fake but accurate.

GENIUS.


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> What is Putin getting in return from the president for more dead Russian soldiers in Donetsk and Luhansk? Theres still skirmishes going on in east Ukraine daily, American weapons make it much easier for Ukrainians to kill Ivans.
> 
> Must be something pretty yuuuuuuuge.


US forces pulling out of Syria seems yuge enough.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> US forces pulling out of Syria seems yuge enough.


That's some long term planning right there, :trump authorized weapons sales to Kiev 13 months before he announced the US was leaving Syria. 

Got any other pure speculations?


----------



## CamillePunk

Every moment Trump doesn't kick off a world-ending nuclear war with Russia is a moment where we are serving the interests of Vladimir Putin.

The presidency is compromised. Face it.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Every moment Trump doesn't kick off a world-ending nuclear war with Russia is a moment where we are serving the interests of Vladimir Putin.
> 
> The presidency is compromised. Face it.


I _knew_ every president from Truman on was a puppet of Vladimir Putin.

I just _knew_ _it._


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> That's some long term planning right there, :trump authorized weapons sales to Kiev 13 months before he announced the US was leaving Syria.
> 
> Got any other pure speculations?


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/trump-withdraw-syria-pentagon/index.html

March 2018.


----------



## Jokerface17

CamillePunk said:


> Every moment Trump doesn't kick off a world-ending nuclear war with Russia is a moment where we are serving the interests of Vladimir Putin.
> 
> The presidency is compromised. Face it.


The presidency is compromised and we’re serving the interests of Putin by NOT having a world ending nuclear war?!?!?

I swear I wish some of you had enough sense to comprehend what y’all say sometimes.


----------



## CamillePunk

Jokerface17 said:


> The presidency is compromised and we’re serving the interests of Putin by NOT having a world ending nuclear war?!?!?
> 
> I swear I wish some of you had enough sense to comprehend what y’all say sometimes.


You sound like a fucking traitor.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/trump-withdraw-syria-pentagon/index.html
> 
> March 2018.


9 months is "very soon" :bryanlol

Okay actually 13 months since it will take 4 months at the shortest to fully withdraw according to the plan 

Got any other straws to grasp at?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086431377447370753
:lmao :lmao :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086429115257884678Of course they didn't learn their lesson because they aren't doing JOURNALISM, they're pushing a hoax that was created by the campaign that LOST the 2016 election. This isn't speculation or opinion on my part, this is fact.


----------



## Jokerface17

CamillePunk said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presidency is compromised and we’re serving the interests of Putin by NOT having a world ending nuclear war?!?!?
> 
> I swear I wish some of you had enough sense to comprehend what y’all say sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a fucking traitor.
Click to expand...

Man I hate to insult people on a forum but you come off as incompetent as fuck. From what you said it sounds like you actually want a nuclear war. With Russia of all people. Get your head out of your ass and start making sense


----------



## NotGuilty

I guess i missed it, but wasn't Cohens original deal that he confessed everything at that time? New things being released, shouldn't he be charged?


----------



## Deathstroke

Jokerface17 said:


> Man I hate to insult people on a forum but you come off as incompetent as fuck. From what you said it sounds like you actually want a nuclear war. With Russia of all people. Get your head out of your ass and start making sense


Look at this commie not wanting us to blow Russia off the face of the map.


----------



## Jokerface17

Sylar said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man I hate to insult people on a forum but you come off as incompetent as fuck. From what you said it sounds like you actually want a nuclear war. With Russia of all people. Get your head out of your ass and start making sense
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this commie not wanting us to blow Russia off the face of the map.
Click to expand...

So now I’m a commie? Hahah y’all crack me up. You do realize if we drop a nuke on Russia that they will retaliate and drop a nuke on us right?


----------



## CamillePunk

Sylar said:


> Look at this commie not wanting us to blow Russia off the face of the map.


Imagine being so perverted by Russian propaganda that you think sacrificing the lives of every man, woman, and child on this Earth is too high a price to pay for protecting the feelings of Madam President. :no: Not just a traitor, but a sexist traitor at that.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Imagine being so perverted by Russian propaganda that you think sacrificing the lives of every man, woman, and child on this Earth is too high a price to pay for protecting the feelings of Madam President. :no: Not just a traitor, but a sexist traitor at that.


The southern hemisphere would come out not too bad

You know, the hemisphere that isn't full of white people. All the nasty white people would be dead and the non-white people in South America and Africa would rule the world!

So if you don't believe in MUH RUSSIA you're not just a sexist traitor, you're a _racist_ sexist traitor


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> 9 months is "very soon" :bryanlol
> 
> Okay actually 13 months since it will take 4 months at the shortest to fully withdraw according to the plan
> 
> Got any other straws to grasp at?


Are you saying Trump was lying when he said 'very soon' in March of 2018?

Arms sales announced Dec 2017 after being in the works for months. Just slightly more than 4 months later he let this slip out in his rally. What is the acceptable timeline for 'very soon' to you? And why is this even the point of discussion?


----------



## Jokerface17

You guys just can’t be serious can you? Haha Jesus


----------



## Deathstroke

Jokerface17 said:


> You guys just can’t be serious can you? Haha Jesus


Protecting the world from that madman Vladimir Putin is no joke.


----------



## Reaper

Nope they're not. Deep and CP have been trolling this section for a while now. Everytime they lose an argument they either retreat into their safe spaces, or call for each others' support, or drag others in as much as possible in order to detract from the fact that they're trolling. It's funny to see that there are people from the mafia section dropping in every now and then when things get bad for CP's arguments in these parts too :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> Are you saying Trump was lying when he said 'very soon' in March of 2018?
> 
> Arms sales announced Dec 2017 after being in the works for months. Just slightly more than 4 months later he let this slip out in his rally. What is the acceptable timeline for 'very soon' to you? And why is this even the point of discussion?


What did he let slip? That he was going to withdraw soldiers from Syria to placate Putin after authorizing arms sales to Ukraine? That he was going to withdraw soldiers from Syria as part of his general obeisance to Master Vladster? 

You're the one who spun this out of whole cloth. It's your fantasy. Now I'm supposed to provide the details or something?

My position is that the president wishing to leave Syria, and ordering the leaving of Syria, has nothing to do with being in the thrall of the Russian president. And that you have provided absolutely no reason to think otherwise.



Reaper said:


> Nope they're not. Deep and CP have been trolling this section for a while now. Everytime they lose an argument they either retreat into their safe spaces, or call for each others' support, or drag others in as much as possible in order to detract from the fact that they're trolling. It's funny to see that there are people from the mafia section dropping in every now and then when things get bad for CP's arguments in these parts too :lol












CP and I have have never interacted with each other outside of regular postings that can be viewed by all. I believe he has repped me a few times. I am a selfish repper (DEAL WITH IT) so I do not recall ever returning the favor. As best I recall, his rep messages have never included a call for support. 

I am unaware of where my "safe space" would be to "retreat" to - perhaps the super-sekrit WF conservative PM ring is still around? the one I never participated in and do not participate in to this day, if it still exists, OR EVER DID EXIST :cena5 - unless you are referring to not engaging in endless back and forth tit for tat posting. I do not regard disengagement from a conversation by others to be their admitting defeat, or anything else. I find such an idea childish. (That is an implication.)

I am disappointed that you have declined to realize my hope for you. But as communication is necessary for comity - or at least for my amusement - before I return to ignoring you for a shorter or longer time as you deserve, I invite you to take your palsied bravado to Rants, where I will obligingly not ignore you for a shorter period of time. Which is more than you deserve.


----------



## Deathstroke

Reaper said:


> Nope they're not. Deep and CP have been trolling this section for a while now. Everytime they lose an argument they either retreat into their safe spaces, or call for each others' support, or drag others in as much as possible in order to detract from the fact that they're trolling. It's funny to see that there are people from the mafia section dropping in every now and then when things get bad for CP's arguments in these parts too :lol


The fact you had to explain that is why we were messing with him. It was never a legit argument. CP clearly never actually meant that we should nuke Russia. Come on now.

Do you think I cam in "from the mafia" section because CP asked me to or something? :heston


----------



## Reaper

Sylar said:


> The fact you had to explain that is why we were messing with him. It was never a legit argument. CP clearly never actually meant that we should nuke Russia. Come on now.


That wasn't the trolling I was talking about. 



> Do you think I cam in "from the mafia" section because CP asked me to or something? :heston


He whines about it in the mafia discord :heston


----------



## Deathstroke

Reaper said:


> That wasn't the trolling I was talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> He whines about it in the mafia discord :heston


I've never been in the discord. I just saw that joker kid reply to his obvious joke and react to it like CP was legitimately advocating for nuclear war that I had to make a fantastical reply back to him and the fact that the jokes became more and more obvious and he was still incredibly oblivious to the whole thing makes it so much more hilarious.


----------



## Reaper

Sylar said:


> I've never been in the discord. I just saw that joker kid reply to his obvious joke and react to it like CP was legitimately advocating for nuclear war that I had to make a fantastical reply back to him and the fact that the jokes became more and more obvious and he was still incredibly oblivious to the whole thing makes it so much more hilarious.


Well, if you're not here because of the discord server, then that's fine. But I was informed that CP has been talking some shit about me behind my back and continues to bait and troll me here literally begging for my attention, so I figured that you dropping in out of nowhere might be related. 

My bad if I was mistaken :Shrug

Stick around for the very "genuine" discussions we have here. I mean, once in a while there's actually some decent stuff that gets discussion, but mostly these threads have turned into mega troll and bait-fests.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.wrestlingforum.com/rants/ fpalm


----------



## CamillePunk

yawn

1) Obvious joke posts do not constitute trolling

2) I don't talk about political threads outside of political threads or ask anyone to do anything on here

3) I've said worse directly to you

4) I have no respect for you whatsoever and never have, despite your repeated past slobbering over me both in PMs and in the mafia section, whether it be about me shaping your political views or my ability as a mafia host, which admittedly is exceptional

5) you have access to the discord and can see anything I say there so is it really behind your back?

thank u, next.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> What did he let slip? That he was going to withdraw soldiers from Syria to placate Putin after authorizing arms sales to Ukraine? That he was going to withdraw soldiers from Syria as part of his obeisance to Master Vladster?
> 
> You're the one who spun this out of whole cloth. It's your fantasy. Now I'm supposed to provide the details or something?
> 
> My position is that the president wishing to leave Syria, and ordering the leaving of Syria, has nothing to do with being in the thrall of the Russian president. And that you have provided absolutely no reason to think otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CP and I have have never interacted with each other outside of regular postings that can be viewed by all.


That is what I was referring to. The back and forth you two have going is kind of cute tbh. 



> I am disappointed that you have declined to realize my hope for you. But as communication is necessary for comity - or at least for my amusement - before I return to ignoring you for a shorter or longer time as you deserve, I invite you to take your palsied bravado to Rants, where I will obligingly not ignore you for a shorter period of time. Which is more than you deserve.


I didn't notice any change in your posting style and I wasn't expecting it either so I don't care about your projection here. 

Also, thanks for confirming that you do need to retreat into your safe space ... while saying you don't need one. 

The safe space that I refer to you is that you incite, bait and troll and once that shit is thrown right back at you you play this game of "we should all be better", then refuse to show improvement and demand that everyone else improve without holding yourself up to any standard whatsoever. 

Call it armchair psychology or what you will, but at least I'm not as hopelessly unaware as you are.



CamillePunk said:


> yawn4) I have no respect for you whatsoever and never have, despite your repeated past slobbering over me both in PMs and in the mafia section, whether it be about me shaping your political views or my ability as a mafia host, which admittedly is exceptional


r/niceguy material right there :lol

Of course you've said worse to my face, doesn't change the fact that you have to keep at it behind my back as well. 

Of course, I appreciated you for what you did as a host in the mafia game. That has nothing to do with your cancerous political ideology, constantly losing arguments and then retreating to a safe space when you can't rebut. You've shown a repeated pattern of behavior where instead of continuning an argument you choose ad-hominem, baiting and bringing up shit that has absolutely nothing to do with any discussion that is actually ongoing. If you can argue your point and your points were defensible you wouldn't talk shit about me and instead try to beat my arguments in a fair display. 

And of course, you talked shit behind my back when i wasn't there to see it in discord but you can't even see how that kind of thing is the sign of someone very immature. You probably just recently left high school, so I'll give you a pass for your shit.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reaper said:


> That is what I was referring to. The back and forth you two have going is kind of cute tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice any change in your posting style and I wasn't expecting it either so I don't care about your projection here.
> 
> Also, thanks for confirming that you do need to retreat into your safe space ... while saying you don't need one.
> 
> The safe space that I refer to you is that you incite, bait and troll and once that shit is thrown right back at you you play this game of "we should all be better", then refuse to show improvement and demand that everyone else improve without holding yourself up to any standard whatsoever.
> 
> Call it armchair psychology or what you will, but at least I'm not as hopelessly unaware as you are.


Joking about Buzzfeed and MUH RUSSIAN NUCLEAR WAR is not inciting, baiting or trolling anyone, unless they are looking to be incited, baited, or trolled by things that are not directed at them as they were not directed at anyone. Well, not at anyone or anything other than the fine people at Buzzfeed, Inc. I don't think any Buzzfeed employees visit this fine website though. 

I did get mouthy with FriedTofu but since I felt I was wrong to do that, I stopped doing it in my last response to him. Sorry Tofu! 

https://www.wrestlingforum.com/rants/ (Really, not that hard. If you wanna step do it right. I'm waiting)


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> I am unaware of where my "safe space" would be to "retreat" to - perhaps the super-sekrit WF conservative PM ring is still around? the one I never participated in and do not participate in to this day, if it still exists, OR EVER DID EXIST :cena5


It never existed, unless I just wasn't a part of it and am thinking of something else. There were a few group PMs I was CC'd in having to do with certain posters' behavior on here but it was never a "conservative" group of posters, far from it actually.

And yeah I have literally never said anything to deep in private. :lol


----------



## Reaper

Reaper said:


> The safe space that I refer to you is that you incite, bait and troll and once that shit is thrown right back at you you play this game of *"we should all be better", then refuse to show improvement and demand that everyone else improve without holding yourself up to any standard whatsoever.
> *





deepelemblues said:


> *I did get mouthy with FriedTofu but since I felt I was wrong to do that, I stopped doing it in my last response to him. Sorry Tofu!
> *
> https://www.wrestlingforum.com/rants/ (Really, not that hard. If you wanna step do it right. I'm waiting)





> Call it armchair psychology or what you will, but at least I'm not as hopelessly unaware as you are.


fpalm


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> It never existed, unless I just wasn't a part of it and am thinking of something else. There were a few group PMs I was CC'd in having to do with certain posters' behavior on here but it was never a "conservative" group of posters, far from it actually.
> 
> And yeah I have literally never said anything to deep in private. :lol


Shut up. It might get out that we disagree with each other on multiple topics and sometimes even get testy towards each other. THAT WOULD NOT DO :no:


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Shut up. It might get out that we disagree with each other on multiple topics and sometimes even get testy towards each other. THAT WOULD NOT DO :no:


Even with a lot of the stuff we agree on it's often for very, very different reasons :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

Bruce Ohr's testimony to Congress makes it very clear that the FBI and Department of Justice _knew_ that the piss dossier was biased and unreliable, _knew_ that it came from the Clinton campaign. Because Ohr told the higher-ups at the FBI and DOJ himself. Because he knew. Because he questioned Fusion GPS head Simpson, personally, all about it on July 30, 2016. Because his wife worked for (works for) Fusion GPS. He briefed his bosses all about its biases, its questionable origin, its problems. And the FBI and DOJ went ahead and used it as the main support for their FISA warrant application anyway, without divulging any of that to the court. And the FBI and DOJ _lied_ when they claimed they did not know about the piss dossier until mid-September 2016. They saw it at the beginning of August 2016, when Ohr gave them the information Mr. Simpson had provided to him. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-bruce-ohr-told-the-fbi-11547770923

MUH RUSSIA is based on a shoddy piece of opposition research bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. What an embarrassment to this country. Clinton and the fake news media have done far more to divide, distract, and weaken the United States than Russia could have EVER hoped for. Good job, guys and gals :trolldog


----------



## virus21

Playing a dangerous game Buzzfeed


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> Playing a dangerous game Buzzfeed





Why should Buzzfeed retract? The SC statement is talking about the characterization being inaccurate, not the content is untrue. That is a huge difference.

They want it known it was not leaked by the SC since based on the BuzzFeed article it could imply the SC leaked this info and that is what the SC is trying to shoot down. They are doing this to protect the investigation so Trump can't claim they are leaking info and get it shut down.

Buzzfeed also said" In response to the statement tonight from the Special Counsel's spokesman: We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing."


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://apnews.com/e98c9c74a0124c84943129e32bf33e69



> *Trump’s plan trades protection for immigrants*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the partial government shutdown (all times local):
> 
> President Donald Trump is expected to announce later Saturday that he is open to trading protections for young immigrants in exchange for money for his long-promised border wall.
> 
> That’s according to three people familiar with the plans who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss them by name.
> 
> The dispute over Trump’s border wall has caused a partial government shutdown now into its fifth week.
> 
> Vice President Mike Pence, along with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney have been working “non-stop” on the proposal, according to one of the people.
> 
> The proposal would protect immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children. It also would extend protections for those with Temporary Protected Status, a program that allows people from certain countries affected by natural disasters or violence to remain in the U.S.
> 
> Trump is scheduled to make the announcement from the White House at 4 p.m.
> 
> —Associated Press writer Jill Colvin


Remember a year ago when Chuck Schumer offered him DACA for Wall, but for $25 billion. Now he's trying to make the same deal but for $5.7 billion. Of course now he's lost the House to the Ds and had a court rule he couldn't revoke DACA. 

Great negotiating from a position of strength.


----------



## Smark Sheet

Folks, the BuzzFeed report is dead. It was fake news from the moment it was released, and those of us with common sense knew it. Not only is BuzzFeed not a credible news organization, but the two "journalists" who released the report are considered the worst BuzzFeed has to offer.

This was a classic example of dishonest pseudo-journalists releasing fake news, knowing the desperate media and their gullible viewers would swallow it whole. And they did. And some still are (see two posts up).


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smark Sheet said:


> Folks, the BuzzFeed report is dead. It was fake news from the moment it was released, and those of us with common sense knew it. Not only is BuzzFeed not a credible news organization, but the two "journalists" who released the report are considered the worst BuzzFeed has to offer.
> 
> This was a classic example of dishonest pseudo-journalists releasing fake news, knowing the desperate media and their gullible viewers would swallow it whole. And they did. And some still are (see two posts up).


Right it was so fake when the WH correspondences were asked over and over again if the report was false, they never said it was a lie and Trump never told Cohen to lie to Congress because they know he did and don't want to go on record claiming he didn't. 

And AGAIN the SC never said the information was not true. But you keep ignoring that.

also there is this


----------



## El Grappleador

Recently, I'm sharing some information with an Spanish Trump Supporter, and I've recollect too many facts:

1. -This is a not conventional struggle between republicans and democrats. In fact, This is a duel between Trump VS Federal Reserve System. 
2. -This is not the first time that happens something like that. Have you remind why JFK got murdered? Unlikely Kennedy, Trump has many resources on his pro. He is smart, hands down. Not a wise guy, though.
3. -How curious US people as reffered their country as America when and not as a continent. Coincidentially, Here you are the name "America", and we take "A" off, take "rica" off too, Me remains, change the phonem (Mee) and what have we got? "Me". And per several decades, wherer elephants or donkeys, both have fed a cult to Me (retorically speaking) through consumerism, way to fame, overprotection, PC, and since last decade, social networks.
4. -Secondary Effects: Drugs, low-frustration tolerance, anxiety, stress, social troubles, policial brutality, lack of self-discovering, delirious, abuse of fireguns, etc.
5. -If Obama's Managament were too soft. Trump's Management is too stiff. Indeed, wherer one and another way, it doesn't make america great. He splitted US hispanics and LA hispanics, conservatives and liberals (well, directly, Hillary splitted liberals too), even republicans themselves. He is making a stiff society. Not a flexible one, though.
6. -Yeah, CNN is fake news. Who are not even fake? Do you know about William Randolph Hearst's life? He was the fake news grand-grandpa. In fact, he invented yellow journalism, or as Edward Eggleston quote: "Organized gossip". And as Eric Bischoff quoted for a TED Talk: "Media won't make you think. They want make you react."

Thoughts:
1. I don't think being too soft is solution to problems. Neither being stiff. It's just a matter of balance. How? Reasoning with mind, not with emotions. 
2. -This idea of splitting people between gooddoers and evildoers has became monotone and trite. It often happens on religion, corporatism, politics and media. IMO, it's a wrong idea to unify people cause everybody has a different way of thought. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how dictatorships start.

Feelings:
I will express my feeling in the following chant. This chant is dedicated as both conservatives and liberals:






Consequences:
IDK with will be the consequences. However, I foretell indivualism gone wilder and unreasonable.


----------



## CamillePunk

Another day, another fake scandal for the left. 

A bunch of MAGA-hat wearing high school kids are in DC for the March for Life, and they're chanting their school spirit songs and a Native American vet with a drum walks up to them and starts banging it in their face and chanting his own song. They smile and laugh and keep chanting their song. Media portrays it as a mob of MAGAs maliciously bullying a Native American veteran.  Soooo raaaaaaaaaaaaycisssssssssss! 

Then we get a teary eyed video of the guy talking about how this is "indigenous land" and they (and by they I mean not this guy, because he wasn't alive then) never used to have walls or prisons. :lol Yeah, but y'all did have slavery and child sacrifice so maybe settle the fuck down with that moral high ground. :lol Probably could've used some prisons back then. :mj

To remain morally consistent in their outrage, all non-Native Americans praising this guy should go back to their countries of origin so as to not stain this "indigenous land" with their presence. The rest of us will stay right where we are because whitewashing the history of indigenous people and believing in inherited or collective guilt is unreasonable.

And now journalists are doxxing these kids and they're being harassed. Sigh, the world is insane.


----------



## MrMister

:lmao BuzzFeed 

Kinda sad so many believed the bullshit.


----------



## deepelemblues

I wonder how all the non-Aztecs that were captured in war and used as human sacrifices were kept from, you know, just walking away

(pssst the indian tribes didn't have prisons was because the punishment for almost all "criminal" offenses was enslavement, death, or banishment aka death in the wilderness or by another tribe or enslavement by another tribe)


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> :lmao BuzzFeed
> 
> Kinda sad so many believed the bullshit.


But its not bullshit, its in Muellers own fillings, See the pic a few posts above


----------



## 777

Yes, let's put our faith in the scumbag attorney.

edit: Second and third hand accounts at that. It's not even a direct quote...as if that were definitive either.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> Another day, another fake scandal for the left.
> 
> A bunch of MAGA-hat wearing high school kids are in DC for the March for Life, and they're chanting their school spirit songs and a Native American vet with a drum walks up to them and starts banging it in their face and chanting his own song. They smile and laugh and keep chanting their song. Media portrays it as a mob of MAGAs maliciously bullying a Native American veteran.  Soooo raaaaaaaaaaaaycisssssssssss!


i saw this story on the front page of yahoo and yea they frame it as if the MAGA kids crashed the indigenous people's march and surrounded this guy. meanwhile if you watch the video it's clear he approached them and chooses to stand there.

another thing i notice about yahoo and all the left leaning outlets. they LOVE to trash fox news at every turn... _except_ when someone on fox news bashes trump. then they magically turn into a trusted news source.


----------



## MrMister

birthday_massacre said:


> But its not bullshit, its in Muellers own fillings, See the pic a few posts above


Even the New York Times says lol BuzzFeed is garbage. 

Give it up buddy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> Even the New York Times says lol BuzzFeed is garbage.
> 
> Give it up buddy.


 Nice deflection


----------



## deepelemblues

So Mueller is now contradicting his own court filings via statements released generally to the public and specifically to the Washington Post :hmmm

If it was Cohen's testimony that the president had explicitly and directly ordered him to lie, there would be little reason not to directly and explicitly say that in court filings. It would border on unethical and dishonest to do otherwise. Law enforcement can lie to suspects during interrogation as a means to trapping said suspect, or bluffing them into a confession, or into inadvertently revealing incriminating information, or for any number of reasons. It cannot lie to the court. Although, of course, lying to the court happens all the time in every court in the land by both sides of any case, criminal or civil. Doing so always entails risk though. Significant risk. Mueller lying to the court in this or any circumstance could jeopardize the entire investigation regardless of what it uncovers. That would be quite a cavalier and foolish thing to do. If Mueller did not wish to tip his hand, well, judges have shown much willingness to seal records, including indictments, and the records of proceedings re: MUH RUSSIA, so why would Mueller not request the records be sealed here, if he wished to not tip his hand? 

So that was not said explicitly and directly in court filings, despite BM's earnest wish and declaration that it was.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> So Mueller is now contradicting his own court filings via statements released generally to the public and specifically to the Washington Post :hmmm
> 
> If it was Cohen's testimony that the president had explicitly and directly ordered him to lie, there would be little reason not to directly and explicitly say that in court filings. It would border on unethical and dishonest to do otherwise. Law enforcement can lie to suspects during interrogation as a means to trapping said suspect, or bluffing them into a confession, or into inadvertently revealing incriminating information, or for any number of reasons. It cannot lie to the court. Although, of course, lying to the court happens all the time in every court in the land by both sides of any case, criminal or civil. Mueller lying to the court in this circumstance could jeopardize the entire investigation regardless of what it uncovers. That would be quite a cavalier and foolish thing to do.
> 
> So that was not said explicitly and directly in court filings, despite BM's earnest wish and declaration that it was.


Nah man he's holding it back so he can REALLY nail the bad orange man. It's 4D chess ffs tired of these simpletons who don't get it. 

Got your PM btw, hope I'm here on time. (Y)


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> So Mueller is now contradicting his own court filings via statements released generally to the public and specifically to the Washington Post :hmmm
> 
> If it was Cohen's testimony that the president had explicitly and directly ordered him to lie, there would be little reason not to directly and explicitly say that in court filings. It would border on unethical and dishonest to do otherwise. Law enforcement can lie to suspects during interrogation as a means to trapping said suspect, or bluffing them into a confession, or into inadvertently revealing incriminating information, or for any number of reasons. It cannot lie to the court. Although, of course, lying to the court happens all the time in every court in the land by both sides of any case, criminal or civil. Mueller lying to the court in this circumstance could jeopardize the entire investigation regardless of what it uncovers. That would be quite a cavalier and foolish thing to do. If Mueller did not wish to tip his hand, well, judges have shown much willingness to seal records, including indictments, and the records of proceedings re: MUH RUSSIA, so why would Mueller not request the records be sealed here, if he wished to not tip his hand?
> 
> So that was not said explicitly and directly in court filings, despite BM's earnest wish and declaration that it was.


AGAIN Mueller is talking about the characterization being inaccurate, he never said the content is untrue. That is a huge difference. He did it because the buzzfeed article implied the leak came from the SC.

If Mueller was going to say Trump did not tell Cohen to lie to Congress, he would have came out and said that but he didn't.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Nah man he's holding it back so he can REALLY nail the bad orange man. It's 4D chess ffs tired of these simpletons who don't get it.
> 
> Got your PM btw, hope I'm here on time. (Y)


Now now I don't want to tease like that. Let's get back to joking about nukeyoular war. 

This is your brain:










This is your brain on Muh Russia:


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> AGAIN Mueller is talking about the characterization being inaccurate, he never said the content is untrue. That is a huge difference. He did it because the buzzfeed article implied the leak came from the SC.


"Buzzfeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterisation of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate."

If specific statements are inaccurate, and the characterisation of 'documents and testimony' is inaccurate (aka Cohen's testimony) then surely means that the accuracy of the entirety of the report is pretty much inaccurate since it is based upon falsehoods. You can't just say that he did it because 'the buzzfeed article implied the leak came from the SC' (Buzzfeed said its report was based on testimony from two unnamed law enforcement officials) 

Where is your evidence for that assertion? 



birthday_massacre said:


> If Mueller was going to say Trump did not tell Cohen to lie to Congress, he would have came out and said that but he didn't.


By your own logic would he not have said that the SC did not leak anything, if that's all he wanted to say?

Please don't defend this article, it does not reflect well. It looks like you want to believe it because it supports your views, rather than actually looking at the evidence before you and assessing whether or not it's convincing (Hint: it's not)


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> "Buzzfeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterisation of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate."
> 
> If specific statements are inaccurate, and the characterisation of 'documents and testimony' is inaccurate (aka Cohen's testimony) then surely means that the accuracy of the entirety of the report is pretty much inaccurate since it is based upon falsehoods. You can't just say that he did it because 'the buzzfeed article implied the leak came from the SC' (Buzzfeed said its report was based on testimony from two unnamed law enforcement officials)
> 
> Where is your evidence for that assertion?
> 
> 
> By your own logic would he not have said that the SC did not leak anything, if that's all he wanted to say?
> 
> Please don't defend this article, it does not reflect well. It looks like you want to believe it because it supports your views, rather than actually looking at the evidence before you and assessing whether or not it's convincing (Hint: it's not)


No it does not mean the whole thing is not accurate, if that were true he would have came out and said that but he did not. Its just weird you are not reading exactly what he said.

And the BuzzFeed article backs up what I posted earlier in Mueller's filings back in Nov. Its funny you keep denying it.
It says in black and white that Cohen was taking Trump's directive to lie.


But sure ignore the facts of Muellers own fillings

the article supports the facts.

And AGAIN its funny how whenever the WH was asked if they deny Buzzfees article that Trump directed Cohen to lie they wouldn't say its not true, they just dodged the question.

So tell me are you going to deny Muellers filing from Nov that claims Trump directed Cohen to lie?


----------



## CamillePunk

WHITE MAGA-HAT WEARING HIGH SCHOOLERS TAUNT GROWN BLACK MAN, CALL FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST HIM


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086774794081763328


----------



## deepelemblues

Is that the same cashbently who got shot live on instagram :lol

im guessing no


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> No it does not mean the whole thing is not accurate, if that were true he would have came out and said that but he did not. Its just weird you are not reading exactly what he said.
> 
> And the BuzzFeed article backs up what I posted earlier in Mueller's filings back in Nov. Its funny you keep denying it.
> It says in black and white that Cohen was taking Trump's directive to lie.
> 
> 
> But sure ignore the facts of Muellers own fillings
> 
> the article supports the facts.
> 
> And AGAIN its funny how whenever the WH was asked if they deny Buzzfees article that Trump directed Cohen to lie they wouldn't say its not true, they just dodged the question.
> 
> So tell me are you going to deny Muellers filing from Nov that claims Trump directed Cohen to lie?


1. Firstly they are not facts, they are just things the Cohen said - a known liar, and somebody who gains from shifting the blame away from himself. Why would anybody in their right mind trust a single word he says?

2. You see what you want to see. It certainly does not specifically say that Trump directed Cohen to lie. (He may have done.) Rather it could mean that Cohen acted to benefit Trump as he had been directed to, but in the 'heat of battle' crossed legal lines. It seems very possible considering the Press did not run with it, as you would expect them to...

3. It's an ongoing investigation so it probably isn't appropriate for them to comment on it. Seems that they have generally described the article as fake news though, the implication being that the allegations therein are not true.

4. By coming out and calling the report 'inaccurate' in any sense, it totally discredits it - he didn't have to, yet he did. That should tell you something. If you think it's because he wanted to clear up that the SC did not leak anything, then by your own logic, why did he not specifically say this?

5. Buzzfeed is not a reliable news source full stop. It's basically the left equivalent of Breitbart (it's that bad)


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> WHITE MAGA-HAT WEARING HIGH SCHOOLERS TAUNT GROWN BLACK MAN, CALL FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST HIM
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086774794081763328


ugh i hate social media sometimes. everyone wants to go viral. 

honestly no news outlets should run this story or shed light on this instagram post. by covering it you are giving it more attention than it deserves. in real life when people behave like this we ignore them, but on social media for some reason we can't stop giving them attention. 

there is no narrative to take away from this story. trump supporters aren't under attack, the world is not at odds. this is just one instance of a random asshole kid acting like a bully. it is not worth a dissection or a debate. the news and media spheres need to stop sharing it and stop talking about it.

the bully will get his in one way or another, no need to stress over it. those two kids handled it well. no one was hurt.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://ccky.org/2019/01/statement-on-the-actions-of-covington-catholic-high-school-students/



> *Statement on the actions of Covington Catholic High School students*
> 
> 19 Jan
> 
> The Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School have issued the following statement:
> 
> We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general, Jan. 18, after the March for Life, in Washington, D.C. We extend our deepest apologies to Mr. Phillips. This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person.
> 
> The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.
> 
> We know this incident also has tainted the entire witness of the March for Life and express our most sincere apologies to all those who attended the March and all those who support the pro-life movement.


----------



## Pratchett

birthday_massacre said:


> Watching that is like watching a creationist video trying to "debunk" evolution. I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes
> 
> You can ignore all the evidence you want about Trump Russia, it just makes you look bad, just like creationists trying to deny evolution.


I knew you couldn't do it.

Very telling though, that you referenced Creationists arguing against Evolution.

Takes a lot of faith to believe in something without any proof. :mj


----------



## Deathstroke

Pratchett said:


> I knew you couldn't do it.
> 
> Very telling though, that you referenced Creationists arguing against Evolution.
> 
> Takes a lot of faith to believe in something without any proof. :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre

Pratchett said:


> I knew you couldn't do it.
> 
> Very telling though, that you referenced Creationists arguing against Evolution.
> 
> Takes a lot of faith to believe in something without any proof. :mj


Lol at ignoring the proof just like a typical creationist.


----------



## Vic Capri

> ugh i hate social media sometimes. everyone wants to go viral.


Its the media narrative that all Trump supporters are evil people. I see a lot of demonizing stories mainly on Twitter.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> Its the media narrative that all Trump supporters are evil people. I see a lot of demonizing stories mainly on Twitter.
> 
> - Vic


Well get off Twitter. Thats were most of the sewage is


----------



## Vic Capri

I can't. I get my daily information and jokes from the remaining conservative folks on there.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086745882760962048
Doesn't seem like Trump is going to use his emergency powers to me, but it's also hard to see him caving without a really good excuse. Makes me think this shutdown is going to drag on until something bad happens that both sides can blame the other for because they refused to negotiate the way each side wanted, and that'll provide Trump the cover to back down. Hope I'm wrong.


----------



## deepelemblues

Non-leadership House Democrats have shown more signs of caving than anyone else, making public statements about compromise etc. I think that's what will happen in the end, enough of them will abandon Pelosi to pass a compromise with Republican support that the Senate will also pass and the president will sign. Republicans only need 19 House Democrats to cave, there are at least two dozen who won in Republican-leaning districts last November that are feeling some heat.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The majority of the country doesn’t want the wall


----------



## deepelemblues

I wonder what :trump will give Master Vladster to calm him down cus he seems pretty unhappy over *Space Force!
*
https://www.rt.com/news/449153-russia-warns-usa-missile-defense/


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> Another day, another fake scandal for the left.
> 
> A bunch of MAGA-hat wearing high school kids are in DC for the March for Life, and they're chanting their school spirit songs and a Native American vet with a drum walks up to them and starts banging it in their face and chanting his own song. They smile and laugh and keep chanting their song. Media portrays it as a mob of MAGAs maliciously bullying a Native American veteran.  Soooo raaaaaaaaaaaaycisssssssssss!
> 
> Then we get a teary eyed video of the guy talking about how this is "indigenous land" and they (and by they I mean not this guy, because he wasn't alive then) never used to have walls or prisons. :lol Yeah, but y'all did have slavery and child sacrifice so maybe settle the fuck down with that moral high ground. :lol Probably could've used some prisons back then. :mj
> 
> To remain morally consistent in their outrage, all non-Native Americans praising this guy should go back to their countries of origin so as to not stain this "indigenous land" with their presence. The rest of us will stay right where we are because whitewashing the history of indigenous people and believing in inherited or collective guilt is unreasonable.
> 
> And now journalists are doxxing these kids and they're being harassed. Sigh, the world is insane.


Defending your bigot friends is not the hill you want to die on. 



> Taitano said the whole incident started when the teens and four young African-Americans, who'd been preaching about the Bible nearby, started yelling and calling each other names.
> 
> It got pretty intense, Taitano said, so Nathan Phillips, an elder with the Omaha tribe, started playing his drum and chanting what she was told was a healing prayer, to help defuse the situation.
> 
> Phillips walked through the crowd, and Taitano said things were starting to calm down until he got to the grinning boy seen in the video.
> "This one kid just refused to move and he just got in Nathan's face," she said.
> 
> Other boys circled around, she said. "They just surrounded him and they were mocking him and mocking the chant. We really didn't know what was going to happen there."


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/19/us/teens-mock-native-elder-trnd/index.html


----------



## Smark Sheet

Folks, let's try to remember CNN is fake news, and not lower ourselves to presenting them as a credible news source.

A much longer video of the event is on YouTube (well, it's been on YouTube, but it keeps getting pulled for some strange reason . . .):






Here's evidence that the drum-banging weirdo went to the students, and not vice versa:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086681831804674048
Given honest descriptions of the event, it strongly appears the (alleged) Native American drummer was the aggressive instigator. Evidence suggests he came to them, they didn't come to him. We also now know that he's been involved in these types of situations before, showing a pattern of repeat behavior.

At around the 1:45 mark you'll see a dark-skinned man, presumably with the drum banger, repeatedly hurl racial abuse at the underage students. This is a fully-grown man attacking innocent children, remember.

At around 4:30, the camera moves on to a small group of black men promoting all sorts of bigotry, most notably homophobia. Interestingly, the pro-Trump students boo the homophobia, with one of them shouting out "they're still humans!" to the homophobic extremist's dehumanizing language.

None of this will ever see the light of day on CNN, MSNBC, or any of the big 3 network's national news broadcasts. The majority of people will remain with the ignorant belief that the students were the instigators, and that they were being abusive. The video proves this is not the case. The students were the good guys. They should be applauded for their behavior.


----------



## deepelemblues

This conversation is now eminently no longer worth having. For an obvious reason. Time to move on.

Here's something, Planned Parenthood just took a big L to the face in the 5th Circuit in a ruling that is going to have major implications for state efforts to deny Medicaid funds being used to pay PP. PP's main line of attack against Texas' pulling of Medicaid funding is that the videos revealing PP selling the organs of aborted babies were "deceptively edited" - the Court has rejected that claim.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D8GgSTArPinJ6SH8ITRgjkYqNq6V1QB1/view



> In fact, the record reflects that OIG had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited. And the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage. Moreover, the district court also suggested that there was no evidence that any of PPGC’s research was federally funded, so the regulations relied on by OIG might be inapplicable. But the record actually establishes that the UTMB study was funded by the National Institute of Health.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph..._term=.4c6c381b3bf4&__twitter_impression=true


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Vic Capri said:


> Its the media narrative that all Trump supporters are evil people. I see a lot of demonizing stories mainly on Twitter.
> 
> - Vic


left media will not even give this story the light of day of course, but right media will. i know there's less right media and they feel the need to clear the air but if they're resorting to the same tactics then they're no better.

social media is partly responsible for things happening like this. if the bully never had that outlet he probably wouldn't have done anything in the first place. this was all for show. that's why he made sure you saw his face at the end. he wants to get famous off this. he thinks this will get him over.

the deprived people of the world have an audience now, and the mainstream outlets want to make it worse.


----------



## Vic Capri

Leslie Jones is now blaming Trump for the Ghostbuster reboot being ignored. :lol

- Vic


----------



## SophieM

Nooooo I can't believe he is still President! I am travelling Mexico right now and they hate him here!!! Sophie xx


----------



## Draykorinee

SophieM said:


> Nooooo I can't believe he is still President! I am travelling Mexico right now and they hate him here!!! Sophie xx


 Someone else signing off with their name.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/ky-catholic-teens-maga-taunts-native-american/?fbclid=IwAR3qWtTdMEbWU9HoIo0kKneOIYnHEsB2-KBXMpsgXog9EkgW365GDjZPbFM

The kid from the video's mom wrote an email



> In an email to this reporter, the mother of the student right up in Phillips’ face said the story was “fake news.” She claimed that Phillips, who she referred as a “this man,” in quotation marks, was drumming close to the teen’s face. But her biggest gripe, besides saying this reporter was promoting hate, was that she alleged the students were themselves harassed. By “black Muslims.”
> 
> “Shame on you! Were you there? Did you hear the names the people where calling these boys? It was shameful. Did you witness the black Muslims yelling profanities and video taping trying to get something to futher (sic) your narrative of hatred?? Did you know that this “man” came up to this one boy and drummed in his face? Shame on you. Only reporting what you want. More fake news.”
> 
> When this reporter thanked her for the correspondence and explained that it would be reported on as part of the story, she demanded the emails be deleted.
> 
> “Delete my email. I want nothing to do with helping perpetuating (sic) your hate. I do not want to be a part of your story. You are ruining a boys life for fake news. Hate spreads like wildfire. I pray for you.”
> 
> When asked about her son’s actions in the video, she did not respond.


I think they were actually black Israelites, not Muslims.


----------



## SophieM

Draykorinee said:


> Someone else signing off with their name.


Hi sorry what does this mean? xx


----------



## Crasp

Draykorinee said:


> Someone else signing off with their name.


They also appear to be an aspiring anime fan and Hayley420 impersonater.


-Crasp


----------



## Smark Sheet

SophieM said:


> Hi sorry what does this mean? xx


It means you've been exposed as a fraud.


----------



## SophieM

Smark Sheet said:


> It means you've been exposed as a fraud.


That makes no sense, I am wanting to ask about wrestling to vibe with my dad but I have to get to 10 posts before I can even ask the questions!


----------



## Smark Sheet

More about the drum-banger, Nathan Phillips, is being revealed:










Surprise, surprise: he's a far-left activist who's anti-Trump.

It's becoming more and more clear that this whole situation was a setup, and the desperate media and their gullible viewers, desperate to vilify anything even remotely Trump-related, swallowed it whole.

Are the liberals on here starting to realize just how dishonest the media is? This story, BuzzFeed, Russian collusion . . . the list is almost endless. It's all lies. It's all designed to manipulate you. Why are you letting them succeed? Why are you allowing yourself to be a brainless puppet?


----------



## Reaper

I dunno what leftists you guys follow, but the ones I follow don't think this guy's a hero. And the left I follow doesn't believe in RussiaGate. I don't think you follow leftists. I think you guys follow right wingers who provoke your outrage about the left. 

Good thread on all the Russiagate falsehoods compiled on one page by a leftist. 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1086424261709881344.html


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smark Sheet said:


> More about the drum-banger, Nathan Phillips, is being revealed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surprise, surprise: he's a far-left activist who's anti-Trump.
> 
> It's becoming more and more clear that this whole situation was a setup, and the desperate media and their gullible viewers, desperate to vilify anything even remotely Trump-related, swallowed it whole.
> 
> Are the liberals on here starting to realize just how dishonest the media is? This story, BuzzFeed, Russian collusion . . . the list is almost endless. It's all lies. It's all designed to manipulate you. Why are you letting them succeed? Why are you allowing yourself to be a brainless puppet?


You do know no one lies more than Trump right"? You want to talk about gullible, look no further than his supporters. Especially the ones still supporting him.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/ky-catholic-teens-maga-taunts-native-american/?fbclid=IwAR3qWtTdMEbWU9HoIo0kKneOIYnHEsB2-KBXMpsgXog9EkgW365GDjZPbFM
> 
> The kid from the video's mom wrote an email
> 
> 
> 
> I think they were actually black Israelites, not Muslims.


The kid's mom explains a lot. 

Poor kid. 

I feel sorry for him. 

Clearly being indoctrinated.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> I dunno what leftists you guys follow, but the ones I follow don't think this guy's a hero. And the left I follow doesn't believe in RussiaGate. I don't think you follow leftists. I think you guys follow right wingers who provoke your outrage about the left.
> 
> Good thread on all the Russiagate falsehoods compiled on one page by a leftist.
> 
> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1086424261709881344.html


Well to be fair to him we have people here who say they're Left and believe everything RussiaGate. Just like they're YouTubers/MSM talking heads and Professors who say they're Left and promote everything RussiaGate. 

:draper2


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Well to be fair to him we have people here who say they're Left and believe everything RussiaGate. Just like they're YouTubers/MSM talking heads and Professors who say they're Left and promote everything RussiaGate.
> 
> :draper2


That is exactly my point. What is the "left" and why is it assumed that it has a unified view when clearly disagreement exists. Why does "the right" here demand that they get credit for the disagreement within their circle, but then ignore that standard when it comes to applying to themselves?

Instead of these people saying "the left", it might actually help them more to go and observe the other side on their own. 

For all the hate I get for my switch from right to left, in the end it has helped me gain a stronger/deeper perspective on reality as it is instead of as someone wants me to believe it is. 

This creation of the enemy that is "the left" is as much an indoctrination tool/propaganda tool within certain right wing circles. 

Of course, it's also click-bait. So many different things it is, but it's never talking about the "real" "left" or "real" "right". It's always only talking about the small fringe minority.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Well to be fair to him we have people here who say they're Left and believe everything RussiaGate. Just like they're YouTubers/MSM talking heads and Professors who say they're Left and promote everything RussiaGate.
> 
> :draper2


Because the russia stuff is true.


----------



## deepelemblues

I wonder if Headliner wishes to die on the hill of defending his bigoted friends who hurled racial slurs at a bunch of white teenagers :lol


----------



## virus21

> When a BuzzFeed reporter first sought comment on the news outlet’s explosive report that President Trump had directed his lawyer to lie to Congress, the spokesman for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III treated the request as he would almost any other story.
> 
> The reporter informed Mueller’s spokesman, Peter Carr, that he and a colleague had “a story coming stating that Michael Cohen was directed by President Trump himself to lie to Congress about his negotiations related to the Trump Moscow project,” according to copies of their emails provided by a BuzzFeed spokesman. Importantly, the reporter made no reference to the special counsel’s office specifically or evidence that Mueller’s investigators had uncovered.
> 
> “We’ll decline to comment,” Carr responded, a familiar refrain for those in the media who cover Mueller’s work.
> 
> The innocuous exchange belied the chaos it would produce. When BuzzFeed published the story hours later, it far exceeded Carr’s initial impression, people familiar with the matter said, in that the reporting alleged that Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and self-described fixer, “told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie,” and that Mueller’s office learned of the directive “through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.”
> 
> [BuzzFeed’s stumble is highest-profile misstep at a time when press is under greatest scrutiny]
> 
> In the view of the special counsel’s office, that was wrong, two people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. And with Democrats raising the specter of investigation and impeachment, Mueller’s team started discussing a step they had never before taken: publicly disputing reporting on evidence in their ongoing investigation.
> 
> The office of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III rarely issues public statements about reporting, but denied the accuracy of a story from BuzzFeed on Friday. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
> 
> Within 24 hours of the story’s publication, the special counsel’s office issued a statement doing just that. Trump, who has called the media the “enemy of the people,” on Saturday pointed to the special counsel’s assertion as evidence of what he sees as journalists’ bias against him.
> 
> “I think that the BuzzFeed piece was a disgrace to our country. It was a disgrace to journalism, and I think also that the coverage by the mainstream media was disgraceful, and I think it’s going to take a long time for the mainstream media to recover its credibility,” Trump said Saturday. “It’s lost tremendous credibility. And believe me, that hurts me when I see that.”
> 
> BuzzFeed has stood by its reporting.
> 
> “As we’ve reconfirmed our reporting, we’ve seen no indication that any specific aspect of our story is inaccurate. We remain confident in what we’ve reported, and will share more as we are able,” Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for the news outlet, said Saturday.
> 
> People familiar with the matter said Carr told others in the government that he would have more vigorously discouraged the reporters from proceeding with the story had he known it would allege Cohen had told the special counsel Trump directed him to lie — or that the special counsel was said to have learned this through interviews with Trump Organization witnesses, as well as internal company emails and text messages.
> Trump thanks Mueller for BuzzFeed statement
> 
> President Trump said he was grateful to Robert S. Mueller III for a statement disputing a report that Trump directed his former lawyer to lie to Congress. (Reuters)
> 
> Carr declined to comment for this story beyond the special counsel’s office statement issued Friday.
> 
> After Carr declined to comment to BuzzFeed, but before the story was published, he sent reporter Jason Leopold a partial transcript of Cohen’s plea hearing, in which Cohen admitted lying to Congress about the timing of discussions related to a possible Trump Tower project in Moscow, according to the emails BuzzFeed’s spokesman provided. Cohen had claimed falsely that the company’s effort to build the tower ended in January 2016, when in fact discussions continued through June of that year, as Trump was clinching the Republican nomination for president.
> 
> “I made these misstatements to be consistent with Individual 1’s political messaging and out of loyalty to Individual 1,” Cohen said at his plea hearing late last year, using the term “Individual 1” to refer to Trump.
> 
> Carr, people familiar with the matter said, hoped Leopold would notice that Cohen had not said during the hearing that Trump had explicitly directed him to lie. But Leopold, who co-authored the story with reporter Anthony Cormier, told the spokesman he was not taking any signals, and Carr acknowledged the point.
> 
> “I am not reading into what you sent and have interpreted it as an FYI,” Leopold wrote.
> 
> “Correct, just an FYI,” Carr responded.
> 
> A person inside the Trump Organization said a BuzzFeed reporter also talked with a lawyer for the organization hours before the story posted and was warned that the story was flawed and should be scrutinized further. Mittenthal said, “We trust our sources over the organization still run by Donald Trump’s family. That organization is directly implicated in the allegations related to the Trump Tower Moscow project, and refused to speak on the record for our story.”
> 
> The language Cohen and his representatives used in court had been ambiguous. Cohen had pleaded guilty in two cases — one for lying to Congress about the Moscow project, and another involving campaign finance violations for hush-money payments to women who had alleged affairs with Trump.
> 
> While neither Cohen nor his representatives had ever said explicitly that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, Guy Petrillo, Cohen’s attorney, wrote in a memo in advance of his sentencing, “We address the campaign finance and false statements allegations together because both arose from Michael’s fierce loyalty to Client-1. In each case, the conduct was intended to benefit Client-1, in accordance with Client-1’s directives.”
> 
> Client-1 refers to Trump. Petrillo declined to comment Saturday. It is unclear precisely what “directives” Petrillo was referring to, though he did not allege elsewhere in the memo that Trump explicitly instructed Cohen to lie to Congress. He wrote that Cohen was “in close and regular contact with White House-based staff and legal counsel to Client-1” as he prepared his testimony and “specifically knew . . . that Client-1 and his public spokespersons were seeking to portray contact with Russian representatives in any form by Client-1, the Campaign or the Trump Organization as having effectively terminated before the Iowa caucuses of February 1, 2016.”
> 
> People familiar with the matter said after BuzzFeed published its story — which was attributed to “two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter” — the special counsel’s office reviewed evidence to determine if there were any documents or witness interviews like those described, reaching out to those they thought might have a stake in the case.
> 
> They found none, these people said. That, the people said, is in part why it took Mueller’s office nearly a day to dispute the story publicly. In the interim, cable news outlets and other media organizations, including The Washington Post, dissected its possible implications — even as their reporters were unable to independently confirm it.
> 
> Told of the special counsel’s failure to find support for the story, Mittenthal, the BuzzFeed spokesman, said, “Our high-level law enforcement sources, who have helped corroborate months of accurate reporting on the Trump Tower Moscow deal and its aftermath, have told us otherwise. We look forward to further clarification from the Special Counsel in the near future.”
> 
> Two people familiar with the matter said lawyers at the special counsel’s office discussed the statement internally, rather than conferring with Justice Department leaders, for much of the day. In the advanced stages of those talks, the deputy attorney general’s office called to inquire if the special counsel planned any kind of response, and was informed a statement was being prepared, the people said.
> 
> Around 7:30 p.m. Friday, Carr distributed it to numerous media outlets via email.
> 
> “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate,” he wrote.
> 
> People familiar with the matter said the special counsel’s office meant the statement to be a denial of the central theses of the BuzzFeed story — particularly those that referenced what Cohen had told the special counsel, and what evidence the special counsel had gathered.
> 
> BuzzFeed, though, asserted that the language was not specific about what was being contested.
> 
> “We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he’s disputing,” BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith said in response to the special counsel's statement.
> 
> Cohen has not addressed BuzzFeed’s reporting, and BuzzFeed has made clear he was not a source for its story. Lanny J. Davis, a legal and communications adviser to Cohen, said before the special counsel statement was issued, “Out of respect for Mr. Mueller’s and the Office of Special Counsel’s investigation, Mr. Cohen declined to respond to the questions asked by the reporters and so do I.” He declined to address it after the special counsel’s office released the statement.
> 
> Cohen declined to comment Saturday.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-the-mueller-teams-decision-to-dispute-buzzfeeds-explosive-story-on-trump-and-cohen/2019/01/19/d89dba5b-fa0f-445b-9fd3-72f0e911e28d_story.html?utm_term=.818ddad4f8b4
What mess. I think Buzzfeed may have shot themselves in the foot.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

deepelemblues said:


> I wonder if Headliner wishes to die on the hill of defending his bigoted friends who hurled racial slurs at a bunch of white teenagers :lol


they said terrible things to the black kid too. things that if a white person said they would be drawn and quartered.

also random point but you notice how some black people regularly use the word n***a even when describing _white_ people? look at that IG post of the bully harassing the two white kids in trump hats, dude said it so casually.

maybe if you don't want white people to use a word, you shouldn't call them that word? just a thought?


----------



## Smark Sheet

We're well past the point of BuzzFeed deserving the InfoWars treatment. They should be blacklisted all across the Internet, and anyone promoting them should be banned on sight. The same for Shaun King, who's repeatedly slandered and libeled innocent people.


----------



## Dr. Middy

The kid if obviously getting way more hate that he should be. You have tens of thousands of people who are shitting on him, wanting to punch him in the face, fucking comparing him to nazis, its absurd as fucking ridiculous. Is he an angel? No, I'm still willing to bet he's probably a smug prick like his friends, but he doesn't deserve all of the shit he's gotten, nor does the school he went to. Apparently the guy banging on the drum was part of the Black Israelites, who are well known to be utter shitheads pretty much, so there's zero reason to defend him here to me. 

All this was is another situation where everybody blows it completely out of proportion, takes bits and pieces of it, and forms some sort of narrative they can use to back their own beliefs to make themselves feel better about the little echo chambers they want to sit in. Nobody cares about the actual truth behind any story anymore, as long as it aid in whatever they choose to believe in, they'll take it and run with it. Everybody just wants to sit on their side and throw tantrums about those on the other side, while making zero attempts to have any critical thought. 

Fuck this shit.


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087001686508482561





(black Israelites saying racist and homophobic and generally derogatory things towards the students who were not doing anything and Mr. Phillips trying to provoke them begins at about 1 hour 8 minutes)

It's a shame that a bunch of teenagers are being railroaded with the intent being to ruin their lives by a bunch of race hustlers and outright racists, for the greater good of narrative-building

narrative that kids sought out and surrounded mr. phillips and his racist friends - false
narrative that kids blocked mr. phillips and his racist friends from leaving - false
narrative that kids surrounded and harassed black activists - false and false, there was no surrounding, and the black activists were harassing them
narrative that kids were yelling "build the wall" - which, even if they were, so what? - false


----------



## Draykorinee

SophieM said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else signing off with their name.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi sorry what does this mean? xx
Click to expand...

The only other person who puts their name in posts is Vic, and he's just a comedy poster that's all.


----------



## Miss Sally

Everyone's favorite fake black man Shaun King is back to race baiting on these kids.

Might be good for him since he got called out for threatening to sue black female bloggers.


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> The only other person who puts their name in posts is Vic, and he's just a comedy poster that's all.


You know what this means don't you :cudi

- derb


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Dr. Middy said:


> The kid if obviously getting way more hate that he should be. You have tens of thousands of people who are shitting on him, wanting to punch him in the face, fucking comparing him to nazis, its absurd as fucking ridiculous. Is he an angel? No, I'm still willing to bet he's probably a smug prick like his friends, but he doesn't deserve all of the shit he's gotten, nor does the school he went to. Apparently the guy banging on the drum was part of the Black Israelites, who are well known to be utter shitheads pretty much, so there's zero reason to defend him here to me.
> 
> All this was is another situation where everybody blows it completely out of proportion, takes bits and pieces of it, and forms some sort of narrative they can use to back their own beliefs to make themselves feel better about the little echo chambers they want to sit in. Nobody cares about the actual truth behind any story anymore, as long as it aid in whatever they choose to believe in, they'll take it and run with it. Everybody just wants to sit on their side and throw tantrums about those on the other side, while making zero attempts to have any critical thought.
> 
> Fuck this shit.


a white person wearing a trump hat was involved in an altercation with a non-white person. that's all the information they need when determining who the perpetrator is and who the victim is. facts be damned.


----------



## Miss Sally

Anyone mind filling me in on what supposedly the kid did wrong?

Is he smug? Sure, but considering someone is trying to taunt him and coax a reaction and he seemingly stands there doing nothing, what is his crime?

He was approached, he didn't approach the drummer. 

Don't we teach our kids simply to ignore people who'd taunt us? Seems like he kept his cool when most people would have got upset at their personal space being invaded.


----------



## Robbyfude

Funny thing is, Black Israelites are racist towards everyone. I work around the corner where there's always a few preaching about fake jews and stuff, and i routinely see them calling black people ***** and saying shit to everyone. It's a surprise no one has tried to punch these fools in the face or anything. It's funny to see Twitter defending them.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Robbyfude said:


> Funny thing is, Black Israelites are racist towards everyone. I work around the corner where there's always a few preaching about fake jews and stuff, and i routinely see them calling black people ***** and saying shit to everyone. It's a surprise no one has tried to punch these fools in the face or anything. It's funny to see Twitter defending them.


Black Israelites hate pretty much anyone that isn't a black Israelite.


----------



## CamillePunk

yeah the MAGA kids did nothing wrong. the braves chant that SOME of them did was a bit douchey but eh, you bang a drum in someone's face and interrupt their group you should expect some backlash. 

the kid getting all the hate did absolutely nothing wrong at any stage. he's literally getting abuse for being white and smiling.

for that he gets doxed and threatened and villainized. I'm just swimming in all of this white privilege.

meanwhile nobody talks about the black ADULTS throwing homophobic slurs around. :lol is anyone even remotely surprised?

https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video


----------



## deepelemblues

There's some dumb bitch I used to know who is on Facebook insisting that the poor Black Hebrew Israelites were in danger from the racist mob of white teenagers and Nathan Phillips was heroically defending them :lol

I posted the whole video and she still insists that the guys who spent an hour saying racist homophobic shit then started saying it specifically to a bunch of white teenagers were doing nothing and were in danger :lol

This is the mentality of the racist left


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm enraged for this kids, they may be dicks I don't know, but this video has been used to go after them, I'm on a few left wing progressive sites and they don't give a fuck. 

Expel them, fire their parents, doxxing etc.

They did nothing wrong that I can see except be a bit smug. If that is a massive issue then I'm fucked.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

the fact that the indian man blatantly lied in his account should already be enough to bring the whole story into question, but no one on that side of the debate seems interested. to them those boys are still guilty no matter what.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087020654422052864
whenever people say "don't @ me"... or "don't give me well actually"... what they're really trying to say is "please don't fact check my emotional outburst and let me irrationally vent about nonsense".


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> yeah the MAGA kids did nothing wrong. the braves chant that SOME of them did was a bit douchey but eh, you bang a drum in someone's face and interrupt their group you should expect some backlash.
> 
> the kid getting all the hate did absolutely nothing wrong at any stage. he's literally getting abuse for being white and smiling.
> 
> for that he gets doxed and threatened and villainized. I'm just swimming in all of this white privilege.
> 
> meanwhile nobody talks about the black ADULTS throwing homophobic slurs around. :lol is anyone even remotely surprised?
> 
> https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video





> This moment received the most media coverage: The teen has been called the product of a "*hate factory*" and likened to a school shooter, segregation-era racist, and member of the Klu Klux Klan. I have no idea what he was thinking, but portraying this as an example of obvious, racially-motivated hate is a stretch.


My god. HATE FACTORY!!!!

Delete all twitter, all everything.


----------



## virus21

Jimmy weighs in on the Buzzfeed crap


----------



## CamillePunk

Between the BuzzFeed story and the fake controversy yesterday, can anyone really disagree that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people? :draper2 They want you to believe the president is a Russian puppet. They want you to believe there's a white supremacist uprising. They jump to any conclusion that supports these world views whenever possible.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

CamillePunk said:


> Between the BuzzFeed story and the fake controversy yesterday, can anyone really disagree that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people? :draper2 They want you to believe the president is a Russian puppet. They want you to believe there's a white supremacist uprising. They jump to any conclusion that supports these world views whenever possible.


It's actually worse than that because they deliberately edit videos to portray that this is the case - it's actually disgusting.

The problem is, what can be done? 

They probably deserve to be shut down, but that won't happen because even criticism is deemed 'an attack on freedom of the press' - but that freedom shouldn't extend to being able to report things which are blatantly false or to manipulate people into believing conspiracy theories against the president (As Fox News did in 2008- and the 'Liberal media' is doing now with Russia gate.)

Social Media is a huge problem too because often the headline is just misleading but people are too lazy to even read the article, nevermind to do their own research.

I find it very depressing really as there doesn't seem to be any kind of solution, the partisan hacks don't seem to care (even when they are being lied to) and people are becoming more and more divided.


----------



## FriedTofu

Obviously the kid is a false flag crisis actor by the deep state and not just a kid doing silly stuff to impress his peers. Leftist and rightist horseshoe blah blah blah :lol

And why are people getting mad at a kid being smug to a protester when they are mostly very same people that applaud the right to protest in America?


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Between the BuzzFeed story and the fake controversy yesterday, can anyone really disagree that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people? :draper2 They want you to believe the president is a Russian puppet. They want you to believe there's a white supremacist uprising. They jump to any conclusion that supports these world views whenever possible.


 Trump is Putin‘s puppet Love how you keep ignoring Muellers filings showing Trump told Collin to lie


----------



## Buttermaker

The fact that the Kids parent associated the protesting Elder to “black Muslim’s” should be worrisome enough. There is no point in pretending that prejudice pricks don’t exist in this world.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> Obviously the kid is a false flag crisis actor by the deep state and not just a kid doing silly stuff to impress his peers. Leftist and rightist horseshoe blah blah blah :lol
> 
> And why are people getting mad at a kid being smug to a protester when they are mostly very same people that applaud the right to protest in America?


It's heads I win tails you lose, kid has some sneering old fart banging a drum in his face and chanting. Kid's clearly uncomfortable at the start, a common natural reaction to feeling awkward and uncomfortable is to smile. Then the kid gets some equilibrium and his uncomfortable smile turns into a smirk. A natural reaction to symbolize superiority to someone being an asshole. People do the equivalent when reacting to trolls on the internet all the time. 

Meanwhile you got sneering old fart's friend screaming racial slurs and the Black Hebrew Israelites keeping on screaming racist and homophobic slurs and general fighting words as they had been for over an hour. 

It's the classic double standard at work, unequivocally despicable behavior gets ignored while the mild response to it gets exaggerated until it's literally worse than Hitler. 

Nathan Phillips is a piece of shit race baiting liar, there's no way he didn't hear what the Black Hebrew Israelites were saying but he claims he was protecting the innocent BHI cultists from the reprehensible behavior of the teenagers. Phillips has done this before, manufacture an incident then cry racism. He's a professional shit-stirrer.



Buttermaker said:


> The fact that the Kids parent associated the protesting Elder to “black Muslim’s” should be worrisome enough. There is no point in pretending that prejudice pricks don’t exist in this world.


She did no such thing. 



> “Shame on you! Were you there? Did you hear the names the people where calling these boys? It was shameful. Did you witness the black Muslims yelling profanities and video taping trying to get something to futher (sic) your narrative of hatred?? Did you know that this “man” came up to this one boy and drummed in his face? Shame on you. Only reporting what you want. More fake news.”


Nowhere did she associate professional race hustler Nathan Phillips with the BHI cultists.


----------



## 777

Buttermaker said:


> The fact that the Kids parent associated the protesting Elder to “black Muslim’s” should be worrisome enough. There is no point in pretending that prejudice pricks don’t exist in this world.


I think you're missing an essential part of the story man.


----------



## Buttermaker

777 said:


> I think you're missing an essential part of the story man.


Ya, I for sure am. That part just stood out to me, and thought it was worth mentioning. 

It’s a problem within its self right there


----------



## 777

Buttermaker said:


> Ya, I for sure am. That part just stood out to me, and thought it was worth mentioning.
> 
> It’s a problem within its self right there


She didn't do what you're claiming here.


----------



## Buttermaker

777 said:


> She didn't do what you're claiming here.


Well it appeared in an article on Twitter from the Independent UK so I gave it a quick read, and that was the claim.


----------



## 777

Buttermaker said:


> Well it appeared in an article on Twitter from the Independent UK so I gave it a quick read, and that was the claim.


The state of modern journalism is abysmal. The whole thing is a big mess being manipulated on every side to try to push their narratives.


----------



## Buttermaker

My initial statement on arsehole, prejudice pricks existing still stands.


----------



## deepelemblues

Buttermaker said:


> My initial statement on arsehole, prejudice pricks existing still stands.


So you're making that as a general statement, then?


----------



## 777

Buttermaker said:


> My initial statement on arsehole, prejudice pricks existing still stands.


It's funny you say that because all I see out of this story is prejudice from each and every party involved. The kids, the parents, the drummer, the 'black activists/Israelites, the media, the public....


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> It's heads I win tails you lose, kid has some sneering old fart banging a drum in his face and chanting. Kid's clearly uncomfortable at the start, a common natural reaction to feeling awkward and uncomfortable is to smile. Then the kid gets some equilibrium and his uncomfortable smile turns into a smirk. A natural reaction to symbolize superiority to someone being an asshole. People do the equivalent when reacting to trolls on the internet all the time.
> 
> Meanwhile you got sneering old fart's friend screaming racial slurs and the Black Hebrew Israelites keeping on screaming racist and homophobic slurs and general fighting words as they had been for over an hour.
> 
> It's the classic double standard at work, unequivocally despicable behavior gets ignored while the mild response to it gets exaggerated until it's literally worse than Hitler.
> 
> Nathan Phillips is a piece of shit race baiting liar, there's no way he didn't hear what the Black Hebrew Israelites were saying but he claims he was protecting the innocent BHI cultists from the reprehensible behavior of the teenagers. Phillips has done this before, manufacture an incident then cry racism. He's a professional shit-stirrer.
> 
> 
> 
> She did no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere did she associate professional race hustler Nathan Phillips with the BHI cultists.


That' just your conjecture on the kid's thought process.


----------



## Buttermaker

deepelemblues said:


> So you're making that as a general statement, then?


Precisely. It’s a general statement, however not an incorrect general statement.

@777 ; 

You’re entirely correct


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> That' just your conjecture on the kid's thought process.


It's my conclusion based on personally witnessing hundreds of such reactions in my lifetime when someone was abruptly confronted with a person doing something unpleasant that was aimed at them, a foot from their face. At school, at work, at parties, at bars, hanging out at someone's house, at the grocery store, at the gas station... 

As I'm sure you have as well.

The other most common reaction is try to plug the unpleasant person in the schnoz. Seen that plenty of times too.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Buttermaker said:


> Precisely. It’s a general statement, however not an incorrect general statement.
> 
> @777 ;
> 
> You’re entirely correct


uh... yea. racism exists. this is something we already know. the question is to what degree. 

what happened at that march was not worthy of being a national news story. the only reason it's getting this kind of coverage is because MSM wants to push a narrative that racism is tearing us apart and that trump voters are evil. they take every opportunity they can to put that out there. 

in a civilized society with civilized news, this story might have caught the attention of maybe a few hundred thousand people. instead it is being pushed to the entire population. why?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> what happened at that march was not worthy of being a national news story. the only reason it's getting this kind of coverage is because MSM wants to push a narrative that racism is tearing us apart and that trump voters are evil. they take every opportunity they can to put that out there.
> 
> in a civilized society with civilized news, this story might have caught the attention of maybe a few hundred thousand people. instead it is being pushed to the entire population. why?


It will be some other thing by the end of the week / mid week / day. News outlets have realised to keep up with the competition they need clickbait items aplenty. Because they then become addicted as do their readers, more and more they need to scrape the bottom of the barrel to feed more scraps to the chickens. 

It's either play ball in the PC Outrage / or Anti-PC Outrage industry or drown.


----------



## Pratchett

777 said:


> The state of modern journalism is abysmal. The whole thing is a big mess being manipulated on every side to try to *make more money*.


Fixed it for you :mj


"News" as it is reported today has no relevance to disseminating information to the public. It's all about getting those clicks and views and selling as much commercial time as possible. GET THEM RATINGS!!!

Truth and context are irrelevant, and more often than not anymore a hindrance.


----------



## Vic Capri

> The kid if obviously getting way more hate that he should be. You have tens of thousands of people who are shitting on him, wanting to punch him in the face, fucking comparing him to nazis, its absurd as fucking ridiculous. Is he an angel? No, I'm still willing to bet he's probably a smug prick like his friends, but he doesn't deserve all of the shit he's gotten, nor does the school he went to.


Standing in one place and smiling is a crime now according to social justice warriors and the penalty is getting harassed by liberal nutjobs.

Ironically, the kid is being punished for doing the exact thing many of our parents taught us to do when someone gets in your face: Nothing. 

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

From an anthropological/sociological prespective this whole silly contretemps becomes fascinatingly unsilly. The way humans create and use symbols. Mob behavior. Responses to aggression. Lots of good stuff to think about.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> I'm enraged for this kids, they may be dicks I don't know, but this video has been used to go after them, I'm on a few left wing progressive sites and they don't give a fuck.
> 
> Expel them, fire their parents, doxxing etc.
> 
> They did nothing wrong that I can see except be a bit smug. If that is a massive issue then I'm fucked.


This is what confuses me, nobody got violent, nobody really said anything.

The boys didn't go up to anyone and harass them.

The boy stands there while someone invades his personal space with a drum and he just smirks. Isn't that what we tell people/kids? To simply ignore people? To just let them do their thing and don't get pulled into their nonsense?

If the roles were reversed, people would be asking how the Native American man didn't punch the kid being obnoxious to him.

I guess you can approach a group of people, be obnoxious, have someone smirk and dismiss you and you're still somehow the victim. :laugh:

No matter what this kid did he was going to be a target. People aren't interested in the whole story, just being outraged.

The celeb tweets are an embarrassment.fpalm


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087152784384749570
A white guy smiling would be a crime if these people ran the country, with minors tried as adults. :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087152784384749570
> A white guy smiling would be a crime if these people ran the country, with minors tried as adults. :draper2


Weren't these people just mocking Conservatives for their reaction to the Gillette commercial? 

Now they're losing their minds over a kid smirking. :laugh:


Some Producer tweeted about putting those kids into a woodchipper. I didn't think the celeb tweets could get any worse. :serious:

Some frothing at the mouth rage here! https://archive.fo/rzi3z


----------



## birthday_massacre

Two years in office.

8,158 false or misleading claims from Trump.

Trump averaged nearly 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in his first year in office.

He hit nearly 16.5 a day in his second year, almost triple the pace.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Vic Capri said:


> Standing in one place and smiling is a crime now according to social justice warriors and the penalty is getting harassed by liberal nutjobs.
> 
> Ironically, the kid is being punished for doing the exact thing many of our parents taught us to do when someone gets in your face: Nothing.
> 
> - Vic


to sjw's being a white racist is the absolute worst thing you can be. they would rather put more energy into exposing and shunning white racists than they would murderers and rapists. white racists are public enemy #1 to them above all. 

so the sjw's, despite being proven wrong, are still going with the narrative that the boys are racist because they mocked and harassed philips with tomahawk signs. so even though they weren't the aggressors at all, they're still racists and henceforth they deserve everything that they get.

the thing is everyone under the sun, no matter who or what color you are, has made fun or made light of someone different than them. any black person that tells you they never mocked whiteness in any form, be it public or private, is lying to you. if that's all that qualifies someone as an evil racist then that means we are all racists.

being equal means also being the butt of someone else's jokes and mockery. we all have to deal with it. it doesn't become 'more evil' when the target is non-white. notice how there is hours of footage involving the black dudes using every slur under the sun and no one is talking about them, just the white kids.

somehow the evil, angry BLACK racists... have eluded criticism from the sjw's.


----------



## A-C-P

And will still be president in 2021 :trump3


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087389381185409024
Please do click on the tweet and read the whole delightful thread, there's more awesomeness from Amanda Marcotte to behold.

Posted because her Twitter remarks read very familiar...

I think we got someone who was once a tenth-famous posting on WF!


----------



## Draykorinee

A-C-P said:


> And will still be president in 2021 <img src="http://imgur.com/J7fYw8y.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump3" class="inlineimg" />


Due to the establishment Democrat ineptitude not because Trump is any good.


----------



## deepelemblues

One more little tidbit, Nathan Phillips claims he is a Vietnam vet who was a "Marine Recon Ranger."

There has never been a "Marine Recon Ranger." It does not exist. Marine Reconaissance soldiers are not called "Rangers." That's Army Recon.

He was born in 1954, he claims to have done two tours in Vietnam, there is no way he could have gotten through basic training AND training to be a "recon ranger" and still have time to do two tours before American participation in combat ended in 1973

Also: https://www.mediaite.com/online/journalists-and-celebs-rush-to-delete-tweets-slamming-maga-hat-kids/ :ha

It's time to revisit _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan._ The press has abused that ruling from the day it was issued, and the abuse gets worse all the time.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> to sjw's being a white racist is the absolute worst thing you can be. they would rather put more energy into exposing and shunning white racists than they would murderers and rapists. white racists are public enemy #1 to them above all.
> 
> so the sjw's, despite being proven wrong, are still going with the narrative that the boys are racist because they mocked and harassed philips with tomahawk signs. so even though they weren't the aggressors at all, they're still racists and henceforth they deserve everything that they get.
> 
> the thing is everyone under the sun, no matter who or what color you are, has made fun or made light of someone different than them. any black person that tells you they never mocked whiteness in any form, be it public or private, is lying to you. if that's all that qualifies someone as an evil racist then that means we are all racists.
> 
> being equal means also being the butt of someone else's jokes and mockery. we all have to deal with it. it doesn't become 'more evil' when the target is non-white. notice how there is hours of footage involving the black dudes using every slur under the sun and no one is talking about them, just the white kids.
> 
> somehow the evil, angry BLACK racists... have eluded criticism from the sjw's.


So, okay to completely generalise 'SJWs' under one umbrella; not okay for 'them' to generalise all white people as bad. You object to SJWs prejudice against white racists by projecting your prejudice on to them with those OTT statements. Got it.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087483756460605440
Apparently the standard is that women can do anything to men that (other) men joke about doing to women with their friends even if there's no evidence they've actually done that thing in real life. 

Great civilization we got going here. The amount of unique privileges you have for being a woman or for not being white just keep stacking up, yet I'm sure I'll be mocked for pointing out that fact. :lauren

Hey, I'm not crying, my life is fantastic. Just think we should have a civil order built on universal ethics and not exceptions for certain classes of people. :draper2 It'll only build resentment and lead to ugliness, and if you think white dudes are gonna take this shit for much longer you're kidding yourselves. If you think Trump is bad, just keep it up.


----------



## deepelemblues

^Why would that obvious racist homophobic misogynist incel complain about a woman touching him????????????? 

We're at the beginning stages of "you're fair game and we're invincible," the end stage is blood in the streets as that believed invincibility causes violence, gets tested and is found wanting


----------



## yeahbaby!

Probably the first time that guy has been touched anywhere by a woman.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087489083520086016

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086783381277458437
:lol

Just as when I quote figures like, say, Karl Marx or Alain de Benoist, I do not endorse all commentary from the likes of Scott Baio or Tommy Sotomayor, but it is nevertheless amusing to observe certain trends in the American cultural-political sphere. 

Blood in the streets is not the way to go, but it is an undeniably perspicuous reality that going forward the two years or so following the September 11, 2001 attacks is the last time the U.S. empire at home will be largely united. The cultural and demographic changes are sweeping and irrevocable. Polite separation will become the civilized method of dealing with the mess in coming decades. In so many ways the story of America has been a tale of a tautly-calibrated federalist system which strongly mitigated cultural and political gulfs, a sort of governmental variation of what the Catholic Church might call subsidiarity. After the spring of 1865, a century of fundamentally endeavoring to keep the U.S. generally homogeneous was the order, and arguably after the restrictions to immigration in the mid-1920s between 1924 and 1965 the apex of what could be labeled a loosely American "culture" was in myriad forms realized. Since 1965 and with each passing decade since in greater immensity that time period is well in the past, which is why states such as Arizona, Florida and Texas are destined to be deep blue within the next twenty years. We have come a long way since practically every middle class American family was watching _Gunsmoke_.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Oh lord Alyssa, please stop.

I think everyone needs to take a step back, breathe and get off media for a week, go outside instead and make a dessert to take to the neighbors (unless they are wearing a MAGA hat). It's a vortex that sucks you in and makes you believe the sky will fall in when it really won't.

MAGA people are not lynching anyone to my knowledge. They're not burning crosses to my knowledge outside people's homes. The MAGA hat is more stylish than the white hood. 

It's actually a bit ironic that she says this in relation to Trumpeters being so racist like the KKK - because of if they are it shows quite a good progression for racism in the US, seeing as though Trumpeters aren't on the same planet as the KKK or any extreme organisation like that.

:Trump2


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> *After the spring of 1865, a century of fundamentally endeavoring to keep the U.S. generally homogeneous was the order, and arguably after the restrictions to immigration in the mid-1920s between 1924 and 1965 the apex of what could be labeled a loosely American "culture" was in myriad forms realized.* Since 1965 and with each passing decade since in greater immensity that time period is well in the past, which is why states such as Arizona, Florida and Texas are destined to be deep blue within the next twenty years. We have come a long way since practically every middle class American family was watching _Gunsmoke_.


Are you saying that in the past in the bolded timeframe (20s to 65 etc) that due to the immigration restrictions there was more "American Harmony" of sorts, more unity amongst the classes, than there is today? I mean in general terms of a successful society broadly speaking.

Or are you more talking about a general feel of an American Society under a single umbrella in the past, due to a restricted number of cultures coming in; vs a more varied culture due to more multi-cultured immigration? Is the traditional American Identity in danger of disappearing?


----------



## deepelemblues

Demography is destiny in the context of democratic politics is a fool's dream honestly :draper2

The US was not kept generally homogeneuous from 1865 to 1965 either in intent or results... you have to ignore many, many things to contend that


----------



## ChampWhoRunsDaCamp

A-C-P said:


> And will still be president in 2021 :trump3


Not unless he improves his diet.

I'm optimistic he'll be dead long before 2021 rolls around.


----------



## Strike Force

A-C-P said:


> And will still be president in 2021 :trump3


Yep. The Democrats are doing everything they can to ensure that, and this is coming from someone that skews moderate-to-liberal.



CamillePunk said:


> Just think we should have a civil order built on universal ethics and not exceptions for certain classes of people.


Unfortunately, this point is lost on many liberals today. Liberals had the right idea when they fought for equal rights for all; now that they've achieved equal rights for all, they keep pushing that same stone down the same path, which inevitably pushes us towards inequality. I do believe those same liberals have good intentions, but they've lost their way, and I don't know if they can find their way back.


----------



## deepelemblues

ChampWhoRunsDaCamp said:


> Not unless he improves his diet.
> 
> I'm optimistic he'll be dead long before 2021 rolls around.


:Trump


----------



## yeahbaby!

Strike Force said:


> Unfortunately, this point is lost on many liberals today. Liberals had the right idea when they fought for equal rights for all; now that they've achieved equal rights for all, they keep pushing that same stone down the same path, which inevitably pushes us towards inequality. I do believe those same liberals have good intentions, but they've lost their way, and I don't know if they can find their way back.


Whoa whoa whoa. Liberals *have*achieved equal rights for all? I missed the announcement.


----------



## Strike Force

yeahbaby! said:


> Whoa whoa whoa. Liberals *have*achieved equal rights for all? I missed the announcement.


Please name a right in the United States of America that is extended to only certain citizens by the United States Constitution.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> So, okay to completely generalise 'SJWs' under one umbrella; not okay for 'them' to generalise all white people as bad. You object to SJWs prejudice against white racists by projecting your prejudice on to them with those OTT statements. Got it.


you mean i'm not allowed to generalize sjw's under an sjw umbrella??? lmao wtf???

there is no such thing as a 'good' sjw. they are angry virtue signaling dorks. when i lump them altogether into one bad group it's because they ARE all one bad group. this is does not encompass the entire left, this is about sjw's in particular.

lumping sjw's into a group based on their actions and their behavior is perfectly acceptable. it is NOT the same as lumping people together because they have a certain skin color. your analogy was appalling.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Strike Force said:


> Please name a right in the United States of America that is extended to only certain citizens by the United States Constitution.


uh oh i smell a link to a study about '_institutional structuralism and the marginalization of under privileged people in systematic systems of oppression'_.


----------



## Strike Force

Berzerker's Beard said:


> uh oh i smell a link to a study about '_institutional structuralism and the marginalization of under privileged people in systematic systems of oppression'_.


Oh, I hope so. I hope whoever posts that also believes in the gender pay gap. Please, softball 'em in!


----------



## deepelemblues

political beliefs are a choice generalizations come with the territory 

don't like it :Out

outright lying is a different story of course


----------



## MrMister

Berzerker's Beard said:


> uh oh i smell a link to a study about '_institutional structuralism and the marginalization of under privileged people in systematic systems of oppression'_.


intersectionality


----------



## deepelemblues

MrMister said:


> intersectionality


intersectionality doesnt give the sweet alliteration systematic systemic structures of oppression does tho


----------



## MrMister

deepelemblues said:


> intersectionality doesnt give the sweet alliteration systematic systemic structures of oppression does tho


Agreed. I wasn't correcting or anything just had to add another silly word people made and overuse now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Giuliani tells NYer he's "been through all the tapes" and that's how he knew BuzzFeed misreported. Pressed on what he means by tapes, Giuliani: "I shouldn’t have said tapes." Pressed again, says, "I have listened to tapes, but none of them concern this."



So Trump has tapes.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm convinced Rudy Giuliani is trolling the media. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you mean i'm not allowed to generalize sjw's under an sjw umbrella??? lmao wtf???
> 
> there is no such thing as a 'good' sjw. they are angry virtue signaling dorks. when i lump them altogether into one bad group it's because they ARE all one bad group. this is does not encompass the entire left, this is about sjw's in particular.
> 
> lumping sjw's into a group based on their actions and their behavior is perfectly acceptable. it is NOT the same as lumping people together because they have a certain skin color. your analogy was appalling.


You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're just plain stupid. 

My point was about generalising people that do certain behaviours or act against certain behaviours as being under this stupid umbrella of just 'SJW' so you can fit them in to neat little box IN ORDER TO LUMP THEM TOGETHER. There's variety everywhere, thus the problem with generalising people in the first place.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/opinion/covington-march-for-life.html?fbclid=IwAR3lDGvDFLo2rNQ0jJNnRNTGh2Mv1Qt5ghy9Ralp76C85-_BTlY1tPxBGwA#click=https://t.co/MpzYnRaHXo



> Within living memory, political polarization had at least something to do with issues, but in the age of social media it’s almost entirely about social type. It’s about finding and spreading the viral soap operas that are supposed to reveal the dark hearts of those who are in the opposite social type from your own.
> 
> It’s about finding images that confirm your negative stereotypes about people you don’t know. It’s about reducing a complex human life into one viral moment and then banishing him to oblivion.
> 
> You don’t have to read social theory on this phenomenon; just look at the fracas surrounding the Covington Catholic High School boys.
> 
> For those of you vacationing on Mars this past weekend, a video went viral showing a group of boys, many of them in MAGA hats, surrounding an older Native American man who was banging a drum.
> 
> The man, Nathan Phillips, told two different versions of what happened. He told The Washington Post that he was singing a traditional song when the teenagers swarmed around him, some chanting, “Build that wall, build that wall.” He decided the right thing to do was to get away. “I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation.”
> 
> He told The Detroit Free Press that the incident started when the boys started attacking four African-Americans. So he decided to intervene. “There was that moment when I realized I’ve put myself between beast and prey. These young men were beastly and these old black individuals was their prey.”
> 
> Many news organizations ran one of these accounts. Before you judge the reporters too harshly, it’s important to remember that these days the social media tail wags the mainstream media dog. If you want your story to be well placed and if you want to be professionally rewarded, you have to generate page views — you have to incite social media. The way to do that is to reinforce the prejudices of your readers.
> 
> In this one episode, you had a gentle, 64-year-old Native American man being swarmed by white (boo!), male (boo!), preppy (double boo!) Trump supporters (infinite boo!). If you are trying to rub the pleasure centers of a liberal audience, this is truly a story too good to check.
> 
> Saturday was a day of liberal vindication. See! This is what those people do! This is who they really are. Reza Aslan, the religious scholar, tweeted a photo of the main Covington boy and asked, “Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?” The filmmaker Michael Green showed the same image and tweeted: “A face like that never changes. This image will define his life. No one need ever forgive him.”
> 
> Despair, Love and Loss: A Journey Inside West Virginia’s Opioid Crisis
> The institutions in charge of serving the boys did what institutions always do in the face of a social media mob. They cratered. The school and archdiocese apologized. The mayor of Covington denounced them.
> 
> On Sunday several longer videos emerged showing that most of what Phillips had told the media was inaccurate. The incident actually started when members of the hate cult — the Black Hebrew Israelites — started hurling racist and homophobic slurs at the boys.
> 
> The Covington boys eventually asked their chaperone if they could do their school cheers. As they were doing that Phillips walked into the middle of their circle and banged his drum in the face of one of the boys. Everybody was suddenly confused. Students shouted, “What is going on?” Then there was confusion and discomfort, smirking and verbal jousting.
> 
> Everybody involved in the incident was operating in an emotional and moral context that has been set by the viciousness of the Black Hebrew Israelites. Of the major players, the boys’ behavior is probably the least egregious.
> 
> So Sunday was a day of conservative vindication. See? This is what those liberals do! They rush to judgment, dehumanize and seek to expunge us from national life. The main boy wrote a public letter that was consistent with the visual evidence and that was actually quite humane.
> 
> In this case the facts happened to support the right-wing tribe. But that’s not the point. The crucial thing is that the nation’s culture is now enmeshed in a new technology that we don’t yet know how to control.
> 
> In this technology, stereotype is more salient than persons. In this technology, a single moment is more important than a life story. In this technology, a main activity is proving to the world that your type is morally superior to the other type.
> 
> The Covington case was such a blatant rush to judgment — it was powered by such crude prejudice and social stereotyping — I’m hoping it will be an important pivot point. I’m hoping that at least a few people start thinking about norms of how decent people should behave on these platforms.
> 
> It’s hard to believe that people are going to continue forever on platforms where they are so cruel to one another. It’s hard to believe that people are going to be content, year after year, to distort their own personalities in service to a platform, making themselves humorless, semi-blind, joyless and grim.


Very interesting and fair take on things.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Strike Force said:


> Please name a right in the United States of America that is extended to only certain citizens by the United States Constitution.


Um.... I haven't read the constitution cover to cover, but I don't need to to dismiss the thought that the constitution reflects actual real modern day life in America.

A more appropriate question from you might've been "Please name a right in the United States of America that is extended to only certain citizens by the likes of education institutions, Government departments, law enforcement offices etc etc.

You don't just honestly take at face value that society is actually equal because the constitution says it is? Is that what Liberals have done? Just, sorted out the Constitution and all is well with the world?



CamillePunk said:


> I'm convinced Rudy Giuliani is trolling the media. :lol


I think you're giving him way too much credit. I'm surprised he can dress himself in the morning.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Um.... I haven't read the constitution cover to cover, but I don't need to to dismiss the thought that the constitution reflects actual real modern day life in America.


*checks constitution*
*checks actual real modern day life in america *

freedom of speech - check
freedom of worship - check
freedom of assembly - check
guns - check
soldiers can't come sleep at my house just because - check
exclusionary principle enacted all the time by judges - check
due process - check
speedy trial - check
confront witnesses - check
jury trial - check
can't be tormented or tortured as sentence for a crime - check
sovereign immunity operative - check
president and vice-president elected together - check
no legal private slavery - check
equal protection under law - check
right to vote cannot be denied based on listed criteria - check
income tax in effect - check
direct election of senators - check
women have right to vote - check
presidential term begins january 20th, congressional term january 3rd - check
alcohol legal - check
presidential term limit in effect - check
washington, DC gets 2 electoral votes - check
right to vote cannot be denied by tax requirement - check
procedures for replacing an incapacitated president and defined presidential succession operative - check
voting age 18 - check
congress cant raise its pay and get that pay raise in the same session - check

well it looks like as far as what the constitutional amendments cover, the country operates based on them. going through each section and article would take some time but the country's government and political structure does in fact operate within the bounds set in those sections as well.

but actual real modern day life in america is supposed to be reflected by the people

not by the government. that's what the constitution was set up to prevent

that is the problem, the administrative bureaucracy does the reflecting on actual real modern day life now, not the people


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're just plain stupid.
> 
> *My point was about generalising people that do certain behaviours or act against certain behaviours as being under this stupid umbrella of just 'SJW' *so you can fit them in to neat little box IN ORDER TO LUMP THEM TOGETHER. There's variety everywhere, thus the problem with generalising people in the first place.



it's stupid to group people under an umbrella based on their behavior?

it's stupid to call everyone that breaks the law 'criminals'? it's stupid to call everyone that partakes in gay sex 'homosexuals'? it's stupid to acknowledge clearly defined groups of people? 

when people say sjw do you even know what they are referring to?


----------



## Strike Force

yeahbaby! said:


> Um.... I haven't read the constitution cover to cover, but I don't need to to dismiss the thought that the constitution reflects actual real modern day life in America.
> 
> A more appropriate question from you might've been "Please name a right in the United States of America that is extended to only certain citizens by the likes of education institutions, Government departments, law enforcement offices etc etc.
> 
> You don't just honestly take at face value that society is actually equal because the constitution says it is? Is that what Liberals have done? Just, sorted out the Constitution and all is well with the world?


You haven't read the Constitution? You should. It's not long.

There actually isn't proof of discrimination in terms of education, government departments, law enforcements, etc. If there were, you'd see a trend towards common outcomes that cut across other factors, e.g., a White person would end up poor controlling for all other factors. That's not true, of course, because every person's journey is their own.


----------



## deepelemblues

Very Washingtonian of @yeahbaby!, railing against the passions of Party :bjpenn


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> yeahbaby! said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're just plain stupid.
> 
> *My point was about generalising people that do certain behaviours or act against certain behaviours as being under this stupid umbrella of just 'SJW' *so you can fit them in to neat little box IN ORDER TO LUMP THEM TOGETHER. There's variety everywhere, thus the problem with generalising people in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's stupid to group people under an umbrella based on their behavior?
> 
> it's stupid to call everyone that breaks the law 'criminals'? it's stupid to call everyone that partakes in gay sex 'homosexuals'? it's stupid to acknowledge clearly defined groups of people?
> 
> when people say sjw do you even know what they are referring to?
Click to expand...

I know plenty of people who have had homosexual sex who aren't gay. 

The term SJW is now just another commie, racist or Nazi, a meaningless buzzword thrown at anyone nowadays. I've been labelled an SJW plenty of times over obscure reasoning.

I don't really care about labels themselves but I put far less credibility to that person's post if they just throw them around wily nilly.


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087541961295314945
Now The President is involved. Oops!




https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-suspends-account-that-shared-video-encounter-of-teens-and-native-american-elder/?fbclid=IwAR3X-jKKn4MUZltqv5xztE34c1a3X1u_t8EprKb0A2lKxSt4CvlhNGHcvo0

Also, good on Twitter for fighting back against fake news.

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

TBF Trump ain't wrong, not sure him saying it actually helps shift the narrative away or just makes it worse though ><

Those with TDS will just say Trump supports racists!!!!one

A lot Covington boys are still dicks though this is of some of them.










I'll be honest, I always find American frat boyesque stuff obnoxious no matter who they are.

This will always be my favourite example of that Frat mentality.






(The UK has similar in 'lad culture' but its not nearly as irritating imo)


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> I know plenty of people who have had homosexual sex who aren't gay.
> 
> The term SJW is now just another commie, racist or Nazi, a meaningless buzzword thrown at anyone nowadays.* I've been labelled an SJW plenty of times over obscure reasoning.*
> 
> I don't really care about labels themselves but I put far less credibility to that person's post if they just throw them around wily nilly.


I'm surprised at this, you're Left but no where near an SJW. 

I honestly cannot think of anytime where I'd be like "That Dray guy is a totes SJW!" 

I don't always agree with you (I don't agree with anyone 100%) but never seen you say anything unreasonable or insane, well not seriously anyways. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> I'm surprised at this, you're Left but no where near an SJW.
> 
> I honestly cannot think of anytime where I'd be like "That Dray guy is a totes SJW!"
> 
> I don't always agree with you (I don't agree with anyone 100%) but never seen you say anything unreasonable or insane, well not seriously anyways. :laugh:


Ha, thanks, this was on youtube and facebook not in here, whilst we are anonymous to each other on WF we are still a small group of people and we get to understand each other a lot better.

I had this on FB for simply saying that the MAGA kid narrative is false and people should watch the full video.



> Peter Nelson Sure. Keep telling yourself that. White kkknight for those racists. Seig heil amiright?


:bunk

I've had similar the way when defending Rey in star wars as an example. SJW cuck or something like that.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/22/687368145/supreme-court-revives-trumps-ban-on-transgender-military-personnel-for-now



> *Supreme Court Revives Trump's Ban On Transgender Military Personnel, For Now*
> 
> The Supreme Court has reinstated President Trump's ban on transgender service members in the military, granting a stay on two lower courts' injunctions that had blocked the president's policy. The court voted 5-4 margin, reflecting the conservative majority.
> 
> The court's decision allows the Pentagon to bar transgender people from joining or remaining in the military while the lower-court rulings that had blocked the policy are appealed. It did not allow the Trump administration to leapfrog the appeals court.
> 
> The two cases — Trump v. Karnoski and Trump v. Stockman — are currently working their way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
> 
> In both of those cases, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would have maintained a stay on the ban, the Supreme Court order reads.
> 
> The transgender ban is being revived more than a year after a U.S. district judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that trans members of the military had "a strong case that the president's ban would violate their Fifth Amendment rights," as NPR reported in October of 2017.
> 
> Trump announced his ban abruptly in the summer of 2017, saying in a series of tweets that "the United States Government will not accept or allow...... ....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."
> 
> The ban seemed to take Defense Department officials by surprise, sparking confusion despite Trump's assertion that he had consulted with "with my Generals and military experts."
> 
> The tweets were followed by an official presidential memo in August, which gave the defense secretary (and, for the Coast Guard, the homeland security secretary) the discretion to "determine how to address transgender individuals currently serving in the United States military."
> 
> Trump's ban was a sharp reversal of a Pentagon policy that was announced in June of 2016, when former Defense Secretary Ash Carter said, "Effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly, and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender."
> 
> At the time, researchers at RAND estimated there were as many as 7,000 active-duty transgender servicemembers, with up to 4,000 more in the reserves. That Obama-era policy was hailed as ending an era of legal and professional limbo for trans people in the U.S. armed service; Carter said the decision was made out of a desire to attract "all talent possible" to serve in the military.
> 
> Because of that policy and the lower court's injunction, the first openly trans people were able to join the U.S. military on Jan. 1, 2018. But their status is once again in jeopardy.
> 
> Tuesday's order states that if the 9th Circuit court rules against the ban, the prohibition on trans members of the military would remain in effect until the Supreme Court justices either deny an application to hear the case (if such an application is made) or rules against the Trump administration's position.


----------



## birthday_massacre

And the eroding of US citizens rights under Trump continue.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

This is getting serious.



> *Covington Catholic High School closes Tuesday ‘to ensure safety’*
> 
> PARK HILLS, KY. - (FOX19) - Covington Catholic High School is closed Tuesday over security concerns, according to school officials.
> 
> “After meeting with local authorities, we have made the decision to cancel school and be closed on Tuesday, January 22, in order to ensure the safety of our students, faculty and staff,” reads a letter to them from the school’s principal, Robert Rowe.
> 
> “All activities on campus will be cancelled for the entire day and evening. Students, parents, faculty and staff are not to be on campus for any reason. Please continue to keep the Covington Catholic Community in your prayers.”
> 
> Earlier this morning, it was not clear if the closure was due to security or bitterly cold temperatures.
> 
> The school was among many operating on a delay until the closure was announced about 6 a.m. Dixie Heights and all Kenton County Schools also are closed as well.
> 
> Extra security was to be in place at Covington Catholic High School when students returned to campus Tuesday after threats were made against the school and its students over the weekend.
> 
> The American Indian Movement Chapter of Indiana and Kentucky is holding a 10 a.m. protest outside the Diocese of Covington.
> 
> The protest, which so far has drawn more media than protesters, was moved from the school Monday as a precaution.
> 
> Extra security at CovCath Tuesday, protest location moved
> 
> [Trump tweets about controversy involving CovCath students]
> 
> Videos have been shared all weekend of an incident involving Covington Catholic students in Washington, D.C. on Friday.
> 
> The initial video showed the now-self identified Nick Sandmann, a junior at CovCath, standing in front of Nathan Phillips, an indigenous man and Vietnam Veteran who was participating in the Indigenous Peoples March.


and



> *Covington Catholic, school at center of D.C. march video, facing threats and protesters *
> 
> When students return to Covington Catholic High School on Tuesday, they will be greeted by police and protesters.
> 
> The once-obscure all-male high school located across the Ohio River from Cincinnati in Park Hills, Kentucky, became instantly infamous over the weekend when video of students — many wearing “Make America Great Again” baseball caps and appearing to jeer a Native American activist on the steps of Lincoln Memorial — went viral and sparked nationwide outrage.
> 
> Now authorities are investigating threats against some of the students at the school, Kenton County Commonwealth’s Attorney Rob Sanders told the Cincinnati Enquirer on Monday.
> 
> “We will be prepared for tomorrow," Sanders told the paper.
> 
> Sanders did not elaborate on the threats in the article and did not immediately respond to an email from NBC News for comment.
> 
> Meanwhile, the American Indian Movement Chapters of Indiana and Kentucky are planning a protest outside the school starting at 10 a.m. ET on Tuesday, the paper reported.
> 
> Lance Soto, co-chairman of the Native American group, told the paper their protest will be peaceful and condemned the threats against the school.
> 
> “I think anybody threatening school children is completely wrong, and I won’t stand for it personally,” he said. “Those people are not affiliated with us.”
> 
> Sanders and Soto spoke a day after junior Nick Sandmann, who became a lightning rod for much of the outrage after he appeared to be grinning during his videotaped face off with activist Nathan Phillips, issued a statement in which he said he had received death threats.
> 
> "I have received physical and death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults," he wrote. "One person threatened to harm me at school."
> 
> The school's principal, Robert Rowe, said the confrontation is now being examined "by an independent third-party investigator," according to an email sent to parents obtained by NBC affiliate WLWT.
> 
> "Based upon and following an investigation, we will be taking the appropriate action regarding this matter," the email stated.
> 
> While Sandmann and his classmates have been branded as bigots and now face an investigation by the school that could result in possible expulsion, they found a defender in Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican who represents the district.
> 
> In a series of tweets on Monday, Massie admitted he was “uncomfortable” when he first saw the video of Friday’s encounter in Washington, where the Covington Catholic High School students had been attending a Right to Life march.
> 
> But Massie said he changed his mind after viewing subsequent footage and now believes they are the victims.
> 
> “What they got was a brutal lesson in the unjust court of public opinion and social media mobs,” he tweeted. “In the context of everything that was going on (which the media hasn’t shown) the parents and mentors of these boys should be proud, not ashamed, of their kids’ behavior.”
> 
> Both Phillips and the defenders of the Catholic high school students agree that the videotaped confrontation was preceded by raunchy taunts aimed at the teens by four members of a group called the Black Hebrew Israelites.
> 
> In other video footage, the Covington Catholic students can be seen responding to the taunts with school spirit chants. And in his statement, Sandmann said admitted he led some of those chants “to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group.” He said their chaperones gave them the okay.
> 
> Phillips told MSNBC’s Joy Reid on Sunday that his group was also targeted for abuse by the Black Hebrew Israelites. He said that he and his group approached the teens to talk with them after witnessing their bitter back and forth with the Black Hebrew Israelites.
> 
> In the footage, Phillips is seen banging on his ceremonial drum while the students encircle him and he comes face to face with Sandmann, who like many of his classmates is wearing a MAGA hat.
> 
> But instead of listening, Phillips said some of the young men began chanting President Donald Trump's mantra “'Build the wall’ and other things that were even worse."
> 
> Phillips said that if there were chaperones, they made no attempt to intervene.
> 
> "Where were they?’ Phillips said. “How did they allow these students to come to this point after an hour of this happening? Were they with them? Were they encouraging them?"
> 
> Also, in the footage, some of the students can be seen making what appears to be making the tomahawk chop gesture and make noises that appear to mock Native American chanting.
> 
> Sandmann insisted “at no time did I hear any student chant anything other than the school spirit chants.”
> 
> “I did not witness or hear any students chant ‘build that wall’ or anything hateful or racist at any time,” he said in Sunday’s statement.
> 
> As for Phillips, Sandmann said “he locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face.”
> 
> “He played his drum the entire time he was in my face,” Sandmann said in his statement. “I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protester. He did not make any attempt to go around me. It was clear to me that he had singled me out from a confrontation, although I’m not sure why.”
> 
> Sandmann issued no new statements on Monday.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Guess they need their safe spaces, oh the irony


----------



## Hillhank

People hate Donald Trump because he's white 

nothing more nothing less

its true and we all know it


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> Guess they need their safe spaces, oh the irony


Come on BM, there's death threats happening here. I don't think they're serious, but even if the original accusations against them had been accurate, this has been a complete overreaction. This reaction isn't really about those teens or that Native drummer. This is already existing rage getting redirected into this event.

It's like when someone is really pissed off at their wife but can't say anything so they scream at the dog for dragging their ass on the carpet.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> Come on BM, there's death threats happening here. I don't think they're serious, but even if the original accusations against them had been accurate, this has been a complete overreaction. This reaction isn't really about those teens or that Native drummer. This is already existing rage getting redirected into this event.
> 
> It's like when someone is really pissed off at their wife but can't say anything so they scream at the dog for dragging their ass on the carpet.


I am speaking toward the protests. And based on all the videos I have seen from students as this school, they are super racists, sexist and bigoted. I mean just look at the black face pic a few posts above. And there is a video about the kids at that event telling girls its not rape if you like it.

Its cute they are trying to act all innocent. 

No one deserves death threats but they are pieces of shit


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> I am speaking toward the protests. And based on all the videos I have seen from students as this school, they are super racists, sexist and bigoted. I mean just look at the black face pic a few posts above. And there is a video about the kids at that event telling girls its not rape if you like it.
> 
> Its cute they are trying to act all innocent.
> 
> No one deserves death threats but they are pieces of shit


It is objectively wrong to physically threaten and dox kids, even if they had done something wrong, they're kids. Do you support that?

That pic (which is probably out of context considering there are adults there too, and since we have not seen any complaints until now) is from like 2012, so it really does not have anything to do with the kids in the video - from that video they were abused for over an hour, before some random Native American protester walked up to them and started playing the drum and chanting inches from their faces. They probably aren't all innocent, they are teenage boys, who from my experience generally act like idiots in front of their peers - but how would you react in that situation? They are the victims in this situation because they didn't really do anything, yet it was framed in such a way so that they were massively vilified by the media. I couldn't imagine how that would feel at that age. 

'They're pieces of shit' They aren't a collective - if you went on a school trip and some of the students in your class misbehaved, would you like to be grouped with them. Just leave them alone, the virtue signallers have already lost any integrity they had on this issue - doubling down is just cruel and embarrassing.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Guess they need their safe spaces, oh the irony


Pretty sure safety is an issue when kids are being threatened.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> It is objectively wrong to physically threaten and dox kids, even if they had done something wrong, they're kids. Do you support that?
> 
> That pic (which is probably out of context considering there are adults there too, and since we have not seen any complaints until now) is from like 2012, so it really does not have anything to do with the kids in the video - from that video they were abused for over an hour, before some random Native American protester walked up to them and started playing the drum and chanting inches from their faces. They probably aren't all innocent, they are teenage boys, who from my experience generally act like idiots in front of their peers - but how would you react in that situation? They are the victims in this situation because they didn't really do anything, yet it was framed in such a way so that they were massively vilified by the media. I couldn't imagine how that would feel at that age.
> 
> 'They're pieces of shit' They aren't a collective - if you went on a school trip and some of the students in your class misbehaved, would you like to be grouped with them. Just leave them alone, the virtue signallers have already lost any integrity they had on this issue - doubling down is just cruel and embarrassing.


I said I don't agree with physical violence and I don't agree with doxxng either. 

LOL at thinking you can take blackface out of context. You can't be serious with that defense.

It does not have anything to do with the kids in the video but with the school they are in, It seems like bigotry is a pattern with this school.

How would I react in that situation? I would just walk away and not get in his face with a smug look on my face while people around me are jeering him.
And yes they did do something they were mocking him with that naive American chant. 

I would not be with hte group doing the things they were doing and if people started doing that shit around me, I would leave and go with another group


BTW

everyone is to blame for what happened. The native American man should not get a pass.


----------



## 777

Wow. How's the view from up there?


----------



## blaird

LOL at getting "triggered" by students who paint their ENTIRE upper body black while wearing black shorts, socks, and shoes for a blackout game. That happens at tons of schools, well maybe in the past, not now that everyone is so sensitive. Wonder if its also racist to have whiteouts for games too, bc schools do that as well.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> I said I don't agree with physical violence and I don't agree with doxxng either.
> 
> LOL at thinking you can take blackface out of context. You can't be serious with that defense.
> 
> It does not have anything to do with the kids in the video but with the school they are in, It seems like bigotry is a pattern with this school.
> 
> How would I react in that situation? I would just walk away and not get in his face with a smug look on my face while people around me are jeering him.
> And yes they did do something they were mocking him with that naive American chant.
> 
> I would not be with hte group doing the things they were doing and if people started doing that shit around me, I would leave and go with another group
> 
> 
> BTW
> 
> everyone is to blame for what happened. The native American man should not get a pass.


Ok that's good to hear, there were many adults in powerful positions which advocated it though, and that's worrying.

I'm not sure it is blackface though, if you look at the picture the whole crowd is wearing all black, so it might be that they have just painted their bodies in the same way. There are also adults there too that seem to be ok with it, that just makes me suspicious. I won't defend it any further though as it is pretty stupid and insensitive as if that is the case, it can quite easily offend, even out of context.

They are rowdy teenage boys though, where the most important thing is to impress your friends. An adult would walk away sure, but as a teenage boy I'm not sure you'd know what to do in that situation. I'm not sure that's really mocking, just trying to join in. I mean he did kinda just barge in there and start singing / banging his drum with no explanation - it was probably a pretty weird experience. Kansas City chiefs do the tomahawk chop during their home games - is that mocking?

The people who posted the edited video and those in the media who put it out there without fact checking events are to blame - the state of journalism at the moment is appalling. Oh and the 'Hebrew Israelites' hate group who were racist and homophobic. Really the kids and the Native American 'confrontation' was a total non-story, the reality was that nothing happened, it was how it was framed which caused an issue.


----------



## JasonLives

birthday_massacre said:


> I am speaking toward the protests. And based on all the videos I have seen from students as this school, they are super racists, sexist and bigoted. I mean just look at the black face pic a few posts above. And there is a video about the kids at that event telling girls its not rape if you like it.
> 
> Its cute they are trying to act all innocent.
> 
> No one deserves death threats but they are pieces of shit


That black face pic doesnt say anything. Its from a "Blackout" game. Myself, who is not familiar with school traditions, can even find several people from several schools "blacking" themselves. People are either dressing in black or making themselves black. They seem to be painting themselves black, not to pretend to be african american but to be "black". As in dark, as the idea is the student are to be dressed in all black. Like if they paint themselves red or blue. Can some paint themselves and be a actual "blackface"? Sure. But without context or hearing the intention its nothing.

To pull a pic like that and call it racism is disgusting. Since it seemed to be popular back then and says nothing about the intentions of the students. Its not racist to paint yourself black if your intention is to be as dark as possible, not to try and copy a skin colour. 

The video with the girl and some teens. There is nothing on that video that would suggest its the same kids, or even from that school. Someone said it was and that was it. Now all of a sudden its "official", but once again there is absolutly no proof. It might just be a random clip of some guys that has nothing to do with the school.

Its disgusting to see people continue to try and make these kids racist, sexist or whatever. Just because some of them wore a MAGA hat. Thats all. Everything else is people and media spinning this to fit what they want to see. 

Because, what is the point in trying to dig up dirt on these boys?(The actual boys werent even in that school when the blackout pic was taken)
Why MUST they be racist?

Are people so butthurt that the orginial spin wasent true? That they werent a bunch of nazis attacking a defenseless native american screaming "build that wall"?

Still, I find the whole thing fascinating. How crazy people are. People are batshit crazy. All it takes is someone to tweet a clip of some youth saying something and write that its kids from the school and BOOM 10k retweets like its the truth. Its disgusting but still interesting to see different spin to how RACIST these kids/school is, and just by a little fact check see that its 99% bullshit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Where there are black out games you dont wear blackface. If so everyone would have their face painted black.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Where there are black out games you dont wear blackface. If so everyone would have their face painted black.


I don't know if some kids wore blackface or not, but here are some pictures from blackout games:














































So only one example of entire body being painted black (including the face), but also another example of body painted black and not the face. Other examples of no body painting etc at all.

Racism is always about context. It's also kind of very racist (and I've said this many times) to assume that _I _as a minority _am _or _should _be offended by someone else's actions and that I'm too stupid to understand context.

I know who the racists are. I can tell from a million different things they say, do or write. It's very obvious. A bunch of kids at a game with their faces painted black needs to also be taken into the right context.

Trump has no business talking about being empathic toward children btw considering that he is literally responsible for the deaths of children world over as well as under his administration witin his government's custody

Fuck that bastard to hell. He like all American presidents before him are callous blood thirsty war criminals and they have no right to claim that they have any real empathy at all.

Again, he's just pandering to his fucking base because that's all that matters. As long as his sheep and Trumptards are going to keep him and his government in power. He's the perfect establishment puppet. Perfect.


----------



## JasonLives

birthday_massacre said:


> Where there are black out games you dont wear blackface. If so everyone would have their face painted black.


That seems to be up to everyone in the crowd. Im sure if its a red day, not everyone is gonna paint themselves red. 
Reading articles from several years back it seemed to happen at several schools. 
Many of the articles regaring this subject are from several years ago. Usually interviews with school regaring a ban. Interviews from students also seem to suggest their intention is not to dress like a african american, but just to be as "black" as possible.
In the end, its all about intention. Why do one paint themselves in black?

Putting up a picture from several years ago to try and connect some kind of racism against the kids or school(since the actual kids wasent even in the school at the time of the picture) is disgusting. Because why? 
You can find the same pics from several other schools just a few years back.
Whats the motive? 

The whole story is fascinating but also scary. Something is deeply rotten in the US. This is not a "left" or "right" problem. This goes beyond that.
This is not normal and its not right. Its disturbing. Its sad to see how people are acting. 
I wont say that things were better before, but social media is a disease.

In Sweden we usually say we are 10 years after the US. The problems the US has takes 10 years to reach Sweden. So its a look into the future. Because I can see the signs, but we are not there yet.


----------



## Smark Sheet

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087788046945214464
Savage. Absolutely savage.


----------



## Martins

Genuinely curious, what's a blackout game??


----------



## 2 Ton 21

JasonLives said:


> ...The video with the girl and some teens. There is nothing on that video that would suggest its the same kids, or even from that school. Someone said it was and that was it. Now all of a sudden its "official", but once again there is absolutly no proof. It might just be a random clip of some guys that has nothing to do with the school...


That's what I was thinking. You see those yelling for a less than a second and it's blurry. You see a couple of red hats, but no faces. Can't tell their age. I don't even know if that's the area they were at or even the same day. It might be them, but I'm not going to take it on faith when the clip is that short and that blurry with no other confirmation.


----------



## Reaper

Martins said:


> Genuinely curious, what's a blackout game??


Teams that have darker uniforms, or some sort of black in their uniform just pick a game where everyone wears all black. Some take it to mean body paint as well. Literally nothing at all to do with racism either historically or currently. 

It's school / college spirit kinda thing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> I don't know if some kids wore blackface or not, but here are some pictures from blackout games:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So only one example of entire body being painted black (including the face), but also another example of body painted black and not the face. Other examples of no body painting etc at all.
> 
> Racism is always about context. It's also kind of very racist (and I've said this many times) to assume that _I _as a minority _am _or _should _be offended by someone else's actions and that I'm too stupid to understand context.
> 
> I know who the racists are. I can tell from a million different things they say, do or write. It's very obvious. A bunch of kids at a game with their faces painted black needs to also be taken into the right context.


And you proved my point where 99% of the people at blackout games don't go blackface.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> And you proved my point where 99% of the people at blackout games don't go blackface.


Yah ... that would be true for anything school spirit related. 

It's like herding cats. 

Contextualize.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Yah ... that would be true for anything school spirit related.
> 
> It's like herding cats.
> 
> Contextualize.


so are you ok with backface at Halloween since they will claim "its just a costume"


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/aimx0l/twitter_suspends_account_that_shared_video_of/



> *Twitter suspends account that shared video of teens and Native American elder*
> 
> The account claimed to be owned by a Californian schoolteacher but had a profile picture of a blogger based in Brazil.
> 
> Twitter has taken action against an account that shared a video of teenagers wearing "Make America Great Again" hats confronting a Native American elder.
> 
> The Twitter account was suspended after CNN Business asked Twitter about it, it seems. The news outlet reported that the profile picture of the account, @2020fight, belonged a blogger based in Brazil but claimed to be a schoolteacher in California called Talia.
> 
> The minute-long video, which was posted last Friday, had been viewed 2.5 million times and was retweeted at least 14,400 times, according to CNN. The video showed students gathering around Native American elder Nathan Phillips, with one standing in front of him smiling as Phillips sang.
> 
> CNET has reached out to Twitter for more information on the suspension.


So, does that mean it was a bot or a propaganda account?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> so are you ok with backface at Halloween since they will claim "its just a costume"


No. But I don't care enough to rant and complain about it nor demonize anyone for those. Those who do it to be racist and because they are racist will keep doing it and who cares. I'm also an intelligent guy with a brain that's capable of compartmentalizing two different things. Black face at a black out game is not racist. Black face at halloween is. There is always room for nuance. 

This sort of petty politics is not the hill I want my politics to die on nor do I think that issue is so huge that I allow it to distract myself from rising above a few shitty people in order to continue to focus at the bigger picture and the bigger problems.

BTW, I don't think that black face at a black out game is racist, nor are the kids doing it racist. It's about motivations and it's wrong to assume that their motivation is racism. Think harder about these things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> No. But I don't care enough to rant and complain about it nor demonize anyone for those. Those who do it to be racist and because they are racist will keep doing it and who cares. I'm also an intelligent guy with a brain that's capable of compartmentalizing two different things. Black face at a black out game is not racist. Black face at halloween is. There is always room for nuance.
> 
> This sort of petty politics is not the hill I want my politics to die on nor do I think that issue is so huge that I allow it to distract myself from rising above a few shitty people in order to continue to focus at the bigger picture and the bigger problems.


 The kids doing blackface at blackout games know exactly what they are doing. That is why 99% of the students don't do it.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> The kids doing blackface at blackout games know exactly what they are doing. That is why 99% of the students don't do it.


The _only_ explanation for why they're doing something _isn't _racism. 

I've told you so many times do stop taking offence on behalf of a group of individuals whose experience in life you do not share. 

It just makes it harder for us when we do try to point out real examples of racism because then this petty shit distracts from all of that discussion.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> And you proved my point where 99% of the people at blackout games don't go blackface.


No it's because 99% of them don't give that much of a fuck.

Just like this asshole is the only one in freezing weather to take his shirt off at this footballl game.


----------



## yeahbaby!

lawdy lawdy twitter sucks. Get outraged about bigger shit than this. Stuff that's behind the scenes like domestic violence for example.

The clickbait era is a rapidly mutating monster that will devour us all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> No it's because 99% of them don't give that much of a fuck.
> 
> Just like this asshole is the only one in freezing weather to take his shirt off at this footballl game.


SMH at comparing blackface with some guy taking his shirt off at a sporting event.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

yeahbaby! said:


> lawdy lawdy twitter sucks. Get outraged about bigger shit than this. Stuff that's behind the scenes like domestic violence for example.
> 
> The clickbait era is a rapidly mutating monster that will devour us all.


Like these two stories from yesterday and today. Much better example of racism and prejudice. They've barely made blip on the national media.

*Video: Man Pulls Gun on Black Kids at MLK Day Protest in Brickell, Calls Them the N-Word UPDATED*

*Police: Four plotted to attack NY Muslim community with IEDs, 23 guns*



birthday_massacre said:


> SMH at comparing blackface with some guy taking his shirt off at a sporting event.


BM I'm really trying here with you. I obviously was making the point that just because a whole crowd at a game doesn't do what a small section of them is doing doewsn't necessarily mean that they felt that action had ill intent. I was making the point that the majority of any sports crowd are not such super fans that they would do something extreme like full body paint or exposing themselves to frostbite.


----------



## yeahbaby!

2 Ton 21 said:


> Like these two stories from yesterday and today. Much better example of racism and prejudice. They've barely made blip on the national media.
> 
> *Video: Man Pulls Gun on Black Kids at MLK Day Protest in Brickell, Calls Them the N-Word UPDATED*
> 
> *Police: Four plotted to attack NY Muslim community with IEDs, 23 guns*


Jesus


----------



## Dave Santos

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087724384868073475


----------



## yeahbaby!

Dave Santos said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087724384868073475


Boom go Vickie G!!!

I do hope however that The Lord Jesus that she refers to so much in her twitter may give her some compassion for her fellow human, a sense of forgiveness and love for all.


----------



## Smark Sheet

Three quick points:

1. Painting yourself up for sporting events is a tried and true practice that has zero racial implications. Anyone trying to find racism in it is looking for an excuse to justify their evil behavior towards children.

2. The so-called "white supremacy" symbol is common on basketball, with literally thousands of examples from the past year alone. This is yet another excuse to justify evil behavior towards children.

3. Until leftists show they can distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal aliens, there's no point in discussing the issue with them. A proper debate requires proper education from both sides, and leftists and showing the world they are lacking said education.


----------



## Draykorinee

Smark Sheet said:


> Three quick points:
> 
> 1. Painting yourself up for sporting events is a tried and true practice that has zero racial implications. Anyone trying to find racism in it is looking for an excuse to justify their evil behavior towards children.
> 
> 2. The so-called "white supremacy" symbol is common on basketball, with literally thousands of examples from the past year alone. This is yet another excuse to justify evil behavior towards children.
> 
> 3. Until leftists show they can distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal aliens, there's no point in discussing the issue with them. A proper debate requires proper education from both sides, and leftists and showing the world they are lacking said education.


Aww you've earned the title moron, I'm not surprised.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> so are you ok with backface at Halloween since they will claim "its just a costume"


painting your face for halloween isn't racism. painting your face black isn't even racism.

you probably cannot even rationalize WHY it's offensive and hurtful. you are just saying these things because you've been told to say these things by your #woke masters.

blackface isn't even a thing anymore.










^blackface











^ not blackface, not racist










^ also not racist










^also not racist


----------



## blaird

Berzerker's Beard said:


> painting your face for halloween isn't racism. painting your face black isn't even racism.
> 
> you probably cannot even rationalize WHY it's offensive and hurtful. you are just saying these things because you've been told to say these things by your #woke masters.
> 
> blackface isn't even a thing anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^blackface
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ not blackface, not racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ also not racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^also not racist


I was thinking the same thing about Chapelle...he did several skits in "white face" that NO ONE considered racist...I loved him as the white guy in Trading Spouses. Wish hed start his show back up, it was one of our wont miss shows my last couple years of college.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

blaird said:


> I was thinking the same thing about Chapelle...he did several skits in "white face" that NO ONE considered racist...I loved him as the white guy in Trading Spouses. Wish hed start his show back up, it was one of our wont miss shows my last couple years of college.


context doesn't matter to far left ppl like BM.

it's just like the n-word. it does not matter the circumstance. they don't even want the word to leave a white person's lips. not even in a referential context. it's a 'banned' word for whites even though it's littered throughout mainstream media and music.

painting your face black is also 'banned' for the same made up reasons. slavery jim crow minstrel show 1930's' blah blah blah. none of that has any baring on a bunch of kids painting themselves for a basketball game. no self respecting person, white or black, should be hurt or bothered by that. 

they just want a separate set of rules for white and non-white people. they want a different set of allowable behaviors and a different set of allowable words. it's fueled by irrational hate and it's made worse by MSM and the woke brigade in hollywood.

"b-b-b-ut it's blackface!!!"... please these ppl need to STFU and grow up.


----------



## Buttermaker

Berzerker's Beard said:


> painting your face for halloween isn't racism. painting your face black isn't even racism.
> 
> you probably cannot even rationalize WHY it's offensive and hurtful. you are just saying these things because you've been told to say these things by your #woke masters.
> 
> blackface isn't even a thing anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^blackface
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ not blackface, not racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ also not racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^also not racist



If one was to paint their face blackface and act in the early 1900’s stereotypical blackface manner, that is incredibly racist.


----------



## blaird

Berzerker's Beard said:


> context doesn't matter to far left ppl like BM.
> 
> it's just like the n-word. it does not matter the circumstance. they don't even want the word to leave a white person's lips. not even in a referential context. it's a 'banned' word for whites even though it's littered throughout mainstream media and music.
> 
> painting your face black is also 'banned' for the same made up reasons. slavery jim crow minstrel show 1930's' blah blah blah. none of that has any baring on a bunch of kids painting themselves for a basketball game. no self respecting person, white or black, should be hurt or bothered by that.
> 
> they just want a separate set of rules for white and non-white people. they want a different set of allowable behaviors and a different set of allowable words. it's fueled by irrational hate and it's made worse by MSM and the woke brigade in hollywood.
> 
> "b-b-b-ut it's blackface!!!"... please these ppl need to STFU and grow up.


My new fav is the "ok" hand gesture being racist. Somebody tweeted out a pic from a basketball game and a bunch of the kids were holding up the "ok" hand gesture. I think Kathy Griffin sent out a tweet with the pic maybe talking about it being the ***********/racist gesture, which is quite possibly the dumbest thing she has tweeted out. She had to go back and delete the tweet after someone told her it was just them holding up 3 fingers for making a 3 pointer.


----------



## Draykorinee

A white person blackfacing is pretty much always a dickhead.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

blaird said:


> My new fav is the "ok" hand gesture being racist. Somebody tweeted out a pic from a basketball game and a bunch of the kids were holding up the "ok" hand gesture. I think Kathy Griffin sent out a tweet with the pic maybe talking about it being the ***********/racist gesture, which is quite possibly the dumbest thing she has tweeted out. She had to go back and delete the tweet after someone told her it was just them holding up 3 fingers for making a 3 pointer.


jesus she is really the fucking worst. that is frightening levels of stupidity. 

that's even worse than sara silverman who confused a construction marker for a swastika and then had to apologize.












woke celebrities :lol


----------



## blaird

Draykorinee said:


> A white person blackfacing is pretty much always a dickhead.


I agree with this for the most part, but still, some context has to be looked at...

If you paint your face black in an effort to imitate or mock black people, then yea probably a dickhead...but it still goes back to the Chapelle skit. I know its for tv, but no one thinks hes a dickhead for "whitefacing" or mocking stereotypes about white people. If someone who was white, painted themselves black while doing a skit on black stereotypes, how much outrage do you think there would be??

I also cant call these kids racists or dickheads for painting their whole body black while wearing all black for a blackout game.


----------



## birthday_massacre

LOL at the usual suspects still defending and making excuses for blackface and thinking its ok for a white person to use the N word lol


----------



## blaird

Woken_Massacre doubling down on everything being racist


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Woken_Massacre doubling down on everything being racist


Blackface is always racist, and a white person calling someone the N word is always racist.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Blackface is always racist, and a white person calling someone the N word is always racist.


Define blackface...is this just any black paint on the face? Painting just your face black but not the rest of the body? 

Dont try to make this out to be something its not. The media latched on to the body paint story after its other story fell apart and the reason this one didnt explode is bc there is nothing to it. You really need to grasp that there is nothing racist about this or holding up the "Ok" sign.

I will absolutely agree calling someone the N word is racist. I dont think BB was saying it wasnt.

EDIT- will you still call it racist what Dave Chappelle did? Brushed his face to look white while portraying white stereotypes for a skit??


----------



## deepelemblues

SKIN COLOR!

Anyway, this is how the Overton window gets pushed. 

Anyone to the right of Joe Biden (and eventually, Joe Biden too) is slowly being put into the zone where it's acceptable to destroy their life because anyone to the right of Joe Biden (and eventually, Joe Biden too) is a fascist privileged transphobic racist Nazi who should be doxxed, forever denied the opportunity for a good career or entry into civil society, and beat up too. And also if they're in high school maybe their school should be burned down too. 

TOLERANCE!

Eventually, even someone with beliefs identical to BernieOld or Alexandria Bug-Eyes will be a fourth-class resident (not citizen) for not being woke and Commie enough. If this utopian dream shared by so many twitter warriors is ever realized. Which it won't be. But lots of people will be hurt by their trying to realize it.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> A white person blackfacing is pretty much always a dickhead.


I see less justification for blackface here and more persecution complex tbh.

On both sides. 

It's a method of passive aggressively demanding power through oppression.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Define blackface...is this just any black paint on the face? Painting just your face black but not the rest of the body?
> 
> Dont try to make this out to be something its not. The media latched on to the body paint story after its other story fell apart and the reason this one didnt explode is bc there is nothing to it. You really need to grasp that there is nothing racist about this or holding up the "Ok" sign.
> 
> I will absolutely agree calling someone the N word is racist. I dont think BB was saying it wasnt.
> 
> EDIT- will you still call it racist what Dave Chappelle did? Brushed his face to look white while portraying white stereotypes for a skit??


if you are white you should not be painting your face black at all, you should not also be paint your whole body black to pretend you a black person. People that do that shit know exactly what they are doing.

Just like the ones that do the OK sign to troll people then play dumb OH what, I was just doing the ok sign. also with the OK sign, you can tell when they are doing the KKK version because of the smirk on their faces. They know exactly what they are doing. Also if there is no reason for doing yeah OK with that sign then you know what they really mean.

As for Chappell's white face no that is not considered racist because whiteface isn't taken from a tradition of racism like blackface is. should he be doing that, no he shouldn't?


----------



## 777

birthday_massacre said:


> Blackface is always racist, and a white person calling someone the N word is always racist.


Ok, so we can all agree that calling someone that word is bad, we have even come to a societal consensus that it's ok for some but not for others. But what about talking about the word in an innocuous or explanitory way? We've seen multiple examples of weaponized outrage taking down folks for such. We can't even read Mark Twain anymore without being characterized as a bigot.


----------



## birthday_massacre

777 said:


> Ok, so we can all agree that calling someone that word is bad, we have even come to a societal consensus that it's ok for some but not for others. *But what about talking about the word in an innocuous or explanitory way?* We've seen multiple examples of weaponized outrage taking down folks for such. We can't even read Mark Twain anymore without being characterized as a bigot.


You can easily just say the N word instead of actually saying it so that sort of thing does not happen. But if you are not calling a black person it, and talking about the word itself or talking about someone who said it, then those people should not get blowback for saying it.


----------



## Reaper

I really don't get the obsession with being able to say the N word and not being able to say it tbh. :Shrug

It's another tiny hill to die on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

the Trump thread is coming detailed with this lol We should probably all just move on from it ha ha

Looks like Rudy may have been drinking before going on the air a few times lol


----------



## 777

birthday_massacre said:


> You can easily just say the N word instead of actually saying it so that sort of thing does not happen. But if you are not calling a black person it, and talking about the word itself or talking about someone who said it, then those people should not get blowback for saying it.


That's not how things are playing out though. Context doesn't matter, it's not allowed. I have no ambition to use the word, however, I strongly dislike the censorious nature of the discourse/application.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Just like the ones that do the OK sign to troll people then play dumb OH what, I was just doing the ok sign. also with the OK sign, you can tell when they are doing the KKK version because of the smirk on their faces. They know exactly what they are doing. Also if there is no reason for doing yeah OK with that sign then you know what they really mean.


Why is the ok sign a racist or kkk symbol? I mean that's pretty absurd. If you just ignore it then it isn't anything but an ok symbol - rather than allowing it to be exclusively used by racists as ordinary people begin to fear being attacked for a doing pretty universally known symbol. That sort of shit doesn't help fight injustice or racism, all it does is make everyone thin the left have lost their minds.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Why is the ok sign a racist or kkk symbol? I mean that's pretty absurd. If you just ignore it then it isn't anything but an ok symbol - rather than allowing it to be exclusively used by racists as ordinary people begin to fear being attacked for a doing pretty universally known symbol. That sort of shit doesn't help fight injustice or racism, all it does is make everyone thin the left have lost their minds.


Its weird you think people using it as a KKK symbol should not be called out for it.

Next, you will say, so what if someone is burning a cross in their yard. If you ignore it, its just a symbol.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> if you are white you should not be painting your face black at all, you should not also be paint your whole body black to pretend you a black person. People that do that shit know exactly what they are doing.
> 
> Just like the ones that do the OK sign to troll people then play dumb OH what, I was just doing the ok sign. also with the OK sign, you can tell when they are doing the KKK version because of the smirk on their faces. They know exactly what they are doing. Also if there is no reason for doing yeah OK with that sign then you know what they really mean.
> 
> As for Chappell's white face no that is not considered racist because whiteface isn't taken from a tradition of racism like blackface is. should he be doing that, no he shouldn't?


They arent painting their bodies to dress like a black person (Im meaning this from the blackout stuff not halloween), but whatever.

Holy shit on the second paragraph...a smirk determines now if the "Ok" hand symbol is racist?? You do realize it isnt even the "ok" hand symbol its them holding up 3 fingers for making a 3?? If I show you several black NBA players making the same gesture while smirking/smiling, will you say the same? Im guessing no, you will come up with another out of this world excuse similar to this.

And while I agree I dont consider what Chappelle does as racist, my reasoning differs from yours.

You woken warriors can really find something wrong with anything. At this point, it may be easier to list things that arent sexist or racist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> They arent painting their bodies to dress like a black person (Im meaning this from the blackout stuff not halloween), but whatever.
> 
> Holy shit on the second paragraph...a smirk determines now if the "Ok" hand symbol is racist?? You do realize it isnt even the "ok" hand symbol its them holding up 3 fingers for making a 3?? If I show you several black NBA players making the same gesture while smirking/smiling, will you say the same? Im guessing no, you will come up with another out of this world excuse similar to this.
> 
> And while I agree I dont consider what Chappelle does as racist, my reasoning differs from yours.
> 
> You woken warriors can really find something wrong with anything. At this point, it may be easier to list things that arent sexist or racist.


I was talking about that Halloween pic of the globe trotter. You can be a globe trotter without panting your whole body and face black. 

As for the blackout game, again those kids painting their faces black, they knew exactly what they were doing. That is why 99% of the other people didn't do it because they know blackface is racist.

As for the whole smirking OK sign If you have someone in front of a Holocaust or Jewish monument and is doing the ok sign with a smirk on their face are you going to really claim it just means ok?

You can keep defending racism and bigotry all you want. its also cute you found a new buzzword.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> I was talking about that Halloween pic of the globe trotter. You can be a globe trotter without panting your whole body and face black.
> 
> As for the blackout game, again those kids painting their faces black, they knew exactly what they were doing. That is why 99% of the other people didn't do it because they know blackface is racist.
> 
> As for the whole smirking OK sign If you have someone in front of a Holocaust or Jewish monument and is doing the ok sign with a smirk on their face are you going to really claim it just means ok?
> 
> You can keep defending racism and bigotry all you want.


Ill agree on the globetrotter and disagree on the other part...not everyone participates the same way when allowed to dress up, we can agree to disagree here

We arent talking about them doing this at a Jewish Monument or Holocaust monument/place, we are talking about them doing this at a basketball game, quit trying to reach for something that isnt there.

Nobody is defending racism or bigotry so get off that soapbox like you are doing something special. I find it funny Kathy Griffin's dumbass realized that she was wrong about this but here you are, fighting a losing battle til your last breath.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Its weird you think people using it as a KKK symbol should not be called out for it.
> 
> Next, you will say, so what if someone is burning a cross in their yard. If you ignore it, its just a symbol.


Because it is not a kkk symbol, it's an ordinary symbol that is used by most people. Why is it racist exactly? 

That's a total false equivalency. Burning a cross is a symbol *only* used by the kkk and has been used by terrorists historically to intimidate black people. How is that the same as an ok symbol? Why are you giving trolls exactly what they want?



Jokerface17 said:


> I’ve learned to accept that you’re probably in your 40s and living in your parents basement still but Jesus man, grow up a little.


There's no need for that, we can all be civil here, even when we disagree


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Ill agree on the globetrotter and disagree on the other part...not everyone participates the same way when allowed to dress up, we can agree to disagree here
> 
> We arent talking about them doing this at a Jewish Monument or Holocaust monument/place, we are talking about them doing this at a basketball game, quit trying to reach for something that isnt there.
> 
> Nobody is defending racism or bigotry so get off that soapbox like you are doing something special. I find it funny Kathy Griffin's dumbass realized that she was wrong about this but here you are, fighting a losing battle til your last breath.


You are also trying to reach when the OK sign is used as a KKK symbol. You can't even deny it. 

I am not wrong about what I am saying. blackface is racist, and if you are white you should never go in blackface even as a costume.

last comment on this, since this is the Trump thread and its getting detailed.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> You are also trying to reach when the OK sign is used as a KKK symbol. You can't even deny it.
> 
> I am not wrong about what I am saying. blackface is racist, and if you are white you should never go in blackface even as a costume.


Didnt that originate as some nutjob conspiracy theory anyways?? But yet here I am denying its racist, unless you are saying its only racist for white people to do, which I have no clue if you are or arent saying that. 

Its not hard to find pics of players in the NBA holding up the same gesture, but I guess its different bc...hell I dont know anything that would make sense.

Agree to disagree mostly bc I dont find it racist if a black person dresses up in whiteface but you came up with another whacko reason for why its ok for black people but not ok for white people. 

The more you and I debate, the more I think you are king troll of this place. If you are you dont have to admit here, just send me a DM and let me know.


----------



## DesolationRow

Well at some point every idol falls.

Thinking back to the innumerable occasions on which Golden State Warriors shooting guard Klay Thompson klay) has displayed the "okay/three-pointer" gesture on a basketball court over the course of his professional basketball career it is appalling to discover the horrible truth: that he was signaling his fellow white supremacists from afar.

Why, Klay? Why?


Far more serious, it appears that the sitting president's plans for withdrawal from Syria are directly threatened by two unsurprising figures, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Shiite militias firing mortar shells into the Green Zone provoked Bolton to call upon the Pentagon to engender a widespread selection of Iranian targets to bomb in eventual retaliation were it deemed necessary. Bolton has contended that Trump's withdrawal from Syria can only be enacted once the militants of the Islamic State are by one means or another destroyed and all Iranian forces, allies and proxies ejected from Syria. Pompeo has vociferously chimed in repeatedly, arguing that American foreign policy in Syria dictates nothing less than ensuring that "every last Iranian boot" thrown out of Syria. Bolton and Pompeo have also insisted that the Americans must maintain indefinite protection for the Kurds. Not only this but just as tensions are escalating to considerable degrees between Iran and Israel, Pompeo has declared Hezbollah a direct enemy of the U.S. and a key American objective going forward to send the group packing out of Syria, as a "wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime."

Naturally such conditions mean that the American withdrawal will be something talked about but much like Trump's border wall measures with Mexico, also something the permanent Beltway supra-bureaucracy will disallow, much as London aligned with Brussels to slowly but adroitly obviate the votes cast in favor of "Brexit" over thirty months ago. 

As was noted in the pages of the _Wall Street Journal_ Bolton's demeanor and histrionics in arguing on behalf of striking Iran "rattled people. ....People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran."

As James Bond once said, "Shocking... Positively shocking."


----------



## deepelemblues

Don't be GUILTY of committing FACECRIME!

WATCH YOUR FACE...

...Big Brother is.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> You are also trying to reach when the OK sign is used as a KKK symbol. You can't even deny it.
> 
> I am not wrong about what I am saying. blackface is racist, and if you are white you should never go in blackface even as a costume.
> 
> last comment on this, since this is the Trump thread and its getting detailed.


The O.K. hand signal thing is weird. As well as I can tell, it originally started as a hoax. Then the trolls picked it up. And now racists do use it.

The problem is that the majority of people don't realize it's a thing. Which makes sense. The O.K. has been used for a really long time to mean O.K. or three. This isn't like using a new hand signal that has always meant racist, it's co-opting one already in use. I still do it to say ok or when telling someone three, just out of habit. Also, I'd point out that if people on the left hadn't believed the hoax and given it so much attention, it probably wouldn't have been picked up by trolls and racists.

As for the black face thing. I still think context and intent matter. Like RDJ isn't racist for doing it in Tropic Thunder or Sarah Silverman on her show because it was satirical, but those assholes that hold "ghetto" frat parties and wear blackface are being racist. Those students at the blackout games may have been racist, but they could have also been overzealous fans and didn't consider what it could look like.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> I really don't get the obsession with being able to say the N word and not being able to say it tbh. :Shrug
> 
> It's another tiny hill to die on.


you don't understand someone's need to defend their freedom of speech in a public forum?

should it be legally or socially acceptable to forbid a specific group of people the use of *words* because another group finds it offensive? you don't think that will lead to anywhere bad?

if you make it okay to ban one word then what's stopping you from banning other words? today it is the n-word, but what if tomorrow it is something else? what if hispanics declare that you can't use slurs against them either? and then jews, and then muslims, and then handicap people, and then ugly people.. and then any other group?

i take it you haven't really thought this through?


----------



## GothicBohemian

Berzerker's Beard said:


> if you make it okay to ban one word then what's stopping you from banning other words? today it is the n-word, but what if tomorrow it is something else? what if hispanics declare that you can't use slurs against them either? and then jews? and then handicap people? and then ugly people?


Why would you, or anyone, worry about your freedom to "use slurs" against various groups of people? That seems an unnecessary freedom to fight for.


----------



## CamillePunk

There are so many great real-time and turn-based grand strategy games that someone should really introduce these old, out of touch warmongers to so they can fulfill their desires without getting real people killed.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

GothicBohemian said:


> Why would you, or anyone, worry about your freedom to "use slurs" against various groups of people? That seems an unnecessary freedom to fight for.


banning other people's speech is an even more odd thing to fight for. 

it goes beyond just using them as slurs. activists don't want people using the word period in any context, not even in reference. i.e. if the word is written on a page you should not even read it aloud. i.e. if you hear the word in a song you should not sing along. you need to censor yourself at all times.

you already have the freedom to tell someone else to go fuck their mother. seems kind of silly that someone shouldn't have the freedom to call someone else a slur.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you don't understand someone's need to defend their freedom of speech in a public forum?
> 
> should it be legally or socially acceptable to forbid a specific group of people the use of *words* because another group finds it offensive? you don't think that will lead to anywhere bad?
> 
> if you make it okay to ban one word then what's stopping you from banning other words? today it is the n-word, but what if tomorrow it is something else? what if hispanics declare that you can't use slurs against them either? and then jews, and then muslims, and then handicap people, and then ugly people.. and then any other group?
> 
> i take it you haven't really thought this through?


This is a bad take.

There are a group of people who like using slurs, and there are a group who don't.

I am a black person that hate when anyone says the N-word, including when other black people use it.

Thats as simple a take as it is, most people who want to say the word, want to say it for underlying reasons, most people who do;t want to hear the word, don;t want to hear it at all.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

DMD Mofomagic said:


> This is a bad take.
> 
> There are a group of people who like using slurs, and there are a group who don't.
> 
> I am a black person that hate when anyone says the N-word, including when other black people use it.
> 
> Thats as simple a take as it is, most people who want to say the word, want to say it for underlying reasons, most people who do;t want to hear the word, don;t want to hear it at all.


all due respect so because you don't like to hear a certain word, that gives you the right to prevent other people from using it? would it be okay for someone else to stop you from using words that _they_ don't like?

i'll tell you if black people as a collective DID crusade against the use of the word then other people would stop using it too. you don't see people casually throwing the word **** around do you? it's because jews don't call each other that. the only context, outside of a referential context, IS a racist context.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> There are so many great real-time and turn-based grand strategy games that someone should really introduce these old, out of touch warmongers to so they can fulfill their desires without getting real people killed.


Not a bad idea. Give John Bolton C & C Red Alert 2 and lock him a room with it for a few years. He'd be happy as a clam as long as he had his mustache comb too.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> all due respect so because you don't like to hear a certain word, that gives you the right to prevent other people from using it? would it be okay for someone else to stop you from using words that _they_ don't like?
> 
> i'll tell you if black people as a collective DID crusade against the use of the word then other people would stop using it too. you don't see people casually throwing the word **** around do you? it's because jews don't call each other that. the only context, outside of a referential context, IS a racist context.


Are you really defending people that use racial slurs lol


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Berzerker's Beard said:


> all due respect so because you don't like to hear a certain word, that gives you the right to prevent other people from using it? would it be okay for someone else to stop you from using words that _they_ don't like?


You have known my stance in majority of these arguments....

You can say what you want, as long as it isn't directly towards me, but that doesn't mean I like to hear it.

I also think just basic context is in play here. 

There is a difference someone saying the word because they read a book, or sing a song, vs. having venomous rage for it. 



> i'll tell you if black people as a collective DID crusade against the use of the word then other people would stop using it too. you don't see people casually throwing the word **** around do you? it's because jews don't call each other that. the only context, outside of a referential context, IS a racist context.


Maybe, but we are long past that point. 

It isn't the fact that the word is used casually as much as a lot of words have lost their meaning.

I remember when you couldn't say the word shit on tv, now.... it is a common word on a sitcom.

And the C word for women, is sometimes used as a greeting.

Doesn't make it right, just makes it what it is.

I am going back to enjoy my semi retiring posting in peace, lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

context matters, not words. it's that simple.

grown adults should know the difference when someone is speaking out of hate, speaking out of jest or speaking out of kin. the words themselves are secondary.

we can't specify good and bad words depending on the color of the person using them. equality as a people and culture means using the same words.


----------



## DesolationRow

Surely in this time of great tumult the followers of the Libertarian Party, in their perpetual mission to restore liberty as exemplified by the near-4.5 million who voted for Gary Johnson and William F. Weld, are becoming enamored with a serious presidential campaign fronted by a sober and prudent man who will wholly alter their political party's status as laughingstock. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079863420458074112

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087968125054844928

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087891254875168768
Oh.

:lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> context matters, not words. it's that simple.
> 
> grown adults should know the difference when someone is speaking out of hate, speaking out of jest or speaking out of kin. the words themselves are secondary.
> 
> we can't specify good and bad words depending on the color of the person using them. equality as a people and culture means using the same words.


Everything can be interpreted different ways though, so the context is not always some totally clear thing, it's not objective. To some different words and behaviors are healthy and fine, but not to others, because the context and history of events related to things mean different things to different people.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> Everything can be interpreted different ways though, so the context is not always some totally clear thing, it's not objective. *To some different words and behaviors are healthy and fine, but not to others*, because the context and history of events related to things mean different things to different people.


which is exactly why we can't condone the banning of words. by that logic we might as well ban every insult in the dictionary because someone is going to find them offensive. it would never stop at just one word.

in no way, shape or form is censorship of speech a good thing. it is precisely why the first amendment exists. declaring different safe words for different groups of people is just another way to keep us divided. anyone that argues otherwise is being gamed by the race hustlers.

a little girl actually got in trouble for repeating n***a on stage at a kendrick lamar concert when he asked her to come up and rap along the lyrics to maad city. she was chastised and humiliated. do you not see how utterly crazy that is?


----------



## Reaper

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you don't understand someone's need to defend their freedom of speech in a public forum?
> 
> should it be legally or socially acceptable to forbid a specific group of people the use of *words* because another group finds it offensive? you don't think that will lead to anywhere bad?
> 
> if you make it okay to ban one word then what's stopping you from banning other words? today it is the n-word, but what if tomorrow it is something else? what if hispanics declare that you can't use slurs against them either? and then jews, and then muslims, and then handicap people, and then ugly people.. and then any other group?
> 
> i take it you haven't really thought this through?


Me: it's a tiny hill to die on
You: *dies on the tiny hill*


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> Me: it's a tiny hill to die on
> You: *dies on the tiny hill*


are you BM's alt?


----------



## Reaper

Berzerker's Beard said:


> are you BM's alt?


I have fire ants in my yard. And I don't really know what to do about them. I think I'm gonna go and make a bunch of posts about how my entire house will burn down if I don't kill those ants.

Yesterday, I stepped in a puddle of water. 

OMG I was drowning. 

Damn. 

Fucking hell those SJWOOOS


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> which is exactly why we can't condone the banning of words. by that logic we might as well ban every insult in the dictionary because someone is going to find them offensive. it would never stop at just one word.
> 
> in no way, shape or form is censorship of speech a good thing. it is precisely why the first amendment exists. declaring different safe words for different groups of people is just another way to keep us divided. anyone that argues otherwise is being gamed by the race hustlers.
> 
> a little girl actually got in trouble for repeating n***a on stage at a kendrick lamar concert when he asked her to come up and rap along the lyrics to maad city. she was chastised and humiliated. do you not see how utterly crazy that is?


Sure but I don't think anyone is suggesting actually banning words. Freedom of speech should be there of course, but you don't get to do it being free of criticism either.

Yes I do see how crazy the Kendrick thing is, you're inviting people up to sing you're song but then censoring them based on background, so yes that's crazy.


----------



## El Grappleador

yeahbaby! said:


> Everything can be interpreted different ways though, so the context is not always some totally clear thing, it's not objective. To some different words and behaviors are healthy and fine, but not to others, because the context and history of events related to things mean different things to different people.


Fascinating :hmmm
Then, Trump's Speeches not censored cause context and history of events on US are different than world. And cause of context is not objective, words or thoughts may be distorted by Establishment, SJW's, Pro-A-gressive, chairos (Shy-roes), etc. 

Well, As I see, that's what may I understood.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> Sure but I don't think anyone is suggesting actually banning words. Freedom of speech should be there of course, *but you don't get to do it being free of criticism either.*
> 
> Yes I do see how crazy the Kendrick thing is, you're inviting people up to sing you're song but then censoring them based on background, so yes that's crazy.


and i am saying it is wrong to criticize someone else for using a word that YOU yourself use (and hear) every day.

ice cube actually had the gall to go on bill maher's show and chastise him for using the n-word in a joke. has ice cube _heard_ an ice cube album? are we really supposed to believe something like that bothered him? :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> and i am saying it is wrong to criticize someone else for using a word that YOU yourself use (and hear) every day.


:Wat?


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088181789103841280


----------



## Vic Capri

It was painful to watch Sinead O' Connor

fpalm

- Vic


----------



## Deathstroke

Vic Capri said:


> It was painful to watch Sinead O' Connor
> 
> fpalm
> 
> - Vic


You have to love it when white people say that other white people can't tell people of color what is or isn't racist except when they're telling you something isn't racist and then all of a sudden white people gonna whitesplain to POC what is racist and what isn't.

POC have to follow the narrative or else to these white folks. :kobefacepalm


----------



## DesolationRow

The Covington Catholic Bishop and school administration have provided as much defense and protection for the Covington teenagers as one might expect in this seemingly never-ending fun-house horror show. The students were immediately impugned by the Diocese and now the Bishop and school are informing the kids who are evidently still receiving a steady stream of death threats every day that at this point they cannot speak to media sources. 

The cluster of Black Hebrew Israelites who instigated the first wave of conflict by confronting the students and using an almost constant barrage of repulsive gutter language and slurs seem to be held as generally innocuous if scabrous personages. The members of this cult of American blacks who insist that they are the lost tribes of Israel, finding some way to somehow one-up the craziness of British Israelites including the creator of the Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong, even told one black student that the white kids would once they had all reached adulthood, cut him open to harvest his organs. 

As an aside, one of the more amusing experiences interacting with a Black Hebrew Israelite was while walking around near the Civic Center in San Francisco once eight years ago this month was this one fellow in a robe shouting toward whites and Latinos that they were all cursed and would never reach salvation. Thinking of the moment I recall smiling in his direction and now I realize with terrible clarity that I committed a facecrime in Orwellian America circa January 2019 (better hope the Justice Department never has time travel technology to ignore the _ex post facto_ law clause). The smile did beco,me a chuckle that chilly January evening, however, once the Black Hebrew Israelite declared toward a group of whites including myself, having just happened to be walking with them from across the street, that the "Dark Ages" were called so because "blacks ruled over Europe" at the time. 


Meanwhile Instagram took about thirty minutes to "unverify" Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro and verify Guaido once the U.S. government began recognizing Juan Guaido.

:lmao The wholly private social media companies are still just happening to align with the U.S. government's chiefest objectives. :lmao 

Being an American citizen for all that is worth now is such a maddening experience in 2019, and it certainly has been growing up through the Clinton years of the 1990s which seemed perhaps most memorably characterized in the realm of foreign policy by government bureaucrats who spoke like stereotypical Sunday schoolmarms who couched each and every last intervention under Clinton as a kind of thoroughly humanitarian endeavor on behalf of the altar of democracy and human rights. Donald Trump in the past acknowledged the altogether unavoidable point that the U.S. regime has been as internationally violent as anyone, and even only a few short months ago defended the arms deal to Saudi Arabia on the grounds that it was financially good for the U.S. and the U.S.'s prized assets such as Boeing and Raytheon. Yet now he seems intent on dishing out the cotton candy like everyone else with this Venezuela situation. 

And it is strikingly intriguing because it merits a presidential address for a multitude of reasons. The vast majority of U.S.-instigated interventions are unwarranted but a U.S. coup against Maduro may be an exception as all evidence points toward his preparing for the Russians to enjoy the placement of Russian nuclear bombers, which they did indeed send to Venezuela, in the Caribbean under Maduro's auspices. If only the U.S. government and spokespeople both within and without said government and the mainstream media would be frank concerning this rather than prattling on about what a mean fellow Maduro is, as if that matters in the least. 

Furthermore, this is yet another instance of the U.S. and Russia colliding. The Russians are furious now, with the Kremlin warning against further intervention on the part of the U.S. in Venezuela. 

The American diplomats who have been told they have 72 hours to leave Venezuela are doubtless taking Maduro at his word and leaving as fast as possible.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> I see less justification for blackface here and more persecution complex tbh.
> 
> On both sides.
> 
> It's a method of passive aggressively demanding power through oppression.


People used to fear the words "Peace through Power". Now they'll have to fear "Power through Oppression". 

Who would have guessed the victim complex could be so powerful? :laugh:



2 Ton 21 said:


> Like these two stories from yesterday and today. Much better example of racism and prejudice. They've barely made blip on the national media.
> 
> *Video: Man Pulls Gun on Black Kids at MLK Day Protest in Brickell, Calls Them the N-Word UPDATED*
> 
> *Police: Four plotted to attack NY Muslim community with IEDs, 23 guns*


2ton I like you but nobody fucking cares about this. The pursuit of an all powerful and unstoppable boogeyman is far more better for stories and outrage than actual problems. Besides Russia is the real threat, along with red hats and smirks.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> :Wat?


is this programmed npc response for "i have no logical counterpoint in response to your argument, you've won good sir?"


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Read this article by Andrew Sullivan earier and thought I'd share. He makes a good point about Mattis's resignation.



> *The Establishment Will Never Say No to a War*
> 
> By Andrew Sullivan
> 
> The question before us is a relatively simple one: What would be the criteria for removing our remaining troops from the Iraqi, Syrian, and more general Middle Eastern conflicts? Or, for that matter, from Afghanistan, where we have been trapped for more than 17 long years of still open-ended occupation?
> 
> If the answer to that question is that only when each of these countries is a healthy pro-American democracy, and Islamist terrorism has ceased to be an “enduring” threat to the West, then the answer, as the old Bob Mankoff joke has it, is “How about never — is never good for you?”
> 
> Or consider what a shocked Lieutenant General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. of the Marines, the incoming commander of Central Command opined after hearing the news of Trump’s withdrawal of 7,000 troops from Afghanistan yesterday: “If we left precipitously right now, I do not believe [the Afghan forces] would be able to successfully defend their country. I don’t know how long it’s going to take. I think that one of the things that would actually provide the most damage to them would be if we put a timeline on it and we said we were going out at a certain point in time.”
> 
> Get that? After 17 years, we’ve gotten nowhere, like every single occupier before us. But for that reason, we have to stay. These commanders have been singing this tune year after year for 17 years of occupation, and secretaries of Defense have kept agreeing with them. Trump gave them one last surge of troops — violating his own campaign promise — and we got nowhere one more time. It is getting close to insane.
> 
> Neoconservatism, it seems, never dies. It just mutates constantly to find new ways to intervene, to perpetuate forever wars, to send more young Americans to die in countries that don’t want them amid populations that try to kill them. If you want the most recent proof of that, look at Yemen, where the Saudi policy of mass civilian deaths in a Sunni war on Shiites is backed by American arms and U.S. It’s also backed by American troops on the ground — in a secret war conducted by Green Berets that was concealed from Congress. There is no conceivable threat to the U.S. from the Houthi rebels in Yemen; and there was no prior congressional approval. Did you even know we had ground troops deployed there?
> 
> The same for liberal internationalism, which also never seems to die, however many catastrophes it spawns. There’s always an impending “massacre” somewhere to justify intervention, which is why we have been dutifully told that withdrawing from Syria would lead to a “slaughter” of the Kurds. Remember the massacre that gave Hillary Clinton a chance to launch another Middle Eastern war in Libya? How many more innocents were slaughtered after we toppled Qaddafi than those in danger before? And all because Clinton refused to learn a single thing from Iraq. (If Clinton had actually won in 2016, we would probably have far more troops occupying Syria today, and be digging in for the long haul, and we’d probably have even more troops in yet another doomed surge in Afghanistan. That goes some way to explaining why Clinton has a massive 31/62 negative approval rating in the latest, Democrat-friendly Quinnipiac poll, much worse than even Trump.)
> 
> So it was not surprising that the usual suspects — the people who brought you the Iraq War — blanketed the mainstream media these past couple of days with the usual threats and bluffs and bluster, and that the mainstream media amplified their message. Jake Tapper reported yesterday that “senior officials across the administration agree that the president’s decision-by-tweet will recklessly put American and allied lives in danger around the world, take the pressure off of ISIS allowing them to reconstitute, and hand a strategic victory to our Syrian, Iranian, and Russian adversaries … It’s a mistake of colossal proportions and the president fails to see how it will endanger our country.”
> 
> Sorry, but I also fail to see how it will endanger the United States. I’ve heard these arguments so many times before — and I used them myself, to my eternal shame, before the Iraq catastrophe. But unlike most of the authors of that catastrophe, I learned my lesson. I simply do not believe that the West has the knowledge, the will, or the ability to shape the extremely complicated and endlessly vicious politics of the Middle East. And I defy anyone to show otherwise. It’s an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole. If we haven’t learned that by now, after spending $6 trillion so far in this forever war on terror, and wreaking chaos and havoc across the region, we never will. Of course, there is a moral case for not destroying a country and then walking away. But ending a conflict that began in 2003? Isn’t 15 years enough? That’s three times as long as the war against Hitler.
> 
> And what if the Syrian nightmare does become owned by Russia? Getting another imperial power to live with that albatross seems to me rather shrewd, does it not? (I’d be happy to see Russian troops reoccupy Afghanistan for that matter. An occupation of that imperial graveyard might do to Putin’s regime what it did to the Soviet Union.) And why, oh why, do we care if Iran wants to champion Shiite forces in Syria and Iraq? The U.S. has no national interest in the outcome of a Sunni-Shiite war, as long as neither side wins. We did very well by staying out of the Iran-Iraq war all those years ago, did we not? And when we did get involved, via Iran-Contra, it was a disaster.
> 
> As for Israel — which is, of course, the real motivation for most neoconservative dreams of controlling the Middle East — it can surely defend itself at this point. Israel has massive military, technological, intelligence, and economic advantages over its neighbors, and, unlike Iran, also has nuclear weapons, refuses to admit it, and will not sign (again unlike Iran) the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. And the Israelis need U.S. troops to occupy the Middle East permanently as well? Why? It’s high time the U.S. called their bluff.
> 
> But Washington never learns this lesson, cannot relinquish the imperial temptation, even as it has bankrupted us, killed and maimed thousands of young Americans, and turned us into a country that commits war crimes. If you want to understand why we have a resurgence of populism and why a patently unfit person like Trump became president, it’s because most Americans know when their government refuses to do what its people want.
> 
> And it’s worth pointing out that in the last three consecutive presidential elections, the winners explicitly vowed to get us out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan — let alone Syria — and defeated their interventionist opponents. Obama was elected and reelected to end the Iraq occupation, and was then sucked back in by the exact same arguments we are hearing today. Trump was even more adamant in ending imperial overreach, but after two years, guess what? We are still in Syria and we have more troops in Afghanistan (and are currently conducting an air campaign there as ferocious as any in the past) and we have — more than ever before — jumped into the eternal Sunni-Shiite war by supporting the Saudi royal dictatorship. In the Syrian case, there is no constitutional defense at all: no congressional authorization whatever. And if there had been a congressional vote to start a new war in Syria, does anyone believe it would have passed?
> 
> But what’s astonishing this time is how the Democrats and much of the liberal Establishment now supports an unending occupation of yet another Middle Eastern country. David Sanger’s New York Times “analysis” is a perfect distillation of such thinking. It contains not a sentence about the costs of long-term occupation of the Middle East or the endless failures in Afghanistan. It reads as if the Iraq War never happened. It even regards non-interventionism as “a contrarian’s view of American military power.” That’s how impenetrable the Establishment bubble is! Then Sanger actually repackages the George W. Bush doctrine that “we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here,” as if it were the key lessoned learned from the Iraq War! Here’s Sanger’s actual paraphrase: “deployed forces are key to stopping terrorists before they reach American shores.” Just let that sink in. According to the New York Times, the lesson of the Iraq War is that we need to intervene more in the Middle East, not less. Seriously.
> 
> The Syrian occupation is not a minor thing. The Washington Post reported a week ago, long before Trump’s tweet, that “US troops will now stay in Syria indefinitely, controlling a third of the country, and facing peril on many fronts.” A third of an entire country! How many Americans knew or know this? Very, very few. I didn’t. And this was not designed to fight ISIS. It was explicitly defended as part of a long-term pushback on Iranian and Russian influence in the region. It seems to me that this kind of shift in rationale — again with no congressional approval — is almost a definition of mission creep. We should not be asking why Trump has decided to nip this in the bud, following his clear and popular mandate to get us out of the region. We should be asking how on earth did the Establishment find a way to occupy yet another Middle Eastern country without any democratic buy-in at all. At least there was a congressional debate before the Iraq War and a robust public discussion. This time, they have launched a new war, occupied a third of another country, changed the rationale so they stay for ever, and tried to hide it!
> *
> The resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is the icing on this blood-drenched cake. Yes, Mattis was a vital obstacle to some of Trump’s criminal and impulsive tendencies. In his resignation letter, he cited the need to sustain alliances across the world, and the need to constrain Russia. Fair enough. But it is telling, is it not, that he didn’t resign when Trump told NATO that Article 5 was effectively void; he didn’t resign when Trump launched his bizarre love-in with Kim Jong-un; he didn’t quit after the disastrous G7 meeting this year, or after the staggering Helsinki press conference; he didn’t quit when Trump openly tried to break up the European Union; he didn’t quit when Trump moved to change his plans on transgender troops by fiat; he didn’t resign when his Afghan surge failed yet again; and he didn’t resign when Trump ordered 5,000 troops to the Mexican border as a political stunt. He quit when he was told to end a failing, forever war and an indefinite occupation of yet another country. That’s the red line: any retrenchment of the ever-expanding American empire.*
> 
> Yes, Trump’s foreign policy is a chaotic, incoherent, dangerous mess. Yes, he is clearly and manifestly unfit for office, and should have been removed a long time ago. Charting a new course in a war should never be done without proper consultation with allies and the top brass. (Trump did, of course, consult with Netanyahu and Erdogan.) U.S. troops, fighting these unwinnable wars, deserve to hear of a change in course from their commanders, not Twitter. There are always debates to be had over the specific timing and pace of withdrawal. I’m alarmed by the absence of any adviser who doesn’t want a war with Iran, and predicted that at some point, the wannabe tyrant would throw all the sane people out of the nest. There is no defense of this deranged form of decision-making from a clearly psychologically disturbed person.
> 
> But I find Trump’s persistence in following his electoral mandate against so much Establishment pressure in this particular respect to be rather admirable. There comes a point when a president has to say no to the neo-imperial blob, to cut bait in wars that have become ends in themselves, generating the very problems they were launched to resolve. There is never a good time to do this. There wasn’t in Vietnam and there isn’t in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Sometimes, you just have to do it. I wish Obama had been able to. But he got trapped in agonizing rationalizations of the indefensible, paid too much respect to the architects of failure (not to speak of torture), and thereby failed after eight long years to fulfill his core campaign promise to disengage from these quagmires. Maybe it takes an impulsive, dangerous nutjob like Trump to finally do it, to end the wars the American people want to end. And that, I think, is less an indictment of him than of those who let this madness go on for so long.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> is this programmed npc response for "i have no logical counterpoint in response to your argument, you've won good sir?"


OH look you learned another lame buzzword.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> OH look you learned another lame buzzword.


I've read his comment several times, I'm confused....whats the "buzzword" he used?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> I've read his comment several times, I'm confused....whats the "buzzword" he used?


Npc is the latest lame buzzword the alt right trolls love to use


----------



## 2 Ton 21

NJPW can't get Visas for their Japanese wrestlers due to the shutdown.

https://www.njpw1972.com/42984



> JAN.24.2019 #INFO
> 
> *Regarding THE NEW BEGINNING in USA*
> 
> It is with great disappointment that we must announce that due to the ongoing 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown, we were unable to obtain visas for our Japanese talent who were looking forward to seeing our US fans at the New Beginning in USA.
> 
> We are excited to still be able to share a great line-up with our US fans, regardless of visa issues. The IWGP US Champion, Juice Robinson, is defending his title against Barretta and The Great O-Kharn, who is flying in from England, will be debuting in New Japan! What’s more, this show will highlight the talent and potential of our Young Lions, who have been working hard in the NJPW LA dojo. We are looking forward to being able to celebrate the abilities of the exciting new generation of young NJPW wrestlers.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> is this programmed npc response for "i have no logical counterpoint in response to your argument, you've won good sir?"


:nah


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Npc is the latest lame buzzword the alt right trolls love to use


I mean, thats not doesn't quite fit a definition for Buzzword but lets not act like you aren't the king of buzzwords lol


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Npc is the latest lame buzzword the alt right trolls love to use


I say it's a great word considering how many non-critical thinking political zombies just spout off whatever the media, whatever politician they like or commentator tells them to.

People not thinking for themselves is how we're in this Political landscape. It didn't happen by surprise or overnight.


----------



## Draykorinee

NPC is the epitome of a buzzword regardless of whether you think it's a good use of the word in general. I don't know why anyone would argue it's not.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088769686651789312
This is shady as hell. They've arrested Roger Stone and made sure CNN was there to film it.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> NPC is the epitome of a buzzword regardless of whether you think it's a good use of the word in general. I don't know why anyone would argue it's not.


well when someone makes an argument and you choose to refute it not with logic or facts but with pointless gifs, non-sequiturs and ad hominems... yea you kind of earn the right to be called an npc. you demonstrated that your debate points are pre-programmed and you have no counter argument of your own.

and wow the ignore feature on this forum is horrible because even though i put BM on ignore i still see his posts when other people engage him. what's the point?


----------



## Vic Capri

> This is shady as hell. They've arrested Roger Stone and made sure CNN was there to film it.


Like with Dinesh D'Souza, this arrest is a political hit job by the Democratic Party.

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Like with Dinesh D'Souza, this arrest is a political hit job by the Democratic Party.
> 
> - Vic


You probably believe in pizzagate and Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC don't you?


----------



## Hoolahoop33

There is no rule of law in the United States.

Another arrest which has nothing to do with collusion but for 'lying to the FBI' . You can't help but wonder how many, if any, would be arrested for 'lying to the FBI' if they were to investigate the shady activities of the DNC.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088769686651789312
> This is shady as hell. They've arrested Roger Stone and made sure CNN was there to film it.


The FBI and CIA have jumped the shark.



Draykorinee said:


> NPC is the epitome of a buzzword regardless of whether you think it's a good use of the word in general. I don't know why anyone would argue it's not.


It's a buzzword but find it more accurate and telling than most others that get tossed around.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> NPC is the epitome of a buzzword regardless of whether you think it's a good use of the word in general. I don't know why anyone would argue it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> well when someone makes an argument and you choose to refute it not with logic or facts but with pointless gifs, non-sequiturs and ad hominems... yea you kind of earn the right to be called an npc. you demonstrated that your debate points are pre-programmed and you have no counter argument of your own.
> 
> and wow the ignore feature on this forum is horrible because even though i put BM on ignore i still see his posts when other people engage him. what's the point?
Click to expand...

The use of gifs are reserved for arguments so devoid of any actual reasoning that they don't deserve a proper discussion. I've shown time and again on here that I'll debate so throwing a buzzword at me because of one post is a swing and a miss as usual.

But yes the ignore function is a failure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> I mean, thats not doesn't quite fit a definition for Buzzword but lets not act like you aren't the king of buzzwords lol


Of course its a buzzword, and there is a reason why I called it a lame buzzword.




Miss Sally said:


> I say it's a great word considering how many non-critical thinking political zombies just spout off whatever the media, whatever politician they like or commentator tells them to.
> 
> People not thinking for themselves is how we're in this Political landscape. It didn't happen by surprise or overnight.


That is ironic since 99% of the time the people using buzzwors like NPC are the ones who are non-critical thinking political zombies just spout off whatever the media, whatever politician they like or commentator tells them LOL.

They just use the buzzword like NPC or SJW because they can't defend their disagreement with what is being said.




Hoolahoop33 said:


> There is no rule of law in the United States.
> 
> Another arrest which has nothing to do with collusion but for 'lying to the FBI' . You can't help but wonder how many, if any, would be arrested for 'lying to the FBI' if they were to investigate the shady activities of the DNC.


It has everything to do with collusion LOL

He lied to the FBI about the collusion case. Also you don't think someone should be arrested for lying to the FBI? it's a felony. If there was no rule of law you would be able to perjury yourself and get away with it.m So you think perjury is ok?


Also Roger stone has not been charged with collusion (yet) but he has been ACCUSED of it with a Russian cutout through an intermediary in a special counsel indictment. He is only charging him because he wants the bigger fish like Trump, Trump jr, Kushner etc.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088855923362283521


More
BREAKING: President Trump: "We have reached a deal to end the shutdown and reopen the federal government."


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump rolled over and showed his belly on the Wall. Perhaps he should resign and give Pence a chance to use the powers of the office if Trump isn't willing to do it himself. :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Trump rolled over and showed his belly on the Wall. Perhaps he should resign and give Pence a chance to use the powers of the office if Trump isn't willing to do it himself. :draper2



trump can't keep winning can he lol

And sorry but the courts never would have let Trump use the state of emergency BS to build the wall.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

They'd started canceling flights and turning away planes at airports due to shortage of TSA and air traffic controllers. The second I read that, I knew he'd cave. That shit is too noticeable to too many people. National parks closing, tourist areas, etc. won't gain much traction, but changes in air travel will.


----------



## NotGuilty

i am just happy to finally be paid again after a month and wondering how feb was going to work out :Shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> trump can't keep winning can he lol
> 
> And sorry but the courts never would have let Trump use the state of emergency BS to build the wall.


Incorrect. Any lawsuit would be dismissed due to lack of standing. Trump has full authority to declare a national emergency and build a wall. He's just a pussy. :draper2 Someone should grab him and tell him he's the president of the United States.

Instead we had a government shutdown for 3 weeks and ZERO to show for it except lower approval ratings and several displays of absolute weakness. You can't negotiate with people who don't want to negotiate with you and have no reason to.


----------



## blaird

NotGuilty said:


> i am just happy to finally be paid again after a month and wondering how feb was going to work out :Shrug


Glad it worked out for you...from what Im reading its just a 3 week spending bill so may want to save what you can in case it shuts down again in a few weeks (not that I think it will, but who knows).


----------



## NotGuilty

blaird said:


> Glad it worked out for you...from what Im reading its just a 3 week spending bill so may want to save what you can in case it shuts down again in a few weeks (not that I think it will, but who knows).


it's only for 3 weeks yeah but that's 3 paychecks and a relief from the stress for a bit.


----------



## CamillePunk

It'll be more than 3 weeks. He's not shutting down the government again. We're about to see some real dog-and-pony shit and absolutely nothing will actually come of it. Trump and whatever supporters he has left will declare victory anyway, but he'll get creamed in 2020. The presidency was lost today.


----------



## blaird

NotGuilty said:


> it's only for 3 weeks yeah but that's 3 paychecks and a relief from the stress for a bit.


I can imagine. Right after Christmas also has to be a huge stress as well. We get our Jan checks in mid Dec so we have 6-7 weeks we have to stretch that out. I couldnt imagine not getting one.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Incorrect. Any lawsuit would be dismissed due to lack of standing. *Trump has full authority to declare a national emergency and build a wall*. He's just a pussy. :draper2 Someone should grab him and tell him he's the president of the United States.
> 
> Instead we had a government shutdown for 3 weeks and ZERO to show for it except lower approval ratings and several displays of absolute weakness. You can't negotiate with people who don't want to negotiate with you and have no reason to.


No, he does not. He cannot do an end around congress fora spending bill he can't get just to build a wall. There is no emergency.

And Trump showed why he is an awful negotiator. He could have had 50 billion a year ago and now has nothing lol


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> No, he does not. He cannot do an end around congress fora spending bill he can't get just to build a wall. There is no emergency.
> 
> And Trump showed why he is an awful negotiator. He could have had 50 billion a year ago and now has nothing lol


Stop defending Trump smh, typical Trump supporter. 

The criteria for what constitutes a national emergency isn't as strict as you seem to think. Obama declared a national emergency over civil strife in Burundi FFS. I'll wait while you google Burundi. Don't worry, I never heard of it until recently either. 

He has full authority to declare a national emergency over the border situation, and to divert funds towards any civil projects he seems fit to address the emergency. There is no party with any standing with which to file a lawsuit, any such lawsuit would be dismissed immediately.

Trump could've built the wall Day 1. With a Republican House and Senate, he elected not to, expecting them to do the right thing. Fair enough. Now we have a Democratic House who were never EVER going to negotiate with him on the issue. He's still playing games and being weak. 

It's not going to happen, and he's going to get murdered in 2020. He should just re-sign now and go back to New York.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Stop defending Trump smh, typical Trump supporter.
> 
> The criteria for what constitutes a national emergency isn't as strict as you seem to think. Obama declared a national emergency over civil strife in Burundi FFS. I'll wait while you google Burundi. Don't worry, I never heard of it until recently either.
> 
> He has full authority to declare a national emergency over the border situation, and to divert funds towards any civil projects he seems fit to address the emergency. There is no party with any standing with which to file a lawsuit, any such lawsuit would be dismissed immediately.
> 
> Trump could've built the wall Day 1. With a Republican House and Senate, he elected not to, expecting them to do the right thing. Fair enough. Now we have a Democratic House who were never EVER going to negotiate with him on the issue. He's still playing games and being weak.
> 
> It's not going to happen, and he's going to get murdered in 2020. He should just re-sign now and go back to New York.


No, he cants LOL In the 50s Truman declared a state of emergency to nationalize the steel industry and the SCOTUS struck it down.

Also by you saying Trump could have built the wall day 1, that just shows it's not an emergency.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> No, he cants LOL In the 50s Truman declared a state of emergency to nationalize the steel industry and the SCOTUS struck it down.


Yes, declaring a national emergency does not mean you can do whatever you want. I never said that it does. But you can do the things you have explicit authority to do during a national emergency, such as diverting funds to civil works projects that relate to national security, i.e a BORDER WALL. 

Nationalizing the steel industry is not remotely comparable.

Trump could've done this, or at least tried to. He did neither. He's weak. Stop defending him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Yes, declaring a national emergency does not mean you can do whatever you want. I never said that it does. But you can do the things you have explicit authority to do during a national emergency, such as diverting funds to civil works projects that relate to national security, i.e a BORDER WALL.
> 
> Nationalizing the steel industry is not remotely comparable.
> 
> Trump could've done this, or at least tried to. He did neither. He's weak. Stop defending him.


he did it because he wanted to use the steel for the military during the Korea War. It is comparable. Trump will not be able to do it. Also, Trump can't use the military to build the wall since a federal crime.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CP is telling BM to stop defending Trump.

Did I have a stroke? Is this a parallel universe. I feel funny.

Do you smell toast? I smell toast.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> CP is telling BM to stop defending Trump.
> 
> Did I have a stroke? Is this a parallel universe. I feel funny.
> 
> Do you smell toast? I smell toast.


I ignored that trolling comment lol I think he is losing it, since nothing I said was defending Trump lol


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

I hope no one is too shocked at his spinelessness.
When he first became President he tried to weasel out of building his wall by claiming he never meant a _literal_ wall. Perhaps it was all an elaborate metaphor?
Forget whether or not you agree with the wall, when you promise something you should have the guts and the strength of character to stand by your word. But instead, he riled up his opponents with his usual tactlessness and then folded like a coward.


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> CP is telling BM to stop defending Trump.
> 
> Did I have a stroke? Is this a parallel universe. I feel funny.
> 
> Do you smell toast? I smell toast.


Trump is basically a Democrat now (again) so it makes sense to me. 

BM is just factually wrong on the issue. It's fine though, nothing new there at all.

I want Trump to resign. This is pathetic. He needs to either resign or declare the emergency. Even if BM is right (he's not) that it'll get struck down, at least fucking _try._ He's not even doing that much. He's just giving the Dems everything they asked for 3 weeks ago. We gained NOTHING from this shutdown. Government workers who still supported Trump during the shutdown are probably the most upset out of everyone. 

Not that I care about government workers, of course. They voluntarily work for the mafia.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Trump is basically a Democrat now (again) so it makes sense to me.
> 
> BM is just factually wrong on the issue. It's fine though, nothing new there at all.
> 
> I want Trump to resign. This is pathetic. He needs to either resign or declare the emergency. Even if BM is right (he's not) that it'll get struck down, at least fucking _try._ He's not even doing that much.


You ignore facts all the time. Nothing I said was incorrect. 

Go read any article on Trump declaring a state of emergency, every Judge is saying he can't and it will get struck down.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> You ignore facts all the time. Nothing I said was incorrect.
> 
> Go read any article on Trump declaring a state of emergency, every Judge is saying he can't and it will get struck down.


I've read those articles and I've read legal arguments that contradict those articles. You should really try reading sources that don't just agree with you all the time. 

The point is he didn't even try.


----------



## Headliner

Trump is likely to declare a national emergency. I just dont know if it would hold up in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts seem like a swing vote and I'm not sure how he would vote.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Thing is if he does declare national emergency and gets his way, that sets a pretty big precedent.

Now any president that doeesn't get what he wants out of congress can just declare a national emergency. 

Health care is fucked in this country, declare a national emergency and fund universal health care.

I being hyperbolic, but you get my point.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Big Draco Headliner said:


> Trump is likely to declare a national emergency. I just dont know if it would hold up in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts seem like a swing vote and I'm not sure how he would vote.


I wonder if Trump is waiting to see if Ruth Bader Ginsberg makes a full recovery following her surgery? Her vote could be decisive if Roberts cannot guarantee his support for the declaration of a national emergency on the Southern border.


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> Thing is if he does declare national emergency and gets his way, that sets a pretty big precedent.
> 
> Now any president that doeesn't get what he wants out of congress can just declare a national emergency.
> 
> Health care is fucked in this country, declare a national emergency and fund universal health care.
> 
> I being hyperbolic, but you get my point.


Completely incorrect, sorry. No precedent would be set because the powers he'd be using are explicitly granted by the constitution. That doesn't apply to healthcare.

I know this is a common MSM and even alt media talking point but it's wrong.

What would most likely happen is a lawsuit would be filed to challenge it and said lawsuit would be thrown out due to lack of standing.


----------



## ChampWhoRunsDaCamp

CamillePunk said:


> Completely incorrect, sorry. No precedent would be set because the powers he'd be using are explicitly granted by the constitution. That doesn't apply to healthcare.


The constitution is the anchor that holds America back.

It's painful to listen to simple minded people argue their points with "b..but it's in the constitution" or "the constitution doesn't allow that"

It's an outdated document that was drafted in a time very different than the world we live in today. 

More importantly it can be amended, as it has been 27 times in the past.


----------



## CamillePunk

ChampWhoRunsDaCamp said:


> The constitution is the anchor that holds America back.
> 
> It's painful to listen to simple minded people argue their points with "b..but it's in the constitution" or "the constitution doesn't allow that"
> 
> It's an outdated document that was drafted in a time very different than the world we live in today.
> 
> More importantly it can be amended, as it has been 27 times in the past.


This has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> Completely incorrect, sorry. No precedent would be set because the powers he'd be using are explicitly granted by the constitution. That doesn't apply to healthcare.
> 
> I know this is a common MSM and even alt media talking point but it's wrong.
> 
> What would most likely happen is a lawsuit would be filed to challenge it and said lawsuit would be thrown out due to lack of standing.


EDIT:

I said I was being hyperbolic about the healthcare thing. I was kidding. It's just this power hasn't been used just domestically afaik. Always foreign countries or worldwide. Also, this isn't a new emergency. Nothing is different than it has been for the last 40 years.

I'm looking over the text of the National Emergencies Act


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> I said I was being hyperbolic about the healthcare thing. I was kidding. It's just this power hasn't been used many times and the times it has been used were in other countries or worldwide, never just domestically.
> 
> I'm looking over the text of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act now.


Here's a fairly thorough explanation of how and why he can do it. Read the entire thread: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081942400963088384


----------



## DesolationRow

Conservatives failed to conserve anything?

Conservatives failed to achieve their purported objectives, went home, nursed a hard drink or four and complained about how unfair it all is?

Shocking!

Meanwhile, as Donald Trump is helpless but to allow Nancy Pelosi to determine what happens with the U.S./Mexican border, the U.S. military under this commander-in-chief who ran on finishing the job with ISIS and doing so "fast" and bitterly complained for years about the U.S.'s perpetual presence in Afghanistan, bombs an Afghan funeral along with the "Afghan Air Force," killing nearly 30 civilians while conducting peace talks with the Taliban. http://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/w...lights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront 

According to the U.S.'s Department of Homeland Security's own figures the numbers of both family units and individuals crossing over into the U.S. every month at the Mexican border is eclipsing the previous month's record by thousands, with an average of 60 percent increases month-over-month since August according to the _Washington Post_'s story from a number of weeks ago concerning the subject. Once Trump cravenly caved on his "zero tolerance" policy at the border earlier in 2018 the illegal immigration "Bat Signal" went out to those watching the inner-workings of American politics south of the border, and the results should have been surprising to no one.

Have to stay in Afghanistan until doomsday, though! 

As written in the book of Psalm, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088899520384110592
Perfectly stated.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> Here's a fairly thorough explanation of how and why he can do it. Read the entire thread:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081942400963088384


OK so looking over that thread, the bone of contention seems to be the part about the construction, maintenance, etc. of *approved *civil works, civil defense projects, and military construction.

Trump's wall hasn't been approved. Now I see where he claims that the Fence act of 2006 would apply. That's where I think it could fall apart. I'm honestly not sure if it would apply or not. It seems the Fence act and the wall are separate projects with a similar goal. The fence act does say physical infrastructure enhancements but uses as examples vehicle barriers, all weather access roads, and more checkpoint towers, not an actual continuous physical barrier, which is odd since it's called the Fence act.


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> OK so looking over that thread, the bone of contention seems to be the part about the construction, maintenance, etc. of *approved *civil works, civil defense projects, and military construction.
> 
> Trump's wall hasn't been approved. Now I see where he claims that the Fence act of 2006 would apply. That's where I think it could fall apart. I'm honestly not sure if it would apply or not. It seems the Fence act and the wall are separate projects with a similar goal. The fence act does say physical infrastructure enhancements but uses as examples vehicle barriers, all weather access roads, and more checkpoint towers, not an actual continuous physical barrier, which is odd since it's called the Fence act.


Worst case scenario it ends up being decided by a conservative Supreme Court.

Trump isn't even trying. :draper2


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> Worst case scenario it ends up being decided by a conservative Supreme Court.
> 
> Trump isn't even trying. :draper2


I don't see Roberts going for it. The rest of the conservatives yeah, but not Roberts. I guess it will also depend on if RBG is there or not.

As for not trying, Trump hates losing face. Might be gun shy about risking losing with the SC.


----------



## DesolationRow

Nancy Pelosi: "The State of the Union is not planned now. Get that? What I said to the president is that when the government is open we will discuss a mutually agreeable date."


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088905304769683456
The sitting president believed he could "make a deal" with these people.

Instead he is on a space ship en route to their home planet and about to be served as their dinner. 

The Democrats studied their Damon Knight and Rod Serling.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> EDIT:
> 
> I said I was being hyperbolic about the healthcare thing. I was kidding. It's just this power hasn't been used just domestically afaik. Always foreign countries or worldwide. Also, this isn't a new emergency. Nothing is different than it has been for the last 40 years.
> 
> I'm looking over the text of the National Emergencies Act


Also illegal immigration is down 25% since 2016. Arrests for crossing the border is at a 46 year low. Not much of an emergency. 




CamillePunk said:


> Completely incorrect, sorry. No precedent would be set because the powers he'd be using are explicitly granted by the constitution. That doesn't apply to healthcare.
> 
> I know this is a common MSM and even alt media talking point but it's wrong.
> 
> What would most likely happen is a lawsuit would be filed to challenge it and said lawsuit would be thrown out due to lack of standing.


you really don't know the constitution at all lol

Trump is trying to do an end around Congress and will get defeated in court. There is no emergency, its a joke to even claim there is.


----------



## ChampWhoRunsDaCamp

birthday_massacre said:


> Also illegal immigration is down 25% since 2016. Arrests for crossing the border is at a 46 year low. Not much of an emergency.


To be fair not many people want to come to the shit hole that is America now.

Social mobility is so low i'd argue most South Americans who come up and settle in America only do so because they can't get to Europe or Canada.

The American dream is long dead.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.wired.com/story/is-big-tech-merging-with-big-brother-kinda-looks-like-it/



> S BIG TECH MERGING WITH BIG BROTHER? KINDA LOOKS LIKE IT
> 
> A FRIEND OF mine, who runs a large television production company in the car-mad city of Los Angeles, recently noticed that his intern, an aspiring filmmaker from the People’s Republic of China, was walking to work.
> 
> WHEN HE OFFERED to arrange a swifter mode of transportation, she declined. When he asked why, she explained that she “needed the steps” on her Fitbit to sign in to her social media accounts. If she fell below the right number of steps, it would lower her health and fitness rating, which is part of her social rating, which is monitored by the government. A low social rating could prevent her from working or traveling abroad.
> 
> China’s social rating system, which was announced by the ruling Communist Party in 2014, will soon be a fact of life for many more Chinese.
> 
> By 2020, if the Party’s plan holds, every footstep, keystroke, like, dislike, social media contact, and posting tracked by the state will affect one’s social rating.
> 
> Personal “creditworthiness” or “trustworthiness” points will be used to reward and punish individuals and companies by granting or denying them access to public services like health care, travel, and employment, according to a plan released last year by the municipal government of Beijing. High-scoring individuals will find themselves in a “green channel,” where they can more easily access social opportunities, while those who take actions that are disapproved of by the state will be “unable to move a step.”
> 
> Big Brother is an emerging reality in China. Yet in the West, at least, the threat of government surveillance systems being integrated with the existing corporate surveillance capacities of big-data companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon into one gigantic all-seeing eye appears to trouble very few people—even as countries like Venezuela have been quick to copy the Chinese model.


Full article through the link. Worth a read.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://townhall.com/columnists/mar...ime-will-tell-on-shut-down-agreement-n2540287



> Calculation or Cave? Time Will Tell On Shut Down Agreement
> 
> If there’s anything the Trump presidency should have taught people in the opinion business, it is to pause before overreacting in the short term. As such, I will temporarily shelve my gut response to the arrangement that has been made to re-open the government.
> 
> I’ve spent the last few weeks warning that the Democrat lure—“Re-open the government, and then we’ll really, really negotiate in good faith”—is a trap that should be ignored. But then I’ve spent the last two years trusting that the President knows what he’s doing, an assumption that has held up well in most cases. I deployed it this week as he agreed to delay the State of the Union address, figuring he was engaged in the psychology of brief acquiescence in order to push even harder at the border bargaining table.
> 
> Well, apparently not just yet.
> 
> The President Friday agreed to a temporary funding measure that sends the suffering furloughed federal employees back to work, and he did it without receiving a dime of wall funding.
> 
> Social media exploded with characterizations of this as caving under pressure. Some were the laments of frustrated Trump supporters; others were the gleeful smirks of his detractors.
> 
> It would be wise for both groups to take a breath. His critics are thrilled to see an example of surrender; some in his base are mortified. Across that landscape, a question should arise: Does everybody think he has lost his passion for wall funding? Do we really believe that after years of railing so hard on this signature issue, that he is going allow himself to get owned by Nancy Pelosi?
> 
> There must be a plan here. We just don’t know what it is.
> 
> I don’t know that the plan is smart. I don’t know that the plan will work. But I would bet that we’ll know a lot more in three weeks than we know now, and some of today’s tweets may not age well.
> 
> Consider the possibilities. Perhaps he believed—with good reason—that there was simply no way Democrats were going to cough up the wall funding he wants. That would mean additional weeks, maybe months of shutdown, every day festooned with hand-wringing coverage of the intensifying plight of out-of-work government employees
> 
> This puts them back to work, freeing up media time to cover the actual negotiations. If those are as futile as some (like me) believe them to be, we will wind up right back at square one on February 15.
> 
> So then what?
> 
> One of the reasons I warned against re-opening the government is that it would invite a second cathartic shutdown countdown and a second wave of media panic that would bring the whole thing back to the front of the public mind. Admit it; the shutdown was losing stigma every day. That added pressure on Democrats to yield on the border dollars since they didn’t really have a strong shutdown-angst card to play.
> 
> Maybe that was about to change. The Friday stories of airport delays rippling across the Northeast may have been a signal of harsher shutdown consequences on the horizon. Average Americans were not doubled over with shutdown anxiety so far, but wait until every newscast led with families with screaming kids stranded at the airport because they can’t get to Grandma’s in New Jersey.
> 
> That won’t happen now, and there may be benefits to that.
> 
> But down the road, today’s give needs to be balanced with a whole lot of take. The willingness to open the government had better not come with willingness to buckle on the kind of border security millions of Trump voters are counting on.
> 
> A re-opened government does not exactly leave Democrats stung by immediate Art-of-the-Deal brilliance. They may well dig in harder now, joining some crestfallen Trump supporters in the belief that he has been worn down.
> 
> It might be wise to put a pin in that and see what mid-February brings. Expect the next three weeks to be filled with more of the familiar rhetoric of both sides: the President insisting on a wall, the Democrats mocking it.
> 
> Then, after three weeks of spinning tires, Trump will be able to face the cameras and say “I reopened the government. I gave them what they wanted. They said they would bargain in good faith. They lied. I have no other choice but to declare an emergency and begin protecting the border myself.”
> 
> His enemies will squeal, his fan base will say all is forgiven, and then the whole battle moves to the courts. That’s only one of several possibilities, but it seems more likely than the knee-jerk reaction that his spine has liquefied.
> 
> So as the news sinks in of today’s seeming concession, review the last two years and its long list of stories that have changed over three days, or even three hours. Three weeks is an eternity.


I'm highly skeptical. But, fine. Let's see what happens three weeks from now. Zero chance the Democrats negotiate.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> https://townhall.com/columnists/mar...ime-will-tell-on-shut-down-agreement-n2540287
> 
> I'm highly skeptical. But, fine. Let's see what happens three weeks from now. Zero chance the Democrats negotiate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> EDIT:
> 
> I said I was being hyperbolic about the healthcare thing. I was kidding. It's just this power hasn't been used just domestically afaik. Always foreign countries or worldwide. Also, this isn't a new emergency. Nothing is different than it has been for the last 40 years.
> 
> I'm looking over the text of the National Emergencies Act


 You’re joking about healthcare but they could do it for climate change


----------



## .MCH

It's amazing to watch people still underestimate Pelosi. 

Trump and the GOP wanted Pelosi as Speaker because they were so sure she would be the perfect foil to run against. Instead she's completely humiliated them and made them look like even bigger fools.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088531560926711811


----------



## BruiserKC

Trump had to change the narrative away from his friend Roger Stone doing the perp walk this morning. Not to mention airports delaying tons of flights and almost half the IRS taking sick days. 

The President has folded several times already so this is nothing new. He has had two years to get his wall and failed. 

He caved...again.


----------



## Vic Capri

30 days of furlough for federal employees starts Reduction In Force and permanent layoffs for inessential positions. President Trump could have declared a national emergency, take funds from the defense budget (that was increased in the last one), fund the wall, and open the government back up at a reduced payroll level. That would've saved American taxpayers money on the back end, while decreasing the size of waste.

But he didn't, wasted everybody's time, and got nothing in return. Unless he figures out a way to get The Wall built, he's done. This was the biggest defeat of his Presidency.

- Vic


----------



## dele

>mfw Donald Trump blinked when Nancy Pelosi (he likes to call her "Nancy") called his poorly thought out bluff






Also, has anyone checked the sprinkler system at the capitol building?


----------



## Reaper

The *REAL *reason why the shutdown ended. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088942208038785024
Essential worker strike. 

They ended the shutdown the minute they realized that "oh shit, labor is waking up". 

What America needs is more strikes, more unionization. The *real *power of the people lies in its ability to shut down the capitalist machine.

PS. Isn't La Guardia also where Trump's Private Jet resides? If so, then this is DEFINITELY a factor in ending the shut down as well. The selfish POS that he is.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> The *REAL *reason why the shutdown ended.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088942208038785024
> Essential worker strike.
> 
> They ended the shutdown the minute they realized that "oh shit, labor is waking up".
> 
> What America needs is more strikes, more unionization. the real power of the people lies in shutting down the capitalist machine.






"If only we'd listened to that boy. Instead of walling up in the abandoned coke oven.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> "If only we'd listened to that boy. Instead of walling up in the abandoned coke oven.


Oh and I just found out that Laguardia is where Trump's Jet is usually parked. :hmmm

PS: PS:

I guess Ann Coulter is no longer SAVAGE enough for the right wingers to post on here when she speaks the truth about Trump :mj4 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088888030901882880
:kobelol


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

Coulter's not wrong. When you initiate a conflict, then back down from that conflict, and _then_ weasel out of all responsibility by retroactively redefining what you wanted to achieve, it makes you look like a gutless, pathetic coward.


----------



## Reaper

Well, given his cancerous political ideologies, him being gutless is not *always* such a bad thing but overall in terms of global foreign policy it really, really is. 

The problem is that with all the local government shitfuckery that is serving as a distraction, there is still the *very *huge issue of Trump's ongoing and simply never-ending forays into foreign interventionalism (now adding a pretty much definite Venezuela coup to the mix) and bringing back the old guard of America's worst neocons under one umbrella. 

And yeah, that is the real reason why he's a weak and pathetic coward.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088893253401886720
Beyond pathetic. 

It is blackly humorous to consider the reality that Donald Trump could state at a "Trump rally" in the coming weeks that he really won on the issue of border security and the much-discussed wall by losing so horribly and in thoroughly humiliating fashion to Nancy Pelosi and tens of millions of personality-bound drones would bleat that Trump is correct. 

Thucydides wrote in his seminal _History of the Peloponnesian War_, "In a democracy, someone who fails to get elected to office can always console himself with the thought that there was something not quite fair about it."

By contrast the Charlie Kirks of this world who particularly tend to go by the insincere ideological label of "conservative" (not that conservatives through history have necessarily been by any means noble or even intriguing players) are almost always on one hand grumbling about how unfair their losses were realized like they are forever this week's New Orleans Saints while shamelessly drumming up more slavish support to keep their enterprise afloat. 

How people ingest what these partisan hacks administer daily with any sort of regularity at all is a complete mystery.

A week from now Kirk and the Sean Hannitys and others will be saying that Trump is playing a kind of eighty-two million-D chess with a straight face.

And "...greatest president of our lifetime" is possibly the funniest and faintest praise imaginable, like "least arrogant, imperious and mentally deficient TSA agent who ever patted me down at an airport."


----------



## CamillePunk

Just tweeted about Charlie Kirk making a similar post earlier today. :lol I also used the term drone. 

I've always found something deeply off about the Turning Point USA contingent of the Trump base, which includes Kirk and Candace Owens. I suspect they are using Trump as a vehicle to establish their own brands, which is why they never, ever criticize him for anything. He's the meal ticket. Same deal with Candace in respect to Kanye as well, except she overplayed her hand and got slapped down by 'Ye. :lol


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089162706840707072
Holy shit, really? You're going to try the "scary caravan" thing again? FFS get new playbook. fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089162706840707072
> Holy shit, really? You're going to try the "scary caravan" thing again? FFS get new playbook. fpalm


His tweet is counterproductive. He admitted they turned away two caravans without the wall. So why would it be needed to stop the next one?


----------



## wkdsoul

He not think to mention this before now :lol


----------



## Reaper

It's now time to call it what it is and not worry about their over intellectualized bullcrap and deflections. 

If anyone thinks that this isn't a dog whistle then they're either ignorant or racist themselves.

Trump is a racist and so are his followers. He know exactly how to reenergize his base after his biggest defeat. Go back to the racist dog whistles.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Racist piece of shit and his base have a fear of brown people. It's time to call it what it is. It's racism and the fear of brown people is what galvanized the far right.
> 
> It's now time to call it what it is and not worry about their over intellectualized bullcrap and deflections.
> 
> Trump is a racist and so are his followers. He know exactly how to reenergize his base after his biggest defeat. Go back to the racist dog whistles.



Good to see you finally admit Trumps a racist


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Good to see you finally admit Trumps a racist


Yup. It's damned fucking time. 

You can only give someone a pass so many times for being simply "ignorant" before at some point after repeated dog whistles you realize that the person with the dog whistle is a racist himself.


----------



## Draykorinee

The caravans are back in vogue.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> The caravans are back in vogue.


His ship sank and plane got grounded so obviously he's thinking about caravans now. That man is now completely exposed as an absolute and utter disgraceful fraud. Completely exposed. There's nothing left at all. No redeeming qualities, policies, nothing. 

It isn't even TDS anymore. They can't even defend him. 

Notice the crickets ITT.


----------



## Headliner

Trump tends to capitalize on white anxiety and white fragility. It works for him so he'll never change from what works.


----------



## MrMister

I still don't think this guy wanted to win. I still don't think he wants to be president. He wants to be king, but you can't be a king in the United States. The corporations won't fucking allow that shit. They run this show son. So now he's doing everything he can to not be re-elected.

He'll always have the "I was President of the United States of America" card so I guess he did win even if he didn't want it. It being the job itself. He loves the prestige obviously.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*S&P Global estimating the cost of the shutdown to the U.S. economy at $6 billion.*


----------



## CamillePunk

MrMister said:


> I still don't think this guy wanted to win. I still don't think he wants to be president. He wants to be king, but you can't be a king in the United States. The corporations won't fucking allow that shit. They run this show son. So now he's doing everything he can to not be re-elected.
> 
> He'll always have the "I was President of the United States of America" card so I guess he did win even if he didn't want it. It being the job itself. He loves the prestige obviously.


He's the least authoritarian president we've had in a long while. Dude barely wields the executive branch in any meaningful way compared to his predecessors and especially Obama. Imagine the FBI investigating him or arresting his friends. This dude used the IRS to target his political rivals and few people said shit. Meanwhile Trump's afraid to even try to use his explicitly-granted emergency powers to fund his main campaign promise. Compare that to Obama on DACA. He did something he literally said only a king could do. There is no comparison. 

Trump isn't a strongman, he's a weakman. All the fascist garbage in the news is a wild distortion of reality.


----------



## MrMister

Hey that's about the cost of the wall.:max



CamillePunk said:


> He's the least authoritarian president we've had in a long while. Dude barely wields the executive branch in any meaningful way compared to his predecessors and especially Obama. Imagine the FBI investigating him or arresting his friends. This dude used the IRS to target his political rivals and few people said shit. Meanwhile Trump's afraid to even try to use his explicitly-granted emergency powers to fund his main campaign promise. Compare that to Obama on DACA. He did something he literally said only a king could do. There is no comparison.
> 
> Trump isn't a strongman, he's a weakman. All the fascist garbage in the news is a wild distortion of reality.


My main point is that Trump doesn't want to be here. He wants the prestige that comes with it, but not all the rest of this tough stuff. 

WHO KNEW THAT THIS WOULD BE SO HARD - essentially what Trump said awhile ago


----------



## CamillePunk

MrMister said:


> Hey that's about the cost of the wall.:max
> 
> 
> 
> My main point is that Trump doesn't want to be here. He wants the prestige that comes with it, but not all the rest of this tough stuff.
> 
> WHO KNEW THAT THIS WOULD BE SO HARD - essentially what Trump said awhile ago


I think he wanted to win, no doubt about that, but if he could go back I doubt he'd run in the first place. He just seems tired to me and not up to the fight anymore. 

I wouldn't be shocked if he decided not to run in 2020. Can't see him doing this for another 6 years if he's already caving on the wall when he doesn't have to. And there's no way he can win in 2020 if he doesn't build the wall.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088667096878329856
Good! Very happy to see so many so-called journalists who pushed fake news fired over the last couple of days.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

I think the decision by Trump to reopen the Government was probably the right one.

His poll numbers were beginning to tank, and it seemed that that would only continue if workers began to be seriously effected by what was happening. At least now workers will get some relief, while the fight can continue another day.

He needs to be strong though now, he cannot back down again in three weeks time or he will lose real support. He can gain back much of the support he lost over the shutdown issue though by being strong and using his executive powers.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088958154791100417
This certainly implies that he will be willing to call the national emergency if no deal can be done, he does need to stick with that though. It is plausible that he can paint the Democrats as being intransigent and unwilling to fulfill their own policies over the next 20 days, but it will backfire if it isn't backed up with action. Sometimes you have to take one step back, in order to take two steps forward - we will see how it plays out.


----------



## Headliner

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088833209687777280Twitter thread. What ya'll think?


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Big Draco Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088833209687777280Twitter thread. What ya'll think?


I think that was a reasonable argument against the wall, it is however flawed in a couple of ways.

1) It implies that because illegal immigration is lower than it has been in the past, that it cannot be a crisis. What it fails to keep in mind is that the ideal number of illegal immigrants, in accordance with the law, is 0. It also tells us the total number of successful border patrol apprehensions every year, but not how many illegals are able to cross successfully - though I suppose that kind of data would be difficult to produce. Nonetheless, it could be argued that having done everything they can to prevent illegal crossings on the southern border, the number is still several hundred thousand more than in an ideal world and that only a solid barrier is necessary to help prevent border crossings. Several hundred thousand apprehensions every year might be less than in the past, but it is still a pretty significant drain on resources, and it is also a lot of people that have been put in a dangerous situation. It is a perilous journey and a lot of those making it will be unaccompanied minors and/or be victims of people smuggling, that is for certain. 

2) I am not surprised that the crime rate is lower for illegal immigrants than it is for ordinary citizens, since it is not in their interests to draw attention to themselves and generally most, I believe, have good intentions and are hard working people (though technically, by virtue of being an illegal immigrant, they have all committed a crime.) However, this does miss the point. Any crime committed by an illegal immigrant is one that should not be taking place on US soil and thus is an unnecessary drain on resources. Any crime committed should not have ever occurred and should not be the responsibility of US law enforcement or citizens, whether the crime rate is lower or not. 

3) She casually throws out there that there are 10.7 million to 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States, and implies that that isn't very much. To me that is a lot of people. That is a lot of people who can't report crime due to fear of being deported. That is a lot of people who can not legally work in the United States and hence can not pay taxes. That is a lot of people who may not be properly vaccinated against diseases. That is a lot of people who are prone to exploitation from gangs and other criminals. There are several possible solutions to this problem, of which it could be argued that a wall is not the most practical or sympathetic. But to simply dismiss the issue by comparing the number of illegal immigrants to the number of unemployed (a tenuous link in any case) is highly unconvincing. 

It is not a bad attempt but it is kind of pseudo-intellectual stuff - a real study would make an actual comparison with the costs of illegal immigration vs the costs of the shut down you would hope. It's just not balanced enough to be taken seriously I suppose (I'm not balanced either, but I don't have to be :nerd That's just my two cents though, I'm sure many here will disagree! It would be nice to see more reasonable debates on the issue take place rather than 'the wall is retarded' vs 'immigants bad'


----------



## BruiserKC

Trump was never serious about the wall, or dealing with illegal immigration for that matter. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...d-workers-fired-from-trump-golf-course-report

Some of these workers that were canned were employed for him for nearly 15 years. And only NOW did the investigation get completed to the point where the undocumented workers got canned?


----------



## Reaper

All the 3D chess posts gone. Maybe it's like a higher plane of 48D chess that's on such a high plane of existence that nobody even realizes that the chess is being played.

We're into secret multiverse intelligence territory now. 

Trump the smartest man so smarty smart that he's now intentionally losing support from his base in order to achieve his goals.










Scott Adams everyone. fpalm Why would you retweet that?






This man's inane ramblings from 11:30 onwards about the Venezuelan situation clearly indicate a guy who wants to not say anything at all but still talk about it. I kinda feel like he just be supportive of a potential military confrontation and doesn't seem to be denouncing it. 

Goes straight for the "venezuela is pro-iran/cuba with Putin's assets" framing in order to sell Trump's support of a coup as a positive ... fpalm


----------



## Martins

Reaper said:


> All the 3D chess posts gone. Maybe it's like a higher plane of 48D chess that's on such a high plane of existence that nobody even realizes that the chess is being played.
> 
> We're into secret multiverse intelligence territory now.
> 
> Trump the smartest man so smarty smart that he's now intentionally losing support from his base in order to achieve his goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Adams everyone. fpalm Why would you retweet that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This man's inane ramblings from 11:30 onwards about the Venezuelan situation clearly indicate a guy who wants to not say anything at all but still talk about it. I kinda feel like he just be supportive of a potential military confrontation and doesn't seem to be denouncing it.
> 
> Goes straight for the "venezuela is pro-iran/cuba with Putin's assets" framing in order to sell Trump's support of a coup as a positive ... fpalm


Did you see Bill Maher's straight up INSANE rambling on his show about Venezuela?

These people really think they're just expressing some perfectly normal opinion, like it's some uncontested nugget of truth that they just HAVE to overthrow a Latin American government for the millionth time, always in the name of freedom and democracy, of course.

And of course, how dare *RUSSIA* tell them to back off, the country they're so pissed off at for supposedly interfering in their elections in some ridiculously convoluted way, but going in and deposing elected leaders is just the American way :shrug

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


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> think that was a reasonable argument against the wall, it is however flawed in a couple of ways.
> 
> 1) It implies that because illegal immigration is lower than it has been in the past, that it cannot be a crisis. *What it fails to keep in mind is that the ideal number of illegal immigrants, in accordance with the law, is 0.* It also tells us the total number of successful border patrol apprehensions every year, but not how many illegals are able to cross successfully - though I suppose that kind of data would be difficult to produce. Nonetheless, it could be argued that having done everything they can to prevent illegal crossings on the southern border, the number is still several hundred thousand more than in an ideal world and that only a solid barrier is necessary to help prevent border crossings. Several hundred thousand apprehensions every year might be less than in the past, but it is still a pretty significant drain on resources, and it is also a lot of people that have been put in a dangerous situation. It is a perilous journey and a lot of those making it will be unaccompanied minors and/or be victims of people smuggling, that is for certain.


Your logic is pretty flawed as well.

You can use this logic for anything, like illegal guns used in shootings or gun violence for example. 

You do know the 5 billion Trump wants for the wall would only be enough to make 7% of it right? This whole build the ball BS is just symbolic for Trump and his racist base. Its not going to magicaly prevent illegals from crossing the border. Its also funny you don't hear him talking about the tunnels that are built under the wall, now do you.

also, more illegals are leaving the country than entering, so making a wall would prevent them from leaving, so you would probably end up with more illegals staying if Trump got his wall.




Hoolahoop33 said:


> ) I am not surprised that the crime rate is lower for illegal immigrants than it is for ordinary citizens, *since it is not in their interests to draw attention to themselves and generally most,* I believe, have good intentions and are hard working people (though technically, by virtue of being an illegal immigrant, they have all committed a crime.) However, this does miss the point. Any crime committed by an illegal immigrant is one that should not be taking place on US soil and thus is an unnecessary drain on resources. Any crime committed should not have ever occurred and should not be the responsibility of US law enforcement or citizens, whether the crime rate is lower or not.


Oh come on now dude, this is such a weak argument. Illegals don't compare crimes to keep a low profile they don't because the vast majority of them are not criminals like Trump claims. The majority of them are coming to the US to have a better life. 

Again your logic of any crime committed by an illegals one that should not be taking place on US soil can be used for anything illegal by anyone who is a US citizen again like with guns. 



Hoolahoop33 said:


> 3) She casually throws out there that there are 10.7 million to 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States, and implies that that isn't very much. To me that is a lot of people. That is a lot of people who can't report crime due to fear of being deported. That is a lot of people who can not legally work in the United States and hence can not pay taxes. That is a lot of people who may not be properly vaccinated against diseases. That is a lot of people who are prone to exploitation from gangs and other criminals. There are several possible solutions to this problem, of which it could be argued that a wall is not the most practical or sympathetic. But to simply dismiss the issue by comparing the number of illegal immigrants to the number of unemployed (a tenuous link in any case) is highly unconvincing.


You do know half of that number came into the country legally but they let their visas lapse/expire so now they are now considered illegal. A wall is not going to prevent this type of illegal immigration. So based on that number 5-6 million illegals would still be in the country even if the wall stopped everyone else.

Illegal immigration is going down year over year, it's at a 45 year low, that is all without building part of the wall. That 5 billion could be better used for something else, like healthcare.


----------



## Reaper

Martins said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzzfcDx_TQc


JFC. 

The really scary part of all of this is that they *aren't* being *paid* to push these views intentionally. It's their own beliefs. Their own values. Their own ideologies. Their own paranoia. Fear. 

It just goes to show you how successful the Red Scare tactics have been in America and still are.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Clinton not ruling out running in 2020: report *

fucking kill me.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Your logic is pretty flawed as well.
> 
> You can use this logic for anything, like illegal guns used in shootings or gun violence for example.
> 
> You do know the 5 billion Trump wants for the wall would only be enough to make 7% of it right? This whole build the ball BS is just symbolic for Trump and his racist base. Its not going to magicaly prevent illegals from crossing the border. Its also funny you don't hear him talking about the tunnels that are built under the wall, now do you.
> 
> also, more illegals are leaving the country than entering, so making a wall would prevent them from leaving, so you would probably end up with more illegals staying if Trump got his wall.


Well I understand that 0 illegal immigrants is unobtainable, but every country should strive to protect the interests of their citizens to the highest standard. As soon as you start saying 'it's only a few hundred thousand per year' that's when that standard slips and failure becomes acceptable. I actually think the comparison with illegal guns is good, the government should strive to make sure that 0 citizens are killed by criminals possessing illegal guns - it could be argued that those deaths are more preventable since the culprit should not have had access to a gun in the first place. 

I think the usefulness of a wall is certainly debatable, especially in terms of cost/effectiveness, but I would also not be surprised if the wall is more effective than you might think. Other countries have found that a well maintained and guarded wall or fence is very effective in preventing illegal immigration. The main issue I see is scale and whether a border that size could ever be effectively patrolled. 




birthday_massacre said:


> Oh come on now dude, this is such a weak argument. Illegals don't compare crimes to keep a low profile they don't because the vast majority of them are not criminals like Trump claims. The majority of them are coming to the US to have a better life.
> 
> Again your logic of any crime committed by an illegals one that should not be taking place on US soil can be used for anything illegal by anyone who is a US citizen again like with guns.


I said that exact thing in the next sentence, that most have good intentions and are just here to work hard. There is a logic though in that if an illegal immigrant even gets routinely stopped or commits a misdemeanor the consequences are dire - deportation and possible separation from their children. An ordinary US citizen for the same crime would face just a fine or community service, a comparative slap on the wrist. Anyway it was just a theory. 

It's not quite the same in that a crime perpetrated by an illegal immigrant is much more preventable than one being committed by a US Citizen. To stop an illegal from committing a crime, one must simply stop that person from entering the country/ apprehend them before there is any opportunity to commit a crime. It is very difficult on the other hand to stop a US citizen, with every right to be there, legally buying a gun and using it to commit a crime. There is logic in attempting to prevent the more easily preventable crimes from occurring.



birthday_massacre said:


> You do know half of that number came into the country legally but they let their visas lapse/expire so now they are now considered illegal. A wall is not going to prevent this type of illegal immigration. So based on that number 5-6 million illegals would still be in the country even if the wall stopped everyone else.
> 
> Illegal immigration is going down year over year, it's at a 45 year low, that is all without building part of the wall. That 5 billion could be better used for something else, like healthcare.


Hmm, that is very true I suppose, but the issue is that sort of illegal immigration is virtually impossible to stop. I can't think of any solution to that problem short of electronically tagging all those who enter the US so that they can easily be found once there VISA runs out, but that is pretty unreasonable! It seems silly to not do something solely because it does not stop the entire problem. To use your gun comparison, every time there is a shooting you must get frustrated that nothing is done, then there is always some conservative that will say 'well they could have used a knife/car/blunt object etc.' That may be true to some extent, but surely tackling the gun issue in some way would prevent at least some deaths (since guns are specifically designed to kill people/animals, while those other object serve other purposes) meanwhile the problem goes on and on and on. Surely it is preferable to tackle the issue even if it is only 50% effective?

I don't disagree, healthcare is a real mess at the moment in the US and has been for a while. However, illegal immigration is a real issue too, whether you like it or not. When the budget deficit is something like $800 Billion every year, $5 Billion for a to tackle such an issue (even if it is declining due to better tech) doesn't seem too bad really. Concentrating on the bloated military budget might be a better place to find money for healthcare, and indeed the wall.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Again 5 billion will only get 7% of the wall made. It wont even make a difference


----------



## CamillePunk

DaRealNugget said:


> *Clinton not ruling out running in 2020: report *
> 
> fucking kill me.


hahaha yessss do it


----------



## virus21

DaRealNugget said:


> *Clinton not ruling out running in 2020: report *
> 
> fucking kill me.


Jesus Christ, can this old fucking crone just piss off already?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

DaRealNugget said:


> *Clinton not ruling out running in 2020: report *


----------



## Lok

virus21 said:


> Jesus Christ, can this old fucking crone just piss off already?












:lol


----------



## virus21

Lok said:


> :lol


Scary thing is, Hilary is starting to look like that


----------



## CamillePunk

Why don't people want Hillary to run? She's not going to get the nomination again. I think it'd be hilarious to see her end her political legacy by losing in a primary after winning the popular vote the election before. :lol 

_What Happened Part II: How Russia Infiltrated The DNC_, by Hillary Rodham Clinton 

*Chapter I: Komrade Kamala*

this bitch


----------



## Reaper




----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


>


please tell me that is sarcasm


----------



## Vic Capri

I want Hillary to run so she can lose again. Even plenty of Democrats are sick and tired of her.

- Vic


----------



## red dead2

virus21 said:


> Jesus Christ, can this old fucking crone just piss off already?


Yeah same here.. I know politicians can be out of touch from reality but c'mon seriously? lol


----------



## CamillePunk




----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> please tell me that is sarcasm


Don't you remember Trump's biggest supporter posting stuff like this on WF? You really think people didn't genuinely believe this about Trump? 

Nope Mitchell is 100% serious.


----------



## CamillePunk

I've always said Bill Mitchell is a clown and never pushed the "4D Chess" stuff. Don't lie about me, thanks.


----------



## Vic Capri

Donald Trump's interview from 4 years ago with Gov. Jesse Ventura didn't age well. Begins after 35 minutes.

- Vic


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Vic Capri said:


> Donald Trump's interview from 4 years ago with Gov. Jesse Ventura didn't age well. Begins after 35 minutes.
> 
> - Vic


My favourite part - "You're a smart guy, nobody's ever going to accuse you of not being intelligent"

:Trump


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> I've always said Bill Mitchell is a clown and never pushed the "4D Chess" stuff. Don't lie about me, thanks.


You're not and never have been trumps biggest supporter. 

That 'award' would go to Deep.


----------



## Draykorinee

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump's interview from 4 years ago with Gov. Jesse Ventura didn't age well. Begins after 35 minutes.
> 
> - Vic
> 
> 
> 
> My favourite part - "You're a smart guy, nobody's ever going to accuse you of not being intelligent" <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/WrestlingForum_2014RED/smilies/tango_face_smile_big.png" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

Why anyone doubts trumps intelligence is beyond me, he knows more about these subjects than anyone else.

Campaign finance: "I think nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do, because I'm the biggest contributor." (1999.)

TV ratings: "I know more about people who get ratings than anyone." (October 2012.)

ISIS: "I know more about ISIS than the generals do." (November 2015.)

Social media: "I understand social media. I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?" (November 2015.)

Courts: "I know more about courts than any human being on Earth." (November 2015.)

Lawsuits: "[W]ho knows more about lawsuits than I do? I'm the king." (January 2016.)

Politicians: "I understand politicians better than anybody."

The visa system: "[N]obody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. ... Nobody else on this dais knows how to change it like I do, believe me." (March 2016.)

Trade: "Nobody knows more about trade than me." (March 2016.)

The U.S. government system: "[N]obody knows the system better than I do." (April 2016.)

Renewable energy: "I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." (April 2016.)

Taxes: "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world." (May 2016.)

Debt: "I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me." (June 2016.)

Money: "I understand money better than anybody." (June 2016.)

Infrastructure: "[L]ook, as a builder, nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump." (July 2016.)

Sen. Cory Booker: "I know more about Cory than he knows about himself." (July 2016.)

Borders: Trump said in 2016 that Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he was endorsing him for president because "you know more about this stuff than anybody."

Democrats: "I think I know more about the other side than almost anybody." (November 2016.)

Construction: "[N]obody knows more about construction than I do." (May 2018.)

The economy: "I think I know about it better than [the Federal Reserve]." (October 2018.)

Technology: "Technology — nobody knows more about technology than me." (December 2018.)

Drones: "I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have." (January 2019.)
Drone technology: "Having a drone fly overhead — and I think nobody knows much more about technology, this type of technology certainly, than I do." (January 2019.)


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

CamillePunk said:


>


Both of these videos are awesome. Thanks for sharing.

I wonder if Vice would do more panel like this with black people because it is interesting how many people think black people should think one way, and get upset if they go away from that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Both of these videos are awesome. Thanks for sharing.
> 
> I wonder if Vice would do more panel like this with black people because it is interesting how many people think black people should think one way, and get upset if they go away from that.


Its always comical seeing people voting against their best interest.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Government shutdown cost economy $11 billion, budget office says

Of that $11 billion hit, $3 billion is gone forever, a Congressional Budget Office report found.*


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Its always comical seeing people voting against their best interest.


You are trying to tell me that you know what is best for black people?

I am interested, since I am black, apparently I shouldn't have my own opinion of my life


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> You are trying to tell me that you know what is best for black people?
> 
> I am interested, since I am black, apparently I shouldn't have my own opinion of my life


it does not matter if you are black, white, latino etc if you are middle class or lower, if you vote republican you are voting against your best interest

Unless you are rich, republicans don't give a shit about you. What exactly about the GOP do you like?

And I would say you are just uninformed if you like the GOP and are not rich.


----------



## 777

Democrats at least pretend to care before they stick the knife in...


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> it does not matter if you are black, white, latino etc if you are middle class or lower, if you vote republican you are voting against your best interest


except i said nothing about the GOP.

You, a white guy are trying to tell me, a black guy, where my interests should lie while responding to my response about black people having a discussion.

So what do you think you have to add to that conversation



> Unless you are rich, republicans don't give a shit about you. What exactly about the GOP do you like?
> 
> And I would say you are just uninformed if you like the GOP and are not rich.


Don't backpedal and change the subject.

we are discussing a video about black people talking to other black people, and you said they aren't thinking of their best interests, I want to know why you feel like you can have an opinion on how black people can help the black community

In fact, you called it "comical" right? This is funny to you somehow. Nice to see your true colors being shown again


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> except i said nothing about the GOP.
> 
> You, a white guy are trying to tell me, a black guy, where my interests should lie while responding to my response about black people having a discussion.
> 
> So what do you think you have to add to that conversation
> 
> 
> 
> Don't backpedal and change the subject.
> 
> we are discussing a video about black people talking to other black people, and you said they aren't thinking of their best interests, I want to know why you feel like you can have an opinion on how black people can help the black community
> 
> In fact, you called it "comical" right? This is funny to you somehow. Nice to see your true colors being shown again


And you are exactly proving my point. You can't even tell me why you are republican. it should be easy for you to show how you are voting for your best interest.

but you can't even do that.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> You're not and never have been trumps biggest supporter.
> 
> That 'award' would go to Deep.


I think there are a number of people on the left who are wising up and realizing that name-calling people for not voting the way you want is stupidity. 

Pretty funny how when they're talking by themselves that black liberal guy is calling black conservatives house ******* yet when they are talking with the conservatives he's like "I don't care which party you vote for". Oh really? :lol As they say, actin' brand new.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> And you are exactly proving my point. You can't even tell me why you are republican. it should be easy for you to show how you are voting for your best interest.
> 
> but you can't even do that.


He might be pro-life?
Or Anti illegal immigration?
Or Pro Second Amendment?
Or maybe he likes some of the trade policies that Trump has pioneered?
Or maybe he is just totally disillusioned by the Democrat party in its current state? (Easy to see why?)

What has his race got to do with any of those issues? A person can vote for any party they want to, that is their right. 

For you to question that solely on the basis of the individuals race, is.... not good.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> He might be pro-life?
> Or Anti illegal immigration?
> Or Pro Second Amendment?
> Or maybe he likes some of the trade policies that Trump has pioneered?
> Or maybe he is just totally disillusioned by the Democrat party in its current state? (Easy to see why?)
> 
> What has his race got to do with any of those issues? A person can vote for any party they want to, that is their right.
> 
> For you to question that solely on the basis of the individuals race, is.... not good.


You can't let him answer himself? And way to ignore my post where I said 



birthday_massacre said:


> *it does not matter if you are black, white, latino etc if you are middle class or lower,* if you vote republican you are voting against your best interest
> 
> Unless you are rich, republicans don't give a shit about you. What exactly about the GOP do you like?
> 
> And I would say you are just uninformed if you like the GOP and are not rich.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> And you are exactly proving my point. You can't even tell me why you are republican. it should be easy for you to show how you are voting for your best interest.
> 
> but you can't even do that.


I have never claimed to be republican, nor have I ever said i was republican.

I don't define myself with labels, or work in the confines of a two party system.

That's why i didn't answer your question.

But you, you telling me that you know the best interests of black people, and how they should think, is obviously how you feel.

Once again... why do you think it is ok to tell other people who you feel don't have it as good as you do what they should be thinking.

You think it is better to tell them how to be, instead of trying to understand how they feel. Sounds like you feel a little privileged to do so.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Some interesting excerpts from Chris Christie's new book.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/us/politics/chris-christie-book-trump.html



> *Trump Thought Firing Flynn Would End ‘Russia Thing,’ Chris Christie Writes in Book*
> 
> President Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, believed that the “Russia thing” would end as a side effect from the firing of the national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, in the early days of the administration, according to an account in a new memoir by Chris Christie.
> 
> The incident recounted in Mr. Christie’s book, “Let Me Finish,” is among the anecdotes describing how the president and Mr. Kushner grappled with a campaign and a presidency that Mr. Christie says neither was prepared for.
> 
> Part autobiography and part firsthand accounting of a presidency, the book, which will be released on Tuesday, paints Mr. Trump as a phenom who was obviously effective as a candidate — but who has relied on the wrong people and has been ill-served by many advisers, including some members of his family.
> 
> Mr. Christie, the former two-term governor of New Jersey and a longtime friend of the president, was among Mr. Trump’s challengers for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. He became a key, early supporter of Mr. Trump after withdrawing from the race, and then ran Mr. Trump’s transition — until he was fired shortly after the election, reportedly at the direction of Mr. Kushner. He recently withdrew from consideration as White House chief of staff.
> 
> Three main themes emerge in the book in relation to Mr. Trump.
> 
> Mr. Trump is less of a cartoon figure than he is in most accounts contained in new books about the White House. But Mr. Christie describes him as averse to interpersonal conflict with people he likes, needlessly nasty to some subordinates and prone to trusting people he should not.
> 
> Mr. Kushner, whose power has grown recently, appears as a shadow campaign manager and chief of staff in the White House, often giving his father-in-law questionable and problematic advice, according to the book, on topics including Mr. Flynn; how Democrats would perceive the firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director; his initial support for the campaign chairman, Paul Manafort; and how West Wing and key cabinet jobs were filled.
> 
> And a number of unqualified figures attached themselves to Mr. Trump and pandered to Mr. Kushner, Mr. Christie said, particularly after he was dismissed from the transition team. One was Mr. Manafort, who bluntly told Mr. Christie in the spring of 2016 that he was succeeding over a rival campaign aide “because I’m smart enough to agree with Jared, and he is not.”
> 
> On Feb. 14, 2017, Mr. Christie and his wife, Mary Pat, had lunch scheduled with the president. It happened to be the day after Mr. Flynn — whom Mr. Christie did not back for the national security adviser role — was dismissed for lying to the vice president about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition. Mr. Kushner decided to attend.
> 
> As Mr. Kushner tucked into his “typical salad,” Mr. Christie wrote, the president said to him, “This Russia thing is all over now, because I fired Flynn.” Mr. Christie said that he started laughing, and the president asked why.
> 
> “‘Sir,’ I said, ‘this Russia thing is far from over,’” Mr. Christie wrote. Mr. Trump responded: “What do you mean? Flynn met with the Russians. That was the problem. I fired Flynn. It’s over.” Mr. Kushner added, “That’s right, firing Flynn ends the whole Russia thing.”
> 
> Mr. Christie, who wrote that it all sounded “naïve,” recalled Mr. Kushner telling him that he was “crazy” when he said they would most likely still be discussing the Russia issue in February 2018.
> 
> The investigation into Russian meddling in the election and whether the Trump campaign was involved has been going on for more than two years, and has resulted in the indictments or guilty pleas of several former campaign officials, including Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort.
> 
> In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Christie said that he did not believe Mr. Flynn was let go because of the Russia inquiry, but because keeping him on was “untenable” after officials said he had lied to the vice president.
> 
> “I think they thought that a result of that would be that this Russia stuff was over with, but I did not ever hear anybody say that that was the motivation,” he said.
> 
> Mr. Christie said the campaign was too disorganized and threadbare “to run a Tom Clancy operation,” and said he never saw evidence of collusion with Russian officials. But he argued that people like Mr. Flynn never should have been hired in the first place.
> 
> 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.
> 
> “Flynn was a train wreck from beginning to end,” Mr. Christie said in the book, recounting that during the one early debate session that Mr. Flynn was invited to, he suggested that Mr. Trump reverse himself and support abortion rights, because it would take away an issue from Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Mr. Christie was similarly wary about Jeff Sessions serving as attorney general, suggesting he mishandled his recusal from the Russia inquiry. He also took aim at Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, saying he manufactured scenes about Mr. Christie in books and news media accounts. Repeatedly, Mr. Christie suggested that people around Mr. Trump, such as Mr. Bannon, promoted themselves at the president’s expense.
> 
> Mr. Christie lifted the curtain on some of the most explosive moments of the campaign, including when Mr. Trump was presented with the audio of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape for the first time. He had initially insisted the language used was not something he would say. When he heard the tape, he acknowledged, “It’s me.” Mr. Christie said it was one of the only times he had seen Mr. Trump personally embarrassed.
> 
> He described frantically writing a statement with Mr. Trump’s eldest daughter, Ivanka, to give to the candidate to end days of controversy after Mr. Trump said a judge was biased against him because of his Mexican-American heritage.
> 
> Mr. Christie detailed some of the bizarre back and forths he had with Mr. Trump or his aides about various jobs, including the candidate appearing to toy with both him and Mike Pence about who would be his running mate.
> 
> He described Mr. Trump as clearly torn when his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was fired. They watched together as Mr. Lewandowski went on CNN to defend Mr. Trump after his dismissal, and Mr. Trump said they should call him together.
> 
> “To me, this all felt a little bizarre,” Mr. Christie wrote. “‘‘Didn’t we just fire him?’ I asked. ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah,’ Trump answered. ‘But we’ve got to call and tell him he did a great job.’”
> 
> Mr. Christie recounted introducing Mr. Trump to Mr. Pence, at a meeting where Mr. Pence said a short prayer. “Does he do that all the time?” Mr. Trump asked Mr. Christie later. When Mr. Christie replied yes, Mr. Trump responded, “Interesting.”
> 
> He recalled the first time he met Mr. Trump, in May 2002, at a restaurant where Mr. Trump insisted on ordering for him. When dinner ended, a fan who had waited outside for an hour asked Mr. Trump to take a photograph with her. Her camera jammed repeatedly.
> 
> Impatient, Mr. Trump looked at the woman and said, “Sweetheart, let’s do this the next time we get together.” He disappeared into a black limousine.
> 
> But Mr. Christie said there was another side to the president, describing conversations with Mr. Trump where he was concerned for his children. “What’s going to happen to them if I’m not there?” Mr. Trump wondered about his adult children if he became president.
> 
> “I think people draw him in very, very stark colors, and I don’t think that that’s who he is,” Mr. Christie said in the interview. “I think there’s a lot more nuance to it.”
> 
> Repeatedly, however, the story returns to Mr. Kushner, whom Mr. Christie recalled watching, silently, as Mr. Kushner denounced Mr. Christie to Mr. Trump in a meeting and urged him to exclude Mr. Christie from the transition effort.
> 
> “He tried to destroy my father,” Mr. Kushner said, according to Mr. Christie, a former United States attorney who prosecuted Mr. Kushner’s father, Charles, on tax evasion and other charges. Mr. Trump did not side with his son-in-law.
> 
> When Mr. Kushner lost the battle, he told Mr. Christie that they should let bygones be bygones and work together, Mr. Christie wrote. But time and again, he said, he heard from other officials that Mr. Kushner was working against him.
> 
> On election night, Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Christie’s son to take a picture of him and the governor, a moment he said he could never have imagined years earlier, according to the book. Mr. Christie was dismissed from the transition three days later.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I have never claimed to be republican, nor have I ever said i was republican.
> 
> I don't define myself with labels, or work in the confines of a two party system.
> 
> That's why i didn't answer your question.
> 
> But you, you telling me that you know the best interests of black people, and how they should think, is obviously how you feel.
> 
> Once again... why do you think it is ok to tell other people who you feel don't have it as good as you do what they should be thinking.
> 
> You think it is better to tell them how to be, instead of trying to understand how they feel. Sounds like you feel a little privileged to do so.


Of course, you won't answer. 

And yes if you are black and are a Trump supporter, you are voting against your best interest, and Trump is a racist, its weird any minority would ever like him

Its also funny you say *You think it is better to tell them how to be, instead of trying to understand how they feel* yet I asked you why you feel that way and you refuse to answer lol

Stop trolling


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Hoolahoop33 said:


> He might be pro-life?
> Or Anti illegal immigration?
> Or Pro Second Amendment?
> Or maybe he likes some of the trade policies that Trump has pioneered?
> Or maybe he is just totally disillusioned by the Democrat party in its current state? (Easy to see why?)
> 
> What has his race got to do with any of those issues? A person can vote for any party they want to, that is their right.
> 
> For you to question that solely on the basis of the individuals race, is.... not good.


I don't identify as anything, except a black dude in America who happens to love his country.

Some people dislike that. 

But here is the best part of BM's rant:



> it does not matter i*f you are black, white, latino etc *if you are middle class or lower, if you vote republican you are voting against your best interest
> 
> *Unless you are rich*, republicans don't give a shit about you. What exactly about the GOP do you like?
> 
> And I would say you are just uninformed if you like the GOP and *are not rich.*


In BM's mind minority= poor

This isn't the first time just like when he said "people in poverty can't afford $25, and we all know minorities are in poverty, that is why voting ID is racist"



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, you won't answer.
> 
> And yes if you are black and are a Trump supporter, you are voting against your best interest, and Trump is a racist, its weird any minority would ever like him
> 
> Its also funny you say *You think it is better to tell them how to be, instead of trying to understand how they feel* yet I asked you why you feel that way and you refuse to answer lol
> 
> Stop trolling


Why I feel what way?

I want you to quote what i said I felt, and I will answer that, instead of humoring your prejudice attitude any longer.

Also, don't you support planned parenthood?

I think it is hilarious how you think you have the privilege to tell people what to think, based on the color of their skin. Isn't that exactly what you are saying.

"Don't vote for Trump, don't support the GOP, you are black.. don't you know better"


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Why I feel what way?
> 
> I want you to quote what i said I felt, and I will answer that, instead of humoring your prejudice attitude any longer.
> 
> Also, don't you support planned parenthood?
> 
> I think it is hilarious how you think you have the privilege to tell people what to think, I mean that is how this started... it's just interesting to me


You still refuse to answer a simple question. Your trolling is getting old.

Also if you don't see how voter IDs are racist, you prove my point even more how uninformed you are. Its just funny you keep going back to that after getting destroyed in that debate.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> You still refuse to answer a simple question. Your trolling is getting old.
> 
> Also if you don't see how voter IDs are racist, you prove my point even more how uninformed you are. Its just funny you keep going back to that after getting destroyed in that debate.


I have already answered you:

*I am not a republican or a Democrat, so I am not sure why I would like being one or the other.*

As for the rest I think I got it right.

"Black people shouldn't think for themselves"
"Black people aren't rich, so they shouldn't like the GOP"
"Black people sometimes have to be convinced by people like me what is best for them"

Any new ones that you can come up with will be appreciated, since you know so much about this subject

Yeah, you explained voter ID laws, its because minorities can't afford $25 every other year because they live in poverty, right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I have already answered you:
> 
> *I am not a republican or a Democrat, so I am not sure why I would like being one or the other.*
> 
> As for the rest I think I got it right.
> 
> "Black people shouldn't think for themselves"
> "Black people aren't rich, so they shouldn't like the GOP"
> "Black people sometimes have to be convinced by people like me what is best for them"
> 
> Any new ones that you can come up with will be appreciated, since you know so much about this subject
> 
> Yeah, you explained voter ID laws, its because minorities can't afford $25 every other year because they live in poverty, right?


So instead of answering you are going to keep shit posting. Got it.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> So instead of answering you are going to keep shit posting. Got it.


Well, you said I couldn't be rich because I was black, so obviously it isn't in my best interest to support the GOP.

I mean the statement "You are middle class because of your skin color" seems rather, we will say questionable to me... but I am not sure if i feel comfortable answering to a person who feels that black automatically equals middle class...

That kind of language shouldn't be tolerated in 2019.

Like I said, it was enough to see your true colors, I just want to see if you will show them anymore.


----------



## Spin_Iock

no


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Well, you said I couldn't be rich because I was black, so obviously it isn't in my best interest to support the GOP.
> 
> I mean the statement "You are middle class because of your skin color" seems rather, we will say questionable to me... but I am not sure if i feel comfortable answering to a person who feels that black automatically equals middle class...
> 
> That kind of language shouldn't be tolerated in 2019.
> 
> Like I said, it was enough to see your true colors, I just want to see if you will show them anymore.


Keep strawmanning because you cant answer a simple question.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> DMD Mofomagic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you said I couldn't be rich because I was black, so obviously it isn't in my best interest to support the GOP.
> 
> I mean the statement "You are middle class because of your skin color" seems rather, we will say questionable to me... but I am not sure if i feel comfortable answering to a person who feels that black automatically equals middle class...
> 
> That kind of language shouldn't be tolerated in 2019.
> 
> Like I said, it was enough to see your true colors, I just want to see if you will show them anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep strawmanning because you cant answer a simple question.
Click to expand...

Dude he’s answered you several times. You’re the one who throws a fit and wants to protect your thoughts onto everyone and when you get stuck you scream “answer the question” over and over again or bring up something that has nothing to do with the conversation.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Dude he’s answered you several times. You’re the one who throws a fit and wants to protect your thoughts onto everyone and when you get stuck you scream “answer the question” over and over again or bring up something that has nothing to do with the conversation.


He has not answered anything.lol. He even said he refuses to answer me


----------



## CamillePunk

> Mr. Christie lifted the curtain on some of the most explosive moments of the campaign, including when Mr. Trump was presented with the audio of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape for the first time. He had initially insisted the language used was not something he would say. When he heard the tape, he acknowledged, “It’s me.” Mr. Christie said it was one of the only times he had seen Mr. Trump personally embarrassed.


This about sums up Trump. :lol He just says shit and doesn't even know what comes out of his own mouth cause it doesn't mean anything. People actually think he goes around grabbing women by the pussy. :lmao


> He described Mr. Trump as clearly torn when his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was fired. They watched together as Mr. Lewandowski went on CNN to defend Mr. Trump after his dismissal, and Mr. Trump said they should call him together.
> 
> “To me, this all felt a little bizarre,” Mr. Christie wrote. “‘‘Didn’t we just fire him?’ I asked. ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah,’ Trump answered. ‘But we’ve got to call and tell him he did a great job.’”


Awww.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> And yes if you are black and are a Trump supporter, you are voting against your best interest, and Trump is a racist, its weird any minority would ever like him


I'll wait for my apology, because you clearly were actually saying that it is 'comical' to you that a black person would vote Republican. That is the issue I addressed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> I'll wait for my apology, because you clearly were actually saying that it is 'comical' to you that a black person would vote Republican. That is the issue I addressed.


Actually yes I am saying exactly that. The GOP only cares about rich white men, if you are not a rich white male then you are voting against your best interest voting Republican. Since the GOP does not give a shit about women, minorities, or the middle class and poor.

Are you really going to claim the GOP cares about women, minorities or the middle class or poor?


----------



## CamillePunk

Which GOP policies in particular serve the interests of rich white men over the interests of rich black men, and how?


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Which GOP policies in particular serve the interests of rich white men over the interests of rich black men, and how?


Lol at dodging the point. typical cam. rich black men fall into the rich category.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Actually yes I am saying exactly that. The GOP only cares about rich white men, if you are not a rich white male then you are voting against your best interest voting Republican. Since the GOP does not give a shit about women, minorities, or the middle class and poor.
> 
> Are you really going to claim the GOP cares about women, minorities or the middle class or poor?


Then why did you neg me when I was responding to that very point? 

Anyway, my point was that it isn't as simple as that. People prioritise many different policies - healthcare, immigration, guns, etc, regardless of race, gender, social status. Are they voting against there interests if they vote for the party/ candidate that best matches their preferences? Ultimately every person is free to make there own decision, and it isn't for you to tell them who they should/ should not be voting for just based on their skin colour.

Point out to me where exactly I made that claim.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Then why did you neg me when I was responding to that very point?
> 
> Anyway, my point was that it isn't as simple as that. People prioritise many different policies - healthcare, immigration, guns, etc, regardless of race, gender, social status. Are they voting against there interests if they vote for the party/ candidate that best matches their preferences? Ultimately every person is free to make there own decision, and it isn't for you to tell them who they should/ should not be voting for just based on their skin colour.
> 
> Point out to me where exactly I made that claim.


yes, every person is free to make their own decision but that does not mean they are informed or are voting for their best interest. There is a reason why a lot of people are not saying they made a mistake about voting for Trump.

You don't think you should inform people on what candidate may be best for their own interest? I told everyone about how bad Trump is, and its funny seeing all these people who were defending Trump admitting I was right about him. 

As for it isn't for me to tell them who they should/ should not be voting for just based on their skin color. Hypothetical question.

So if you know a black person who liked a candidate who was a KKK member, you don't think you should inform them it may not be in their best interest to vote for them?

Trump is a racist, and even after the central park 5 were found not guilty due to DNA, Trump still said they should be kept in jail because in his mind they were still guilty.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Actually yes I am saying exactly that. *The GOP only cares about rich white men, if you are not a rich white male then you are voting against your best interest voting Republican. *Since the GOP does not give a shit about women, minorities, or the middle class and poor.
> 
> Are you really going to claim the GOP cares about women, minorities or the middle class or poor?





birthday_massacre said:


> Lol at dodging the point. typical cam. rich black men fall into the rich category.


???


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> ???


Love how you ignore the main point about the GOP not caring about women, minorities or the middle class or poor.

So how about you try speaking to that. But of course, you won't because you know they don't give a shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Love how you ignore the main point about the GOP not caring about women, minorities or the middle class or poor.
> 
> So how about you try speaking to that. But of course, you won't because you know they don't give a shit.


Why should I care what you want to talk about when you don't explain your own statements?

I can see why liberal women, liberal minorities, and liberal poor people wouldn't vote Republican. Voting Democrat definitely serves their interests. I don't contest that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Why should I care what you want to talk about when you don't explain your own statements?


Of course, you won't speak to that because you know I am right.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, you won't speak to that because you know I am right.


I think you were being racist and got called out and can't explain yourself so you want to change the topic. :draper2

Wanted to give you the chance to explain yourself, because I don't want to believe you're a racist, but alas.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I think you were being racist and got called out and can't explain yourself so you want to change the topic. :draper2


LOL yeah ok. that is cute. Keep straw-manning the argument.

EDIT for your EDIT

it's not racist to say blacks shouldn't vote Republican because Republicans are racist and it's against their best interest when they do.


----------



## CamillePunk

Okay, so again, which specific GOP policies are against the interests of rich black men?


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Okay, so again, which specific GOP policies are against the interests of rich black men?


I never said they were since they are rich, they don't fall into the middle class or poor, you are just making a strawman argument. I think its funny you ignore the overall point but again its because you know I am right and have no answer for it.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> I never said they were since they are rich, you are just making a strawman argument.


I'm not making an argument, I'm asking a question.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I'm not making an argument, I'm asking a question.


You are asking a question over something I never said. I love how you and DMD can't answer a simple question about conservatives/republicans. You go out of your way to dodge the simple question.


----------



## CamillePunk

That's not what happened. :lauren I'm bored, talk to you another time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> That's not what happened. :lauren I'm bored, talk to you another time.


Of course its not happening because you can't do it, so you shitpost and run.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so again, which specific GOP policies are against the interests of rich black men?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were since they are rich, they don't fall into the middle class or poor, you are just making a strawman argument. I think its funny you ignore the overall point but again its because you know I am right and have no answer for it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm sounds a bit racist I hate to say. 

So I’m in my thirties and I’m white and I’m not rich nor am I poor... what’s in my best interest? BM


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Hmmm sounds a bit racist I hate to say.
> 
> So I’m in my thirties and I’m white and I’m not rich nor am I poor... what’s in my best interest? BM


that would make you middle class 

You really had to ask that question?


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so again, which specific GOP policies are against the interests of rich black men?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were since they are rich, they don't fall into the middle class or poor, you are just making a strawman argument. I think its funny you ignore the overall point but again its because you know I am right and have no answer for it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm sounds a bit racist I hate to say. 

So I’m in my thirties and I’m white and I’m not rich nor am I poor... what’s in my best interest? BM

No, I know I’m middle class I’m asking you what’s in my best interest as far as voting goes?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> No, I know I’m middle class I’m asking you what’s in my best interest as far as voting goes?


Not voting Republican that is for sure.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> yes, every person is free to make their own decision but that does not mean they are informed or are voting for their best interest. There is a reason why a lot of people are not saying they made a mistake about voting for Trump.
> 
> You don't think you should inform people on what candidate may be best for their own interest? I told everyone about how bad Trump is, and its funny seeing all these people who were defending Trump admitting I was right about him.
> 
> As for it isn't for me to tell them who they should/ should not be voting for just based on their skin color. Hypothetical question.
> 
> So if you know a black person who liked a candidate who was a KKK member, you don't think you should inform them it may not be in their best interest to vote for them?
> 
> Trump is a racist, and even after the central park 5 were found not guilty due to DNA, Trump still said they should be kept in jail because in his mind they were still guilty.


Yes that is very true, people may indeed vote for a party which represents values against their interests. However, while you may give reasons as to why you support/ do not support a specific candidate, to tell a person who they should / should not support and what their best interests are, even when they are a stranger to you - that can come across as quite condescending.

Even worse is if you make broad generalisations and sweeping statements about large groups of people, for example - all black people should be democrats, all rich white people should support the GOP. That's not how it works, people are individuals and will vote for whoever they think has the closest to their own. It can actually come across as a bit racist if you tell a person who they should vote for based on the colour of their skin, because it essentially espouses the idea that people are defined by the colour of their skin, when obviously they are not.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I know I’m middle class I’m asking you what’s in my best interest as far as voting goes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not voting Republican that is for sure.
Click to expand...

And why is that? Why is voting republican not in my best interests? I agree with more of the stances and policies than I do with those of the Democratic Party.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Yes that is very true, people may indeed vote for a party which represents values against their interests. However, while you may give reasons as to why you support/ do not support a specific candidate, to tell a person who they should / should not support and what their best interests are, even when they are a stranger to you - that can come across as quite condescending.
> 
> Even worse is if you make broad generalisations and sweeping statements about large groups of people, for example - all black people should be democrats, all rich white people should support the GOP. That's not how it works, people are individuals and will vote for whoever they think has the closest to their own. It can actually come across as a bit racist if you tell a person who they should vote for based on the colour of their skin, because it essentially espouses the idea that people are defined by the colour of their skin, when obviously they are not.


I see what you are saying but GOP policies are not favorable to women, minorities or the middle class and poor thus why I make those broad generalizations. Their policies favor the rich.





Jokerface17 said:


> And why is that? Why is voting republican not in my best interests? I agree with more of the stances and policies than I do with those of the Democratic Party.


Which are?


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Hoolahoop33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is very true, people may indeed vote for a party which represents values against their interests. However, while you may give reasons as to why you support/ do not support a specific candidate, to tell a person who they should / should not support and what their best interests are, even when they are a stranger to you - that can come across as quite condescending.
> 
> Even worse is if you make broad generalisations and sweeping statements about large groups of people, for example - all black people should be democrats, all rich white people should support the GOP. That's not how it works, people are individuals and will vote for whoever they think has the closest to their own. It can actually come across as a bit racist if you tell a person who they should vote for based on the colour of their skin, because it essentially espouses the idea that people are defined by the colour of their skin, when obviously they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying but GOP policies are not favorable to women, minorities or the middle class and poor thus why I make those broad generalizations. Their policies favor the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why is that? Why is voting republican not in my best interests? I agree with more of the stances and policies than I do with those of the Democratic Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which are?
Click to expand...

Well I always tend to vote a more republican ticket than democratic.

Let me just tell you about me and where I stand in my life.

-I own my house, it’s paid for.
- I’m a single parent with two kids that I have custody of.
-I have a good salary job with 401k,without having a degree.
-I don’t struggle financially or with anything else monetary.
-I legally own guns for the worst case scenario argument (which we all know youll start screaming murder and other obnoxious shit about)
-Taxes don’t burn me up.
-I don’t really give a shit about the wall because if our tax money isn’t being spent on that then it will be spent on something else just in this situation Trump has the right idea just goes about presenting it the wrong way.
- I don’t agree with the handouts that stem from democratic parties


So why in the world would I vote democratic?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Well I always tend to vote a more republican ticket than democratic.
> 
> Let me just tell you about me and where I stand in my life.
> 
> -I own my house, it’s paid for.
> - I’m a single parent with two kids that I have custody of.
> -I have a good salary job with 401k,without having a degree.
> -I don’t struggle financially or with anything else monetary.
> -I legally own guns for the worst case scenario argument (which we all know youll start screaming murder and other obnoxious shit about)
> -Taxes don’t burn me up.
> -I don’t really give a shit about the wall because if our tax money isn’t being spent on that then it will be spent on something else just in this situation Trump has the right idea just goes about presenting it the wrong way.
> - I don’t agree with the handouts that stem from democratic parties
> 
> 
> So why in the world would I vote democratic?


But you are ok with the handouts for the rich?

Didn't see very many policies issues there besides guns and handouts.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Look both parties are corrupt and crooked as fuck but my general outlook is this:

- Left-wing philosophy is better in *theory*.

- Right-wing philosophy is better in *practice*.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I always tend to vote a more republican ticket than democratic.
> 
> Let me just tell you about me and where I stand in my life.
> 
> -I own my house, it’s paid for.
> - I’m a single parent with two kids that I have custody of.
> -I have a good salary job with 401k,without having a degree.
> -I don’t struggle financially or with anything else monetary.
> -I legally own guns for the worst case scenario argument (which we all know youll start screaming murder and other obnoxious shit about)
> -Taxes don’t burn me up.
> -I don’t really give a shit about the wall because if our tax money isn’t being spent on that then it will be spent on something else just in this situation Trump has the right idea just goes about presenting it the wrong way.
> - I don’t agree with the handouts that stem from democratic parties
> 
> 
> So why in the world would I vote democratic?
> 
> 
> 
> But you are ok with the handouts for the rich?
> 
> Didn't see very many policies issues there besides guns and handouts.
Click to expand...

And there aren’t many policies there because I was making my point about what ultimately affects me.

No I’m not okay with handouts for the rich but I’m less bothered by them than the handouts given to people who do nothing to deserve them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Look both parties are corrupt and crooked as fuck but my general outlook is this:
> 
> - Left-wing philosophy is better in *theory*.
> 
> - Right-wing philosophy is better in *practice*.


Trickledown economics have been a huge failure. So what Right-wing philosophies are better in practice? I am curious



Jokerface17 said:


> And there aren’t many policies there because I was making my point about what ultimately affects me.
> 
> No I’m not okay with handouts for the rich *but I’m less bothered by them than the handouts given to people who do nothing to deserve them*.


LOL at they do nothing to deserve them. They paid into the system.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look both parties are corrupt and crooked as fuck but my general outlook is this:
> 
> - Left-wing philosophy is better in *theory*.
> 
> - Right-wing philosophy is better in *practice*.
> 
> 
> 
> Trickledown economics have been a huge failure. So what Right-wing philosophies are better in practice? I am curious
> 
> 
> 
> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there aren’t many policies there because I was making my point about what ultimately affects me.
> 
> No I’m not okay with handouts for the rich *but I’m less bothered by them than the handouts given to people who do nothing to deserve them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL at they do nothing to deserve them. They paid into the system.
Click to expand...

So the people that don’t work and live off of welfare and food stamps paid into the system? Please explain how?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> So the people that don’t work and live off of welfare and food stamps paid into the system? Please explain how?


Are you going to claim people on welfare or food stamps never worked a day in their life? And a lot of people on welfare and food stamps also work but need a little help to stay afloat.

To even be eligible for food stamps you have to have worked for a least 3 months more than 20 hours per week over the past 3 years.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the people that don’t work and live off of welfare and food stamps paid into the system? Please explain how?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim people on welfare or food stamps never worked a day in their life? And a lot of people on welfare and food stamps also work but need a little help to stay afloat.
> 
> To even be eligible for food stamps you have to have worked for a least 3 months more than 20 hours per week over the past 3 years.
Click to expand...

I’m not claiming that they never worked, I’m just saying that most of them do not work. 

More than 20 hours a week for 3 months in 3 years is laughable if you’re trying to say that they deserve government help for being that lazy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> I’m not claiming that they never worked, I’m just saying that most of them do not work.
> 
> More than 20 hours a week for 3 months in 3 years is laughable if you’re trying to say that they deserve government help for being that lazy.


They are not being lazy. And no its not true most of them are not working or have been working in the past year prior to getting it. Stop making shit up


The CBPP points out that more than half of SNAP recipients who are able-bodied working-age adults are working while receiving benefits, and more than 80 percent are employed in the years prior to and following participation in the program. Among households with children, the rate of employment surrounding SNAP participation is even higher.

The 2015 report by the U.S. Census Bureau confirms that many recipients of other government assistance programs are employed. About 1 in 10 full-time workers received government assistance in 2012, while a quarter of part-time workers did.

Of course, rates of participation in the six major government assistance programs are much higher for those who are unemployed (41.5 percent) and outside of the labor force (32 percent). It's worth noting that those who are employed are more likely to be short-term rather than long-term recipients of government assistance. Nearly half of those who are recipients from homes with at least one full-time worker participate for no longer than a year.

All of this data points to the fact that these programs are serving their purpose of providing a safety net in time of need. If a member of a household suddenly loses a job or becomes disabled and unable to work, programs are in place to ensure that those affected do not lose their housing or starve. That's why participation is short-term for many; the programs allow them to stay afloat and recover.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not claiming that they never worked, I’m just saying that most of them do not work.
> 
> More than 20 hours a week for 3 months in 3 years is laughable if you’re trying to say that they deserve government help for being that lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> They are not being lazy. And no its not true most of them are not working or have been working in the past year prior to getting it. Stop making shit up
> 
> 
> The CBPP points out that more than half of SNAP recipients who are able-bodied working-age adults are working while receiving benefits, and more than 80 percent are employed in the years prior to and following participation in the program. Among households with children, the rate of employment surrounding SNAP participation is even higher.
> 
> The 2015 report by the U.S. Census Bureau confirms that many recipients of other government assistance programs are employed. About 1 in 10 full-time workers received government assistance in 2012, while a quarter of part-time workers did.
> 
> Of course, rates of participation in the six major government assistance programs are much higher for those who are unemployed (41.5 percent) and outside of the labor force (32 percent). It's worth noting that those who are employed are more likely to be short-term rather than long-term recipients of government assistance. Nearly half of those who are recipients from homes with at least one full-time worker participate for no longer than a year.
> 
> All of this data points to the fact that these programs are serving their purpose of providing a safety net in time of need. If a member of a household suddenly loses a job or becomes disabled and unable to work, programs are in place to ensure that those affected do not lose their housing or starve. That's why participation is short-term for many; the programs allow them to stay afloat and recover.
Click to expand...

Dude wtf? I’m not making anything up, why does government assistance even need to existT? If they’re able to work then why aren’t they out working? Because they’re lazy? Exactly. 

Minimum wage is not a living wage yet most people that do receive benefits that are working are working dead end jobs that only pay minimum wage or slightly higher.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Trickledown economics have been a huge failure. So what Right-wing philosophies are better in practice? I am curious


left wingers operate based on how they want the world to be, right wingers operate based on how the world actually is.

in theory yes it would be great if everyone in the world was equal and everyone had everything they needed provided for them, but clearly that is not what nature intended. in reality nothing is guaranteed to us. in reality we are all born with a certain set of advantages and disadvantages... be it physically, mentally, geographically or economically. in reality we are all driven by our own selfish desire to survive and to make the most out of the life we are given.

more importantly though right wingers tend to place far more emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability. the belief that you are responsible for your own happiness.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Dude wtf? I’m not making anything up, why does government assistance even need to existT? If they’re able to work then why aren’t they out working? Because they’re lazy? Exactly.
> 
> *Minimum wage is not a living wage* yet most people that do receive benefits that are working are working dead end jobs that only pay minimum wage or slightly higher.


its needed because like you said....]Minimum wage is not a living wage you answered your own question.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude wtf? I’m not making anything up, why does government assistance even need to existT? If they’re able to work then why aren’t they out working? Because they’re lazy? Exactly.
> 
> *Minimum wage is not a living wage* yet most people that do receive benefits that are working are working dead end jobs that only pay minimum wage or slightly higher.
> 
> 
> 
> its needed because like you said....]Minimum wage is not a living wage you answered your own question.
Click to expand...

No I didn’t. It’s not a living wage therefor they need to get off of their LAZY asses and go get a real job to support themselves and their families.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> left wingers operate based on how they want the world to be, right wingers operate based on how the world actually is.
> 
> in theory yes it would be great if everyone in the world was equal and everyone had everything they needed provided for them, but clearly that is not what nature intended. in reality nothing is guaranteed to us. in reality we are all born with a certain set of advantages and disadvantages... be it physically, mentally, geographically or economically. in reality we are all driven by our own selfish desire to survive and to make the most out of the life we are given.
> 
> more importantly though right wingers tend to place far more emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability. the belief that you are responsible for your own happiness.


Right wingers don't operate based on how the world actually is LOL that is a good one. They operate on steal from the middle class and poor to make themselves richer. They give themselves al the tax breaks then pay for it by taking away middle class and poor benefits. Things they paid into like SS. 

If the rich had their way they would bring back slave labor. The GOP doesn't even want a min. wage. The system if broken if the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95%




Jokerface17 said:


> No I didn’t. It’s not a living wage therefor they need to get off of their LAZY asses and go get a real job to support themselves and their families.


Right so using your logic even people with a job are lazy. Cant even take you seriously.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Are you going to claim people on welfare or food stamps never worked a day in their life? And a lot of people on welfare and food stamps also work but need a little help to stay afloat.


You understand the racist history behind the welfare state and how it has helped keep minorities down?

So, you are advocating for those people to stay there because it helps suits a narrative that you obviously like to push.

You have already admitted that when talking about "the poor" you mean blacks, and latinos, since you have not once mentioned poor white people.

You mentioned rich white people, but had to be reminded that black people are rich too. 

Keep digging that hole, keep showing the true colors you have


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> You understand the racist history behind the welfare state and how it has helped keep minorities down?
> 
> So, you are advocating for those people to stay there because it helps suits a narrative that you obviously like to push.
> 
> You have already admitted that when talking about "the poor" you mean blacks, and latinos, since you have not once mentioned poor white people.
> 
> You mentioned rich white people but had to be reminded that black people are rich too.
> 
> Keep digging that hole, keep showing the true colors you have


There are more white people on welfare than minorities. guess you are the racist one for assuming its more blacks and Latinos

its just funny you have to keep strawmanning this argument and making shit up I never said but you can't debate in good faith, so I am not surprised.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Right wingers don't operate based on how the world actually is LOL that is a good one. They operate on steal from the middle class and poor to make themselves richer. They give themselves al the tax breaks then pay for it by taking away middle class and poor benefits. Things they paid into like SS.


I don't know how right wingers or left wingers think, but I know how you think.

The people below you will never get anywhere on their own, they need help from others in order to make it... you have a lower opinion of people in lower communities, and your words here are showing it.



> If the rich had their way they would bring back slave labor. The GOP doesn't even want a min. wage. The system if broken if the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95%


Sound real comfortable comparing things to slavery... by the way, interesting how it seems to be your type that bring up slave labor, and yet at the same time telling black people thinking for themselves is funny to you




> Right so using your logic even people with a job are lazy. Cant even take you seriously.


At least he didn't say "poor people can't get out of the hole they are in, and need the government for help"


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Right wingers don't operate based on how the world actually is LOL that is a good one. They operate on steal from the middle class and poor to make themselves richer. They give themselves al the tax breaks then pay for it by taking away middle class and poor benefits. Things they paid into like SS.
> 
> If the rich had their way they would bring back slave labor. The GOP doesn't even want a min. wage. The system if broken if the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95%


i am not rich, i am middle class. i don't want a minimum wage either.

it is not the govt's job to put a price on labor.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> There are more white people on welfare than minorities. guess you are the racist one for assuming its more blacks and Latinos


I am not the one who pointed out those two races first when talking about people lower than middle class... 

Do you need to see the quote again?

Because that sure looks like you are telling on yourself


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i am not rich, i am middle class. i don't want a minimum wage either.
> 
> it is not the govt's job to put a price on labor.


yes it is to prevent slave labor like they have in China


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> left wingers operate based on how they want the world to be, right wingers operate based on how the world actually is.
> 
> in theory yes it would be great if everyone in the world was equal and everyone had everything they needed provided for them, but clearly that is not what nature intended. in reality nothing is guaranteed to us. in reality we are all born with a certain set of advantages and disadvantages... be it physically, mentally, geographically or economically. in reality we are all driven by our own selfish desire to survive and to make the most out of the life we are given.
> 
> more importantly though right wingers tend to place far more emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability. the belief that you are responsible for your own happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers don't operate based on how the world actually is LOL that is a good one. They operate on steal from the middle class and poor to make themselves richer. They give themselves al the tax breaks then pay for it by taking away middle class and poor benefits. Things they paid into like SS.
> 
> If the rich had their way they would bring back slave labor. The GOP doesn't even want a min. wage. The system if broken if the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn’t. It’s not a living wage therefor they need to get off of their LAZY asses and go get a real job to support themselves and their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right so using your logic even people with a job are lazy. Cant even take you seriously.
Click to expand...

Jesus man. You have got to be the most ignorant person on this forum. 

Let me dumb this down for you, if I worked at McDonald’s and made $7.25/hour thats $290 per week before taxes. That’s $15,080 per year before taxes. That’s not money that someone can live off of, that’s money for a highschool kid or a college kid that just wants some spending money. No adult should ever be working for so little of a paycheck. As an adult people should be out trying to do something for themselves to better their own lives instead of living off of the government. 

What I’m saying is that that people are complacent and lazy because they have no desire to have a better paying job because it requires more work than a minimum wage job.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Jesus man. You have got to be the most ignorant person on this forum.
> 
> Let me dumb this down for you, if I worked at McDonald’s and made $7.25/hour thats $290 per week before taxes. That’s $15,080 per year before taxes. That’s not money that someone can live off of, that’s money for a highschool kid or a college kid that just wants some spending money. No adult should ever be working for so little of a paycheck. As an adult people should be out trying to do something for themselves to better their own lives instead of living off of the government.
> 
> What I’m saying is that that people are complacent and lazy because they have no desire to have a better paying job because it requires more work than a minimum wage job.


You are the one being ignorant calling someone lazing working 40 hours a week at McDonald's

Also there are tons of office jobs that only pay 10-11 bucks an hour for a full time job.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i am not rich, i am middle class. i don't want a minimum wage either.
> 
> it is not the govt's job to put a price on labor.


That's the thing with BM, he isn't talking to you.

You know who he is talking about when he started this.

He thinks it is comical for black people to have a different mindset than other black people, which is why my crusade on him has started.

And every time he posts he jams his foot further down his mouth


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus man. You have got to be the most ignorant person on this forum.
> 
> Let me dumb this down for you, if I worked at McDonald’s and made $7.25/hour thats $290 per week before taxes. That’s $15,080 per year before taxes. That’s not money that someone can live off of, that’s money for a highschool kid or a college kid that just wants some spending money. No adult should ever be working for so little of a paycheck. As an adult people should be out trying to do something for themselves to better their own lives instead of living off of the government.
> 
> What I’m saying is that that people are complacent and lazy because they have no desire to have a better paying job because it requires more work than a minimum wage job.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one being ignorant calling someone lazing working 40 hours a week at McDonald's
Click to expand...

How in the hell is that me being ignorant? I’ve already told you that people that work in the fast food industry for minimum wage need to better themselves and strive for a better paying job than to just sit around and be content with what they have. It doesn’t matter if they’re black, white, Cuban, Asian, purple, green or whatever. No adult should be satisfied working a dead end job for such little pay. 

You saying that a black person cant think for themselves and then randomly deciding to say more white people are on welfare but then you turn around and say that by my logic people that work are lazy? I’m confused, what exactly are you saying? That the middle class and upper class should be forking out money to someone that decides to work at minimum wage?


EDIT- here you go proving my point exactly. 
There are plenty of office jobs that pay $10-$11 per hour... at $10 per hour that’s $20,800 per year compared to $15,080 per year at minimum wage. That’s a $5000 difference. Sure it’s not great money but it’s someone trying to better themselves and putting them in a situation where they could possibly work up the ladder


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> That's the thing with BM, he isn't talking to you.
> 
> You know who he is talking about when he started this.
> 
> He thinks it is comical for black people to have a different mindset than other black people, which is why my crusade on him has started.
> 
> And every time he posts he jams his foot further down his mouth


I already answered this LOL

Yes, it's comical for black people to support Trump who is a racist against black people.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> yes it is to prevent slave labor like they have in China


good grief.

employment is voluntary labor. slavery is forced labor. they are not even remotely the same thing.

in order for companies to hire workers they first need people to apply. if wal-mart decided they only wanted to pay $3/hr then no one would apply. no one would ever willingly choose to work for a company that was paying such unimaginably low wages. what would be the point. 

the free market demands that in order to fill jobs, employers need to provide adequate wages. but that's something that should be negotiated and agreed upon between employer and employee... it is not something that needs to be enforced by the govt.

someone that owns a store should not be forced to pay their cashier 15 dollars an hour, especially considering you have high school kids out there who would be happy to do the job for far less. again what right does the govt have to step in?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> good grief.
> 
> employment is voluntary labor. slavery is forced labor. they are not even remotely the same thing.
> 
> in order for companies to hire workers they first need people to apply. if wal-mart decided they only wanted to pay $3/hr then no one would apply. no one would ever willingly choose to work for a company that was paying such unimaginably low wages. what would be the point.
> 
> the free market demands that in order to fill jobs, employers need to provide adequate wages. but that's something that should be negotiated and agreed upon between employer and employee... it is not something that needs to be enforced by the govt.
> 
> someone that owns a store should not be forced to pay their cashier 15 dollars an hour, especially considering you have high school kids out there who would be happy to do the job for far less. again what right does the govt have to step in?


so the people working in China for peanuts is voluntary labor? 

You can't be serious


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> I already answered this LOL
> 
> Yes, it's comical for black people to support Trump who is a racist against black people.


So you think it is comical for black people to have an opinion that is different than yours?

You think it is comical for black people to not believe Trump is a racist

You believe you know more about racism than black people?

Sounds about right coming from you. 

Also, you seem to like the use the word uninformed when a black person doesn't agree with your mindset, almost like we should or we are stupid? Interesting


----------



## Jokerface17

DMD Mofomagic said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered this LOL
> 
> Yes, it's comical for black people to support Trump who is a racist against black people.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is comical for black people to have an opinion that is different than yours?
> 
> You think it is comical for black people to not believe Trump is a racist
> 
> You believe you know more about racism than black people?
> 
> Sounds about right coming from you.
> 
> Also, you seem to like the use the word uninformed when a black person doesn't agree with your mindset, almost like we should or we are stupid? Interesting
Click to expand...

He also jumps around from post to post and when he gets shut down he just doesn’t bother to respond, which is comical to me


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> He also jumps around from post to post and when he gets shut down he just doesn’t bother to respond, which is comical to me


I replied to all of your posts LOL

You are just going in circles. 





DMD Mofomagic said:


> So you think it is comical for black people to have an opinion that is different than yours?
> 
> You think it is comical for black people to not believe Trump is a racist
> 
> You believe you know more about racism than black people?
> 
> Sounds about right coming from you.
> 
> Also, you seem to like the use the word uninformed when a black person doesn't agree with your mindset, almost like we should or we are stupid? Interesting


So if a black person was pro-KKK you wouldn't have an issue with that?
if a Jewish person was pro Hitler you would be ok with that?

that sounds about right coming from you


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

BM have you ever heard of 'white savior complex'?

Because that's another trait commonly associated with lefties.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> so the people working in China for peanuts is voluntary labor?
> 
> You can't be serious


No mention Libya's slave trade that is enslaving thousands of africans?

must not be any political gain for it to be a story


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> BM have you ever heard of 'white savior complex'?
> 
> Because that's another trait commonly associated with lefties.


So you think it should be ok to pay someone 2 bucks an hour for a full time 40-hour job?

you dont think there should be a min. wage?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> So if a black person was pro-KKK you wouldn't have an issue with that?
> if a Jewish person was pro Hitler you would be ok with that?
> 
> that sounds about right coming from you


Well, you are pro Planned Parenthood, and you want black people to support it, even though it was built for the genocide of black people.

And I don't speak for Jewish people, considering I am not Jewish I don;t pretend to know more than them.

Looks like you didn't figure that lesson out yet.

Whats next?


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Well, you are pro Planned *Parenthood, and you want black people to support it, even though it was built for the genocide of black people.*
> 
> And I don't speak for Jewish people, considering I am not Jewish I don;t pretend to know more than them.
> 
> Looks like you didn't figure that lesson out yet.
> 
> Whats next?


LOL you are in Alex Jones territory now


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> *So you think it should be ok to pay someone 2 bucks an hour for a full time 40-hour job?*
> 
> you dont think there should be a min. wage?


it is perfectly okay to OFFER two dollars an hour, just like it is perfectly okay to DECLINE to work for two dollars an hour.

no company in the U.S. could hire workers of any kind offering two dollars an hour because not a single person would agree to those terms. your doomsday scenario is pure fantasy as usual.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also jumps around from post to post and when he gets shut down he just doesn’t bother to respond, which is comical to me
> 
> 
> 
> I replied to all of your posts LOL
> 
> You are just going in circles
Click to expand...

I’m not going in circles you moron. Are you or are you not saying that someone who works min wage for 40 hours a weeks deserves government assistance? And if you do, do you agree that they should try and get a better job instead of relying on the government


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Berzerker's Beard said:


> BM have you ever heard of 'white savior complex'?
> 
> Because that's another trait commonly associated with lefties.


It's not a complex.

They are like white knights with women.

They impose their will and what they feel on people, even though it wasn't asked, and treat people like pets who should love them unconditionally for fighting fights that no one is having.

And then when someone gives push back, they show their true colors, by name-calling, being condescending, and trying to tell all the other pets how "this is a bad one"

They hate being exposed because they don't know how to handle it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> I’m not going in circles you moron. Are you or are you not saying that someone who works min wage for 40 hours a weeks deserves government assistance? And if you do, do you agree that they should try and get a better job instead of relying on the government


The job should pay more money so they don't need government assistance 



Berzerker's Beard said:


> it is perfectly okay to OFFER two dollars an hour, just like it is perfectly okay to DECLINE to work for two dollars an hour.
> 
> no company in the U.S. could hire workers of any kind offering two dollars an hour because not a single person would agree to those terms. your doomsday scenario is pure fantasy as usual.


That is funny because some people in China make about that much for making iPhone. So don't act like it does not happen. If there was no min. wage in US wages would drop drastically.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> It's not a complex.
> 
> They are like white knights with women.
> 
> They impose their will and what they feel on people, even though it wasn't asked, and treat people like pets who should love them unconditionally for fighting fights that no one is having.
> 
> And then when someone gives push back, they show their true colors, by name-calling, being condescending, and trying to tell all the other pets how "this is a bad one"
> 
> They hate being exposed because they don't know how to handle it.


you are the only one being exposed You still never could answer my simple question. Because you know I am right.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL you are in Alex Jones territory now


So, because I read and researched, I now must be like a white man?

I am peeling back this onion more and more


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> So, because I read and researched, I now must be like a white man?
> 
> I am peeling back this onion more and more


oh do tell how planned parenthood was made for the genocide of blacks. this should be good. Don't even try to quote Ben Carson.


----------



## CamillePunk

It's okay to be rich and white.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not going in circles you moron. Are you or are you not saying that someone who works min wage for 40 hours a weeks deserves government assistance? And if you do, do you agree that they should try and get a better job instead of relying on the government
> 
> 
> 
> The job should pay more money so they don't need government assistance
> 
> 
> 
> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is perfectly okay to OFFER two dollars an hour, just like it is perfectly okay to DECLINE to work for two dollars an hour.
> 
> no company in the U.S. could hire workers of any kind offering two dollars an hour because not a single person would agree to those terms. your doomsday scenario is pure fantasy as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is funny because some people in China make about that much for making iPhone. So don't act like it does not happen. If there was no min. wage in US wages would drop drastically.
> 
> 
> 
> DMD Mofomagic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a complex.
> 
> They are like white knights with women.
> 
> They impose their will and what they feel on people, even though it wasn't asked, and treat people like pets who should love them unconditionally for fighting fights that no one is having.
> 
> And then when someone gives push back, they show their true colors, by name-calling, being condescending, and trying to tell all the other pets how "this is a bad one"
> 
> They hate being exposed because they don't know how to handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the only one being exposed You still never could answer my simple question. Because you know I am right.
Click to expand...


The job should pay more money? Really? THAT is your answer? It’s not even remotely close to what I asked you haha.

So a guy flipping burgers or asking if you want fries with that or that isn’t competent enough to leave onions off of a burger deserves to make as much as the guy installing your cable or satellite? what about the guy that’s out there paving roads? What about the people that are teaching and only making a little bit of money? The girl working at Gamestop asking you about preordering call of duty 46 should make as much as police officers and firemen?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> you are the only one being exposed You still never could answer my simple question. Because you know I am right.


Right about what?

That it's comical for black people to not think someon is racist because a white guy told them he was?

That rich black men are forgettable?

That poor people only stay poor because they can't help it?

That if not for people like you, poverty groups would be in poverty forever?

But of course you think you are right, people like you think that way about other groups.

Funny how when people told you that you sounded racist, you didn't even respond, didn't even acknowledge it, almost like you knew what the deal was.

Keep going, I want to see more of the true you



birthday_massacre said:


> oh do tell how planned parenthood was made for the genocide of blacks. this should be good. Don't even try to quote Ben Carson.


Got it... read and research, get compared to a white guy.

Don't quote the black surgeon, because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Funny how you say a black guy is the one with the opinion that doesn't count

What you got next?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> The job should pay more money? Really? THAT is your answer? It’s not even remotely close to what I asked you haha.
> 
> So a guy flipping burgers or asking if you want fries with that or that isn’t competent enough to leave onions off of a burger deserves to make as much as the guy installing your cable or satellite? what about the guy that’s out there paving roads? What about the people that are teaching and only making a little bit of money? The girl working at Gamestop asking you about preordering call of duty 46 should make as much as police officers and firemen?



You can't even be honest. The average carpenter makes 45k a year that is a far cry from the 30k a year that would be 15 bucks an hour. The average teacher makes 53-55k. The average police officer makes 60k.

Anyone working a full-time job should get a living wage.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Got it... read and research, get compared to a white guy.
> 
> Don't quote the black surgeon, because he doesn't know what he is talking about.
> 
> What you got next?


Just as I thought once again you can't back up your claim.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> That is funny because some people in China make about that much for making iPhone. So don't act like it does not happen. *If there was no min. wage in US wages would drop drastically.*


okay then humor me, how much should minimum wage be? 

doesn't matter what state you choose. pretend you are god emperor of america. what's the lowest amount you would demand that employers pay workers?



birthday_massacre said:


> You can't even be honest. The average carpenter makes 45k a year that is a far cry from the 30k a year that would be 15 bucks an hour. The average teacher makes 53-55k. The average police officer makes 60k.
> 
> *Anyone working a full-time job should get a living wage.*


bullshit.

you can get a full time job as a cashier right now. it requires no skill, no ambition and no challenge. your contribution to society would be minimal and you would be performing a job that literally anyone in the world can do.

you're saying that should entitle you to a middle class lifestyle? :lol


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Just as I thought once again you can't back up your claim.


You mean the same claim you know about , can't disprove, but because a black guy said it you don't believe it?

The best part about this is you know how you look, and you don't care, that says more about you than anything.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The job should pay more money? Really? THAT is your answer? It’s not even remotely close to what I asked you haha.
> 
> So a guy flipping burgers or asking if you want fries with that or that isn’t competent enough to leave onions off of a burger deserves to make as much as the guy installing your cable or satellite? what about the guy that’s out there paving roads? What about the people that are teaching and only making a little bit of money? The girl working at Gamestop asking you about preordering call of duty 46 should make as much as police officers and firemen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even be honest. The average carpenter makes 45k a year that is a far cry from the 30k a year that would be 15 bucks an hour. The average teacher makes 53-55k. The average police officer makes 60k.
> 
> Anyone working a full-time job should get a living wage.
Click to expand...

Carpenter salaries vary depending on a wide variety of things, but who brought up carpenters anyway?
The average teacher makes 53-55k? Haha that’s a LIE. Try ~$31,000
Same goes for police officers. 
So why don’t you try again to answer my question.

Minimum wage is low for a reason, it’s a starting pay for teenagers and very young adults. Are you saying that minimum wage should be high enough for someone to own a house and live comfortably? Because if you are, then you’re uniformed about what minimum wage is intended for


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> okay then humor me, how much should minimum wage be?
> 
> doesn't matter what state you choose. pretend you are god emperor of america. what's the lowest amount you would demand that employers pay workers?


Min wage should depend on the cost of living in each state. Depend on the state it could range from 12-15 an hour. 





Berzerker's Beard said:


> bullshit.
> 
> you can get a full time job as a cashier right now. it requires no skill, no ambition and no challenge. your contribution to society would be minimal and you would be performing a job that literally anyone in the world can do.
> 
> you're saying that should entitle you to a middle class lifestyle? :lol


Why shouldn't a cashier working full time get a living wage? 

And yes everyone that is working full time should get a living wage. Not sure why you even had to ask.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> You mean the same claim you know about , can't disprove, but because a black guy said it you don't believe it?
> 
> The best part about this is you know how you look, and you don't care, that says more about you than anything.


Again, show you proof of your claim.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> okay then humor me, how much should minimum wage be?
> 
> And a lot of cashiers can’t even do basic math. Especially around here.
> 
> doesn't matter what state you choose. pretend you are god emperor of america. what's the lowest amount you would demand that employers pay workers?
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage should depend on the cost of living in each state. Depend on the state it could range from 12-15 an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit.
> 
> you can get a full time job as a cashier right now. it requires no skill, no ambition and no challenge. your contribution to society would be minimal and you would be performing a job that literally anyone in the world can do.
> 
> you're saying that should entitle you to a middle class lifestyle? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why shouldn't a cashier working full time get a living wage?
> 
> And yes everyone that is working full time should get a living wage. Not sure why you even had to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMD Mofomagic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the same claim you know about , can't disprove, but because a black guy said it you don't believe it?
> 
> The best part about this is you know how you look, and you don't care, that says more about you than anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, show you proof of your claim.
Click to expand...

Ignorance at its finest!

Everyone working should get a living wage? So when I was in highschool working at a video store I should have been making the same thing that my aunt was as a teacher? There would be no point in me going to college if that was true. Or learning a trade. Or even taking certifications to advance in a service job. And all I’d have to say is “that’ll be $3.50 it’s due back Wednesday by 10:00pm”


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Carpenter salaries vary depending on a wide variety of things, but who brought up carpenters anyway?
> The average teacher makes 53-55k? Haha that’s a LIE. Try ~$31,000
> Same goes for police officers.
> So why don’t you try again to answer my question.
> 
> Minimum wage is low for a reason, it’s a starting pay for teenagers and very young adults. Are you saying that minimum wage should be high enough for someone to own a house and live comfortably? Because if you are, then you’re uniformed about what minimum wage is intended for


Min. wage would be over $20 an hour if it kept up with productivity. It's not eevn close to that. 


According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual salary for a teacher is approximately $55,000 per year. This means that half of all teachers in the country make more than this amount, and half make less.

As of 2011, police and highway patrol officers earned an average of $27.05 an hour and $56,260 a year. Half of all police and highway patrol officers made between $19.77 and $33.65 an hour and between $41,110 and $69,990 a year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Again, show you proof of your claim.


You haven't figured it out by now?

I am only interested in showing proof of one thing.

And you have given more than enough proof of that to me tonight.

Thanks for clarifying what I already knew, it will be fun to see it again


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Min wage should depend on the cost of living in each state. Depend on the state it could range from 12-15 an hour.
> 
> Why shouldn't a cashier working full time get a living wage?
> 
> And yes everyone that is working full time should get a living wage. Not sure why you even had to ask


define 'living wage' please.

how much money does someone need to 'live'?


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> You haven't figured it out by now?
> 
> I am only interested in showing proof of one thing.
> 
> And you have given more than enough proof of that to me tonight.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying what I already knew, it will be fun to see it again


That is what I thought, still shit posting because you can't defend your position.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Jokerface17 said:


> Ignorance at its finest!
> 
> Everyone working should get a living wage? So when I was in highschool working at a video store I should have been making the same thing that my aunt was as a teacher? There would be no point in me going to college if that was true. Or learning a trade. Or even taking certifications to advance in a service job. And all I’d have to say is “that’ll be $3.50 it’s due back Wednesday by 10:00pm”


He doesn't understand basic minimum wage.

I had a debate with him about this, and he literally has no idea what he is talking about and has no knowledge.

He doesn't take into account, level of skill, expertise, outside factors like nepotism, and favoritism, and can even calculate simple overtime charges (which is the only reason a police officer makes that high of a wage)

You can keep arguing with him, but he is going to spout off stats he read on vox.com and tell you how capitalism is the devil while on an overpriced phone, with an overpriced internet connection while on a website catered towards an entertainment with overpriced tickets and concessions.

It's Glorious!


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carpenter salaries vary depending on a wide variety of things, but who brought up carpenters anyway?
> The average teacher makes 53-55k? Haha that’s a LIE. Try ~$31,000
> Same goes for police officers.
> So why don’t you try again to answer my question.
> 
> Minimum wage is low for a reason, it’s a starting pay for teenagers and very young adults. Are you saying that minimum wage should be high enough for someone to own a house and live comfortably? Because if you are, then you’re uniformed about what minimum wage is intended for
> 
> 
> 
> Min. wage would be over $20 an hour if it kept up with productivity. It's not eevn close to that.
> 
> 
> According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual salary for a teacher is approximately $55,000 per year. This means that half of all teachers in the country make more than this amount, and half make less.
> 
> As of 2011, police and highway patrol officers earned an average of $27.05 an hour and $56,260 a year. Half of all police and highway patrol officers made between $19.77 and $33.65 an hour and between $41,110 and $69,990 a year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Click to expand...

There you go not answering questions and throwing shit against the wall hoping it sticks. 

Listen man I don’t respect you because you’re highly arrogant for obviously no reason aside from your beaming “white privilege” that honestly just makes me mad because it’s people like you that fuel racism because you try to push your agenda on everyone. You red rep anyone who doesn’t bow down and agree with you and you can’t even have a civilized conversation with anyone about anything. It’s your way or get the fuck out of town, you’re “uninformed” 

You and I and the same group of 6-7 people have had this same conversation more or less the past 6 months or so across multiple topics. Just quit being an ignorant ass and listen to what other people say sometimes and try to have an adult conversation and you might get a better response here and there.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> He doesn't understand basic minimum wage.
> 
> I had a debate with him about this, and he literally has no idea what he is talking about and has no knowledge.
> 
> He doesn't take into account, level of skill, expertise, outside factors like nepotism, and favoritism, and can even calculate simple overtime charges (which is the only reason a police officer makes that high of a wage)
> 
> You can keep arguing with him, but he is going to spout off stats he read on vox.com and tell you how capitalism is the devil while on an overpriced phone, with an overpriced internet connection while on a website catered towards an entertainment with overpriced tickets and concessions.
> 
> It's Glorious!


LOL always love when you are given facts you dismiss them and pretend I have no knowledge. But it just shows what kind of person you are, that you dont think someone working 40 hours a week should get a living wage. 

But yes we know your MO is to ignore all the facts and logic because it always defeats your points. You are just like a creationist talking about evolution 

yeah you dont like dealing with pesky facts



Jokerface17 said:


> There you go not answering questions and throwing shit against the wall hoping it sticks.
> 
> Listen man I don’t respect you because you’re highly arrogant for obviously no reason aside from your beaming “white privilege” that honestly just makes me mad because it’s people like you that fuel racism because you try to push your agenda on everyone. You red rep anyone who doesn’t bow down and agree with you and you can’t even have a civilized conversation with anyone about anything. It’s your way or get the fuck out of town, you’re “uninformed”
> 
> You and I and the same group of 6-7 people have had this same conversation more or less the past 6 months or so across multiple topics. Just quit being an ignorant ass and listen to what other people say sometimes and try to have an adult conversation and you might get a better response here and there.


I answered your question, you just don't like the answer because I backed it up with facts. I know that is tough for all the trolls on this forum. 

And yes it is my way or get the fuck out of time because I am right.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> DMD Mofomagic said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't understand basic minimum wage.
> 
> I had a debate with him about this, and he literally has no idea what he is talking about and has no knowledge.
> 
> He doesn't take into account, level of skill, expertise, outside factors like nepotism, and favoritism, and can even calculate simple overtime charges (which is the only reason a police officer makes that high of a wage)
> 
> You can keep arguing with him, but he is going to spout off stats he read on vox.com and tell you how capitalism is the devil while on an overpriced phone, with an overpriced internet connection while on a website catered towards an entertainment with overpriced tickets and concessions.
> 
> It's Glorious!
> 
> 
> 
> LOL always love when you are given facts you dismiss them and pretend I have no knowledge. But it just shows what kind of person you are, that you dont think someone working 40 hours a week should get a living wage.
> 
> But yes we know your MO is to ignore all the facts and logic because it always defeats your points. You are just like a creationist talking about evolution
> 
> yeah you dont like dealing with pesky facts
Click to expand...

Damn man why is this so hard for you? Just answer the basic questions and have a typical debate.

-what is a living wage?
-should experience be a factor in pay?

Now that I think about it, it sounds like you’re in favor of communism. Is that what you’re after because that’s what it sounds like


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Jokerface17 said:


> Damn man why is this so hard for you? Just answer the basic questions and have a typical debate.
> 
> -what is a living wage?
> -should experience be a factor in pay?
> 
> *Now that I think about it, it sounds like you’re in favor of communism*. Is that what you’re after because that’s what it sounds like



it took you this long to figure that out?


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go not answering questions and throwing shit against the wall hoping it sticks.
> 
> Listen man I don’t respect you because you’re highly arrogant for obviously no reason aside from your beaming “white privilege” that honestly just makes me mad because it’s people like you that fuel racism because you try to push your agenda on everyone. You red rep anyone who doesn’t bow down and agree with you and you can’t even have a civilized conversation with anyone about anything. It’s your way or get the fuck out of town, you’re “uninformed”
> 
> You and I and the same group of 6-7 people have had this same conversation more or less the past 6 months or so across multiple topics. Just quit being an ignorant ass and listen to what other people say sometimes and try to have an adult conversation and you might get a better response here and there.
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question, you just don't like the answer because I backed it up with facts. I know that is tough for all the trolls on this forum.
> 
> And yes it is my way or get the fuck out of time because I am right.
Click to expand...

You have not answered one single question that I’ve asked you tonight nor have you backed anything up with facts. The salaries you posted probably came from some salary website (which those are usually wrong btw)

I am obviously not a troll aside from the few jokes here or there that are done completely in jest.

And what makes you right? Your racist, anti-black, communistic views?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Damn man why is this so hard for you? Just answer the basic questions and have a typical debate.
> 
> -what is a living wage?
> -should experience be a factor in pay?
> 
> Now that I think about it, it sounds like you’re in favor of communism. Is that what you’re after because that’s what it sounds like


I thought I already answered your question. Guess you don't want a number but a definition. A living wage is a wage that will let you be able to live a normal standard of living. You know so you can pay your bills, and not have to rely on govt assistance something you are so against.

Experience should not factor in pay since min wage is just for entry-level jobs. Experience being a factor in pay is for higher paying jobs.


----------



## Jokerface17

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn man why is this so hard for you? Just answer the basic questions and have a typical debate.
> 
> -what is a living wage?
> -should experience be a factor in pay?
> 
> *Now that I think about it, it sounds like you’re in favor of communism*. Is that what you’re after because that’s what it sounds like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it took you this long to figure that out?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I was trying to give this prick the benefit of the doubt for a while. Hell I thought he was like a 12 year old kid for the first 3 or 4 months until the “when did you start watching wrestling” thread where I realized he’s got to be in his 40s, which is said because from his obvious lack of real life knowledge he probably is the type that still lives at home ?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL always love when you are given facts you dismiss them and pretend I have no knowledge. But it just shows what kind of person you are, that you dont think someone working 40 hours a week should get a living wage.
> 
> But yes we know your MO is to ignore all the facts and logic because it always defeats your points. You are just like a creationist talking about evolution
> 
> yeah you dont like dealing with pesky facts


Let those feelings fly, queen! Get it off your chest, and make me feel your pain! It's almost like I could hear your voice cracking and speaking to me...it moved m, it really did.

Your beliefs don't align completely with evolution, so I wouldn't take any advice of it from you, considering even the simplest of concepts you have wrong


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Unfortunately I was trying to give this prick the benefit of the doubt for a while. Hell I thought he was like a 12 year old kid for the first 3 or 4 months until the “when did you start watching wrestling” thread where I realized he’s got to be in his 40s, which is said because from his obvious lack of real life knowledge he probably is the type that still lives at home ?


LOL still shit talking when you are in the wrong and keep ignoring facts.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn man why is this so hard for you? Just answer the basic questions and have a typical debate.
> 
> -what is a living wage?
> -should experience be a factor in pay?
> 
> Now that I think about it, it sounds like you’re in favor of communism. Is that what you’re after because that’s what it sounds like
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I already answered your question. Guess you don't want a number but a definition. A living wage is a wage that will let you be able to live a normal standard of living. You know so you can pay your bills, and not have to rely on govt assistance something you are so against.
> 
> Experience should not factor in pay since min wage is just for entry-level jobs. Experience being a factor in pay is for higher paying jobs.
Click to expand...


Again...

AGAIN...

I know what a fucking living wage is, the problem is that I don’t think that YOU do.

You said that a cashier should have a living wage and then turned around and said that experience should play into pay and minimum wage is just for entry level jobs. 

So what do you mean? Because you JUST contradicted everything you’ve been saying all night.

And I’m not shit talking, I’m dealing with FACTS when it comes to you. Stop throwing numbers at me and have a conversation. Answer questions that are asked without diverting the question. You haven’t denied being racist so are you admitting that you are? Are you proud of it because that’s how you come off.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Again...
> 
> AGAIN...
> 
> I know what a fucking living wage is, the problem is that I don’t think that YOU do.
> 
> You said that a cashier should have a living wage and then turned around and said that experience should play into pay and minimum wage is just for entry level jobs.
> 
> So what do you mean? Because you JUST contradicted everything you’ve been saying all night.


I don't know what a living wage is LOL

So was what I said a living wage is wrong?

And I should experience should NOT come into play for a living wage since we are talking about a living wage for min wage entry level jobs. Did I not? You even quoted me saying should NOT FFS


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> I thought I already answered your question. Guess you don't want a number but a definition. A living wage is a wage that will let you be able to live a normal standard of living. * You know so you can pay your bills*, and not have to rely on govt assistance something you are so against.
> 
> Experience should not factor in pay since min wage is just for entry-level jobs. Experience being a factor in pay is for higher paying jobs.


translation:

"that's right mr. store owner / mr. employer... i want my own place to live, my own vehicle, my own cell phone, my own x-box, my own steak, my own lobster... and i don't ever want to be behind on the monthly payments i chose to impose upon myself. and i want YOU to provide these things for me.

... and in return i will *operate your cash register*"

:lol


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...
> 
> AGAIN...
> 
> I know what a fucking living wage is, the problem is that I don’t think that YOU do.
> 
> You said that a cashier should have a living wage and then turned around and said that experience should play into pay and minimum wage is just for entry level jobs.
> 
> So what do you mean? Because you JUST contradicted everything you’ve been saying all night.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what a living wage is LOL
> 
> So was what I said a living wage is wrong?
> 
> And I should experience should NOT come into play for a living wage since we are talking about a living wage for min wage entry level jobs. Did I not?
Click to expand...

A living wage and minimum wage are two completely different things. You sound like they should be one in the same.

Go back and answer any of the questions that I’ve asked you. Don’t beat around the bush, don’t change the subject just answer them. 

One in particular that I want answered is my one about me working at a video store and making the same as a teacher


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> translation:
> 
> "that's right mr. store owner / mr. employer... i want my own place to live, my own vehicle, my own cell phone, my own x-box, my own steak, my own lobster... and i don't ever want to be behind on the monthly payments i chose to impose on myself. and i want YOU to provide these things for me.
> 
> ... and in return i will *operate your cash register*"
> 
> :lol


So a person working a 40-hour fulltime job shouldn't make a living wage?

You really want to go with that?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Jokerface17 said:


> Unfortunately I was trying to give this prick the benefit of the doubt for a while. Hell I thought he was like a 12 year old kid for the first 3 or 4 months until the “when did you start watching wrestling” thread where I realized he’s got to be in his 40s, which is said because from his obvious lack of real life knowledge he probably is the type that still lives at home ?


He reminds me of this guy who was at the bar I was watching the rumble at.

he kept going "This wrestler is a Pro-Trumper, his views are shit"

My friend and I were talking about going to see Dolph Ziggler and he says "Don't go, it sucks, its just conservative humor, and I don't like it"

WTF does Dolph being a conservative have to do with him being a former grand slam champ I want to chat with for a bit?

It's uncomfortable being the black person around them, because EVERYTHING is about how I should feel oppressed and disrespected, like I don't have real everyday problems to deal with.

It's funny normally, but during a 5 hour show, it wasn't as much


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> A living wage and minimum wage are two completely different things. You sound like they should be one in the same.
> 
> Go back and answer any of the questions that I’ve asked you. Don’t beat around the bush, don’t change the subject just answer them.
> 
> One in particular that I want answered is my one about me working at a video store and making the same as a teacher


yes I am saying the min wage should be a living wage. 

I already answered your teacher question. And teachers should make more for the teachers on the low end.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> So a person working a 40-hour fulltime job should make a living wage?
> 
> You really want to go with that?


you really are precious.


----------



## Jokerface17

Berzerker's Beard said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I already answered your question. Guess you don't want a number but a definition. A living wage is a wage that will let you be able to live a normal standard of living. * You know so you can pay your bills*, and not have to rely on govt assistance something you are so against.
> 
> Experience should not factor in pay since min wage is just for entry-level jobs. Experience being a factor in pay is for higher paying jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> translation:
> 
> "that's right mr. store owner / mr. employer... i want my own place to live, my own vehicle, my own cell phone, my own x-box, my own steak, my own lobster... and i don't ever want to be behind on the monthly payments i chose to impose upon myself. and i want YOU to provide these things for me.
> 
> ... and in return i will *operate your cash register*"
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

Where do I apply?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Jokerface17 said:


> Where do I apply?


Bernie Land.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> translation:
> 
> "that's right mr. store owner / mr. employer... i want my own place to live, my own vehicle, my own cell phone, my own x-box, my own steak, my own lobster... and i don't ever want to be behind on the monthly payments i chose to impose upon myself. and i want YOU to provide these things for me.
> 
> ... and in return i will *operate your cash register*"
> 
> :lol


its just weird you don't think someone working 40 hours fulltime should be able to have a living wage.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> translation:
> 
> "that's right mr. store owner / mr. employer...  i want my own place to live, my own vehicle, my own cell phone, my own x-box, my own steak, my own lobster... and i don't ever want to be behind on the monthly payments i chose to impose upon myself. and i want YOU to provide these things for me.
> 
> ... and in return i will *operate your cash register*"
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> 
> 
> its just weird you don't think someone working 40 hours fulltime should be able to have a living wage.
Click to expand...

It’s just weird that you think as long as some people work 40 hours a week doing whatever they should be able to take care of all of their bills and be debt free LOL.

I’m curious BM, what do you do for a living to be this financially irresponsible. 

Or you know, answer any of my other questions.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> its just weird you don't think someone working 40 hours fulltime should be able to have a living wage.


what do you for a living? do you work? i'm curious.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> It’s just weird that you think as long as some people work 40 hours a week doing whatever they should be able to take care of all of their bills and be debt free LOL.
> 
> I’m curious BM, what do you do for a living to be this financially irresponsible.
> 
> Or you know, answer any of my other questions.


Not sure what is so weird about that, especially since you were just bitching about people getting welfare even the ones working 40 hours a week.

You can't have it both ways.

I am an account manager. Make 40k per year


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s just weird that you think as long as some people work 40 hours a week doing whatever they should be able to take care of all of their bills and be debt free LOL.
> 
> I’m curious BM, what do you do for a living to be this financially irresponsible.
> 
> Or you know, answer any of my other questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what is so weird about that, especially since you were just bitching about people getting welfare even the ones working 40 hours a week.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> I am an account manager. Make 40k per year
Click to expand...

Okay so if you’re an account manager, you’re okay with some kid in highschool making 30k a year ringing up your groceries and only making about 10k less than you? 

I’m just confused as to why if you make 40k a year why you’re wanting minimum wage to go up to a livable wage instead of those people just getting better jobs.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Okay so if you’re an account manager, you’re okay with some kid in highschool making 30k a year ringing up your groceries and only making about 10k less than you?
> 
> I’m just confused as to why if you make 40k a year why you’re wanting minimum wage to go up to a livable wage instead of those people just getting better jobs.


yes I am ok with that.

And I think anyone working a full-time job should have a living wage and not have to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay the bills until they can get a better paying job.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> And I think anyone working a full-time job should have a living wage and not have to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay the bills until they can get a better paying job.





Berzerker's Beard said:


> left wingers operate based on how they want the world to be, right wingers operate based on how the world actually is.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so if you’re an account manager, you’re okay with some kid in highschool making 30k a year ringing up your groceries and only making about 10k less than you?
> 
> I’m just confused as to why if you make 40k a year why you’re wanting minimum wage to go up to a livable wage instead of those people just getting better jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> yes I am ok with that.
> 
> And I think anyone working a full-time job should have a living wage and not have to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay the bills until they can get a better paying job.
Click to expand...




Berzerker's Beard said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I think anyone working a full-time job should have a living wage and not have to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay the bills until they can get a better paying job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> left wingers operate based on how they want the world to be, right wingers operate based on how the world actually is.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So do you think it’s the governments responsibility to make sure that people don’t make smart decisions when it comes to a career? An entry level job should never be a career.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> So do you think it’s the governments responsibility to make sure that people don’t make smart decisions when it comes to a career? An entry level job should never be a career.


You should be able to live on an entry-level job when starting out your career.

Are you really going to disagree with that? You love to bring up Mcds but there are tons of entry-level jobs that pay 10-12 an hour which is not enough to live on.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by birthday_massacre View Post
> And I think anyone working a full-time job should have a living wage and not have to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay the bills until they can get a better paying job.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Berzerker's Beard View Post
> left wingers operate based on how they want the world to be, right wingers operate based on how the world actually is.


So should blacks have just accepted segregation then because that is how the world was and just say











using your guys logic nothing would ever improve in the US because you would just accept what the current world is like

You don't want progress, that is your fatal flaws and that is what the GOP want and you all fall for it


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you think it’s the governments responsibility to make sure that people don’t make smart decisions when it comes to a career? An entry level job should never be a career.
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to live on an entry-level job when starting out your career.
> 
> Are you really going to disagree with that? You love to bring up Mcds but there are tons of entry-level jobs that pay 10-12 an hour which is not enough to live on.
Click to expand...

Yes I do disagree with that. Wholeheartedly.

And no 10-12 an hour isn’t enough to live off of, but there is a $5,000 difference between $7.25 and $10 per hour, that’s a good chunk of change. But the point of these entry-level jobs are for people to gain experience to move on to something better eventually. Why should someone who’s content with only putting forth the effort to do the minimum and make minimum wage be given a handout just because they’re lazy? Just explain that. Don’t come back and answer me with a question, just answer or explain something.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Since when is working 40 hrs a handout. Working a 40 hour job is being lazy. Your whole logic is flawed


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by birthday_massacre View Post
> And I think anyone working a full-time job should have a living wage and not have to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay the bills until they can get a better paying job.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Berzerker's Beard View Post
> left wingers operate based on how they want the world to be, right wingers operate based on how the world actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So should blacks have just accepted segregation then because that is how the world was and just say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> using your guys logic nothing would ever improve in the US because you would just accept what the current world is like
> 
> You don't want progress, that is your fatal flaws and that is what the GOP want and you all fall for it
Click to expand...

Using OUR logic nothing would improve? Well how in the fuck is it going to improve if the government is giving out handouts to lazy people? Aside from a few rare circumstances nobody should be given free money to live on. If someone wants to do just enough to get by then why should it be anyone else’s responsibility to provide for them? Why are people that are on welfare driving brand new cars, have the newest phone, cabinets and freezers full of food, while those that have real jobs and careers don’t live as luxurious of a lifestyle? Now I’m not saying that everyone on welfare does this but most take advantage of it.



birthday_massacre said:


> Since when is working 40 hrs a handout. Working a 40 hour job is being lazy. Your whole logic is flawed


God damn. 

Working a 40 hour a week job doing the bare minimum that a monkey could do does not entitle anyone to a living wage. What part of that don’t you get? I don’t have a flawed logic, doing The bare minimum at an entry level job should not earn you enough money to live on comfortably.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Holy fuck, is this really still going?

You guys have done like 12+ pages on this in the last 5-6 hours.


----------



## Jokerface17

2 Ton 21 said:


> Holy fuck, is this really still going?
> 
> You guys have done like 12+ pages on this in the last 5-6 hours.


Well I’m either too stupid or too stubborn to give up on this. 

And BM, well BM still has his head stuck up his own ass.


----------



## Draykorinee

Well this was entirely scrollable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> Using OUR logic nothing would improve? Well how in the fuck is it going to improve if the government is giving out handouts to lazy people? Aside from a few rare circumstances nobody should be given free money to live on. If someone wants to do just enough to get by then why should it be anyone else’s responsibility to provide for them? Why are people that are on welfare driving brand new cars, have the newest phone, cabinets and freezers full of food, while those that have real jobs and careers don’t live as luxurious of a lifestyle? Now I’m not saying that everyone on welfare does this but most take advantage of it.



Its so fucked you think people working 40 hrs a week are lazy and im the one with his head stuck up his ass lol.


----------



## Jokerface17

birthday_massacre said:


> Jokerface17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using OUR logic nothing would improve? Well how in the fuck is it going to improve if the government is giving out handouts to lazy people? Aside from a few rare circumstances nobody should be given free money to live on. If someone wants to do just enough to get by then why should it be anyone else’s responsibility to provide for them? Why are people that are on welfare driving brand new cars, have the newest phone, cabinets and freezers full of food, while those that have real jobs and careers don’t live as luxurious of a lifestyle? Now I’m not saying that everyone on welfare does this but most take advantage of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its so fucked you think people working 40 hrs a week are lazy and im the one with his head stuck up his ass lol.
Click to expand...

People who work 40 hours a week doing the bare minimum and do not strive for anything better, are lazy. How hard is it to be a cashier? You literally scan things through a register and collect money. The machine does the math for you. Hell if they pay with a card you don’t even have to do any math. 

Those people that fall into that catergory are lazy. 

People that get up in the morning and go to work doing something productive and meaningful are not lazy. 

A highschool kid who works 20 hours per week as a cashier is NOT lazy.

A grown man that works 40 hours per week as a cashier is VERY lazy.

Do you not see the difference in that? It’s not always black and white, there are always shades of gray.

You keep bouncing around changing your agenda with every post. Start making sense or start explaining yourself.








Oh and Birthday? The average account manager makes an average of $100,000 a year in the US so you’re either lying about being an account manager or you’re just a terrible one.


----------



## CJ

2 Ton 21 said:


> *Holy fuck, is this really still going?*
> 
> You guys have done like 12+ pages on this in the last 5-6 hours.


Apparently so :lauren

For the sake of everyone in this thread, can you two please just agree to disagree & move the fuck on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jokerface17 said:


> People who work 40 hours a week doing the bare minimum and do not strive for anything better, are lazy. How hard is it to be a cashier? You literally scan things through a register and collect money. The machine does the math for you. Hell if they pay with a card you don’t even have to do any math.
> 
> Those people that fall into that catergory are lazy.
> 
> People that get up in the morning and go to work doing something productive and meaningful are not lazy.
> 
> A highschool kid who works 20 hours per week as a cashier is NOT lazy.
> 
> A grown man that works 40 hours per week as a cashier is VERY lazy.
> 
> Do you not see the difference in that? It’s not always black and white, there are always shades of gray.
> 
> You keep bouncing around changing your agenda with every post. Start making sense or start explaining yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and Birthday? The average account manager makes an average of $100,000 a year in the US so you’re either lying about being an account manager or you’re just a terrible one.





Keep going in circles. We have already been over this. 


You keep proving how clueless you are on salaries. 

As of Jan 27, 2019, the average annual pay for an Entry Level Account Manager in the United States is $41,075 a year.

While ZipRecruiter is seeing annual salaries as high as $59,000 and as low as $20,500, the majority of Entry Level Account Manager salaries currently range between $35,000 (25th percentile) to $46,000 (75th percentile) across the United States. The average pay range for an Entry Level Account Manager varies little (about $11,000), which suggests that regardless of location, there are not many opportunities for increased pay or advancement, even with several years of experience.

Now moving on like CJ said.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> Well this was entirely scrollable.


Yeah, whenever I see BM take on the usual suspects, I just tune out of the thread for like 24 hours or so.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look Trump showing how dumb he is yet again, not knowing the difference between climate and weather. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090074254010404864


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> OH look Trump showing how dumb he is yet again, not knowing the difference between climate and weather.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090074254010404864


Was going to post this. Global waming.

The guy is so fucking stupid.

Even if you don't believe global warming is man made (You're wrong) to so badly misrepresent the case for a warming glove is embarrassing for anyone, but the president? Ridiculous.


----------



## birthday_massacre

He couldn’t even spell warming correctly


----------



## Reaper

"Stable Genius".

Hello Everybody. 

Meet the real president of the USA right now:


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> "Stable Genius".
> 
> Hello Everybody.
> 
> Meet the real president of the USA right now:


This is from yesterday. His notepad says "5,000 troops to Colombia"


















Here he is one Fox News admitting one reason to intervene is so U.S. oil companies can take over the Venezuelan oil industry,






It's like he has OCD, but his only tic is invading countries and taking over the oil reserves.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> It's like he has OCD, but his only tic is invading countries and taking over the oil reserves.


Note. Go further than this. 

Notice how they're refusing to talk about the billions in sanctions the US is currently imposing on them. 

Yeah, because sanctions will feed the people. 

This is economic warfare literally using people's hunger and starvation to install a puppet non-elected government. 

Troops won't be needed. People will succumb to the pressure through starvation and destitution alone. 

And then America will proclaim another victory for capitalism over socialism. 

This is really a game to keep the local american population under control and from ever considering the benefits of social welfare statism or any of those policies here locally.

Oof. Listen to that Fox anchor ... and OMG the fucking histrionic performance. Like she's literally acting acting acting like a fucking TV show. 

No wonder this country is so full of loons. They can't even tell the difference between real emotion vs a fake fucking paid actress dramatizing the propaganda they're absorbing like fucking drones. I don't see ANY difference between this woman's acting and North Korean State News anchors at all. 

So much for the "free world". :lol


----------



## DOPA

End the wars.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Rolo Tomassi said:


> End the wars.


It sucks she doesn't have enough of the media behind her.

She would make a great president and win too.

A lot of moderates on the right love her.


----------



## virus21

DMD Mofomagic said:


> It sucks she doesn't have enough of the media behind her.
> 
> She would make a great president and win too.
> 
> A lot of moderates on the right love her.


The fact that she wants to end the wars is why the media hate her. War is a good cash cow for them


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

virus21 said:


> The fact that she wants to end the wars is why the media hate her. War is a good cash cow for them


I agree, even though i am more pro-war than most, I still think that it is a fuel to show mock patriotism.

I mean we all have a "team" we root for, for whatever reason Americans feel powerful by hearing that we are killing other people for no other reason than we can, and we sit at the tv thirsting for more blood.

Strange indeed.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> The fact that she wants to end the wars is why the media hate her. War is a good cash cow for them


She checks all the social liberal boxes that Kamala does and yet she's less of a democrat than a woman who literally advocated for prison slave labor and sending kids to prison for truancy. 

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-general

Guess who the "democrat" sheep are told to support.

Some Democrats are still shoring up the party of the slavers and I don't think that ever *truly* changed.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Democrats are the party of the slavers and I don't think that ever *truly* changed.


Finally someone says it! Dems never really stopped being slavers, they just refined better and stopped limiting it black people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> She checks all the social liberal boxes that Kamala does and yet she's less of a democrat than a woman who literally advocated for prison slave labor and sending kids to prison for truancy.
> 
> Guess who the "democrat" sheep are told to support.
> 
> Some Democrats are still shoring up the party of the slavers and I don't think that ever *truly* changed.


Like I said before, its going to be 2016 all over again in the DNC primary. It will come down to Bernie and KH, and the DNC will do everything they can to rig her for KH. Lets hope Bernie learned his lessons to stop it.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Finally someone says it! Dems never really stopped being slavers, they just refined better and stopped limiting it black people.


Neither party want's to do *anything* at all about the prison industrial complex. Nothing. Not a thing. What the parties truly stand for needs to be observed in action, not in promises. And neither party wants to do a damn thing about the real problems americans face as long as they can get into power and continue to create laws that benefit their corporatist backers. 

I mean, as recently as 2018 prison slave labor was fighting fires in one of the most *blue* states in the country who are falsely accused of being "progressive" and "leftist". 



birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said before, its going to be 2016 all over again in the DNC primary. It will come down to Bernie and KH, and the DNC will do everything they can to rig her for KH. Lets hope Bernie learned his lessons to stop it.


Yeah, the anti-Bernie, Tulsi campaigning is already in full swing 2 years ahead of time. It's going to get so much worse from here.


----------



## 777

Let's be honest, we're going to need that prison industrial complex for thought criminals.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said before, its going to be 2016 all over again in the DNC primary. It will come down to Bernie and KH, and the DNC will do everything they can to rig her for KH. Lets hope Bernie learned his lessons to stop it.


I don't see any way that Bernie isn't the candidate.

It can not be underestimated how much people seem to not like Kamala Harris. I have seen at least 4 heavy leaning democrat people just straight denounce her already. 

And after Hilary, I don't see how the Dems can let that egg go back on their faces.

Also, Beto is still a dark horse in all of this.


----------



## deepelemblues

What wars does Gabbard want to end

Not the one where drones and special forces kill teams wipe out several dozen people at a pop


----------



## blaird

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't see any way that Bernie isn't the candidate.
> 
> It can not be underestimated how much people seem to not like Kamala Harris. I have seen at least 4 heavy leaning democrat people just straight denounce her already.
> 
> And after Hilary, I don't see how the Dems can let that egg go back on their faces.
> 
> Also, Beto is still a dark horse in all of this.


I think itll be one of the killer B's...Bernie, Beto, or Biden...Bernie is prob the big favorite right now though.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

It's very obvious the Ds have learned nothing from how the 2016 election went. A corporate, party leader chosen Democrat is not going to be good in the general. It's mirroring the 2004 presidential election. Regular Democrat voters were sure Bush would lose in 2004 because of his negatives, but the party ran John Kerry and look what happened. Of course i kind of think he was supposed to lose. Hillary was still in her first term as a Senator and couldn't run without getting criticized for being light on experience. She needed someone to lose in 2004 so she could run in 2008. If Kerry won she'd have to wait until at least 2012 to go for the nom.

We all know Obama wasn't supposed to get the nom in 2008, Hillary was. Notice how even though Obama won the the presidency and Ds claimed the house and senate, Howard Dean resigned as head of the DNC January 2009 and entered the private sector for the first time in 30 years. Why? Because Hillary lost the nom on his watch. Dean had to go even though he delivered their greatest victory in a generation at least. It would be like firing Bill Belichick the day after the Patriots won the Super Bowl 77-0 because he didn't let Tom Brady have enough playing time.

Who took over as DNC head after Dean? Tim Kaine, the same guy that ended up Hillary's VP candidate. Who preceded Dean as head of the DNC? Terry McAuliffe, one of the Clintons' staunchest allies. Debbie Wasserman Schulz, same thing. Then in 2016 they made damn sure Hillary got the nom, by any means necessary. It won't be any different for 2020. It may be Hillary, it may not, but it will be someone that's part of their club.


----------



## Martins

https://www.business-standard.com/a...ions-from-eu-german-media-119013000657_1.html

The new so-called President is actually asking for further sanctions to his own, already sanction-riddled country :lmao

*This* is what a traitor to his own country looks like.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't see any way that Bernie isn't the candidate.
> 
> It can not be underestimated how much people seem to not like Kamala Harris. I have seen at least 4 heavy leaning democrat people just straight denounce her already.
> 
> And after Hilary, I don't see how the Dems can let that egg go back on their faces.
> 
> Also, Beto is still a dark horse in all of this.


Beto is already being exposed as an establishment candidate. It should be Bernie but you never know with the DNC fuckery and how the media is against him


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...d-bogus-claims-about-the-border-because-movie

Has Trump peddled bogus claims about the border because of a movie?

When making his case for a giant border wall, Donald Trump has turned to a variety of strange talking points. At a White House event earlier this month, for example, the president marveled at the quality of the vehicles used by human traffickers
“[T]hey have unbelievable vehicles. They make a lot of money. They have the best vehicles you can buy. They have stronger, bigger and faster vehicles than our police have and than ICE has, and the Border Patrol have.”

About a week later, Trump published a tweet intended to raise public anxieties about activities at the U.S./Mexico border.

“Border rancher: ‘We’ve found prayer rugs out here. It’s unreal.’ Washington Examiner People coming across the Southern Border from many countries, some of which would be a big surprise.”

Last week, the Republican turned to one of his go-to stories, which he’s peddled many times.

“Human traffickers – the victims are women and children. Maybe to a lesser extent, believe or not, children. Women are tied up. They’re bound. Duct tape put around their faces, around their mouths. In many cases, they can’t even breathe. They’re put in the backs of cars or vans or trucks.”

It’s tempting to dismiss all of this as just another round of nonsense from a president who too often has no idea what he’s saying, but in this case, these three Trump talking points have two things in common.

First, they’re demonstrably false. There’s nothing especially amazing about smugglers’ vehicles; there’s no evidence at all of prayer rugs being found in the dirt by the border (in fact, the whole idea is kind of silly); and experts have marveled at how bizarre Trump’s claims are about women tied up with tape.

Second, each of these appeared in a recent fictional movie.

No, seriously. As Rachel noted on the show last night, there’s a movie called Sicario: 
Day of the Soldado, which was released last summer, and which included a woman being tied up with tape, smugglers driving vast vehicles, and officials finding prayer rugs in the dirt near the border.

Again, just so we’re all clear, the movie is real, but the story is fictional. The script was written by screenwriters, not documentarians. The plot of the film is made up, as are the characters and developments that unfolded on screen.

As Rachel added, “In a normal administration, it would be insane to suggest” the president of the United States saw stuff in a movie and maybe thought it reflected reality. And who knows, maybe it’s just a coincidence.

But let’s not miss the forest for the trees: Donald Trump’s observations about the border are so at odds with reality that there are reasonable questions as to how in the world he even came up with such strange ideas.

I can’t say with any certainty whether the president took a fictional movie a little too seriously, but that’s not really the point. Rather, what matters is that we’re left to wonder how and why Trump comes up with these stories, which he peddles to the public, despite being wrong.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> It's very obvious the Ds have learned nothing from how the 2016 election went. A corporate, party leader chosen Democrat is not going to be good in the general. It's mirroring the 2004 presidential election. Regular Democrat voters were sure Bush would lose in 2004 because of his negatives, but the party ran John Kerry and look what happened. Of course i kind of think he was supposed to lose. Hillary was still in her first term as a Senator and couldn't run without getting criticized for being light on experience. She needed someone to lose in 2004 so she could run in 2008. If Kerry won she'd have to wait until at least 2012 to go for the nom.
> 
> We all know Obama wasn't supposed to get the nom in 2008, Hillary was. Notice how even though Obama won the the presidency and Ds claimed the house and senate, Howard Dean resigned as head of the DNC January 2009 and entered the private sector for the first time in 30 years. Why? Because Hillary lost the nom on his watch. Dean had to go even though he delivered their greatest victory in a generation at least. It would be like firing Bill Belichick the day after the Patriots won the Super Bowl 77-0 because he didn't let Tom Brady have enough playing time.
> 
> Who took over as DNC head after Dean? Tim Kaine, the same guy that ended up Hillary's VP candidate. Who preceded Dean as head of the DNC? Terry McAuliffe, one of the Clintons' staunchest allies. Debbie Wasserman Schulz, same thing. Then in 2016 they made damn sure Hillary got the nom, by any means necessary. It won't be any different for 2020. It may be Hillary, it may not, but it will be someone that's part of their club.


It's not that they haven't learned anything. It's more like they're trying to keep their party safe within the hands of the corporatists and keep it from being taken over by "wild card" politicians that'll be harder to manipulate. 

So this is an internal power struggle and not incompetence.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> It's not that they haven't learned anything. It's more like they're trying to keep their party safe within the hands of the corporatists and keep it from being taken over by "wild card" politicians that'll be harder to manipulate.
> 
> So this is an internal power struggle and not incompetence.


I should have clarified, I meant the regular democratic voters and low position party members. Yeah, the top of the party knows exactly what they're doing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> It's not that they haven't learned anything. It's more like they're trying to keep their party safe within the hands of the corporatists and keep it from being taken over by "wild card" politicians that'll be harder to manipulate.
> 
> So this is an internal power struggle and not incompetence.


Exactly.

For establishment corporate Democrats, even if they lose to a republican they will still stay rich keeping all of their tax breaks and lobbyist money. That would much rather lose to a Republican than have a Democrat like Bernie Sanders win and their meal ticket would go away

The corporatists Dems don't care what is best for the people, they just care what is best for their lobbyist friends who line their pockets


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...d-bogus-claims-about-the-border-because-movie
> 
> Has Trump peddled bogus claims about the border because of a movie?
> 
> When making his case for a giant border wall, Donald Trump has turned to a variety of strange talking points. At a White House event earlier this month, for example, the president marveled at the quality of the vehicles used by human traffickers
> “[T]hey have unbelievable vehicles. They make a lot of money. They have the best vehicles you can buy. They have stronger, bigger and faster vehicles than our police have and than ICE has, and the Border Patrol have.”
> 
> About a week later, Trump published a tweet intended to raise public anxieties about activities at the U.S./Mexico border.
> 
> “Border rancher: ‘We’ve found prayer rugs out here. It’s unreal.’ Washington Examiner People coming across the Southern Border from many countries, some of which would be a big surprise.”
> 
> Last week, the Republican turned to one of his go-to stories, which he’s peddled many times.
> 
> “Human traffickers – the victims are women and children. Maybe to a lesser extent, believe or not, children. Women are tied up. They’re bound. Duct tape put around their faces, around their mouths. In many cases, they can’t even breathe. They’re put in the backs of cars or vans or trucks.”
> 
> It’s tempting to dismiss all of this as just another round of nonsense from a president who too often has no idea what he’s saying, but in this case, these three Trump talking points have two things in common.
> 
> First, they’re demonstrably false. There’s nothing especially amazing about smugglers’ vehicles; there’s no evidence at all of prayer rugs being found in the dirt by the border (in fact, the whole idea is kind of silly); and experts have marveled at how bizarre Trump’s claims are about women tied up with tape.
> 
> Second, each of these appeared in a recent fictional movie.
> 
> No, seriously. As Rachel noted on the show last night, there’s a movie called Sicario:
> Day of the Soldado, which was released last summer, and which included a woman being tied up with tape, smugglers driving vast vehicles, and officials finding prayer rugs in the dirt near the border.
> 
> Again, just so we’re all clear, the movie is real, but the story is fictional. The script was written by screenwriters, not documentarians. The plot of the film is made up, as are the characters and developments that unfolded on screen.
> 
> As Rachel added, “In a normal administration, it would be insane to suggest” the president of the United States saw stuff in a movie and maybe thought it reflected reality. And who knows, maybe it’s just a coincidence.
> 
> But let’s not miss the forest for the trees: Donald Trump’s observations about the border are so at odds with reality that there are reasonable questions as to how in the world he even came up with such strange ideas.
> 
> I can’t say with any certainty whether the president took a fictional movie a little too seriously, but that’s not really the point. Rather, what matters is that we’re left to wonder how and why Trump comes up with these stories, which he peddles to the public, despite being wrong.


I mean, that stuff is in just the trailer. Don't have to actually watch the whole movie.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> I mean, that stuff is in just the trailer for the movie. Don't have to actually watch the whole movie.


Which is probably as long as Trumps attention span can handle since he can barely read one page of intelligent reports


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Which is probably as long as Trumps attention span can handle since he can barely read one page of intelligent reports


For once I'm agreeing with MSBC. This shit about prayer mats, tied up women and fancy cars is too fictionalized and combined with Trump's fascination with all things media it's really not out of the realm of possibility that his deranged mind believes that TV is a depiction of reality. 

This isn't even a Trump problem. More than half of Americans still believe that they are more civilized than those middle easterns and mexicans. Americans are notorious for not being able to distinguish between reality and fiction. 

Take the antivax, birther, flat Earth communities etc.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> For once I'm agreeing with MSBC. This shit about prayer mats, tied up women and fancy cars is too fictionalized and combined with Trump's fascination with all things media it's really not out of the realm of possibility that his deranged mind believes that TV is a depiction of reality.
> 
> This isn't even a Trump problem. More than half of Americans still believe that they are more civilized than those middle easterns and mexicans. Americans are notorious for not being able to distinguish between reality and fiction.
> 
> Take the antivax, birther, flat Earth communities etc.


Yes, it may be true that some Americans are notorious for not being able to distinguish between reality and fiction but those Americans are not the POTUS.

You would think the POTUS would be able to do that. That is why Trump is pathetically stupid with things like that and the whole not even knowing the difference between weather and climate.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes, it may be true that some Americans are notorious for not being able to distinguish between reality and fiction but those Americans are not the POTUS.
> 
> You would think the POTUS would be able to do that. That is why Trump is pathetically stupid with things like that and the whole not even knowing the difference between weather and climate.


"Stable genius". Just like his supporters. 

Is there anyone left in WF that supports him now? Must be really embarrassing right now to call yourself a trump supporter at this point.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Beto is already being exposed as an establishment candidate. It should be Bernie but you never know with the DNC fuckery and how the media is against him


Beto is good looking, says the right things at the right times, and does have some influence from some big time names like Alyssa Milano, and is basically a person that the DNC can exploit.

I still don't buy Bernie being as popular as you say. I voted for Bernie in the DNC in 2016, and have no intention of doing so now. There has been too much mud slinging of his name and his ideals at this point. I think some people are gun shy, many Bernie supporters are Beto supporters now, that's why i claim his as a dark horse. 

I am assuming you didn't see they are already doing the "Would you pay for Bernie's plan" polls... that is what Kamala is going to attack first IMO. And I have a sneaking suspicion she is going to weasel her way into the black vote, which is interesting, because she doesnt; have it now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Beto is good looking, says the right things at the right times, and does have some influence from some big time names like Alyssa Milano, and is basically a person that the DNC can exploit.
> 
> I still don't buy Bernie being as popular as you say. I voted for Bernie in the DNC in 2016, and have no intention of doing so now. There has been too much mud slinging of his name and his ideals at this point. I think some people are gun shy, many Bernie supporters are Beto supporters now, that's why i claim his as a dark horse.
> 
> I am assuming you didn't see they are already doing the "Would you pay for Bernie's plan" polls... that is what Kamala is going to attack first IMO. And I have a sneaking suspicion she is going to weasel her way into the black vote, which is interesting, because she doesnt; have it now.


Beto may say the right things but when you look into what is he really for, not so much. 

Not sure how you can deny the popularity of Bernie when that is what all the polls show. He is the most popular senator/politician in the country. 

As for the paying for Bernie's plans polls, 70% of the country is for Medicare for all. 

I have not seen the polls you are talking about but polls all depend on the framing.

Because the media and loves to say how Bernie's Medicare for all plan would cost 33 trillion over ten years but they fail to mention that is not in addition to the current cost, they also fail to mention I would save us 2 trillion

Its just like what the media does with AOC and the whole 70% marginal tax rate and how the media pretends its a 70% tax on everything not just every dollar over 10 million


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Beto may say the right things but when you look into what is he really for, not so much.
> 
> Not sure how you can deny the popularity of Bernie when that is what all the polls show. He is the most popular senator/politician in the country.
> 
> As for the paying for Bernie's plans polls, 70% of the country is for Medicare for all.
> 
> I have not seen the polls you are talking about but polls all depend on the framing.
> 
> Because the media and loves to say how Bernie's Medicare for all plan would cost 33 trillion over ten years but they fail to mention that is not in addition to the current cost, they also fail to mention I would save us 2 trillion
> 
> Its just like what the media does with AOC and the whole 70% marginal tax rate and how the media pretends its a 70% tax on everything not just every dollar over 10 million


I can say that because whether you want to deny or not, Bernie isn't the shiny new toy:

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com...insights-polls-deliver-mixed-news/2348677002/

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/19/18148681/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-approval-rating

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/12/here-are-the-leaders-in-the-2020-polls.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...5/abc-wapo-poll-democrats-biden-kamala-harris



> Of already declared or potential candidates, former Vice President Joe Biden, who is still weighing whether to make a run, led the field, with 9 percent of respondents saying they would back him, followed by California Sen. Kamala Harris with 8 percent. Harris announced her bid on January 21 and officially kicked off her campaign over the weekend with a rally in Oakland.
> 
> Four percent of Democrats said they would back Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), 3 percent said former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, and 2 percent prefer Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former first lady Michelle Obama. Sanders and O’Rourke have yet to declare their candidacies, while Warren announced her bid in December. Obama has said she won’t run for president.


I am not a Beto fan at all, so we agree there. But to think Sanders is still the machine he was in 2016 is kind of ignoring what others are saying may happen.

The medicare for all poll is skewed. 70% of people are in favor of free shit. But when they find out they have to pay for said free shit, those numbers drop. 

You know it,I know it, you don't think that Kamala harris or Joe Biden is going to exploit that?

As for The AOC thing, we just disagree greatly on that, but I am not going down that road today, maybe later.

BTW, that is the person to get behind, she will be president in 9 years.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I can say that because whether you want to deny or not, Bernie isn't the shiny new toy:
> 
> https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com...insights-polls-deliver-mixed-news/2348677002/
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2018/12/19/18148681/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-approval-rating
> 
> https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/12/here-are-the-leaders-in-the-2020-polls.html
> 
> I am not a Beto fan at all, so we agree there. But to think Sanders is still the machine he was in 2016 is kind of ignoring what others are saying may happen.
> 
> The medicare for all poll is skewed. 70% of people are in favor of free shit. But when they find out they have to pay for said free shit, those numbers drop.
> 
> You know it,I know it, you don't think that Kamala harris or Joe Biden is going to exploit that?
> 
> As for The AOC thing, we just disagree greatly on that, but I am not going down that road today, maybe later.
> 
> BTW, that is the person to get behind, she will be president in 9 years.


You are right Bernie is not the shiny new toy, he has even more name recognization unlike in 2016 where he was just building it.

As for the polls, you listed it all depends on who is doing the poll and the question they are asked in the poll to get the answer

Here is a poll you did not lis that Sanders is leading https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-2020-poll-770632/

Oh here we go with the free shit argument. Sanders said over and over again when talking about Medicare for all, we would pay a little more in taxes but get more savings when it comes to healthcare yet 70% of people still support it

What don't you agree with on AOC? The media is lying about her 70% marginal tax rate


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> You are right Bernie is not the shiny new toy, he has even more name recognization unlike in 2016 where he was just building it.
> 
> As for the polls, you listed it all depends on who is doing the poll and the question they are asked in the poll to get the answer
> 
> Here is a poll you did not lis that Sanders is leading https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-2020-poll-770632/


That article is from December, the latest one I gave you is from yesterday. 

You can't have it both ways, you can't ask for info, and then say the info is incorrect... your info is a poll, so is min. Either both are true or neither, that's how it works. 



> Oh here we go with the free shit argument. Sanders said over and over again when talking about Medicare for all, we would pay a little more in taxes but get more savings when it comes to healthcare yet 70% of people still support it


Maybe...but like you said it matters who you ask

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/medicare-for-all-polling/index.html

Your argument seems to be "People want medicare for all, so they obviously will vote for the candidate that puts it out there.

Well, what happens when 4 candidates put it out there? This isn't a "Bernie" thing anymore, a lot of Dems are going to run on it, and Sanders is going to have to explain himself. Whether he can do it, remains to be seen



> What don't you agree with on AOC? The media is lying about her 70% marginal tax rate


I am down to hear you explain it, if you would like.

Because my belief is that you are saying is if a person make 10 million dollars in a year, they will pay 7 million in taxes.

If that is not the case, I am willing to listen how you interpret it.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax-cuts-were-a-bust-2019-01-30



> *Opinion: It’s official: The Trump tax cuts were a bust *
> 
> Right before Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017, President Trump proclaimed:
> 
> “It’ll be fantastic for the middle-income people and for jobs, most of all ... I think we could go to 4%, 5% or even 6% [GDP growth], ultimately. We are back. We are really going to start to rock.”
> 
> A year later, it’s very clear that the tax cuts boosted gross domestic product and jobs a bit — and just for one year. Its effects are fading as U.S. GDP growth appears likely to weaken in 2019. The only thing that “rocked” were corporate profits and the stock market. And we’re facing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made small cuts in rates to most individual taxpayers, while cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, expanding deductions for “pass-through” companies, and taxing only corporate income earned in the U.S., not worldwide. That theoretically removed a major barrier to U.S.-based multinational corporations repatriating the estimated $2.6 trillion in accumulated earnings they’re holding overseas.
> 
> *Muted hiring, investment plans*
> 
> The failure of the tax cut bill to achieve those intended results was made clear Monday when the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) released its January Business Conditions Survey. This is a poll of more than 100 economists employed by major firms in corporate America, so they’re hardly lefties. But they are guided by facts and hard data, not supply-side delusions.
> 
> Some 84% of these economists reported that in the year since their passage, the tax cuts “have not caused their firms to change hiring or investment plans.”
> 
> Actually, data show that firms did boost capital spending in the first half of last year, but that was fading by the third quarter. And an analysis by Daniel Alpert of Westwood Capital, reported by the Financial Times, showed that businesses put more than half of that into technology and intellectual capital, and only 28.6% in new structures and equipment, the opposite of 1998, a year when GDP grew by 4.5% and income was rising.
> 
> *Buyback bonanza*
> 
> So where is all that money going? Where else? Share buybacks, which hit a record $1.1 trillion in 2018. Companies actually spent more on buybacks than on capital investments in 2018’s first half, and remember, capex weakened as the year went on. Buybacks shrink the number of shares, boosting earnings per share and eventually, the stock price. That helps all shareholders, of course, but especially corporate executives, more than half of whose total compensation is in stock.
> 
> And what happened to all the trillions of dollars the president promised corporations would bring back to the U.S.A. from overseas? That, too, has turned out to be a bust — the amount dropped 50% in the third quarter after starting out strong in the first half of 2018. See a pattern here?
> 
> As economists projected, the tax cuts did boost GDP a bit: When 2018’s final numbers are in, GDP probably will have grown 2.9-3%. That’s a nice jump from 2.2% in 2017 and the anemic 1.5% in 2016, the year Trump was elected. But it will be virtually identical with the 2.9% GDP growth recorded in 2015, the highest of the Obama years. Since economists expect U.S. GDP growth to slow to the mid-2% level this year — and some are even predicting a recession — that may turn out to be the peak of the Trump years, too.
> 
> Job growth has picked up, having risen by 2.6 million in 2018, vs. a gain of 2.2 million in 2017. It’s unclear how much of that can be attributed to the tax cut, since health care and professional and business services set the pace again, as they have for the past 30 years. As my MarketWatch colleague Tim Mullaney pointed out, the gains in manufacturing — which the president promised would go through a revival — have been pretty modest.
> 
> *Booming company profits*
> 
> So, who gained? Well, corporate profits surged $78.2 billion in the third quarter, accelerating over the second quarter’s $65 billion gain. Earnings for the companies in the S&P 500 Index SPX, +1.55% probably topped $148 per share last year, about a 40% gain from the end of 2016. That’s exactly what the S&P 500 gained from just before the election to its October 2018 all-time high.
> 
> The numbers couldn’t be clearer: Corporations, big shareholders and top corporate executives reap the lion’s share of the gains from the 2017 tax cut, which should be renamed the Shareholder and CEO Enrichment Act of 2017. It didn’t boost economic growth that much, didn’t start a capital spending boom or U.S. manufacturing renaissance, didn’t bring overseas profits back home, and might have led to modest job growth but little discernible wage increases. And we’ll all be stuck with the bill for a long, long time.


----------



## Draykorinee

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Because my belief is that you are saying is if a person make 10 million dollars in a year, they will pay 7 million in taxes.
> 
> If that is not the case, I am willing to listen how you interpret it.


Its not how he interprets it, its a marginal tax rate.

I see this confusion with marginal tax all the time, schools teach you how to work out the length of a triangle but not how to work out taxes ><.

An example from the UK:

A person can earn 11K and not get taxed a single thing.

11k-14k you get taxed 18% BUT only on the money AFTER 11k, the 11k is still completely untaxed. 

So a person earning £11,001 will pay precisely 18p tax because they only earned £1 over the 11k threshold. (Its actually 11850 but for simplicity sake...)

Therefore a marginal tax rate of 70% on a person earning over 10,000,000 will only pay 70% on every dollar AFTER the 10,000,000. 

To put it simply a person earning 10,00,000 will only pay around about 37% tax on the first 10million (There are many steps so its a bit less) so that person will take home 6.7 million dollars on the first 10,000,000. Then anything after that is at 70%. This is only federal tax, America have a shit ton of other taxes like state ones so its likely they'll take home about 5million overall.

The other thing to bear in mind is, a person earning 10,000,000 WILL be dodging tax (legally) so lets not feel too bad for them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> That article is from December, the latest one I gave you is from yesterday.
> 
> You can't have it both ways, you can't ask for info, and then say the info is incorrect... your info is a poll, so is min. Either both are true or neither, that's how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe...but like you said it matters who you ask
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/medicare-for-all-polling/index.html
> 
> Your argument seems to be "People want medicare for all, so they obviously will vote for the candidate that puts it out there.
> 
> Well, what happens when 4 candidates put it out there? This isn't a "Bernie" thing anymore, a lot of Dems are going to run on it, and Sanders is going to have to explain himself. Whether he can do it, remains to be seen
> 
> 
> 
> I am down to hear you explain it, if you would like.
> 
> Because my belief is that you are saying is if a person make 10 million dollars in a year, they will pay 7 million in taxes.
> 
> If that is not the case, I am willing to listen how you interpret it.


3 of the 4 polls you gave were from December. the one from yesterday said A new Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Tuesday found that 56 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, when asked whom they would support for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, didn’t offer up any name at all. In other words, the field right now appears to be pretty wide open.

And when I say Bernie Sanders is the most populator senator in the country that is going by approval rating and that is still true https://morningconsult.com/2019/01/10/americas-most-and-least-popular-senators-q4-2018/


If your article the majority of Americans still want Medicare for all even with the so-called catch

This is still a Bernie thing since the other establishment Democrats are not really for it and most even say well it would be nice but its probably not possible.

What I am saying is the media is saying if a person make 10 million dollars in a year, they will pay 7 million in taxes which is not true. Its only taxed at 70% for every dollar made over 10 million.

So if someone makes 11 million, the first 10 million is taxed normally and 1 million is taxed at 70%

The media is framing it like that person would be taxed 70% for all 11 million


----------



## Draykorinee

> More
> ....a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!


Their*

:Trump

Go back to school Trump.

Dow Jones is back up to 25000 though, which is why I was very careful not to crow too much when it dropped to 22000, the things volatile as hell.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> Their*
> 
> :Trump
> 
> Go back to school Trump.
> 
> Dow Jones is back up to 25000 though, which is why I was very careful not to crow too much when it dropped to 22000, the things volatile as hell.


So he's just Bolton's Basic little Bitch now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

via Kyle Griffin twitter

Foxconn claimed it'd create 13,000 jobs in Wisconsin. It expected to employ 5,200 by 2020. Now, Foxconn says it'll be closer to 1,000 workers.

The state's subsidy was reportedly as high as $4,500,000,000.


Exclusive: Foxconn reconsidering plans to make LCD panels at Wisconsin plant
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foxconn-wisconsin-exclusive-idUSKCN1PO0FV


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Draykorinee said:


> Its not how he interprets it, its a marginal tax rate.
> 
> I see this confusion with marginal tax all the time, schools teach you how to work out the length of a triangle but not how to work out taxes ><.
> 
> An example from the UK:
> 
> A person can earn 11K and not get taxed a single thing.
> 
> 11k-14k you get taxed 18% BUT only on the money AFTER 11k, the 11k is still completely untaxed.
> 
> So a person earning £11,001 will pay precisely 18p tax because they only earned £1 over the 11k threshold. (Its actually 11850 but for simplicity sake...)
> 
> Therefore a marginal tax rate of 70% on a person earning over 10,000,000 will only pay 70% on every dollar AFTER the 10,000,000.
> 
> To put it simply a person earning 10,00,000 will only pay around about 37% tax on the first 10million (There are many steps so its a bit less) so that person will take home 6.7 million dollars on the first 10,000,000. Then anything after that is at 70%. This is only federal tax, America have a shit ton of other taxes like state ones so its likely they'll take home about 5million overall.
> 
> The other thing to bear in mind is, a person earning 10,000,000 WILL be dodging tax (legally) so lets not feel too bad for them.


I did more research on it, and got the part about the tax dollars AFTER 10 million.

I don't know why I was having a hard time remembering that part


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I did more research on it, and got the part about the tax dollars AFTER 10 million.
> 
> *I don't know why I was having a hard time remembering that par*t


Because the media leaves that part out every time they talk about it. That's what I was getting at.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> 3 of the 4 polls you gave were from December. the one from yesterday said A new Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Tuesday found that 56 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, when asked whom they would support for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, didn’t offer up any name at all. In other words, the* field right now appears to be pretty wide open*.


Absolutely agree. 

This is why I said I don't buy Sanders being as popular as you make him out.

I don't understand the love Biden is getting, I feel Harris' love is manufactured, but I still stand by Beto as a dark horse.

Bear in mind, I said it should be Sanders, doubt it will be though



> And when I say Bernie Sanders is the most populator senator in the country that is going by approval rating and that is still true https://morningconsult.com/2019/01/10/americas-most-and-least-popular-senators-q4-2018/


Sure man, I guess.

All that article says to me is that Sanders is loved in VT, which I don't doubt, agree to disagree.



> If your article the majority of Americans still want Medicare for all even with the so-called catch
> 
> This is still a Bernie thing since the other establishment Democrats are not really for it and most even say well it would be nice but its probably not possible.


And what I am saying is it doesn't matter if people want medicare for all, because I am sure the tune will change some when they find out the tax hikes that go with them.

Can you cut military budget? Or weapons funding? Or some other BS thing we pay for? Absolutely. But you are counting on people listening to the full plan after they hear "8.8% rise on taxes"

If you think people are going to sit around and give his plan a fair chance after hearing that, you and I have a very different of people in general




> What I am saying is the media is saying if a person make 10 million dollars in a year, they will pay 7 million in taxes which is not true. Its only taxed at 70% for every dollar made over 10 million.
> 
> So if someone makes 11 million, the first 10 million is taxed normally and 1 million is taxed at 70%
> 
> The media is framing it like that person would be taxed 70% for all 11 million


I have never heard anyone describe it as this.

I was in a rush for whatever reason with my last post, and misheard it myself, and on a second listen heard what you described.

Once again, not in favor of it.. but another debate for another day


----------



## birthday_massacre

People are not still goign to deny Trump and Russia are not colluding are they?


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Absolutely agree.
> 
> This is why I said I don't buy Sanders being as popular as you make him out.
> 
> I don't understand the love Biden is getting, I feel Harris' love is manufactured, but I still stand by Beto as a dark horse.
> 
> Bear in mind, I said it should be Sanders, doubt it will be though
> 
> 
> 
> Sure man, I guess.
> 
> All that article says to me is that Sanders is loved in VT, which I don't doubt, agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> And what I am saying is it doesn't matter if people want medicare for all, because I am sure the tune will change some when they find out the tax hikes that go with them.
> 
> Can you cut military budget? Or weapons funding? Or some other BS thing we pay for? Absolutely. But you are counting on people listening to the full plan after they hear "8.8% rise on taxes"
> 
> If you think people are going to sit around and give his plan a fair chance after hearing that, you and I have a very different of people in general
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard anyone describe it as this.
> 
> I was in a rush for whatever reason with my last post, and misheard it myself, and on a second listen heard what you described.
> 
> Once again, not in favor of it.. but another debate for another day



Again the numbers should Bernie is the most popular senator in the country based on approval rating. Not sure what you are trying to disagree with here

I agree with you about the Biden thing, not sure why people like him, he is awful. Beto for sure is the dark horse but when you look more and more into him, there is less and less to like. Kind of like Tulis Gabbard, I used to really like her but after the past month of hearing her speak, you can tell she isnt really a true progressive and wont stand up to the GOP. 

With Medicare for all, its cheaper than what we are paying for now with the current healthcare system. It will save 2 trillion

The how are you going to pay for it, is always a stupid argument, because no one ever asks that when it comes to how about you are going to pay for all these wars, or for the military or about paying for the tax cuts for the rich


What is not to like about the marginal tax rate, it was between 70-90% from the 30s to the 80s when the US was at its most prosperous. Plus it will just get the rich to actually reinvest their money instead of pocketing it


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...overy-materials-disinformation-effort-n964811

Mueller says Russians are using his discovery materials in disinformation effort
The information appears to have come from the materials shared with attorneys for Concord Management, one of several Russian entities accused of election meddling.

Russians are using materials obtained from special counsel Robert Mueller's office in a disinformation campaign apparently aimed at discrediting the investigation into Moscow's election interference, federal prosecutors said on Wednesday.

One or more people associated with the special counsel's case against Russian hackers made statements last October claiming to have stolen discovery materials that were originally provided by Mueller to Concord Management, Mueller's team said in court documents filed on Wednesday in the Russian troll farm case.

That discovery — evidence and documents traded between both sides of a lawsuit — appears to have been altered and disseminated as part of a disinformation campaign apparently aimed at discrediting the ongoing investigations in Russian interference in the U.S. political system, according to the documents.

Concord Management, a company owned by a Russian oligarch known as President Vladimir Putin's "chef," is one of three Russian entities that were accused by the special counsel last February of helping to mastermind the social media meddling into the 2016 election. Thirteen Russian citizens were also indicted and accused of taking part in the widespread effort.

According to the documents filed Wednesday, a Twitter account called @HackingRedstone tweeted: "We’ve got access to the Special Counsel Mueller’s probe database as we hacked Russian server with info from the Russian troll case Concord LLC v. Mueller. You can view all the files Mueller had about the IRA and Russian collusion. Enjoy the reading!"

The account has since been suspended.

Prosecutors said that a link attached to the tweet "contained file folders with names and folder structures that are unique to the names and structures of materials (including tracking numbers assigned by the Special Counsel’s Office) produced by the government in discovery."

Prosecutors added, "The fact that the webpage contained numerous irrelevant files suggest that the person who created the webpage used their knowledge of the nonsensitive discovery to make it appear as though the irrelevant files contained on the webpage were the sum total evidence of 'IRA and Russian collusion' gathered by law enforcement in this matter in an apparent effort to discredit the investigation."

The Internet Research Agency, or IRA, is a St. Petersburg-based firm whose key executives have also been indicted by Mueller on charges of defrauding the United States.

The special counsel's office said the account used to publish the discovery materials was registered by a user with an IP address in Russia.

The filing states that the FBI has found no evidence that U.S. government servers, including servers used by the special counsel's office, had been breached. Rather, the information appears to have come from the materials shared with attorneys for Concord Management.

According to prosecutors, attorneys for Concord Management said that they received calls from reporters about the information, but they had not been hacked. Instead, Mueller's team notes, the defense told them it appears to have come from a 2014 hack that was disseminated online — a hypothesis that was not consistent with the facts, federal prosecutors said.


----------



## Reaper

Oh look. Trump's government goes after Huawei, and Foxconn cuts job plans in America. For those who can't make the connection. Destroying Huaweis market share in the west gives Foxconn a competitive advantage to open up more factories in China. 

Just another one of capitalisms happy little coincidences. 

Nothing to see here. Move along. Go drink your kale smoothies and avacado toast.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Again the numbers should Bernie is the most popular senator in the country based on approval rating. Not sure what you are trying to disagree with here


Because it only factors in VT. I just have a different criteria



> I agree with you about the Biden thing, not sure why people like him, he is awful. Beto for sure is the dark horse but when you look more and more into him, there is less and less to like. Kind of like Tulis Gabbard, I used to really like her but after the past month of hearing her speak, you can tell she isnt really a true progressive and wont stand up to the GOP.


Biden is loved because of Obama memes. 

It's like the guy in high school who was super popular, and graduated, but now his younger brother is most popular by default. He didn't do anything, but he is Obama's boy, so people like him.

Beto reminds me of Obama, way in over his head, but hey guys! he rides a skateboard! I like Tulsi, but her campaign (alledgedly) is already having issues.

I don't see her personality playing to some people like it does others. Like I said, the fact that most of the moderate right loves her could be a detriment, like you are alluding to.



> With Medicare for all, its cheaper than what we are paying for now with the current healthcare system. It will save 2 trillion


My problems with Medicare for all, actually arent the price. I have issues with it that in my mind are more important.

That being said, I am not having that discussion, what I am saying to you, is people get fixated on numbers.

When word gets out that Sanders is going to raise taxes, people will freak out, they won't be thinking with logic, but with emotion, that is going to be something that someone like Kamal Harris, who is a bit of a manipulator will prey on, I am sure.

Also, once Athletesand celebrities get wind of their check getting shorted, they will want no parts of Bernie, and fortunately, or unfortunately, their voice holds clout



> The how are you going to pay for it, is always a stupid argument, because no one ever asks that when it comes to how about you are going to pay for all these wars, or for the military or about paying for the tax cuts for the rich


You are reading what you want to read here.

Once again: When people hear costs, they get fixated on costs. This is why the number 1 rule in sa;es is sell on value not on price.

Will everyone be like that? No, but most people will hear "Give 8% of your check to other people in need" and become very selfish very quickly



> What is not to like about the marginal tax rate, it was between 70-90% from the 30s to the 80s when the US was at its most prosperous. Plus it will just get the rich to actually reinvest their money instead of pocketing it


Another time, my man..... don't worry, it will be soon


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Because it only factors in VT. I just have a different criteria
> 
> 
> 
> Biden is loved because of Obama memes.
> 
> It's like the guy in high school who was super popular, and graduated, but now his younger brother is most popular by default. He didn't do anything, but he is Obama's boy, so people like him.
> 
> Beto reminds me of Obama, way in over his head, but hey guys! he rides a skateboard! I like Tulsi, but her campaign (alledgedly) is already having issues.
> 
> I don't see her personality playing to some people like it does others. Like I said, the fact that most of the moderate right loves her could be a detriment, like you are alluding to.
> 
> 
> 
> My problems with Medicare for all, actually arent the price. I have issues with it that in my mind are more important.
> 
> That being said, I am not having that discussion, what I am saying to you, is people get fixated on numbers.
> 
> When word gets out that Sanders is going to raise taxes, people will freak out, they won't be thinking with logic, but with emotion, that is going to be something that someone like Kamal Harris, who is a bit of a manipulator will prey on, I am sure.
> 
> Also, once Athletesand celebrities get wind of their check getting shorted, they will want no parts of Bernie, and fortunately, or unfortunately, their voice holds clout
> 
> 
> 
> You are reading what you want to read here.
> 
> Once again: When people hear costs, they get fixated on costs. This is why the number 1 rule in sa;es is sell on value not on price.
> 
> Will everyone be like that? No, but most people will hear "Give 8% of your check to other people in need" and become very selfish very quickly
> 
> 
> 
> Another time, my man..... don't worry, it will be soon


Are you really going to claim Bernie Sanders is only popular in VT 
every poll for favorability has him near the top. Especially the ones across the country. Its just weird would you even deny that and claim he is not that popular

so you are not going to have a discussion about why you don't like Medicare for all. 

And what do you mean when word gets out about Sanders raising taxes to help pay for Medicare for all people will freak out, where you not paying attention to the primaries? He stated over and over again you would pay a little more in taxes but you would SAVE 2,000 on average on healthcare so you would end up saving money. He said it in pretty much every speech. Why are you acting like he does not bring that up? 

No one ever gets fixated on cost unless it's for Medicare for all. it's laughable you will even try to deny that. The media never asks that question to other politicians about anything else


And yet again you won't have a discussion about something else, this time margin tax rates which is good since it seems like you didn't understand it


----------



## Reaper

I have no love at all for Pelosi but my recent observation is that this is the kind of person that is now left supporting Trump. 

Unfortunately, this kind if person is large enough in number to keep him and others like him in power in America.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

I was feeling under the weather last night, and trying to let you know I wouldn't be responding right away. I don't mind answering your questions, but I was fighting this cold




birthday_massacre said:


> Are you really going to claim Bernie Sanders is only popular in VT
> every poll for favorability has him near the top. Especially the ones across the country. Its just weird would you even deny that and claim he is not that popular


But I am not denying he is popular. i just don't think he is the most popular politician in the country. 

Looking at the data, you provided I understand why, but i think that doesn't prove anything. 

Let me use an analogy why:

Tom Brady IMO would have the highest approval rating of any QB if you factored in state-to-state. However, if you asked the whole country, he may not be. The most popular QB in football is Aaron Rodgers, but I can almost guarantee that his approval rating in WI is lower than Brady's is in New england



> so you are not going to have a discussion about why you don't like Medicare for all.


Like I said, I was under the weather. But yeah i can have that discussion.

My main issue is that medical expenses aren't cheap in the US because we are not a healthy nation. 

Heart disease, Hypertension, and diabetes are things a lot of American deal with, and that has nothing to do with medicare for all.

If the country held back on gluttony, and the idea that big portion sizes and bad foods are a way of life, we wouldn't have nearly as many health problems.

And then you run into people milking the system (just like everyone milks every government system) you are coming from a place of an honor system, and claiming that people wont use their health insurance for frivolous means. 



> And what do you mean when word gets out about Sanders raising taxes to help pay for Medicare for all people will freak out, where you not paying attention to the primaries? He stated over and over again you would pay a little more in taxes but you would SAVE 2,000 on average on healthcare so you would end up saving money. He said it in pretty much every speech. Why are you acting like he does not bring that up?


What about the people who don't use healthcare? 

They aren't saving anything.. and there are plenty of people who don't want or need to go to the doctor.

Read this article:
https://www.apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169

Highlight:



> Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent).
> 
> But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program.


People look out for their own interests first. When sanders came on the scene in 2016, it was this new wave, and awesome utopia he described. 

Now others have had the chance to attack his ideals,and whether you like it or not, that is going to make a difference. 



> No one ever gets fixated on cost unless it's for Medicare for all. it's laughable you will even try to deny that. The media never asks that question to other politicians about anything else


I don't know what this has to do with anything we are talking about. Media going to media, can't get angry when people do things you expect. 



> And yet again you won't have a discussion about something else, this time margin tax rates which is good since it seems like you didn't understand it


Whatever man, I understand marginal tax rate, and how it works. 

Just because I don't feel like going into a 4 page back and forth with you instead of doing other things, doesn't mean I cant have the convo at another time.


----------



## Strike Force

birthday_massacre said:


> Are you really going to claim Bernie Sanders is only popular in VT
> every poll for favorability has him near the top. Especially the ones across the country. Its just weird would you even deny that and claim he is not that popular


Assassination attempt on the English language aside, the general point here is correct. Sanders is very popular, even though his ideas are idiotic and every single country that has tried to implement any version of Sanders' pseudo-socialism has ended in ruin. 

People (ill-informed as they may be) love Sanders. Polls in 2015-2016 projected that Sanders had a better chance of defeating Trump than Clinton did, and I believe he would have won the presidency if the fucked-up Democratic nomination process, super-delegates and all, hadn't conspired against him.


----------



## Reaper

Strike Force said:


> Assassination attempt on the English language aside, the general point here is correct. Sanders is very popular, even though his ideas are idiotic and every single country that has tried to implement any version of Sanders' pseudo-socialism has ended in ruin.


There are more countries with universal healthcare that aren't in ruins than there are that are. Having long wait times isn't "ruin" btw. So I'm waiting for you to tell me which countries were "ruined" by Universal Healthcare. What social welfare state is in ruins? And what isn't in ruin? Have you ever even bothered to look this up? Sanders isnt'a socialist. He's a social welfare statist. It's a completely different kind of set of policies and social welfare statism is a proven ideology that works. Don't give in to the fucking mcarthyism that seeks to label everything that wants a welfare state as a socialist. That's just crazy at this point. 

Bonus: It's a very quick and easy google search. 

I have no clue where this myth even comes from.


----------



## Strike Force

Reaper said:


> There are more countries with universal healthcare that aren't in ruins than there are that are. Having long wait times isn't "ruin" btw. So I'm waiting for you to tell me which countries were "ruined" by Universal Healthcare.
> 
> Bonus: It's a very quick and easy google search.
> 
> I have no clue where this myth even comes from.


When did I mention universal healthcare? I did not. I discussed Sanders' overall platform, which is indisputably socialist. Socialist countries fall into despair. What exactly is your counterpoint?


----------



## Reaper

Strike Force said:


> When did I mention universal healthcare? I did not. I discussed Sanders' overall platform, which is indisputably socialist. Socialist countries fall into despair. What exactly is your counterpoint?


What is Sanders overall platform and what aspect of his overall platform is "socialist"? What makes his platform socialist? Where is he advocating outright socialism? What policies are socialist? 

What countries have been ruined by social welfare statism (which is really what Sanders' platform is)?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Strike Force said:


> When did I mention universal healthcare? I did not. I discussed Sanders' overall platform, which is indisputably socialist. Socialist countries fall into despair. What exactly is your counterpoint?


sanders is a democratic socialist, big difference.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Strike Force said:


> When did I mention universal healthcare? I did not. I discussed Sanders' overall platform, which is indisputably socialist. Socialist countries fall into despair. What exactly is your counterpoint?


Everyone's platform is socialist to some extent. Trump's still going to run on the state providing education, isn't he? The US will still have state funded roads and railways whoever wins the next election, won't they?

Saying socialist countries fall into despair is a very dumb statement. If someone ran on a platform of making the US like Iceland, Finland or Norway they would be considered as running on a socialist platform, but those countries aren't in disrepair, are they? They're doing fantastically well and have very happy people. That's why President Trump wants more immigrants from countries like Norway.


----------



## Strike Force

Nothing Finer said:


> Everyone's platform is socialist to some extent. Trump's still going to run on the state providing education, isn't he? The US will still have state funded roads and railways whoever wins the next election, won't they?
> 
> Saying socialist countries fall into despair is a very dumb statement. If someone ran on a platform of making the US like Iceland, Finland or Norway they would be considered as running on a socialist platform, but those countries aren't in disrepair, are they? They're doing fantastically well and have very happy people. That's why President Trump wants more immigrants from countries like Norway.


Why do seemingly smart people keep using this as an example? Intelligent people recognize that running a gigantic, diverse country is not the same as running Iceland. Using that logic, the business model to run a local coffee shop should be applied to a multi-national corporation. Come on, people. Think harder.


----------



## Reaper

Nothing Finer said:


> Everyone's platform is socialist to some extent. Trump's still going to run on the state providing education, isn't he? The US will still have state funded roads and railways whoever wins the next election, won't they?
> 
> Saying socialist countries fall into despair is a very dumb statement. If someone ran on a platform of making the US like Iceland, Finland or Norway they would be considered as running on a socialist platform, but those countries aren't in disrepair, are they? They're doing fantastically well and have very happy people. That's why President Trump wants more immigrants from countries like Norway.


Yeah. "socialist" / "capitalist" _hybrids _are everywhere and extremely successful and most cases. 

Most "socialist" countries today don't do outright ownership of anything (while refusing private ownership entirely) but rely on a mix of market forces, keynesianism and social welfare policies in order to function. They're all planned economies at the end of the day - but that's not outright socialism by any stretch of the imagination. 

The red scare in America is such that you just have to label someone socialist and it immediately pulls them into imagining the worst case scenarios.



Strike Force said:


> Why do seemingly smart people keep using this as an example? Intelligent people recognize that running a gigantic, diverse country is not the same as running Iceland. Using that logic, the business model to run a local coffee shop should be applied to a multi-national corporation. Come on, people. Think harder.


As a business graduate who worked in both small businesses, ran one myself and worked in mega corporations, the scale does not change the basic principles of money management. This is a completely wrong impression you people have.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Strike Force said:


> Why do seemingly smart people keep using this as an example? Intelligent people recognize that running a gigantic, diverse country is not the same as running Iceland. Using that logic, the business model to run a local coffee shop should be applied to a multi-national corporation. Come on, people. Think harder.


You said socialist countries fall into ruin, I provided examples of socialist countries which are not in ruins, countries which are fantastic places to live. 

I see little reason why it couldn't be scaled up. It works for Iceland which has 300,000 people, it works for Norway, Finland and Denmark which each have nearly 20 times that, and for Sweden which has nearly 40 times that. 

If a business model works for a small local coffee shop and also works for a national chain why couldn't it also work for a multi-national with a few tweaks?

How many examples do you have of socialist countries the size of the United States falling into ruin?


----------



## Reaper

Nothing Finer said:


> You said socialist countries fall into ruin, I provided examples of socialist countries which are not in ruins, countries which are fantastic places to live.
> 
> I see little reason why it couldn't be scaled up. It works for Iceland which has 300,000 people, it works for Norway, Finland and Denmark which each have nearly 20 times that, and for Sweden which has nearly 40 times that.
> 
> If a business model works for a small local coffee shop and also works for a national chain why couldn't it also work for a multi-national with a few tweaks?
> 
> How many examples do you have of socialist countries the size of the United States falling into ruin?


China's Universal Healthcare is the biggest well-kept secret in America. 

It also is working for 1.3 billion people. It's not perfect yet, but they're constantly working out the kinks and their economy is not crashing.


----------



## Draykorinee

Bernie doesn't want socialism therefore trying to argue that socialist countries fail is completely irrelevant. Its the same old tired bullshit from conservatives, time after time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hope you are feeling better



DMD Mofomagic said:


> But I am not denying he is popular. i just don't think he is the most popular politician in the country.
> 
> Looking at the data, you provided I understand why, but i think that doesn't prove anything.
> 
> Let me use an analogy why:
> 
> Tom Brady IMO would have the highest approval rating of any QB if you factored in state-to-state. However, if you asked the whole country, he may not be. The most popular QB in football is Aaron Rodgers, but I can almost guarantee that his approval rating in WI is lower than Brady's is in New england


Like I said even in the polls that are polling the whole country Sanders is at the top or near the top. It was at the top for 2016 2017 and 2018. With the influx of new candidates, we will see what happens. But at the very least he is ONE OF the mo popular. He still polls at being one of the best to beat Trump in 2020. 




DMD Mofomagic said:


> My main issue is that medical expenses aren't cheap in the US because we are not a healthy nation.
> 
> Heart disease, Hypertension, and diabetes are things a lot of American deal with, and that has nothing to do with medicare for all.
> 
> If the country held back on gluttony, and the idea that big portion sizes and bad foods are a way of life, we wouldn't have nearly as many health problems.
> 
> And then you run into people milking the system (just like everyone milks every government system) you are coming from a place of an honor system, and claiming that people wont use their health insurance for frivolous means.


Medical expenses aren't cheap in the US because in the US healthcare is for profit and they care more about making money than helping the sick. Healthcare should never be for profit There is a reason why the US is at the top for most expensive and near the bottom for quality.

As for milking the system, you have that in every country and they deal with that while having universal healthcare. 





DMD Mofomagic said:


> What about the people who don't use healthcare?
> 
> They aren't saving anything.. and there are plenty of people who don't want or need to go to the doctor.
> 
> Read this article:
> https://www.apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169


Everyone uses healthcare at some point because they need it. That is why its called insurance. And the majority of people that don't use healthcare don't use it because they can't afford it. 

As for the article like I said, it all depends on the framing, and the framing oh it will cause delays is a bullshit argument. They fail to tell those people countries like Canada prioritize healthcare based on the severity of what is needed. For example, if you have a heart problem and needed surgery to fix it ASAP you will get that surgery over someone that wants a nose job just because they don't like how their nose looks.

Not to mention people have to wait for surgeries in the US. They don't get it right away unless its life threatening and the same thing happens in Canada.

It's just weird how every industrialized country in the world has some sort of universal healthcare yet some people claim it wouldn't work in the US. 


QUOTE=DMD Mofomagic;76776608]

I don't know what this has to do with anything we are talking about. Media going to media, can't get angry when people do things you expect. 

[/QUOTE]

It has everything to do with it since you asked the question too. Again no one asks that questions for any other plans the GOP or establishment democrats have like paying for wars or their tax cuts



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Whatever man, I understand marginal tax rate, and how it works.
> 
> The problem I have with it is simple, it is easy to say 70% over every dollar past 10 million. But then you don't factor in medicare tax, and state tax that would be charged as well.
> 
> In somewhere like New York, you would be paying up to 85% tax on every dollar past 10 million. That ain't going to fly with a lot of people.
> 
> And then you have the other issues, of forcing people to get new cars, and other things, her plan makes you feel warm and fuzzy, until someone has to pay for it.
> 
> And like Dray says, what happens when the rich avoids paying those taxes, by nefarious means, or do you believe everyone is just going to be ready to hand over 70% of their money, regardless of how much they have, just because someone they don't know is in trouble?



Yes, the state tax is factored in as well since when the marginal tax rate was at 70-90% from the 30s to the 80s it was factored in. And again those are the times the US was at its most prosperous

As for rich people trying to get out of paying taxes, that is why you close the loopholes so they will have to pay their taxes like everyone else. Was that supposed to be a hard question? 

You act like people were not paying a marginal tax rare of 70-90% from the 30s to the 80s. You do know it was that hight back then right?


----------



## Strike Force

Nothing Finer said:


> How many examples do you have of socialist countries the size of the United States falling into ruin?












:loweringangle


----------



## Reaper

I wonder if Capitalism is going to be blamed for the hundreds that will freeze this winter despite the fact that there are hundreds of empty homes all over the country :hmmm


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47066659



> White House press secretary Sarah Sanders has told a religious television network that God "wanted Donald Trump to become president".
> 
> Ms Sanders made the claim in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), saying it was the reason Mr Trump was in office.
> 
> The press secretary also said it was "very hard" to take morality lessons from the Democratic Party.
> 
> Democrats have attacked Mr Trump's proposed border wall as immoral.
> 
> US evangelicals strongly support the president.
> 
> The Washington Post reports Mr Trump won 80% of the white evangelical vote in 2016, a higher share than Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain in previous elections.
> 
> CBN broadcast the interview with Ms Sanders on Wednesday, conducted by David Brody and Jennifer Wishon.
> 
> Responding to Mr Brady's question about Mr Trump's position, Ms Sanders said: "I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times and I think that He wanted Donald Trump to become president."
> 
> "That's why he's there and I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about."
> 
> When asked about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi position on the proposed border wall - a divisive issue at the heart of the longest US government shutdown in history - the press secretary attacked Ms Pelosi's suggestion such a barrier was immoral.
> 
> "Honestly, it's very hard at this point to even take a lecture from Democrats on what is moral and what isn't," she said, calling it a "ridiculous charge" and saying Ms Pelosi "may even regret making that comment".
> 
> "Protecting the people of your country... is the fundamental duty of being president of the United States," Ms Sanders said.
> 
> The interview comes days after Mr Trump tweeted his support for Bible study.
> 
> Several states have legislation pending that would make Bible literacy courses part of public school education.
> 
> The American Civil Liberties Union attacked Mr Trump's endorsement.
> 
> "More often than not, public school Bible classes resemble Sunday school lessons and violate students' and parents' First Amendment rights," senior attorney Heather Weaver wrote.
> 
> "Public schools are for education, not religious indoctrination."


I take back anything negative I have said about Trump. I had no idea that a fictional sky wizard wanted him to be President!


----------



## Nothing Finer

Strike Force said:


> https://static1.bigstockphoto.com/2/0/2/large2/202771456.jpg
> 
> :loweringangle


1? Is that it? That's really your evidence that all socialist countries the size of the United States fall into ruin?

Do you really expect this to convince anyone or think it's some kind of mic drop moment for you?


----------



## Strike Force

Nothing Finer said:


> 1? Is that it? That's really your evidence that all socialist countries the size of the United States fall into ruin?
> 
> Do you really expect this to convince anyone or think it's some kind of mic drop moment for you?


You're out of your depth here. Trust me. You've set an impossible standard: how many countries of 350 million people have implemented true socialism and failed? 

Let's think about your horribly flawed logic: by your reasoning, if I cannot provide an example of someone who has tried to colonize Mars and failed, then colonizing Mars is a great idea.


----------



## Reaper

Nothing Finer said:


> 1? Is that it? That's really your evidence that all socialist countries the size of the United States fall into ruin?
> 
> Do you really expect this to convince anyone or think it's some kind of mic drop moment for you?


You're wasting your time on someone who doesn't know the meaning of socialism. 

He's gone into his r/iamverysmart happy place.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Strike Force said:


> You're out of your depth here. Trust me. You've set an impossible standard: how many countries of 350 million people have implemented true socialism and failed?
> 
> Let's think about your horribly flawed logic: by your reasoning, if I cannot provide an example of someone who has tried to colonize Mars and failed, then colonizing Mars is a great idea.


Let's talk about your logic. 

You said as a point of fact that socialist countries fall into ruin, I posted several examples of countries where socialism hasn't fallen into ruin, where it works brilliantly. You then moved the goalposts and said those examples don't count because the countries are too small, implying that only countries the same size as the United States can be used as an example. 

What we've now shown is that you're basing this statement, that socialist countries fall into ruin, entirely on what happened to a single country 20 years ago. What happened to one country 20 years ago in totally different circumstances is a terrible basis for an argument. What modern, socially liberal countries do has far more relevance.

You'd be out of your depth in a puddle.


----------



## Strike Force

Debating with you people is pointless. Go watch a video of the riots in France and come back to me. Time to move on.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Medical expenses aren't cheap in the US because in the US healthcare is for profit and they care more about making money than helping the sick. Healthcare should never be for profit There is a reason why the US is at the top for most expensive and near the bottom for quality.
> 
> As for milking the system, you have that in every country and they deal with that while having universal healthcare.


I don't agree with the current healthcare system the way it is built. 

I still don't see medicare for all being the solution, but I think there are different ways to get to the same result




> Everyone uses healthcare at some point because they need it. That is why its called insurance. And the majority of people that don't use healthcare don't use it because they can't afford it.


I agree. One of the biggest issues I have though is things where you don't know the price of what you are paying for until you get to a doctor.

Everyone is going to die but we don't do "life insurance for all" Private companies in the private sector compete for dollars, to the consumer.

I look at medicare for all as taking the power out of the people's hands and puts it in a position to be more corrupt. i don't see us agreeing on this at all.

but I do not agree with the current system



> As for the article like I said, it all depends on the framing, and the framing oh it will cause delays is a bullshit argument. They fail to tell those people countries like Canada prioritize healthcare based on the severity of what is needed. For example, if you have a heart problem and needed surgery to fix it ASAP you will get that surgery over someone that wants a nose job just because they don't like how their nose looks.


Absolutely. 

Once again, the problem isn't that medicare for all is a flawed system (even if i am not a fan) 

The issue is i dont see the american people being on board with it in the long run.

Like I said, when AOC can become a candidate, I think you will have enough voters for it, but today? i don't see people changing their minds.



> Not to mention people have to wait for surgeries in the US. They don't get it right away unless its life threatening and the same thing happens in Canada.
> 
> It's just weird how every industrialized country in the world has some sort of universal healthcare yet some people claim it wouldn't work in the US.


It would be better received I think if Obamacare didn't end up being as much of a disaster it has been.

People see their rates go up, and blame others... like I said, in a generation, things may change, but I think people still think medicare for all is Obamacare (I know it isnt)



> It has everything to do with it since you asked the question too. Again no one asks that questions for any other plans the GOP or establishment democrats have like paying for wars or their tax cuts


But you are asking me, personally. I understand what you are saying.

When there is a smear campaign against someone, it isn't going to resonate the same. 

The majority of people are going to see what they want to see, media or not. 




> Yes, the state tax is factored in as well since when the marginal tax rate was at 70-90% from the 30s to the 80s it was factored in. And again those are the times the US was at its most prosperous
> 
> As for rich people trying to get out of paying taxes, that is why you close the loopholes so they will have to pay their taxes like everyone else. Was that supposed to be a hard question?
> 
> You act like people were not paying a marginal tax rare of 70-90% from the 30s to the 80s. You do know it was that hight back then right?


Well aware of it. 

It was put into place by FDR and then overturned by Reagan.

I honestly believe the biggest kickback on that is going to be from you multi-millionaires (athletes, celebrities, news hosts)

The super rich will care, but ultimately find a way around what they need to find.

But a guy like Bryce Harper, or Steph Curry is going to fight to make sure they don't endorse someone who is asking them to give away 10's of millions of dollars of their money.

Curry will make 40 million dollars a year on his next contract, which means before any other tax, he is being asked to pay 21 million dollars in taxes.

regardless of what we personally think about the plan, that idea ain't going to fly well with very influential people.

Why do you think they backed Hilary instead of Bernie last time?

Ultimately, I understand where we agree (surprisingly) and where we disagree (unsurprisingly), we shall see how this ends up... Like I said, I hope that Bernie gets the nod.. he does deserve it.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Strike Force said:


> Debating with you people is pointless. Go watch a video of the riots in France and come back to me. Time to move on.


I'm very disappointed that a political mastermind such as yourself no longer deems us worthy to talk to and has now decided to stop wasting his time. 

It doesn't look like you're running away from the thread because you've been exposed as not having the first clue what you're talking about.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't agree with the current healthcare system the way it is built.
> 
> I still don't see medicare for all being the solution, but I think there are different ways to get to the same result


You don't see Medicare as being the solution yet it works for all the people on it. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I agree. One of the biggest issues I have though is things where you don't know the price of what you are paying for until you get to a doctor.
> 
> Everyone is going to die but we don't do "life insurance for all" Private companies in the private sector compete for dollars, to the consumer.
> 
> I look at medicare for all as taking the power out of the people's hands and puts it in a position to be more corrupt. i don't see us agreeing on this at all.
> 
> but I do not agree with the current system



Private companies in the private sector don't compete for dollars to the consumer when ti comes to healthcare if that were true, healthcare in the US would be much cheaper. All they care about is profit. They put profit over the consumer and that is the last thing you want when it comes to healthcare

The current Medicare system is not corrupt LOL The current non-medical system is what is corrupt. Especially when those insurance companies a lot of the time try to get out of covering you when you really need it




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Once again, the problem isn't that medicare for all is a flawed system (even if i am not a fan)
> 
> The issue is i dont see the american people being on board with it in the long run.
> 
> Like I said, when AOC can become a candidate, I think you will have enough voters for it, but today? i don't see people changing their minds.



Why don't you see American people being on board with it in the long run when most people on Medicare love it
If universal healthcare did not work or was not popular then every other industrialized country the world wouldn't be using some form of it




DMD Mofomagic said:


> t would be better received I think if Obamacare didn't end up being as much of a disaster it has been.
> 
> People see their rates go up, and blame others... like I said, in a generation, things may change, but I think people still think medicare for all is Obamacare (I know it isnt)


No one thinks Ombacae is Medicare for all. Where are you getting that from




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Well aware of it.
> 
> It was put into place by FDR and then overturned by Reagan.
> 
> I honestly believe the biggest kickback on that is going to be from you multi-millionaires (athletes, celebrities, news hosts)
> 
> The super rich will care, but ultimately find a way around what they need to find.
> 
> But a guy like Bryce Harper, or Steph Curry is going to fight to make sure they don't endorse someone who is asking them to give away 10's of millions of dollars of their money.
> 
> Curry will make 40 million dollars a year on his next contract, which means before any other tax, he is being asked to pay 21 million dollars in taxes.
> 
> regardless of what we personally think about the plan, that idea ain't going to fly well with very influential people.
> 
> Why do you think they backed Hilary instead of Bernie last time?
> 
> Ultimately, I understand where we agree (surprisingly) and where we disagree (unsurprisingly), we shall see how this ends up... Like I said, I hope that Bernie gets the nod.. he does deserve it.


Who cares if it does not fly with influential people. That is why the system is broken and there is such a huge gap, because we let the rich rig the system. With the influx of people like Sanders, Warren, AOC etc that is going to change.


----------



## Reaper

Obamacare is a scam and essentially a republican program that the democrats passed and it had measures built in that literally told people "buy insurance from insurance companies or the government WILL fine you" and they did. 

There is literally NOTHING "socialistic" or even social welfare statist about that at all. 

It's literally a "make capitalists more rich through the threat of added penalties" scam. One of the WORST con jobs in the history of government led con jobs.

What kind of a brain do people have that they do not realize that if you force someone to buy something that the capitalist will not raise prices?

Imagine a simpler scenario. Imagine that the government puts a fine on you for not buying 20 cartons of eggs every month. The fine is the same as the price of buying those eggs. So you decide that you're going buy the cartons of eggs to avoid being fined for nothing. Now every egg manufacturer can set their price at the same level and no one sells eggs at a lower price level. What are you going to do?

Edit:










Weird Flex, but ok. 

:kobelol


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> You don't see Medicare as being the solution yet it works for all the people on it.


My grandmother (who is on medicare) would disagree with you.

I know quite a few people who would disagree with you, but neither here nor there.



> Private companies in the private sector don't compete for dollars to the consumer when ti comes to healthcare if that were true, healthcare in the US would be much cheaper. All they care about is profit. They put profit over the consumer and that is the last thing you want when it comes to healthcare


Are you reading what I am typing?

I said this same exact thing.



> The current Medicare system is not corrupt LOL The current non-medical system is what is corrupt. Especially when those insurance companies a lot of the time try to get out of covering you when you really need it


Whether corrupt or not, I dont agree with putting it in the hands of a single payer healthplan is what is best.

I don't know why you go on these tangents, where if I disagree with you, you make it as though nothing else is a possibility. Its odd.





> Why don't you see American people being on board with it in the long run when most people on Medicare love it
> If universal healthcare did not work or was not popular then every other industrialized country the world wouldn't be using some form of it


1. America is much more diverse than most countries that have universal healthcare.

2. Americans tend to have more of a need of instant satisfaction

You are basically saying to me you have a lot more faith that people will be on board, and I am saying, that people are selfish by nature and wont care. 

At the end of the day, they are both assumptions, that is all we have to go off of.




> No one thinks Ombacae is Medicare for all. Where are you getting that from


I am sure there those out there who truly believe this.

Majority of people just hear medicare for all, and don't even know what that means.

You know there are those out there who believe almost anything.

Once again, I am going by the assumption of what he will be attacked with, not what is and isnt.




> Who cares if it does not fly with influential people. That is why the system is broken and there is such a huge gap, because we let the rich rig the system. With the influx of people like Sanders, Warren, AOC etc that is going to change.


I have no idea what this even means.

I am telling you influences have influence... if you don't agree, that is fine, doesn't bother me any

This is my last post on it, because we are starting to agree in basis, and disagree in semantics, which goes in a circle, I think everything has been said that is needed to


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> My grandmother (who is on medicare) would disagree with you.
> 
> I know quite a few people who would disagree with you, but neither here nor there.


And how does it not work for your grandmother?




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Are you reading what I am typing?
> 
> I said this same exact thing.


You said Private companies in the private sector *compete for dollars, to the consumer.*

That is not the same thing as what I said unless I misunderstood what you meant by that.

It seems to me you were claiming privates companies are competing for consumers dollars so they will try to give them the best prices.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Whether corrupt or not, I dont agree with putting it in the hands of a single payer healthplan is what is best.
> 
> I don't know why you go on these tangents, where if I disagree with you, you make it as though nothing else is a possibility. Its odd.


Why don't you agree with single payer?

I am saying single payer is the best, whereas you are not giving an alternative, you are just claiming single payer won't work yet it works for every other country that has it

So what kind of system do you want to see that is not the current system, and that is not some sort of universal healthcare system




DMD Mofomagic said:


> 1. America is much more diverse than most countries that have universal healthcare.
> 
> 2. Americans tend to have more of a need of instant satisfaction
> 
> You are basically saying to me you have a lot more faith that people will be on board, and I am saying, that people are selfish by nature and wont care.
> 
> At the end of the day, they are both assumptions, that is all we have to go off of.


Diversity has nothing to do with healthcare. People are people. That being said, AGAIN every other industrialized country ini the world has universal healthcare, you take all those countries and there are tons of diversity between them and it works in all those countries.

As for instant satisfaction in the US, if you need some sort of surgery you are not going to get it that day or the very next day unless its life threatening, you still have to wait. You act like if you want a nose job for example you can walk into a Drs office and get it at that very second. 




DMD Mofomagic said:


> am sure there those out there who truly believe this.
> 
> Majority of people just hear medicare for all, and don't even know what that means.
> 
> You know there are those out there who believe almost anything.
> 
> Once again, I am going by the assumption of what he will be attacked with, not what is and isnt.


How would anyone believe Obamacare is medicare for all when all we hear is changing to a Medicare for all system from what we have now 




DMD Mofomagic said:


> I have no idea what this even means.
> 
> I am telling you influences have influence... if you don't agree, that is fine, doesn't bother me any
> 
> This is my last post on it, because we are starting to agree in basis, and disagree in semantics, which goes in a circle, I think everything has been said that is needed to



The only thing that still should be debated is what you wuld do instead of universal healthcare since that is the major disagreement, because like you said the other stuff we agree just with slight differences.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

I know I said I wouldn't respond, but I think I need to clarify things anyway



birthday_massacre said:


> And how does it not work for your grandmother?


Honestly, she doesn't give details, just says she hates medicare, hates the pricing, and hates what it gives her.




> You said Private companies in the private sector *compete for dollars, to the consumer.*
> 
> That is not the same thing as what I said unless I misunderstood what you meant by that.
> 
> It seems to me you were claiming privates companies are competing for consumers dollars so they will try to give them the best prices.


What I was saying is that I would like a system where insurance, and medical procedures would be more transparent, and would allow people to actually shop around for the best insurance, without feelingforced into something.

I believe Norway has a system like this, where it is universal, but you can go through private as well.

I don't like the idea of universal only.



> Why don't you agree with single payer?


I just don't trust the government to do right by the american people, and that it would not lead to people not using it for frivolous reasons.

Like I said, I can compromise on Norway's model, but I would really like if hospitals and places were completely transparent on pricing.

I don't know if you heard the story about how people were being charged $5,000 for one surgery, and then 50k for the same exact surgery.

That is the part that needs to be fixed the most



> I am saying single payer is the best, whereas you are not giving an alternative, you are just claiming single payer won't work yet it works for every other country that has it
> 
> So what kind of system do you want to see that is not the current system, and that is not some sort of universal healthcare system


I would like health insurance to be like any other insurance product you get. You go to either a broker, or an exclusive agent, and they tell you what your insurance covers.

As well, as some form of ban/limit of Rx and full disclosures on surgeries, and such.

Anyone can go up and find out how much plastic surgery costs, but I am at the mercy of the hospital for surgery on a broken bone, doesn't sit well with me.



> As for instant satisfaction in the US, if you need some sort of surgery you are not going to get it that day or the very next day unless its life threatening, you still have to wait. You act like if you want a nose job for example you can walk into a Drs office and get it at that very second.


part of my problem is that if you want a nose job you can basically go to different doctors and figure out which one works best for you.

But in the medical field, you are forced for in-netowrk/out of network criteria, and the co-pays, and then deductibles.

To me the current system is over complicated on purpose to overwhelm the customer.




> How would anyone believe Obamacare is medicare for all when all we hear is changing to a Medicare for all system from what we have now


I wish I could tell you I believe everyone thinks like that, but I would be surprised of people have any real idea what a single payer system is.





> The only thing that still should be debated is what you wuld do instead of universal healthcare since that is the major disagreement, because like you said the other stuff we agree just with slight differences.


True.

Even further more, I am open to a split system, where I can have the choice.

You want to be single payer? Fine... I want to go through private insurance? Awesome, I should have that choice. 

I don't like single payer as an overall system. 

I believe Norway, and Sweden both do something similar, and I would take that 100 times out of 100 over what we have today.

i know Bernie has mentioned those countries before, but I have not heard him say he would be doing that


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> What I was saying is that I would like a system where insurance, and medical procedures would be more transparent, and would allow people to actually shop around for the best insurance, without feelingforced into something.
> 
> I believe Norway has a system like this, where it is universal, but you can go through private as well.
> 
> I don't like the idea of universal only.


Ok, I am fine with that. Medicare for all you shoud be an option, single pay option but I agree you should still be able to get private insurance as well.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I just don't trust the government to do right by the american people, and that it would not lead to people not using it for frivolous reasons.
> 
> Like I said, I can compromise on Norway's model, but I would really like if hospitals and places were completely transparent on pricing.
> 
> I don't know if you heard the story about how people were being charged $5,000 for one surgery, and then 50k for the same exact surgery.
> 
> That is the part that needs to be fixed the most


You say you don't trust the Govt but you treat private insurance companies that do everything to take your money but then when you need the insurance they do everything they can to find an excuse to weasel their way out of covering your costs


I have heard stories worst than that one from private insurances.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> I would like health insurance to be like any other insurance product you get. You go to either a broker, or an exclusive agent, and they tell you what your insurance covers.
> 
> As well, as some form of ban/limit of Rx and full disclosures on surgeries, and such.
> 
> Anyone can go up and find out how much plastic surgery costs, but I am at the mercy of the hospital for surgery on a broken bone, doesn't sit well with me.


Yes I can agree with this.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> part of my problem is that if you want a nose job you can basically go to different doctors and figure out which one works best for you.
> 
> But in the medical field, you are forced for in-netowrk/out of network criteria, and the co-pays, and then deductibles.
> 
> To me the current system is over complicated on purpose to overwhelm the customer.


Every Dr should take every type of insurance. The whole in and out of network stuff is stupid. The Dr. I was going to, after this past year stopped taking my insurance, so I had to either change insurance to what he took or find another Dr. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Even further more, I am open to a split system, where I can have the choice.
> 
> You want to be single payer? Fine... I want to go through private insurance? Awesome, I should have that choice.
> 
> I don't like single payer as an overall system.
> 
> I believe Norway, and Sweden both do something similar, and I would take that 100 times out of 100 over what we have today.
> 
> i know Bernie has mentioned those countries before, but I have not heard him say he would be doing that


Oh I agree we should have the choice. it should be a Medicare for all option or let you choose a private insurance. I agree you should not be forced into one or the other. I just think we should have the option for medicare for all.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DMD Mofomagic said:


> 1. America is much more diverse than most countries that have universal healthcare.
> 
> 2. Americans tend to have more of a need of instant satisfaction


I don't get this in terms of a medicare system won't work in the US because of this diversity or instant satisfaction?. What does it mean and why is that a problem?

I'm an Aussie, medicare works very well here. It's not perfect of course, but I can't imagine how much shittier our society would be without it. Is the US that much more diverse than AUS that it's a problem for some reason?

It has great support by the majority, so much that both major political parties know they can't even mention abolishing it in any form as it would mean political downfall. The conservatives would love chuck it away to but they know they can't.

It's good because as long as a DRs office bulk bills then you can walk in and get looked at 'for free', which tends to be better in the long run as it leads to more prevention of greater things that will cost more money if they were left to fester. In that sense it shows we want instant satisfaction too.

We do have a variation of the public/private model here and I'd be surprised if most countries didn't have a form of the same thing. You would still use medicare for most everyday stuff no doubt even if you have insurance, but private can get you quicker private hospitals, more complex dental, ambulance coverage more quickly etc etc.

I just see no reason why this can't work in the US at all. The reasons I've heard don't convince me otherwise.


----------



## Aincrad

The thing that always puzzles me as a Canadian is that we already spend less taxpayer money per capita on health with our single-player federally-mandated-but-provincially-run healthcare system than America does _now_. The implementation of basic socialized medicine (which America already has for senior citizens) combined with for-profit medicine for more complicated things/to allow rich people to continue to pay-to-win/to save businesses money while still allowing them to dangle increased health packages as a perk/to give paranoid anti-government types options/to continually attract top doctors who are in it for the money means everyone wins.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Private companies in the private sector don't compete for dollars to the consumer when ti comes to healthcare if that were true, healthcare in the US would be much cheaper. All they care about is profit. They put profit over the consumer and that is the last thing you want when it comes to healthcare


This isn't true, elective procedures such as Lasik and plastic surgery have seen rise in quality and reduction in costs. That's because insurance doesn't cover them.

The issue with insurance is that it's poorly ran, it's all price rigged and the regulations and markups are insane. The medical industry is fucked because it's all monopolized from top to bottom.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> This isn't true, elective procedures such as Lasik and plastic surgery have seen rise in quality and reduction in costs. That's because insurance doesn't cover them.
> 
> The issue with insurance is that it's poorly ran, it's all price rigged and the regulations and markups are insane. The medical industry is fucked because it's all monopolized from top to bottom.


 Pretty sure you’re proving my point


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Pretty sure you’re proving my point


No, you said there are no companies that compete and there are that already do. 

The best solution is offering Medicare for all (Citizens only) and then letting insurance companies compete without regional and hospital restrictions. I'd pay for extra coverage or better care. 

End the monopoly of major insurance companies, put non-biased Government officials in charge of regulations and quality control and it would easily be affordable.


----------



## Reaper

Just tossing this out there. You don't even have to have 100% universal healthcare. Have a graduated system based on need. Annual allotments. Certain services that are paid for through taxes. Subsidized medicine. Insurance for extra coverage. Free life saving surgeries (they're more rare). A multitiered system for electives. There's so many options but Americans are intentionally forced to think in the simplest and dumbest terms ... 

It's like here we are ready to colonize Mars and landing spacecraft on comets but too fucking retarded and dumb to come up with a healthcare system that works.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> No, you said there are no companies that compete and there are that already do.
> 
> The best solution is offering Medicare for all (Citizens only) and then letting insurance companies compete without regional and hospital restrictions. I'd pay for extra coverage or better care.
> 
> End the monopoly of major insurance companies, put non-biased Government officials in charge of regulations and quality control and it would easily be affordable.



But they don’t compete thats why prices are so high. Prices are so high because like you said there a monopoly. 

And I agree with the rest of what you said


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Prices are so high because like you said there a monopoly.


Pretty sure 95% of all politicians that we continue to put into congress, senate and white house are pro big pharma and that won't change any time soon. 

Capitalism + Sponsored Politicians in Government = Monopoly. 

This is the only and simplest economic equation you need to know.


----------



## Miss Sally

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091080473294655488
Are anti-Trumpers this petty they'd take endless war over pulling out troops because Trump wants to?

I joked about these types of people destroying the cure to cancer if Trump discovered it.. Now I'm starting to believe they'd have a Boston Tea Party of dumping vaccines into the water if Trump said vaccines were good.

I don't get it, oppose him on stuff that matters, not fucking troop withdraws that was supposed to happen years ago!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091080473294655488
> Are anti-Trumpers this petty they'd take endless war over pulling out troops because Trump wants to?
> 
> I joked about these types of people destroying the cure to cancer if Trump discovered it.. Now I'm starting to believe they'd have a Boston Tea Party of dumping vaccines into the water if Trump said vaccines were good.
> 
> I don't get it, oppose him on stuff that matters, not fucking troop withdraws that was supposed to happen years ago!


 Trump is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The only reason Trump is pulling out troops is because Putin told him to


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Miss Sally said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091080473294655488
> Are anti-Trumpers this petty they'd take endless war over pulling out troops because Trump wants to?
> 
> I joked about these types of people destroying the cure to cancer if Trump discovered it.. Now I'm starting to believe they'd have a Boston Tea Party of dumping vaccines into the water if Trump said vaccines were good.
> 
> I don't get it, oppose him on stuff that matters, not fucking troop withdraws that was supposed to happen years ago!


This guy and his brother really creep me out.

They are too stupid to see that it plays into Trumps hands if they align themselves as pro-war, anti- border security etc. Do they not have any principles?


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The only reason Trump is pulling out troops is because Putin told him to


Why would Putin want the US to pull out of Afghanistan?
Do you have any actual evidence to back up your ludicrous claims?

Seriously BM you have been propagandised :rivetingcena


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> But they don’t compete thats why prices are so high. Prices are so high because like you said there a monopoly.
> 
> And I agree with the rest of what you said


Like I said, only plastic surgery and Lasik compete. That's why you can get coupons to get your tits or eyes done etc. Even dentists do to a degree, when I was so broke that I couldn't afford emergency work they actually sat down with me and broke down the costs and helped me with a payment plan.

Something that should be offered to anyone who works is an FSA or FSB. I knew people who had FSBs that saved up 20-30k and paid off having their kids etc.

Since it's all pre-tax dollars it actually is a benefit, you'd lose a lot of that money to taxes. I get nearly a 3k FSA in case of emergencies, best part is it can be used on just about anything medically relevant. I've bought heating blankets, prescriptions etc.

I think if every citizen got Medicare with the option for private insurance along with FSA/FSB you'd solve a lot of issues without needing too much overall etc.

It would also offer a lot more choice for patients and healthcare as both a general need and a business.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Why would Putin want the US to pull out of Afghanistan?
> Do you have any actual evidence to back up your ludicrous claims?
> 
> Seriously BM you have been propagandised :rivetingcena


 I am just a better informed than you 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...d51136-0391-11e9-958c-0a601226ff6b_story.html

You dont find it weird after Trump had that secret closed-door meeting with Putin back in November, not too long after that he said he was going to pull troops out of Syira?


----------



## Reaper

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Why would Putin want the US to pull out of Afghanistan?


Russiagate is completely and utterly nonsense, but did you sleep through the 1980's?

Russia has been in search of a warm water port for decades. They shifted an expansionist strategy to an economic one. While there is no legit reason to worry about them re-expanding, one of the things that Russia has been looking for is allies in the oil producing nations. 

I know you lot deny American imperialism a lot, but trust me, Russian "imperialism" would not be an improvement. 

There is something to be said about maintaining a global balance with Russia and China ... It should be peaceful and diplomatic, but the threat of Russian military expansion remains - as much as an American one and a Chinese one.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Russiagate is completely and utterly nonsense, but did you sleep through the 1980's?


Right its such nonsense Trump keeps having secret meetings with Putin.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> I am just a better informed than you
> 
> :tenay
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...d51136-0391-11e9-958c-0a601226ff6b_story.html


That really didn't prove anything.

You've made a bold assertion so back it up and don't dodge the questions.

1) Why would Putin want the US to pull out of Afghanistan? Is it not enough that they have been there for 18 years with nothing to show for it...

2) Why does Putin supporting the decision to pull out of Syria mean that Trump is only doing it because 'Putin told him too'? I also would pull out of Syria, am I beholden to Putin? Or is it just common sense?

3) If Trump is beholden to Putin why is he supporting the opposition leader in Venezuela? You only have to tune in to RT to see how incensed the Russians are about this.

4) Is it really so impossible, despite the fact you hate him, that Trump actually is just against (like most of the American public) expensive, pointless, bloody and never ending wars on the other side of the planet? To me that makes a lot more sense than 'muh Russia.'


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Right its such nonsense Trump keeps having secret meetings with Putin.


*sigh*

Please stop. Stop. Stop. Stop.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Please stop. Stop. Stop. Stop.


No, I wont stop showing all Trumps ties to Putin and Russia

I know you think if you ignore it, it will go away, but it won't








Hoolahoop33 said:


> That really didn't prove anything.
> 
> You've made a bold assertion so back it up and don't dodge the questions.
> 
> 1) Why would Putin want the US to pull out of Afghanistan? Is it not enough that they have been there for 18 years with nothing to show for it...
> 
> 2) Why does Putin supporting the decision to pull out of Syria mean that Trump is only doing it because 'Putin told him too'? I also would pull out of Syria, am I beholden to Putin? Or is it just common sense?
> 
> 3) If Trump is beholden to Putin why is he supporting the opposition leader in Venezuela? You only have to tune in to RT to see how incensed the Russians are about this.
> 
> 4) Is it really so impossible, despite the fact you hate him, that Trump actually is just against (like most of the American public) expensive, pointless, bloody and never ending wars on the other side of the planet? To me that makes a lot more sense than 'muh Russia.'


Why do you keep bring up Afghanistan when I was talking about Syria?

Trump has a secret meeting with Putin. Then Trump rushes to pull out of Syria, then Putin praises Trump for doing it.

Seriously dude. You can see the connection?

You also ignore all the connections of Trump and his admin to Russia.

You can keep ignoring that stuff all you want, it just makes you look bad

You want even more than I have brought up in the past, here is even more evidence

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

Trump and His Associates Had
More Than 100 Contacts With
Russians Before the Inauguration


Go read the article.

Its all right in front of your face, you just choose to ignore it


And LOL no Trump is not against wars, he has shown he isn't time and time again.

Trump is a Warhawk, its funny you think he is not. You may want to take a look at his short history of his record-breaking drone strikes and all the civilians he has killed


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a Warhawk, its funny you think he is not.


??? You are so hysterical and wrapped up in repeating the same nonsense over and over again that you have no idea who believes what on this site and just say whatever fucking nonsense to everyone irrespective of who it is.

The Russia gate nonsense has completely warped your mind.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> ??? You are so hysterical and wrapped up in repeating the same nonsense over and over again that you have no idea who believes what on this site and just say whatever fucking nonsense to everyone irrespective of who it is.


I was replying to hoola, I edited the post since it was pasted into the wrong reply since he claimed Trump is antiwar.

And sorry but your mind is the one that is warped since you have all the evidence about Trump and Russia right in your face and you keep ignoring it


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> I was replying to hoola, I edited the post since it was pasted into the wrong reply since he claimed Trump is antiwar.
> 
> And sorry but your mind is the one that is warped since you have all the evidence about Trump and Russia right in your face and you keep ignoring it


U don't know what is evidence of something. 

Everyone has been too nice to tell you this but you don't even know how claim and proofs work. You have literally no fucking clue and that makes me a little sad to say.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> U don't know what is evidence of something.
> 
> Everyone has been too nice to tell you this but you don't even know how claim and proofs work. You have literally no fucking clue and that makes me a little sad to say.


Right, all of Trumps and his admin's connections to Russia are not evidence of their connections to Russia

so in your mind none of this is evidence https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html 

Ok dude


----------



## MrMister

:lol

I think there's a thread for the Russia/Trump collusion stuff let's still try to keep it in that thread.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> :lol
> 
> I think there's a thread for the Russia collusion stuff let's still try to keep it in that thread.


We could but isn't half the people in the Trump thread banned in that thread lol


----------



## MrMister

birthday_massacre said:


> We could but isn't half the people in the Trump thread banned in that thread lol


:heston :lmao :heston

Yes that is likely.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> :heston :lmao :heston
> 
> Yes that is likely.


But getting back to the main point. Pointing out how Trump had a secret meeting with Putin, then Trump pulls out of Syria and Putin praising Trump for it, and saying Putin told Trump to pull out, probably belongs in this thread.

You can't tell me you don't find that weird how that whole thing played out especially since that will cause Moscow to expand its role in Syria and its influence across the Middle East.


----------



## Reaper

Well. At least you're still a Bernie guy so you can believe anything you want as long as you vote for the right guy.

You can even believe that santa Claus is a Russian spy agent and the Easter Bunny is Putin's attempt to indoctrinate American children into buying Russian eggs and vodka contains special brain altering chemicals. 

As long as you vote for Bernie.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Why do you keep bring up Afghanistan when I was talking about Syria?


Because the vote was about pulling out of Syria *and* Afghanistan. So they are connected and we are discussing both. It is obviously much more convenient for your little conspiracy to ignore the questions regarding Afghanistan and Venezuela.



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has a secret meeting with Putin. Then Trump rushes to pull out of Syria, then Putin praises Trump for doing it.
> 
> Seriously dude. You can see the connection?
> 
> You also ignore all the connections of Trump and his admin to Russia.
> 
> You can keep ignoring that stuff all you want, it just makes you look bad
> 
> You want even more than I have brought up in the past, here is even more evidence
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html
> 
> Trump and His Associates Had
> More Than 100 Contacts With
> Russians Before the Inauguration
> 
> 
> Go read the article.
> 
> Its all right in front of your face, you just choose to ignore it


You are connecting dots to reach that conclusion though, all there is is circumstantial evidence, there is nothing of any actual substance. Again if Trump is beholden to Putin, then why is so much of US policy (Venezuela for example) detrimental to Russian interests.

I read the article, it's frankly embarrassing. The connections are as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. Listed amongst the Russian contacts on that story are 'Received a birthday gift from a former Russian business associate and his son, a Russian pop star.' 'Sent thank you note for birthday gift from Russian associates.' Talk about clutching at straws. 

It is not illegal for a person to have contacts with Russian private citizens or even government officials, how much money needs to spent on this investigation before you admit there is nothing concrete and never will be.



birthday_massacre said:


> And LOL no Trump is not against wars, he has shown he isn't time and time again.
> 
> Trump is a Warhawk, its funny you think he is not. You may want to take a look at his short history of his record-breaking drone strikes and all the civilians he has killed


I said he is against expensive, pointless, bloody and never ending wars on the other side of the planet. Who isn't? He is disappointing to me in many ways, but if he pulls US troops out of the middle east (he didn't have to announce anything) and N. Korea fulfills its commitments, it would be incorrect to characterise him as a warhawk, at least in comparison to Bush Jr and Obama. Let's just see what happens.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Because the vote was about pulling out of Syria *and* Afghanistan. So they are connected and we are discussing both. It is obviously much more convenient for your little conspiracy to ignore the questions regarding Afghanistan and Venezuela.
> 
> 
> You are connecting dots to reach that conclusion though, all there is is circumstantial evidence, there is nothing of any actual substance. Again if Trump is beholden to Putin, then why is so much of US policy (Venezuela for example) detrimental to Russian interests.
> 
> I read the article, it's frankly embarrassing. The connections are as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. Listed amongst the Russian contacts on that story are 'Received a birthday gift from a former Russian business associate and his son, a Russian pop star.' 'Sent thank you note for birthday gift from Russian associates.' Talk about clutching at straws.
> 
> It is not illegal for a person to have contacts with Russian private citizens or even government officials, how much money needs to spent on this investigation before you admit there is nothing concrete and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> I said he is against expensive, pointless, bloody and never ending wars on the other side of the planet. Who isn't? He is disappointing to me in many ways, but if he pulls US troops out of the middle east (he didn't have to announce anything) and N. Korea fulfills its commitments, it would be incorrect to characterise him as a warhawk, at least in comparison to Bush Jr and Obama. Let's just see what happens.


Trump did not announce he was pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan at the same time, He did it like a day apart. so nice try. Its also funny how in almost every case Trump does what is favorable to Russia then you cherry pick the couple of times it does not are think you have a gotcha moment. You act like an anti-climate change person here and just look at the 3% who are against it and ignore the 97%. Funny how you dont bring up Trump lifting sanctions on Russian Oligarchy. 


it is illegal to meet with foreign government officials about an election. How can you not know that.

Also love how you call them clutching at straws and ignore the ones like 

Mr. Papadopoulos had multiple contacts with Russian operatives who said they wanted to arrange meetings between Mr. Trump, or his campaign, and Mr. Putin, or Mr. Putin’s staff members. He frequently told campaign officials about these conversations. He pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about these contacts.


and especially Mr. Manafort had multiple contacts with Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a longtime business associate tied to Russian intelligence, during the period of time he served on the campaign. He had political polling data shared with Mr. Kilimnik and told him he could offer private campaign briefings to a Russian oligarch. He also attended the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

OH and Trump is dropping sanctions on that very same oligarch Deripaska but of course, you ignore those

Trump is still a Warhawk as much as you try to deny it. As for N. Korea, wasn't it just reported they probably won't give up their nuclear weapons? AGAIN he is only pulling out of Syria because Putin told him to.

Also, since you keep brining up Venezuela., what if Trump and Putin have another private meeting, then a day or so later Trump does a 180 on Venezuela, what would you say then?

Just curious.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump did not announce he was pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan at the same time, He did it like a day apart. so nice try. Its also funny how in almost every case Trump does what is favorable to Russia then you cherry pick the couple of times it does not are think you have a gotcha moment. You act like an anti-climate change person here and just look at the 3% who are against it and ignore the 97%. Funny how you dont bring up Trump lifting sanctions on Russian Oligarchy.


You're the one who responded to MissSally's post regarding a vote to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan. I can't read your mind that you were only talking about Syria can I? Why does Trump want to pull out of Afghanistan? tell me. What like sending arms to fight the Russians in Ukraine? Or kicking out 60 Russian diplomats over the novichok scandal? Or supporting the opposition president over the Kremlin backed Moduro in Venezuela. Pulling out of Syria is good for the US, any benefit to Russia is coincidental. Personally, they're welcome to that absolute mess. So what should Trump do, if fights on and tries to dethrone Assad, then he's a bloodthirsty warmonger, but if he pulls out then he's a 'putin puppet.' Face it you are blinded by your hatred of Trump. It's really not 97% to 3% though is it. If it is you should be able to give me 97 incidences since I just gave you 3 from the top of my head.



birthday_massacre said:


> it is illegal to meet with foreign government officials about an election. How can you not know that.


No it is not illegal for a candidate meet with a foreign official.

It is not even technically illegal to meet with a foreign official to try to get them to sway the US election. 

It is illegal to conspire with w foreign official to have them helps way the election in return for some explicit benefit being provided to them. There is no evidence of that, except in your head.



birthday_massacre said:


> Also love how you call them clutching at straws and ignore the ones like
> 
> Mr. Papadopoulos had multiple contacts with Russian operatives who said they wanted to arrange meetings between Mr. Trump, or his campaign, and Mr. Putin, or Mr. Putin’s staff members. He frequently told campaign officials about these conversations. He pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about these contacts.
> 
> 
> and especially Mr. Manafort had multiple contacts with Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a longtime business associate tied to Russian intelligence, during the period of time he served on the campaign. He had political polling data shared with Mr. Kilimnik and told him he could offer private campaign briefings to a Russian oligarch. He also attended the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
> OH and Trump is dropping sanctions on that very same oligarch Deripaska but of course, you ignore those


You're the one who claimed there were a 100 contacts with Russians, I was just showing how ridiculous many of them are. It is very misleading.

1. Papadopolous - Where's the crime, other than lying about the meeting? Did the meeting go ahead...

2. The polling data several moths before the election? The polling data which was mostly available to the public anyway? Kilimnik the Ukrainian? Yeah that stuff was debunked the very next day after it was reported, you must have missed it. Manafort is in trouble for something totally unconnected to the campaign.

3. The treasury department agreed to lift sanctions on the three companies in exchange for Deripaska’s ownership stake in EN+ dropping from 70 to 44.95 percent. Doing so clears a key threshold. With Deripaska no longer the majority owner, the company becomes eligible to have sanctions lifted under the Treasury Department’s "50-percent rule," a process known as delisting. It includes a corporate restructuring, designed to limit Deripaska’s (and Kremlin) influence over the companies, plus additional reporting and transparency requirements. 

See I don't ignore them, they're just irrelevant. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is still a Warhawk as much as you try to deny it. As for N. Korea, wasn't it just reported they probably won't give up their nuclear weapons? AGAIN he is only pulling out of Syria because Putin told him to.
> 
> Also, since you keep brining up Venezuela., what if Trump and Putin have another private meeting, then a day or so later Trump does a 180 on Venezuela, what would you say then?
> 
> Just curious.


I didn't deny it, I just said wait and see. 

No, N. Korea just made a pledge to destroy all nuclear enrichment facilities.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47082860 Again we will wait and see what happens.

That would be very surprising and I'd say that you're on to something, meanwhile in the real world, Trump is against Maduro and thus against Russian interests in Venezuela. It's that simple.


----------



## Nothing Finer

yeahbaby! said:


> I don't get this in terms of a medicare system won't work in the US because of this diversity or instant satisfaction?. What does it mean and why is that a problem?


When British people get sick and go to the hospital their innate politeness and patience means they are happy to wait a long time for healthcare. In fact the most common last words for British people are an apology to doctors for taking up their time. Only Americans want healthcare immediately.

Diversity also makes a massive difference because, as we all know, if someone of a different ethnicity or national background is waiting for healthcare that makes your own wait much more painful. Every country which has universal healthcare is an entirely homogenous ethno-state, if a single person of color ever tried to use the British NHS the whole system would collapse.


----------



## Vic Capri

> it is illegal to meet with foreign government officials about an election. How can you not know that.


So you agree Obama should've been impeached for colluding with Russia then?






- Vic


----------



## Aincrad

Nothing Finer said:


> When British people get sick and go to the hospital their innate politeness and patience means they are happy to wait a long time for healthcare. In fact the most common last words for British people are an apology to doctors for taking up their time. Only Americans want healthcare immediately.
> 
> Diversity also makes a massive difference because, as we all know, if someone of a different ethnicity or national background is waiting for healthcare that makes your own wait much more painful. Every country which has universal healthcare is an entirely homogenous ethno-state, if a single person of color ever tried to use the British NHS the whole system would collapse.


Yeah, most of the Americans I've ever argued with who are against single-player health-care cite the wait-times as some kind of war-zone triage-unit horrorshow.

But America would never get rid of pay-to-win because that's kind of bred into them, so there's never not going to be private access to health care without the wait-times. Public health-care would just be for people who can't afford private or for people who'd rather not bankrupt themselves over a broken bone, with the trade-off being that you'll have to wait a bit (and everyone has smartphones, it's not like waiting in the old days when you had to hope there was magazine you cared about nearby or hope the TV is set to something you care about)


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> it is illegal to meet with foreign government officials about an election. How can you not know that.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree Obama should've been impeached for colluding with Russia then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic
Click to expand...

The audacity to even suggest that's an equal comparison.


----------



## Reaper

Aincrad said:


> Yeah, most of the Americans I've ever argued with who are against single-player health-care cite the wait-times as some kind of war-zone triage-unit horrorshow.


The capitalist owner class tells them to argue their points for them. Americans are fully under the grip of massive nationalized propaganda - not just from the governments, but from the corporations themselves.


----------



## Draykorinee

The idea that diversity impacts healthcare is pretty hilarious. We have a massively diverse population in the UK, I don't even think America is more diverse, particularly as we're all living on top of each other.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> So you agree Obama should've been impeached for colluding with Russia then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


LOL Obama is president here, what exactly is the problem? And he was not working with Russia officials to help him with an election. How exactly was Obama colluding with Russia here?




Hoolahoop33 said:


> You're the one who responded to MissSally's post regarding a vote to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan. I can't read your mind that you were only talking about Syria can I? Why does Trump want to pull out of Afghanistan? tell me. What like sending arms to fight the Russians in Ukraine? Or kicking out 60 Russian diplomats over the novichok scandal? Or supporting the opposition president over the Kremlin backed Moduro in Venezuela. Pulling out of Syria is good for the US, any benefit to Russia is coincidental. Personally, they're welcome to that absolute mess. So what should Trump do, if fights on and tries to dethrone Assad, then he's a bloodthirsty warmonger, but if he pulls out then he's a 'putin puppet.' Face it you are blinded by your hatred of Trump. It's really not 97% to 3% though is it. If it is you should be able to give me 97 incidences since I just gave you 3 from the top of my head.
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not illegal for a candidate meet with a foreign official.
> 
> It is not even technically illegal to meet with a foreign official to try to get them to sway the US election.
> 
> It is illegal to conspire with w foreign official to have them helps way the election in return for some explicit benefit being provided to them. There is no evidence of that, except in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed there were a 100 contacts with Russians, I was just showing how ridiculous many of them are. It is very misleading.
> 
> 1. Papadopolous - Where's the crime, other than lying about the meeting? Did the meeting go ahead...
> 
> 2. The polling data several moths before the election? The polling data which was mostly available to the public anyway? Kilimnik the Ukrainian? Yeah that stuff was debunked the very next day after it was reported, you must have missed it. Manafort is in trouble for something totally unconnected to the campaign.
> 
> 3. The treasury department agreed to lift sanctions on the three companies in exchange for Deripaska’s ownership stake in EN+ dropping from 70 to 44.95 percent. Doing so clears a key threshold. With Deripaska no longer the majority owner, the company becomes eligible to have sanctions lifted under the Treasury Department’s "50-percent rule," a process known as delisting. It includes a corporate restructuring, designed to limit Deripaska’s (and Kremlin) influence over the companies, plus additional reporting and transparency requirements.
> 
> See I don't ignore them, they're just irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't deny it, I just said wait and see.
> 
> No, N. Korea just made a pledge to destroy all nuclear enrichment facilities.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47082860 Again we will wait and see what happens.
> 
> That would be very surprising and I'd say that you're on to something, meanwhile in the real world, Trump is against Maduro and thus against Russian interests in Venezuela. It's that simple.


Oh so using your logic, since you just mentioned Afghanistan and not Syria, then you know I am right about Putin telling Trump to pull out of Syria because you didn't mention Syria in your reply to me.

As for any benift to Russia for Trump pulling out of Syria is coincidental even though Trump didn't do it until after his meeting with Putin, then Putin gives Trump high praise for it, because Putin knows Russia will have more of a presence in that area. Its just funny how you have to jump through all these hoops to explain away the Trump Russia connections.


Yes it is illegal to meet with a foreign official to help win an election. Trump Jr meeting with Russian officials to get dirt on Clinton was totally illegal. You don't know what you are talking about. It breaks federal campaign finance laws. 


Again you keep making excuses for Trumps Russia connections. You could have Trump admit he colluded with Putin and you would still deny it


Trump admitted NK may keep their nuclear arms

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/30/18203569/trump-north-korea-intelligence-nuclear-kim


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Aincrad said:


> Yeah, most of the Americans I've ever argued with who are against single-player health-care cite the wait-times as some kind of war-zone triage-unit horrorshow.
> 
> But America would never get rid of pay-to-win because that's kind of bred into them, so there's never not going to be private access to health care without the wait-times. Public health-care would just be for people who can't afford private or for people who'd rather not bankrupt themselves over a broken bone, with the trade-off being that you'll have to wait a bit (and everyone has smartphones, it's not like waiting in the old days when you had to hope there was magazine you cared about nearby or hope the TV is set to something you care about)


I am against universal health care... and hate the current system we are in.

I feel like people think that if you are against universal health care, then you want the current system to keep going.

There is insurance fraud, high payments, and a number of things that have to be fixed under the medical system.

I don't think universal health care is the solution, but it has nothing to do with long wait lines, as much as i think there are much better options


----------



## Aincrad

DMD Mofomagic said:


> There is insurance fraud, high payments, and a number of things that have to be fixed under the medical system.


Do you think it even can be? America is pro-corporate to a fault, anti-person unless they can pay, fixing that system cuts into corporate profits of the various medical industries and still requires some degree of pay-to-win.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Aincrad said:


> Do you think it even can be? America is pro-corporate to a fault, anti-person unless they can pay, fixing that system cuts into corporate profits of the various medical industries and still requires some degree of pay-to-win.


I don't think any politician will ever run with it, and even if they did, he would be laughed out of everywhere he went to. 

Government involved in the medical system helps politicians more than if the power is given to the consumer.

It's like the school system, that has been broken for about the past 20 years, but no one cares enough to make a big deal about it, and nothing will change it at all.

Americans are used to being told what they need, not finding it out for themselves.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't think any politician will ever run with it, and even if they did, he would be laughed out of everywhere he went to.
> 
> Government involved in the medical system helps politicians more than if the power is given to the consumer.
> 
> It's like the school system, that has been broken for about the past 20 years, but no one cares enough to make a big deal about it, and nothing will change it at all.
> 
> Americans are used to being told what they need, not finding it out for themselves.


You are not saying if any politician ran with Medicare for all /single payer they would be laughed out of everywhere they went to are you

If not, what type of medical insurance plan are you talking about


----------



## Aincrad

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't think any politician will ever run with it, and even if they did, he would be laughed out of everywhere he went to.
> 
> Government involved in the medical system helps politicians more than if the power is given to the consumer.
> 
> It's like the school system, that has been broken for about the past 20 years, but no one cares enough to make a big deal about it, and nothing will change it at all.
> 
> Americans are used to being told what they need, not finding it out for themselves.


Old people already receive socialized medicine in America. Government is already involved in it.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> You are not saying if any politician ran with Medicare for all /single payer they would be laughed out of everywhere they went to are you
> 
> If not, what type of medical insurance plan are you talking about


I am talking about leaving government completely out of healthcare.

Like I spoke of yesterday. Let medical insurance be no different than car insurance. 

You shop for the best deal, find out what everything will costs you, and figure it out on your own.

No reason to get government involved with it. But no one is going to run on that premise.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am talking about leaving government completely out of healthcare.
> 
> Like I spoke of yesterday. Let medical insurance be no different than car insurance.
> 
> You shop for the best deal, find out what everything will costs you, and figure it out on your own.
> 
> No reason to get government involved with it. But no one is going to run on that premise.


You need govt regulations in healthcare to protect the consumer. Again healthcare should not be for profit, because all they care about is making money and not helping people when they get sick. They look for any little thing to get out of paying your insurance claim that you put money into.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Aincrad said:


> Old people already receive socialized medicine in America. Government is already involved in it.


What old people get isn't the best example.

It's anecdotal, but I looked at my grandmother's social security yesterday

Her SS went up by $20 a month, and her medicare went up by $24 per month.

That's ridiculous, and all in all, pretty shitty. 

I think the best we can hope for is a system where we get a choice between privatized insurance and medicare for all


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> You need govt regulations in healthcare to protect the consumer. Again healthcare should not be for profit, because all they care about is making money and not helping people when they get sick. They look for any little thing to get out of paying your insurance claim that you put money into.


You can still have government regulations.

All insurance companies have government regulations, and such to protect the customer (sometimes even to the detriment of the companies)

Also, if you have a broker, or an agent, you now have people who are closer to the human element, who will fight for their consumer, as opposed to the "big bad faceless" corporation.

I am not as worried about claims, as I am about people knowing what they pay for before they walk into a hospital. Imagine going to get a burger and not knowing the price until after the meal is over.

Health insurance is one of the only industries this happens in, and it is completely justified, which is silly

edit: You can still have subsidized (free) healthcare to those who need it, but even those who would deserve to be more educated.


----------



## Martins

birthday_massacre said:


> Also, since you keep brining up Venezuela., what if Trump and Putin have another private meeting, then a day or so later Trump does a 180 on Venezuela, what would you say then?
> 
> Just curious.


I'd say "Thank you, President Putin, for your attempts to placate American imperialist interests around the world, even though your puppet Trump holds no real power in these matters no matter how far your hand is stuck up his ass, which will be proven soon as his decision to terminate support for the unelected traitor is reverted"















"lol unelected traitor describes Trump perfectly" whatever


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> You need govt regulations in healthcare to protect the consumer. * Again healthcare should not be for profit*, because all they care about is making money and not helping people when they get sick. They look for any little thing to get out of paying your insurance claim that you put money into.


uh.. every system needs to be profitable.

how do you expect for something to continue if it is operating at a loss? obviously there needs to be some kind of surplus.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> uh.. every system needs to be profitable.
> 
> how do you expect for something to continue if it is operating at a loss? obviously there needs to be some kind of surplus.


It just has to break even or a slight surplus, it does not have to make billions of profit when people are getting screwed for healthcare.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> It just has to break even or a slight surplus, it does not have to make billions of profit when people are getting screwed for healthcare.


break even or a _slight_ surplus? and what if the spending budget increases each year? what then?

the profit motive is still present in govt controlled healthcare. if they are in danger of going over budget then they have to cut services a.k.a. "screw people out of healthcare".

we have an extremely large portion of the population that is unhealthy and/or neglectful of their own health. if you think there is just going to be endless money and amazing quality healthcare for everyone then you are not being realistic.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> break even or a _slight_ surplus? and what if the spending budget increases each year? what then?
> 
> the profit motive is still present in govt controlled healthcare. if they are in danger of going over budget then they have to cut services a.k.a. "screw people out of healthcare".
> 
> we have an extremely large portion of the population that is unhealthy and/or neglectful of their own health. if you think there is just going to be endless money and amazing quality healthcare for everyone then you are not being realistic.


Like I said when healthcare cares more about making a profit than covering people that is a problem. They should be putting people over profit, that is the whole point of having health insurance. Not to pay into it, then when you get sick, the insurance company finds a way to not cover you because it's not profitable to them


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said when healthcare cares more about making a profit than covering people that is a problem. They should be putting people over profit, that is the whole point of having health insurance. Not to pay into it, then when you get sick, the insurance company finds a way to not cover you because it's not profitable to them


right surely our highly corrupt, highly incompetent and highly untrustworthy government will do what's best for the people.

the only money keeping the system afloat would be that of the taxpayers. there has to be enough money to go around or else they can't continue. so if they were ever in danger of going over budget they either have to cut services or raise more money via taxes. they are no different than a private provider because at the end of the day they need to be operating at a profit.

do you understand?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> right surely our highly corrupt, highly incompetent and highly untrustworthy government will do what's best for the people.
> 
> the only money keeping the system afloat would be that of the taxpayers. there has to be enough money to go around or else they can't continue. so if they were ever in danger of going over budget they either have to cut services or raise more money via taxes. they are no different than a private provider because at the end of the day they need to be operating at a profit.
> 
> do you understand?


Regulations protect the consumers, that is why the GOP loves getting rid of them

Also, all the other countries that have universal healthcare, it works for them.


----------



## Aincrad

You can fire politicians by voting them out.

You have next to no control over monopolistic corporations


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Regulations protect the consumers, that is why the GOP loves getting rid of them


wow way to totally deflect and redirect the conversation. smh. what does that have to do with anything.

govt regulation is not the same as govt control.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> wow way to totally deflect and redirect the conversation. smh. what does that have to do with anything.
> 
> govt regulation is not the same as govt control.


Love how you ignored the 2nd part of my post

Also, all the other countries that have universal healthcare, it works for them. Their govts control them. You can't even make a good argument against universal healthcare


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Love how you ignored the 2nd part of my post
> 
> Also, all the other countries that have universal healthcare, it works for them. Their govts control them. You can't even make a good argument against universal healthcare


uh... you edited the post. 

the level of care in the U.S. trumps all other countries, especially cancer treatment. like it's not even close. i can provide actual video examples of people being fucked over by the canadian healthcare system but you would just dismiss it. the wait times for urgent care are atrocious. 

can i ask why you even live in the U.S.? according to you other countries have better economies, better healthcare, less racism, less gun violence, less turmoil... may i ask what is keeping you here? are you too poor to afford a plane ticket? what gives? why willingly choose to live in such a bad place?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> uh... you edited the post.
> 
> the level of care in the U.S. trumps all other countries, especially cancer treatment. like it's not even close. i can provide actual video examples of people being fucked over by the canadian healthcare system but you would just dismiss it. the wait times for urgent care are atrocious.
> 
> can i ask why you even live in the U.S.? according to you other countries have better economies, better healthcare, less racism, less gun violence, less turmoil... may i ask what is keeping you here? are you too poor to afford a plane ticket? what gives? why willingly choose to live in such a bad place?


We have been over this. Canada wait times depend on urgency. Unlike in the US where its based on how much money you have. 

You say the level of care trumps all other countries yet you have more and more people in the US going to Canada for Mexico for some surgeries. The US ranks 27th in the world for healthcare


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> We have been over this. Canada wait times depend on urgency. *Unlike in the US where its based on how much money you have. *
> 
> You say the level of care trumps all other countries yet you have more and more people in the US going to Canada for Mexico for some surgeries. The US ranks 27th in the world for healthcare


see this is the crux of your whole argument right here, and it exposes who you are... as did the minimum wage debate we had earlier this week. you resent people with money. you don't think people with money should be entitled to things that you aren't.

i suppose if you had enough ambition to go school for 8 years and become a doctor you would just help everyone at all times. i suppose birthday massacre's office would be open to the public 24/7 and you would never prioritize patients based on how much they were paying you. free care for all, why not.


----------



## ChampWhoRunsDaCamp

Berzerker's Beard said:


> uh... you edited the post.
> 
> the level of care in the U.S. trumps all other countries, especially cancer treatment. like it's not even close. i can provide actual video examples of people being fucked over by the canadian healthcare system but you would just dismiss it. the wait times for urgent care are atrocious.
> 
> can i ask why you even live in the U.S.? according to you other countries have better economies, better healthcare, less racism, less gun violence, less turmoil... may i ask what is keeping you here? are you too poor to afford a plane ticket? what gives? why willingly choose to live in such a bad place?


America's level of care for cancer is one of the worst in the first world if you look at it how it should be looked at.

Some people praise America's health care because it's statistics for most illnesses are fantastic in comparison to other countries but those statistics only record survival rates after treatment and omit the people who can't afford to receive the treatment in the first place and are sadly condemned to a hopeless death.

You and many other American's also seem to often assume people who recognize the vast majority of your country is a shit hole can just pack up and move to another, it's not that easy. Even ignoring the difficulties of leaving behind family/friends/work/everything you know, most American's lack the skills to live in other countries. 

If you can a afford a plane ticket you can visit but good look getting a visa to stay without in demand skills!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> see this is the crux of your whole argument right here, and it exposes who you are... as did the minimum wage debate we had earlier this week. you resent people with money. you don't think people with money should be entitled to things that you aren't.
> 
> i suppose if you had enough ambition to go school for 8 years and become a doctor you would just help everyone at all times. i suppose birthday massacre's office would be open to the public 24/7 and you would never prioritize patients based on how much they were paying you. free care for all, why not.


Yes you are 100% right it exposes the type of person I am.

I think when it comes to healthcare the people that are sickest guardless fo how much money they have should get care first instead of basing it by who has more money.

You think patients sshouldn'tbe prioritized based on urgency but instead of how much money they have?

that is fucked up.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Would like to add a quick point in favor of universal healthcare. With it more people would get earlier screenings, which would catch potential health problems earlier. This would cut down on the expense of treating larger health problems down the line. 

e.g. someone goes for a colonoscopy. They find polyps and remove them. Colon cancer does't develop and doesnt need surgery/chemo/radiation, etc.

or someone goes to doctor gets routine blood work. LDL is too high so they are put on statins. Arteriosclerosis doesn't develop requiring quadruple bypass surgery.

Now insurance companies do cover these screenings/tests for their customers, but I'm talking about those that don't have health insurance that develop these problems. They still require these treatments. They can't pay so the costs are passed on to everyone else that uses these doctors/hospitals/surgeons/etc.


----------



## ChampWhoRunsDaCamp

2 Ton 21 said:


> *Would like to add a quick point in favor of universal healthcare. With it more people would get earlier screenings, which would catch potential health problems earlier. This would cut down on the expense of treating larger health problems down the line. *.


And this in a nutshell is why despite spending the highest amount per capita America undisputably has the worst health care system among first world countries in the western world.

Unfortunately having a health care system that is set up to profit from rather than prevent illness leaves very little incentive to diagnose illnesses early.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes you are 100% right it exposes the type of person I am.
> 
> I think when it comes to healthcare the people that are sickest guardless fo how much money they have should get care first instead of basing it by who has more money.
> 
> You think patients sshouldn'tbe prioritized based on urgency but instead of how much money they have?
> 
> that is fucked up.


sorry but a 400 lb waste of skin who's unemployed, lives off govt assistance, smokes, plays videogames and eats junk food all day shouldn't have priority over another individual that actually pays into the system just because he's more sick. :lol

and please as if you aren't motivated by money... 

presume BM that you're a painter and two different people want to hire you to paint their house. one person is less fortunate and can't afford to pay you anything... but the other person is willing to pay you 5,000 dollars for the same exact job. you only have time for one of them.

let's see how charitable you're feeling then.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

right if only people had early screenings...

that would stop them from smoking, drinking, over-indulging on poisonous junk food and leading a self destructive lifestyle. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> sorry but a *400 lb waste of skin who's unemployed, lives off govt assistance, smokes, plays videogames and eats junk food all day* shouldn't have priority over another individual that actually pays into the system just because he's more sick. :lol
> 
> and please as if you aren't motivated by money...
> 
> presume BM that you're a painter and two different people want to hire you to paint their house. one person is less fortunate and can't afford to pay you anything... but the other person is willing to pay you 5,000 dollars for the same exact job. you only have time for one of them.
> 
> let's see how charitable you're feeling then.


I love how you have to make up shit and goes to extremes because you can't defend your position well. 

Your painter analogy has NOTHING to do with healthcare. It's pathetic you would even try to compare the two. But again you can't defend your position so you have to talk nonsense


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you have to make up shit and goes to extremes because you can't defend your position well.
> 
> Your painter analogy has NOTHING to do with healthcare. It's pathetic you would even try to compare the two. But again you can't defend your position so you have to talk nonsense


:lol such a sweet kid


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Berzerker's Beard said:


> right if only people had early screenings...
> 
> that would stop them from smoking, drinking, over-indulging on poisonous junk food and leading a self destructive lifestyle. :lol


Not every health problem is caused by lifestyle. People avoid going to the doctor because they can't afford it.

You have this weird idea that everyone that gets sick brought it on themselves. Some did, some didn't. Either way it costs all of us the longer they go without treatment. The sicker you are, the bigger the bill that runs up, insurance or no.


----------



## skypod

People that think other people who have more money and are therefore more valuable, are morally repugnant and not worth debating. Leave them in their sci fi dystopian universe where people trample over each other and look out for themselves only.


----------



## DesolationRow

Miss Sally said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091080473294655488
> Are anti-Trumpers this petty they'd take endless war over pulling out troops because Trump wants to?
> 
> I joked about these types of people destroying the cure to cancer if Trump discovered it.. Now I'm starting to believe they'd have a Boston Tea Party of dumping vaccines into the water if Trump said vaccines were good.
> 
> I don't get it, oppose him on stuff that matters, not fucking troop withdraws that was supposed to happen years ago!


Reminds me of a joke a friend recently told me.



A terrorist mastermind kidnapped the entire U.S. Congress and went on television at nine o'clock eastern standard time, six o'clock western standard time, threatening to have his 12 henchmen pour gasoline on all of them, and have them set aflame if a five billion dollar ransom was not paid in 24 hours.

So the American people, driven by a proper spirit of unity, went around collecting donations from one another.

"How much is the average person donating?" someone asked about 12 hours after the terrorist's chilling announcement of his demands.

"About a gallon each," was the response.


----------



## deepelemblues

America needs to be spending money on getting ready for the inevitable Chinese sucker punch attempt

Not on playing games in the sand dunes


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Its also funny how in almost every case Trump does what is favorable to Russia then you cherry pick the couple of times it does not are think you have a gotcha moment. You act like an anti-climate change person here and just look at the 3% who are against it and ignore the 97%.


Another day, another example of how Trump is clearly not beholden to Putin or Russia.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/01/inf-donald-trump-confirms-us-withdrawal-nuclear-treaty 



> Donald Trump confirms US withdrawal from INF nuclear treaty
> Announcement gives Russia 180 days to destroy violating missiles and launchers to avoid new arms race.
> 
> Donald Trump has confirmed that the US is leaving the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, saying “we will move forward with developing our own military response options” to Russia’s suspect missile.
> 
> In a written statement, Trump said that the US would be suspending its compliance with the 1987 treaty on Saturday, and would serve formal notice that it would withdraw altogether in six months.
> 
> He left the door open to the treaty being salvaged in that 180-day window, but only if Russia destroys all of its violating missiles, launchers and associated equipment. Since 2013, the US has alleged that Russia has developed a new ground-launched cruise missile which violated the INF prohibition of missiles with ranges between 500km and 5,500km.
> 
> Russia for several years denied the missile existed but has more recently acknowledged its existence, saying its range does not violate INF limits.
> 
> “This is in reality, under international law, Russia’s final chance,” a senior administration official said. “If there is to be an arms race, it is Russia that has undermined the global security architecture.”
> 
> In his statement, Trump warned that unless Russia destroyed its missile by August: “We will move forward with developing our own military response options and will work with Nato and our other allies and partners to deny Russia any military advantage from its unlawful conduct.”
> 
> Washington’s European allies have been anxious that the death of the INF treaty would lead to a return to the tense days of the 1980s, and an arms race involving short- and medium-range missiles on European soil.
> 
> But a senior administration official said any new missiles were still in the research and development phase and deployment was far from imminent. He insisted that the US was only considering conventional missiles in the INF-prohibited range.
> 
> The official said that while Putin’s development of the new missile was primarily in response to new Chinese capabilities, for the US, “this has nothing to do with China”.
> 
> “For the US, this is about the threat to arms control and to European security,” the official said.
> 
> In remarks shortly before the president’s statement was released, the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said: “Countries must be held accountable when they break the rules. Russia has jeopardized the United States’ security interests, and we can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it.”
> 
> In his statement, Trump said his administration “remains committed to effective arms control that advances United States, allied, and partner security, is verifiable and enforceable, and includes partners that fulfill their obligations.”
> 
> However, neither the Trump nor Pompeo gave any indication whether the administration would agree to extend the 2010 New Start treaty, the last remaining arms control agreement constraining the arsenals of the two major nuclear weapons powers.
> 
> Both the US and Russia have abided by the New Start limit of 1,550 deployed, strategic nuclear warheads, but the treaty expires in 2021, leaving little time to negotiate a five-year extension.
> 
> Alexandra Bell, a former state department arms control official and senior policy director at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said: “New Start is working, it’s good for American national security and this administration is putting global security at risk by foot-dragging on extension.”


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Another day, another example of how Trump is clearly not beholden to Putin or Russia.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/01/inf-donald-trump-confirms-us-withdrawal-nuclear-treaty


OH look

the guy who just had sanctions lifted on him from Trump has all her evidence about Putin and Trump.



https://www.news.com.au/finance/wor...n/news-story/54ca023de45cc40b6681cac34501b631

Model turns in the key to Russia’s part in Trump’s 2016 election
Belarusian model allegedly gave information tying Russia to Donald Trump’s office win to Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska

A Belarusian model — who claims she has proof of Russian involvement in Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign — claims that she has turned the information over to a Russian billionaire.
Despite earlier reports she had destroyed the recordings, model and sex worker Anastasia Vashukevich told the Associated Press in an interview on Friday she had given records to businessman Oleg Deripaska.
The 28-year-old said she did so because it “relates to him” and she “did not want any more trouble”.



When pressed Friday by the AP about her previous claims, Vashukevich said she had emailed “everything I had” to Deripaska and dodged a question of whether she kept a copy for herself.
“Oleg (Deripaska) has it all. If he wants to make any of it public, if he thinks that it’s a good idea, he can do it himself,” she said.
Vashukevich first fuelled speculation of links between Trump and the Kremlin last year when she posted a video from a police van.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––


In the footage, she explicitly stated she had 16 hours of audio and video tying Russian officials to the Trump campaign that won him the 2016 US elections.
“I am the only witness and the missing link in the connection between Russia and the US elections — the long chain of Oleg Deripaska, Prikhodko, Manafort, and Trump,” she said in a video shot while driving through the streets.


Another of Vashukevich’s videos was used in February last year, when Russian politician Alexei Navalny published an investigation of dealings between Mr Deripaska and then Russian deputy prime minister Sergei Prikhodko.
Mr Deripaska’s representative at the time dismissed the reports as “scandalous and mendacious assumptions”. He filed and won a lawsuit against the model for breach of privacy and secured a court ruling to delete the videos of him and Mr Prikhodko from social media.
Vashukevich, who is also known as Nastya Rybka, only returned to Russia last month after spending time in a Thai prison.
After the Navalny investigation, she went to Thailand with her teacher (self-styled sex guru Alexander Kirillov). The two were conducting a sex-training seminar when they were detained.


Charged with soliciting sex, she and several others spent 11 months in a Thai jail before a new ruling gave them suspended 18-month prison terms and deported them to Russia.
In the early stages of their detention, the sex training group sent a note to the US Embassy seeking help and political asylum.
Vashukevich even offered to turn over the alleged recordings if the US could help secure her release.


In exchange for help from US intelligence services and a guarantee of my safety, I am prepared to provide the necessary information to America or to Europe or to the country which can buy me out of Thai prison,” she stated.
She later withdrew the offer, suggesting that she and Mr Deripaska had reached an agreement.
Vashukevich and Kirillov initially blamed Russia for their incarceration. They said it was an attempt to silence them and they were fearful for their lives.
In April, however, Vashukevich changed her tune and said it was the US government that was persecuting her, not Russia.
She later told reporters outside a Thai courtroom that she had promised Mr Deripaska she would not speak about the US election interference any more.


The Belarusian native who penned two books about seducing rich, powerful men explained to the AP how she changed her mind about who was to blame for her plight in Thailand.
She said she received multiple visits from Americans with FBI IDs who sought information about her claims of Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
She claims they offered her safety in the US or threatened her with a lengthy prison term if she refused to co-operate.


She credited Vladimir Pronin — Russia’s newly appointed consul in Pattaya — for securing her release from the Thai prison and her deportation in January.
Vashukevich has kept a low profile since her release, a stark contrast to the racy photos that she used to post on Instagram.


She credited Vladimir Pronin — Russia’s newly appointed consul in Pattaya — for securing her release from the Thai prison and her deportation in January.
Vashukevich has kept a low profile since her release, a stark contrast to the racy photos that she used to post on Instagram.



*"I'm the missing link in the connection between Russia and the US elections—the long chain of Deripaska, Prikhodko, Manafort, and Trump,” Rybka had said of the evidence she's now turned over to the Kremlin.
*


The Kremlin arresting her for it proves that they know it's true.

also its still funny you ignroe all of the examples about Trump being Putins bitch and just focus on the ones where you claim he is not.

Again it would be like someone denying climate change and just looking at the 3% tha claims its not real and saying SEE and ignoring the 97%.

Or it would be like you claiming some is not a good singing, and ignoring all of their great singing performances and when they have had a couple of bad performances saying SEE they are a shitty singer

So ignore the facts and evidence all you want. You are just like a climate change denier.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> OH look
> 
> the guy who just had sanctions lifted on him from Trump has all her evidence about Putin and Trump.
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/finance/wor...n/news-story/54ca023de45cc40b6681cac34501b631
> 
> also its still funny you ignroe all of the examples about Trump being Putins bitch and just focus on the ones where you claim he is not.
> 
> Again it would be like someone denying climate change and just looking at the 3% tha claims its not real and saying SEE and ignoring the 97%.
> 
> Or it would be like you claiming some is not a good singing, and ignoring all of their great singing performances and when they have had a couple of bad performances saying SEE they are a shitty singer
> 
> So ignore the facts and evidence all you want. You are just like a climate change denier.


No BM, the only person ignoring the facts here is you.

Fact - The US under Trump has been sending arms to Ukraine. Those arms are used to fight against Russian backed rebels and even actual Russian troops.

Fact - After the Novichok attack ins Salisbury, UK, Trump announced the expulsion of over 60 Russian diplomats from the US. A far larger response than any other country.

Fact - The Trump administration has supported Juan Guaido over the Russian backed president of Venezuela Nicolas Moduro. This usurpation of power is highly detrimental to the Russian regime. You can read why here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47087875

Fact - The US has just pulled out of the IBM treaty, which has been one of the most important treaties in maintaining peace and preventing an arms race with Russia for decades. This is highly significant, you shouldn't just ignore it. It is actually totally indicative of the hostile relationship the Trump and Putin administrations have had.

All you have is speculation. 'Trump pulled out of Syria because he's Putin's bitch' Evidence? because they had a secret meeting. That's not evidence. If you think it is then you're deluded.

More speculation. Trump (or more accurately the treasury) has lifted sanctions on one particular oligarch. Probably due to covering up collusion. Evidence? Some Belorussian model said so... Riiiight. 

You can believe the conspiracy theory if you want, but don't accuse me of ignoring all the facts when all you have offered is speculation, whilst you yourself ignore the :fact that Trumps foreign policy has been largely hostile to Putin and Russia.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tell yourself whatever makes you sleep at night to ignore the facts. Keep your head in the sand Its What you guys do best

Theres a whole Trump Russia thread full of evidence. You just choose to ignore it


----------



## AliFrazier100

I don't like how the media acts like everyone should hate Trump. His approval rating during a good portion of his presidency was a little over 40 percent, and his disapproval rating was usually a little over 50. He probably has more haters than fans, but it's not by a whole lot.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AliFrazier100 said:


> I don't like how the media acts like everyone should hate Trump. His approval rating during a good portion of his presidency was a little over 40 percent, and his disapproval rating was usually a little over 50. He probably has more haters than fans, but it's not by a whole lot.


 You think a 40% approval rating is good ? Trump has the record for lowest approval rating after one year as president I’m not mistaken. And yes most of the country hate him by a longshot


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Theres a whole Trump Russia thread full of evidence. You just choose to ignore it


You should link Robert Mueller to it.


----------



## deepelemblues

AliFrazier100 said:


> I don't like how the media acts like everyone should hate Trump. His approval rating during a good portion of his presidency was a little over 40 percent, and his disapproval rating was usually a little over 50. He probably has more haters than fans, but it's not by a whole lot.


The final RealClearPolitics pre-election poll average had :trump at 42.7%.

His approval rating as president for 2 years has basically averaged the same amount. 

Another monster jobs report, 304,000 new jobs instead of the 170,000 expected. The US economy is either overheating and on a path to burning itself out and soon, or :trump has waved his magic wand and things are going to keep rolling as they have been since he took office.

:trump can still lose in 2020 if the economy is still going strong then, but it becomes a very unlikely prospect. He's going to declare an emergency and send the wall to the supreme court. No one will be able to say he didn't do everything he could to tighten up immigration. He's going to fight the culture war a la outrance like he did in 2016. If the economy is still going like it has been he'll say I promised a good economy and I delivered it, this Democrat they're running is gonna mess it up.

Those 3 things got him elected in 2016, if he gets them working for him in 2020 they'll get him re-elected.



CamillePunk said:


> You should link Robert Mueller to it.


Mueller's probably threadbanned for his dismantling of Buzzfeed. They don't need that kind of talk in that thread you know.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089650383075622913
:lmao :lmao :lmao

Discussions about _Oscar nominations for Hollywood movies_ or _who won at the Grammys_ over the past half of a decade routinely become heated shouting matches over race and gender in the U.S. Yet according to Hugh Hewitt Donald Trump utilizing the mighty resources of the U.S. government to overthrow the Nicolás Maduro regime backed by his military in a country larger than Texas will "unite us." 

:lmao

It is almost like the standard-issue conservative has been alone in a _Château d'If_ cell alongside the one hosting Alexandre Dumas's Edmond Dantès since 2003 and consequently has no idea whatsoever what is actually happening. The self-delusion among conservatives is strong. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

BREAKING AP: Putin says Russia will follow US example and withdraw from nuclear pact within 6 months. 


Oh look its all apart of their plan


----------



## Dr. Middy

This thread feels like it hasn't change in two years.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> BREAKING AP: Putin says Russia will follow US example and withdraw from nuclear pact within 6 months.
> 
> 
> Oh look its all apart of their plan


Are you really that deluded or just horribly uninformed? Russia pulling out is simply tit-for-tat. They can't very well be in a treaty on their own can they.

https://news.sky.com/story/putin-blames-us-for-breaching-nuclear-arms-treaty-11625569

Yeah really sounds like an amicable agreement...


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Are you really that deluded or just horribly uninformed? Russia pulling out is simply tit-for-tat. They can't very well be in a treaty on their own can they.
> 
> https://news.sky.com/story/putin-blames-us-for-breaching-nuclear-arms-treaty-11625569
> 
> Yeah really sounds like an amicable agreement...


Putin told Trump to pull out, so he could, because Putin has wanted to for years. putin wants to make missiles. This is how he’s getting what he wants 

This came out just a few days before Trump and Putin pulled out https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2019/01/27/commentary/world-commentary/putin-and-the-apocalypse/#.XFXb82S0uJ1

The only person here uninformed is you since you keep ignoring all the Russia connections


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Putin told Trump to pull out, so he could, because Putin has wanted to for years. putin wants to make missiles. This is how he’s getting what he wants
> 
> This came out just a few days before Trump and Putin pulled out https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinio...entary/putin-and-the-apocalypse/#.XFXb82S0uJ1
> 
> The only person here uninformed is you since you keep ignoring all the Russia connections


They have been violating the agreement for years already, that's why the US pulled out. Who even cares if they did build some missiles, the US's military already spends 10x more than Russia whilst actually spending less as a percentage of gdp. If they want an arms race they would lose badly, see cold war.

Ah an opinion piece from a random Japanese news site. Sorry I wasn't 'informed' on that one. It doesn't even say anything of relevance.

You're the only person ignoring actual facts, you only seem to be able to back up your points re: Russiagate by stipulation/opinions. 

P.s - Just seen that you've negged me again, if you don't want your opinions challenged then don't post on a public forum. I think I have always been fair with you, even though we mostly disagree. If you aren't going to stop throwing your weight around and being a prick, then just put me on ignore (would be a shame as I mostly enjoy reading your posts).


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> They have been violating the agreement for years already, that's why the US pulled out. Who even cares if they did build some missiles, the US's military already spends 10x more than Russia whilst actually spending less as a percentage of gdp. If they want an arms race they would lose badly, see cold war.
> 
> Ah an opinion piece from a random Japanese news site. Sorry I wasn't 'informed' on that one. It doesn't even say anything of relevance.
> 
> You're the only person ignoring actual facts, you only seem to be able to back up your points re: Russiagate by stipulation/opinions.
> 
> P.s - Just seen that you've negged me again, if you don't want your opinions challenged then don't post on a public forum. I think I have always been fair with you, even though we mostly disagree. If you aren't going to stop throwing your weight around and being a prick, then just put me on ignore (would be a shame as I mostly enjoy reading your posts).


its not an opinion that Putin announced that Russia had completed final testing of an “invincible” new hypersonic nuclear-capable missile, the Avangard just last year. That opinion piece just shows how just a few months ago Putin was looking for an excuse to get out of the treaty. And Trump gave it to him. But of course ONCE AGAIN you ignore that. You don't find that relevant? Of course you don't because you ignore all the Trump Russia connections.

That is par for the course with you.

I have backed up my Trump Russia connections over and over again, in this thread and the Russia thread, again you just put your head in the sand and ignore it all.

Oh and look, yet another example of Trump and Russian collusion


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091783802261852160


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

2 Ton 21 said:


> Not every health problem is caused by lifestyle. People avoid going to the doctor because they can't afford it.
> 
> You have this weird idea that everyone that gets sick brought it on themselves. Some did, some didn't. Either way it costs all of us the longer they go without treatment. The sicker you are, the bigger the bill that runs up, insurance or no.


my point is that simply having access to early screenings is not going to automatically make us a healthier nation. 

the reason we have so many unhealthy people in this country is due to lifestyle, not health policy. it's not something government can fix.


----------



## Nothing Finer

There's not much question that Putin wanted Trump to win, and there may have been some collusion in the campaign to make that happen, but the idea that Putin is personally controlling Trump, that Trump's policies on a day to day level reflect Putin's wishes, seems unrealistic.

The reason Putin wanted Trump in the White House is very simple. Trump is an unpredictable, radical element like nobody we've ever seen before in such high office. That undermines the norms which form the basis for the NATO alliance and makes it less likely that any European powers make moves against Russia. They don't know if the US will back them up. The damage Trump is doing to the US's reputation is also immense, even if the next President is more conventional the world knows that in 2024 they could elect another nut, how can you rely on treaties made with the US in that context?

If Putin were directly controlling the US President with kompromat the repercussions if he were ever caught would be absolutely seismic. Trump isn't going to be President forever, the last thing Putin wants is for Trump's successor to take an extreme anti-Russia line. That's not a fight Russia wants.


----------



## ChampWhoRunsDaCamp

Nothing Finer said:


> The reason Putin wanted Trump in the White House is very simple. Trump is an unpredictable, radical element like nobody we've ever seen before in such high office. .


The truth is much simpler than that.

The reason Putin wanted Trump in office is because Donald is significantly less intelligent than any president in American history, i'd estimate his IQ is a good 35 points or so lower than the presidential average but the real issue is Donald like many people surrounded by those vastly more intelligent than themselves manage to trick themselves into thinking they're always right and therefore everyone else is always wrong.

As such he's incredibly easy for Putin/Anyone else to manipulate and goad into certain actions because he won't even allow the vastly more intelligent people around him to advise him.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> its not an opinion that Putin announced that Russia had completed final testing of an “invincible” new hypersonic nuclear-capable missile, the Avangard just last year. That opinion piece just shows how just a few months ago Putin was looking for an excuse to get out of the treaty. And Trump gave it to him. But of course ONCE AGAIN you ignore that. You don't find that relevant? Of course you don't because you ignore all the Trump Russia connections.
> 
> That is par for the course with you.
> 
> I have backed up my Trump Russia connections over and over again, in this thread and the Russia thread, again you just put your head in the sand and ignore it all.
> 
> Oh and look, yet another example of Trump and Russian collusion
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091783802261852160


Building those missiles violated the treaty, hence why the US has pulled out. Putin clearly never gave a single shit about the agreement and didn't have any need to pull out. If anything it would be more logical for Russia to want the US to stay in so they can continue violating the treaty while the US is forced to adhere to it. In a straight up arms race, Russia has no advantage whatsoever. You're logic is flawed on this point. It certainly isn't 'evidence' of Trump being controlled by Putin, you have just connected the dots because in your mind (but almost no-one else's) it makes sense.

Did you actually read the article you sent me? I'm serious. You call it 'another example of Trump and Russia collusion', but I can't believe anybody of sound mind could read the article (other than the highly misleading title) and come to that conclusion. Russia is only mentioned on two separate occasions. 



> A prominent golf journalist, James Dodson, said Mr. Trump’s son Eric had told him in 2013 that the company’s golf properties were funded by Russians. Eric Trump has denied making the comment.





> Even though the Deutsche Bank loan didn’t go through, it will most likely draw the interest of congressional Democrats.Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, has said he wants to look closely at Deutsche Bank because of its past involvement in laundering money for Russian nationals.


So how exactly is this evidence of collusion with the Russian government?
1) An unproven allegation from a random golf journalist that Eric Trump said the Trump organisation golf properties had investment from Russian businessmen. Russian people are allowed to invest in things you know? Also not all Russians are tied to the government, I'm sure you wouldn't want to be tied to this administration, so why accept such broad assumptions about Russians? This is an old story anyway I believe.

2) Here's the bombshell. So Trump (again allegedly, and according to *"anonymous sources"*) applied for a bank loan from Deutsche Bank in 2014. This was turned down because a few years earlier Trump had sued them. That's the bombshell. Wow. I guess that conclusively proves it, Trump must have colluded with Russia to steal the election from the sweet, innocent Hillary. I mean he tried to get a bank loan from a German bank, which had Russian people (Boo!) investing there money in it (unlike other banks who don't take money from people if they're Russian.) I mean yes they turned Trump down, but that makes it all the more conclusive he must still be taking investments from Russia (even though that is not proven AT ALL in the article.) 





 
Do you not see how many leaps it takes to get from that to seeing it as evidence of collusion. Please, I'm really trying with you here. The initial claims are unproven allegations. If they were proven then that might make it more interesting, but they can't even prove the initial stage. Then you have to assume that having had his loan turned down (Weird that the article even mentions the banks dealings with Russians, quite irrelevant) Trump then took money from Russians, again this is actually not proven anywhere. This conclusion is simply jumped to by that random guy on Twitter. To be fair to the article it doesn't even stretch that far, though it clearly has the intention of riling the gullible up. Then after making that assumption too, you then now have to imagine that this led to Trump having a motive for wanting to work with the Russians, since there is no obvious motive otherwise. Then you have to also assume that because he had the motive, Trump then colluded personally with the Russian disinformation and meme campaign (even though it was pitiful, literally costing a few thousand dollars in a billion dollar election) and now, despite taking several contrary positions, he is now indebted to Putin (somehow). 

It is a fantasy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The only logic that is flawed here is yours. Putin wanted Trump to pullout so Russia could pull out as well then Russia would no longer be in violation of the treaty because they were no longer in it. Putin wanted Trump to pull the US out first so he could use that as an excuse to also pull out of the treaty and not have Russia go first.

Tell me how my logic is flawed?

You don't think its a big deal that Eric Trump admitted Trumps golf properties were funded by Russians? Trump owes Russia a lot of money thus why Putin has him under his thumb.
Why also do you think Trump lied about talking to Russia about that hotel deal that would have given Putin the penthouse suit?

Eric Trump told a reporter that info, you think the reporter is lying? The Trump family denies things they say all the time even when they are on tape saying it. 

As for your bombshell, Trump couldn't get a loan from Deutsche Bank so he had to go to the Russias because no one else would loan him the moaning because Trump negs on his loans and paying people what he owes them. So that is why Putin owns him because of all the money Trump owes Russia.

It does not take any leaps at all. You just take a simple connection and try to make it more difficult than it really is.

Like I said, Trump couldn't get a bank loan, so he has to go to Russia for the money, and now Putin owns him.

That is not a very big leap at all. That is not even talking about all the money Trump laundered from his real estate deals with Russias who overpaid for his shitty properties


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> :trump can still lose in 2020 if the economy is still going strong then, but it becomes a very unlikely prospect. He's going to declare an emergency and send the wall to the supreme court. No one will be able to say he didn't do everything he could to tighten up immigration. He's going to fight the culture war a la outrance like he did in 2016. If the economy is still going like it has been he'll say I promised a good economy and I delivered it, this Democrat they're running is gonna mess it up.
> 
> Those 3 things got him elected in 2016, if he gets them working for him in 2020 they'll get him re-elected.


Hilary being Trumps opponent got him elected. Let's not sit here and pretend that his being elected had anything to do with his political promises.



birthday_massacre said:


> The only logic that is flawed here is yours. Putin wanted Trump to pullout so Russia could pull out as well then Russia would no longer be in violation of the treaty because they were no longer in it. Putin wanted Trump to pull the US out first so he could use that as an excuse to also pull out of the treaty and not have Russia go first.
> 
> Tell me how my logic is flawed?
> 
> You don't think its a big deal that Eric Trump admitted Trumps golf properties were funded by Russians? Trump owes Russia a lot of money thus why Putin has him under his thumb.
> Why also do you think Trump lied about talking to Russia about that hotel deal that would have given Putin the penthouse suit?
> 
> Eric Trump told a reporter that info, you think the reporter is lying? The Trump family denies things they say all the time even when they are on tape saying it.
> 
> As for your bombshell, Trump couldn't get a loan from Deutsche Bank so he had to go to the Russias because no one else would loan him the moaning because Trump negs on his loans and paying people what he owes them. So that is why Putin owns him because of all the money Trump owes Russia.
> 
> It does not take any leaps at all. You just take a simple connection and try to make it more difficult than it really is.
> 
> Like I said, Trump couldn't get a bank loan, so he has to go to Russia for the money, and now Putin owns him.
> 
> That is not a very big leap at all. That is not even talking about all the money Trump laundered from his real estate deals with Russias who overpaid for his shitty properties


Dude, enough with the Russian nonsense already.

Literally no one here besides you is still pushing this. The election happened two years ago. Move on. At this point, even if there was actual collusion (and let me make this perfectly clear when I say there is absolutely nothing right now that we have found out that can prove without a shadow of a doubt that collusion actually happened) it wouldn't matter because in the end, the senate still being controlled by Republicans would save Trump from being impeached because, newsflash, they don't want to prove that they themselves think that Trump is a massive fuck up and him being ousted from Presidency would be best for everyone. 

It's not that most of us don't truly believe something iffy wasn't going on in regards to Russia and Trump. Most of us just don't fucking care anymore. There's no reason to. You're like that sports fan that still says five years later in a serious matter "I told you guys the Seahawks should have ran the ball" like you're trying to make a debate out of it. Seriously man, get the fuck over it. Absolutely none of us care. It's why we are here and not in the Russian thread discussing it. Leave that shit out of here and come up with something more constructive to talk about. You know, something that actually adds to the discussion going on here rather than be just another post that 90% of us want to skip over. 

Can you do that? Please? That'd be great.


----------



## birthday_massacre

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Hilary being Trumps opponent got him elected. Let's not sit here and pretend that his being elected had anything to do with his political promises.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, enough with the Russian nonsense already.
> 
> Literally no one here besides you is still pushing this. The election happened two years ago. Move on. At this point, even if there was actual collusion (and let me make this perfectly clear when I say there is absolutely nothing right now that we have found out that can prove without a shadow of a doubt that collusion actually happened) it wouldn't matter because in the end, the senate still being controlled by Republicans would save Trump from being impeached because, newsflash, they don't want to prove that they themselves think that Trump is a massive fuck up and him being ousted from Presidency would be best for everyone.
> 
> It's not that most of us don't truly believe something iffy wasn't going on in regards to Russia and Trump. Most of us just don't fucking care anymore. There's no reason to. You're like that sports fan that still says five years later in a serious matter "I told you guys the Seahawks should have ran the ball" like you're trying to make a debate out of it. Seriously man, get the fuck over it. Absolutely none of us care. It's why we are here and not in the Russian thread discussing it. Leave that shit out of here and come up with something more constructive to talk about. You know, something that actually adds to the discussion going on here rather than be just another post that 90% of us want to skip over.
> 
> Can you do that? Please? That'd be great.


It's not a conspiracy .


Yeah its such a conspiracy all these people connected to Trump have gone down 

1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.

2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them).

3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.

Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated, but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government.


So no, I wont stop giving the facts of the matter.

If you want to put in your head in the sand don't post in this thread or put me on ignore.

You are like those crazy religious people that don't want to hear about evolution and cry stop talking about evolution.

I love how you think you can dictate what people post on these forums. Its just funny how you don't say anything to the Trump trolls who just shit post in this thread. 

Thanks


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump is a fucking wizard

Don't @ me there is no other explanation for the complete transformation of the mainstream left into the most pro-war faction in the country 

Plus:






https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...-10-times-obamas-over-21-months/#731b6aeb5850

Might as well give up now there's no way a fucking wizard is being beaten in 2020


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> :trump is a fucking wizard
> 
> Don't @ me there is no other explanation for the complete transformation of the mainstream left into the most pro-war faction in the country
> 
> Might as well give up now there's no way a fucking wizard is being beaten in 2020



Your shit posting is so embarrassing


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> Your shit posting is so embarrassing


I lobbed you such a softball to say something angry and childish about :trump _the White_ and this is what you do with it.

fpalm


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you think you can dictate what people post on these forums. Its just funny how you don't say anything to the Trump trolls who just shit post in this thread.
> 
> Thanks


Not gonna read your post. Quite frankly I have no reason to. But I will respond to this part because I find this especially funny.

90% of what I have posted in these Trump threads have been nothing but me responding to Trump trolls. Hell you've repped me multiple times for posts made towards Trump trolls. 

This is why people don't take you seriously.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Your shit posting is so embarrassing


People don't forget



birthday_massacre said:


> If he does not get impeached or resign by the end of his first term I wont post in the Trump thread again for his second term. MRMR can just ban me from the thread





birthday_massacre said:


> Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year.





birthday_massacre said:


> Trump will be impeached or will be forced to resign by 2020, he will be lucky to even make it to the end of this year


----------



## birthday_massacre

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Not gonna read your post. Quite frankly I have no reason to. But I will respond to this part because I find this especially funny.
> 
> 90% of what I have posted in these Trump threads have been nothing but me responding to Trump trolls. Hell you've repped me multiple times for posts made towards Trump trolls.
> 
> This is why people don't take you seriously.


Of course you won’t read my post because you are ignoring all the evidence.




Stinger Fan said:


> People don't forget


If Trumps still President after 2020, trust me I wont be posting in the Trump thread.


----------



## Dr. Middy

birthday_massacre said:


> You are like those crazy religious people that don't want to hear about evolution and cry stop talking about evolution.


Ugh.

You're like a step away from calling people who disagree with you the equivalent of antivaxxers or something.


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course you won’t read my post because you are ignoring all the evidence.


I'm not ignoring anything. There's nothing to ignore here because that's not the point of my post. I'm saying there's no point in constantly complaining about it, because at the end of the day, nothing is going to happen. Trump won't get impeached for it, so what's the point of constantly talking about it? No one here gives a shit. You keep trying to bring back a dying relic that we have all moved on from because there's more important things happening right now. 

And I'm surprised you continue to focus on that. We are witnessing a man continue to demonstrate why he is, at the very least, one of the worst Presidents to ever grace this country. He's actually making James Buchanan being the worst President of all time become an argument, and this was the man whose actions allowed the American Civil War to happen. 

My point is, we have all moved on. It's time for you to do the same.


----------



## Reaper

:sodone


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> :sodone


Its sad that MSM has gotten so bad that they actually would do that


----------



## birthday_massacre

So Trump spends 60% of his time watching TV or screwing around. FFS


https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-...ime-34e67fbb-3af6-48df-aefb-52e02c334255.html

Scoop: Insider leaks Trump's "Executive Time"-filled private schedules











A White House source has leaked nearly every day of President Trump's private schedule for the past three months.

Why it matters: This unusually voluminous leak gives us unprecedented visibility into how this president spends his days. The schedules, which cover nearly every working day since the midterms, show that Trump has spent around 60% of his scheduled time over the past 3 months in unstructured "Executive Time."

Show less
We've published every page of the leaked schedules in a piece that accompanies this item. To protect our source, we retyped the schedules in the same format that West Wing staff receives them.
What the schedules show: Trump, an early riser, usually spends the first 5 hours of the day in Executive Time. Each day's schedule places Trump in "Location: Oval Office" from 8 to 11 a.m.

But Trump, who often wakes before 6 a.m., is never in the Oval during those hours, according to six sources with direct knowledge.
Instead, he spends his mornings in the residence, watching TV, reading the papers, and responding to what he sees and reads by phoning aides, members of Congress, friends, administration officials and informal advisers.

Data: Based on White House schedules obtained by Axios. Get the data; Chart: Lazaro Gamio/Axios
Trump's first meeting of the day — usually around 11 or 11:30 a.m. — is often an intelligence briefing or a 30-minute meeting with the chief of staff.

Since Nov. 7, the day after the midterm elections, Trump has spent around 297 hours in Executive Time, according to the 51 private schedules we've obtained.
For those same schedules, Trump has had about 77 hours scheduled for meetings that include policy planning, legislative strategy and video recordings.
Some days, Executive Time totally predominates. For instance, he had 1 hour of scheduled meetings on Jan. 18 (with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin) and 7 hours of Executive Time.

The day after the midterms, Trump's schedule had 30 minutes for a chief of staff meeting and more than 7 hours for Executive Time.
Former chief of staff John Kelly introduced the concept of Executive Time because the president hated being locked into a regular schedule.
"He's always calling people, talking to people," a senior White House official told us. "He's always up to something; it's just not what you would consider typical structure."

Data: Based on White House schedules obtained by Axios. Get the data; Note: Only events between 8am and 5pm are shown. Chart: Lazaro Gamio/Axios
Between the lines: The private schedules we published below do not list all Trump's meetings over the past three months.

That's because many of his meetings are spur of the moment, according to senior White House officials with direct knowledge of his daily habits.
It's also because a more detailed schedule — kept within a very small, tight circle — typically has 1 or 2 extra meetings per day that aren't listed on private schedules sent to staff.
The president sometimes has meetings during Executive Time that he doesn't want most West Wing staff to know about for fear of leaks. And his mornings sometimes include calls with heads of state, political meetings and meetings with counsel in the residence, which aren't captured on these schedules.

For example, the private schedule we obtained said Trump had a "media engagement" at 4:30 p.m. this past Wednesday. The more detailed schedule revealed it was an interview with the right-wing Daily Caller, according to a source with direct knowledge.
Wednesday's more detailed schedule also listed Trump's meeting with former presidential candidate and former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain, whom he is considering for a Federal Reserve governorship, per Bloomberg. (The private schedule obscured that meeting with Executive Time.)
The longer view: Chris Whipple, a student of presidential schedules who wrote the book 'The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency," told us that "there's almost no [historical] parallel" for how this president spends his days.

"The most important asset in any presidency is the president's time," Whipple said. "And Trump is a guy who gives new meaning to the notion of an unstructured presidency."
Responding to Axios' reporting, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders emailed this statement: "President Trump has a different leadership style than his predecessors and the results speak for themselves."

"While he spends much of his average day in scheduled meetings, events, and calls, there is time to allow for a more creative environment that has helped make him the most productive President in modern history."
"President Trump has ignited a booming economy with lower taxes and higher wages, established the USA as the #1 producer of oil and gas in the world, remade our judiciary, rebuilt our military, and renegotiated better trade deals. It’s indisputable that our country has never been stronger than it is today under the leadership of President Trump."


----------



## deepelemblues

Can they wheel out Ginsburg's corpse for a few minutes so I don't have to see "Ruth Bader Ginsburg not seen in public in __ days" memes all over the internets anymore?

Also :trump apparently spends all morning informing himself on the news and issues of the day and discussing them with aides and congressmembers etc. He is constantly discussing and consulting with a wide range of individuals throughout the day

What a horrible thing for a president to do :eyeroll

BM every time you try to trash :trump you make him look better

Might be time for a new approach


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Can they wheel out Ginsburg's corpse for a few minutes so I don't have to see "Ruth Bader Ginsburg not seen in public in __ days" memes all over the internets anymore?
> 
> Also :trump apparently spends all morning informing himself on the news and issues of the day and discussing them with aides and congressmembers etc.
> 
> What a horrible thing for the president to do :eyeroll
> 
> BM every time you try to trash :trump you make him look better
> 
> Might be time for a new approach


LOL at thinking Trump can't read a newspaper when he can't even read a one page intel report.

Also watching propaganda fox news is not informing yourself.

Lastly, it doesn't take anyone 60% of their time to inform themselves by reading a newspaper or watching the news. That should take an hour out of your day max, not 60% of your time. Especially when you are president.


Only you think this would make him look good.


----------



## deepelemblues

You posted a link that paints a very flattering picture of the president's work ethic and daily routine as if it were some major damning indictment of him. :trump spends all day consuming information about what's going on and what people are saying about what's going on, and in consultation with many different people on many different issues. :trump initiates these consultations himself most of the time, people don't have to come to him to have a conversation about Issue X, Y, or Z. According to the link you yourself posted

Come on man 

Did :trump _the White_ cast a spell on you?


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> You posted a link that paints a very flattering picture of the president's work ethic and daily routine as if it were some major damning indictment of him. :trump spends all day informing himself about what's going on and what people are saying about what's going on, and in consultation with many different people. According to the link you yourself posted
> 
> Come on man
> 
> Did :trump _the White_ cast a spell on you?


He spends 60% of his work time not doing his job. You think that is flattering? Anyone else gets fired for that

And LOL at Trump spends all time informing himself yet whenever he speaks, you see how stupid and clueless he is about everything.

FFS Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax and he does not even know the difference between weather and climate


----------



## deepelemblues

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/29/17-16107.pdf

Gubbmint don't need no stinkin reason to put you on a list of 'suspicious persons'

Ninth Circuit of course

Supreme Court will overturn... probably. If not, the toilet where they dump what made America America gets flushed again


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> my point is that simply having access to early screenings is not going to automatically make us a healthier nation.
> 
> the reason we have so many unhealthy people in this country is due to lifestyle, not health policy. it's not something government can fix.


It could do though for exactly the reasons that were outlined before. If people who have early symptoms of something potentially very serious could uncover that early due to UH, then they could take smaller steps to prevent the very worst outcome that will be more dire and more costly.

You can then change the culture then from people who do not seek medical help due to not being able to handle the cost, to being able to and uncover potential conditions that could be prevented turning in to even unhealthier things.

An example might be getting a screening for skin cancers, checking big moles for it etc. If they catch a potential bad looking mole they can remove it or some other early treatment. If not and it festers in to skin cancer well obviously the situation and the cost goes to shit.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> It could do though for exactly the reasons that were outlined before. If people who have early symptoms of something potentially very serious could uncover that early due to UH, then they could take smaller steps to prevent the very worst outcome that will be more dire and more costly.
> 
> You can then change the culture then from people who do not seek medical help due to not being able to handle the cost, to being able to and uncover potential conditions that could be prevented turning in to even unhealthier things.
> 
> An example might be getting a screening for skin cancers, checking big moles for it etc. If they catch a potential bad looking mole they can remove it or some other early treatment. If not and it festers in to skin cancer well obviously the situation and the cost goes to shit.


yes of course there would be benefits to having access to early screenings, but that's not what's going to drive up the cost of universal care. 

roughly 40% of the country is obese and consumes an overabundance of unhealthy junk food. about 40 million smoke cigarettes. almost 4 out of 5 people don't exercise. 

govt cannot change culture, that is changed from within. the *people* create and change culture. the communities, the parents and the role model figures.


----------



## deepelemblues

50 years ago the government and doctors got together and launched a massive propaganda campaign saying fat and salt are THE DEVIL. Eat all the carbs and sugar you want, they're fine. Everyone from small children to old farts was indoctrinated about it. 

It worked, people listened, the culture was changed... except the results were everyone is obese, everyone has diabetes, everyone has no energy now. 

Turns out that fat is great and salt is fine as long as you aren't eating a whole shaker's worth of it every meal, and carbs and sugar are actually THE DEVIL.

The government and doctors could do another indoctrination campaign and reverse the damage of the first one, it would take a couple decades but it could be done.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> yes of course there would be benefits to having access to early screenings, but that's not what's going to drive up the cost of universal care.
> 
> roughly 40% of the country is obese and consumes an overabundance of unhealthy junk food. about 40 million smoke cigarettes. almost 4 out of 5 people don't exercise.
> 
> govt cannot change culture, that is changed from within. the *people* create and change culture. the communities, the parents and the role model figures.


Okay. Yes people have terrible habits which affect their health negatively no doubt. But why? 

Take the obesity issue. We live in a world where we're bombarded with junk food advertising, which is simply cheaper than healthier food. Video games and TV and smart phones for example have taken over running around and playing sport for kids. Etc Etc. These things have an effect that is extremely strong.

If the government were to focus more on healthcare in conjunction with universal healthcare. More awareness programs in schools; government programs for school lunches for example; more regulation perhaps on junk food advertising and pricing - those things can change a culture because they change the model on how that stuff works in society. That *can *change community. People need societal cues (along with community, family guidance) in order to change. It's all part of the same pie.

For people with a glass half empty view you can say that won't make a difference, but you don't know if you don't try.

You can also say fuck changing anything for unhealthy smokers etc, they should take responsibility for themselves - but that just can't happen with a click of the fingers. If you spend your time deal with 'should' you're not dealing in reality, you're dealing with an often unrealistic idea based on your own standards.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> Okay. Yes people have terrible habits which affect their health negatively no doubt. But why?
> 
> *Take the obesity issue. We live in a world where we're bombarded with junk food advertising, which is simply cheaper than healthier food*. Video games and TV and smart phones for example have taken over running around and playing sport for kids. Etc Etc. These things have an effect that is extremely strong.
> 
> If the government were to focus more on healthcare in conjunction with universal healthcare. More awareness programs in schools; government programs for school lunches for example; more regulation perhaps on junk food advertising and pricing - those things can change a culture because they change the model on how that stuff works in society. That *can *change community. People need societal cues (along with community, family guidance) in order to change. It's all part of the same pie.
> 
> For people with a glass half empty view you can say that won't make a difference, but you don't know if you don't try.
> 
> You can also say fuck changing anything for unhealthy smokers etc, they should take responsibility for themselves - but that just can't happen with a click of the fingers. If you spend your time deal with 'should' you're not dealing in reality, you're dealing with an often unrealistic idea based on your own standards.


this is 100% false. veggies, produce and healthy snacks like nuts and raisins are not expensive in the slightest. wtf? 

people choose to be lazy and people choose to do things that are bad for them. there is absolutely *nothing* stopping anyone from living a healthy lifestyle.


----------



## deepelemblues

Berzerker's Beard said:


> this is 100% false. veggies, produce and healthy snacks like nuts and raisins are not expensive in the slightest. wtf?
> 
> people choose to be lazy and people choose to do things that are bad for them. there is absolutely *nothing* stopping anyone from living a healthy lifestyle.


yeah really 

maybe in big cities on the coasts or something hipster organic overpriced free-range grass fed nonsense is all they got in the whole foods or trader joe's or whatever

you can get all that shit but ALSO get cheap vegetables and fruit and nuts and meats in local or regional chains out here in flyover country and they're good quality


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

deepelemblues said:


> yeah really
> 
> maybe in big cities on the coasts or something hipster organic overpriced free-range grass fed nonsense is all they got in the whole foods or trader joe's or whatever
> 
> you can get all that shit but ALSO get cheap vegetables and fruit and nuts and meats in local or regional chains out here in flyover country and they're good quality


i could buy like 8 apples or 8 oranges right now for like 2 bucks.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> this is 100% false. veggies, produce and healthy snacks like nuts and raisins are not expensive in the slightest. wtf?
> 
> people choose to be lazy and people choose to do things that are bad for them. there is absolutely *nothing* stopping anyone from living a healthy lifestyle.


You can't tell me it's less expensive to buy dinner at McDonalds for your family than it is to either go out and have a dinner with plenty of veggies etc, or buy those healthy things and go and make a healthy dinner with time you don't have. You're on a different planet if you think junk food across the board is easier and cheaper to get than healthy options. The point stands.

Secondly, do you not get that there are more complex reasons behind people's behavior than just 'people choose to be lazy'? People simply *choosing *to be lazy/bad/weak willed is far too simplistic and ironically lazy thinking.

Ask yourself why people make choices that are bad for them. We all do it, every single one of us. If you don't think you do then one day you're in for a shock. But again, why is that? It's not as simple as 'they just choose to' - we are products of our environment, that's entry level psychology.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> You can't tell me it's less expensive to buy dinner at McDonalds for your family than it is to either go out and have a dinner with plenty of veggies etc, or buy those healthy things and go and make a healthy dinner with time you don't have. You're on a different planet if you think junk food across the board is easier and cheaper to get than healthy options. The point stands.
> 
> *Secondly, do you not get that there are more complex reasons behind people's behavior than just 'people choose to be lazy'? People simply choosing to be lazy/bad/weak willed is far too simplistic and ironically lazy thinking.*
> 
> Ask yourself why people make choices that are bad for them. We all do it, every single one of us. If you don't think you do then one day you're in for a shock. But again, why is that? It's not as simple as 'they just choose to' - we are products of our environment, that's entry level psychology.


these are things a lazy and weak willed person would say. your poor habits and your poor choices are your own problem, no one else's.

if you can't control yourself go see a therapist.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> these are things a lazy and weak willed person would say. your poor habits and your poor choices are your own problem, no one else's.
> 
> if you can't control yourself go see a therapist.


I'll take your lack of ability to address my points as a concession. :vince3

But seriously we're obviously from different planets so to speak so lets just not derail this any further - I can barely remember what the original point was.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> this is 100% false. veggies, produce and healthy snacks like nuts and raisins are not expensive in the slightest. wtf?
> 
> people choose to be lazy and people choose to do things that are bad for them. there is absolutely *nothing* stopping anyone from living a healthy lifestyle.


Since when is eating an apple or nuts a meal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump showing how incompetent he is once again


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> I'll take your lack of ability to address my points as a concession. :vince3
> 
> But seriously we're obviously from different planets so to speak so lets just not derail this any further - I can barely remember what the original point was.


you aren't making any points at all. you want to excuse people for making bad choices. you take issue with me calling them weak even though that's exactly what they are.

i have zero sympathy for someone that eats themselves to death. apparently you do. that's the difference between us.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Since when is eating an apple or nuts a meal.


look i know 25 dollars is a lot of money to you but for that amount you can do a lot of damage in the supermarket.

you can get raw chicken / ground beef for like $3-$4 per lb. veggies and fruit cost next to nothing. you can buy a loaf of whole grain bread for $3. you can buy cans of tuna for a dollar. 

no excuse not to eat healthy. eating poor is a choice.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> look i know 25 dollars is a lot of money to you but for that amount you can do a lot of damage in the supermarket.
> 
> you can get raw chicken / ground beef for like $3-$4 per lb. veggies and fruit cost next to nothing. you can buy a loaf of whole grain bread for $3. you can buy cans of tuna for a dollar.
> 
> no excuse not to eat healthy. eating poor is a choice.


 $25 can get you 25 hamburgers off the dollar menu. That could feed a family of four for six days

Eating poor it’s not a choice lol. YounHave no sense of reality do you


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> $25 can get you 25 hamburgers off the dollar menu. That could feed a family of four for six days
> 
> Eating poor it’s not a choice lol. YounHave no sense of reality do you













please do us all favor and don't have any children :lol


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> $25 can get you 25 hamburgers off the dollar menu. That could feed a family of four for six days
> 
> Eating poor it’s not a choice lol. YounHave no sense of reality do you


If a person is that poor, they would more than likely be in the SNAP program, since that is what would be the means to feed them.

With that money they can go to a grocery store, that has family packs of chicken drumsticks for sometimes less than $1 a pound.

5 pounds of chicken drumsticks can feed a family of four for about a week, maybe even longer.

Then add onto that you can get vegetables for about $2-3 dollars.

you can make a week's worth of meals for a family of 4 going to the grocery store for about $20

Even your hamburger analogy is flawed, considering you can get 10 pounds of ground beef, and know what you are eating and without the process in it for around $10-$12.

10 pounds would make 25 quarter pound hamburgers.

Have you ever had to feed a family of four.

I feed a family of 5, and average meal using groceries is about $9.00


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm of the opinion that eating shit food is a lifestyle choice but with elements of a lack of food education mixed in. Theres no reason why a family can't afford to feed themselves on meals that cost £3-5, I've done it when I was a student. 

Snack foods are different.


----------



## Strike Force

This is a small point but worth remembering: most people are really shitty cooks. 

Putting aside the cost of the raw materials, many people simply don't have the skill in the kitchen to make the food _taste_ as good as the crap they like at fast food restaurants.

That's not an excuse, of course, but it's a contributing factor.

I'm a fantastic cook (mostly Northern African and Thai lately) so I don't have to eat fast food ever, but I can see how people would succumb to the temptation of McDonald's if they know they can't prepare something tasty on their own.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> If a person is that poor, they would more than likely be in the SNAP program, since that is what would be the means to feed them.
> 
> With that money they can go to a grocery store, that has family packs of chicken drumsticks for sometimes less than $1 a pound.
> 
> 5 pounds of chicken drumsticks can feed a family of four for about a week, maybe even longer.
> 
> Then add onto that you can get vegetables for about $2-3 dollars.
> 
> you can make a week's worth of meals for a family of 4 going to the grocery store for about $20
> 
> Even your hamburger analogy is flawed, considering you can get 10 pounds of ground beef, and know what you are eating and without the process in it for around $10-$12.
> 
> 10 pounds would make 25 quarter pound hamburgers.
> 
> Have you ever had to feed a family of four.
> 
> I feed a family of 5, and average meal using groceries is about $9.00


Must be nice living in your fantasy world


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Must be nice living in your fantasy world


I enjoy it. Gets really fun.

On Fridays We make S'mores.

You are invited to come, but you have to pay for your own stick, capitalism still rules!


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> I'm of the opinion that eating shit food is a lifestyle choice but with elements of a lack of food education mixed in. Theres no reason why a family can't afford to feed themselves on meals that cost £3-5, I've done it when I was a student.
> 
> Snack foods are different.


*hint* *nudge nudge* class structures *cough* *cough*

I know I argued against that a while ago, but i was never completely sure about it. 

When you combine the fact that poverty and lack of education are deeply intertwined, you can see why the poverty stricken make poor choices. 

This gets exacerbated the more certain classes are excluded from good schools, good neighborhoods etc. This in the States also has yet another racialized component to it. And we're seeing the interplay between class and race structures within much of western europe as well now. 

It's all linked to how class based segregation has evolved in western societies and will continue to evolve without a massive cultural shift and mindsets.

FWIW, my daily meals cost around $2-3 per person per meal myself and that includes beef and veggies. My skills however were gained through being born in a family of educated individuals who already knew how to live frugally through their own life experiences and of course, I went to good schools and have a wealth of life experience to draw from.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> *hint* *nudge nudge* class structures *cough* *cough*
> 
> 
> FWIW, my daily meals cost around $2-3 per person per meal myself and that includes beef and veggies. My skills however were gained through being born in a family of educated individuals who already knew how to live frugally through their own life experiences and of course, I went to good schools and have a wealth of life experience to draw from.


Yes, and possibly the word choice is a misnomer because the choice is often removed due to a lack of education or even availability of education. Its multifaceted but I don't believe its because junk food is cheaper than healthy food, because it really doesn't have to be.

Its definitely an issue of class as well.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> *hint* *nudge nudge* class structures *cough* *cough*
> 
> I know I argued against that a while ago, but i was never completely sure about it.
> 
> When you combine the fact that poverty and lack of education are deeply intertwined, you can see why the poverty stricken make poor choices.
> 
> This gets exacerbated the more certain classes are excluded from good schools, good neighborhoods etc. This in the States also has yet another racialized component to it. And we're seeing the interplay between class and race structures within much of western europe as well now.
> 
> It's all linked to how class based segregation has evolved in western societies and will continue to evolve without a massive cultural shift and mindsets.
> 
> FWIW, my daily meals cost around $2-3 per person per meal myself and that includes beef and veggies. My skills however were gained through being born in a family of educated individuals who already knew how to live frugally through their own life experiences and of course, I went to good schools and have a wealth of life experience to draw from.


Think one can also throw in the brain's pleasure center. Bad food releases endorphins. The same way that tobacco, alcohol, drugs, casual sex, etc. do. Poor people have fewer and unhealthier ways to jump start that pleasure center. People want to feel good. Biology gets in the way of logic even for the smartest and most successful so what do you think is going to happen to someone that isn't?.

Plus, they're more likely to be depressed and feel they'll never get out of their economic circumstances. Of course they're going to grab a burger and fries or a bottle of whiskey or a pack of smokes, because it's a temporary pleasure. It's not healthy or logical. 

Could also bring up that poor communities were and still are more likely to have lead in the water, leading to destruction of the impulse control in the brain and the part o the brain that makes good choices.

There's this idea that these people should just make better choices and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The problem with that is for some of them there is no one to show them how. They're expected to just become better people out of sheer will. Not saying they can't, but we're talking about someone with damn strong ambition. Despair is rampant in poor communities and just telling them "hey lazy, your not trying hard enough, stupid" really isn't going to motivate them to make positive changes. Just makes them feel lesser and angrier. Their families have been poor for generations and they feel like it's almost genetic. That this is just their lot in life. Also, there are those in their families/community that are jealous and try to bring them back down to their level. Downplay their success, deride them for it. Crabs in a bucket.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> Yes, and possibly the word choice is a misnomer because the choice is often removed due to a lack of education or even availability of education. Its multifaceted but I don't believe its because junk food is cheaper than healthy food, because it really doesn't have to be.
> 
> Its definitely an issue of class as well.


There are people here in the States who genuinely do NOT know how to budget and there is no one to teach them. (2 Ton 21 raised this point with a much better explanation than I did). 

A lot of the people who *leave* / *escape* the poor areas and eventually join the middle/upper class still do so with an attitude of "fuck the poor bastards" when they leave because this attitude that "people are poor by choice" is pervasive all along the corporate ladder. "If I did it, so should _everyone_ else". Well, yeah, if everyone could, they most definitely would. It doesn't mean that they aren't _deserving_ of empathy and support.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> There are people here in the States who genuinely do NOT know how to budget and there is no one to teach them. (2 Ton 21 raised this point with a much better explanation than I did).
> 
> A lot of the people who *leave* / *escape* the poor areas and eventually join the middle/upper class still do so with an attitude of "fuck the poor bastards" when they leave because this attitude that "people are poor by choice" is pervasive all along the corporate ladder.


Part of that feeling comes from the fear of those very circumstances. It's reassuring to them. "I could never be poor because I work hard and I'm smart". "I could never have a massive heart attack or get cancer because I eat right and go to the gym." "My kids could never get addicted to drugs/alcohol or get pregnant at 15 because I made them smart." "Bad things happen to those people because they're dumb and lazy." "I'm not so I'll be fine."

It's like when someone hears someone died of lung cancer and they asked if the person smoked. They want to know they did because then they're reassured. They don't smoke so it won't happen to them. But if the dead person didn't smoke then it could just happen to anyone. That's scary.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> It's like when someone hears someone died of lung cancer and they asked if the person smoked. They want to know they did because then they're reassured. They don't smoke so it won't happen to them. But if the dead person didn't smoke then it could just happen to anyone. That's scary.


Yeup. Fear. And also a lot of projection as well. 

"I did it therefore _everyone_ can do it". "I achieved something by doing X, Y, Z therefore _everyone _will always succeed the same way if they also do X, Y, Z" but there is a significant amount of evidence that counters this bullshit as well. 

It's kinda weird because _if _people were aware of the randomness of outcomes sometimes they would realize that a lot of what they think is in their control actually isn't at all. But they think that there is a certain order in everything and that everything must make linear sense. Everyone following a single path simply cannot get lost but the false belief here is that there is one path and that following that path will always lead everyone to the same place. If only it were that simple. Sameness is not sameness at all. It's similar with enough variation to have different outcomes for seemingly similar but different people.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> Yeup. Fear. And also a lot of projection as well.
> 
> "I did it therefore _everyone_ can do it". "I achieved something by doing X, Y, Z therefore _everyone _will always succeed the same way if they also do X, Y, Z" but there is a significant amount of evidence that counters this bullshit as well.
> 
> It's kinda weird because _if _people were aware of the randomness of outcomes sometimes they would realize that a lot of what they think is in their control actually isn't at all. But they think that there is a certain order in everything and that everything must make linear sense. Everyone following a single path simply cannot get lost but the false belief here is that there is one path and that following that path will always lead everyone to the same place.


It's true. Sometimes things can come down to just the time you make the right choice instead of just making it. Like you pitch your boss an idea on a Tuesday and he loves it. You get a promotion.

Now say you were late getting back from lunch because of a car accident blocking traffic. He left the office early. So you pitch it Wednesday. Boss is distracted because they had an argument with their spouse before work. You don't know that and pitch it. Boss only pays half attention. You don't wow him. No promotion.

Life is decided by milliseconds all the time. That's frightening. So, we try not to think about it.

EDIT: Also, there's the times where a bad choice led to a good outcome. You do something stupid and fail, but because you failed you're in a position to benefit from some other thing you never even considered. Made the logically wrong choice, but still won out for some reason.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Reaper said:


> Yeup. Fear. And also a lot of projection as well.
> 
> "I did it therefore _everyone_ can do it". "I achieved something by doing X, Y, Z therefore _everyone _will always succeed the same way if they also do X, Y, Z" but there is a significant amount of evidence that counters this bullshit as well.
> 
> It's kinda weird because _if _people were aware of the randomness of outcomes sometimes they would realize that a lot of what they think is in their control actually isn't at all. But they think that there is a certain order in everything and that everything must make linear sense. Everyone following a single path simply cannot get lost but the false belief here is that there is one path and that following that path will always lead everyone to the same place. If only it were that simple. Sameness is not sameness at all. It's similar with enough variation to have different outcomes for seemingly similar but different people.


Strange.

i came from a lower end beginning. Household of the poor, poverty stricken, welfare, food stamps, lying on the floor for New Years eve.. and the randomness of that it could be me is what made me more focused.

Anecdotal examples aside, no one believes that everyone can do what they did, in fact, the opposite should be true, yo wont succeed mimicking someone, because happiness, and success is relative. 

I feel like there is a deeper point you are making, but I can't find it.


----------



## Reaper

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Anecdotal examples aside, no one believes that everyone can do what they did, in fact, the opposite should be true, yo wont succeed mimicking someone, because happiness, and success is relative.
> 
> *I feel like there is a deeper point you are making, *but I can't find it.


Clearly. Not to put you down or anything. The point is simple: You can do whatever you think will bring you financial success and still not be financially successful. Simply putting it, hard work does not equal success. I expanded that to include that 2 people can do everything exactly the same and due to slight differences and variations still not achieve the same outcome. 

It's a myth. it's one of those correlations our minds are driven to make because we have programmed ourselves to associate the two, but correlation =/= causation. 

As long as you don't believe that everyone can succeed and pull themselves out without support and help, then what I'm saying obviously doesn't apply to you. 

I don't mind anecdotals because I've seen a lot of them in my life and frequently use them to talk about my observations. I find the objection to anecdotals entirely arbitrary.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Reaper said:


> Clearly. Not to put you down or anything. The point is simple: You can do whatever you think will bring you financial success and still not be financially successful. Simply putting it, hard work does not equal success. I expanded that to include that 2 people can do everything exactly the same and due to slight differences and variations still not achieve the same outcome.


Ok, I knew I was missing it. If I were offended I wouldn't ask.

And absolutely, this is true 2 ton says it best, you can literally be a millisecond away from your life changing, and never know it. 

There will always be other factors in play, there is a whole complete sub-plot by the way, of how failing shouldn't equal quitting, which is embedded into poverty stricken communities, that is another discussion for another day



> It's a myth. it's one of those correlations our minds are driven to make because we have programmed ourselves to associate the two, but correlation =/= causation.


I think people only work as hard as they want to, everyone wants to have maximum success for minimum work.

i also believe people get too over hyped with this, Elon Musk talks about working 100 hour weeks, well, what if you want to just be a botanist, or a paralegal, you shouldn't have to kill yourself to feel successful, but people latch on to that idea, extremism at its best



> As long as you don't believe that everyone can succeed and pull themselves out without support and help, then what I'm saying obviously doesn't apply to you.


I don't think anyone believes that (at least i hope not)

We all need help one way or the other, the issue turns into sometimes the help you get is not the best for you.

We all have toxic family members, and people around us who make things worse.... the idea anyone does anything alone, is foolhardy 



> I don't mind anecdotals because I've seen a lot of them in my life and frequently use them to talk about my observations. I find the objection to anecdotals entirely arbitrary.


Some of us only have anecdotes to live by


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> There are people here in the States who genuinely do NOT know how to budget and there is no one to teach them.


that's a problem with the household, not with govt

govt isn't supposed to be mommy and daddy.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> that's a problem with the household, not with govt
> 
> govt isn't supposed to be mommy and daddy.


The government should put in things like this at school, there's no reason why I should leave school knowing trigonometry or that a flowers male reproductive organ is called a stamen but not know how to work out tax and finances.

This is another classic example of expecting poorly educated people to suddenly rise up above their education and teach their kids how to manage finances well. 

Frankly its the responsibility of the govt to make sure people leave school knowing how to capatalise the start of a sentence, but that's probably me nitpicking.


----------



## CamillePunk

Yep, government schools are pretty terrible. Perhaps John Oliver shouldn't be shitting on charter schools and school voucher programs on his propaganda show then. :hmmm


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Yep, government schools are pretty terrible. Perhaps John Oliver shouldn't be shitting on charter schools and school voucher programs on his propaganda show then. :hmmm


John Olivers points about charter schools are spot on.

what is wrong with what he says about them


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Draykorinee said:


> The government should put in things like this at school, there's no reason why I should leave school knowing trigonometry or that a flowers male reproductive organ is called a stamen but not know how to work out tax and finances.
> 
> This is another classic example of expecting poorly educated people to suddenly rise up above their education and teach their kids how to manage finances well.
> 
> Frankly its the responsibility of the govt to make sure people leave school knowing how to capatalise the start of a sentence, but that's probably me nitpicking.


The loss of focus on civic education is a big problem as well. 10 states require no civic education in their high school curriculum. 31 only have a semester of civics through 4 years of high school. 9 require two semesters. Only 17 states require a civics final exam to graduate high school.

This is why so many people have no clue how federal, state, and local governments work.


----------



## birthday_massacre

LOL Trump supporters really owned the libs here eh










https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/tr...alizing-theyre-getting-screwed-gops-tax-plan/

‘I trusted you!’ Trump voters seethe after realizing they’re getting screwed by the GOP’s tax plan

ultiple supporters of President Donald Trump over the past couple of weeks have taken to Twitter to air their grievances about the president’s signature tax cut plan.

Even though the 2017 GOP tax cut is leading to spiking federal deficits thanks to its generous benefits to corporations, many middle-class Americans are winding up having to pay more because the bill eliminated multiple deductions used by middle-class families to lower their annual tax payments.

Among other things, the tax bill capped deductions for taxes paid to state and local governments, while massively increasing the amount of money you must donate to qualify for a charitable giving deduction.

Several Trump voters who have done their taxes are not happy about this and they’re letting both the president and the Republican Party hear it — check out some of their tweets below.


Replying to @GOPChairwoman @GOP
I am a Republican voter. I just did our taxes.

The @GOP tax bill cost my family THOUSANDS of dollars this year on our return due to changes, thereby hitting us with the LARGEST tax increase of our lives. 

We are middle-class homeowners, and you raised our taxes.

Infuriating!

1,626
8:57 AM - Feb 5, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,524 people are talking about this

Iamnewatthis
@sandynewtothis
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
I have to pay $2000 MORE in taxes this year! What happened?? I voted for you and thought you were fixing this, not making it worse!? I thought I would get money back this year!?

2,161
2:56 PM - Feb 1, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
3,257 people are talking about this

Nycgirl
@nlnp99
Replying to @WhiteHouse @POTUS
Voted for you . Family of 
2 hard working N.Y. cops. Did taxes for years we would pay more and get a refund at the end of the year to help pay debt . First time in 30 years We had to pay more in Federal
Taxes. I’m disgusted

149
9:13 PM - Feb 4, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
270 people are talking about this

Joel Serbin
@JoelSerbin
@POTUS thank you for screwing the middle class with your tax reform. I have never in my life, I’m 49 years old, had to pay into the IRS until this year. We have a combined income of 150,000. The middle class voted for you. I will not make the same mistake twice.

163
12:15 AM - Feb 4, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
263 people are talking about this

Jay Wright
@nochcknstrps12r
@RepDonBacon I just finished my taxes and we're paying an extra 4k this year since exemptions are gone. With a High D HC plan, this has not been a good year. I voted for you twice now. What's the plan?

52
9:02 AM - Feb 3, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
163 people are talking about this

Thomas DeLucca
@TDeLucca7728
@realDonaldTrump I voted for you, and believe in the things you are doing, but you screwed us middle class with taxes. I can’t itemize or anything. How about a flat tax and get rid of earned income credit. Some don’t earn income but get more back in taxes for having baby’s.

32
8:55 PM - Feb 2, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
232 people are talking about this

Shelby Kuh
@ShelbyKuh
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
I voted for you the first time but after you screwed me on my get tax break I won’t vote for you again especially after I started on my 2018 return it’s a joke the taxes you are keeping from a working person good luck in 2020

80
8:23 AM - Feb 2, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
133 people are talking about this

Joshua Curtis
@dcjchris
Replying to @juliobailon @realDerekUtley
I voted for @realdonaldtrump, but that unfortunately that means I have to pay higher taxes.

21
1:03 AM - Jan 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
74 people are talking about this

A9N7G3
@973angie
Worse tax return I had in a decade! I admit I voted for @realDonaldTrump but he has officially lost my vote for 2020.

181
2:06 PM - Jan 23, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
312 people are talking about this

Speziale-Matheny
@Speciale3886
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Wait til you file your taxes. Middle class just lost half their return. Lowest refund I have ever had and I am 50yrs old. No wall and now this tax reform sucks too!! Starting to doubt Trump. I voted for him and trusted him too.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> *hint* *nudge nudge* class structures *cough* *cough*
> 
> I know I argued against that a while ago, but i was never completely sure about it.
> 
> When you combine the fact that poverty and lack of education are deeply intertwined, you can see why the poverty stricken make poor choices.
> 
> This gets exacerbated the more certain classes are excluded from good schools, good neighborhoods etc. *This in the States also has yet another racialized component to it.* And we're seeing the interplay between class and race structures within much of western europe as well now.
> 
> It's all linked to how class based segregation has evolved in western societies and will continue to evolve without a massive cultural shift and mindsets.
> 
> FWIW, my daily meals cost around $2-3 per person per meal myself and that includes beef and veggies. My skills however were gained through being born in a family of educated individuals who already knew how to live frugally through their own life experiences and of course, I went to good schools and have a wealth of life experience to draw from.


Are you saying only some racial groups eat better than others because of institutional racism? Because most Micky Dee munchers come from the trailer parks. :laugh:


CamillePunk said:


> Yep, government schools are pretty terrible. Perhaps John Oliver shouldn't be shitting on charter schools and school voucher programs on his propaganda show then. :hmmm


Charter and Private schools are so horrible that literally no rich people, educated people and talking heads and celebs send their kids to them. Public Government schools all the way!


----------



## AEW on TNT

water is wet


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Trump supporters really owned the libs here eh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/tr...alizing-theyre-getting-screwed-gops-tax-plan/
> 
> ‘I trusted you!’ Trump voters seethe after realizing they’re getting screwed by the GOP’s tax plan
> 
> ultiple supporters of President Donald Trump over the past couple of weeks have taken to Twitter to air their grievances about the president’s signature tax cut plan.
> 
> Even though the 2017 GOP tax cut is leading to spiking federal deficits thanks to its generous benefits to corporations, many middle-class Americans are winding up having to pay more because the bill eliminated multiple deductions used by middle-class families to lower their annual tax payments.
> 
> Among other things, the tax bill capped deductions for taxes paid to state and local governments, while massively increasing the amount of money you must donate to qualify for a charitable giving deduction.
> 
> Several Trump voters who have done their taxes are not happy about this and they’re letting both the president and the Republican Party hear it — check out some of their tweets below.
> 
> 
> Replying to @GOPChairwoman @GOP
> I am a Republican voter. I just did our taxes.
> 
> The @GOP tax bill cost my family THOUSANDS of dollars this year on our return due to changes, thereby hitting us with the LARGEST tax increase of our lives.
> 
> We are middle-class homeowners, and you raised our taxes.
> 
> Infuriating!
> 
> 1,626
> 8:57 AM - Feb 5, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 1,524 people are talking about this
> 
> Iamnewatthis
> @sandynewtothis
> Replying to @realDonaldTrump
> I have to pay $2000 MORE in taxes this year! What happened?? I voted for you and thought you were fixing this, not making it worse!? I thought I would get money back this year!?
> 
> 2,161
> 2:56 PM - Feb 1, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 3,257 people are talking about this
> 
> Nycgirl
> @nlnp99
> Replying to @WhiteHouse @POTUS
> Voted for you . Family of
> 2 hard working N.Y. cops. Did taxes for years we would pay more and get a refund at the end of the year to help pay debt . First time in 30 years We had to pay more in Federal
> Taxes. I’m disgusted
> 
> 149
> 9:13 PM - Feb 4, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 270 people are talking about this
> 
> Joel Serbin
> @JoelSerbin
> @POTUS thank you for screwing the middle class with your tax reform. I have never in my life, I’m 49 years old, had to pay into the IRS until this year. We have a combined income of 150,000. The middle class voted for you. I will not make the same mistake twice.
> 
> 163
> 12:15 AM - Feb 4, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 263 people are talking about this
> 
> Jay Wright
> @nochcknstrps12r
> @RepDonBacon I just finished my taxes and we're paying an extra 4k this year since exemptions are gone. With a High D HC plan, this has not been a good year. I voted for you twice now. What's the plan?
> 
> 52
> 9:02 AM - Feb 3, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 163 people are talking about this
> 
> Thomas DeLucca
> @TDeLucca7728
> @realDonaldTrump I voted for you, and believe in the things you are doing, but you screwed us middle class with taxes. I can’t itemize or anything. How about a flat tax and get rid of earned income credit. Some don’t earn income but get more back in taxes for having baby’s.
> 
> 32
> 8:55 PM - Feb 2, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 232 people are talking about this
> 
> Shelby Kuh
> @ShelbyKuh
> Replying to @realDonaldTrump
> I voted for you the first time but after you screwed me on my get tax break I won’t vote for you again especially after I started on my 2018 return it’s a joke the taxes you are keeping from a working person good luck in 2020
> 
> 80
> 8:23 AM - Feb 2, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 133 people are talking about this
> 
> Joshua Curtis
> @dcjchris
> Replying to @juliobailon @realDerekUtley
> I voted for @realdonaldtrump, but that unfortunately that means I have to pay higher taxes.
> 
> 21
> 1:03 AM - Jan 26, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 74 people are talking about this
> 
> A9N7G3
> @973angie
> Worse tax return I had in a decade! I admit I voted for @realDonaldTrump but he has officially lost my vote for 2020.
> 
> 181
> 2:06 PM - Jan 23, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 312 people are talking about this
> 
> Speziale-Matheny
> @Speciale3886
> Replying to @realDonaldTrump
> Wait til you file your taxes. Middle class just lost half their return. Lowest refund I have ever had and I am 50yrs old. No wall and now this tax reform sucks too!! Starting to doubt Trump. I voted for him and trusted him too.


If this isn't proof that Trump supporters don't actually do any research and really do blindly believe him, I don't know what is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

What is the over/under for lies Trump tells in the SOTU?

25 lies?


----------



## NotGuilty

Nancy must be hitting the sauce tonight, she's all smiles


----------



## birthday_massacre

wow, Trump is embarrassing, talking about how the investigation of him should be dropped during the SOTU.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Now Trump is on to his racist fearmongering


----------



## NotGuilty

even Cortez is giving standing ovations and chanting USA. Donald is making magic happen tonight :banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

NotGuilty said:


> even Cortez is giving standing ovations and chanting USA. Donald is making magic happen tonight :banderas


You know she was standing and clapping for all the women winning their elections running on being anti-Trump right LOL

The look on Trump's face, once he saw what was going on, was priceless. That is why he said you weren't supposed to do that lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Wow Trump going full on Alex Jones with that abortion BS.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Wow Trump going full on Alex Jones with that abortion BS.


Nope, that's the law. They were asked about it and confirmed it. Sorry your political party is evil. :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Nope, that's the law. They were asked about it and confirmed it. Sorry your political party is evil. :draper2


I was talking about Trump claiming Virginia's governor was endorsing killing newborns.

it was total bullshit and Alex Jones crazy talk


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ate-term-abortion_us_5c534527e4b043e25b1a5cb3

Not replying more to your BS trolling on this


----------



## deepelemblues

BernieSad and Bug-Eyes Mad

Musta been a good speech

Socialists get really touchy when you point out the main crops harvested by socialism are blood and failure :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> I was talking about Trump claiming Virginia's governor was endorsing killing newborns.
> 
> it was total bullshit and Alex Jones crazy talk
> 
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ate-term-abortion_us_5c534527e4b043e25b1a5cb3
> 
> Not replying more to your BS trolling on this


Not what he said. Here's the transcript of the SOTU speech. I'll use a lunatic leftist source like Vox to make you comfortable. 

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/5/18212533/president-trump-state-of-the-union-address-live-transcript



> There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation* that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.* These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth. To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.


So, what you said above is 100% a lie. You said he was talking about newborns, he literally was not. You won't acknowledge this because you're a hack.

Now onto the bill itself. I'll use Vox again, for you. 

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18205428/virginia-abortion-bill-kathy-tran-ralph-northam



> Virginia House Bill 2491 would roll back a number of requirements, including a 24-hour waiting period and a mandate that second-trimester abortions take place in a hospital. Always something of a long shot in the Republican-controlled state legislature, the bill may now be doomed by the national firestorm surrounding it.
> 
> The controversy has centered on a provision concerning third-trimester abortions. Under current Virginia law, in order for a patient to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester, three doctors must certify that continuing the pregnancy would likely cause the patient’s death or “substantially and irremediably impair” her mental or physical health.* The new bill would reduce the number of doctors to one, and remove the “substantially and irremediably” qualifier — abortions would be allowed in cases where a mother’s mental or physical health is threatened, even if the damage might not be irreversible.*


Explain to me how it is OK to kill a human being moments before birth because the mother might have non-substantial, non-irreversible mental or physical health effects from it. Explain the significant difference bestowed upon that human being simply by passing through the vaginal canal or removed via cesarean section. There is none. This is murder, plain and simple. It's an evil law passed and supported by an evil political party, and defended online by evil lunatics who care more about their personal greed-and-envy-fueled socialist ideas than protecting human life. 

Stop it. This isn't who we are. Anyone who thinks this is OK is evil and they need to be driven from the public square.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Not what he said. Here's the transcript of the SOTU speech. I'll use a lunatic leftist source like Vox to make you comfortable.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2019/2/5/18212533/president-trump-state-of-the-union-address-live-transcript
> 
> So, what you said above is 100% a lie. You said he was talking about newborns, he literally was not. You won't acknowledge this because you're a hack.
> 
> Now onto the bill itself. I'll use Vox again, for you.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18205428/virginia-abortion-bill-kathy-tran-ralph-northam
> 
> Explain to me how it is OK to kill a human being moments before birth because the mother might have non-irreversible mental or physical health effects from it. Explain the significant difference bestowed upon that human being simply by passing through the vaginal canal or removed via cesarean section. There is none. This is murder, plain and simple. It's an evil law passed and supported by an evil political party, and defended online by evil lunatics who care more about their personal greed-and-envy-fueled socialist ideas than protecting human life.
> 
> Stop it. This isn't who we are. Anyone who thinks this is OK is evil and they need to be driven from the public square.


The way Trump framed what the Virginia governor was not true. It was an Alex Jones type lie. The only person who is a hack here is you. But you support Trump and defend his lies, so why I am not surprised.

"Northam was describing end-of-life care in a painful circumstance, as his office said in a clarifying statement, not murder. "

Im done with your bs


----------



## CamillePunk

It was completely accurate, as evidenced above. :draper2 You have no defense.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> It was completely accurate, as evidenced above. :draper2 You have no defense.


Last time because you are embarrassing yourself. Love how you ignore your own article.

"And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth"

So Trump didn't say that?


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Last time because you are embarrassing yourself. Love how you ignore your own article.
> 
> "And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth"
> 
> So Trump didn't say that?


That's different than the bill he endorsed. That's about his specific comments. The governor said in an interview:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/30/virginia-gov-ralph-northam-implies-babies-can-terminated-birth/



> “If a mother is in labor…*the infant would be delivered*. The infant would be kept comfortable. *The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother,”* Northam said on WTOP’s “Ask The Governor” segment this morning.


That does imply he supports allowing the killing of babies after they're born. :draper2 

You tried to move the goalposts and are still wrong. Enough.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> That's different than the bill he endorsed. That's about his specific comments. The governor said in an interview:
> 
> https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/30/virginia-gov-ralph-northam-implies-babies-can-terminated-birth/
> 
> That does imply he supports allowing the killing of babies after they're born. :draper2
> 
> You tried to move the goalposts and are still wrong. Enough.


My article already refuted your BS article framing. And you were the one that was wrong who claimed Trump never said that when he did. 

The only one moving goal posts here is you and you are still wrong.

good night


----------



## CamillePunk

Sleep well, baby-murder supporter. (Y) As long as you get your free stuff, right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> BernieSad and Bug-Eyes Mad
> 
> Musta been a good speech
> 
> Socialists get really touchy when you point out the main crops harvested by socialism are blood and failure :draper2


The same can be said for trickle-down economics,.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

I laughed my ass off when Trump said "America will never be a socialist country" and the camera panned to Bernie who looked so sad while his democrat colleagues around him were clapping. :beckylol
That's just great comedy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

But the US is already part socialist. So much for great comedy


----------



## RainmakerV2

birthday_massacre said:


> But the US is already part socialist. So much for great comedy


Uh yeah. We have social safety nets, because we don't let handicapped and elderly people die of starvation because they can't work. No country is pure capitalist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RainmakerV2 said:


> Uh yeah. We have social safety nets, because we don't let handicapped and elderly people die of starvation because they can't work. No country is pure capitalist.


The US is a mixed economy. Part socialist and part capitalist. I just love when people ignore the socialist part.


----------



## Draykorinee

Even Bernie doesn't want a socialist country so its just not funny.


----------



## RainmakerV2

birthday_massacre said:


> The US is a mixed economy. Part socialist and part capitalist. I just love when people ignore the socialist part.


No place on earth is pure capitalist. It's a hypothetical, like a libertarian winning the presidency, or anarchists overthrowing the government. However the base of the United States has always, and will always be capitalism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RainmakerV2 said:


> No place on earth is pure capitalist. It's a hypothetical, like a libertarian winning the presidency, or anarchists overthrowing the government. However the base of the United States has always, and will always be capitalism.


Oh I agree. Some people just like to pretend it is. Like Trump.


----------



## Reaper

The level of discourse in this thread is now r/insanepeopleonfacebook considering how crazy Trump is now and therefore he's dragged his supporters and sympathizers even lower with him. 

I think it might be time to retire the thread or have it permanently moved to rants.

It's only going to get worse from here. Trump's own insanity is rubbing off on people way too much. It's either become a part of the Asylum or observe the train wreck and just face palm.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> But the US is already part socialist. So much for great comedy


I'm aware. That doesn't make it a socialist country... Don't take things so seriously, it was funny! It would also be a funny clip to return to if Bernie got elected I can assure you.



Reaper said:


> The level of discourse in this thread is now r/insanepeopleonfacebook considering how crazy Trump is now and therefore he's dragged his supporters and sympathizers even lower with him.
> 
> I think it might be time to retire the thread or have it permanently moved to rants.
> 
> It's only going to get worse from here. Trump's own insanity is rubbing off on people way too much. It's either become a part of the Asylum or observe the train wreck and just face palm.


Do you think? What has he done that's so "insane" recently, other than the obvious occasional twitter rants? Genuinely curious.

I hate to break it to you too, but its 'your side' (not you personally, I know) who are espousing the actually crazy Russiagate conspiracy theory on this thread. I'm not sure you can say that they are above the craziness.


----------



## Reaper

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Do you think? What has he done that's so "insane" recently, other than the obvious occasional twitter rants? Genuinely curious.
> 
> *I hate to break it to you too, but its 'your side' (not you personally, I know) who are espousing the actually crazy Russiagate conspiracy theory on this thread. I'm not sure you can say that they are above the craziness.*


^This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Thank you for proving my point.

The fact that for you it's still about "sides" and I mean, you haven't even moved beyond your pathetic level of "otherism" :Shrug

Plus the whole thing about "socialism". FFS. US isn't socialist. US isn't capitalist. Just stop with this bullshit. Trump even bringing up "socialism" is completely insane and unhinged. The people who want America to go full on socialist are probably dozens in number if not less at this point. It's completely retarded paranoia based on ignorance and being completely out of touch with political thought. 

And yes, our politicians don't even know the complexities of various political positions and so their followers don't either.

PS. If anyone cares. 

- America is neither a capitalist country, nor a social welfare state. It is basically an oligarchy where the interests of the few are considered as beneficial for everyone. The idea is that if you shore up capitalists then everyone benefits, but that is not been the outcome of such favorability. It has a few vere limited social welfare programs and many politicians simply either oppose the expansion of the welfare state or expand it. No one wants to take over or own any private enterprise. There is a VERY clear distinction when it comes to private property rights and there isn't a single political position that has any ground in America with regards to GOVERNMENT ownership of any private production facility. 

- Social Welfare statism is spread between the two political parties. Not all democrats are for welfare expansion and not all republicans are against it and vice versa. 

- Bernie claims he's a "democratic socialist". He's really a social welfare statist and is doing a piss fucking poor job of marketing his position by using the word "democratic socialist". He's damaging the ideal of the social welfare state and that is moronic. We don't even know if he's going to be a keynesian when it comes to fiscal policy. He's simply pro-labor and that doesn't make him a socialist. 

- AOC is not a socialist. She's anti-corporatist who wants to improve our social welfare policies. 

- Trump isn't a capitalist. He's a pro-corporatist. This can be guaged from the histories of the federal judges he's appointing. Many of whom are anti-labor and pro-corporatists as well

- Pelosi isn't left-wing. She's center-right and if given power there's no way she allows the democrats to move further to the left economically. 

- Democrats are a center-right, center party with a few leftists in the party who are at odds with the establishment. But none of the "leftist" democrats are full on socialists. Full on socialism does not exist in american politics whatsoever. Anyone who thinks that is someone you cannot have a conversation with because they don't even understand the meaning of socialism as they confuse social welfare statism with socialism and to unpack that kind of ignorance takes way too much effort. 

- Republicans are slightly farther right than they are, and they have a group of extreme far right politicians that seem to want to deregulate everything and have bought hook line and sinker into the idea that all forms of all regulations are always bad. This is a terrible political idea. But the leftists who think that simply expanding the welfare state to the extreme in today's global economic climate is possible are also completely wrong. We need something that's in the middle. Not too much of a welfare state, not too little. But clearly more than what we currently have. 

- Both parties have war mongering neo-conservatives. Neither party wants to stop any of the current wars. Some candidates do but they are powerless because of the way the system is organized. 

- Both parties are actually very much centrists when it comes to social issues. We've already hit peak freedom with regards to social issues, but we need a little more tweaking in order to break through the current restrictions around drugs, overpolicing in certain specific areas and prison reform is much, much needed. Both parties are in favor of this. Both parties are against this. There is disagreement within party politicians themselves over these issues. 

- In any case, there's no such thing as a left/right divide when it comes to social issues. It's artificially created as optics in order to associate social liberalism with democrats and the opposite with republicans even though there are liberals and conservatives in both parties. 

- There anti-abortion economic leftists and there are pro-choice atheists and there are anti-abortion athiests. There are pro-choice religious people etc etc etc. You can be anti-feminist and support women's rights. You can be a feminist and support men's rights. You can be an anti-feminist, women's rights supporting, anti-abortion, atheist who dislikes Islam and want a social welfare state .. .Or you can be a feminist, pro-abortion christian who doesn't dislike Islam and want a completely unregulated capitalist economy. 

Like fucking get your minds out of your stupid stereotypes. Stop thinking in over-simplified ways where you want to pigeon-hole people into YOUR projected simplified version of reality based on your own overly simplistic and limited understanding of political philosophies and ideas.

This whole "you're a commie, you're an evil leftist, you're an evil rightist" fucking bullshit is why this thread is cancer. Almost no one here has a deeper understanding of any of the politicians they oppose or support or even the political positions they think they're criticizing. 

But I'm just a commie. What would I know :Shrug

:lol

/rant


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Reaper said:


> ^This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> The fact that for you it's still about "sides" and I mean, you haven't even moved beyond your pathetic level of "otherism" :Shrug


Strange because you were the one which divided the thread into those "supporters and sympathisers" who are now "part of the asylum" and those "observing the train-wreck and facepalming." I actually put 'your side' in inverted commas (perhaps you didn't notice) in reference to the line in the sand *you * had drawn. My point being that it seems hypocritical to point out that one group of people have, in your opinion, been dragged down by the 'craziness of Trump', when you seemed to have subscribed yourself to the other group (aka 'a side') when that group have also been acting crazy in this thread, at least in my opinion. I was just referring to what you had written, so one of clearly has gotten their wires crossed along the way.



Reaper said:


> Plus the whole thing about "socialism". FFS. US isn't socialist. US isn't capitalist. Just stop with this bullshit. Trump even bringing up "socialism" is completely insane and unhinged. The people who want America to go full on socialist are probably dozens in number if not less at this point. It's completely retarded paranoia based on ignorance and being completely out of touch with political thought.
> 
> And yes, our politicians don't even know the complexities of various political positions and so their followers don't either.


All I said that it was comical the way the camera panned to Bernie, a prolific supporter of socialist parties, after Trump said that and he looked hilariously sad. I made no comment on to what extent the US already has socialist policy integrated in their country, nor gave my opinion on those policies. (I'm from the UK so I obviously do have some appreciation for socialist policies such as universal healthcare, etc.) It was just something I found funny, I didn't expect everyone to take it so seriously. Jeez. 

Also I think you are deluded if you think that there are just a 'few dozen' people in America who would like to see full socialism or even for the US to attempt communism. Maybe a few dozen in Oklahoma or something. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Strange because you were the one which divided the thread into those "supporters and sympathisers" who are now "part of the asylum" and those "observing the train-wreck and facepalming." I actually put 'your side' in inverted commas (perhaps you didn't notice) in reference to the line in the sand *you * had drawn. My point being that it seems hypocritical to point out that one group of people have, in your opinion, been dragged down by the 'craziness of Trump', when you seemed to have subscribed yourself to the other group (aka 'a side') when that group have also been acting crazy in this thread, at least in my opinion. I was just referring to what you had written, so one of clearly has gotten their wires crossed along the way.


I can see why people have so much trouble communicating. You took two different statements, combined the two and made a complete dishonest reproduction of what I said. 

Read below for an explanation. 

You're still thinking in terms of "otherism" and over sensitive to criticism because your paranoid fueled brain assumed that I'm only talking about your side when I said this:



> It's only going to get worse from here. Trump's own insanity is rubbing off on *people *way too much. It's either become a part of the Asylum or observe the train wreck and just face palm.


I said people here meaning his supporters and his detractors but I guess I was assuming too much when I thought that someone reading this might be able to interpret it the way it was intended. 



> Also I think you are deluded if you think that there are just a 'few dozen' people in America who would like to see full socialism or even for the US to attempt communism. Maybe a few dozen in Oklahoma or something. :laugh:


Yeah. I literally literally literally meant 2 dozen. So either you over-interpret dishonestly, or you interpret literally. 

You're part of the reason why discourse is cancer in this thread. And before you go getting butthurt any whiny about me always shitting on just the rightists, go ask BM and Dray and others how often I've called them out on their BS when they've posted it too. 

At the risk of sounding even more like a condescending prick. Fucking stop with the otherism tribalist nature that's now deeply ingrained in your system and try to rise above it.

Though that might be asking too much. 

And no, I'm not a commie before you decide to come back with that really amazing zinger that you're storing away for future use.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Reaper said:


> I can see why people have so much trouble communicating. You took two different statements, combined the two and made a complete dishonest reproduction of what I said.
> 
> Read below for an explanation.
> 
> You're still thinking in terms of "otherism" and over sensitive to criticism because your paranoid fueled brain assumed that I'm only talking about your side when I said this:
> 
> I said people here meaning his supporters and his detractors but I guess I was assuming too much when I thought that someone reading this might be able to interpret it the way it was intended.


Thank you for clarifying, I did misinterpret what you were saying and when you said people, I did assume that you were talking about the 'supporters and sympathisers' that you had referred to earlier. I just felt it was unfair to only target those defending Trump when it does go both ways. If you were indeed talking about both side then that is very fair.



Reaper said:


> Yeah. I literally literally literally meant 2 dozen. So either you over-interpret dishonestly, or you interpret literally.


In my opinion there are a lot more. Don't be so defensive, I wasn't dishonestly interpreting what you were saying or anything, I just think that there are probably 1,000's in the US. That's still not a lot in the grand scheme of things but many more than 2 dozen.



Reaper said:


> You're part of the reason why discourse is cancer in this thread. And before you go getting butthurt any whiny about me always shitting on just the rightists, go ask BM and Dray and others how often I've called them out on their BS when they've posted it too.


Do you think? I have always tried to be fair in my responses and actually address the points being made. I'm even prepared to debate BM if I disagree with him strongly, whereas many seem to have given up a long time ago. Maybe because I only give my opinions on here if it's a topic I care strongly about, or something I want to educate about, you get a distorted view of who I am and what my opinions are? I don't know, if you have constructive criticism I am open to it. 

I think this thread misses Tater. Is he permabanned?



Reaper said:


> At the risk of sounding even more like a condescending prick. Fucking stop with the otherism tribalist nature that's now deeply ingrained in your system and try to rise above it.
> 
> Though that might be asking too much.
> 
> And no, I'm not a commie before you decide to come back with that really amazing zinger that you're storing away for future use.


No offence, but you don't really know me. I have many close friends who have a plethora of political views, from Marxists to UKIP supporters. I am probably somewhere in the middle, but I love debating with them all on different issues, and even though we disagree on a lot of things, at the end of the day I would never let politics mar my friendship with someone, there are much much more important things in life. You come to learn through discourse with people of different political opinions that everyone actually wants what is best for people. They might be deluded one way or the other but generally my experience is that most people are good, regardless of political opinions. I understand what you are saying though, and I think social media (and even WF) is a problem. If you are only discussing political views then it's easy to dismiss someone as being wrong and being 'the enemy' I guess, because you don't get to know them as a person and you might never get to really understand why they hold such opinions. 

Damn, I had been saving that one for a really long time :lmao


----------



## Reaper

Yeah. No one really knows what my current political position is anymore. I've deliberately blurred the lines as much as I can to confuse those who are at extreme ends themselves. It amuses me when they try to pigeonhole me. 

My favorite is when they come back with "you're a commie". 

The history of that is that while I was questioning and re-examining my political views, Deep went off the Deep end and called me a Mao loving communist. I've been running with that since and he's still making rants about me. 

Anyways, I hope we can all stop with the Trump related histrionics and that's why I want this thread done. The politics thread is doing so much better than this and I've noticed that people have better discussions when they're not hopelessly attached to their identification as an oversimplified self-limiting label.

Once CP stops with his "Democrats are evil" gimmick things will get better because that kind of bait brings down any ongoing discussion. He's not the only one that does it of course. BM spends an inordinate amount of time in here with his russiagate conspiracies lol and I've asked him several times to stop as well. :Shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> PS. If anyone cares.
> 
> - America is neither a capitalist country, nor a social welfare state. It is basically an oligarchy where the interests of the few are considered as beneficial for everyone. The idea is that if you shore up capitalists then everyone benefits, but that is not been the outcome of such favorability. It has a few vere limited social welfare programs and many politicians simply either oppose the expansion of the welfare state or expand it. No one wants to take over or own any private enterprise. There is a VERY clear distinction when it comes to private property rights and there isn't a single political position that has any ground in America with regards to GOVERNMENT ownership of any private production facility.
> 
> - Social Welfare statism is spread between the two political parties. Not all democrats are for welfare expansion and not all republicans are against it and vice versa.
> 
> - Bernie claims he's a "democratic socialist". He's really a social welfare statist and is doing a piss fucking poor job of marketing his position by using the word "democratic socialist". He's damaging the ideal of the social welfare state and that is moronic. We don't even know if he's going to be a keynesian when it comes to fiscal policy. He's simply pro-labor and that doesn't make him a socialist.
> 
> - AOC is not a socialist. She's anti-corporatist who wants to improve our social welfare policies.
> 
> - Trump isn't a capitalist. He's a pro-corporatist. This can be guaged from the histories of the federal judges he's appointing. Many of whom are anti-labor and pro-corporatists as well
> 
> - Pelosi isn't left-wing. She's center-right and if given power there's no way she allows the democrats to move further to the left economically.
> 
> - Democrats are a center-right, center party with a few leftists in the party who are at odds with the establishment. But none of the "leftist" democrats are full on socialists. Full on socialism does not exist in american politics whatsoever. Anyone who thinks that is someone you cannot have a conversation with because they don't even understand the meaning of socialism as they confuse social welfare statism with socialism and to unpack that kind of ignorance takes way too much effort.
> 
> - Republicans are slightly farther right than they are, and they have a group of extreme far right politicians that seem to want to deregulate everything and have bought hook line and sinker into the idea that all forms of all regulations are always bad. This is a terrible political idea. But the leftists who think that simply expanding the welfare state to the extreme in today's global economic climate is possible are also completely wrong. We need something that's in the middle. Not too much of a welfare state, not too little. But clearly more than what we currently have.
> 
> - Both parties have war mongering neo-conservatives. Neither party wants to stop any of the current wars. Some candidates do but they are powerless because of the way the system is organized.
> 
> - Both parties are actually very much centrists when it comes to social issues. We've already hit peak freedom with regards to social issues, but we need a little more tweaking in order to break through the current restrictions around drugs, overpolicing in certain specific areas and prison reform is much, much needed. Both parties are in favor of this. Both parties are against this. There is disagreement within party politicians themselves over these issues.
> 
> - In any case, there's no such thing as a left/right divide when it comes to social issues. It's artificially created as optics in order to associate social liberalism with democrats and the opposite with republicans even though there are liberals and conservatives in both parties.
> 
> - There anti-abortion economic leftists and there are pro-choice atheists and there are anti-abortion athiests. There are pro-choice religious people etc etc etc. You can be anti-feminist and support women's rights. You can be a feminist and support men's rights. You can be an anti-feminist, women's rights supporting, anti-abortion, atheist who dislikes Islam and want a social welfare state .. .Or you can be a feminist, pro-abortion christian who doesn't dislike Islam and want a completely unregulated capitalist economy.
> 
> Like fucking get your minds out of your stupid stereotypes. Stop thinking in over-simplified ways where you want to pigeon-hole people into YOUR projected simplified version of reality based on your own overly simplistic and limited understanding of political philosophies and ideas.
> 
> This whole "you're a commie, you're an evil leftist, you're an evil rightist" fucking bullshit is why this thread is cancer. Almost no one here has a deeper understanding of any of the politicians they oppose or support or even the political positions they think they're criticizing.
> 
> But I'm just a commie. What would I know :Shrug
> 
> :lol
> 
> /rant


:crow

It's easy to fall into the trap of otherism and labels because our current Political situation is set up like that. To get the most division possible.

It's why Political parties are pretty much sports teams now. It's insane.

I fall into the labeling trap, it's hard! Every time I step back I have to laugh at how similar the "opposing sides" are. Especially the Political Correct types. :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Yeah. No one really knows what my current political position is anymore. I've deliberately blurred the lines as much as I can to confuse those who are at extreme ends themselves. It amuses me when they try to pigeonhole me.
> 
> My favorite is when they come back with "you're a commie".
> 
> The history of that is that while I was questioning and re-examining my political views, Deep went off the Deep end and called me a Mao loving communist. I've been running with that since and he's still making rants about me.
> 
> Anyways, I hope we can all stop with the Trump related histrionics and that's why I want this thread done. The politics thread is doing so much better than this and I've noticed that people have better discussions when they're not hopelessly attached to their identification as an oversimplified self-limiting label.
> 
> Once CP stops with his "Democrats are evil" gimmick things will get better because that kind of bait brings down any ongoing discussion. He's not the only one that does it of course.* BM spends an inordinate amount of time in here with his russiagate conspiracies lol and I've asked him several times to stop as well. :Shrug*


*

*

Once Trump goes down for his Russia connections like everyone else connected to him is, I can't wait to see all the excuses in this thread.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reaper said:


> Yeah. No one really knows what my current political position is anymore. I've deliberately blurred the lines as much as I can to confuse those who are at extreme ends themselves. It amuses me when they try to pigeonhole me.
> 
> My favorite is when they come back with "you're a commie".
> 
> The history of that is that while I was questioning and re-examining my political views, Deep went off the Deep end and called me a Mao loving communist. I've been running with that since and he's still making rants about me.
> 
> Anyways, I hope we can all stop with the Trump related histrionics and that's why I want this thread done. The politics thread is doing so much better than this and I've noticed that people have better discussions when they're not hopelessly attached to their identification as an oversimplified self-limiting label.
> 
> Once CP stops with his "Democrats are evil" gimmick things will get better because that kind of bait brings down any ongoing discussion. He's not the only one that does it of course. BM spends an inordinate amount of time in here with his russiagate conspiracies lol and I've asked him several times to stop as well. :Shrug


When did I say you loved Mao? Link?

What you're saying here is that you're acting in bad faith - "deliberately blurring the lines" - and presenting it as some kind of virtue

It is illustrative of the general decadence of current year that acting in bad faith and being dishonest is cause for patting one's self on the back later for being so clever. People taking you at your word is a courtesy that should not be abused, often enough it is a courtesy that is not forthcoming

You talk about bringing down discussion and how you hope things will get better while you applaud yourself for doing things that bring down the discussion. That is some brazen hypocrisy, or lack of self-awareness



> - America is neither a capitalist country, nor a social welfare state. It is basically an oligarchy where the interests of the few are considered as beneficial for everyone. The idea is that if you shore up capitalists then everyone benefits, but that is not been the outcome of such favorability. It has a few vere limited social welfare programs and many politicians simply either oppose the expansion of the welfare state or expand it. No one wants to take over or own any private enterprise. There is a VERY clear distinction when it comes to private property rights and there isn't a single political position that has any ground in America with regards to GOVERNMENT ownership of any private production facility.


What is your definition of capitalist?

You seem to be contending that there are only a "few" "capitalists"

But there are tens of millions of capitalists in this country. About half of the private economic activity of the country consists of small capitalists who employ only themselves, or only a handful of people

FY 2019 estimated spending on "welfare" is 1,179,000,000,000 dollars. That is not limited. It's a little more than 5% of GDP. 

"Private production facility," that is quite a narrow term. "Ownership of the means of production" is more accurate. The production of what? The language may be a bit unwieldy, but people do produce services in a sense. Government owns the means of providing many services in this country, and there is support for expanding that. Your talk of "private production facility" seems a bit self-serving



> - Social Welfare statism is spread between the two political parties. Not all democrats are for welfare expansion and not all republicans are against it and vice versa.


How can that be so when allegedly there are only very limited social welfare programs? 

You're exaggerating the importance of your distinction. On the matter of policy, what really happens, Democrats are for welfare expansion and Republicans are against it



> - Bernie claims he's a "democratic socialist". He's really a social welfare statist and is doing a piss fucking poor job of marketing his position by using the word "democratic socialist". He's damaging the ideal of the social welfare state and that is moronic. We don't even know if he's going to be a keynesian when it comes to fiscal policy. He's simply pro-labor and that doesn't make him a socialist.


What do any of those terms mean to you? Is there going to be anything other than declarations made here? Declarations are thin gruel. Is this is you making vague statements without detail to "deliberately blur the lines?"



> - AOC is not a socialist. She's anti-corporatist who wants to improve our social welfare policies.


I'm sure you're aware of the accepted truism that perception is reality in politics. 



> - Trump isn't a capitalist. He's a pro-corporatist. This can be guaged from the histories of the federal judges he's appointing. Many of whom are anti-labor and pro-corporatists as well


Gauging what a politician "is" based on one criteria seems insufficient

:trump is of course a capitalist, as he has instituted policies intended to benefit the vast numbers of capitalists that you do not count in your analysis for some reason, as if they do not exist



> - Pelosi isn't left-wing. She's center-right and if given power there's no way she allows the democrats to move further to the left economically.


Nancy Pelosi is a left-wing politician in the context of United States politics. The vast majority of the body politic views her as left-wing. That isn't going to change

Pelosi would certainly approve of significantly higher government spending, which is moving to the left economically. What else would it be, when it would have an effect on the economy? 

Insisting that definitions everywhere be changed is a fruitless way to debate and a distraction from the issues



> - Democrats are a center-right, center party with a few leftists in the party who are at odds with the establishment. But none of the "leftist" democrats are full on socialists. Full on socialism does not exist in american politics whatsoever. Anyone who thinks that is someone you cannot have a conversation with because they don't even understand the meaning of socialism as they confuse social welfare statism with socialism and to unpack that kind of ignorance takes way too much effort.


That is surely a statement that will lift up discussion...



> - Republicans are slightly farther right than they are, and they have a group of extreme far right politicians that seem to want to deregulate everything and have bought hook line and sinker into the idea that all forms of all regulations are always bad. This is a terrible political idea. But the leftists who think that simply expanding the welfare state to the extreme in today's global economic climate is possible are also completely wrong. We need something that's in the middle. Not too much of a welfare state, not too little. But clearly more than what we currently have.


Those are gross oversimplifications of each party and are not accurate. You want your tablecloth nice and flat and all the silverware and plates and bowls and glasses placed just so and it is fine to want that. It's artificial and not real though



> - Both parties have war mongering neo-conservatives. Neither party wants to stop any of the current wars. Some candidates do but they are powerless because of the way the system is organized.


So there is bipartisanship in American politics?



> - Both parties are actually very much centrists when it comes to social issues. We've already hit peak freedom with regards to social issues, but we need a little more tweaking in order to break through the current restrictions around drugs, overpolicing in certain specific areas and prison reform is much, much needed. Both parties are in favor of this. Both parties are against this. There is disagreement within party politicians themselves over these issues.


Why are the two parties so complicated over these issues and not others? Or is it that they are actually complicated on nearly all the issues, contrary to your argument? 

Beliefs are complicated. The thrust of policy usually is not



> - In any case, there's no such thing as a left/right divide when it comes to social issues. It's artificially created as optics in order to associate social liberalism with democrats and the opposite with republicans even though there are liberals and conservatives in both parties.


Well that is simply untrue. It's more simplification because you don't want to get bogged down in the complexities. Who artificially creates this divide? How many people have you talked to with opposing social views? Not politicians, regular citizens. Did you get them to realize that they're actually not divided at all? Did you ask them from where and what their beliefs derived? If not, how did you determine that they were duped or that their views were otherwise insincere, deliberately or otherwise? You certainly don't believe that _your_ views are artificially created by someone else, do you? Why do you think that that is the case for nearly everyone else? Or totally everyone else? Which is it? Nearly everyone or totally everyone? 



> - There anti-abortion economic leftists and there are pro-choice atheists and there are anti-abortion athiests. There are pro-choice religious people etc etc etc. You can be anti-feminist and support women's rights. You can be a feminist and support men's rights. You can be an anti-feminist, women's rights supporting, anti-abortion, atheist who dislikes Islam and want a social welfare state .. .Or you can be a feminist, pro-abortion christian who doesn't dislike Islam and want a completely unregulated capitalist economy.


People can unite coming from different places by different routes

Ideas mostly can't. Not in that way

The idea of being pro-abortion cannot be unified with the idea of being anti-abortion. The same with other ideas, from one end of the spectrum to the other. All the different shades and degrees of positions. All of them have out there have somewhere their diametric opposite



> Like fucking get your minds out of your stupid stereotypes. Stop thinking in over-simplified ways where you want to pigeon-hole people into YOUR projected simplified version of reality based on your own overly simplistic and limited understanding of political philosophies and ideas.


Your entire post is stereotypes and over-simplification and a projected simplified version of reality based on your own overly simplistic and limited understanding of political philosophies and ideas though :draper2



> This whole "you're a commie, you're an evil leftist, you're an evil rightist" fucking bullshit is why this thread is cancer. Almost no one here has a deeper understanding of any of the politicians they oppose or support or even the political positions they think they're criticizing.


There's more than one kind of cancer

Start digging down into what you say and 

Well


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> When did I say you loved Mao? Link?


https://www.wrestlingforum.com/76314638-post2271.html

Aah well, now you're going to pretend that you meant something completely different when you over-exaggerate what I was expressed that I was attempting to do to mean this:



> 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,


These are your words. Not anyone elses. I'm sure you're going to try to attempt to make this about something else, but I'm not an idiot. Tom Friedman is consistently compared to Mao (a simple google search is easy enough to ascertain this).

It's obvious what you were doing there when all I expressed that I want to go read an alternate version of Chinese history. So stop trying to bury your own trolling past. 



> What you're saying here is that you're acting in bad faith - "deliberately blurring the lines" - and presenting it as some kind of virtue


This is yet another projection. You really believe that if you feel a certain way about something, others will too. Your psychological projections are kind of pathalogical at this point. Only 3 people have had an issue with regards to my change in political outlook and my expressions as far as coming forward is concerned. By and large I have effectively explained the change as well as the purpose behind what I was doing to be as transparent as possible. Even admitting that I've done this intentionally is transparency because to me truth matters. It's only to those who intentionally blur lines without admitting them that this would be a problem because I don't have that fear of being "exposed" as they do. 

I blurred the lines about my political beliefs exactly for the purpose of people like you who make stupid rants like the one I posted above from being able to do so. You bait a lot in this thread. You troll. You try to destroy any decent conversation about anything with a shit fuck ton of smileys, trolling and just outright distracting everyone from anything that is being discussed like a low level troll who just has to spam every conversation with his attention whoring smileys. Dude that act has gotten tired. Then it gets too hot to handle so you beg people to be civil and you again are the one that drags it back down. You even freaking admitted to doing that at least once already. So you're aware of your shenanigans, just incapable of change. 

Again, this is a projection. You act in bad faith, you twist people's opinions, you make trolling posts, you bait people, you spam gifs and you derail this thread so you feel like others do it as well. 

Look at yourself in the mirror for once and see how you behave before getting so judgement about others. But I don't think this will matter because you are not the type of person that is capable of self-reflection at all. Only projections.



deepelemblues said:


> What is your definition of capitalist?
> 
> You seem to be contending that there are only a "few" "capitalists"
> 
> But there are tens of millions of capitalists in this country. About half of the private economic activity of the country consists of small capitalists who employ only themselves, or only a handful of people
> 
> FY 2019 estimated spending on "welfare" is 1,179,000,000,000 dollars. That is not limited. It's a little more than 5% of GDP.
> 
> "Private production facility," that is quite a narrow term. "Ownership of the means of production" is more accurate. The production of what? The language may be a bit unwieldy, but people do produce services in a sense. Government owns the means of providing many services in this country, and there is support for expanding that. Your talk of "private production facility" seems a bit self-serving
> 
> How can that be so when allegedly there are only very limited social welfare programs?
> 
> You're exaggerating the importance of your distinction. On the matter of policy, what really happens, Democrats are for welfare expansion and Republicans are against it
> 
> What do any of those terms mean to you? Is there going to be anything other than declarations made here? Declarations are thin gruel. Is this is you making vague statements without detail to "deliberately blur the lines?"
> 
> I'm sure you're aware of the accepted truism that perception is reality in politics.
> 
> Gauging what a politician "is" based on one criteria seems insufficient
> 
> :trump is of course a capitalist, as he has instituted policies intended to benefit the vast numbers of capitalists that you do not count in your analysis for some reason, as if they do not exist
> 
> Nancy Pelosi is a left-wing politician in the context of United States politics. The vast majority of the body politic views her as left-wing. That isn't going to change
> 
> Pelosi would certainly approve of significantly higher government spending, which is moving to the left economically. What else would it be, when it would have an effect on the economy?
> 
> Insisting that definitions everywhere be changed is a fruitless way to debate and a distraction from the issues
> 
> That is surely a statement that will lift up discussion...
> 
> Those are gross oversimplifications of each party and are not accurate. You want your tablecloth nice and flat and all the silverware and plates and bowls and glasses placed just so and it is fine to want that. It's artificial and not real though
> 
> So there is bipartisanship in American politics?
> 
> Why are the two parties so complicated over these issues and not others? Or is it that they are actually complicated on nearly all the issues, contrary to your argument?
> 
> Beliefs are complicated. The thrust of policy usually is not
> 
> Well that is simply untrue. It's more simplification because you don't want to get bogged down in the complexities. Who artificially creates this divide? How many people have you talked to with opposing social views? Not politicians, regular citizens. Did you get them to realize that they're actually not divided at all? Did you ask them from where and what their beliefs derived? If not, how did you determine that they were duped or that their views were otherwise insincere, deliberately or otherwise? You certainly don't believe that _your_ views are artificially created by someone else, do you? Why do you think that that is the case for nearly everyone else? Or totally everyone else? Which is it? Nearly everyone or totally everyone?
> 
> People can unite coming from different places by different routes
> 
> Ideas mostly can't. Not in that way
> 
> The idea of being pro-abortion cannot be unified with the idea of being anti-abortion. The same with other ideas, from one end of the spectrum to the other. All the different shades and degrees of positions. All of them have out there have somewhere their diametric opposite
> 
> Your entire post is stereotypes and over-simplification and a projected simplified version of reality based on your own overly simplistic and limited understanding of political philosophies and ideas though :draper2
> 
> There's more than one kind of cancer
> 
> Start digging down into what you say and
> 
> Well


All of the above simply indicates to me that you're at this point still trying to make this a whole "Rants" thing now in the Trump thread. Of course what I posted was a simplification full of generalizations - but the essence of my generalizations was to remind everyone that complexity does indeed exist. So good on you. Looks like my attempt worked. 

Maybe you can be less trolly from here on out. I don't care to address your finer points because glossing them over, they simply are designed to argue for the sake of argument and presented in a way where it you simply want me to expand on what I said and not that what I said was actually simplified without the necessary background depth behind those salient points. There's a lot I agree with you on the above and it seems like you are indeed capable of analysing politics with a less troll-like lens when you really put your mind to it. 

Not everything requires a full thesis. 

The purpose of my post is served and that's enough for me.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reaper said:


> https://www.wrestlingforum.com/76314638-post2271.html
> 
> Aah well, now you're going to pretend that you meant something completely different when you over-exaggerate what I was expressed that I was attempting to do to mean this:


I don't see the word "Mao" in that post





> These are your words. Not anyone elses. I'm sure you're going to try to attempt to make this about something else, but I'm not an idiot. Tom Friedman is consistently compared to Mao (a simple google search is easy enough to ascertain this).
> 
> It's obvious what you were doing there when all I expressed that I want to go read an alternate version of Chinese history. So stop trying to bury your own trolling past.


Wait, Tom Friedman is compared to Mao?

Wow

By whom?

That seems silly



> read an alternate version of Chinese history.


Would you not be better served by reading the complete version of Chinese history? 







> This is yet another projection. You really believe that if you feel a certain way about something, others will too. Your psychological projections are kind of pathalogical at this point. Only 3 people have had an issue with regards to my change in political outlook and my expressions as far as coming forward is concerned. By and large I have effectively explained the change as well as the purpose behind what I was doing to be as transparent as possible. Even admitting that I've done this intentionally is transparency because to me truth matters. It's only to those who intentionally blur lines without admitting them that this would be a problem because I don't have that fear of being "exposed" as they do.


You aren't addressing the issue. You're sidestepping it with various tactics like e-psychology and gaslighting

You admitted that you went about with some kind of plan to take advantage of people accepting your words for what they were, acting in good faith by believing what you told them. I don't know why you think your behavior is laudable in the slightest



> Even admitting that I've done this intentionally is transparency *because to me truth matters*.


Truth matters to you so much that you had to lie? 



> I blurred the lines about my political beliefs exactly for the purpose of people like you who make stupid rants like the one I posted above from being able to do so. You bait a lot in this thread. You troll. You try to destroy any decent conversation about anything with a shit fuck ton of smileys, trolling and just outright distracting everyone from anything that is being discussed like a low level troll who just has to spam every conversation with his attention whoring smileys. Dude that act has gotten tired. Then it gets too hot to handle so you beg people to be civil and you again are the one that drags it back down. You even freaking admitted to doing that at least once already. So you're aware of your shenanigans, just incapable of change.


You lie to people about what you believe. You proudly said you do. I have never lied to anyone here about what I believe. I don't try to trick people _about what I mean._ Those kinds of games do not appeal to me 

You're spending a lot of words justifying this behavior you clearly believe is clever. All those words are doing is attempting to rationalize dishonesty

There is no need to be dishonest like that. Absolutely none



> Again, this is a projection. You act in bad faith, you twist people's opinions, you make trolling posts, you bait people, you spam gifs and you derail this thread so you feel like others do it as well.


How grim and gray you are. Most of what you are talking about is pure silliness and intended as nothing more. It speaks more to you than it does to me that you have such a reaction to levity



> Look at yourself in the mirror for once and see how you behave before getting so judgement about others. But I don't think this will matter because you are not the type of person that is capable of self-reflection at all. Only projections.


Physician, heal thyself


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> I don't see the word "Mao" in that post


Just stop pretending. Lol. It was obvious what you were going for at the time and tbh at first I played it off as a joke, but you continued to drive yourself mad thinking about me over the last few months. 



> You aren't addressing the issue. You're sidestepping it with various tactics like e-psychology and gaslighting


And projections are also when the other person simply does not recognize when they're doing it. Also, worried about gaslighting when you've spent what 5 days now with your "promos" (of course they're promos and not your *real* feelings) in the rant threads. It's not "really being abusive". Lol. And then you whine about lack of self-awareness. I'm not hurt by anything you said btw but I am very curious as to why you think that you and I are at some kind of level where you can say shit and not expect anything to be said to you in return :lol 

I'm pretty sure I don't need to give a fuck about your feelings at this point lol. 



> You admitted that you went about with some kind of plan to take advantage of people accepting your words for what they were, acting in good faith.


And this is the paranoia I was talking about. There is no "taking advantage of people" when all you do is simply repeat their arguments publicly. Acting like a mimic does not harm or hurt anyone that I mimic for my experiment since I'm the only person who's actively involved. My posts were mine, and the reactions I received to those posts were mine. 

So what if I copied someone else's ideas to get reactions to myself and no one else. So when I made my posts, there was literally no one being taken advantage of. If that's the case then anyone that ever repeats anything anyone ever says is "taking advantage of them". I still have no clue why this bothers you so much. Unless of course it doesn't and you have a different motive, but I don't really care to speculate publicly. 

You really are entering into r/niceguy territory without even realizing it aren't you. Again, here's that projection. You're absolutely convinced that I'm gaslighting, but it's because that's the process you started with your months long flaming and trolling of my activities on WF. Funny thing is we never even communicated privately or anything like that. There was literally nothing done to you except have me say things that agreed with your POV for a bit. Boo fucking hoo. I did believe some of what I said for a time too. I changed my mind. Boo fucking hoo. Stop crying about that already. 

You really don't see it at all. I mean, at this point I can't help you at all. This niceguy sadcringe stuff seems like you are basically hurting yourself by assuming that I took advantage of you in some way. 



> Truth matters to you so much that you had to lie?


Aha. and that's the thing. It's not a lie when I believe it to be true at the time. That's the best part of an immersion experiment. I don't think you know how those work. 

And considering that no one was hurt or harmed in any way by my experiment, I'm pretty sure there's really no way to attach morality to it at all except your reach. 



> You lie to people about what you believe. You proudly said you do. I have never lied to anyone here about what I believe. I don't try to trick people for some weird purpose.


More expressions of "you hurt me", "you hurt others". Hon, no one is getting hurt by my personas and "lies" on the internet. :lol 



> You're spending a lot of words justifying this behavior you clearly believe is clever. All those words are is rationalizing dishonesty


Still more expressions of your own personal feelings, or worry over the feelings of others. And yet, you're the only one worried about my "lies" and "dishonesty" "tricking" and somehow now even being harmful or whatever. 

That's all a very personal impression of something. 



> There is no need to be dishonest like that. Absolutely none


People do stuff we don't like sometimes and sometimes that makes us feel personally hurt even when no hurt is intended. That's ok. These are just your feelings at this point. You'll get over them. 



> How grim and gray you are. Most of what you are talking about is pure silliness and intended as nothing more. It speaks more to you than it does to me that you have such a reaction to levity


And what I did had absolutely no malintent behind it and obviously no one got hurt. Unless you did. Or you think someone else did. Which is projection again. So at this point what you've got is basically a bunch of hurt feelings because I said a bunch of things in the past that were taken directly from the far right political spectrum in order to assess their value? 

You don't think or believe that you lie. But you do without realizing it. I mean, it's pretty much already a pretty strong lie that my "experiment" had any negative consequences on people. Unless they somehow had some negative consequences on you. 



> Physician, heal thyself


I'm perfectly fine thank you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

LOL at more Trump supporters getting triggered over their tax returns.
Libs tried to tell you. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about when they vote against their best interest just to own the libs


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at more Trump supporters getting triggered over their tax returns.
> Libs tried to tell you. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about when they vote against their best interest just to own the libs


Ours went down too. A few hundred bucks, but yeah they promised that they will be bigger this year - and they shrank.

You know, one of those posts really strikes me as something interesting to examine:

"I have lost life long friends in support of you." 

There is a very interesting social problem developing here that people aren't paying attention to. How many people has Trump torn apart as a consequence of him accessing some of the worst aspects of the human psyche just for his personal support.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reaper said:


> Just stop pretending. Lol. It was obvious what you were going for at the time and tbh at first I played it off as a joke, but you continued to drive yourself mad thinking about me over the last few months.


Really, who says that Thomas Friedman is Mao Tse-Tung? I'd like some names to chuckle at because that is really weird. You said you Google machined it. Results please? 



> And projections are also when the other person simply does not recognize when they're doing it. Also, worried about gaslighting when you've spent what 5 days now with your "promos" (of course they're promos and not your *real* feelings) in the rant threads :lol


What are you talking about? I never said they were promos or not my real feelings



> I'm pretty sure I don't need to give a fuck about your feelings at this point lol.


:draper2



> And this is the paranoia I was talking about. There is no "taking advantage of people" when all you do is simply repeat their arguments publicly. Acting like a mimic does not harm or hurt anyone that I mimic for my experiment since I'm the only person who's actively involved. My posts were mine, so what if I copied someone else's ideas to get reactions to myself and no one else. So when I made my posts, there was literally no one being taken advantage of.


You said that you made statements you did not believe in for the purpose of deceiving others. You initially gave a clear reason for doing so but now there are some additional reasons you are giving that are increasingly vague



> You really are entering int r/niceguy territory without even realizing it aren't you. Again, here's that projection. You're absolutely convinced that I'm gaslighting, but it's because that's the process you started with your months long flaming and trolling of my activities on WF.


I have disliked you for longer than months. This communism business has nothing to do with that

I'm not familiar with r/niceguy, you seem to be to employ it as an insult. Could you describe it?



> You really don't see it at all. I mean, at this point I can't help you at all. This niceguy sadcringe stuff seems like you are basically hurting yourself by assuming that I took advantage of you in some way.


These are all red herrings to distract from you being dishonest and acting like being dishonest is either good or doesn't matter or whatever your rationalization of the moment is

sadcringe is another subreddit, right? Never visited that one either. I can guess what it's like from the name so on that one I don't think you need to provide a description 



> Aha. and that's the thing. It's not a lie when I believe it to be true at the time. That's the best part of an immersion experiment. I don't think you know how those work.


...But you said that you didn't believe it to be true at the time. You said you "deliberately blurred..." etc. If you really believed it at the time then you were not blurring anything deliberately or otherwise

You can't have it both ways or toss out "immersion experiment" like that means anything

I think you're still being dishonest right now. You didn't believe what you said, you were "deliberately blurring" to frustrate those you claim wish to "pigeon-hole" you, but here you say you did believe it when you said it because it was an "immersion experiment." Okay so which is it? 



> And considering that no one was hurt or harmed in any way by my experiment, I'm pretty sure there's really no way to attach morality to it at all except your reach.


What about people who assumed they were reading what you really believed? 

Wasn't their time, in a sense, wasted by you?



> More expressions of "you hurt me", "you hurt others". Hon, no one is getting hurt by my personas and "lies" on the internet. :lol


These are some really lowest common denominator rationalizations for being dishonest

You never heard that virtue is its own reward?



> Still more expressions of your own personal feelings, or worry over the feelings of others. And yet, you're the only one worried about my "lies" and "dishonesty" "tricking" and somehow now even being harmful or whatever.


I assume that when I am talking with someone about their beliefs, they are not lying. I don't see where this is an unreasonable assumption to make. I do not see where being dishonest about one's own beliefs is virtuous or productive of anything but some odd attempt to score petty personal points



> That's all a very personal impression of something.


Judging from your prose you're feeling quite personal at the moment



> People do stuff we don't like sometimes and sometimes that makes us feel personally hurt even when no hurt is intended. That's ok. These are just your feelings at this point. You'll get over them.


Can you go a single paragraph without some baiting personal comment? 



> And what I did had absolutely no malintent behind it and obviously no one got hurt. Unless you did. Or you think someone else did. Which is projection again. So at this point what you've got is basically a bunch of hurt feelings because I said a bunch of things in the past that were taken directly from the far right political spectrum in order to assess their value?


...Isn't this statement contradicted by this statement?



> I've deliberately blurred the lines as much as I can to confuse those who are at extreme ends themselves. It amuses me when they try to pigeonhole me.


People do not generally confuse others with _positive_ intent. You yourself implicitly stated that entirely reasonable conclusion when talking about the social divide

You want to have it both ways and you can't. You say one second that you did this thing for this purpose to get these people. Then the next, that's not the way it was at all



> You don't think or believe that you lie. But you do without realizing it. I mean, it's pretty much already a pretty strong lie that my "experiment" had any negative consequences on people. Unless they somehow had some negative consequences on you.


That's just pure sophistry and gaslighting man 

It's never going to produce the kind of discussion you say you want

If you do not consider this interminable going in circles a negative consequence, well, that is belied by, again, the increasingly strident tone you are taking with me. But if that is your consideration, hell I'll go with it. We are digging into something that is real here and should continue with it until the truth is found



> I'm perfectly fine thank you.


The increasingly personal nature of your prose suggests otherwise

You really want this discussion to be 100% personal, taunts and e-psychology and pettiness so far as I can tell

I want you to realize being dishonest to petty purpose or no purpose should be beneath you, you can clearly articulate your beliefs with proficiency so why would you waste your time articulating not-your-beliefs as if they were?

This conversation would end instantly if you just said "Bro, I was trolling, come on lulz" and I would have a good laugh and toast you sir :quite


----------



## AlternateDemise

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Do you think? What has he done that's so "insane" recently, other than the obvious occasional twitter rants? Genuinely curious.


Watch him give any statement regarding why the wall should be built and there's your answer.



Reaper said:


> Ours went down too. A few hundred bucks, but yeah they promised that they will be bigger this year - and they shrank.
> 
> You know, one of those posts really strikes me as something interesting to examine:
> 
> "I have lost life long friends in support of you."
> 
> There is a very interesting social problem developing here that people aren't paying attention to. How many people has Trump torn apart as a consequence of him accessing some of the worst aspects of the human psyche just for his personal support.


I have quite a few close friends who are Trump supporters, one or two of them are even active supporters. And yeah, seeing them constantly post about him singing his praises for shit he doesn't deserve can get annoying. But I'd never let that get in the way of the fact that they are still close friends of mine. And I'd like to think that the feeling is mutual on their end. So far that has been the case. I guess that's something I can give Trump supporters credit for, they don't cut off friendships just because that person doesn't support Trump. I think they at least understand that not everyone can share the same views on everything, and that's okay.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Do you think? What has he done that's so "insane" recently, other than the obvious occasional twitter rants? Genuinely curious.
> 
> I hate to break it to you too, but its 'your side' (not you personally, I know) who are espousing the actually crazy Russiagate conspiracy theory on this thread. I'm not sure you can say that they are above the craziness.


Since when are Trumps Twitter rants just occasional? It's almost daily, he is ranting and raving on twitter


----------



## deepelemblues

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Watch him give any statement regarding why the wall should be built and there's your answer.


All drug and sex trafficking must be conducted through and under the auspices of :trump International LLC, in a modern and professional manner. That is why there must be a wall


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> All drug and sex trafficking must be conducted through and under the auspices of :trump International LLC, in a modern and professional manner. That is why there must be a wall


Go troll someone else.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Watch him give any statement regarding why the wall should be built and there's your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I have quite a few close friends who are Trump supporters, one or two of them are even active supporters. And yeah, seeing them constantly post about him singing his praises for shit he doesn't deserve can get annoying. But I'd never let that get in the way of the fact that they are still close friends of mine. And I'd like to think that the feeling is mutual on their end. So far that has been the case. I guess that's something I can give Trump supporters credit for, they don't cut off friendships just because that person doesn't support Trump. *I think they at least understand that not everyone can share the same views on everything, and that's okay*.


trump's supporters aren't as trustful of the media. democrats are more likely to get worked up by what they see on tv.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> trump's supporters aren't as trustful of the media. democrats are more likely to get worked up by what they see on tv.


Yeah because the Democrats know how full of shit the media is and how they lie to us, whereas Trump supporters watch Fox news and believe all the bullshit lies they tell


----------



## deepelemblues

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Go troll someone else.


I can't even poke fun at :trump eh

Go off the internet and come back when you feel better


----------



## Draykorinee

Seems a huge leap to suggest that Trump supporters don't trust the media, sure they don't trust A LOT of the media, but you damn well know they trust the fuck out of Fox News, stop lying to yourselves.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Berzerker's Beard said:


> trump's supporters aren't as trustful of the media. democrats are more likely to get worked up by what they see on tv.


Which is a serious problem, on both ends. Trump supporters, at least the ones with decent access to media coverage, should have at the very least saw what is happening coming. And it's absolutely laughable that they are shocked at what has happened with their taxes since when you look at how the tax plan was lined out, it was pretty obvious this was going to happen. And now the middle class is suffering. 

I should feel bad. But I honestly don't. I give literally no fucks.


----------



## deepelemblues

How do you know he doesn't want the wall so he can corner the Mexico-to-US smuggling routes? 

Maybe he does. That would be a lot of :vince$

Okay no he doesn't his grift is real estate and faux high-end consumer products not smuggling illegal products


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> Seems a huge leap to suggest that Trump supporters don't trust the media, sure they don't trust A LOT of the media, but you damn well know they trust the fuck out of Fox News, stop lying to yourselves.


Exactly, they parrot Trump and call CNN or NYT fake news but they believe everything Fox News tells them

The only reason they don't trust CNN or NYT is because Trump tells them not to, not because they fact check them to see when they are lying. Because when CNN and NYT is telling the truth about Trump they still call it fake news.


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> Seems a huge leap to suggest that Trump supporters don't trust the media, sure they don't trust A LOT of the media, but you damn well know they trust the fuck out of Fox News, stop lying to yourselves.


Only about 10% of the adult population watches ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/FOX news or reads the NYTimes/LATimes/WaPo/WSJ if you combine their viewership and readership into a single number, who knows what the other 90% trust

Probably the shit they see posted on Facebook


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Berzerker's Beard said:


> trump's supporters aren't as trustful of the media. democrats are more likely to get worked up by what they see on tv.





birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah because the Democrats know how full of shit the media is and how they lie to us, whereas Trump supporters watch Fox news and believe all the bullshit lies they tell





Draykorinee said:


> Seems a huge leap to suggest that Trump supporters don't trust the media, sure they don't trust A LOT of the media, but you damn well know they trust the fuck out of Fox News, stop lying to yourselves.


https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...rumps-attacks-on-the-media-may-have-backfired









Here are the actual stats on Republican/ Democrat trust in the media if you're interested. It shows that BB is correct in his assertion that Democrats are more likely to trust the media they watch than Republicans. It's an interesting poll I'm sure you'll agree.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...rumps-attacks-on-the-media-may-have-backfired
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the actual stats on Republican/ Democrat trust in the media if you're interested. It shows that BB is correct in his assertion that Democrats are more likely to trust the media they watch the Republicans. It's an interesting poll I'm sure you'll agree.


What did I just say? Its because the republicans parrot Trumps fake news BS

and CNN, MSNBC, NYT dont lie all the time like Fox News does.

Fact wise CNN, MSNBC, and NYT are way more truthful than Fox news

its very telling how Republicans trust Fox News and Breitbart. The two biggest propaganda news outlets in the US


----------



## deepelemblues

I forgot RUSH! Limbaugh, he's in the mid 10 millions. That dwarfs the reach of single national broadcast or cable news program/station and any newspaper


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> What did I just say? Its because the republicans parrot Trumps fake news BS
> 
> and CNN, MSNBC, NYT dont lie all the time like Fox News does.
> 
> Fact wise CNN, MSNBC, and NYT are way more truthful than Fox news
> 
> its very telling how Republicans trust Fox News and Breitbart. The two biggest propaganda news outlets in the US


American news media is abysmal. I think fake news is actually quite appropriate a lot of the time, they all seem to publish news without actually checking whether it is true or not - as long as it aligns with the broadcaster/ publishers political agenda then that's enough.

Being more truthful than Fox News is a pretty low standard for news media to be held to lol :laugh: 

I agree that it is interesting that Breitbart, according to this poll, is the second most trustworthy news outlet amongst Republicans. I would imagine most objective people can see that it is not a trustworthy or balanced news site.

Having said that I think it is also interesting that as BB said, Republican trust in the media as a whole is much lower than that of the Dems, even in their own media. For example, you and Dray both implied by your comments that you probably expected trust in Fox News to be higher amongst Republicans. For example you said _'the Democrats know how full of shit the media is and how they lie to us, whereas Trump supporters watch Fox news and believe all the bullshit lies'_ but actually the opposite seems to be true. GOP trust in Fox News was around 35%, while Dems trust was closer to 50% in CNN for example.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Trump exploding in to hyperbole mode to please the righteous conservative anti-pro choice voters! Like he gives shit IRL.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-trump.html



> President Trump on Tuesday evening asked Congress to ban a type of abortion often referred to as *“late-term abortion.”*
> 
> He said he wanted to protect “children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.” He scorned New York’s recently passed Reproductive Health Act, saying that lawmakers had “cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would* allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth*.”


However let's say again that Trump had another attack of innacurate bullshits.



> Late-term abortion is a phrase used by abortion opponents to refer to abortions performed after about 21 weeks of pregnancy. It is not the same as the medical definition obstetricians use for “late-term,” which refers to pregnancies that extend past a woman’s due date, meaning about 41 or 42 weeks. Contrary to Mr. Trump’s claim, late-term abortions do not allow “a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.”


*How common is it?
*


> Very rare. The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that about *1.3* percent of abortions performed in the United States in 2015 occurred in or after the 21st week of pregnancy. Abortions after 24 weeks comprise less than *one percent *of all abortions. When they occur, it is usually because the fetus has been found to have a fatal condition that could not be detected earlier, such as a severe malformation of the brain, or because the mother’s life or health is at serious risk.


One percent is what the righties like to bleat from the hills about.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> American news media is abysmal. I think fake news is actually quite appropriate a lot of the time, they all seem to publish news without actually checking whether it is true or not - as long as it aligns with the broadcaster/ publishers political agenda then that's enough.
> 
> Being more truthful than Fox News is a pretty low standard for news media to be held to lol :laugh:
> 
> I agree that it is interesting that Breitbart, according to this poll, is the second most trustworthy news outlet amongst Republicans. I would imagine most objective people can see that it is not a trustworthy or balanced news site.
> 
> Having said that I think it is also interesting that as BB said, Republican trust in the media as a whole is much lower than that of the Dems, even in their own media. For example, you and Dray both implied by your comments that you probably expected trust in Fox News to be higher amongst Republicans. For example you said _'the Democrats know how full of shit the media is and how they lie to us, whereas Trump supporters watch Fox news and believe all the bullshit lies'_ but actually the opposite seems to be true. GOP trust in Fox News was around 35%, while Dems trust was closer to 50% in CNN for example.


No one does more fake news than Trump. Over 8,000 false statements since he took President. 

Again the Republicans don't Trump the media lower than Dems. They just shit on anything that they think is anti-Trump. It has nothing to do with if they really think CNN is trust worthy or not. Id love to see what their opinion on CNN was before Trump took office. 

It also does not matter what people believe to be true.

What percent of lies does Fox News tell vs what percent of lies does CNN tell.

Because if more people believe CNN and they tell the truth 75% (just making up a number for the sake of argument) of the time then them thinking CNN is trustworthy isn't wrong. 

So what you need to do is take that chart and cross-reference it with how truthful each outlet is


----------



## Miss Sally

Fake news!?

Well by golly gee, maybe we wouldn't have this issue if our Government didn't legalize propaganda and then before that changed it so people didn't have to report the News as unbiased as possible.

Maybe if the media outlets weren't owned by giant corporations with a giant vested interest in the Government it would be better!

Maybe if the MSM wasn't so clickbaity and does more staging than a Hollywood production there wouldn't be this issue!

Why is fake news so huge? Because the MSM has pushed it for years, because nobody knows what to believe thanks to their sensationalism.


----------



## Draykorinee

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump's supporters aren't as trustful of the media. democrats are more likely to get worked up by what they see on tv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because the Democrats know how full of shit the media is and how they lie to us, whereas Trump supporters watch Fox news and believe all the bullshit lies they tell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a huge leap to suggest that Trump supporters don't trust the media, sure they don't trust A LOT of the media, but you damn well know they trust the fuck out of Fox News, stop lying to yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...rumps-attacks-on-the-media-may-have-backfired
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the actual stats on Republican/ Democrat trust in the media if you're interested. It shows that BB is correct in his assertion that Democrats are more likely to trust the media they watch than Republicans. It's an interesting poll I'm sure you'll agree.
Click to expand...

By a small margin and like I said, they trust fox news so it's not like they're non trusting of the media. This also shows Trump voters, my post says Trump supporters, your binary red/blue party system means that people often don't even support their presidential candidate but because of bipartisan hackery they have to vote for them. So I still stand by what I said.

Polls are flawed and this one is just one of many.

This one shows that Fox News is the most trusted outside of the BBC (lol) https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/322934/tvs-most-trusted-news-brands.html


----------



## deepelemblues

New York state collected 2.3 billion less in tax revenue for the latest fiscal year (ending in 7 weeks on March 31) compared to the previous one

With a state budget of about 175 billion dollars this is kind of a big deal

The reason of course is that too many of those filthy rich folks are fleeing the state, either literally or by shifting their official residence out of state, because of its tax rates

The wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers pay 46% of its income taxes so revenue takes a big hit if any appreciable number of them head south and west for states with taxes that are less onerous, which basically means any state in the union not named California or New Jersey

Yes that's right 1% of the population is the source of 46% of the state income tax revenue, tell me again about the 1% "not paying their fair share"

If nearly half of the income tax revenue is not a fair share what would be? Nearly 60%? 70%? 90%?


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> New York state collected 2.3 billion less in tax revenue for the latest fiscal year (ending in 7 weeks on March 31) compared to the previous one
> 
> With a state budget of about 175 billion dollars this is kind of a big deal
> 
> The reason of course is that too many of those filthy rich folks are fleeing the state, either literally or by shifting their official residence out of state, because of its tax rates
> 
> The wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers pay 46% of its income taxes so revenue takes a big hit if any appreciable number of them head south and west for states with taxes that are less onerous, which basically means any state in the union not named California or New Jersey
> 
> Yes that's right 1% of the population is the source of 46% of the state income tax revenue, tell me again about the 1% "not paying their fair share"
> 
> If nearly half of the income tax revenue is not a fair share what would be? Nearly 60%? 70%? 90%?


The top 1% have more money than the bottom 95%. So that number is probably low for their fair share. 

Your logic is faulty.


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> The top 1% have more money than the bottom 95%. So that number is probably low for their fair share.
> 
> Your logic is faulty.


You're confusing wealth with income

Nationally, the yearly income of the top 1% is about 20% of the total. In 2016 the total yearly income was about 16.5 trillion dollars so the top 1% earn about 4.1 trillion a year

The amount of privately owned wealth in the US is about 100 trillion dollars

The richest 1% own about 40% of that, about 40 trillion dollars

The _wealth_ of the top 1% would completely fund the US federal government at current levels of spending for about 8 and a half years

Add state spending onto it and the wealth of the top 1% would fund the federal government and all 50 state governments at current spending levels for about 6 and a half years 

If you took 95% of the 1%'s current total yearly income it would fund about 93% of current federal spending levels and about 72% of total federal and state government spending

For one year

After one year of earning 4.1 trillion and only getting to keep 205 billion of it, income would plummet. Nobody is working to maximize their income when 95% of it is taken away. People do not attempt to maximize their personal income when there is no personal incentive to do so. This has been proven again and again and again in many different countries. People do whatever is necessary to pay the lowest tax rate possible 

Your math is mistaken. What you want to do, either way (confiscatory tax levels on income or wealth) would destroy the ability of the country to fund government at all after a short period of time without massive tax increases on the middle class as well, which would also destroy their income and wealth accumulation after a short period of time. Soaking the rich until they're dry then attempting to make up the difference via the middle class would get you less than a generation's worth of funding. After that, the party's over. Sooner, because of course spending would continue to increase while taxable income and wealth would decrease


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> You're confusing wealth with income
> 
> Nationally, the yearly income of the top 1% is about 20% of the total
> 
> The amount of privately owned wealth in the US is about 100 trillion dollars
> 
> The richest 1% own about 40% of that, about 40 trillion dollars
> 
> The _wealth_ of the top 1% would completely fund the US federal government at current levels of spending for about 8 and a half years
> 
> Add state spending onto it and the wealth of the top 1% would fund the federal government and all 50 state governments at current spending levels for about 6 and a half years
> 
> Your math is mistaken


New York was the most unequal state in the nation with the top 1 percent averaging about $2.2 million in annual earnings, about 44 times the average income of $49,617 for the other 99 percent. The national minimum income for the top 1 percent in the U.S. is $421,926, according to a new report.


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> New York was the most unequal state in the nation with the top 1 percent averaging about $2.2 million in annual earnings, about 44 times the average income of $49,617 for the other 99 percent. The national minimum income for the top 1 percent in the U.S. is $421,926, according to a new report.


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/brookings-1-percent/473478/



> In recent years, as economic inequality in America has grown, many researchers have tried to figure out just how much wealth and income those at the top have. These figures then come to stand for the magnitude of economic inequality in the U.S. One such finding is that of Emmanuel Saez, the Berkeley economist and Thomas Piketty-collaborator, who has found that *America’s 1 percent’s share of total U.S. income is* *roughly 20 percent.*
> 
> But a new paper from the Brookings Institution challenges this and other calculations of Saez and Piketty, arguing that while wealth and income inequality are indeed increasing (nobody disputes that), they haven’t done so at the magnitude that Piketty and his colleagues have found. The paper, authored by three Federal Reserve economists—Jesse Bricker, Alice Henriques, and John Sabelhaus—and Jacob Krimmel of Wharton, found that from 1992 to 2012, the top 1 percent’s share of wealth rose by 6 percentage points to 33 percent. This is substantially lower than estimates by Saez and his colleagues, which estimate that the share of wealth held by the 1 percent is 42 percent. The share of income estimate is more similar: The Brookings paper found that *the share of income earned by the 1 percent is 18 percent,* while Piketty and Saez’s 2012 estimate is *23 percent.*


If person A earns a taxable income much larger than person B but at the end of the day ends up with about the same amount of money after taxes as person B, they will reduce their taxable income to about person B's level. If they end up with 2x as much as person B, they'll reduce their taxable income to the lowest amount possible where they still end up with about 2x as person B after taxes. Or whatever the case may be. With different tax brackets, it is most possible to do that if the highest bracket taxes income at a massively higher rate than the lower brackets. All that money that you think would go into the coffers of the government would disappear. The government would never get it. It would never come into existence in the first place

Now I know here is the part where you talk about marginal tax rates. Fine. Let's say that 95% doesn't count except on every dollar you earn above $5 million a year. That first $5 million is taxed at 50%. 50 cents on the dollar. You keep $2.5 million. The rest is taxed at 95%. 95 cents on the dollar. _Why would you want to earn more than $5 million a year?_ Now what if you could potentially make $50 million a year? $5 million of it would be taxed at 50% (you keep $2.5 million). The other $45 million, taxed at 95%. You'd get to keep another $2.25 million. _You would have to make ten times as much so as to be able to not even double the amount you get to keep!_ Who is going to do that? There's a lot more work and risk involved in making $50 million a year than $5 million. The maximum income you would have an incentive to make would be $5 million. And the government, instead of collecting $45.25 million in income tax revenue from you, would instead collect only $2.5 million

The ideal rate of taxation on income is one that does not diminish the incentive to maximize income by even a cent. Your preferred rate of taxation on income... is not that rate

As for a tax on wealth rather than income...






And yes that is Mr. Michael Moore

A tax on a person's wealth (monetary savings + value of their physical property) while that person is living would have the same effect as a confiscatory inheritance tax (tax on savings and value of physical property collected at death) (death tax, estate tax, whatever you want to call it)

Much wealth is not liquid, it does not exist in the form of money. It exists in the form of property. Land, buildings, vehicles, stock, bonds, patents that generate income by selling licenses to use them, copyrights etc. For the government to collect taxes on most wealth, those being taxed would have to _sell_ property to get money to pay the tax _on_ property! Let's say you have property worth $50 million and it is taxed at 10%. That means that every year you'd have to come up with $5 million to pay the tax. Does $50 million in property generate $5 million a year? Maybe some kinds of property. Not most. And most of the kinds that would, that $5 million would be the bulk generated. Would enough be left over to _keep_ that property operating and generating enough money to pay the wealth tax and _keep_ operating, year after year? In most cases, no. It would not. And forget about _increasing_ the value of that property. That would mean more strain because more taxes. What about 2%, like Elizabeth Warren has proposed? No. Not even then. Property (land and homes and buildings on that land) taxes are a form of wealth tax. The highest in the US is 2.4% in New Jersey. What's going on in New Jersey? People leaving. The tax base crumbling. New Jersey's public finances are in terrible shape. State budgets all over the country are busting because tax revenue is not anywhere near matching spending. Because the tax rates on all kinds of taxes in those statess take away the incentive to increase wealth. That's why the Northeastern states, and states like Illinois, and states like California, are hemorrhaging population to states in the south and southwest that have (much) lower tax rates. 

People would wish to get rid of their property to avoid paying the taxes on it. A tax on all wealth means paying taxes on the value of your land. Your home. Other buildings you own. Your family's car(s). Your family's phones. Your family's TVs. Tablets. Computers. The microwave oven. Refrigerator. Washer and dryer. Furniture. Clothing. Jewelry. The grill on the patio. Whatever. _All of these things have value. Most of them do not generate any income *at all.*_ Where would these people needing to sell property to pay the taxes owed find buyers? Then the _buyers_ would be the ones having to find a way to get the money to pay the taxes on the value of that property! You'd have to be a pretty big sucker to be a buyer in that situation. And the vast majority of people are not suckers. Not like that


----------



## birthday_massacre

Why are you moving the goalposts? First you were talking about New York I showed an
article how New York was way above the countries average. Yet you still talking about the whole country and not New York 


Also you act like the one percent having 20% of the country’s total income isnt a huge deal.


----------



## Kabraxal

Can we not argue with jealous poor people abot taxation? Or rich people that can afford good tax lawyers? All you ever hear is the same bullshit propoganda they get fed by their favourite shill... or they create it. Stop engaging with them. They will never debate in good faith. People like AOC are the problem. The fact she was voted in proves many people are fucking morons.


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> Why are you moving the goalposts? First you were talking about New York I showed an
> article how New York was way above the countries average. Yet you still talking about the whole country and not New York
> 
> 
> Also you act like the one percent having 20% of the country’s total income isnt a huge deal.


New York has increased taxes repeatedly in the last several years. "New York [being] way above the country's average" did not cause increased tax revenue via increased tax rates. Tax revenue decreased. You are implying that because "New York was way above the country's average," higher taxation should have worked in New York

It did not

New York or the country as a whole, it does not matter. You are wrong in either case. And I hardly see how I am "shifting the goalposts" when you want such high tax rates not just for New York, you want them for the country as a whole. Do you not?

No, 1% of the population having 20% of the total income is not a huge deal. In the Late Middle Ages in the Kingdom of England, the yearly income of "the 1%" of the time would be measured today in a couple of hundreds of millions of pounds. The great mass of the people, "the 99%"? Maybe fifteen million pounds. At the most. Most of the population earned less than the current equivalent 5 pounds a year. By most I'm talking 9 out of 10 people or more. Many only earned 1 pound. The rich took in _at least_ 85% of the total yearly income. This was the case for all of history, up until capitalism came along


----------



## Draykorinee

The top 1% only paying 49% is definitely too low when they own so much more than anyone else.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> New York has increased taxes repeatedly in the last several years. "New York [being] way above the country's average" did not cause increased tax revenue via increased tax rates. Tax revenue decreased. You are implying that because "New York was way above the country's average," higher taxation should have worked in New York
> 
> It did not
> 
> New York or the country as a whole, it does not matter. You are wrong in either case. And I hardly see how I am "shifting the goalposts" when you want such high tax rates not just for New York, you want them for the country as a whole. Do you not?
> 
> No, 1% of the population having 20% of the total income is not a huge deal. In the Late Middle Ages, the yearly income for "the 1%" of the time would be measured today in a couple of hundreds of millions of pounds. The great mass of the people, "the 99%"? Maybe ten million pounds. At the most. The rich took in _at least_ 85% of the total yearly income. This was the case for all of history, up until capitalism came along


 Oh but it had nothing to do with trumps tax cuts for the rich and not closing all the loopholes right


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> The top 1% only paying 49% is definitely too low when they own so much more than anyone else.


Wealth and income are two different things. You know that.

The wealth of the top 1% is insufficient to fund the government, as I showed.

As is the income of the top 1%. As I showed. Only if you assume the level of income would not decrease and the level of spending would not increase does it manage to come close, and it only comes close by taking nearly all their income every year. There is no way the level of income would not decrease. There is no way the level of spending would not increase. 

The history of taxation is the history of everyone who got taxed attempting to minimize how much they paid as much as possible. This is as true today as it was in 1370 AD. Or 1370 BC. The most common way to do this was and is to hide income and wealth, or have less of them. Bury your money if you had any currency. Bury as large a portion of the village harvest as possible in pits hidden in the forest (most people paid taxes in kind because currency was rare). Grow less grain to harvest. Keep fewer livestock. That's what the people did in the USSR and Red China and other places with confiscatory taxation too. Today, it's bury your money in an offshore tax haven or in places that don't get taxed. Make less money or operate at a loss to get into a lower tax bracket. That is what people to do to avoid the tax man. It's what they've always done. It's what they will always do. 

The numbers simply do not add up. I think you know that too.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Wealth and income are two different things. You know that.
> 
> The wealth of the top 1% is insufficient to fund the government, as I showed.
> 
> As is the income of the top 1%. As I showed. Only if you assume the level of income would not decrease and the level of spending would not increase does it manage to come close. There is no way the level of income would not decrease. There is no way the level of spending would not increase.
> 
> The history of taxation is the history of everyone who got taxed attempting to minimize how much they paid as much as possible. This is as true today as it was in 1370 AD. Or 1370 BC. The most common way to do this was to hide income and wealth. Bury your money if you had any currency. Bury as large a portion of your grain harvest as you could, because most people paid taxes in kind, not with money. Today, it's bury your money in an offshore tax haven. Grow less grain to harvest. Keep fewer livestock. Make less money or operate at a loss to get into a lower tax bracket. That is what people to do to avoid the tax man. It's what they've always done. It's what they will always do.
> 
> The numbers simply do not add up. I think you know that too.


 You truly are in Alex Jones territory. People are not going to sabotage their own company to make less money. To be in a lower tax bracket.


----------



## deepelemblues

Well look BM you are not going to believe me no matter what numbers and arguments I provide, and I am not going to believe that your lack of belief and feelings are sufficient to prove you right. You've spent the last several posts basically saying "I don't believe you" and making the implication that soaking the rich is viable based on your feelings rather than the figures and the history of human behavior. Your lack of belief does not make those figures and that history go away, and neither do your feelings. Dray's feelings don't make them go away either. Nobody's feelings do. We've entered into the territory of how, past a certain point, collectivism and human nature don't mesh. Once that point is passed, human behavior takes the form of rebelling against and undermining collectivism. And that point is passed far sooner than you believe. That is why, in the most collectivist modern societies, those of the communist nations of the 20th century, their level of collectivism was only maintained by massive violence and the threat of it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Show me an example of a company that operates at a loss to go into lower a tax bracket.

Also what if your whole point on this? That the rich should pay less in taxes? Because we know when they pay more the economy has better growth.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> I want you to realize being dishonest to petty purpose or no purpose should be beneath you, you can clearly articulate your beliefs with proficiency so why would you waste your time articulating not-your-beliefs as if they were?
> 
> This conversation would end instantly if you just said "Bro, I was trolling, come on lulz" and I would have a good laugh and toast you sir :quite


So, after all this bullshit that you dragged on for months, all you could come up with was "it wasted someone's time to read my lies" ... That's literally all you could come up with? "wasted someone's time" ... Ok then ... 

After all my explanations, your brain still can't reconcile with the why which is still a manifestation of your paranoia about my intentions. Either because you want there to be an evil motive or really want to believe there was one. This is all your own mind creating conspiracies. I've noticed that your interpretations tend to be slightly slanted (this has become evident in our back and forth several times over the last year or so) so that's again still on you. 

Ok. I don't know if I should mock you any further or just laugh this shit off because it seems to me like you got riled up by someone else and went off your rocker on their behalf and not even your own because it took you forever to come up with a reason for why what I did was wrong and it's your own subjective concept of "virtue". 

Oh well. Not a big deal. Hopefully you can move on now. 

---

Don't take this as me giving two shits about Russiagate because I don't, but from a personal and societal stand point, THIS is really why I think America is close to (if not actually within) dystopian territory. 










I remember several years ago after the Pulse Shooting, Apple refused to cooperate with the government in unlocking his phone for the FBI. 

So what's changed since then other than Steve Jobs dying?

See, the reason why corporate / government collusion is a bad thing is that it's kinda like a frog in boiling water thing. People don't realize how dangerous it is until the government starts passing more and more totalitarian laws and then use these massive databases to go after people they've now defined as criminals who may not have been once before. A lot of very innocent people were held prisoner for years without trial after the post 9/11 hysteria and a lot of private entities were tapped to hand over information back then. 

What's your privacy worth to you?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

come on guys it's obvious that socialism is the way to go

https://www.nrn.com/fast-casual/panera-bread-closes-last-pay-what-you-can-restaurant

*Panera Bread Co.’s pay-what-you-can concept, Panera Cares, will close its last location next week, as the company said the non-profit experiment is “no longer viable.”*

:lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Not sure when voluntary pricing of goods became a part of socialist ideology, yet another gigantic reach to attack socialism.

You know you're full gimmick when your attempts are this bad.


----------



## deepelemblues

You can't make a profit if your business model is to not make a profit. I guess "Panera Cares'" model was to make up the losses on giving food away for free or selling it for a price less than cost by increased sales to people who would pay full price because they were so impressed with how much Panera cared. 

Well hey if you wanna be a charity then be a charity. The tax laws are a hell of a lot nicer for you. If you wanna operate like a charity but you exist as a for profit business with all the extra costs a for profit business pays compared to a charity (not just taxes), then what the hell are you thinking?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Not sure when voluntary pricing of goods became a part of socialist ideology, yet another gigantic reach to attack socialism.
> 
> You know you're full gimmick when your attempts are this bad.


wtf? it's just like socialism.

they were banking on one group of people (people who can afford it) to subsidize food for another group of people (people who can't afford it).

turns out that when everyone has access to something but not everyone pays for it, eventually you *run out of money*.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure when voluntary pricing of goods became a part of socialist ideology, yet another gigantic reach to attack socialism.
> 
> You know you're full gimmick when your attempts are this bad.
> 
> 
> 
> wtf? it's just like socialism.
> 
> they were banking on one group of people (people who can afford it) to subsidize food for another group of people (people who can't afford it).
> 
> turns out that when everyone has access to something but not everyone pays for it, eventually you *run out of money*.
Click to expand...

That's not socialism. If you think paying what you like for coffee and bacon sandwiches in a capitalist centric society is a measure of state redistribution of wealth through taxation and state ownership of a countries means of production then you're even more of a gimmick poster than previously thought.

It's like me saying, look the latest humble bundle allowed me to buy 5 games for £5 isn't socialism great. But I'm not a fucking moron so I don't.

It's a capitalistic venture, you attract people to your store with the option to buy goods for a price you're willing to pay in the hope you get the volume to cover it.


----------



## Reaper

Urrmm.... ugh ... "pay what you want" is like the opposite of socialism. It's literally one of the most wrong things I've ever heard on WF. 



> *B. Price Mechanism in a Socialist Economy:*
> 
> The price mechanism has little relevance in a socialist economy as it is regarded as a distinguishing feature of a free market economy. *In a socialist economy the various elements of the price mechanism costs, prices and profits- are all planned and calculated by the planning authority in accordance with the targets of the plan.*
> 
> Thus, rational economic calculation is impossible in a planned economy because unlike *a free market economy the price mechanism is regulated and controlled. *The various assumptions under which the price system works in a free market economy do not hold well in a socialist economy.
> 
> *In a socialist economy, it is the central planning authority that performs the functions of the market. Since all the material means of production are owned, controlled and directed by the government, the decisions about what to produce are taken within the framework of a central plan.*
> 
> The decisions, as to the nature of goods to be produced and their quantities, depend upon the objectives, targets and priorities laid down by the central planning authority. *The prices of the various commodities are also fixed by this authority. P*rices reflect the social preferences of the common man. Consumers’ choice is limited only to the commodities that the planners decide to produce and offer.
> 
> The problem of how to produce is also decided by the central planning authority. It makes the rules for combining factors of production and choosing the scale of output of a plant, for determining the output of an industry, for the allocation of resources, and for the parametric use of prices in accounting.


In the most over-simplified way possible: price is _essentially_ determined by the State. 

"Pay whatever you want" in a free market economy by a privately owned enterprise without any consideration of any kind of market forces is literally fucking OPPOSITE of a socialist system. It was just a marketing idea/gimmick that failed in a capitalist society. 

Did he literally just pick up something that failed and go "hurr durrr loook SOCIALIZM IZ evilz and FAILZ hahaha "


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Urrmm.... ugh ... "pay what you want" is like the opposite of socialism. It's literally one of the most wrong things I've ever heard on WF.


Ironically, there are people who call themselves socialist actually do think that.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

you girls can laugh all you want, you're wrong.



> http://paneracares.org/our-mission/
> 
> We are a nonprofit community cafe concept of shared responsibility operated by the Panera Bread Foundation, a Section 501(c)(3) public charity. Panera Cares community cafes are designed to help raise awareness about the very serious and pervasive problem of food insecurity (hunger) in the U.S. Consider this: according to the United States Department of Agriculture, 49 million people – including 16 million children – are food insecure.. That means that 1 in 7 households have difficulty providing enough food for all their members at some time during the year.
> 
> These cafes operate on a pay-what-you-can model and depend on your donations and support to ensure our sustainability.* Panera Cares cafes provide suggested donation amounts for all menu items to help you understand the cost of “paying it forward” and assisting those who struggle with food insecurity.
> *
> *The funds collected are used to cover the operating costs of the cafes while also covering the cost of the meals for those who come in and are unable to contribute the suggested donation amount for their meals*


even if it's not textbook socialism it is still built on the same principle. the idea that everyone should be able eat at panera regardless of how much money they have or whether they can afford to or not. they were relying on the average patron to pay *more* for their food so that poorer people could eat for free.

and it failed miserably.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Ironically, there are people who call themselves socialist actually do think that.


They're mentally fucktarded and ignorant. 

That's the thing. The average American has been convinced to become so fucking scared to death of these two words (socialism and communism) that they can't even be bothered to learn what the system even espouses.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> They're mentally fucktarded and ignorant.
> 
> That's the thing. The average American has been convinced to become so fucking scared to death of these two words (socialism and communism) that they can't even be bothered to learn what the system even espouses.


And those who aren't scared of it and thinks its swell thinks it means "We get free stuff and everything will be equal and stuff". Sorry kids, Star Trek was fiction.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> And those who aren't scared of it and thinks its swell thinks it means "We get free stuff and everything will be equal and stuff". Sorry kids, Star Trek was fiction.


That's why I keep calling out Bernie the "socialist" to stop fucking calling it Socialism when all he wants is to expand the welfare state. 

That's the thing, when you spend more than half a century being afraid of something you forget what you are even afraid of and become afraid of everything that seems even remotely similar. 

This country is a classic case of what happens when you raise 3 generations in a system that doesn't teach them something but teaches them to be afraid of it. They eventually don't even know what they're afraid of and start associating random ass BS with what you're supposed to be afraid of. 

It's a dystopian nightmare.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

privileged american with every advantage imaginable at his disposal crying about living in a dystopia :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> .
> 
> Did he literally just pick up something that failed and go "hurr durrr loook SOCIALIZM IZ evilz and FAILZ hahaha "


That's exactly what he did. I did expect him to double down on it and was correct. 

A charitable capitalistic venture that failed is somehow conflated with a system of government that relies on state control.

It's definitely up there with the WOAT misrepresentations.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> It's definitely up there with the WOAT misrepresentations.


Yup. I spent a year on far right twitter and walked away seeing some crazy shit, but this is definitely the worst I've ever seen.

Found out why he thinks this. And he's not alone in this. 










:mj4 

I dare you to go read the comments. 

https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/06/...utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=atdailycaller


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## Reaper

:draper2


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> That's exactly what he did. I did expect him to double down on it and was correct.
> 
> *A charitable capitalistic venture* that failed is somehow conflated with a system of government that relies on state control.
> 
> It's definitely up there with the WOAT misrepresentations.












did you just call a *non-profit public charity organization* a 'capitalist venture'??? :lol

the ideas and beliefs that fueled the creation of panera cares are the exact same ones that fuel the fantasy of socialism. the belief that everyone is entitled whether they contribute or not.

panera thought they could come up with a way to feed the homeless and have their customers pay for it. turns out when you give away stuff for free people tend to abuse it and there simply isn't enough money to keep it all going.

if this was anything this was a charitable *socialistic* venture. 

and just like everything associated with socialism, it failed.


----------



## Reaper

BB's logic in a nutshell:

Apparently a blue monkey exists but since it's a monkey with four legs therefore horses don't drink water and apparently since horses and monkeys have been associated since they have two legs and monkeys have two hands so they're the same and there's no difference at all because it's all the same to me because that's how my logic works. 

It failed because the monkey was blue and water is blue and see, they're the same!


----------



## CamillePunk

It was a charitable capitalistic venture indeed, because charity is completely compatible with capitalism, unlike what some folks on here erroneously claim. This particular charitable experiment didn't work out, but there are plenty out there that do work. The intent was a good one, the execution obviously needs refinement.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Donald Trump though. :hmmm


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> did you just call a *non-profit public charity organization* a 'capitalist venture'??? :lol


Ummm, yeah, because non-profit organisations are capitalistic. Private entities sell and trade a service/good for profit and then put those profits in to social issues and business growth and no profits go to the shareholders. Instead of for profit organisations where the profits go to the shareholders/owners and business growth. 

The largest non-profit organisations are worth billions

I imagine you think non-profit means that they do everything they can to just not make any money.

:allen

I do not expect you to concede even though everyone's telling you you're wrong. Good day.



CamillePunk said:


> Not sure what any of this has to do with Donald Trump though. :hmmm


Good point.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> It was a charitable capitalistic venture indeed, because charity is completely compatible with capitalism, unlike what some folks on here erroneously claim. This particular charitable experiment didn't work out, but there are plenty out there that do work. The intent was a good one, the execution obviously needs refinement.
> 
> Not sure what any of this has to do with Donald Trump though. :hmmm


Charity is not capitalistic

It is not antithetical to capitalism though, or harmful to the functioning of a capitalist system

There is not much of an ideological relationship between the two in any way

The main relationship between capitalism and charity is that capitalism creates so much wealth in so many hands that expressing the general good nature of people through great amounts of charitable giving and widespread participation in charitable giving is possible

Just another example of the superiority of capitalism, it is broadly tolerant of and able to coexist with nearly any kind of behavior so long as that behavior is undertaken through the free choices of individuals. And that behavior is successful. Thousands of charities operate successfully, many of them on a large scale, in capitalist societies

This is of course in stark contrast to socialism which must proscribe many different behaviors and indeed the ideas and feelings that spur them in order to (barely) function as a socioeconomic system and the ability of many different behaviors to be successful is eliminated or much reduced



Draykorinee said:


> That's not socialism. If you think paying what you like for coffee and bacon sandwiches in a capitalist centric society is a measure of state redistribution of wealth through taxation and state ownership of a countries means of production then you're even more of a gimmick poster than previously thought.
> 
> It's like me saying, look the latest humble bundle allowed me to buy 5 games for £5 isn't socialism great. But I'm not a fucking moron so I don't.
> 
> It's a capitalistic venture, you attract people to your store with the option to buy goods for a price you're willing to pay in the hope you get the volume to cover it.


What is the meaning of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

I think that it sheds some light on the nature of the experiment that was "Panera Cares."

That humble bundle is still making them money. Period. If they knew it wasn't going to they wouldn't try it. There's the difference. Panera Cares was selling things at a loss. Their pricing was "whatever you feel like paying." If it resulted in a loss on individual sales, whatever. Future guaranteed losses on individual sales, whatever. They knew that there was going to be a not-insignificant proportion of sales at a loss, that some proportion of sales at a loss would be a baked-in, permanent feature of the model, they knew that before they even started and went ahead anyway

That is not capitalist at all

It would be an example of the awesomely wacky ideas that capitalism allows though. Virtue-signaling for profit An example of one of the millions of ideas that get a chance in capitalism. Some of them work, some don't. This one did not

If that were the only consequential intent of this venture, getting attention and goodwill to increase (full price) sales volume, I would agree with you. But I at the least have no doubt that there were genuine, earnest intentions that sprang directly from the ideal expressed by the line I asked you the meaning of


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> That is not capitalist at all


Knowingly selling things at a loss in the hope to make money elsewhere is actually not relevant to capitalism I agree, not sure i made that point on purpose, I corrected that later with charitable capitalistic venture.

Sony sell playstations at a loss in the hope they make money on software, there have been times when that business model has been very unsuccessful and otehr times when its been wildly successful. 

Capitalism is about private companies trading freely, its got nothing to do with losses or business failing.

So this company running a private business selling goods is a capatilistic business.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094402179983724546
:sodone


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094402179983724546
> :sodone


Well.....thats a thing


----------



## CamillePunk

THE SWORD HILT HAS TWITTER BIRDS ON IT


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump would have made a better greater demon TBH.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Ummm, yeah, because non-profit organisations are capitalistic. Private entities sell and trade a service/good for profit and then put those profits in to social issues and business growth and no profits go to the shareholders. Instead of for profit organisations where the profits go to the shareholders/owners and business growth.
> 
> The largest non-profit organisations are worth billions
> 
> I imagine you think non-profit means that they do everything they can to just not make any money.
> 
> :allen
> 
> I do not expect you to concede even though everyone's telling you you're wrong. Good day.
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.


Non-profit Hospitals are worth loads here, they basically have to do enough freebies, community outreach and pro bono surgeries to keep their non-profit status. 

It's a far better business model because they pay their employees generally better, offer higher quality services and benefits for people. Though they're not immune to shady business practices.

People often mistake non-profit as not making profit but in reality it's just ensuring they don't make too much money and meet their obligations. They have to keep a balanced profit ratio.


----------



## Headliner

So apparently some Trump voters have been pissed off because Trump and the GOP's tax reform is fucking people over this year when they go their taxes. I seen this coming last year. 

Is this just fake news or.................?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092342448397922304

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092784259864109057

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092606993792225281

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091425171477614592

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088151062111023104

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089627517772881925
Don't worry Trump just needs to add some bigotry to the mix and these twitter folks will forget this ever happened. :lelfold


----------



## birthday_massacre

Big Draco Headliner said:


> So apparently some Trump voters have been pissed off because Trump and the GOP's tax reform is fucking people over this year when they go their taxes. I seen this coming last year.
> 
> Is this just fake news or.................?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092342448397922304
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092784259864109057
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092606993792225281
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091425171477614592
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088151062111023104
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089627517772881925
> Don't worry Trump just needs to add some bigotry to the mix and these twitter folks will forget this ever happened. :lelfold



At least they owned all the libs that were pissed off about Trumps tax cuts.

We tried to warn them lol

Like I have said a million times, anyone in the middle class or lower that votes for a Republican deserves this kind of stuff


----------



## Draykorinee

Netflix paid 0 tax on $800 million profits. Trump isn't just same old same old he's worse than the old.


----------



## TheKingEdoardo

Capitalism is wrong, monarchy is the only answ'r


----------



## Draykorinee

TheKingEdoardo said:


> Capitalism is wrong, monarchy is the only answ'r


Long live the Queen.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-one-here-is-gonna-kick-my-buttfarm-belt-bankruptcies-are-soaring-11549468759



> *‘This One Here Is Gonna Kick My Butt’—Farm Belt Bankruptcies Are Soaring *
> 
> A wave of bankruptcies is sweeping the U.S. Farm Belt as trade disputes add pain to the low commodity prices that have been grinding down American farmers for years.
> 
> Throughout much of the Midwest, U.S. farmers are filing for chapter 12 bankruptcy protection at levels not seen for at least a decade, a Wall Street Journal review of federal data shows.
> 
> Bankruptcies in three regions covering major farm states last year rose to the highest level in at least 10 years. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, had double the bankruptcies in 2018 compared with 2008. In the Eighth Circuit, which includes states from North Dakota to Arkansas, bankruptcies swelled 96%. The 10th Circuit, which covers Kansas and other states, last year had 59% more bankruptcies than a decade earlier.
> 
> States in those circuits accounted for nearly half of all sales of U.S. farm products in 2017, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.
> 
> The rise in farm bankruptcies represents a reckoning for rural America, which has suffered a multiyear slump in prices for corn, soybeans and other farm commodities touched off by a world-wide glut, made worse by growing competition from agriculture powerhouses such as Russia and Brazil.
> 
> Trade disputes under the Trump administration with major buyers of U.S. farm goods, such as China and Mexico, have further roiled agricultural markets and pressured farmers’ incomes. Prices for soybeans and hogs plummeted after those countries retaliated against U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs by imposing duties on U.S. products like oilseeds and pork, slashing shipments to big buyers.
> 
> Low milk prices are driving dairy farmers out of business in a market that’s also struggling with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. cheese from Mexico and China. Tariffs on U.S. pork have helped contribute to a record buildup in U.S. meat supplies, leading to lower prices for beef and chicken.
> 
> Agribusinesses such as Archer Daniels Midland Co., Bunge Ltd. and Cargill Inc. are feeling the heat, too. Even though lower crop prices translate into less-expensive raw materials for the commodity buyers, tariffs impact the global flow of goods and in some cases drive down prices, cutting into profits.
> 
> Low prices and mounting farm debts have sparked fears of more farm closures to come, among both large-scale farms that grew rapidly on rented land and small farms run by families working multiple jobs.
> 
> For Nebraska farmer Kirk Duensing, filing for bankruptcy was a last resort, his only choice after several years of low corn and soybean prices meant too many bills he couldn’t pay.
> 
> Mr. Duensing has managed to keep farming, hiring himself out to plant crops for other farmers for extra income and borrowing from an investment group at an interest rate twice as high as offered by traditional lenders. Despite selling some land and equipment, Mr. Duensing remains more than $1 million in debt.
> 
> “I’ve been through several dips in 40 years,” said Mr. Duensing. “This one here is gonna kick my butt.”
> 
> More than half of U.S. farm households lost money farming in recent years, according to the USDA, which estimated that median farm income for U.S. farm households was negative $1,548 in 2018. Farm incomes have slid despite record productivity on American farms, because oversupply drives down commodity prices.
> 
> Chapter 12 bankruptcy, created during the 1980s farm crisis, allows distressed family farmers or fishermen to devise a plan to repay creditors over three to five years. Only farms with debts that don’t exceed about $4.1 million may file for the protection.
> 
> U.S. farm debt—covering operations, land, equipment, livestock and more—last year climbed to more than $409 billion, according to a USDA forecast. That’s the largest sum in nearly four decades and a level not seen since the 1980s, when farmland values plunged and interest rates skyrocketed, boosting debts and pushing many farmers and lenders out of business.
> 
> Nationwide, the volume of loans to fund current operating expenses grew 22% in the fourth quarter from year-ago levels, hitting a quarterly record of $58.7 billion, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. The average size of these loans rose to $74,190, the highest fourth-quarter level in history when adjusted for inflation, the bank said.
> 
> To stay in business, some farmers have sold second homes purchased during a prosperous period earlier in the decade. They or their spouses have sought off-farm jobs to bring in additional income or pay for health insurance. Others have shrunk their operations, giving up rented ground or selling equipment to lower debt loads. Those struggles are driving consolidation, shifting a greater number of acres under fewer, larger farms.
> 
> Agricultural lenders, bankruptcy attorneys and farm advisers warn further bankruptcies are in the offing as more farmers shed assets and get deeper in debt, and banks deny the funds needed to plant a crop this spring.
> 
> “We are seeing producers who are running out of options,” said Tim Koch, senior vice president at Omaha, Neb.-based Farm Credit Services of America, which lends to farmers and ranchers in Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming.
> 
> He said bankruptcy filings among the bank’s customers doubled last year compared with 2017, though they still represent a tiny fraction of its overall portfolio. Anticipating the rough patch, the bank three years ago added 30 lenders to focus exclusively on stressed accounts, and dedicated a team of a dozen analysts to such accounts.
> 
> Curt Hudnutt, who oversees rural banking for Rabobank North America, one of the biggest U.S. farm lenders, said that while its losses have been minimal so far, the bank’s farm-loan portfolio is deteriorating and he expects bankruptcies to increase among U.S. farmers this year.
> 
> “We thought 2019 would be the year things turned around,” said Mr. Hudnutt. “Then the trade dispute happened and that really put a damper on things.”
> 
> Nathan Kauffman, Omaha branch executive at the Kansas City Fed, called the recent rise in bankruptcies modest. He said that while further increases are likely, he doesn’t anticipate a sharp jump in filings, though the downturn in agriculture could drag on for years to come.
> 
> The slump in commodity prices followed a period of historic profitability in the Farm Belt, which left operators with significant cash reserves. Interest rates, while on the rise, have remained relatively low. Farmland values, a major factor in a farm’s net worth, have declined modestly, as demand for land continues from fund investors and large farms that are still well capitalized.
> 
> Nationwide, chapter 12 bankruptcy filings are below highs reached in 2010, when commodity prices dropped following the U.S. recession. But bankruptcies are climbing across swaths of the Midwest that produce much of the nation’s grain and meat. Last year, bankruptcies in the Seventh, Eighth and 10th Circuits made up 48% of the U.S. total of chapter 12 bankruptcies, versus 37% a decade earlier.
> 
> Mounting stress in the Farm Belt has meant big, if somber, business for the region’s bankruptcy attorneys. In Wichita, Kan., the firm of bankruptcy attorney David Prelle Eron filed 10 farm bankruptcies in 2018, the most it has ever handled in one year. Wade Pittman, a bankruptcy attorney based in Madison, Wis., said his firm filed about 20 farm bankruptcies last year, ahead of past years, and he said he expects the numbers to continue to rise as milk prices remain stagnant.
> 
> Joe Peiffer, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based attorney, said his office is the busiest—and most profitable—it has ever been. Just before Christmas, he sent letters to eight farmers declining to represent them because he didn’t have sufficient staff to handle their cases promptly. He is doubling his office space and interviewing new attorneys to join the firm.
> 
> One factor driving bankruptcies is tighter lending standards, said Mr. Peiffer, including at agricultural banks, which are under pressure from regulators to exercise greater caution over their farm-loan portfolios.
> 
> “I’m dealing with people on century farms who may be losing them,” said Mr. Peiffer, whose own father sold his farm in the late 1980s.
> 
> Conversations with distressed farmers have become more frequent for Frank Friar, a retired agricultural lender who mans phones at the Wisconsin Farm Center. The organization advises dairy farmers and crop producers on financing options, bankruptcy and when to leave the farm behind. Last year, it received more than 2,300 calls, the most since 2010, and the center has hired more staff in the past two years.
> 
> About a dozen times a year, Mr. Friar and his colleagues talk with a farmer who seems to be contemplating suicide, he said. The center’s staff often calls family members or neighbors who can check on the farmers, and sometimes Mr. Friar drives out to farms himself. “The uncertainty, will they survive on the home farm, is [causing] more people to think negatively,” Mr. Friar said.
> 
> It was a Sunday in April 2017 when a queasy feeling in Darrell Crapp’s stomach sent him rushing home. He found his wife, Diana, lying crumpled on the floor of their Lancaster, Wis., bathroom. She had swallowed a handful of pills.
> 
> Overwhelmed with debt and with little prospect of turning a profit that year, the Crapps knew BMO Harris Bank NA wouldn’t lend them money to plant. The bank had frozen the farm’s checking account.
> 
> Mrs. Crapp managed the fifth-generation corn, cattle and hog farm’s books. She had stayed up nights drafting dozens of budgets to try to stave off disaster, including 30-day, 60-day and 90-day budgets.
> 
> “It was too much for her,” Mr. Crapp, 63, said of his wife, who survived the incident.
> 
> Crapp Farms filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy the next month, with a total debt of $36 million.
> 
> In a written statement, Patrick O’Herlihy, a BMO spokesman, said the bank doesn’t comment on specific customer relationships but strives to “approach every situation with empathy, and to help our customers manage challenging financial situations.” He said the bank had been working in the agricultural sector for more than a century and was committed to the industry.
> 
> At its height, Mr. Crapp and his two sons had grown crops on 17,000 acres. The farm’s last 197 acres, homesteaded by Mr. Crapp’s ancestors in the 1860s, will likely be auctioned this month.
> 
> Mr. Crapp now sells farmland for a regional realty company and helps run the family’s trucking business, which transports grain and livestock feed for area farmers. His younger son drives trucks for the company. His older son repairs grain storage bins. Mr. Crapp said he would have to file bankruptcy again—likely under chapter 12—to discharge his remaining debts.
> 
> “We haven’t won very many battles,” said Mr. Crapp. “The bank pretty much owns us.”


----------



## jroc72191

Reaper said:


> :draper2


r/im14andthisisdeep

FUCK IM ON THE WRONG SITE!


----------



## birthday_massacre

According to federal data under Trumps new tax code the ave refund is 8.4% smaller. Lol at all the people who tried to tell me this tax cut would help the middle class.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> According to federal data under Trumps new tax code the ave refund is 8.4% smaller. Lol at all the people who tried to tell me this tax cut would help the middle class.


Year round paychecks were bigger. 

But. 

I'm 100% sure they promised both. So they should be held accountable for this year's returns being smaller. Mine is exactly 8-9% smaller.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Year round paychecks were bigger.
> 
> But.
> 
> I'm 100% sure they promised both. So they should be held accountable for this year's returns being smaller. Mine is exactly 8-9% smaller.


 The average paycheck was 2 cents more per week when you factor in inflation.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> The average paycheck was 2 cents more per week.


Somehow that doesn't sound right but I don't know. My wife got 3 raises last year including a big one this year and a huge bonus on top of all that. So she was one of the luckier ones. Our equity tripled in a year (basically her 401k), as did our lifestyle and savings went up 300% despite significant improvements in lifestyle.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Somehow that doesn't sound right but I don't know. My wife got 3 raises last year including a big one this year and a huge bonus on top of all that. So she was one of the luckier ones. Our equity tripled in a year (basically her 401k), as did our lifestyle and savings went up 300% despite significant improvements in lifestyle.




https://www.vox.com/2018/12/18/18144509/tax-cut-bill-workers-bonus


Oh its bonus's that was 2 cents, it's still only 81 cents per paycheck 

Only 4% of Americans got a raise due to the tax break.

But sure some people like your wife may have seen an increase but the majority of Americans did not see anything.


----------



## CamillePunk

A guide to Trump's tax cuts: 

https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/how-gop-tax-bill-affects-you/

A lot of middle-income earners are seeing lower refunds because they paid less overall in taxes throughout the year. That applies to me. I paid less in taxes than I would've under the old tax cuts, and will be given a smaller refund, as expected. The difference between what I paid all year and the difference in the refund still has me coming out quite a bit ahead than I would've under the old system. Saved more than 4k on taxes all year thanks to the tax cuts. The difference in my refund will be nowhere close to make the tax cuts a negative or even equal effect. :lol They were great for me and most people I know who actually have college degrees and good jobs.

Democrats only talking about refunds without talking about the amount of tax paid overall that year are blowing smoke.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/top-lawmakers-meet-to-revive-stalled-border-talks-with-shutdown-days-away/2019/02/11/3cd0fc1a-2dff-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html?utm_term=.e18b6b609268



> *Lawmakers say they have reached an ‘agreement in principle’ to avoid government shutdown
> *
> Key lawmakers announced a tentative deal late Monday that would avert another government shutdown at the end of the week while denying President Trump much of the money he’s sought to build new walls along the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> The agreement came together during intense hours of closed-door negotiations at the Capitol, as lawmakers resurrected talks that had fallen apart over the weekend in a dispute over new Democratic demands to limit immigrant detention. Democrats ultimately dropped some of those demands, which had come under fire from Republicans, clearing the way for a deal.
> 
> Lawmakers on both sides said they were motivated to find agreement by the looming specter of another government shutdown Friday night, three weeks after the last one ended.
> 
> “What brought us back together I thought, tonight, was we didn’t want that to happen,” said Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the lead Republican in the talks.*
> 
> The deal includes just $1.375 billion for 55 miles of fences along the border, compared with $5.7 billion Trump had sought for more than 200 miles of walls. The deal omits a strict new cap Democrats had sought on immigrants detained within the United States — as opposed to at the border. At the same time, it reduces an overall cap on detention beds maintained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, although GOP aides said ICE would have enough money and flexibility to maintain its current detention levels and add more when needed.
> *
> To avert a shutdown, the deal needs to be written into final legislation, passed by both the House and Senate, and signed into law by the president.
> 
> White House officials were reviewing the terms of the deal, and Shelby said he was hopeful Trump would be supportive. But details of the compromise disclosed late Monday quickly came under fire from conservatives, raising the prospect of a backlash from the right that could ultimately render it unacceptable to Trump.
> 
> The president has readied a plan to declare a national emergency on the southern border, which he believes will allow him to redirect taxpayer money from other projects to build parts of a wall — without approval from Congress. Democrats are all but certain to mount a legal challenge to this approach.
> 
> Fox News host Sean Hannity, a Trump confidante, immediately called the shutdown deal a “garbage compromise.”
> 
> Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who talks regularly with Trump, said that it fails to address serious threats.
> 
> “This does not represent a fraction of what the president has promised the American people,” Meadows said in a text message. “I don’t speak for the president but I can’t imagine he will be applauding something so lacking.”
> 
> At a rally in El Paso on Monday night, Trump told a crowd of supporters that he was briefed on the conference committee’s progress as he was walking onstage. “Just so you know — we’re building the wall anyway,” Trump declared to the audience.
> 
> The president cast the Democratic proposal on detention beds as a dangerous idea.
> 
> “I will never sign a bill that forces the mass release of violent criminals into our country,” said Trump. “And I will never abolish or in any way mistreat our great heroes from ICE and Border Patrol and law enforcement.”
> 
> He added: “We need the wall and it has to be built, and we want to build it fast.”
> 
> And Trump defended the *record-long 35-day government shutdown that ended late last month — even though he did not achieve the new wall money he’d been demanding.
> 
> “If we didn’t do that shutdown, we would not have been able to show this country, these politicians, the world, what the hell is happening with the border. That was a very important thing we did,” Trump said.
> 
> The reaction from his conservative allies left the ultimate outcome in doubt, but negotiators said that with the president’s assent, there would be time for the legislation to pass the House and Senate and be signed ahead of the Friday midnight deadline when large portions of the government, including the Homeland Security Department, will run out of funding and begin to shut down.
> 
> Negotiators said the deal would fund all government operations through the end of the September, potentially removing any more shutdown threats for the remainder of the fiscal year.
> 
> House Appropriations Committee Chairman Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who was in Monday’s meetings, said she hoped the negotiators would have a finished product by Wednesday. She said she ran the proposal by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and she signed off on it.
> 
> “Some may be happy, some may not be happy,” said Lowey, assessing how Democrats would receive the deal and saying she hoped the agreement would have the votes needed to pass the House. “We did the best we could.”
> 
> Shelby, Lowey, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.) participated in the Monday meetings. They are the top lawmakers on a bi*partisan conference committee charged with striking a deal and staving off another shutdown.
> 
> Asked why she thought the dispute over the detention beds flared up over the weekend, Lowey paused before saying, “You’ll have to ask those who were debating it and arguing it. It’s one part of the bill. And the issue, in some communities across the country, has really become very volatile and personal to many of the members.”
> 
> The White House and congressional leaders have struggled for months to reach an agreement on a government funding bill because of major differences between Democrats and Republicans over immigration policy. Trump called for using $5.7 billion in taxpayer money to construct more than 200 miles of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrats objected to this, and Trump forced a partial government shutdown that began Dec. 22 to try to exert pressure on Congress to act. The shutdown dragged on for 35 days.
> 
> The White House and Republicans eventually backed down and agreed last month to a short-term spending bill for a number of agencies that was meant to give congressional negotiators more time to reach a longer-term deal.
> 
> Those negotiators had made steady progress but ran into trouble over the weekend. The White House had largely signaled to Republicans that it would soften its demand for wall money, convinced it could use other legal maneuvers to redirect existing funds. Instead, discussions bogged down over disagreements about how many undocumented immigrants could be detained at once. Republicans wanted flexibility in detention rules, arguing they needed to be able to adjust to account for violent criminals and others. Democrats countered that the changes Republicans sought would give the White House almost limitless powers to detain as many people as they wanted.
> 
> The unexpected dispute imperiled talks, spooking negotiators as they worried they were running out of time. Democrats signaled earlier Monday that they were more interested in cutting a deal than digging in as the Friday deadline neared, and they largely backed down by late Monday.
> 
> The discussions are the first major political test for Democrats and Republicans after the last government shutdown froze the paychecks of 800,000 federal workers.
> 
> A partial shutdown could have a broad impact on the country. Funding lapses would go beyond DHS to hit a number of other federal departments, including the Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, Agriculture and Interior departments, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Internal Revenue Service.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095149680487485440


----------



## CamillePunk

Now that Trump has turned "Not one penny for the wall" into $1.375 billion, he should just declare the national emergency and build the wall anyway. :lol Clearly there's enough of an issue to spend over a billion dollars to address it. What's a few more? 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095189950402682880
:hmmm


----------



## deepelemblues

I got $300 more in my refund than last year :draper2

Yeah people didn't notice that their paychecks were bigger because less was being withheld but they notice their refund being smaller or ending up owing money because of the smaller withholdings


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.vox.com/2018/12/18/18144509/tax-cut-bill-workers-bonus
> 
> 
> Oh its bonus's that was 2 cents, it's still only 81 cents per paycheck


You're still reading this wrong. It's average earning increase, not the differential in paycheck based on tax relief per paycheck which would be on top of that 81 cent increase. 

They didn't do the math for how much paychecks increase based on reduction in taxes. 

Based on how much more money we seemed to have throughout the year, I'm guessing my wife's pay check increased by a significant amount. We were able to get a new car on payments and pay a higher amount in monthly rent without too much trouble. This year has already been better so far already.


----------



## Draykorinee

I wish I had a clue but your tax system is so convoluted I can't make any sense of it.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> I wish I had a clue but your tax system is so convoluted I can't make any sense of it.


Part of the reason why most people are demanding that there should be a mandatory course in school now to teach them about it. 

There's an amount employers hold per paycheck per employee that needs to be paid to the government at the end of the year. When the tax cuts were confirmed, the amount of money held per paycheck per employee by the employer reduced according to the new tax code which increased their paycheck every month (or bi-weekly in most cases) all through 2018.

The amount of tax you have to pay or gets returned to you is (I think and I'm not 100% sure but mostly sure) depends on how much the employer withheld. If they took too much from you, you get a bigger return. If they took too little from you, you end up paying more. However, the biggest reason for tax amount changes is employer dependent and how they did your taxes for you. (I think).


----------



## 777

That's how we do it in Canada. I regularly have to tell employers to take more taxes off my cheque because I prefer a bigger payout on income tax.


----------



## blaird

I go to get mine done next week. I had mentioned earlier that since 2017 I had seen about $200 or a little more, extra, on every pay check. I am a little worried about how much, or little, I will get back. I usually depend on this money to pay off some bills I have every year at the beginning of July and usually have a few hundred left over. 

A friend of mine, who HATES Trump and is a big Beto fan, posted on FB yesterday that he has to shut his mouth on the tax part bc he is paying less than half of what he normally does. Im sure some people are getting way less or paying way more than they thought but there are also some on the other side like this. I think Im going to fall in the same area as whoever said they may have had a smaller refund but the extra money in their check more than made up for that. I have managed to save a lot of the extra that was on those checks. If my refund is only 8.5% smaller (think this is what I saw), I can def live with that.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

I'm getting less back, but I had less withheld also. Though if I hadn't had one specific deduction, that I didn't have last year and filed the same as last year, I wouldn't have gotten back anything.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had a clue but your tax system is so convoluted I can't make any sense of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason why most people are demanding that there should be a mandatory course in school now to teach them about it.
> 
> There's an amount employers hold per paycheck per employee that needs to be paid to the government at the end of the year. When the tax cuts were confirmed, the amount of money held per paycheck per employee by the employer reduced according to the new tax code which increased their paycheck every month (or bi-weekly in most cases) all through 2018.
> 
> The amount of tax you have to pay or gets returned to you is (I think and I'm not 100% sure but mostly sure) depends on how much the employer withheld. If they took too much from you, you get a bigger return. If they took too little from you, you end up paying more. However, the biggest reason for tax amount changes is employer dependent and how they did your taxes for you. (I think).
Click to expand...

Okay, seems a weird system. In the UK you get given a tax code, your tax gets taken out of your wage each month and you forget all about it. I doubt most people even know how much they're giving the government, which isn't always a good thing.


----------



## Reaper

BTW. Before people get too carried away with the success (and yes, it is a success) of the fixed Tax system, don't forget that there still is a lot of work left with regards to establishing higher wages, especially for the lowest working class. Almost none of them have seen any significant improvements and the divide between classes isn't shrinking. Yeah, a few thousand bucks are good to have, but we're a long way from determining adequate wages in most industries like food and retail especially.

The only thing that's really changed is the amount of money the government gets --- but that does not mean that anything is going to improve - because with reduced government budgets, they're still trying to spend at the same old levels which is disaster in the making. 

At the same time, the burden that should be on the employers to up their wages and the incentivization through lowered taxes is an abject failure. 

Annualized lay-offs are back and figures are currently estimated to be in the 10's of thousands this year as companies seem to be consolidating on top of getting tax breaks. At least a dozen companies have already been rumored to lay off workers and those companies include not just the media companies but also AT&T, Lowes, Tesla, Bank of New York, GM etc.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Reaper said:


> BTW. Before people get too carried away with the success (and yes, it is a success) of the fixed Tax system, don't forget that there still is a lot of work left with regards to establishing higher wages, especially for the lowest working class. Almost none of them have seen any significant improvements and the divide between classes isn't shrinking. Yeah, a few thousand bucks are good to have, b*ut we're a long way from determining adequate wages in most industries like food and retail especially.*


What do you think an adequate wage in these professions would be?


----------



## Reaper

DMD Mofomagic said:


> What do you think an adequate wage in these professions would be?


It has to be industry dependent based on CBA's and not based on capitalists having the upper hand based on government leaning in their favor. 

Obviously when retailers like Walmart and Amazon can boast revenues in the trillions while still employing people who are on food stamps (and government subsidies) there's an issue that needs to be resolved between the capitalist and the worker without the government favoring the capitalist that can continue to boast and brag about their 10's of billions in annual profit. 

In any case, the argument that they make less money than they can pay out is bunk because in pure capitalism obviously if you pay workers more, they can buy more and that also grows the economy. 

This is what we see in healthier industries. 

Unskilled labor CBA's have to resort to unions and the government needs to support them. The problem is that Trump has filled the federal court system (and now also the Supreme Court) with anti-unionists so while people have been distracted by the fucking russiagate nonsense labor rights are under serious threat.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> A guide to Trump's tax cuts:
> 
> https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/how-gop-tax-bill-affects-you/
> 
> A lot of middle-income earners are seeing lower refunds because they paid less overall in taxes throughout the year. That applies to me. I paid less in taxes than I would've under the old tax cuts, and will be given a smaller refund, as expected. The difference between what I paid all year and the difference in the refund still has me coming out quite a bit ahead than I would've under the old system. Saved more than 4k on taxes all year thanks to the tax cuts. The difference in my refund will be nowhere close to make the tax cuts a negative or even equal effect. :lol They were great for me and most people I know who actually have college degrees and good jobs.
> 
> Democrats only talking about refunds without talking about the amount of tax paid overall that year are blowing smoke.


Okay, great for you, but you're not honestly making a big counter point based on a personal anecdote are you?


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Now that Trump has turned "Not one penny for the wall" into $1.375 billion, he should just declare the national emergency and build the wall anyway. :lol Clearly there's enough of an issue to spend over a billion dollars to address it. What's a few more?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095189950402682880
> :hmmm


He should just abandon the wall altogether at this point.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> You're still reading this wrong. It's average earning increase, not the differential in paycheck based on tax relief per paycheck which would be on top of that 81 cent increase.
> 
> They didn't do the math for how much paychecks increase based on reduction in taxes.
> 
> Based on how much more money we seemed to have throughout the year, I'm guessing my wife's pay check increased by a significant amount. We were able to get a new car on payments and pay a higher amount in monthly rent without too much trouble. This year has already been better so far already.


I am going to bet your wife is not middle class.


----------



## CamillePunk

HollyJollyDemise said:


> He should just abandon the wall altogether at this point.


Nah, fam. :heston That's not how this works.


----------



## MrMister

Why did that thing about the left and right being wrong about corruption etc use a child for the representation of the right?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> I am going to bet your wife is not middle class.


We're lower middle class. 

Just good at living within our means.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> Why did that thing about the left and right being wrong about corruption etc use a child for the representation of the right?


He's a right wing intellectual babby. They tend to pick suit wearing avatars for their lectures. It's kind of a meme.


----------



## MrMister

Reaper said:


> He's a right wing intellectual babby. They tend to pick suit wearing avatars for their lectures. It's kind of a meme.


I was not aware of this meme. With this enlightenment, I approve of it now.


----------



## deepelemblues

Use the $14,000,000,000 seized from El Chapo to build the wall :trolldog


----------



## yeahbaby!

Reaper said:


> We're lower middle class.
> 
> Just good at living within our means.


Come on mate, we all saw your brag post about tripling incomes etc 

Send a gif of you makin it rain in your convertable....


----------



## deepelemblues

Rumor has it that the music video for Money on My Mind was actually part of a documentary about Reaper's life, he sold the footage to Lil Wayne for five million and was replaced by Lil Wayne via CGI


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> Come on mate, we all saw your brag post about tripling incomes etc
> 
> Send a gif of you makin it rain in your convertable....


My savings were tripled. I didn't say how much I originally had in savings. 

What if I only had 100 bucks in savings tho? :cudi






FLEXING!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/politics/trump-border-security-deal/index.html



> *Trump intends to sign border deal to avoid another shutdown*
> 
> Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump intends to sign the border security deal to avoid another partial government shutdown, according to two sources who have spoken directly with the President.
> 
> Trump said Tuesday that he was "not happy" with the tentative deal reached by congressional negotiators late Monday night that falls far short of his original demands.
> 
> Congress faces a deadline to get a deal passed and signed by Trump before Friday.
> 
> The agreement, which includes $1.375 billion for a border barrier, falls well short of the $5.7 billion Trump originally demanded for a wall. It even falls short of the $1.6 billion included in a Senate package last year.
> 
> Still, the measure would avert another government shutdown. Polls showed Trump was largely blamed for the previous 35-day impasse.
> 
> Even as lawmakers haggled over details of their agreement, the White House had been planning behind the scenes to secure the funds for the wall unilaterally.
> 
> The White House says Trump is continuing to weigh his options to fund a border wall, which still include taking executive action to secure funding for a wall. It's not clear which combination of actions the President might use, and the topic has been under debate for weeks.
> 
> Not all would require declaring a national emergency, and they are likely to be rolled out piece by piece, not necessarily all at once, once Trump signs off.
> 
> It's not clear which combination of actions the President might use. The estimates for how much each option could garner have also been under debate, and most White House aides believe any executive action will prompt legal challenges -- some will be easy and some more difficult legally, per aides familiar with the matter. The President has held nearly daily meetings with senior advisers and others to discuss his options.
> 
> Based on CNN's latest reporting, the President's unilateral options include:
> 
> *Accessing Treasury forfeiture funds*
> An estimated $680 million
> 
> Would not require the President to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Includes unobligated funds from participating agencies that can be used to support law enforcement activities.
> 
> After the Office of Management and Budget reviews the order, Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security would both notify Congress then wait 15 days before the funds can be obligated.
> 
> Acquisition of land is allowed under this option.
> *
> Using USC 284 to divert some Pentagon funds for counter-narcotics*
> Up to an estimated $2 billion
> 
> May not require the President to declare a national emergency, according to a CRS legal report.
> 
> DHS must exercise a waiver to transfer counter-drug funds to construct fencing to block drug smuggling.
> 
> DHS asks Department of Defense to assist after identifying a location where a fence is needed to block drug smuggling corridor.
> *
> Using USC 2808 to gain access to military construction funds*
> An estimated $3.6 billion
> 
> Would require the President to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Would require the use of the military.
> 
> The President would declare border protection a Defense Department mission.
> *
> Use Army Corps civil works funds using USC 2293*
> An estimated $3 billion
> 
> Would require the President to declare a national emergency, according to a US government official.
> 
> The Secretary of the Army may stop or defer Army civil works projects and apply funds to help build civil defense projects essential for the national defense (Secretary of the Army makes the final determination if essential to national defense).
> 
> The unspent funds that could be used are now designated to go toward Army Corps of Engineers projects to repair infrastructure damaged by natural disasters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

"The agreement, which includes $1.375 billion for a border barrier, falls well short of the $5.7 billion Trump originally demanded for a wall. It even falls short of the $1.6 billion included in a Senate package last year."


LMAO so much for the art of the deal. Trump is the worst negotiator of all time


----------



## DesolationRow

Trump predictably completely lost on this, thoroughly crushed by Nancy Pelosi. :lmao

He would have been better off going ahead with the original deal. :heston

What is being bandied about is Trump signing the deal and invoking either USC §284 or 10 USC §2808, declaring a national emergency. 10 USC §284, having been invoked, would entail the Secretary of Defense ensuring to "provide support for counterdrug activities" according to legal offices. 

Simply prognosticating what is likely to occur. What is not likely to occur is Trump having the wall built, which he lied about ostensibly a dozen times in the speech in El Paso earlier this week. No further building of a wall or security fence or anything has been undertaken during his presidency. If his supporters at these rallies had any integrity they would begin chanting that he is a liar. Truth be told, many probably do possess integrity and are decent people; they are just ignorant, which is sad but the commonest affliction of people from coast to coast in the U.S. regardless of which politician they admire.


----------



## DesolationRow

If this article is true I issue a _mea culpa_ to Donald J. Trump and his supporters. I am sorry if this is true. I must fly down to El Paso and rent a vehicle and check this out for myself! :lol

Seriously, when one is perhaps wrong, and it appears that I truly may have been with the above post, one should recognize one's own's faults, and one's own's ornery mood set by endless awful winter weather by Northern California standards. :lol

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-really-did-start-building-more-wall-in-texas

EDIT: Made a few phone calls. Turns out I am the ignorant one. Which I already knew. I resent this whole mortality thing. It is as Walter Jameson said in _The Twilight Zone_:


> And when I thought of all the things there were to know in the miserable few years that a man had to know them it seemed senseless. At night, every night I dreamed, as you dream, of immortality.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DesolationRow said:


> If this article is true I issue a _mea culpa_ to Donald J. Trump and his supporters. I am sorry if this is true. I must fly down to El Paso and rent a vehicle and check this out for myself! :lol
> 
> Seriously, when one is perhaps wrong, and it appears that I truly may have been with the above post, one should recognize one's own's faults, and one's own's ornery mood set by endless awful winter weather by Northern California standards. :lol
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-really-did-start-building-more-wall-in-texas


The funny thing about the wall in El Paso, crime was lower before it was built than after lol


----------



## DesolationRow

The only reason Ted Cruz beat Beto O'Rourke in Texas. :lol

One state being so blue thanks to demographic transformation it keeps another state slowly inching toward purple due to demographic change red for a little while. :lmao Such fun. 

Full article with the link.

http://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/grow...ans-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html



> More Californians are considering fleeing the state as they blame sky-high costs, survey finds
> A growing number of Californians are contemplating moving the state due to the sky-high cost of living, with sentiment highest among millennials, according to a new study.
> Fifty-three percent say they are considering fleeing, representing a jump over the 49 percent a year ago.
> The poll conducted by Edelman Intelligence found the chief reason for dissatisfaction isn't wildfires or earthquakes but housing cost and availability.
> Jeff Daniels	| @jeffdanielsca


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Nah, fam. :heston That's not how this works.


Yes, I'm aware that he doesn't do things that make the most logical sense (which, FYI, would be moving on from the wall since it was a dumb idea in the first place). And he's probably going to fight the wall nonsense until the day he's no longer President. But moving on from the wall would be his best option at this point.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> The only reason Ted Cruz beat Beto O'Rourke in Texas. :lol
> 
> One state being so blue thanks to demographic transformation it keeps another state slowly inching toward purple due to demographic change red for a little while. :lmao Such fun.
> 
> Full article with the link.
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/grow...ans-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html


Don't more people leave Cali than move there?

I cannot remember what poster said it but California people vote for inane stuff, get it, realize it sucks then leave and vote the same way in another state starting the process all over.

My question is, why move to a Red state when you have the perfect Blue state in Cali? :hmmm


----------



## DesolationRow

Miss Sally said:


> Don't more people leave Cali than move there?


The middle class is gradually being hollowed out in California; small business owners have been leaving in droves for many years now.

Was speaking with a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in early December for about twenty minutes. They discussed how the hordes of homeless and "tent city dwellers" all over the city nowadays--and when I say that, I do mean all over the city--are in large part from red states like Arizona, Tennessee, Texas and others. Towns, counties and states in those states will simply force these people to leave, and San Francisco proudly exhibits itself as a destination "where they will be left alone." 

This was an intriguing contrast to my mother's ophthalmologist, who is a kind, intelligent, liberal lady with two children. She and I were speaking early this morning and she was talking about how she and her husband are considering leaving San Francisco in the coming months because it is no longer safe for their children. Just the other day, she told me, she and one of her sons who is five years old were on the bus to go down the street about two or so miles. On the next stop after they began their journey a homeless man with two needles in his left arm jumped aboard, ranting incoherently. Her son asked her what that was about. Before long the man decorated with needles began shouting at her, threatening violence, and her child and no one did anything about it. Later as they strolled down a sidewalk she noticed that she had stepped in human feces, in spite of being armed with one of the many "San Francisco Feces Maps" that are circulating about the city these days. 

Almost humorously (?), one of my best friends in Oakland had a similar experience yesterday morning on a bus traveling to where he teaches at a public school where he says "no one is learning anything and teachers are attacked every other week." A mentally troubled man screamed obscenities at him, and after about five minutes of ignoring him my friend was left alone. The man started in on someone else after that. 

One of the most revealing spots in San Francisco is the SHN Golden Gate Theater at Golden Gate and Taylor, about one Kevin Durant midrange jump shot off of Market. Walking through that area feels like one is visiting Mogadishu (this is not a racial statement: most of the breakdown in people there is approximately 50/50 between blacks and whites). The SHN Golden Gate Theater is a ritzy theater where Broadway plays go; recently saw "A Bronx Tale" there. You will see women decked out in furs and men wearing two-thousand dollar suits, and more, attending plays, stepping over people vomiting or defecating on the street's sidewalk.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> The middle class is gradually being hollowed out in California; small business owners have been leaving in droves for many years now.
> 
> Was speaking with a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in early December for about twenty minutes. They discussed how the hordes of homeless and "tent city dwellers" all over the city nowadays--and when I say that, I do mean all over the city--are in large part from red states like Arizona, Tennessee, Texas and others. Towns, counties and states in those states will simply force these people to leave, and San Francisco proudly exhibits itself as a destination "where they will be left alone."
> 
> This was an intriguing contrast to my mother's ophthalmologist, who is a kind, intelligent, liberal lady with two children. She and I were speaking early this morning and she was talking about how she and her husband are considering leaving San Francisco in the coming months because it is no longer safe for their children. Just the other day, she told me, she and one of her sons who is five years old were on the bus to go down the street about two or so miles. On the next stop after they began their journey a homeless man with two needles in his left arm jumped aboard, ranting incoherently. Her son asked her what that was about. Before long the man decorated with needles began shouting at her, threatening violence, and her child and no one did anything about it. Later as they strolled down a sidewalk she noticed that she had stepped in human feces, in spite of being armed with one of the many "San Francisco Feces Maps" that are circulating about the city these days.
> 
> Almost humorously (?), one of my best friends in Oakland had a similar experience yesterday morning on a bus traveling to where he teaches at a public school where he says "no one is learning anything and teachers are attacked every other week." A mentally troubled man screamed obscenities at him, and after about five minutes of ignoring him my friend was left alone. The man started in on someone else after that.
> 
> One of the most revealing spots in San Francisco is the SHN Golden Gate Theater at Golden Gate and Taylor, about one Kevin Durant midrange jump shot off of Market. Walking through that area feels like one is visiting Mogadishu (this is not a racial statement: most of the breakdown in people there is approximately 50/50 between blacks and whites). The SHN Golden Gate Theater is a ritzy theater where Broadway plays go; recently saw "A Bronx Tale" there. You will see women decked out in furs and men wearing two-thousand dollar suits, and more, attending plays, stepping over people vomiting or defecating on the street's sidewalk.


That's interesting! 

I wonder who's going to pay all the taxes when the people who do pay, move out? :surprise:

It's surprising to me at how quickly this has happened. I am curious to see how much more it accelerates. :smile2:


----------



## CamillePunk

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Yes, I'm aware that he doesn't do things that make the most logical sense (which, FYI, would be moving on from the wall since it was a dumb idea in the first place). And he's probably going to fight the wall nonsense until the day he's no longer President. But moving on from the wall would be his best option at this point.


Damn, I hope he takes your advice, I can tell you really have what's best for his presidency and those of us who don't want rampant illegal immigration at heart.


----------



## deepelemblues

DesolationRow said:


> The middle class is gradually being hollowed out in California; small business owners have been leaving in droves for many years now.
> 
> Was speaking with a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in early December for about twenty minutes. They discussed how the hordes of homeless and "tent city dwellers" all over the city nowadays--and when I say that, I do mean all over the city--are in large part from red states like Arizona, Tennessee, Texas and others. Towns, counties and states in those states will simply force these people to leave, and San Francisco proudly exhibits itself as a destination "where they will be left alone."
> 
> This was an intriguing contrast to my mother's ophthalmologist, who is a kind, intelligent, liberal lady with two children. She and I were speaking early this morning and she was talking about how she and her husband are considering leaving San Francisco in the coming months because it is no longer safe for their children. Just the other day, she told me, she and one of her sons who is five years old were on the bus to go down the street about two or so miles. On the next stop after they began their journey a homeless man with two needles in his left arm jumped aboard, ranting incoherently. Her son asked her what that was about. Before long the man decorated with needles began shouting at her, threatening violence, and her child and no one did anything about it. Later as they strolled down a sidewalk she noticed that she had stepped in human feces, in spite of being armed with one of the many "San Francisco Feces Maps" that are circulating about the city these days.
> 
> Almost humorously (?), one of my best friends in Oakland had a similar experience yesterday morning on a bus traveling to where he teaches at a public school where he says "no one is learning anything and teachers are attacked every other week." A mentally troubled man screamed obscenities at him, and after about five minutes of ignoring him my friend was left alone. The man started in on someone else after that.
> 
> One of the most revealing spots in San Francisco is the SHN Golden Gate Theater at Golden Gate and Taylor, about one Kevin Durant midrange jump shot off of Market. Walking through that area feels like one is visiting Mogadishu (this is not a racial statement: most of the breakdown in people there is approximately 50/50 between blacks and whites). The SHN Golden Gate Theater is a ritzy theater where Broadway plays go; recently saw "A Bronx Tale" there. You will see women decked out in furs and men wearing two-thousand dollar suits, and more, attending plays, stepping over people vomiting or defecating on the street's sidewalk.


Nobody is forcing people to leave other states hundreds or thousands of miles away. Studies have been done, 2/3 to 3/4 of California homeless are homegrown. That Supervisor (those Supervisors?) grabbed at an excuse for the failure of the Bay Area's politics and politicians to prevent the deterioration of public safety, order, and sanitation, perhaps to justify their failure to themselves even more than to you, by imagining a way to imply those awful heartless people who live far away and have the gall to vote Republican are to blame. 

With the tolerance of all kinds of antisocial and disgusting behavior and risky situations face to face, as it were, with the rich and powerful - along with everyone else... I'm amazed there hasn't been a Bernie Goetz incident, or an insane homeless person shanking someone Very Important on the street outside some place the Very Important favor. The Bay has been very lucky so far that the increase in disorder has not birthed a large increase in serious violence. Except among the homeless themselves of course.


----------



## CamillePunk

It's definitely a concern I have walking around in the bay area, notably Berkeley and Oakland. There are so many homeless people on the streets, and some of them are clearly on some hard drugs. I'm amazed I've never had any kind of serious incident with any of them, nor do I know anyone who has. It does feel like a matter of time, given the situation sees no sign of improving any time soon. Especially thinking about it recently as it has been raining quite a bit and gotten quite cold at night. That has to be a miserable life. Not sure how long I could withstand it myself.


----------



## DesolationRow

@deepelemblues;

Should have clarified that the words written in that one paragraph concerning the San Francisco Board of Supervisors member was formed by what they were espousing. It is evidently the case that there are certain tent camps where this is largely the case for whatever reason(s) in San Francisco but based on the research performed by investigative journalists as well as everything I have personally read the overwhelming majority of Bay Area homeless are homegrown. Having any from elsewhere only exacerbates the already-poor situation, of course.

@CamillePunk; 

Unfortunately over the course of 2018 three different female colleagues from risk management have been by their own accounts harassed, two violently so. 

Thunderstorm with exceedingly high winds tonight here in the North Bay redwoods. Received a formal flooding warning from the Marin County Sheriff Office about six hours ago. Lights flickering. Maybe I should sing "Daisy" like HAL 9000.


----------



## Reaper

You guys complain about us talking about income inequity but this is just one of the small reasons why California is going to shit:

https://imgur.com/gallery/bzvNvLW

Rich people pay other rich people to be incompetent who continue to give themselves bonuses and pay raises while failing with no accountability while constantly firing employees as they continue to use lay offs to shore up their income statements. 

Of course, the same rich people then lobby governments to continue to pass favorable laws and suppress any kind of labor movements in the tech industry. Instead of reducing the gap between the highest paid and lowest paid employees, they go out and hire cheaper foreign workers, or outsource software development to India (which is now one of the largest software producers in the world) and supporting more and more foreign worker visas with full support from local and federal governments etc. 

Then you add in things like governments refusing to pass drug reform or prison reform laws, refusing to engage in further urban development (no new zones for low income housing which are suppressed by existing rich real estate and land owning lobbies) and you have the real reason behind California going to hell in a hand basket.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095683268693905410
why do they keep insisting that trump is an anti-semite when he has been vehemently pro-israel and has a jewish people in his own family?


----------



## virus21

Berzerker's Beard said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095683268693905410
> why do they keep insisting that trump is an anti-semite when he has been vehemently pro-israel and has a jewish people in his own family?


Deflection?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095683268693905410
> why do they keep insisting that trump is an anti-semite when he has been vehemently pro-israel and has a jewish people in his own family?


Because Trump is anti-semitic. It's a joke you are even defending him on this.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

[birthdaymassacre]i'm going to ignore the facts and believe what i see on the fake news channels[/birthdaymassacre]


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> [birthdaymassacre]i'm going to ignore the facts and believe what i see on the fake news channels[/birthdaymassacre]


Ok, ignore Trump's own anti-semitic words. 

And yet another defection from you on this.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Ok, ignore Trump's own anti-semitic words.
> 
> And yet another defection from you on this.


you don't reach the level trump has in new york by being an enemy of the jews. :lol 

trump's daughter is married to a jew, the same jew who is currently an advisor in his administration.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Because Trump is anti-semitic. It's a joke you are even defending him on this.


It's a joke you continually ignore the accepted anti-semitism from the left. Democrats and leftists have only been increasinly anti-Semitic over the years. You have openly Anti-Semitic members of congress who were elected by those same progressive liberals who are against bigotry. You have Democrats openly embracing the Anti-Semitic leaders of the womens march, who mind you turned away Jews because of the Israeli flag being "offensive". You have the Democratic party and leftists becoming increasingly hostile towards Israel as they have clearly taken the side of Palestine .

But hey, Trump saying he didn't want donor money (if I recall correctly at a time he didnt want donor money) was worse than a woman suggesting that Jews have the capabilities of casting curses on people to hypnotize them to like and support them. Btw, Did CNN bring that up? You'll turn a blind eye to this crap from the left as long those people are anti Trump, and that's pretty disgusting


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you don't reach the level trump has in new york by being an enemy of the jews. :lol
> 
> trump's daughter is married to a jew, the same jew who is currently an advisor in his administration.


Trump's comments were anti-semitic. Are you really going to deny that? He has retweeted tweets from anti-sematic twitter users, Trump said some KKK/white nationalist are good people.

And LOL at using the logic Trump can't be anti-semite because his daughter married someone that is Jewish and Trump hires Jewish people.

Some people that are racist have daughters or sons that married a minority, and some people that are racist hire minorities, it still doe snot mean they are not racist.

So tell me how Trump's comments were not anti-Semitic?


----------



## Reaper

Trump is neither pro nor anti Israeli ... He has no beliefs. He's pretty much empty inside. No real passion, no real drive, no real anything really. He's actually very apathetic. Both his detractors and supporters project their hate and love and their passions onto him. 

He's just an establishment puppet.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> It's a joke you continually ignore the accepted anti-semitism from the left. Democrats and leftists have only been increasinly anti-Semitic over the years. You have openly Anti-Semitic members of congress who were elected by those same progressive liberals who are against bigotry. You have Democrats openly embracing the Anti-Semitic leaders of the womens march, who mind you turned away Jews because of the Israeli flag being "offensive". You have the Democratic party and leftists becoming increasingly hostile towards Israel as they have clearly taken the side of Palestine .
> 
> But hey, Trump saying he didn't want donor money (if I recall correctly at a time he didnt want donor money) was worse than a woman suggesting that Jews have the capabilities of casting curses on people to hypnotize them to like and support them. Btw, Did CNN bring that up? You'll turn a blind eye to this crap from the left as long those people are anti Trump, and that's pretty disgusting


LOL at taking her comments out of context to defend Trumps anti-Semitic comments.

Speak to Trump's comments and tell me how they were not anti-Semitic


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at taking her comments out of context to defend Trumps anti-Semitic comments.


She knows what she was saying, she's made multiple comments on Jewish stereotypes that are Anti-Semitic. You're ignoring her comments because she's not a white male Republican. You've given her a pass and accepted her comments because of her race, religion and genitals. That makes you an anti-Semite , hell, more so than Trump .


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> She knows what she was saying, she's made multiple comments on Jewish stereotypes that are Anti-Semitic. You're ignoring her comments because she's not a white male Republican. You've given her a pass and accepted her comments because of her race, religion and genitals. That makes you an anti-Semite , hell, more so than Trump .


We are talking about Trump here. Again speak to Trump's comments.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> We are talking about Trump here. Again speak to Trump's comments.


Stop deflecting. We were talking about Trump *and* Omar. The way you've reacted to Omar and her comments is telling of the person you are . And I don't care how many red reps you give me for saying the truth :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Stop deflecting. We were talking about Trump *and* Omar. The way you've reacted to Omar and her comments is telling of the person you are . And I don't care how many red reps you give me for saying the truth :lol


No we are talking about Trump. The question was asked "why do they keep insisting that trump is an anti-semite when he has been vehemently pro-israel and has a jewish people in his own family?"

That is what we are talking about

So answering the question. Stop trolling and deflecting.

It's just weird how you keep defending Trump on this


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump's comments were anti-semitic. Are you really going to deny that? He has retweeted tweets from anti-sematic twitter users, Trump said some KKK/white nationalist are good people.
> 
> And LOL at using the logic Trump can't be anti-semite because his daughter married someone that is Jewish and Trump hires Jewish people.
> 
> Some people that are racist have daughters or sons that married a minority, and some people that are racist hire minorities, it still doe snot mean they are not racist.
> 
> So tell me how Trump's comments were not anti-Semitic?


i am a jew and i have never been under the impression that donald trump doesn't like jews. sorry. you're going to have try harder and quote more fake news articles. you harp so much on 'words' and yet trump has publicly disavowed both the kkk and white nationalism. those were his words.

the kkk doesn't even exist anymore in any meaningful capacity. they are a boogeyman monster from a distant past. the only ones propping them up are democrats because they desperately need to paint their political opponents as evil villains. 

it must be tough to have a grown up political discussion when your entire worldview is informed by john oliver and the young turks.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i am a jew and i have never been under the impression that donald trump doesn't like jews. sorry. you're going to have try harder and quote more fake news articles. you harp so much on 'words' and yet trump has publicly disavowed both the kkk and white nationalism. those were his words.
> 
> the kkk doesn't even exist anymore in any meaningful capacity. they are a boogeyman monster from a distant past. the only ones propping them up are democrats because they desperately need to paint their political opponents as evil villains.
> 
> it must be tough to have a grown up political discussion when your entire worldview is informed by john oliver and the young turks.


So you ignore Trump's comments and pretend he is not anti-semitic

As for quoting fake news articles, the video is a video of Trump's own words.

You really should try living in reality. It must be tough when your worldview does deal in facts

You call it fake news when its a vide of Trumps own words

There really is no point even debating with someone like you who ignores Trumps own words and call its fake news

Have fun with your circle jerk of shit posters. You will join them on the ignore list


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> So you ignore Trump's comments and pretend he is not anti-semitic
> 
> As for quoting fake news articles, the video is a video of Trump's own words.
> 
> You really should try living in reality. It must be tough when your worldview does deal in facts
> 
> You call it fake news when its a vide of Trumps own words
> 
> There really is no point even debating with someone like you who ignores Trumps own words and call its fake news


politicians say things all the time. they can be interpreted and twisted however you want. there isn't a person at that level that doesn't have shady associations. obama rolled with al sharpton, an ACTUAL anti semite, on numerous occasions and routinely had him as a guest in the white house. does obama hate jews also? al shaprton even had his own show on msnbc. do they all hate jews?

you do not become one of the biggest real estate developers in new york by being an anti-jew bigot. you also do not have your own daughter (someone his detractors and enemies suggest that he lusts... as disgusting as that is) marry a jewish person. you definitely don't then HIRE that jewish person and appoint him to a key staff position.

actions mean more than words, just not if you're birthday massacre.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump's comments were anti-semitic. Are you really going to deny that? He has retweeted tweets from anti-sematic twitter users, Trump said some KKK/white nationalist are good people.
> 
> And LOL at using the logic Trump can't be anti-semite because his daughter married someone that is Jewish and Trump hires Jewish people.
> 
> Some people that are racist have daughters or sons that married a minority, and some people that are racist hire minorities, it still doe snot mean they are not racist.
> 
> So tell me how Trump's comments were not anti-Semitic?


CNN is so clearly just a Democrat party propaganda channel, it's kinda hilarious but also quite sad that people actually watch it as a news channel. Makes me appreciate the BBC, and that's saying something lol :laugh:

So why exactly were the comments anti-Semitic exactly? He said that he will do more for Israel than any other candidate, or did you not hear that? Is it also not a fact that lobbyist groups, including the pro-Israeli lobby, tend to support candidates that they make campaign contributions to, and in return expect political favours? I thought that was how the US political system worked, correct me if I'm wrong. Trump said he would support and do favours for Israel (and has followed this up with his actions) even without taking campaign contributions from the pro-Israel lobby. Surely that is the opposite of antisemitism. 

The retweeted post was stupid but that is an oversight clearly, hence why it was deleted. It's not exactly obviously anti-semitic, if it even is at all. If the star was a circle it wouldn't be since Hillary isn't Jewish, as I say, just kind of dumb.

hkhKQFHASHFK How many times, the 'good people on both sides' was obviously not directed at fricking neo-nazi's or Antifa for that matter. The original demonstration and counter-protest was about confederate statues, one side peacefully demonstrating against their removal and one peacefully protesting for their removal. I can understand both positions. The protests were then taken over essentially by violent antifa protesters and moronic, violent, white supremacists. So I will repeat, there were good people on both sides, but obviously not the violent/racist elements. The only problem with his comment was that it was made at an insensitive time, since a protester was killed by a disgusting thug. He clearly, to anyone with a brain, was not saying he, or his cronies, were good people. This is the definition of fake news - twisting words out of context to provide a total false narrative.

What actual *actions* in Trumps presidency (or life) have been antisemitic.

I will not pass comment on Omar, but the fact you are attacking Trump but not Omar for antisemitism is ludicrously hypocritical. Please reconsider your position, if in your opinion Omar is not antisemitic then Trump can certainly not be called an anti-Semite, that is indisputable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> CNN is so clearly just a Democrat party propaganda channel, it's kinda hilarious but also quite sad that people actually watch it as a news channel. Makes me appreciate the BBC, and that's saying something lol :laugh:
> 
> So why exactly were the comments anti-Semitic exactly? He said that he will do more for Israel than any other candidate, or did you not hear that? Is it also not a fact that lobbyist groups, including the pro-Israeli lobby, tend to support candidates that they make campaign contributions to, and in return expect political favours? I thought that was how the US political system worked, correct me if I'm wrong. Trump said he would support and do favours for Israel (and has followed this up with his actions) even without taking campaign contributions from the pro-Israel lobby. Surely that is the opposite of antisemitism.
> 
> The retweeted post was stupid but that is an oversight clearly, hence why it was deleted. It's not exactly obviously anti-semitic, if it even is at all. If the star was a circle it wouldn't be since Hillary isn't Jewish, as I say, just kind of dumb.
> 
> hkhKQFHASHFK How many times, the 'good people on both sides' was obviously not directed at fricking neo-nazi's or Antifa for that matter. The original demonstration and counter-protest was about confederate statues, one side peacefully demonstrating against their removal and one peacefully protesting for their removal. I can understand both positions. The protests were then taken over essentially by violent antifa protesters and moronic, violent, white supremacists. So I will repeat, there were good people on both sides, but obviously not the violent/racist elements. The only problem with his comment was that it was made at an insensitive time, since a protester was killed by a disgusting thug. He clearly, to anyone with a brain, was not saying he, or his cronies, were good people. This is the definition of fake news - twisting words out of context to provide a total false narrative.
> 
> What actual *actions* in Trumps presidency (or life) have been antisemitic.
> 
> I will not pass comment on Omar, but the fact you are attacking Trump but not Omar for antisemitism is ludicrously hypocritical. Please reconsider your position, if in your opinion Omar is not antisemitic then Trump can certainly not be called an anti-Semite, that is indisputable.



Trump also claims he does more for black people than any other president, but that does not mean he is not a racist toward blacks nor does it make his racist comments not racist. The same goes for Trump's sexist remarks. 

Trump claims a lot of bullshit things, its funny you have not learned how full of shit he is when he claims these things.

Trump's retweet was not an oversite. The only reason it was removed was because of the backlash he got for it and the WH made him do it. It's not the first time Trump tweeted out something from an anti-semitic tweet or racist tweet then had to remove it. Its a pattern with him because he is a racist and anti-semitic.

And it's not twisting Trump's word about good people on both sides. The comment is totally taken into context. There is no defense for it.

You can keep trying to ignore Trump's own words all you want and call it fake news. But it just shows how you don't want to live in reality.

its also hlarous you keep saying fake news when it comes to stuff like this yet no one does more fake news than Trump with his 8500 lies in the first two years of his presidency. 


You also keep saying Oma was anti-semitic. What did she say last week, exactly that was so anti-semitic?

Show me the exact quote. I asked reaper and he said "he linked the Republicans support for Israel to a pro-Israeli lobby directly and then claimed that she's against lobbying as a whole. "

Sorry but linking republican support to Israel lobbyist and being against that is not anti-semitic

So if someone is against any lobbyist that happens to be Jewish that makes it anti-semitic?

Is that the best you got?


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump also claims he does more for black people than any other president, but that does not mean he is not a racist toward blacks nor does it make his racist comments not racist. The same goes for Trump's sexist remarks.
> 
> Trump claims a lot of bullshit things, its funny you have not learned how full of shit he is when he claims these things.
> 
> Trump's retweet was not an oversite. The only reason it was removed was because of the backlash he got for it and the WH made him do it. It's not the first time Trump tweeted out something from an anti-semitic tweet or racist tweet then had to remove it. Its a pattern with him because he is a racist and anti-semitic.
> 
> And it's not twisting Trump's word about good people on both sides. The comment is totally taken into context. There is no defense for it.
> 
> You can keep trying to ignore Trump's own words all you want and call it fake news. But it just shows how you don't want to live in reality.


You have ignored my first point about the pro-Israel lobby group. Do you not agree about the issues that the US has with campaign finance and how lobby groups have undue influence over candidates because of that? 

I think it better fits in with his pattern of public gaffes, but we can agree to disagree there.

I just explained what the context was and why there actually were good people on both sides. The people being referred to were not the violent extremists of course, but the peaceful protesters on either side of the confederate statue debate. You can't ignore that.

'His own words' the problem is that his actual words aren't antisemitic... at all. The whole argument is about the context and whether the context makes them antisemitic - CNN and other media have obviously tried to make the context seem like his words are anti-semitic, but they are clearly not. The real context should also be Trumps massively pro-Israel policies that he has implemented throughout his presidency. What a strange thing for an anti-Semite to do.

Please explain how you can defend Omar and her comments while simultaneously saying that Trump is anti-Semitic? It doesn't make sense and it makes you come across as hypocritical, which is unfortunate as I know that you are usually pretty consistent (even though we also usually disagree!)

Edit: Just seen your additional comment regarding Omar. I actually never passed comment on Omar if you reread what I said, but if Trump is an antisemite, by your own standards Omar must also be, sorry. She tweeted something along the lines that Israel had hypnotized the world and were evil. If Trump said that what would your reaction be?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> You have ignored my first point about the pro-Israel lobby group. Do you not agree about the issues that the US has with campaign finance and how lobby groups have undue influence over candidates because of that?
> 
> I think it better fits in with his pattern of public gaffes, but we can agree to disagree there.
> 
> I just explained what the context was and why there actually were good people on both sides. The people being referred to were not the violent extremists of course, but the peaceful protesters on either side of the confederate statue debate. You can't ignore that.
> 
> 'His own words' the problem is that his actual words aren't antisemitic... at all. The whole argument is about the context and whether the context makes them antisemitic - CNN and other media have obviously tried to make the context seem like his words are anti-semitic, but they are clearly not. The real context should also be Trumps massively pro-Israel policies that he has implemented throughout his presidency. What a strange thing for an anti-Semite to do.
> 
> Please explain how you can defend Omar and her comments while simultaneously saying that Trump is anti-Semitic? It doesn't make sense and it makes you come across as hypocritical, which is unfortunate as I know that you are usually pretty consistent (even though we also usually disagree!)


They are not gaffs when its a pattern with Trump to appeal to his bigoted base. A gaff is something happening once, but it happens over and over with Trump because that is how he really is. A bigot, sexist, racist, anti-semitite. You are just making excuses. 

CNN does not have to put any spin on Trumps own comments, just listen to what he said its clearly anti-semitic. If you don't think they were, it makes me wonder about you.

That is not what Trump was talking about. I love how you are trying to reach with that one. Don't hurt yourself. There are no good people on the white nationist side. Trump wouldn't even denounce the white nationalist for a long time until he was forced to. He also pretended he didn't know who David Duke was because he did not want to denounce him. 


Who cares if the lobby group is pro-Isreal. Are you saying that lobby groups should be ok if they are pro-Isreal? All Lobby groups are bad. That was her point. 

I don't see how Omar being against a Lobby group that happens to be pro-Isreal is anti-semitic. Its just her being against lobbyist. I also said I won't comment on her past comments that people claim are also anti-semitic since I never saw them.

Finally its funny you keep asking for actions Trump has taken to show he is anti-semitic, you don't have to have any actions against Jewish people to be anti-semitic. It's also what you say about Jewish people.

Using your flawed logic, if someone hates blacks and uses the N word all the time toward them but they don't take any action against them, that means the person is not a racist. 



You can't be serious.


----------



## DOPA

So apparently, a man who has declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel and has pledged to move the US embassy there to show solidarity to the Jewish state is a vicious anti-semite. To reiterate, arguably the most pro-Israel president of my lifetime somehow also really hates the Jews :lol. If you can't see the obvious and inherent contradiction here then you are already a lost cause. I cannot help you.

This claim by the way, comes from an individual who is still scheduled to speak at an event for a group called *Islamic Relief* which I wrote about in the other political thread. This is a group that has members who have encouraged violence towards Jews, a group that is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, has various Islamic hate preachers within their ranks and has been investigated by a number of governments including my own country's on the grounds of having ties to terrorist and extremist organizations. This is who Miss Omar is associating herself with.

You couldn't make this up :HA. Not only was this a weak af deflection but it's utter projection on her part.

I was at first willing to give her the benefit of the doubt when I first heard about the reports targeting her, I didn't reach for the anti-semitism argument straight away. But after learning more about her, I cannot do so. The most lenient I could be towards her is perhaps she and her staff had no idea of the types of people that she had been invited to speak in front of. But considering that to my knowledge she hasn't pulled out of the event or retracted her invitation, it's more likely at this moment that she is at least sympathetic to the views that Islamic Relief upholds and are associated with, which is Islamism. That is reprehensible.

I can't see how anyone who isn't a partisan hack can defend Ilhan Omar knowing this information.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Damn, I hope he takes your advice, I can tell you really have what's best for his presidency and those of us who don't want rampant illegal immigration at heart.


And how does a wall stop people who come into the country legally and then their visas expire? 

You want illegal immigration to stop and you don't even know where the main core of the problem occurs from because (and here's a shocker), you don't have any fuck of a clue what you're talking about since you take Trumps word for it and don't bother doing any research.

Which, by the way, if you ever did bother doing any research, or had any common sense for that matter, you'd know that a wall isn't the best solution for stopping illegal immigration. 

Oh, and do I know what's best for his presidency? I don't know, does HE? Weren't you the one who withdrew your vote for him not too long ago? Guess what? This is becoming a much more common occurrence. No, I don't know what his best options are. I know that abandoning the idiotic wall idea would be the best option regarding that particular topic at hand. That is just one thing in a long list of issues that he has going on with his current Presidency.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

must be a slow news day :lol










i guess we have no choice but to impeach


----------



## AlternateDemise

Berzerker's Beard said:


> must be a slow news day :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess we have no choice but to impeach


There are people out there who still think Kobe was better than LeBron?


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1096133043419521024
:bearo
opcorn
:crow

Alexandria Bug-Eyes may in :fact be the most effective politician in Washington since FDR

I didn't think it was possible that someone could have come up with not one but _two_ sure-fire ways of guaranteeing the re-election of :trump 

But here we are

Green New Deal and the spectre of a centrist vs socialist civil war _a la outrance_ in the Democratic Party just in time for 2020

You go Bug-Eyes :thumbsup


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> must be a slow news day :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess we have no choice but to impeach


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> They are not gaffs when its a pattern with Trump to appeal to his bigoted base. A gaff is something happening once, but it happens over and over with Trump because that is how he really is. A bigot, sexist, racist, anti-semitite. You are just making excuses.
> 
> CNN does not have to put any spin on Trumps own comments, just listen to what he said its clearly anti-semitic. If you don't think they were, it makes me wonder about you.


In that case give me a direct quote from Trump that was anti-Semetic. Provide no context with it, just a direct quote. You will not find one.



birthday_massacre said:


> That is not what Trump was talking about. I love how you are trying to reach with that one. Don't hurt yourself. There are no good people on the white nationist side. Trump wouldn't even denounce the white nationalist for a long time until he was forced to. He also pretended he didn't know who David Duke was because he did not want to denounce him.


They weren't all white nationalists though. Many were originally protesting against the removal of a confederate statue. The event was then taken over by white nationalists and antifa. Don't try to change history to fit your agenda, that's what happened.
I wasn't aware of the David Duke thing but yes he should have denounced him as soon as he could. David Duke isn't important or relevant anyway, and for some reason he's supporting Tulsi Gabbard, that shouldn't necessarily reflect on her.



birthday_massacre said:


> Who cares if the lobby group is pro-Israel. Are you saying that lobby groups should be ok if they are pro-Israel? All Lobby groups are bad. That was her point.
> 
> I don't see how Omar being against a Lobby group that happens to be pro-Isreal is anti-Semitic. Its just her being against lobbyist. I also said I won't comment on her past comments that people claim are also anti-Semitic since I never saw them.


:shockedpunk What?

I was talking about the pro-Israel lobby that Trump spoke to. Read it back. You have just totally contradicted yourself here, because according to you when Trump talks about lobbyists buying politicians it's anti-Semitic, but when Omar does it's cool. Hypocritical to say the least. I also am generally against lobbyist groups, so I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I wasn't.



birthday_massacre said:


> Finally its funny you keep asking for actions Trump has taken to show he is anti-Semitic, you don't have to have any actions against Jewish people to be anti-semitic. It's also what you say about Jewish people.
> 
> Using your flawed logic, if someone hates blacks and uses the N word all the time toward them but they don't take any action against them, that means the person is not a racist.
> 
> You can't be serious.


Total false equivalency. What anti Jewish slur has Trump said? He has also acted in total favour of them, not just been indifferent to them. I don't really know how to address this because everything you wrote was wrong.

Hates blacks = Hates Jews. Clearly not the case as shown by his actions and words too towards Israel and Jewish Americans.

Uses the N word all the time towards them = Makes Anti-Semitic slurs all the time towards Jews. Never actually used an anti-Semitic slur as far as I'm aware. Not once. 

Don't take any action against them. He has taken much flak in order to help Israel, such as recognising the capital as Jerusalem and moving the embassy there. His policy is so obviously pro-Israeli, it's not inaction at all as you seem to imply. 

So no Trump is not anti-semitic. You are dead wrong on this issue and your defense of Omar (who I haven't actual said anything about) for much more questionable comments just comes across as hypocritical and partisan.


----------



## Miss Sally

Trump being an anti-Semite is hilarious, he's so pro-Israel and Jewish that people are calling him a Zionist/Israel puppet.

People wish he was so that it would deflect from the fact that the anti-Semitic stances of the "New Democrats" and their supporters won't get noticed.

Funny how things were supposed to change with this diverse group and so many women! Wow, racism in Politics will surely end!

Oh wait, the leaders of this so called march of progress are a bunch of racists too.

Maybe Omar can deflect harder and people can keep being in denial when people like her get exposed.

The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.


----------



## CamillePunk

National emergency declared. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> In that case give me a direct quote from Trump that was anti-Semetic. Provide no context with it, just a direct quote. You will not find one.
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't all white nationalists though. Many were originally protesting against the removal of a confederate statue. The event was then taken over by white nationalists and antifa. Don't try to change history to fit your agenda, that's what happened.
> I wasn't aware of the David Duke thing but yes he should have denounced him as soon as he could. David Duke isn't important or relevant anyway, and for some reason he's supporting Tulsi Gabbard, that shouldn't necessarily reflect on her.
> 
> 
> 
> :shockedpunk What?
> 
> I was talking about the pro-Israel lobby that Trump spoke to. Read it back. You have just totally contradicted yourself here, because according to you when Trump talks about lobbyists buying politicians it's anti-Semitic, but when Omar does it's cool. Hypocritical to say the least. I also am generally against lobbyist groups, so I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Total false equivalency. What anti Jewish slur has Trump said? He has also acted in total favour of them, not just been indifferent to them. I don't really know how to address this because everything you wrote was wrong.
> 
> Hates blacks = Hates Jews. Clearly not the case as shown by his actions and words too towards Israel and Jewish Americans.
> 
> Uses the N word all the time towards them = Makes Anti-Semitic slurs all the time towards Jews. Never actually used an anti-Semitic slur as far as I'm aware. Not once.
> 
> Don't take any action against them. He has taken much flak in order to help Israel, such as recognising the capital as Jerusalem and moving the embassy there. His policy is so obviously pro-Israeli, it's not inaction at all as you seem to imply.
> 
> So no Trump is not anti-semitic. You are dead wrong on this issue and your defense of Omar (who I haven't actual said anything about) for much more questionable comments just comes across as hypocritical and partisan.


I already posted a video of Trump makes a number of anti-Semitic comments. as for all your other BS you are just making shit up now, so we are done.

Defend Trumps anti-Semitic comments all you want, it just makes me wonder about you.






Miss Sally said:


> Trump being an anti-Semite is hilarious, he's so pro-Israel and Jewish that people are calling him a Zionist/Israel puppet.
> 
> People wish he was so that it would deflect from the fact that the anti-Semitic stances of the "New Democrats" and their supporters won't get noticed.
> 
> Funny how things were supposed to change with this diverse group and so many women! Wow, racism in Politics will surely end!
> 
> Oh wait, the leaders of this so called march of progress are a bunch of racists too.
> 
> Maybe Omar can deflect harder and people can keep being in denial when people like her get exposed.
> 
> The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.


Trump is anti-semitic because he makes anti-Semitic comments. But sure defend anti- Semitism because its Trump.


----------



## Draykorinee

This national emergency should be good.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> This national emergency should be good.


Cant wait to see it defeated in courts


----------



## Kabraxal

Really wish presidents would stop resorting to executive orders and “national emergencies” to bypass the system...


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> National emergency declared. :trump


"Anarchist" :kobelol


----------



## 777

Gotta say I'd rather see the military used for wall building than village bombing.


----------



## Addychu

*I dont like Trump, haven't read the full post.. as 156 pages but he is a bellend! *


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> I already posted a video of Trump makes a number of anti-Semitic comments. as for all your other BS you are just making shit up now, so we are done.
> 
> Defend Trumps anti-Semitic comments all you want, it just makes me wonder about you.


Yeah, except none of them were anti-semetic. CNN just span the context. If you could actually provide me with a written quote that would be good. 

What exactly have I made up? Please enlighten me. Seems like you can't really defend your ludicrous position. Why does no-one else seem to agree with you?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Yeah, except none of them were anti-semetic. CNN just span the context. If you could actually provide me with a written quote that would be good.
> 
> What exactly have I made up? Please enlighten me. Seems like you can't really defend your ludicrous position. Why does no-one else seem to agree with you?


LOL at it's spinning context.

Guess you think dog-whistling racism is just spinning context and not racism. 

I defended my position just fine, but keep defending Trumps anti-semitic comments. I told you I'm done with this.

As for no one else agreeing with me? Again you are just making more shit up not living in reality


----------



## Addychu

*And what? There is a National Emergency?*


----------



## birthday_massacre

Addychu said:


> *And what? There is a National Emergency?*


The real National Emergency is Trump still being president.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...5/bill-weld-2020-trump-challenger-libertarian

Trump just got his first 2020 Republican challenger
It’s former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld.

t appears as though President Donald Trump will have at least one challenger for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2020: former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld.

Weld, 73, has launched a presidential exploratory committee — a typical precursor to a White House run — setting up a potential challenge to Trump for the GOP nomination. Weld served as the Republican governor of Massachusetts from 1991 to 1997 but switched his party identification to Libertarian to run as former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson’s vice presidential candidate in 2016. Weld recently switched his party identification back to Republican, igniting speculation that he might challenge Trump.

Weld said the United States is in “grave peril” in prepared remarks at a “Politics & Eggs” breakfast in Bedford, New Hampshire, on Friday, according to the Boston Herald. He sharply criticized Trump, saying he is unable to carry out his duties “in a competent and professional manner” and his priorities “are skewed toward promotion of himself rather than toward the good of the country.”

Weld said some members of the Republican Party who support Trump “exhibit all the symptoms of Stockholm syndrome, identifying with their captor.” He checked Trump for his “narcissism and his compulsive behaviors.”

ccording to the Herald, Weld also took a swipe at Democrats:

“We need the opposite of socialism,” he said. “In the federal budget, the two most important tasks are to cut spending and to cut taxes — and spending comes first.”

Weld laid out his positions on other issues, calling for less government intervention in health care and for more intervention to prevent climate change.
Weld said that if he doesn’t win, he will not commit to supporting the Republican nominee.


This isn’t the first time Weld has criticized Trump. While campaigning as a Libertarian in 2016, Weld said he had “fear” for the country if Trump was elected and predicted his presidency would be “chaos.” In an interview with Rachel Maddow, he said he was “vouching for” Hillary Clinton and was highly complimentary of her record, though he stopped short of endorsing her. Of course, Weld was on a ticket that divided some of the anti-Trump vote that wound up getting him elected.

Some Republicans seem open to an alternative to Trump
It’s not clear what path Weld, specifically, sees to winning the Republican nomination. But there appears to be at least some appetite among some in the GOP for a challenge to Trump.

A Morning Consult poll released this week found that one-third of Republicans would vote for a primary challenger to Trump, while 51 percent would not, and 15 percent are not sure. Republicans who are black, disaffected with the party, moderate, and young are especially likely to be open to voting to someone other than Trump for the 2020 GOP ticket.

Twenty-one percent of those who voted for Trump in 2016 are considering voting for a different political party in 2020. A Monmouth University poll from November 2018 found that across the entire public, just three in 10 Americans want Trump to be reelected to another term.

Trump has been a historically unpopular president, and his approval rating was especially hard hit by the 35-day government shutdown he initiated at the end of 2018 over his insistence on $5.7 billion in funding for a border wall. (He eventually gave in, without the border wall money.) Since the end of the shutdown, his rating has improved, with 41.5 percent of Americans now saying they approve of the job he is doing in the White House.

It’s unclear what all this means for potential Republican challenges to Trump in 2020. Beyond Weld, there has also been speculation that others might challenge him, including Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan.

Trump has been running for reelection essentially since he was sworn in — he literally filed the paperwork for his reelection campaign the day of his inauguration. And the Republican establishment, thus far, is standing behind him. There has been discussion of canceling primaries in some states as a way to keep challengers away, and the Republican National Committee in January voted to give their “undivided support” to Trump in 2020.


----------



## MrMister

Agreed with Ann Coulter tbh.


----------



## CamillePunk

Bill Weld. :heston


----------



## Draykorinee

The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot - Ann Coulter

Savage but true.


----------



## CamillePunk

The United States currently has 31 currently active "national emergencies", not including the southern border crisis/situation:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/trump-wall-active-national-emergency/index.html



> Here's a full list of the 31 active national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, dating back to the Carter administration:
> 1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)
> 2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)
> 3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (January 23, 1995)
> 4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (March 15, 1995)
> 5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 21, 1995)
> 6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (March 1, 1996)
> 7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (November 3, 1997)
> 8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (June 26, 2001)
> 9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (August 17, 2001)
> 10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (September 14, 2001)
> 11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001)
> 12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (March 6, 2003)
> 13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)
> 14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)
> 15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (June 16, 2006)
> 16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (October 27, 2006)
> 17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (August 1, 2007)
> 18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (June 26, 2008)
> 19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (April 12, 2010)
> 20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (February 25, 2011)
> 21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 25, 2011)
> 22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
> 23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (March 6, 2014)
> 24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (April 3, 2014)
> 25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
> 26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (March 9, 2015)
> 27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (April 1, 2015)
> 28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (November 23, 2015)
> 29. Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (December 20, 2017)
> 30. Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (September 12, 2018)
> 31. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (November 27, 2018)


But people wanna act like there's some high standard that this one doesn't meet? :lol People wanna act like Trump is a dictator or something over this, when he's utilized the executive branch far more weakly than Obama ever did? :lol These are not serious people. What Trump is doing is politically justified and completely legal. 

Look, I get it. The Democrats rely on immigration from the third world to prop up their terrible political party. Anything that impedes that literally threatens their existence as a political party and thus their access to power. Luckily for them they have the media to program people so that they'll dance on command and repeat their nonsensical fake-nuance takes as if they have any relationship with reality. They don't. 

Trump should've made this declaration a long time ago. He should've started building the wall day 1. He easily could have. He's surrounded himself with terrible people who give terrible advice, namely his son-in-law Jared Kushner. If only Trump were as anti-semitic as the people desperately trying to deflect the real anti-semitism in their party onto him say he is. :lol Maybe he wouldn't listen to him so much!


----------



## deepelemblues

26 of those "national emergencies" are exclusively about foreigners and foreign nations :lol

But ~30,000 people being caught trying to illegally enter the United States by crossing the border each month is not an emergency nope no way. Plus however many thousands make it and don't get caught each month. Not an emergency :cudi

MUH AMERICAN NATIONAL EMERGENCEEEEEE in _Burundi_ and _Belarus,_ but not at the uncontrolled southern border of the United States :ha

Considering the amount of drug and human trafficking taking place across the southern border, and looking at previous national emergency declarations that are in effect and have been for years regarding drugs and human rights abuses, the situation at the southern border very obviously fits the criteria of a "national emergency"

If the drug and human trafficking into the United States at the moment does not meet the criteria for a "national emergency," then why does "Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 21, 1995)"?

Or, then why does "Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 25, 2011)"?

Or, then why does "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (December 20, 2017)"?

Anyone? Anyone?


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> But people wanna act like there's some high standard that this one doesn't meet? :lol People wanna act like Trump is a dictator or something over this, when he's utilized the executive branch far more weakly than Obama ever did? :lol These are not serious people. What Trump is doing is politically justified and completely legal.
> 
> Look, I get it. The Democrats rely on immigration from the third world to prop up their terrible political party. Anything that impedes that literally threatens their existence as a political party and thus their access to power. Luckily for them they have the media to program people so that they'll dance on command and repeat their nonsensical fake-nuance takes as if they have any relationship with reality. They don't.
> 
> Trump should've made this declaration a long time ago. He should've started building the wall day 1. He easily could have. He's surrounded himself with terrible people who give terrible advice, namely his son-in-law Jared Kushner. If only Trump were as anti-semitic as the people desperately trying to deflect the real anti-semitism in their party onto him say he is. :lol Maybe he wouldn't listen to him so much!


This might be the dumbest shit you've ever put together on this site. I'm legitimately baffled by what you just typed up here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

HollyJollyDemise said:


> This might be the dumbest shit you've ever put together on this site. I'm legitimately baffled by what you just typed up here.


He is just a gimmick poster, don't take him seriously


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> He is just a gimmick poster, don't take him seriously


Don't even try to act like you're much better. You literally spend the entire thread finding any reason you can to shit on Trump and plague entire pages with your arguments trying to defend your statements about him. CP is what's wrong with Trump supporters. You are what's wrong with Trump's haters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Don't even try to act like you're much better. You literally spend the entire thread finding any reason you can to shit on Trump and plague entire pages with your arguments trying to defend your statements about him. CP is what's wrong with Trump supporters. You are what's wrong with Trump's haters.


What I say about Trump is true. Sorry if you can't handle that

Facts dont care about your feelings


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> What I say about Trump is true. Sorry if you can't handle that
> 
> Facts dont care about your feelings


Feelings have nothing to do with this. Most of the things you say about him I agree with. But for you it's an obsession, and it derails the thread. You're literally doing the exact same thing CP is doing. Nevermind the fact that 95% of what he says is unbelievable dumbshit. He has an obsession with justifying everything Trump does even something as idiotic as what Trump's doing right now. 

If I didn't hate Trump too, I'd say that you are just as bad as he is.

Also, you stole that line from Ben Shiparo.


----------



## birthday_massacre

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Feelings have nothing to do with this. Most of the things you say about him I agree with. But for you it's an obsession, and it derails the thread. You're literally doing the exact same thing CP is doing. Nevermind the fact that 95% of what he says is unbelievable dumbshit. He has an obsession with justifying everything Trump does even something as idiotic as what Trump's doing right now.
> 
> If I didn't hate Trump too, I'd say that you are just as bad as he is.
> 
> Also, you stole that line from Ben Shiparo.


So you agree with most of the things I say about Trump yet you claim I find any reason to shit on him. That does not make any sense. 

My obsession does not detail the thread its shit posters like the usual suspects that do when they try to defend Trump.

And yes I stole that line for Ben Shiparo because I am mocking Ben when I use it.

I am using it in a sarcastic way. Anyways moving on.


----------



## CamillePunk

HollyJollyDemise said:


> This might be the dumbest shit you've ever put together on this site. I'm legitimately baffled by what you just typed up here.


It's all completely factual and that's why you have no rebuttal and have resorted to ad hominem. :lol Way to follow the loser playbook of Tater and Reap. 



HollyJollyDemise said:


> You're literally doing the exact same thing CP is doing. Nevermind the fact that 95% of what he says is unbelievable dumbshit. He has an obsession with justifying everything Trump does even something as idiotic as what Trump's doing right now.


I criticize Trump in here all the time. Criticized him for not building the wall for the last month and even criticized him for not building it sooner and for surrounding himself with bad advisers WHILE explaining why he's able to declare an emergency, which he is. 

Sorry you only watch CNN and believe everything the deep state tells you.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at it's spinning context.
> 
> Guess you think dog-whistling racism is just spinning context and not racism.
> 
> I defended my position just fine, but keep defending Trumps anti-semitic comments. I told you I'm done with this.
> 
> As for no one else agreeing with me? Again you are just making more shit up not living in reality


Dog whistling racism? You said before that the actual words he had used were anti-Semitic. Do Jewish people actually think Trump or his statements are anti-Semitic, or are you just getting offended on their behalf. Weird that you won't stick up for Jewish people when Democrats make highly questionable statements regarding Jews/ Israel. Almost like you just have an agenda against Trump and will twist yourself into a pretzel to say one is anti-Semitic and one isn't. Disappointed in you because I thought you had more integrity than that.

He hasn't made any Anti-Semitic comments. Don't just send me to re-watch some crap CNN propaganda, what has he actually said negatively about Jews or Israel? Pathetic that you haven't actually addressed anything I've said and then have the impudence to say I have made anything up. 

I obviously meant anyone on this thread, which is true. It's a ludicrous claim since Trump has done so much for the Israeli cause and you have supplied no evidence, other than subjective bs to support what you are saying. Reassess and ask yourself if you are actually being objective on this issue.

If you aren't going to adequately defend your position then don't bother replying.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Realistically this just feels like Trump wanting his wall, tired of waiting for the sides to agree on whatever spending deal they ended up agreeing on, annoyed at the lack of funding he got, and deciding to find a loophole to actually get the funding he wanted, ergo the idea of a national emergency. I mean, it certainly feels like a trivial reason to declare a national emergency, and most likely it'll get challenged in court and then remain in purgatory till 2020, but hey here were are. 

The only thing that I'm actually alright with (as alright with this as I could be anyway, considering I don't even like the decision in the first place), is the allocation of the funding for the wall. According to a CNBC article, the funding is going to come from four places:



> $1.375 billion from the Homeland Security appropriations bill
> 
> $600 million from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund
> 
> $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense's drug interdiction program
> 
> $3.6 billion from the Department of Defense's military construction account


Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/heres-where-the-money-for-trumps-border-wall-will-come-from.html

So the biggest chunk of money dedicated to the wall construction is just funding taken from our military budget, which most people (including myself) think is way too large to begin with, so I suppose its the safest place to move money from without any negative effects or connotations. And I would assume that his idea with taking money from the Defense's drug interdiction program is that having such a wall will prevent drug trafficking over the border to begin with, although whether this will end up working or not is anybody's guess. 

Realistically though I just don't see any sort of wall like he envisioned going up anytime soon, much less within whatever budget they are going to give it. How many large scale construction and infrastructure projects finish within budget and within their original timeframe? Hell look at the state of a lot of the infrastructure across the country, and here's a project that would be one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country most likely. Just color me quite skeptical of the whole thing.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> It's all completely factual and that's why you have no rebuttal and have resorted to ad hominem.





> Look, I get it. The Democrats rely on immigration from the third world to prop up their terrible political party. Anything that impedes that literally threatens their existence as a political party and thus their access to power. Luckily for them they have the media to program people so that they'll dance on command and repeat their nonsensical fake-nuance takes as if they have any relationship with reality. They don't.


Literally nothing you stated in this paragraph is factual. It's you spouting the same dumbshit nonsense you always do.

And last I checked, you still have yet to address my point regarding how a border wall doesn't prevent people from entering the country legally and then having their visas expire, which makes up for a great majority of illegal immigrants. 

You want to criticize me for resorting to ad honimem? That's the only response you deserve, because at this point you've proven that responding to your bullshit with actual facts (yes, real actual facts) will result in you not giving a response. You get nothing more than that until you change your habit and stop bullshitting everyone. 



CamillePunk said:


> I criticize Trump in here all the time.


No you don't.



CamillePunk said:


> Criticized him for not building the wall for the last month and even criticized him for not building it sooner and for surrounding himself with bad advisers WHILE explaining why he's able to declare an emergency, which he is.


And you wonder why Reaper and Tater don't take you seriously. 



CamillePunk said:


> Sorry you only watch CNN and believe everything the deep state tells you.


I haven't watched CNN since I was a kid. It's called doing actual research and not blindly believing everything someone says. And that, FYI, is the only reason why anyone would still think Trump is justified in declaring the border a national emergency. It's one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever seen be done by a President, and the fact that you are defending it is downright laughable.



birthday_massacre said:


> So you agree with most of the things I say about Trump yet you claim I find any reason to shit on him. That does not make any sense.


...how does that not make sense?

I said I agree with most of what you say. MOST. If I agreed with all of it, then it'd be a different story. How are you not capable of understanding the difference? 



birthday_massacre said:


> My obsession does not detail the thread its shit posters like the usual suspects that do when they try to defend Trump.


There are countless complaints in this thread alone stemming from you filling up numerous pages about many different things regarding Trump, some of which are horribly irrelevant, and one where you actually thought the person writing it was criticizing Trump, but in reality was actually praising him. 

It's annoying. You posting about it over and over again isn't going to make us change our opinion about Trump. It's just going to make you look more desperate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Dog whistling racism? You said before that the actual words he had used were anti-Semitic. Do Jewish people actually think Trump or his statements are anti-Semitic, or are you just getting offended on their behalf. Weird that you won't stick up for Jewish people when Democrats make highly questionable statements regarding Jews/ Israel. Almost like you just have an agenda against Trump and will twist yourself into a pretzel to say one is anti-Semitic and one isn't. Disappointed in you because I thought you had more integrity than that.
> 
> He hasn't made any Anti-Semitic comments. Don't just send me to re-watch some crap CNN propaganda, what has he actually said negatively about Jews or Israel? Pathetic that you haven't actually addressed anything I've said and then have the impudence to say I have made anything up.
> 
> I obviously meant anyone on this thread, which is true. It's a ludicrous claim since Trump has done so much for the Israeli cause and you have supplied no evidence, other than subjective bs to support what you are saying. Reassess and ask yourself if you are actually being objective on this issue.
> 
> If you aren't going to adequately defend your position then don't bother replying.


I already asked for the quote where Omar said something anti-Semitic, and no one gave me a direct quote. I already spoke to what Reaper claimed. Like I said if she said something anti-Semitic before that, show me the quote since I am not familiar with any other quotes but what she said last week. 

The video of Trump is his own words If you don't think what Trump said was anti-semitic I guess you are too since you think what he said was ok.

We have already been this already. Its not CNN propaganda when its a video of Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Literally nothing you stated in this paragraph is factual. It's you spouting the same dumbshit nonsense you always do.


Not a rebuttal. 



> And last I checked, you still have yet to address my point regarding how a border wall doesn't prevent people from entering the country legally and then having their visas expire, which makes up for a great majority of illegal immigrants.


Not sure what our solution to one illegal immigrant problem has to do with another illegal immigrant problem. We can solve both in the separate ways that they require. The drugs, trafficking, and gang warfare aren't coming from the visa overstays, though. 



> You want to criticize me for resorting to ad honimem? That's the only response you deserve, because at this point you've proven that responding to your bullshit with actual facts (yes, real actual facts) will result in you not giving a response. You get nothing more than that until you change your habit and stop bullshitting everyone.


It's the only response you're capable of. 



> And you wonder why Reaper and Tater don't take you seriously.


So I didn't criticize him for both Syria attacks? I didn't criticize him for escalating US interventionism and say I wouldn't vote for him unless he changes course? I haven't criticized many of his cabinet picks? I haven't been criticizing him for being limp-dicked with the intelligence agencies and for not declaring a national emergency? Pretty sure I did all those things. Sit down.



> I haven't watched CNN since I was a kid. It's called doing actual research and not blindly believing everything someone says. And that, FYI, is the only reason why anyone would still think Trump is justified in declaring the border a national emergency. It's one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever seen be done by a President, and the fact that you are defending it is downright laughable.


Then congratulations on being just as informed as someone who only watches CNN. 

Still no rebuttals anywhere to be found.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Not sure what our solution to one illegal immigrant problem has to do with another illegal immigrant problem. We can solve both in the separate ways that they require. The drugs, trafficking, and gang warfare aren't coming from the visa overstays, though.


First off, yes they are. Second, the drugs, trafficking and gang warfare aren't happening at the rate Trump likes to pretend they are. And what's more is Trump has shown no effort to handle the other immigration problem that, by the way, currently makes up for a larger percentage of illegal immigrants than the ones Trump is trying to stop from getting into the country. You know, the ones he shut down the government over? 



CamillePunk said:


> It's the only response you're capable of.


No, it's the only response you deserve. 



CamillePunk said:


> So I didn't criticize him for both Syria attacks? I didn't criticize him for escalating US interventionism and say I wouldn't vote for him unless he changes course? I haven't criticized many of his cabinet picks? I haven't been criticizing him for being limp-dicked with the intelligence agencies and for not declaring a national emergency? Pretty sure I did all those things. Sit down.


First off, you said all the time. This is not all the time (that, by the way, is a rebuttal).

Second, you're citing a time that you criticized Trump for not doing something that he not only shouldn't do, he shouldn't even consider. We've had countless people in this thread explain to you why a wall is a terrible idea and why Democrats don't want it to happen. No, it's not to fill their seats with illegals like you laughably suggested. It's because we already know that the 5.6 billion Trump wanted would become a lot more, and it wouldn't accomplish enough to justify spending that kind of time, effort and resources on something that would probably be discontinued once Trump loses in 2020.

This is why we do not take you seriously. 



CamillePunk said:


> Then congratulations on being just as informed as someone who only watches CNN.
> 
> Still no rebuttals anywhere to be found.


And claiming I watch CNN is a rebuttal? Your rebuttals are about as useful as Donald Trump's fact claims. We've tried giving you rebuttals, and that apparently doesn't do it for you. Don't try to sit here and pretend that you suddenly care about facts. That ship sailed a long time ago.


----------



## birthday_massacre

So Trump thinks drug dealers should be executed.

He is getting crazier and crazier. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...say-its-terrible-idea/?utm_term=.a2dd6a34b9fd


Trump again praises strongmen who execute drug dealers. Rights groups say it’s a terrible idea.

President Trump spoke fondly again on Friday about the practice — popular among some anti-Democratic leaders — of executing drug traffickers.

Speaking at the White House to announce that he was declaring a national emergency to secure funding to build his long-promised border wall, Trump digressed to speak about a recent conversation he had with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

“Their criminal list — a drug dealer gets a thing called the death penalty,” he said of China. “Our criminal list a drug dealer gets a thing called: How about a fine?”

Trump continued: “When I asked President Xi, I said, ‘You have a drug problem?’ No no no.” I said, ‘You have 1.4 billion people, what do you mean you have no drug problem?’ No we don’t have a drug problem. I said, ‘Why?’ Death penalty,” Trump said, imitating someone who speaks broken English. “We give death penalty to people who sell drugs. End of problem.”

ADVERTISING

Trump has repeatedly praised authoritarian leaders around the world and shown a particular affinity for the punitive measures some have used against drug traffickers and users.

Last winter, he told an audience in Pennsylvania that discussions about instituting the death penalty for drug dealers was “a discussion we have to start thinking about,” again saying he got the idea from Xi. Trump previously suggested the death penalty was a way to fight the opioid epidemic.

[President Trump wants to execute drug dealers. Here’s how they’re killed in Singapore.]

Human rights experts said Trump’s regular praise for Xi is concerning and misleading.

“Not only do they execute people without due process, they run a dictatorship that’s getting tighter and tighter by the day,” said Brad Adams, the Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Activists and civil libertarians are being routinely put in prison.”


While Trump claimed he was told that China does not have a drug problem, that does not appear to be the case. According to China Daily, a state-run newspaper, police in China solved “140,000 criminal cases related to drugs in 2016, arrested 168,000 suspected drug users, seized 82.1 tons of drugs and destroyed 438 drug labs.” And the outlet noted that there were 2.5 million known drug addicts in China by the end of 2017.

“It’s very common in economies with large growth rates, particularly countries moving away from abject poverty,” Adams said.

Adams said that China does execute people in some cases for drug trafficking, distribution and manufacturing but that its legal processes would not pass muster in the United States.

“There’s no due process,” he said, saying trials were closed. “Everything about every death penalty case in China would fail the tests we have here for a fair trial.”


In January, a Canadian man, Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, who was found guilty of drug trafficking in China was sentenced to death in a case that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said was politically motivated.

[Canadian convicted on drug charges in China will appeal death sentence]

Malaysia and Singapore have long had automatic penalties for drug traffickers, Adams said. But he said there was no firm evidence that harsh measures like execution had any deterrent effect.

“So from every angle, Trump is just wrong, and it’s just really shocking to see him praise the use of the death penalty in a country that has no respect for the presumption of innocence, access to lawyers, or a fair trial,” he said.

Kristina Roth, a senior program officer for criminal justice at Amnesty International USA, agreed.


“Generally speaking, use of the death penalty for drug-related crimes or any other crimes is not effective,” she said. “I think that if they were truly dedicated to addressing a serious amount of drug-related deaths, they’d seek public health solutions rather than executing people.”

Lindsey Bever contributed to this report.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Not a rebuttal.
> 
> Not sure what our solution to one illegal immigrant problem has to do with another illegal immigrant problem. We can solve both in the separate ways that they require. The drugs, trafficking, and gang warfare aren't coming from the visa overstays, though.
> 
> It's the only response you're capable of.
> 
> So I didn't criticize him for both Syria attacks? I didn't criticize him for escalating US interventionism and say I wouldn't vote for him unless he changes course? I haven't criticized many of his cabinet picks? I haven't been criticizing him for being limp-dicked with the intelligence agencies and for not declaring a national emergency? Pretty sure I did all those things. Sit down.
> 
> Then congratulations on being just as informed as someone who only watches CNN.
> 
> Still no rebuttals anywhere to be found.


Congrats you and @Vic Capri are the stereotypical Trump supporters with the bias assumption everybody that doesn't like Trump watches CNN.


----------



## Headliner

Stephen90 said:


> Congrats you and @Vic Capri are the stereotypical Trump supporters with bias assumption everybody that doesn't like Trump watches CNN.


Vic is permanently banned fam we don't mention him anymore. It's like when WWE stopped mentioning Benoit and erased him from history. 

Anyway, I don't think the order will hold up in the Supreme Court. I see a 5-4 ruling with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the 4 liberals. We'll see. :toomanykobes


----------



## Stephen90

Big Draco Headliner said:


> Vic is permanently banned fam we don't mention him anymore. It's like when WWE stopped mentioning Benoit and erased him from history.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think the order will hold up in the Supreme Court. I see a 5-4 ruling with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the 4 liberals. We'll see. :toomanykobes


Didn't know he was banned sorry.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> So Trump thinks drug dealers should be executed.
> 
> He is getting crazier and crazier.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...say-its-terrible-idea/?utm_term=.a2dd6a34b9fd
> 
> 
> Trump again praises strongmen who execute drug dealers. Rights groups say it’s a terrible idea.
> 
> President Trump spoke fondly again on Friday about the practice — popular among some anti-Democratic leaders — of executing drug traffickers.
> 
> Speaking at the White House to announce that he was declaring a national emergency to secure funding to build his long-promised border wall, Trump digressed to speak about a recent conversation he had with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
> 
> “Their criminal list — a drug dealer gets a thing called the death penalty,” he said of China. “Our criminal list a drug dealer gets a thing called: How about a fine?”
> 
> Trump continued: “When I asked President Xi, I said, ‘You have a drug problem?’ No no no.” I said, ‘You have 1.4 billion people, what do you mean you have no drug problem?’ No we don’t have a drug problem. I said, ‘Why?’ Death penalty,” Trump said, imitating someone who speaks broken English. “We give death penalty to people who sell drugs. End of problem.”
> 
> ADVERTISING
> 
> Trump has repeatedly praised authoritarian leaders around the world and shown a particular affinity for the punitive measures some have used against drug traffickers and users.
> 
> Last winter, he told an audience in Pennsylvania that discussions about instituting the death penalty for drug dealers was “a discussion we have to start thinking about,” again saying he got the idea from Xi. Trump previously suggested the death penalty was a way to fight the opioid epidemic.
> 
> [President Trump wants to execute drug dealers. Here’s how they’re killed in Singapore.]
> 
> Human rights experts said Trump’s regular praise for Xi is concerning and misleading.
> 
> “Not only do they execute people without due process, they run a dictatorship that’s getting tighter and tighter by the day,” said Brad Adams, the Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Activists and civil libertarians are being routinely put in prison.”
> 
> 
> While Trump claimed he was told that China does not have a drug problem, that does not appear to be the case. According to China Daily, a state-run newspaper, police in China solved “140,000 criminal cases related to drugs in 2016, arrested 168,000 suspected drug users, seized 82.1 tons of drugs and destroyed 438 drug labs.” And the outlet noted that there were 2.5 million known drug addicts in China by the end of 2017.
> 
> “It’s very common in economies with large growth rates, particularly countries moving away from abject poverty,” Adams said.
> 
> Adams said that China does execute people in some cases for drug trafficking, distribution and manufacturing but that its legal processes would not pass muster in the United States.
> 
> “There’s no due process,” he said, saying trials were closed. “Everything about every death penalty case in China would fail the tests we have here for a fair trial.”
> 
> 
> In January, a Canadian man, Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, who was found guilty of drug trafficking in China was sentenced to death in a case that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said was politically motivated.
> 
> [Canadian convicted on drug charges in China will appeal death sentence]
> 
> Malaysia and Singapore have long had automatic penalties for drug traffickers, Adams said. But he said there was no firm evidence that harsh measures like execution had any deterrent effect.
> 
> “So from every angle, Trump is just wrong, and it’s just really shocking to see him praise the use of the death penalty in a country that has no respect for the presumption of innocence, access to lawyers, or a fair trial,” he said.
> 
> Kristina Roth, a senior program officer for criminal justice at Amnesty International USA, agreed.
> 
> 
> “Generally speaking, use of the death penalty for drug-related crimes or any other crimes is not effective,” she said. “I think that if they were truly dedicated to addressing a serious amount of drug-related deaths, they’d seek public health solutions rather than executing people.”
> 
> Lindsey Bever contributed to this report.


Does this penalty include the pharmaceutical companies that intentionally started the opioid crisis to make record profits?

I'm guessing no.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Big Draco Headliner said:


> Vic is permanently banned fam we don't mention him anymore. It's like when WWE stopped mentioning Benoit and erased him from history.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think the order will hold up in the Supreme Court. I see a 5-4 ruling with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the 4 liberals. We'll see. :toomanykobes


It will take two years to get to SCOTUS most likely. So when the Dems win in 2020 the dem president can just cancel it right


----------



## Cleon

Trump has surrounded himself with Jewish mobsters his entire life


----------



## Reaper

Moroned after one post. That has to be a record if some sort. 

8D chess?

Or are we now in like 20D chess territory?


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Moroned after one post. That has to be a record if some sort.
> 
> 8D chess?
> 
> Or are we now in like 20D chess territory?


Political double talk? Thats never happened before!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## deepelemblues

Democrats voted for American taxpayers to pay for a 274 mile wall on the Jordan-Syria border but won't vote for one on the United States border :bryanlol


----------



## BruiserKC

I'm not a fan of just declaring national emergencies just to declare them in the first place. We need to have very specific parameters on what is really a national emergency, and what criteria needs to be met in order to have it pass muster. A very substantial number of so-called emergencies that have been called don't sit well with me to begin with, especially in the case of sanctions against other nations. 

That being said...this compromise bill was garbage. Obviously, we went from Trump being potentially offered $26 billion a year ago in exchange for Dreamer protection to getting $1.3 billion. He "negotiated" down to 5% of what he could have had to start with. However, two parts of this REALLY stand out that if you are as gung-ho about immigration and the wall, they should make you vomit. 

Section 224(a)...directly from the bill itself:

None of the funds provided by this Act or any other Act, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the components funded by this Act, may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security *to place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child* ( as defined in section 462 (g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))) based on information shared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Pointing out the bolded part...basically this offers "De Facto sanctuary" for pretty much any unaccompanied child or anyone that is anywhere near one of those children. This does absolutely nothing to resolve the sanctuary/amnesty issue. There is also a substantial number of MS-13 members that came in as part of that aforementioned unaccompanied alien child category. 

Also...the 55-mile line of wall/fence/whatever the hell you want to call it finally is left up to the local governments of the communities that will be neighbors to it. Per Section 232(a):

*"Prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers, the Department of Homeland Security shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city."*

A good number of those communities have leadership that fully oppose the wall in any way, shape, or form. Naturally, they will say no. Let's not forget the messiness of the potential of dealing with exercising eminent domain for people who live near the border whose properties intersect. 

If Trump had really wanted to deal with this the right way, he could have vetoed this bill and said it is trash. While the compromise passed in both chambers with veto-proof majorities, it was no guarantee it would have passed muster the 2nd time around. Then, he would have had a better argument (albeit a flimsy one still) for an emergency. 

However, to me the moment he signed it, he lost any traction he would have had. His signature means he agrees to the terms of the deal. Not to mention...again...if this was that much of an emergency why did he wait two years to get going on this? The wall was his signature promise. On January 21, 2017, he could have started working with Congress to get the wall. Talking to people with both parties, trading horses, working the room...all of this could have been done. He signed several budgets that clearly provided no funding. We could have already had this fight. The fact is he waited until the Democrats took the House and Ann Coulter called him out for being ready to sign yet another budget sans wall money. His words notwithstanding of that he could have done this another way...the fact that this has been sitting there for years and not resolved doesn't tell me this is an emergency. 

Is he incompetent? Or was he not serious about the wall to start with? Not to mention that while national emergencies have been declared in the past...nothing like this has ever happened. Trump is pretty much thumbing his nose at Congress. That's nothing new, Congress has abdicated their responsibilities for many years anyway. But this is a nuclear use of the national emergency. This is like Harry Reid using the nuclear option to confirm judges. The Democrats could use this the next time a Democratic President takes over. Trump keeps forgetting (or is too frustrated) to understand that running the country is not like running the family business with his name on it. 

We're heading into uncharted territory here, folks. I have a feeling this might not end well.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Big Draco Headliner said:


> Vic is permanently banned fam we don't mention him anymore. It's like when WWE stopped mentioning Benoit and erased him from history.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think the order will hold up in the Supreme Court. I see a 5-4 ruling with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the 4 liberals. We'll see. :toomanykobes


Justice Roberts is quite unpredictable but I tend to agree with your assessment. The only factor which should also be taken into consideration is that it is entirely possible that the makeup of the Supreme Court could very well change over the course of the next year or so. RBG is not very well and didn't appear at the state of the union address (Though I do hope that she makes a speedy and full recovery.) Also something to consider is that Trump is within his constitutional rights to nominate additional justices to the supreme court. That would obviously be pretty unlikely/ surprising, but this is Trump we're talking about, I wouldn't put anything past him! 

Vic might be gone, but his spirit will live on forever!

- Hoola


----------



## virus21

> Just in time for Valentine's day, a sex therapist has some warm thoughts and a kooky theory for what may putting people out of the mood for love: It's mostly President Trump's fault, with a little help from racism and America's "war worship."
> 
> Dr. Susan Block, a sex therapist known for her HBO appearances, best-selling books, and appearances on TV networks such as Oprah, believes if you're not getting intimate these days, it is all because of the negative vibes she sees emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
> 
> 1 IN 4 STUDENTS LEFT WITH PTSD SYMPTOMS AFTER TRUMP'S WIN, STUDY SHOWS
> 
> “It has had a big impact. For some people Trump's campaign and presidency has created a type of PTSD — what I call ‘Post-Trump Sex Disorder’,” she said during an interview with Salon, a liberal publication.
> 
> “Trump has created feelings of fear, loathing, and nausea," she added. "People just don’t want to have sex. This would mainly be seen with women who are just appalled at how creepy Trump is. He takes what is often a positive male attributes of confidence and pushes it way over the line into a rape-like and rape-entitled kind of arrogance.”
> 
> “Trump has created feelings of fear, loathing, and nausea. People just don’t want to have sex.”
> — Dr. Susan Block
> 
> The sex therapist says the media is also to blame for people becoming disinterested in sex. “The news is full of stories about bad sex. They don’t really like to talk about good sex. When you have this media obsession with bad sex with the usual ‘all American’ war worship and racism, as well as economic disparities and the way that corporations are in control, it really sucks the life out of a person,” she said.
> 
> Attributing negative feelings to the Trump presidency is nothing new. Last year, a study in the Journal of American College Health found that a quarter of nearly 800 surveyed students at Arizona State University had symptoms of PTSD due to Trump’s election victory in 2016.
> 
> “What we were interested in seeing was, did the election for some people constitute a traumatic experience? And we found that it did for 25 percent of young adults,” said lead author Melissa Hagan, an assistant professor of psychology at San Francisco State University.
> Psychiatrist: No evidence of 'Trump Anxiety Disorder'Video
> 
> Some therapists also reported the rise in anxiety among people due to the American politics, dubbing it the “Trump Anxiety Disorder.”
> 
> Mental health professionals reportedly said that since the election of Trump, more patients have expressed anxiety thanks to politics, though others have criticized assigned the rush coin partisan terms, calling them "partisan pop psychology."
> 
> REPORT: US THERAPISTS SEE INCREASE IN PATIENTS WITH 'TRUMP ANXIETY DISORDER'
> Trump anxiety boosts professional cuddlingVideo
> 
> But Block, who’s also the founder and director of something called the "Dr. Susan Block Institute for the Erotic Arts & Sciences," admits that while some people are turned off by Trump, some people see him as “an appealing ‘bad boy’ and ‘evil daddy’ who’s really hot.”
> 
> “In this way, Donald Trump is the daddy of a dysfunctional United States family. And of course evil can be very sexy. Evil is fascinating. As you said previously, Donald Trump is a cult leader and Charlie Manson-like figure. People are just charged up by him and some of those people are driven to commit great crimes by that kind of charisma,” the therapist added.
> 
> 
> She went on to decry the president as “a right-wing authoritarian and aspiring tyrant,” with the “fascist conception of the State” being masculine that prompts his followers to “want to literally be inside of him, to become him, to have a libidinal relationship with the Great Leader.”
> 
> “The fascist aesthetic can be very erotic for the followers,” she therapist added.


https://www.foxnews.com/health/president-trump-caused-post-trump-sex-disorder-that-makes-people-not-to-have-sex-sexologist-claims
Why do I have the feeling that these people weren't going to get laid no matter who was president


----------



## Headliner

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Justice Roberts is quite unpredictable but I tend to agree with your assessment. The only factor which should also be taken into consideration is that it is entirely possible that the makeup of the Supreme Court could very well change over the course of the next year or so. RBG is not very well and didn't appear at the state of the union address (Though I do hope that she makes a speedy and full recovery.) Also something to consider is that Trump is within his constitutional rights to nominate additional justices to the supreme court. That would obviously be pretty unlikely/ surprising, but this is Trump we're talking about, I wouldn't put anything past him!
> 
> Vic might be gone, but his spirit will live on forever!
> 
> - Hoola


If you're talking about expanding the court, Congress would have to approve expanding the court.


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> Democrats voted for American taxpayers to pay for a 274 mile wall on the Jordan-Syria border but won't vote for one on the United States border :bryanlol


It's moments like these where I hope you are sincerely trolling and aren't actually being serious.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Big Draco Headliner said:


> If you're talking about expanding the court, Congress would have to approve expanding the court.


Hmm yeah, it's actually much more difficult than I initially thought. Roosevelt actually did attempt it in 1937, but I guess it is pretty much settled now at 9 forever, which is probably a good thing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Hmm yeah, it's actually much more difficult than I initially thought. Roosevelt actually did attempt it in 1937, but I guess it is pretty much settled now at 9 forever, which is probably a good thing.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937


Why would we need more than 9?

SCJ need term limits. Like I said before, each president should get to pick one justice per term (every 4 years).

If someone dies or steps down then that is their pick, and if they already made their pick that term, then the pick has to wait until next term.

Rotating out a justice every 4 years would be a good thing.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Why would we need more than 9?
> 
> SCJ need term limits. Like I said before, each president should get to pick one justice per term (every 4 years).
> 
> If someone dies or steps down then that is their pick, and if they already made their pick that term, then the pick has to wait until next term.
> 
> Rotating out a justice every 4 years would be a good thing.


I was just speculating about how Trump might get the 'wall emergency' to pass through the SC! In theory he could add more justices but that is very unlikely obviously. 

Hmm, what if 3+ die/retire in a term though? Maybe it would be better for a mandatory retirement age to be imposed, so that judges such as RBG and Scalia don't have to just work until they die.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> I was just speculating about how Trump might get the 'wall emergency' to pass through the SC! In theory he could add more justices but that is very unlikely obviously.
> 
> Hmm, what if 3+ die/retire in a term though? Maybe it would be better for a mandatory retirement age to be imposed, so that judges such as RBG and Scalia don't have to just work until they die.


if three died in one term then we would have 6, the SC has had 6 justices before. The SC would work fine with just 5. 

Also if you started to have term limits that would probably never happen.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> if three died in one term then we would have 6, the SC has had 6 justices before. The SC would work fine with just 5.
> 
> Also if you started to have term limits that would probably never happen.


The issue is that the Supreme Court is supposed to be made up of the most brilliant legal minds in the country. If they had term limits (especially as short as 4 years) that wouldn't be the case. Maybe term limits of 20 years? I'm not really sure about the idea of having one SC pick per president, say the SC was very conservative in nature, that would only make even more difficult for a president to change the makeup of the court, in fact it may never change since in recent years the parties have almost taken turns in power. 

Term limits for members of congress on the other hand makes all the sense in the world!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> The issue is that the Supreme Court is supposed to be made up of the most brilliant legal minds in the country. If they had term limits (especially as short as 4 years) that wouldn't be the case. Maybe term limits of 20 years? I'm not really sure about the idea of having one SC pick per president, say the SC was very conservative in nature, that would only make even more difficult for a president to change the makeup of the court, in fact it may never change since in recent years the parties have almost taken turns in power.
> 
> Term limits for members of congress on the other hand makes all the sense in the world!


Your math does not make sense.

How would a justice have a term limit of 4 years, if the POTUS was picking a new one every 4 years and they would rotate? So once you join SCOTUS you wouldn't be done until the other 8 were selected.

You don't want one president shouldn't o be able to swing the court one way or the other with multiple picks in 4 years. The SC should be balanced. Hell being conservative or liberal shouldn't even matter on their rulings


----------



## Addychu

*Why is he still President? 
He's way too dumb and stupid to be one... Plus racist, sexist and well, he thinks everyone owes him, I mean how is the wall a "National Emergency", god damn it, I am gonna start head butting the wall soon.

*


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


>


Not too bad, even made me chuckle a little. I love Baldwin's gestures and arm movements!!

I still miss the old cast president impressions like Ferrell as Bush and Hammond as Bill Clinton will always be the best to me. Carvey did some good ones as well and Tina Fey as Palin was always spot on!!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097116612279316480

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097117499336855553
How can he still have such a thin skin over this? That's a rhetorical question. What kind of retribution does he want anyway? Pull NBC's broadcasting license?

TBF, SNL is just lazy now with the Trump sketches. At least try to make something creative and funny with the bit FFS. And get Baldwin to stop phoning it in.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097116612279316480
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097117499336855553
> How can he still have such a thin skin over this? That's a rhetorical question. What kind of retribution does he want anyway? Pull NBC's broadcasting license?
> 
> TBF, SNL is just lazy now with the Trump sketches. At least try to make something creative and funny with the bit FFS. And get Baldwin to stop phoning it in.


Baldwin is a better Trump than Trump 
And Trump is a parody. It’s tough to be funnier than how pathetic Trump really is. Trump is a walking onion match.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump is very think skinned, always has been.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> Baldwin is a better Trump than Trump
> And Trump is a parody. It’s tough to be funnier than how pathetic Trump really is. Trump is a walking onion match.


I just think the comedy would be better now coming from putting the Trump character in other situations and locations instead of just copying and exaggerating whatever event he did that week like a press conference or Oval Office meeting. That's low hanging fruit that every late night show is doing.

I wish they'd do more bits like this one with Phil Hartman as Clinton.






Or something like this bit with Hartman as Reagan. The doddering old man thing is an act.






...I miss Phil Hartman. :mj2

or this one with Aykroyd as Jimmy carter and he just starts talking a kid down on acid and he really knows his acid.






I kind of believe the old adage that good comedy comes from putting insane people in normal situations or putting normal people in insane situations.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> I just think the comedy would be better now coming from putting the Trump character in other situations and locations instead of just copying and exaggerating whatever event he did that week like a press conference or Oval Office meeting. That's low hanging fruit that every late night show is doing.
> 
> I wish they'd do more bits like this one with Phil Hartman as Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or something like this bit with Hartman as Reagan. The doddering old man thing is an act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I miss Phil Hartman. :mj2
> 
> or this one with Aykroyd as Jimmy carter and he just starts talking a kid down on acid and he really knows his acid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kind of believe the old adage that good comedy comes from putting insane people in normal situations or putting normal people in insane situations.



Yeah I see what you are saying, they should be doing skits on the leaked reports about how crazy the WH is with Trump running it. That stuff could be comedy gold. They could even do an apprentice WH edition with how Trump has fired someone every week.


----------



## MrMister

That Phil Hartman Reagan bit is easily my top 10 favorite SNL skits.

I agree that Trump should be in all kinds of dumb situations doing dumb things. SNL is bad now though and they think they should just mimic actual events. I guess it's been this way since Fey did Palin.


I'm still not totally convinced Trump isn't playing a character almost all the time. I want to believe he's this amazing performance artist that almost never breaks character kind of like Andy Kaufman did.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> That Phil Hartman Reagan bit is easily my top 10 favorite SNL skits.
> 
> I agree that Trump should be in all kinds of dumb situations doing dumb things. SNL is bad now though and they think they should just mimic actual events. I guess it's been this way since Fey did Palin.
> 
> 
> I'm still not totally convinced Trump isn't playing a character almost all the time. I want to believe he's this amazing performance artist that almost never breaks character kind of like Andy Kaufman did.


I wonder if they just half-ass it with Trump because its Baldwin and maybe he just shows up the day of the live show to do the Trump bit. If they had someone on the cast to be Trump maybe they could do an actul real bit instead of just rehashing what Trump already did


----------



## MrMister

birthday_massacre said:


> I wonder if they just half-ass it with Trump because its Baldwin and maybe he just shows up the day of the live show to do the Trump bit. If they had someone on the cast to be Trump maybe they could do an actul real bit instead of just rehashing what Trump already did


Yeah that's probably pretty close to what's going on. I also wonder if the writers just refuse to write anything with Trump because he's such an asshole. He's not worth their time. I could see writers being like this. Lots of missed comedy though because they let their feels get in the way. Clearly I'm just speculating based on zero information about the writers.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> Yeah that's probably pretty close to what's going on. I also wonder if the writers just refuse to write anything with Trump because he's such an asshole. He's not worth their time. I could see writers being like this. Lots of missed comedy though because they let their feels get in the way. Clearly I'm just speculating based on zero information about the writers.


Or maybe since Trump is so crazy they don't want to make any bits up of something they can't prove, so Trump can't sue them for slander. Not that he can anyways since its satire but you never know knowing Trump, so they just dont want to deal with that headache. So instead they just mock what he actually does


----------



## Hoolahoop33

The strange thing is that Trump certainly used to be able to take a joke really well! Here is his comedy central roast just as an example (it's pretty funny anyway so I recommend you all watch  Also famous for the worst bomb in roast history which is also pretty funny/embarrassing.) https://vimeo.com/234793481

The current SNL segments tickle me a bit but generally are very hit and miss. I think part of that is that Alec Baldwin Trump impression just isn't that good. For me Darrell Hammond's was much better. Maybe because it's slightly more nuanced, whereas Baldwin's is a bit ott.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> The strange thing is that Trump certainly used to be able to take a joke really well! Here is his comedy central roast just as an example (it's pretty funny anyway so I recommend you all watch  Also famous for the worst bomb in roast history which is also pretty funny/embarrassing.) https://vimeo.com/234793481
> 
> The current SNL segments tickle me a bit but generally are very hit and miss. I think part of that is that Alec Baldwin Trump impression just isn't that good. For me Darrell Hammond's was much better. Maybe because it's slightly more nuanced, whereas Baldwin's is a bit ott.


Alec Baldwin Trump impression is spot on, where as Darrell Hammonds was a caricature


----------



## blaird

Hoolahoop33 said:


> The strange thing is that Trump certainly used to be able to take a joke really well! Here is his comedy central roast just as an example (it's pretty funny anyway so I recommend you all watch  Also famous for the worst bomb in roast history which is also pretty funny/embarrassing.) https://vimeo.com/234793481
> 
> The current SNL segments tickle me a bit but generally are very hit and miss. I think part of that is that Alec Baldwin Trump impression just isn't that good. For me Darrell Hammond's was much better. Maybe because it's slightly more nuanced, whereas Baldwin's is a bit ott.


Hammond's Bill Clinton will always be the funniest presidential impression. The way he talked like Clinton and his facial expressions always cracked me up.

I dont think Baldwin is that bad of a Trump impression, he may could do better but it isnt too bad. 

Jay Pharoah did a great Obama too.

I really wish Trump could take this in stride and laugh at himself. Would probably help his image out if he had a little humility when it comes to this.


----------



## CamillePunk

I don't know who keeps showing SNL skits to Trump. Unless he goes looking them up himself. Think he might low key be into masochism.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> Alec Baldwin Trump impression is spot on, where as Darrell Hammonds was a caricature


But that's the point of comedy. You exaggerate to add humor. A spot on impression is impressive, but that doesn't make it funny.

Dana Carvey couldn't find much funny about impersonating H.W. Bush so he just made it up. Same with Chevy as Ford.

They've done what I'm talking about with the Don Jr. and Eric Trump bits. They're not like the real guys, because doing a straight impression of them is boring. Instead they made them into caricatures and, at least for me, have had funnier results.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> But that's the point of comedy. You exaggerate to add humor. A spot on impression is impressive, but that doesn't make it funny.
> 
> Dana Carvey couldn't find much funny about impersonating H.W. Bush so he just made it up. Same with Chevy as Ford.
> 
> They've done what I'm talking about with the Don Jr. and Eric Trump bits. They're not like the real guys, because doing a straight impression of them is boring. Instead they made them into caricatures and, at least for me, have had funnier results.


But with Trump the stuff he actual says is sooo dumb and funny, you really dont need to go more over the top.

I agree with what you are saying in most cases but with Trump its a little different.

But I agree Alec is doing a straight up Trump impression whereas Hammons is not, he more embellishing Trump.

Its just preference. I like Alecs Trump impression more but that is just me.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> But with Trump the stuff he actual says is sooo dumb and funny, you really dont need to go more over the top.
> 
> I agree with what you are saying in most cases but with Trump its a little different.
> 
> But I agree Alec is doing a straight up Trump impression whereas Hammons is not, he more embellishing Trump.
> 
> Its just preference. I like Alecs Trump impression more but that is just me.


I get that.

Part of the problem for me is that it feels like they're going more for applause lines than jokes and people are cheering because SNL is taking someone they don't like down a peg instead of it being really funny. Not always, but enough to notice.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> I get that.
> 
> Part of the problem for me is that it feels like they're going more for applause lines than jokes and people are cheering because SNL is taking someone they don't like down a peg instead of it being really funny. Not always, but enough to notice.


Right, SNL with their Trump bits are more mocking him than trying to be funny like they did with past president.


----------



## blaird

2 Ton 21 said:


> I get that.
> 
> Part of the problem for me is that it feels like they're going more for applause lines than jokes and people are cheering because SNL is taking someone they don't like down a peg instead of it being really funny. Not always, but enough to notice.


I dont watch like I used to, what are the chances the writers just arent as good as they used to be??

Those casts with Sandler, Farley, Spade, Rock, etc were legendary. Even the next cast with Ferrel and Kattan and Molly Shanon had great writers. Maybe the writers back then were better than they are today, but will agree that the material with Trump kinda writes itself.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

blaird said:


> I dont watch like I used to, what are the chances the writers just arent as good as they used to be??
> 
> Those casts with Sandler, Farley, Spade, Rock, etc were legendary. Even the next cast with Ferrel and Kattan and Molly Shanon had great writers. Maybe the writers back then were better than they are today, but will agree that the material with Trump kinda writes itself.


That may be part of it but there are good sketches sometimes. I think it's similar to the problem with late night talk shows now. They and SNL focus more on bits that can go viral. A good, funny opening that has nothing to do with politics probably isn't get shared over and over on Facebook and getting YouTube views the way a Trump bit will.


----------



## DesolationRow

MrMister said:


> That Phil Hartman Reagan bit is easily my top 10 favorite SNL skits.


Unquestionably. Saw it as a little child in the mid-1990s and found it hilarious. 

Whether one detested or loved Ronald Reagan, it was funny and executed with _panache_ by Phil Hartman.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> I don't know who keeps showing SNL skits to Trump. Unless he goes looking them up himself. Think he might low key be into masochism.


It's all part of the plan to keep the base whipped up


----------



## Stephen90

Personally I don't need SNL to tell me Trump's an idiot. I can just look at his tweets.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Alec Baldwin Trump impression is spot on, where as Darrell Hammonds was a caricature


Oh don't get me wrong I think he does a good job of imitating his voice/ mannerisms, I just don't find him as funny as Hammond's. Just a personal preference I guess  



blaird said:


> Hammond's Bill Clinton will always be the funniest presidential impression. The way he talked like Clinton and his facial expressions always cracked me up.
> 
> I dont think Baldwin is that bad of a Trump impression, he may could do better but it isnt too bad.
> 
> Jay Pharoah did a great Obama too.
> 
> I really wish Trump could take this in stride and laugh at himself. Would probably help his image out if he had a little humility when it comes to this.


Hammond is just a brilliant impressionist, I love when he'd do the thumbs up/ lip bite as Clinton :laugh:

No he's not bad, in fact he does the facial impression and voice is pretty decent, just the actual content is lacking. That's just by opinion of course, comedy is subjective! 

Yeah, Jay Pharoah was pretty good!

Me too but I can understand why he doesn't. Like in his roast he can easily laugh at himself for liking Eastern European women and that his wife just married him for money or that he is not very classy despite trying to brand himself as being classy. That stuff is all really funny because it's true and he does well to laugh it off. When Baldwin alludes to Trump being unbelievably dumb or racist, he's not going to find that funny because it (at least by his own estimations) is not true.


----------



## birthday_massacre

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097539215800352768


----------



## CamillePunk

The FBI has gone rogue and needs to be cleaned out. :draper2


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> The entire government needs to be cleaned out. :draper2


ftfy


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> The FBI has gone rogue and needs to be cleaned out. :draper2












There is hope.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> There is hope.


 Yeah because Trump believes Putin over his own intelligence.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> It's all part of the plan to keep the base whipped up


----------



## birthday_massacre

Anyone really going to pretend Trump is not obstructing and shouldn't be impeached



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us...

"As federal prosecutors in Manhattan gathered evidence late last year about President Trump’s role in silencing women with hush payments during the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump called Matthew G. Whitaker, his newly installed attorney general, with a question. He asked whether Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Trump ally, could be put in charge of the widening investigation, according to several American officials with direct knowledge of the call.

Mr. Whitaker, who had privately told associates that part of his role at the Justice Department was to 'jump on a grenade' for the president, knew he could not put Mr. Berman in charge because Mr. Berman had already recused himself from the investigation. The president soon soured on Mr. Whitaker, as he often does with his aides, and complained about his inability to pull levers at the Justice Department that could make the president’s many legal problems go away.

Trying to install a perceived loyalist atop a widening inquiry is a familiar tactic for Mr. Trump, who has been struggling to beat back the investigations that have consumed his presidency. His efforts have exposed him to accusations of obstruction of justice as Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, finishes his work investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election."


----------



## DesolationRow

This is a worthwhile read: 

http://www.mintpressnews.com/ebay-f...unding-a-global-media-information-war/255199/



> How One of America’s Premier Data Monarchs is Funding a Global Information War and Shaping the Media Landscape
> 
> Through his purchase of influence over the daily flow of information to American media consumers, a dizzying array of connections to the national security state, and a media empire that shields him from critical scrutiny, Pierre Omidyar has become one of the world’s most politically sophisticated data monarchs.
> 
> by Alexander Rubinstein and Max Blumenthal


This is but a mere part of the entire article:



> Backing a disinformation warrior
> 
> This January, a Democratic Party-tied cybersecurity firm called New Knowledge was exposed for its plot to swing Alabama’s 2017 Senate race in favor of the Democrat, Doug Jones, by falsely painting his opponent, Roy Moore, as a useful idiot of the Kremlin.
> 
> The firm was co-directed by Jonathon Morgan, a former Obama special advisor who helped create the Omidyar-backed Hamilton 68 Russian bot tracker. His partner in the initiative was Ryan Fox, a veteran of the NSA. Their firm’s non-profit arm, Data for Democracy, received $411,300 from the Omidyar Network in 2018 for an initiative to create a code of ethics for data scientists. The Omidyar Group has not responded to MintPress News’ request for comment on this matter.
> 
> The story of how this duo orchestrated a black ops project to swing the Alabama special Senate election in 2017 first appeared in the New York Times. It described a “false flag” disinformation campaign that featured the mass purchase of Cyrillic-speaking bots to follow Moore’s Twitter account, then a tidal wave of stories planted in media from MSNBC to Mother Jones alleging that the Kremlin was throwing its full weight behind Moore’s candidacy.
> 
> There is no evidence Omidyar had any personal knowledge of the operation.
> 
> This February, The Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald published a blistering attack on New Knowledge after the group was cited as an expert voice in a defamatory NBC News article suggesting that the Kremlin was backing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI). Greenwald may have had no idea about the relationship between Omidyar and the New Knowledge team. But the article’s publication in an Omidyar-funded outlet highlighted the tangled web of the billionaire’s political empire.
> 
> Omidyar’s interest in the weaponization of news and data extends to a murky international initiative operating on the frontiers of a rapidly escalating information war.


----------



## yeahbaby!

> Conservatives Are Accusing AOC of Being a Literal Witch Who is Cursing Trump (With the Help of Demons)












https://ascienceenthusiast.com/cons...anTQchZC2DGoSPghRuZyCfsH1_Z33zKed_pOwgAyqkJLg



> RightWingWatch recently reported that Dave Kubal, the leader of a group known as Intercessors for America, did a prayer live on Facebook and implored his social media congregation to pray for God to spare America from George Soros and AOC. You see, Kubal believes that actual demons are commanding AOC to attack Trump.


Dave Kubal quote:



> It’s been widely publicized that there is a coven of witches that cast spells on President Trump 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This particular coven is found in the southern portion of New York City.
> 
> So, right in the middle of all of this, the southern district, in the middle of where these witches are doing the 24/7 spell-casting, we find the territory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


Back to the article, implying correctly that there will actually be some 2 braincell idiots that will believe this.



> The danger, I think, in people like this spreading their message is that it can reach people who don’t for whatever reason have their B.S. filters tuned-in properly. If someone is easily duped into believing conspiracy theories, they can be poisoned against an ideology to the point that they can be radicalized against it.


Lol, crazy Christian Conservatives gonna Conservative!


----------



## Hoolahoop33

yeahbaby! said:


> https://ascienceenthusiast.com/cons...anTQchZC2DGoSPghRuZyCfsH1_Z33zKed_pOwgAyqkJLg
> 
> 
> 
> Dave Kubal quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the article, implying correctly that there will actually be some 2 braincell idiots that will believe this.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, crazy Christian Conservatives gonna Conservative!


:bush


----------



## 2 Ton 21

At least we're not back to this... yet.


----------



## DesolationRow

The torpor roiling the inner-workings of the Democrats seems to be reaching an ever-more troublesome point for the lattice of their political organization. When Representative Ilhan Omar quoted Puffy Daddy's line, "It's all about the Benjamins," referring to AIPAC's hold on Congress (was it also a pun concerning Benjamin Netanyahu?) she was crushed by her Democratic colleagues with fearsome alacrity. However, Palestinian-American Representative Rashida Tlaib is now repeatedly being cast as the ally of Omar's over Israel and lobbyists working on Israel's behalf in Washington, D.C. Several fascinating stories from late last week delved into this as one Democrat after another is finding themselves cornered over what the _Washington Post_ stated "could forecast a Democratic divide on Israel." This as Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders are receiving blistering condemnations from Israel-friendly figures in the Beltway for voting no on legislation pushed by Republicans to provide states with the ability to refuse to hire individuals who support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Do these thousands upon thousands of Syrians who are returning to Syria every day not realize that the Assad regime must go and that now they are living in the sandbox of Vladimir Putin's? :lol

Those CIA-backed "rebels" were the good guys, right? Right?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-47260450/the-syrians-returning-home-after-years-of-fleeing-war



> The Syrians returning home after years of fleeing war
> After years of people fleeing Syria and its civil war, there are now long queues to enter the country each day. Jordan opened its Jaber border crossing last October after Syrian government troops defeated rebels who had controlled the other side.
> 
> Now several thousand people pass through each day. They include small-scale merchants reviving cross-border trade and returning Syrian refugees who hope to rebuild their lives.
> 
> Middle East Correspondent Yolande Knell spent a day at the crossing.
> 
> 19 Feb 2019


All of that propaganda for all of those years. :lol

Self-proclaimed "liberals"* (what these terms mean these days, no one can say, it seems) may have a host of complaints to issue and nail to the White House front door to mimic Martin Luther posting his _The Ninety-five Theses of Disputations on the Power of Indulgences_ but every time they speak of the sitting president trusting the Russian government more than the U.S.'s intelligence agencies it must engender a rippling of polite tittering from others looking on. :lol

*For those caring for equal time, already discussed "self-proclaimed conservatives" in the recent "Amazon leaves New York City" thread. :lol


----------



## MrMister

> So, right in the middle of all of this, the southern district, in the middle of where these witches are doing the 24/7 spell-casting, we find the territory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


:heston

that is gold right there


----------



## DesolationRow

Pretty sure Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has bewitched @CamillePunk;.


----------



## MrMister

I wonder what AOC's true form looks like.

You know she does dance so yeah this all seems pretty legit.


----------



## DesolationRow

MrMister said:


> I wonder what AOC's true form looks like.
> 
> You know she does dance so yeah this all seems pretty legit.


http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ria-ocasio-cortezs-power-necklace/2883751002/

The Arizona woman who made Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "power necklace." :banderas

Yeah, sure, "power necklace." :side:

You just know she takes that thing off late at night and looks exactly like Gheorghe Muresan.

Public Service Announcement: I love Romanian people. Particularly those from Transylvania. Speaking of being bewitched...


----------



## MrMister

DesolationRow said:


> http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ria-ocasio-cortezs-power-necklace/2883751002/
> 
> The Arizona woman who made Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "power necklace." :banderas
> 
> Yeah, sure, "power necklace." :side:
> 
> You just know she takes that thing off late at night and looks exactly like Gheorghe Muresan.
> 
> Public Service Announcement: I love Romanian people. Particularly those from Transylvania. Speaking of being bewitched...


Sorcery is very powerful in the desert so that necklace is OP probably.

Gonna need a bigger prayer circle.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

don't look into her eyes


----------



## CamillePunk

DesolationRow said:


> Pretty sure Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has bewitched @CamillePunk;.


You're thinking of Tulsi Gabbard. :lol I can't stand AOC.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Think OAC is pissed this curse didn't work on Trump or Chris Christie.


----------



## DOPA

Speaking of AOC:

https://ijr.com/aoc-ethics-questions-reports-show-paid-boyfriend/



> Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) may have had her current chief of staff pay her boyfriend using campaign PAC money, according to a report from Luke Thompson, a National Review contributor.
> 
> Thompson started down the trail of analyzing Ocasio-Cortez’s professional relationship with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, after realizing that the congresswoman had Roberts listed as a staff member with his own house.gov email account.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1096407285851713537
> As the tweet got more traction, Ocasio-Cortez responded, claiming that it was totally normal for members of the House to give their spouse — or in this case, significant other — an email address so they can see the member’s calendar.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1096420134435123201
> It didn’t take long for Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, to hop online to defend his boss. He tweeted to Thompson that Roberts doesn’t work for the office in any capacity and is not paid. The email account, according to Chakrabarti, is purely for logistical access.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1096423727397511168
> The next day, Thompson took a screenshot that shows Roberts listed as “staff” for Ocasio-Cortez despite their claims otherwise.
> 
> It also didn’t take long for Hill staffers — like Jordan Haverly, a communications director for Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) — to pull screenshots from the House IT guidelines showing that spouses, or boyfriends, are not supposed to have official house.gov email accounts.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1096424613955993600
> Fast-forward to Wednesday morning, and Thompson’s quest to find out if Roberts was officially hired by Ocasio-Cortez led him to another potential ethics violation by the Ocasio-Cortez team.
> 
> Thompson claims that Ocasio-Cortez worked with her current chief of staff, Chakrabarti, to make two payments totaling $6,000 to Roberts using campaign money from a PAC run by Chakrabarti.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098217832301686785
> Chakrabarti ran a campaign strategy firm called Brand New Congress, LLC. Under that firm, he had a PAC that he used for the campaigns he assisted. Three payments listed on FEC forms caught the eye of Thompson.
> 
> The first payment was from Brand New Congress PAC to Roberts for $3,000. Prior to Ocasio-Cortez’s election, Roberts worked in web design, yet he was paid by Brand New Congress for marketing.
> 
> Skip ahead 18 days from the original payment made to Roberts, and Ocasio-Cortez cut a check to Brand New Congress, LLC for $6,191.32.
> 
> A month later, Brand New Congress PAC cut another check to Roberts for $3,000. So, in total, Chakrabarti received $6,191.32 from Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign, and within two months, Roberts received $6,000 from Chakrabarti for his work as a “marketing consultant.”
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098217833849384961
> Thompson also noted that it appears they attempted to distance Roberts’ work with the campaign from the additional payments from Chakrabarti’s PAC by listing him under a different address in Arizona.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098217836806320128
> Thompson also alluded that Chakrabarti got his job in Ocasio-Cortez’s office because of the transaction.
> 
> “A rich guy used a PAC to pay [Ocasio-Cortez’s] boyfriend $6,000 when her campaign was running out of money. After AOC won, she gave that rich guy a job in her office,” he tweeted.
> 
> Chakrabarti has political success in his own right from managing Brand New Congress and his work with Justice Democrats, so his qualifications seem to go beyond a simple tit-for-tat situation, but Thompson thinks Chakrabarti did more than just hire Roberts.
> 
> In his Medium post, Thompson points to the amount of debt racked up by Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign as leverage that could have been used by Chakrabarti, writing:
> 
> By the end of 2017 she’d spent $37,249.94 but raised only $8,361.03. That’s a lot of money to stick on a credit card. Since no loans are recorded on her campaign books, presumably either AOC or Roberts was fronting the necessary cash.
> 
> It looks to me like Chakrabarti was effectively reimbursing AOC for a third of her expenses with Brand New Congress LLC, perhaps so that she would stay in the race despite her mounting debt.
> 
> While both Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti were quick to respond to Thompson’s report about Roberts’ house.gov email, they haven’t responded to his tweets about the payments to Roberts.



AOC has claimed this is a conspiracy yet has not shown any counter evidence to debunk the claims. If this is true and there's a good chance it is, at the very least it shows she's not above nepotism. Not to mention she goes against the biggest pledge no matter how small a donation she took that is a non-negotiable with the Justice Democrats, which is taking corporate PAC money.

Definitely an ethics concern here. There's also another long article from Medium which goes into this too.


----------



## El Grappleador

I was thinking and shall ask you:
Do you see in Trump a Stronger America?
Before wave of madness' acts as by Jingoes as PC Lovers, do you see Greatness on America?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Rolo Tomassi said:


> Speaking of AOC:
> 
> https://ijr.com/aoc-ethics-questions-reports-show-paid-boyfriend/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AOC has claimed this is a conspiracy yet has not shown any counter evidence to debunk the claims. If this is true and there's a good chance it is, at the very least it shows she's not above nepotism. Not to mention she goes against the biggest pledge no matter how small a donation she took that is a non-negotiable with the Justice Democrats, which is taking corporate PAC money.
> 
> Definitely an ethics concern here. There's also another long article from Medium which goes into this too.


He was not even her BF at the time.

As for the PAC stuff

The PAC was not hers, it was a national group that supported dozens of candidates.
The PAC employed him for a few months for doing digital marketing. So OMG they gave him money for doing a job.


----------



## DesolationRow

Should be a fascinating period of time unfolding as more should be revealed within the next week as to why the Federal Reserve held off on applying a firmer posture concerning interest rates. The timing with Donald Trump announcing that he will meet with China's trade chief Friday seems rather ostentatious. Stocks took another relative hammering but much of the problem rests with the overpurchased technical state, and once again we see a sort of panic-induced buying right at the end of the day. The markets are almost in some hilarious condition at this juncture, and the China trade deal advancements coupled with the Fed's taking of its own temperature in the meeting that led to stocks soaring once more promise more of the same. 

Kraft Heinz sinking 8.7% following fourth quarter adjustments is a cautionary tale! Haha. People are getting the message: make your own food, do not eat that processed junk! (Or maybe not.) http://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/kraf...bpoenaed-by-sec-over-accounting-policies.html



> Kraft Heinz slashes dividend, discloses SEC subpoena — stock tanks


----------



## AlternateDemise

So we hear any other dumb shit be spouted by Trump recently?


----------



## birthday_massacre

HollyJollyDemise said:


> So we hear any other dumb shit be spouted by Trump recently?


Like this


I want 5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible. It is far more powerful, faster, and smarter than the current standard. American companies must step up their efforts, or get left behind. There is no reason that we should be lagging behind on.............something that is so obviously the future. I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies. We must always be the leader in everything we do, especially when it comes to the very exciting world of technology!


LOL I would love to see a reporter ask Trump what 5G means

He is such a dumb ass 6G is still over a decade away


also, Trump thinks using the 25th amendment to impeach him is illegal.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/22/trump-trade-south-dakota-1180196



> *South Dakota governor says Trump trade wars have 'devastated' the state*
> 
> South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) said Friday that President Donald Trump’s trade wars have “devastated” her state, and though she agreed that countries like China were not following fair trade practices, she urged the Trump administration to quickly wrap up its trade talks there.
> 
> “South Dakota has been devastated by the trade wars that are going on,” Noem said at POLITICO’s State Solutions Conference, noting that agriculture is “by far” the largest industry in the state. The Republican governor warned that the trade woes of farmers can trickle down to the rest of the state, impacting “every main street business, everybody that has another entity out there that relies on a successful ag industry.”
> 
> President Donald Trump has engaged in a tit-for-tat war with U.S. trade partners like China and the European Union, which have levied retaliatory tariffs on major U.S. commodities like soybeans and wheat. The White House has been in talks with China for months over the issue, and faces a self-imposed deadline of next Friday to reach an agreement before tariff rates increase drastically.
> 
> Noem allowed that countries like China had engaged in unfair trade practices and said she realized the Trump administration “is trying to rectify that,” but said the clash had gone on too long.
> 
> “I have consistently been an advocate for wrapping up these trade discussions and making sure we’re getting access to better markets,” she said Friday, adding that “I think the administration wants to do this, we have been treated unfairly in the past, and they recognize that and want to have better trade agreements.”
> 
> The former congresswoman said that she has spoken to the White House in recent days and plans to engage them on the issue again while she’s in town for the Republican Governors Association winter meeting this week.
> 
> “The problem is that this has gone on now for a long period of time,” she said. “And farmers are used to risk, they’re used to prices going up and down and having that, but this sustained low commodity prices, frankly, is driving a lot of family businesses out of business. That is why we need to have some serious consideration for wrapping this up quickly.”


and

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-agriculture/us-farm-exports-expected-to-fall-19-billion-in-2019-led-by-china-usda-idUSKCN1QA1TK



> *U.S. farm exports expected to fall $1.9 billion in 2019, led by China: USDA*
> 
> The forecast was issued even as trade negotiators from the world’s two largest economies were working ahead of a March 1 deadline to resolve their trade spat, something that could vastly change the USDA’s outlook, if successful.
> 
> “The share of total U.S. agricultural exports to China in value terms is projected to be 6 percent, down sharply, with China falling from the top market in 2017 to fifth place,” USDA Chief Economist Robert Johansson told the USDA annual forum in Washington.
> 
> He said the United States had exported 24 million metric tonnes of soybeans in the 2019 crop year, down 13.5 million metric tonnes from this time last year.
> 
> “Under the trade dispute, exports to China alone have plummeted by 22 million tonnes, or over 90 percent,” he said.
> 
> Johansson said sales of U.S. soybeans to the European Union, Eqypt, Argentina, and others had risen, but that has “not been enough to make up for the lost exports to China.”
> 
> The South American soy harvest would make exports more competitive in the rest of the marketing year, dimming the prospects for an export recovery, he said.
> 
> Johansson did not provide an update on the U.S.-China trade negotiations.
> 
> Reuters reported on Wednesday that China and the United States were looking at a list of 10 ways China could reduce its trade surplus with the United States, which included buying agricultural produce, energy and other goods.
> 
> Bloomberg reported on Thursday that China is expected to propose buying an additional $30 billion of U.S. agricultural imports a year.


----------



## Draykorinee

We want 6G, its a bigger number than 5. The mentality of Trump is laughable.



Rolo Tomassi said:


> Speaking of AOC:
> 
> https://ijr.com/aoc-ethics-questions-reports-show-paid-boyfriend/


He managed to get a lot wrong which was countered by evidence. However the one thing they haven't debunked is the boyfriend payments. Time will tell.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

AOC claims she is a bronx girl but being a lifetime new yorker i can tell you nobody talks like she does. there is not even a hint of a new york accent there. it's *0%.*

no new yorker pronounces the word "and" like "eeeand". she sounds like a damn southerner.


----------



## Twilight Sky

Berzerker's Beard said:


> AOC claims she is a bronx girl but being a lifetime new yorker i can tell you nobody talks like she does. there is not even a hint of a new york accent there. it's *0%.*
> 
> no new yorker pronounces the word "and" like "eeeand". she sounds like a damn southerner.


We don't pronounce "and" like that either. (I'm originally from Georgia). Not sure why people up north, and the west/midwest have this misconception of how we all talk in the south.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Twilight Sky said:


> We don't pronounce "and" like that either. (I'm originally from Georgia). Not sure why people up north, and the west/midwest have this misconception of how we all talk in the south.


fine, but whatever her accent is... it damn sure ain't new york.


----------



## Reaper

Berzerker's Beard said:


> AOC claims she is a bronx girl but being a lifetime new yorker i can tell you nobody talks like she does. there is not even a hint of a new york accent there. it's *0%.*
> 
> no new yorker pronounces the word "and" like "eeeand". she sounds like a damn southerner.


"She speak different" Herr Durr MUH CONSPIRACIES 

:kobelol



Twilight Sky said:


> We don't pronounce "and" like that either. (I'm originally from Georgia). Not sure why people up north, and the west/midwest have this misconception of how we all talk in the south.


Hello. Which rejoiner are you?


----------



## CamillePunk

She could be from Venezuela and GOP opposition research would never find out about it. :lol


----------



## Hoolahoop33

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...as-holmes-watson-dominates-worst-of-hollywood

Trump has picked up two 'golden razzie' awards for *worst actor* and *worst on screen combo *alongside his his 'self-perpetuating pettiness.'

There is a certain level of irony in branding somebody as petty, whilst simultaneously giving him awards for being the worst at something he is not and letting him take over your film awards because you hate him so much. 

What irrelevant role will Trump be branded as being the worst at next, pilot? factory worker? doctor? I get that it's a joke, but this seemingly never ending obsession with Trump is really wearing thin now. There is an election every four years, get over the loss and stop bringing him into everything no matter how irrelevant it is.

Oh, Kelly Anne Conway also won worst supporting actress.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> "She speak different" Herr Durr MUH CONSPIRACIES
> 
> :kobelol


you broke your promise. you said you would never respond to my posts again.

didn't expect you to be a man of your word.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014940775757635591


----------



## GrumpyHawk

For all the hate on identity politics, you right wingers sure are obsessed with which neighbourhood has influenced AOC's accent the most. Is this not petty identity politics?


----------



## Reaper

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you broke your promise. you said you would never respond to my posts again.
> 
> didn't expect you to be a man of your word.


You think I look at an avatar every single time I'm responding to someone? 



GrumpyHawk said:


> For all the hate on identity politics, you right wingers sure are obsessed with which neighbourhood has influenced AOC's accent the most. Is this not petty identity politics?


It's not identity politics. Not exactly. It goes towards their white anxiety over changing demographics. And with AOC it's basically their version of the birther conspiracy. 

It's related to their overall conspiracy theory that browns are shoveled around by the phantom powers that be to influence their elections etc etc. 

The "she's not poor, or a new yorker" is part of that overall conspiracy. But mainly it's just another form of the birther conspiracy. The one they moaned about over Obama for and some of them still do. Talk about recycled conspiracies.


----------



## 777

Enough with the 'white anxiety' horseshit. Getting old.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> You think I look at an avatar every single time I'm responding to someone?


i think you know full well who posted it. you just couldn't stand someone trashing your girl so you got emotional and jumped in the ring to defend her.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Reaper said:


> You think I look at an avatar every single time I'm responding to someone?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not identity politics. Not exactly. It goes towards their white anxiety over changing demographics. And with AOC it's basically their version of the birther conspiracy.
> 
> *It's related to their overall conspiracy theory that browns are shoveled around by the phantom powers that be to influence their elections etc etc. *
> 
> The "she's not poor, or a new yorker" is part of that overall conspiracy. But mainly it's just another form of the birther conspiracy. The one they moaned about over Obama for and some of them still do. Talk about recycled conspiracies.


The _tricky_ "globalists" shifting around demographics, in order to undermine all the hard work republicans have done gerrymandering the election districts, over the years. 
Is that the conspiracy you're referring to?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

GrumpyHawk said:


> For all the hate on identity politics, you right wingers sure are obsessed with which neighbourhood has influenced AOC's accent the most. Is this not petty identity politics?


wtf?? she calls herself a bronx girl all the time. that's her whole gimmick. she's said it countless times. in interviews, on tv, on twitter... its's like her thing.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/29/orcasio-cortez-trumps-not-ready-to-deal-with-a-girl-from-the-bronx/

this chick ain't no bronx girl. not even close. she may have been born in a bronx hospital but that's where it ends. we are just calling her out on her blatant lying and blatant pandering.

why are you deflecting?



777 said:


> Enough with the 'white anxiety' horseshit. Getting old.


if they can label their opposition as racists and monsters then they don't have to confront the illogical fallacies in their arguments and beliefs.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Berzerker's Beard said:


> wtf?? she calls herself a bronx girl all the time. that's her whole gimmick. she's said it countless times. in interviews, on tv, on twitter... its's like her thing.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/06/29/orcasio-cortez-trumps-not-ready-to-deal-with-a-girl-from-the-bronx/
> 
> this chick ain't no bronx girl. not even close. she may have been born in a bronx hospital but that's where it ends. we are just calling her out on her blatant lying and blatant pandering.
> 
> why are you deflecting?


If that is the worst lie that she told in the process of getting elected, then she is still more truthful than virtually every other person in politics. Shall we go over the list of the presidents untruths told during his election campaign?

Edit: like I said, this is petty, identity politics.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> Enough with the 'white anxiety' horseshit. Getting old.


Nope. Not when white anxieties around demographic replacement is one of the core reasons for motivating people to vote republican in this country. You clearly don't understand the Southern Strategy and the reason behind its effectiveness. 

Are you even American?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

GrumpyHawk said:


> If that is the worst lie that she told in the process of getting elected, then she is still more truthful than virtually every other person in politics. Shall we go over the list of the presidents untruths told during his election campaign?
> 
> Edit: like I said, this is petty, identity politics.


well it's not the BIGGEST lie... that would be her entire platform. her socialist demands are completely immoral and impractical and she is trying to present them as something that's beneficial for all.

but still... you're telling me that lying about her entire identity and trying to present herself as something she isn't.. is not a big lie? if that's the case why pretend she's a bronx girl at all? why the need to lie in the first place?



Reaper said:


> Nope. Not when white anxieties around demographic replacement is one of the core reasons for motivating people to vote republican in this country. You clearly don't understand the Southern Strategy and the reason behind its effectiveness.
> 
> Are you even American?


"white anxieties"

get this racist shit out of here.


----------



## Reaper

Berzerker's Beard said:


> "white anxieties"
> 
> get this racist shit out of here.


Calling out people on their own racist conspiracies based on acknowledging their fear of demographic replacement isn't racism. 

This isn't topsy turvy land yet no matter how much you believe that it might be.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Berzerker's Beard said:


> well it's not the BIGGEST lie... that would be her entire platform. her socialist demands are completely immoral and impractical and she is trying to present them as something that's beneficial for all.
> 
> but still... you're telling me that lying about her entire identity and trying to present herself as she isn't.. is not a big lie? if that's the case why pretend she's a bronx girl at all? why the need to lie in the first place?


I was satisfied with her explanation about growing up in two neighbourhoods between her mom and dad's houses. If you were not, I still don't see how it is such a major issue, surely there are more important issues to focus on than identity politics. 

As for the socialist policies she is proposing... 
She is not proposing anything more "socialist" or radical than the policies that were in place in the United States during the Bretton Woods arrangements between 1942-1971. That was the most healthy economic period in American history.


----------



## Reaper

GrumpyHawk said:


> I was satisfied with her explanation about growing up in two neighbourhoods between her mom and dad's houses. If you were not, I still don't see how it is such a major issue, surely there are more important issues to focus on than identity politics.
> 
> As for the socialist policies she is proposing...
> She is not proposing anything more "socialist" or radical than the policies that were in place in the United States during the Bretton Woods arrangements between 1942-1971. That was the most healthy economic period in American history.


Him and his far right buddies on WF don't know what socialism even means. 

They use it interchangeably between social welfare because of their red scare brainwashing that has been so pervasive and successful in America. No country has ever been more successful in that level of brainwashing as America has been. I think the only other countries that come close to this level of brainwashing of the masses are Islamist countries.


----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> Nope. Not when white anxieties around demographic replacement is one of the core reasons for motivating people to vote republican in this country. You clearly don't understand the Southern Strategy and the reason behind its effectiveness.
> 
> Are you even American?


I'm pretty sure you know that I am not. That doesn't change the fact that you seem hellbent on perpetuating this nonsense. I thought we weren't supposed to make broad generalizations based on race? So stop, I refuse to get lumped into your prejudicial notions about ******.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> I'm pretty sure you know that I am not. That doesn't change the fact that you seem hellbent on perpetuating this nonsense. I thought we weren't supposed to make broad generalizations based on race? So stop, I refuse to get lumped into your prejudicial notions about ******.


If you think that I'm generalizing to "all white people" that is a flaw in your own perception of the argument itself for whatever reason. Does it apply to you? If not, then you don't have "white anxiety". You are not being lumped in. It's your own lack of individuality that makes you feel like you're being lumped in. It's an interesting phenomena as well where you demand to be treated as an individual, but are incapable of separating yourself from a particular group even when you're not being lumped in but simply believing that you are being lumped in. Quite interesting actually. 

Are all whites anxious of demographic replacement? Of course they're not. Why do I have to express that in every single post that I make? Why are you incapable of making that assumption yourself? To constantly try to assume that "all" is "always" meant in any kind of discourse is frankly quite an interesting phenomena in and of itself. But I won't make you feel even more attacked. 

Are some of them are? Yeah
Are the ones in the south are? More so than the north. 
Do they vote candidates that appeal to their fragility and fear? Of course. 

Etc Etc. 

To say that I think all whites are anxious about demographic replacement is basically a way to argue against the the issue itself and try to deflect attention away from it. 

Simply using the term "white" associated with a negative observation does not make it nonsense when in fact white anxiety around population replacement is a major concern in today's political climate.

Kinda funny seriously. People say disparaging things about certain groups I belong to, but if they don't apply to me, I don't feel like I'm being personally attacked. But yeah, only people on the left knee-jerk to identity politics :mj


----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> If you think that I'm generalizing to "all white people" that is a flaw in your own perception of the argument itself for whatever reason. Does it apply to you? If not, then you don't have "white anxiety". You are not being lumped in. It's your own lack of individuality that makes you feel like you're being lumped in. It's an interesting phenomena as well where you demand to be treated as an individual, but are incapable of separating yourself from the group even when you're not being lumped in but simply believing that you are being lumped in. Quite interesting actually.
> 
> Are all whites anxious of demographic replacement? Of course they're not. Why do I have to express that in every single post that I make? Why are you incapable of making that assumption yourself? To constantly try to assume that "all" is "always" meant in any kind of discourse is frankly quite an interesting phenomena in and of itself. But I won't make you feel even more attacked.
> 
> Are some of them are? Yeah
> Are the ones in the south are? More so than the north.
> Do they vote candidates that appeal to their fragility and fear? Of course.
> 
> Etc Etc.
> 
> To say that I think all whites are anxious about demographic replacement is basically a way to argue against the the issue itself and try to deflect attention away from it.
> 
> Simply using the term "white" associated with a negative observation does not make it nonsense when in fact white anxiety around population replacement is a major concern in today's political climate.


Following that logic, do I get to use the term 'brown anxiety'...? No I do not...and you know why.


----------



## DaRealNugget

socialism is when the government does things. obviously.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> Following that logic, do I get to use the term 'brown anxiety'...? No I do not...and you know why.


Sure. Why not. How about you elaborate on that?


----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> Sure. Why not. How about you elaborate on that?


It's not rocket science...if you *truly* want to end bigotry, stop being bigoted. It's wrong to make broad assumptions based on race, period.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

777 said:


> It's not rocket science...if you *truly* want to end bigotry, stop being bigoted. It's wrong to make broad assumptions based on race, period.


What is an example of "brown anxiety" though?

Edit: I clearly did not read your comment thoroughly before my response lol. I apologize for my above statement.

I don't think it is bigoted to say that some white people in positions of power are having anxiety over the changing in racial demographics throughout the USA. They have power, they have a say in the policy decisions that affect everyone in the USA, and even the world.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> It's not rocket science...if you *truly* want to end bigotry, stop being bigoted. It's wrong to make broad assumptions based on race, period.


Me: "White anxiety is a phenomena experienced by those whites who vote for republicans out of a fear of being replaced by non-whites"

You: "Stop being a racist"

Yah. I used the word white to describe those whites who do have that anxiety, but that's enough for you to call it racism. 

Sorry, but that's not what bigotry is. At all. I will say though that WF has a lot of fragile people overall. Constantly feeling attacked. But I guess that's only for the SJWWOOOOs. :mj


----------



## 777

GrumpyHawk said:


> What is an example of "brown anxiety" though?


Pick a fucking topic...


----------



## GrumpyHawk

777 said:


> Pick a fucking topic...


Gentrification


----------



## MrMister

lmfao anyone thinking anything is going to change anytime soon

It's really :heston levels of hilarity.


Brown anxiety exists when cops are anywhere. Come on don't be obtuse intentionally.


----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> Me: "White anxiety is a phenomena experienced by those whites who vote for republicans out of a fear of being replaced by non-whites"
> 
> You: "Stop being a racist"
> 
> Yah. I used the word white to describe those whites who do have that anxiety, but that's enough for you to call it racism.
> 
> Sorry, but that's not what bigotry is. At all. I will say though that WF has a lot of fragile people overall. Constantly feeling attacked. But I guess that's only for the SJWWOOOOs. :mj


I'm sorry you've rationalized you're way into this. Let's makeup all kinds of shit like this for fun, Jewish insecurity, black contempt, Arabic arrogance... etc, etc, etc,...


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> lmfao anyone thinking anything is going to change anytime soon
> 
> It's really :heston levels of hilarity.
> 
> 
> Brown anxiety exists when cops are anywhere. Come on don't be obtuse intentionally.


I don't relate to the black people level of anxiety. I think it's because I'm Pakistani and in America I'm higher up the totem pole. I acknowledge my desi-privilege :mj



777 said:


> I'm sorry you've rationalized you're way into this. Let's makeup all kinds of shit like this for fun, Jewish insecurity, black contempt, Arabic arrogance... etc, etc, etc,...


So basically all you're showing to me is that you think something is racist simply by adding the race/nationality/ethnicity in front of any idea. 

Gotcha. Pretty bad understanding of racism/bigotry there.


----------



## 777

GrumpyHawk said:


> Gentrification


There you go.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

777 said:


> I'm sorry you've rationalized you're way into this. Let's makeup all kinds of shit like this for fun, Jewish insecurity, black contempt, Arabic arrogance... etc, etc, etc,...


So you don't think white "anxiety exists" for some people? What about all the talk of "white genocide" on the right. Does that not sound a little anxious to you?


----------



## GrumpyHawk

777 said:


> There you go.


I don't see the point you are trying to make?


----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> So basically all you're showing to me is that you think something is racist simply by adding the race/nationality/ethnicity in front of any idea.
> 
> Gotcha. Pretty bad understanding of racism/bigotry there.


If you think that attaching a negative concept to an entire demographic of people is acceptable have at it....I'm sure it will work out fine.
You can play all the word games you like to justify your negative ideas.


----------



## 777

GrumpyHawk said:


> So you don't think white "anxiety exists" for some people? What about all the talk of "white genocide" on the right. Does that not sound a little anxious to you?





GrumpyHawk said:


> I don't see the point you are trying to make?


Anxiety exists...holy shit.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

777 said:


> If you think that attaching a negative concept to an entire demographic of people is acceptable have at it....I'm sure it will work out fine.
> You can play all the word games you like to justify your negative ideas.


"white anxiety" is not a term that is meant to be applied to all white people. Theoretically a brown person could have "white anxiety" if they were anxious about white skin being less prominent in America.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> If you think that attaching a negative concept to an entire demographic of people is acceptable have at it....I'm sure it will work out fine.
> You can play all the word games you like to justify your negative ideas.


Well, now you're making it obvious that you're not even reading and being paranoid. Oh well. 

Didn't think you'd end up down that path of "you're just really racist and now you're engaging in word play crap". Expected better. 

Moving on.



GrumpyHawk said:


> "white anxiety" is not a term that is meant to be applied to all white people. Theoretically a brown person could have "white anxiety" if they were anxious about white skin being less prominent in America.


Yeup. Seen a few of those too. Was also entertaining this idea myself for a bit. 

PS. There are actually studies being done that are showing that unless there is a HUGE wave of non-white people in America, there isn't enough of a pool to convert all Americans into browns. In fact, what's happening is that browns and blacks are much more likely to lighten in tone as opposed to the other way around as more interracial marriages are absolutely necessary and will continue to happen. But white anxiety doesn't account for that at all as they're really wrapped up in their fears around maintaining "racial purity".

The real reason why some people make the leap from "save the white race" to racism because when you really break it down, the assumption can be made that for some of these whites it's about maintaining as pure of a white identity and skin tone as possible. The browning of America is essentially about being anti-race mixing at the end of the day for some of these people

(PS. Adding some, many etc in order to not being accused of racism by someone not capable of adding these terms himself).


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> Well, now you're making it obvious that you're not even reading and being paranoid. Oh well.
> 
> Didn't think you'd end up down that path of "you're just really racist and now you're engaging in word play crap". Expected better.
> 
> Moving on.


I expect better. One hand you talk about otherization, then turn around and do the same thing. 

Yes let's move on.


----------



## 777

GrumpyHawk said:


> "white anxiety" is not a term that is meant to be applied to all white people. Theoretically a brown person could have "white anxiety" if they were anxious about white skin being less prominent in America.


Who thinks like this? You guys have a horrendous opinion about white people and what you seem to think they think. White people in countries that have been importing foreigners by the millions for thirty plus years, way longer if you wanna get technical.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> I expect better. One hand you talk about otherization, then turn around and do the same thing.
> 
> Yes let's move on.


Considering that you haven't bothered reading anything and are just throwing shit whereever you think it'll stick sure.


----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> Considering that you haven't bothered reading anything and are just throwing shit whereever you think it'll stick sure.


You've racialized a mundane negative concept that applies to every human being walking the face of the planet.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

777 said:


> Who thinks like this? You guys have a horrendous opinion about white people and what you seem to think they think. White people in countries that have been importing foreigners by the millions for thirty plus years, way longer if you wanna get technical.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htHlJqBw6Ss

I am not saying Tucker Carlson is necessarily a bigot. But I am saying that he has some "white anxiety".


----------



## CamillePunk

Meanwhile non-whites are totally cool when white folks move into their areas in large numbers, right? :mj4 There's not like a whole new term and body of arguments about it or anything.

How about people can live wherever they want regardless of their skin color, as long as they pay their own way?  I'd be quite fine with that.

Terms like "white anxiety", "white fragility", "white sympathizer" etc. are just socially approved racist terms against whites. There's no intellectual depth behind them at all. It's just lazy thinking by people who subscribe to an oversimplified race-obsessed world view, tolerated by cowards who would rather look at their feet than risk being called racist by standing up to such nonsense.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> You've racialized a mundane negative concept that applies to every human being walking the face of the planet.


You're not a part of this discussion. It was not about you but you personalized a concept that doesn't apply to you. It has no impact on you if white anxieties create a more hostile society for minorities because you're part of the group that stands to benefit from it. 

This is not me being racist. This is simply an assertion of how power dymanics work in societies where minorities exist. 

In some societies like the islamist ones for example Sunni anxiety led to a complete eradication of Shia's. There is a significant historical record if what happens when the majorities anxieties result in massive oppression and even mass murders of minorities. 

In America it's white anxiety because here whites are the majority. In some other countries is some other form of anxiety based on who the dominant group is. 

Just because you're white doesn't mean it's racism directed at you. But your personal fee fees are way too wrapped up into it to see the bigger picture.

And yes, white anxiety in America is a problem. It's not to the scale that it has existed before or exists in other societies but it exists and no amount of denial can change that.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> Meanwhile non-whites are totally cool when white folks move into their areas in large numbers, right? :mj4 There's not like a whole new term and body of arguments about it or anything.
> 
> *How about people can live wherever they want regardless of their skin color, as long as they pay their own way?  I'd be quite fine with that.*
> 
> Terms like "white anxiety", "white fragility", "white sympathizer" etc. are just socially approved racist terms against whites. There's no intellectual depth behind them at all. It's just lazy thinking by people who subscribe to an oversimplified race-obsessed world view, tolerated by cowards who would rather look at their feet than risk being called racist by standing up to such nonsense.


I would argue that "white anxiety" is not a racist term.

I define "white anxiety" as : The anxiety over changes in demographics, which leave white skin less prominent. So theoretically a yellow person could have "white anxiety" if they felt like white skin being less represented in the world was important to them.
I would never accuse everyone across right wing discourse, with having "white anxiety". By my definition I do think it is fair to admit that it is prominent, in extremist white supremacy circles, anyways.

I have a lot of respect for the values represented by your argument in bold, but I do disagree on a practicality of it.
When someone is born into poverty it is much more difficult for them to achieve financial success in life, compared to someone born into wealth. 
Basically it takes a poor baby, with exceptional qualities, to achieve financial success, a wealthy baby can be average.

Edit: Also poor people are without buying power and have the last say in where they get to live, if anywhere at all.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Hoolahoop33 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...as-holmes-watson-dominates-worst-of-hollywood
> 
> Trump has picked up two 'golden razzie' awards for *worst actor* and *worst on screen combo *alongside his his 'self-perpetuating pettiness.'
> 
> There is a certain level of irony in branding somebody as petty, whilst simultaneously giving him awards for being the worst at something he is not and letting him take over your film awards because you hate him so much.
> 
> What irrelevant role will Trump be branded as being the worst at next, pilot? factory worker? doctor? I get that it's a joke, but this seemingly never ending obsession with Trump is really wearing thin now. There is an election every four years, get over the loss and stop bringing him into everything no matter how irrelevant it is.
> 
> Oh, Kelly Anne Conway also won worst supporting actress.


To be fair, Death of a Nation was some of the most unbelievably laughable loads of shit I've ever seen in my life. The very idea of it in of itself was stupid, but the execution was somehow even worse.

I think they added Fahrenheit 11/9 for the hell of it.


----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> You're not a part of this discussion. It was not about you but you personalized a concept that doesn't apply to you. It has no impact on you if white anxieties create a more hostile society for minorities because you're part of the group that stands to benefit from it.
> 
> This is not me being racist. This is simply an assertion of how power dymanics work in societies where minorities exist.
> 
> In some societies like the islamist ones for example Sunni anxiety led to a complete eradication of Shia's. There is a significant historical record if what happens when the majorities anxieties result in massive oppression and even mass murders of minorities.
> 
> In America it's white anxiety because here whites are the majority. In some other countries is some other form of anxiety based on who the dominant group is.
> 
> Just because you're white doesn't mean it's racism directed at you. But your personal fee fees are way too wrapped up into it to see the bigger picture.
> 
> And yes, white anxiety in America is a problem. It's not to the scale that it has existed before or exists in other societies but it exists and no amount of denial can change that.


How convenient. Didn't see that coming...


----------



## Stalingrad9

GrumpyHawk said:


> When someone is born into poverty it is much more difficult for them to achieve financial success in life, compared to someone born into wealth.
> Basically it takes a poor baby, with exceptional qualities, to achieve financial success, a wealthy baby can be average.


What is the point of achieving financial success and having babies then ? If the wealth accumulated during life can not be transmitted to the human being you created, what is the point ? 
I'm not debating taxes or stuff like that, but to which extent is it unfair for somebody to benefit from his or her parent's hard work ? Why is it something to highlight ?


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Stalingrad9 said:


> What is the point of achieving financial success and having babies then ? If the wealth accumulated during life can not be transmitted to the human being you created, what is the point ?
> I'm not debating taxes or stuff like that, but to which extent is it unfair for somebody to benefit from his or her parent's hard work ? Why is it something to highlight ?


I would be leaving behind my love, life lessons taught, and the improvements in the entire community, bettering the quality of life for the entire next generation.

Edit: I would say it is unfair in the sense that someone born into wealth is born into unfair advantages in life, over those born into poverty.


----------



## CamillePunk

GrumpyHawk said:


> I would argue that "white anxiety" is not a racist term.
> 
> I define "white anxiety" as : The anxiety over changes in demographics, which leave white skin less prominent. So theoretically a yellow person could have "white anxiety" if they felt like white skin being less represented in the world was important to them.
> I would never accuse everyone across right wing discourse, with having "white anxiety". By my definition I do think it is fair to admit that it is prominent, in extremist white supremacy circles, anyways.


I don't think white people at large would be concerned with demographics if almost every other demographic didn't consistently vote to expand the federal government. 

Also if "white anxiety" isn't a racist term then why don't people have a similar term for say, Japanese people? They certainly seem to want to keep their country racially homogeneous, far more than the degree of white people in the US. Yet White Americans are the problem. :hmm: 

Anyone talking about white supremacists in 2019 (or 2016 for that matter) has no clue or is pushing an agenda. There are so few out there and they don't have political power. 



> I have a lot of respect for the values represented by your argument in bold, but I do disagree on a practicality of it.
> When someone is born into poverty it is much more difficult for them to achieve financial success in life, compared to someone born into wealth.
> Basically it takes a poor baby, with exceptional qualities, to achieve financial success, a wealthy baby can be average.


I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said? Expand, maybe?


----------



## Dr. Middy

I guess the fact that I barely even understand the idea of white anxiety is a good thing, coming from somebody who is white. :lol


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> I don't think white people at large would be concerned with demographics if almost every other demographic didn't consistently vote to expand the federal government.
> 
> Also if "white anxiety" isn't a racist term then why don't people have a similar term for say, Japanese people? They certainly seem to want to keep their country racially homogeneous, far more than the degree of white people in the US. Yet White Americans are the problem. :hmm:
> 
> Anyone talking about white supremacists in 2019 (or 2016 for that matter) has no clue or is pushing an agenda. There are so few out there and they don't have political power.
> 
> I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said? Expand, maybe?


Japanese were never a majority demographic anywhere in the west. Therefore they would not have any anxiety losing that majority status, anywhere in the west. 
If they have the same phenomenon regarding a majority demographic in Japan The term would not be called "white" anxiety it would be a different demographical anxiety, and it would be a Japanese term, I would assume.

The behaviour of white supremacists in recent years seems to suggest they have been emboldened by some sense of power, whether delusional or not.

When you said 

"How about people can live wherever they want regardless of their skin color, as long as they pay their own way? I'd be quite fine with that."

I totally agree with that sentiment, on the racial aspect, however there are certain problems with your statement if we are to be true to free market principles. 
People born into wealth are born into much greater life advantages than people born into poverty. Therefore it undermines the free market because there is not equality of opportunity. The impoverished person has to work much harder than the wealthy person.... to gain wealth.


----------



## DesolationRow

Fascinating conversation which compels one to recall a lunch which I had about two weeks after the November 2018 midterms.

http://www.ajc.com/news/state--regi...ad-this-year-election/WnoykR0cYdNfiZPQXVNC1I/

For the sake of business had to interact with someone who is majorly assisting his boss--who happens to be a Republican "super-donor" as they are called. In the spring of 2016 this boss was one of the numerous tone-deaf "Never Trump" bigwigs who effectively loathed the direction their political party's base was taking the party to which they had donated for many years. This fellow had donated to the reelection campaign of Brian Kemp. 

The gentleman working on his boss's behalf was of a pleasing disposition but as he talked up his boss, who did not make the trip to the Bay Area and whose identity I will not reveal here, and spoke of the campaign in Georgia for a moment it was difficult to not respond to his platitudes regarding the gubernatorial contest.

Some are evidently living in some fantasy world when it comes to the politics of the U.S. empire _today_. They ostensibly genuinely think that this is still the massive civic arena of the 1980s or 1990s in which wailing about government perhaps becoming too big or something will annihilate candidates such as Stacey Abrams.

Their estimates are outdated. For this is not the same U.S. empire.

http://www.ajc.com/news/state--regi...ad-this-year-election/WnoykR0cYdNfiZPQXVNC1I/

This otherwise largely intelligent man in his late forties said to me over lunch, "The people of Georgia proved that Stacey Abrams is not the person whose policies they want to see tried."

After allowing the statement to soak in for a moment I had to say, "Stacey Abrams, who was not even 55,000 votes away from winning and becoming the new Governor of Georgia..."

After a brief moment of borderline testiness which I regretted being responsible for inspiring I simply said, having read the above-linked _Atlanta Journal-Constitution_ article as well as a few other pieces which reinforced it, "The white percentage of the vote has dropped approximately twenty percent in the last thirty years in Georgia. According to the _Atlanta Journal-Constitution_, that share dropped eight percentage points between 2010 and 2018..." Silence. "...Taking everything else out of the electoral equation, it has never struck anyone that this might adversely impact Republican candidates' efforts in that state going forward now that we are nearing the 2020s?" 

Once it became obvious that the very question offended his sensibilities--in spite of the frustrating point that roughly ninety percent of Republican voters are white--we made peace and returned to the business that hand. However, it is both hilarious and sad that at least some of these people are evidently genuinely oblivious to the meteor slowly crashing for their preferred political party in at least a fair number of the U.S.'s states, just as many were in California and Virginia. They may be smart but they do not wish to apply simple mathematics to certain topics. :lmao

Yet of course Republicans have _known_ the reality and have acted on it where they saw fit to do so, whatever one thinks of the ethics of redistricting. It is a rather humorous game they play. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

GrumpyHawk said:


> The behaviour of white supremacists in recent years seems to suggest they have been emboldened by some sense of power, whether delusional or not.


Probably because of all the media attention that anti-Trump journalists were falling over themselves to give them during and since Trump's election. Nobody was talking about white supremacists until journos decided that it was relevant news that David Duke had endorsed Donald Trump. They're doing it again with his Tulsi endorsement, too. :lol White supremacy in the US is by and large a creation of the left-wing media. Outside of that, it has no power in or relevance to American life or politics. 



> When you said
> 
> "How about people can live wherever they want regardless of their skin color, as long as they pay their own way? I'd be quite fine with that."
> 
> I totally agree with that sentiment, on the racial aspect, however there are certain problems with your statement if we are to be true to free market principles.
> People born into wealth are born into much greater life advantages than people born into poverty. Therefore it undermines the free market because there is not equality of opportunity. The impoverished person has to work much harder than the wealthy person.... to gain wealth.


None of these points are problems with my statement at all though. I don't see the conflict or issue.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> How about people can live wherever they want regardless of their skin color, as long as they pay their own way?  I'd be quite fine with that.


There is a very significant portion of the population that is currently unable to "pay their own way" despite the willingness to do so. Such is the reality of economic inequalities.


----------



## CamillePunk

GrumpyHawk said:


> There is a very significant portion of the population that is currently unable to "pay their own way" despite the willingness to do so. Such is the reality of economic inequalities.


We're having two very different conversations.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> We're having two very different conversations.


There is a possibility of that. lol


----------



## Hoolahoop33

HollyJollyDemise said:


> To be fair, Death of a Nation was some of the most unbelievably laughable loads of shit I've ever seen in my life. The very idea of it in of itself was stupid, but the execution was somehow even worse.
> 
> I think they added Fahrenheit 11/9 for the hell of it.


Thankfully I haven't been unfortunate enough to watch that dumpster fire of a film! Nonetheless, the point remains that Trump (and Conway) were not acting in that film; thus giving them awards for being the worst actors is just dumb. If Death of a nation was that bad (and apparently it was), just award the worst movie award. Just tiresome to see everything become so needlessly political.


----------



## CamillePunk

Good news guys, our democracy is safe. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099109838913765377
That pastry chef almost got away with it, too! ('It' being...believing a conspiracy theory...)

:done 

The state of journalism. Trump Derangement Syndrome has obliterated the profession.


----------



## Stalingrad9

GrumpyHawk said:


> I would be leaving behind my love, life lessons taught, and the improvements in the entire community, bettering the quality of life for the entire next generation.
> 
> Edit: I would say it is unfair in the sense that someone born into wealth is born into unfair advantages in life, over those born into poverty.


Why is it unfair if the parents of said kids worked to have them ? 
How can you leave behind love, life lessons taught, improvement in the community and a better quality of life if you don't even believe that your kids can not get the benefits of your hard work ?

PS : I'm talking hypothetically when I say your kids lol


----------



## Miss Sally

GrumpyHawk said:


> What is an example of "brown anxiety" though?
> 
> Edit: I clearly did not read your comment thoroughly before my response lol. I apologize for my above statement.
> 
> I don't think it is bigoted to say that some white people in positions of power are having anxiety over the changing in racial demographics throughout the USA. They have power, they have a say in the policy decisions that affect everyone in the USA, and even the world.


Black people in Harlem and in other areas which have been black areas for a long time are feeling anxious as gentrification and the Latino population continues to push into their territory. This can also be felt in areas in the Western States as Latinos continue to push out blacks. 

Quite a few blacks especially those of the Black Nationalist variety are concerned as the black population is stagnant and the Latino population continues to rise. In fact many want a stop to immigration because of this.

It's not only white people who feel this way but of course only someone with their head in the sand wouldn't know about non-whites and their plight and their concern over losing areas that have been their homes for generations.

I find it interesting people throw around the terms "White Fragility", "White anxiety", "White Flight" when any of these can be applied to any other group. When they are they're suddenly racist. How peculiar it is that people are telling others not to worry about demographic changes because nothing will change but then fret when demographic change happens to them.

It's like bigotry hasn't ever ended, it's just moved from group to group, whoever is the whipping boy at the time. My how times never change.


----------



## Pratchett

CamillePunk said:


> Probably because of all the media attention that anti-Trump journalists were falling over themselves to give them during and since Trump's election. Nobody was talking about white supremacists until journos decided that it was relevant news that David Duke had endorsed Donald Trump. They're doing it again with his Tulsi endorsement, too. :lol White supremacy in the US is by and large a creation of the left-wing media. Outside of that, it has no power in or relevance to American life or politics.


Quoted for truth. No matter how much you want to believe that the BOOGEYMAN is real and he is gonna get you, it won't change reality. Oh sure, it will reinforce your own perception of what reality is, but in the long run all that fear mongering helps no one except the career politicians who peddle it year in and year out to make their hold on their power over you as palatable as it ever was.

Fear du jour? Just like Grey Poupon.

And of course _VOTE HARDER _next time. You are clearly not _VOTING HARD ENOUGH_.


----------



## deepelemblues

In the thousands of polls and studies done the last 60 years, racist opinions have dwindled to a small minority in the last generation

Things like miscegenation. Almost 90% disapproved and objected to it in 1960. Almost as many thought it should be illegal. 90% of the total population, not just the white population. Several decades later, almost 90% did not object in any way

If you look at the polls asking "Do you think race relations are improving or deteriorating?" the "deteriorating" % almost always only rises when race is cynically injected into politics. Not because of any actual increase in racism beforehand. Because of people driving a racial wedge for political gain. And then, afterwards, you see an increase in racism as some people respond to being bombarded with bitter racial tactics by becoming racist, or more racist. People take racism seriously, whether they're for or against it. If politics signals to them that it is crisis-level serious, as politics often does, they pay attention and get whipped up

The questions of race in America were basically answered some time ago for all but two small minorities, the political class and the remnant of conventional racists.* Unfortunately both these minority groups wield power very disproportionate to their numbers. The political class because it's cheap heat. And with race issues now playing out more in the political sphere than the social, racists are of course drawn to politics. In an age of general political apathy, any group that is energetic politically is going to stand out 

*Conventional white racists. Yes there is racism between poor blacks and hispanics, but hispanics have been gaining demographic and cultural preponderance in formerly black-majority neighborhoods for two generations. Look back in American history and you see the same thing between new immigrants and the residents of the neighborhoods they moved into. Even if both groups were what today would be called white. Irish looked down on, Welsh looked down on, Hungarians and Slovaks and Poles and Italians and people from the Balkans looked down on. By each other and by the native-born Americans. Within a generation or two those feelings mostly disappeared. Because the socioeconomic status of all those groups improved, thanks to the better education and economic opportunities America afforded the first generation's children. Blacks and hispanics caught in generational poverty in places like LA are an example of people in a zero-sum situation. Their education and economic opportunities stink. Their horizon is limited. The social connections they rely on are threatened when another group comes into their area and gains numbers and power. Their horizon limits more. The new group has to forge a geographic and social territory or it will have the more limited horizon. So, conflict. This is what has happened in many neighborhoods that were black-majority for two generations or more, when large numbers of hispanics moved in

If there was a better chance for people in these neighborhoods to expand their horizons into the much broader expanse of even the lower middle class, one group's gain in the neighborhood wouldn't be another group's loss

Gentrification would be great for blacks and hispanics - if they were getting the education that could get them professional careers in larger numbers. So many of these racial tensions would greatly diminish. I firmly believe the way to further reduce racism in the United States is to fix the abominable state of black and hispanic education. If it was fixed, within a generation at the most blacks and hispanics would be making much more money. It's hard to be bigoted towards people who have middle-class money to spend. Where do you see the most racism aimed at? The poor portions of the target group** 

When your group is more rich and educated, you are more useful to the individual greed of other people who are part of another group, and they are useful to your greed as well. Oh fine whatever Milton Friedman, "self-interest" 

This usefulness and incentives to deal fairly aren't limited to the more educated and rich members of different groups. Anyone can improve his or her lot through mutually beneficial social and economic connections, rich, poor, middle, whatever. You never know what the other fellows could have done for you if you don't find out and engage them for whatever reason. Including racism 

Racism fucks up the potential for individuals of different racial groups to advance their self-interest by dealing fairly with members of the other groups 

**Modern anti-Semitism being the exception, but that is probably because there are no large concentrations of poor Jews anymore


----------



## Reaper

Don't ignore the historical record of "law and order" candidates that used anxieties around "crime" but then went disproportionately after a specfic demographic of people. 

America blacks are 6.5% of the population. 40.5% of the prison population. But in order to claim that racism wasn't a factor in this significant difference people decided to claim that blacks are more prone to violence and that's where the "blacks commit more crime" narrative comes in - with little to no regard for those states where policing specifically targeted the newly created "criminality" through the "war on drugs" by going after black people way more than white people for the same "crime" of drug use and trafficking. Meanwhile statistics continue to show drug use, sales and purchases remain evenly distributed across both white and black communities. You have three strike laws, mandatory minimums, no trials ... You have communities of poor blacks who are poorly educated being picked up and tossed in jail while public prosecutors convincing them that they should accept guilt over going to trial and using intimidation tactics so they have criminal records over fighting for their right to trial. Etc. And this is merely scratching the surface of the racialized nature of our judicial system. 

The penal system in this country is heavily racialized and there is literally no one out there actively fighting to change it - neither amongst the republicans, nor amongst the democrats. It was Bill Clinton who created several federal policies that lead to significant increases in incarcerations of black youth in American prisons. Hillary Clinton used the term "super predator" which was the dog whistle of that time to refer to black youth - which was historically based around the old KKK belief that black men are more violent and want to rape white women. It was a modernization of archaic paranoia and beliefs that were created around the time the original framing of blacks as rapists was shaped by the earlier iterations of the KKK. 

White supremacy in this country has taken several different forms. Nixon's strategist was caught on tape in a very infamous interview now explaining what the southern strategy really was. No one should forget the Leewater interview and that framing hasn't change as much as people like to think it has. The Southern Strategy is still alive and well in this country and with each presidential candidate the dog whistles are what changes, but not the strategy itself. They've gone from outright using the N word to rile up white anxiety to "law and order" candidacy and with Trump it came roaring back when he shifted the focus from crimes committed by Blacks to crimes committed by Mexicans. Same methods, different racial group. 

Then you combine this with America's 13th amendment which gives no rights to prisoners and the continued growth in the supply of "criminals" to corporations as free labor and you can start seeing the connection between the archaic slave economy and the new "slave" economy. 

Prison reform, drug reform is needed in this country and no one is advocating for it.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> Calling out people on their own racist conspiracies based on acknowledging their fear of demographic replacement isn't racism.
> 
> This isn't topsy turvy land yet no matter how much you believe that it might be.


you are the racist. you are the one projecting and blaming everything you don't like with the world on "whites".

if racism and "white anxieties" are the only reason to vote republican, then you need to explain how 21% of the non-white vote when to Trump in 2016, including 28% of the latino vote. 

what's the reason, white anxiety? white racism? or is this yet another instance of reaper making an emotional argument and not a logical one.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

two days ago a black man robbed a store, duct taped a 70 year old cashier and a customer to a chair, robbed the store of 800 dollars... and then *poured gasoline and lit one of them on fire*.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article226636664.html

clearly this can only be attributed to black _________. 

reaper we need you to fill in the blank since you're the expert on these things.


----------



## Reaper

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you are the racist. you are the one projecting and blaming *everything you don't like with the world on "whites"*.


If you think that I do this, then you're even worse of a critical thinker than I thought you originally were. In fact, I have consistently claimed that whereever a majority exists it creates a situation where their anxiety about the minority group escalates to simply over-policing all the way to genocide. This has happened in Muslim countries against hindus and jews. This has happened within african countries against other african communities. This has happened even amongst the buddhists. Everytime the majority gets anxious about the minority it passes laws and reforms (or doesn't even bother to do that in some cases) that dehumanizes the minority and America also has a solid historical record of doing the same. It's just that it's white racists who do that here whenever given the power to do it and they use manipulative methods to get even well meaning individuals to vote for them, or with them in creating policies that are eventually used to continue to subjugate minorities (especially blacks) in different ways throughout our history. 

You're also projecting your over-emotional reaction back on to me. I keep having to use the word projection on here but unfortunately, you and a few others constantly give me reasons to do so. 



> if racism and "white anxieties" are the only reason to vote republican, then you need to explain how 21% of the non-white vote when to Trump in 2016, including 28% of the latino vote. we're talking 15-20 million voters.


Where did I say white anxiety is the only reason all whites ever vote republican? There are obviously fiscally conservative blacks and browns as well, but many of them tend to overlook the other aspect of the authoritarian nature of the "law and order" candidate that comes with their fiscal policy rhetoric and in that they vote against their own interests. 

White anxiety around the browning of America is the reason why the racist whites end up voting republican - and guess what, racist whites also voted democrat when the democrats shifted from passive "soft on crime" liberal policies of the late 80's to Clinton's police state campaigning in the 90's. 

The liberals went from being soft on crime to creating Clinton's police state - who was a democrat and he eventually admitted he was very wrong. Both Clintons in fact constantly shored up as many authoritarian federal policies as they could in a misguided attempt to "fight crime", but really only gave power to those in southern states who applied those laws to disproportionately attack blacks as compared to whites in their local communities. 

Liberals/leftists/rightists - well meaning non-racists and even anti-racists constantly get caught up in the "tough on crime" rhetoric, but the key to note here is the dog whistles that eventually lead to outcomes that constantly put minorities at a disadvantage - whether it's through the democrats or the republicans is irrelevant. 



> what's the reason, white anxiety? white racism? or is this yet another instance of reaper making an emotional argument and not a logical one.


Of course there are republicans who aren't racist. Of course there are ant-racist republicans. That in no way shape or form changes the fact that republican's souther strategy was both racist as well as a rallying cry for the racists to vote republicans. The racist minority is very active politically and in authoritarian circles. Given the way our country is set up however, the small minorities of racists (yes, even if it's like 10% of the population) is enough for individuals who are "tough on crime" to get voted in. The electorate may even want their government to be fair and just, but ultimately the facts reveal that america's treatment of blacks is not fair and just. 

There is no other reason for the huge disparity in how our judicial system operates and the mass incarceration rates that disproportionately disfavor blacks except through the lens of racial bias within the authoritarian state whereever it is allowed to gain more power than it should.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> two days ago a black man robbed a store, duct taped a 70 year old cashier and a customer to a chair, robbed the store of 800 dollars... and then *poured gasoline and lit one of them on fire*.
> 
> https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article226636664.html
> 
> clearly this can only be attributed to black _________.
> 
> reaper we need you to fill in the blank since you're the expert on these things.


I don't think you understand the basics of linear thought.


----------



## 777

Reaper is a slippery eel. Feels like arguing with the wife, where no matter how right I may have been, I'm the one apologizing by the end of it.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> Reaper is a slippery eel. Feels like arguing with the wife, where no matter how right I may have been, I'm the one apologizing by the end of it.


If you have these kinds of problems with your Missus, I suggest everytime you're inclined to jump to conclusions to probably spend some time actually listening to her.


----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> If you have these kinds of problems with your Missus, I suggest everytime you're inclined to jump to conclusions to probably spend some time actually listening to her.


I was trying to be cute cuz I like you even when we don't agree...and you went straight for my jugular...:crying:


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> I was trying to be cute cuz I like you even when we don't agree...and you went straight for my jugular...:crying:


Yah. So was I. Though my cuteness includes holding a knife to someone's throat at times


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099648497291272193
:heston


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> The racist minority is very active politically and in authoritarian circles. Given the way our country is set up however, the small minorities of racists (yes, even if it's like 10% of the population) is enough for individuals who are "tough on crime" to get voted in. The electorate may even want their government to be fair and just, but ultimately the facts reveal that america's treatment of blacks is not fair and just.
> 
> There is no other reason for the huge disparity in how our judicial system operates and the mass incarceration rates that disproportionately disfavor blacks except through the lens of racial bias within the authoritarian state whereever it is allowed to gain more power than it should.


you insist that blacks are being incarcerated at higher rates and whatnot because they are victims of an unjust system, but you completely ignore that blacks also commit the most crimes per capita.

our laws are not defined by color, our system is not defined by color. no one is going to be given a harsher sentence based solely on the color of their skin. we have plenty of black people in high places and holding local govt positions. we have black police captains, black mayors, black judges... the very same people overseeing the system you deem to be unfair. are there racist people in these groups? sure there are racist people in every profession, but the system itself is not at fault.

what is your evidence that black people are mistreated more unfairly by the justice system? what are your facts? i am open to hearing from you.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Miss Sally said:


> Black people in Harlem and in other areas which have been black areas for a long time are feeling anxious as gentrification and the Latino population continues to push into their territory. This can also be felt in areas in the Western States as Latinos continue to push out blacks.
> 
> Quite a few blacks especially those of the Black Nationalist variety are concerned as the black population is stagnant and the Latino population continues to rise. In fact many want a stop to immigration because of this.
> 
> It's not only white people who feel this way but of course only someone with their head in the sand wouldn't know about non-whites and their plight and their concern over losing areas that have been their homes for generations.
> 
> I find it interesting people throw around the terms "White Fragility", "White anxiety", "White Flight" when any of these can be applied to any other group. When they are they're suddenly racist. How peculiar it is that people are telling others not to worry about demographic changes because nothing will change but then fret when demographic change happens to them.
> 
> It's like bigotry hasn't ever ended, it's just moved from group to group, whoever is the whipping boy at the time. My how times never change.


You do make a lot of very good points with this post.

We, on the left hyper focus on "white anxiety" etc. and largely ignore the realities of "black anxiety" etc. This is a serious detriment we have on the left, especially, since any negative effects of immigration will be felt most strongly in the poorer communities, of which many are minority-majority communities, whether they be black, latino, etc. The left does have a tendency to ignore these issues, while holding up the same minority communities as political props, it is a problem, the democratic party has an atrocious track record of doing just that.

However, I do stand by my arguments that there are a multitude of more effective and humane, policies, that the USA government could put in place to deal with these issues, besides strengthening border controls.
Comprehensive economic reforms, which would allow poorer countries throughout latin America to develop their own economies would be one example that would do wonders. As bad as the multilateral "free market" policies of the IMF and World bank, under high influence from the USA, have been for the general populations in the rich countries, they have been even more disastrous for the developing and poor economies throughout Latin America and Africa. 
The Republican party and establishment democrats are working to intensify these bad economic policies, domestically and foreign.

I think you misunderstand my use of the term "gentrification" though. I take your point, that many black communities are being displaced by the inflow of latino immigration, but this is not a case of "gentrification". 
Gentrification happens when a poor community begins to develop itself, then those with existing wealth begin to move into the community, displacing the residents. 
Most latino immigrants do not have the buying power to move into developing communities, so are forced into moving into, poor, economically stagnant, communities. This is not to discredit the issue you outlined, displacement is a problem no matter the way it manifests itself.

I stand by defence of these racial terms we on the left use. We are just trying to define the racial division and tensions that exist in society, as a result of racism.



Stalingrad9 said:


> Why is it unfair if the parents of said kids worked to have them ?
> How can you leave behind love, life lessons taught, improvement in the community and a better quality of life if you don't even believe that your kids can not get the benefits of your hard work ?
> 
> PS : I'm talking hypothetically when I say your kids lol


You've put a nearly impossible challenge before me, in constructing my ideal society, for my kids to grow up in. Progress is a process after all, but I will do my best to sketch something out.

I do not envision some dystopian "Soviet-esque" hellscape where you work hard all your life, only to see the fruits of your labour disappear into some leviathan-like, authoritarian, bureaucracy. 
My big thing is that we need a society with more more socially integrated societies. I believe, we currently, have a very serious problem with social isolation in our society. It's not just a problem many people experience, it is a greater society problem. This is part of why I argue so much against the ideology of individualism.

So while I do not advocate for the dissolution of the family unit, my ideal society would consist of a more rich community network that transcends the isolation of the family unit, as an economic entity. So the fruits of my labour would not just go to improving the quality of life of me and my kids, but also my friends, my kids friends, etc.

Ultimately we all want the same thing, I believe, we are all human, we just have different ideas on how to get there, which is why political discussion is so important.



deepelemblues said:


> In the thousands of polls and studies done the last 60 years, racist opinions have dwindled to a small minority in the last generation
> 
> Things like miscegenation. Almost 90% disapproved and objected to it in 1960. Almost as many thought it should be illegal. 90% of the total population, not just the white population. Several decades later, almost 90% did not object in any way
> 
> If you look at the polls asking "Do you think race relations are improving or deteriorating?" the "deteriorating" % almost always only rises when race is cynically injected into politics. Not because of any actual increase in racism beforehand. Because of people driving a racial wedge for political gain. And then, afterwards, you see an increase in racism as some people respond to being bombarded with bitter racial tactics by becoming racist, or more racist. People take racism seriously, whether they're for or against it. If politics signals to them that it is crisis-level serious, as politics often does, they pay attention and get whipped up
> 
> The questions of race in America were basically answered some time ago for all but two small minorities, the political class and the remnant of conventional racists.* Unfortunately both these minority groups wield power very disproportionate to their numbers. The political class because it's cheap heat. And with race issues now playing out more in the political sphere than the social, racists are of course drawn to politics. In an age of general political apathy, any group that is energetic politically is going to stand out
> 
> *Conventional white racists. Yes there is racism between poor blacks and hispanics, but hispanics have been gaining demographic and cultural preponderance in formerly black-majority neighborhoods for two generations. Look back in American history and you see the same thing between new immigrants and the residents of the neighborhoods they moved into. Even if both groups were what today would be called white. Irish looked down on, Welsh looked down on, Hungarians and Slovaks and Poles and Italians and people from the Balkans looked down on. By each other and by the native-born Americans. Within a generation or two those feelings mostly disappeared. Because the socioeconomic status of all those groups improved, thanks to the better education and economic opportunities America afforded the first generation's children. Blacks and hispanics caught in generational poverty in places like LA are an example of people in a zero-sum situation. Their education and economic opportunities stink. Their horizon is limited. The social connections they rely on are threatened when another group comes into their area and gains numbers and power. Their horizon limits more. The new group has to forge a geographic and social territory or it will have the more limited horizon. So, conflict. This is what has happened in many neighborhoods that were black-majority for two generations or more, when large numbers of hispanics moved in
> 
> If there was a better chance for people in these neighborhoods to expand their horizons into the much broader expanse of even the lower middle class, one group's gain in the neighborhood wouldn't be another group's loss
> 
> Gentrification would be great for blacks and hispanics - if they were getting the education that could get them professional careers in larger numbers. So many of these racial tensions would greatly diminish. *I firmly believe the way to further reduce racism in the United States is to fix the abominable state of black and hispanic education.* If it was fixed, within a generation at the most blacks and hispanics would be making much more money. It's hard to be bigoted towards people who have middle-class money to spend. Where do you see the most racism aimed at? The poor portions of the target group**
> 
> *When your group is more rich and educated, you are more useful to the individual greed of other people who are part of another group, and they are useful to your greed as well. Oh fine whatever Milton Friedman, "self-interest"*
> 
> This usefulness and incentives to deal fairly aren't limited to the more educated and rich members of different groups. Anyone can improve his or her lot through mutually beneficial social and economic connections, rich, poor, middle, whatever. You never know what the other fellows could have done for you if you don't find out and engage them for whatever reason. Including racism
> 
> Racism fucks up the potential for individuals of different racial groups to advance their self-interest by dealing fairly with members of the other groups
> 
> **Modern anti-Semitism being the exception, but that is probably because there are no large concentrations of poor Jews anymore


I do agree with much of what you are saying

There has been incredible progress made on racial injustice and racial tensions in the west since the 1960's. Mainly due to the very hard work done by civil rights leaders and activists, in minority communities. 
Although, I do believe there is more work to be done, no matter how difficult it may be to address. People will naturally get defensive when our prejudices are challenged, but we all have them to one degree or another, no matter what your skin colour is.

There is significant evidence that Milton Friedman's theory's have been detrimental to the education system, since they have begun to be put to practice.
The education institutions within the majority of black and hispanic communities has rapidly deteriorated over the last 30 years or so. Ever since efforts to privatize the public education system were initiated. This has resulted in a major shift of education resources out of black, hispanic and poorer communities.


----------



## deepelemblues

GrumpyHawk said:


> I do agree with much of what you are saying
> 
> There has been incredible progress made on racial injustice and racial tensions in the west since the 1960's. Mainly due to the very hard work done by civil rights leaders and activists, in minority communities.
> Although, I do believe there is more work to be done, no matter how difficult it may be to address. People will naturally get defensive when our prejudices are challenged, but we all have them to one degree or another, no matter what your skin colour is.
> 
> There is significant evidence that Milton Friedman's theory's have been detrimental to the education system, since they have begun to be put to practice.
> The education institutions within the majority of black and hispanic communities has rapidly deteriorated over the last 30 years or so. Ever since efforts to privatize the public education system were initiated. This has resulted in a major shift of education resources out of black, hispanic and poorer communities.


What destroyed the tax base of cities was white flight in the 1970s, not privatization ventures of schools. Private schools always existed but the charter school movement didn't start until 10-15 years after white flight. Now non-white students uniformly perform better at charter schools in cities than in public schools. The demand among black and hispanic parents for charter schools is overwhelming. 

Most of these cities rebuilt their tax base by the end of the 1980s through corporate revitalization of their downtowns. But instead of being spent on services (like education), most of the refilled tax coffers get emptied again every year to pay for outsized pensions and contracts rewarded to public union members and other beneficiaries of machine politics. 

Sorry can't blame this one on capitalism. The blame lies squarely on ossified Democratic Party machines and public unions that run major cities



Reaper said:


> Don't ignore the historical record of "law and order" candidates that used anxieties around "crime" but then went disproportionately after a specfic demographic of people.
> 
> America blacks are 6.5% of the population. 40.5% of the prison population. But in order to claim that racism wasn't a factor in this significant difference people decided to claim that blacks are more prone to violence and that's where the "blacks commit more crime" narrative comes in - with little to no regard for those states where policing specifically targeted the newly created "criminality" through the "war on drugs" by going after black people way more than white people for the same "crime" of drug use and trafficking. Meanwhile statistics continue to show drug use, sales and purchases remain evenly distributed across both white and black communities. You have three strike laws, mandatory minimums, no trials ... You have communities of poor blacks who are poorly educated being picked up and tossed in jail while public prosecutors convincing them that they should accept guilt over going to trial and using intimidation tactics so they have criminal records over fighting for their right to trial. Etc. And this is merely scratching the surface of the racialized nature of our judicial system.
> 
> The penal system in this country is heavily racialized and there is literally no one out there actively fighting to change it - neither amongst the republicans, nor amongst the democrats. It was Bill Clinton who created several federal policies that lead to significant increases in incarcerations of black youth in American prisons. Hillary Clinton used the term "super predator" which was the dog whistle of that time to refer to black youth - which was historically based around the old KKK belief that black men are more violent and want to rape white women. It was a modernization of archaic paranoia and beliefs that were created around the time the original framing of blacks as rapists was shaped by the earlier iterations of the KKK.
> 
> White supremacy in this country has taken several different forms. Nixon's strategist was caught on tape in a very infamous interview now explaining what the southern strategy really was. No one should forget the Leewater interview and that framing hasn't change as much as people like to think it has. The Southern Strategy is still alive and well in this country and with each presidential candidate the dog whistles are what changes, but not the strategy itself. They've gone from outright using the N word to rile up white anxiety to "law and order" candidacy and with Trump it came roaring back when he shifted the focus from crimes committed by Blacks to crimes committed by Mexicans. Same methods, different racial group.
> 
> Then you combine this with America's 13th amendment which gives no rights to prisoners and the continued growth in the supply of "criminals" to corporations as free labor and you can start seeing the connection between the archaic slave economy and the new "slave" economy.
> 
> Prison reform, drug reform is needed in this country and no one is advocating for it.


This is inaccurate but most whines about the topic are.

Non-violent drug offenders make up less than 5% of the prison population, state or federal. The people in prisons are there for violent or major property crimes. The statistics have been posted here before. By me. 

County jail population is a bit heavier on non-violent drug offenders but it's not a majority or even close to it. 

By claiming that the issue is unjust racist drug laws, attention is deliberately distracted from the :fact that most people behind bars are there for violence or robbery/burglary/other kinds of non-petty theft. 

This political screed is 100% at odds with what majorities want to do in black neighborhoods, where the routine cry from people at community meetings is that they want more police, more incarceration, and less crime. Not the cry from activists. From the actual population. There are millions of black people who get ignored because what they want is not politically convenient to those claiming to represent them. 

Black men are more prone to commit crime. That is obvious and undeniable. It's not an inherent or immutable facet of the character of black men. It is also a historical aberration. There has been only one time in American history that blacks committed any kind of crime at higher rates than other racial groups: the modern era. So it is a situation that has changed (for the worse) and can change again (for the better). 

The economic value of prison labor is negligible. Since I actually look into things instead of just tossing claims out there, I discovered in about ten minutes that the main beneficiary of prison labor is not private corporations. It is the government. The stereotype of prisoners making license plates is still true. The economic value of prisoner labor is about 0.0005% of GDP. License plates. Military uniforms. Janitorial and clerical work, washing dishes and doing laundry, at the places they're incarcerated. This kind of prisoner labor accounts for about 95% of the total. The other 5% of prisoner labor that produces goods that are sold, by the State, to private companies. Another inconvenient :fact is that that 5% is usually the most coveted by prisoners, since the labor is usually more varied and interesting and commonly takes place outside of the prison. 

Prisoner labor for corporate profit is a nothingburger that has been exaggerated because the real problem is the State and most of those complaining about prisoner labor do not go in for broad critiques of the State


----------



## GrumpyHawk

deepelemblues said:


> What destroyed the tax base of cities was white flight in the 1970s, not privatization ventures of schools. Private schools always existed but the charter school movement didn't start until 10-15 years after white flight. Now non-white students uniformly perform better at charter schools in cities than in public schools. The demand among black and hispanic parents for charter schools is overwhelming.
> 
> Most of these cities rebuilt their tax base by the end of the 1980s through corporate revitalization of their downtowns. But instead of being spent on services (like education), most of the refilled tax coffers get emptied again every year to pay for outsized pensions and contracts rewarded to public union members and other beneficiaries of machine politics.
> 
> Sorry can't blame this one on capitalism. The blame lies squarely on ossified Democratic Party machines and public unions that run major cities.


I disagree, I would argue that capitalist policies have played a significant role in the decline of education in inner-city black, hispanic, poor etc. communities. 

First, let's look at the causes of the "capital flight" from the inner-cities of America in the 1970's. 

Unlike in most countries throughout western Europe, the USA government, as a favour to the automobile manufacturing industry lobbyists (in a published case of crony-capitalism corruption), rapidly expanded the development of city suburb development. This led to the need build more roads, automobiles etc. rather than focusing on more economically efficient investments in developing inner-city housing, public transportation etc.
On August 15, 1971 USA President Nixon broke up the Bretton Woods Agreement. This initiated a new era of global capitalism.
The breakup did create a short boom for the USA economy (unlike the rest of the world which was effected negatively), but only for a few years. 
Eventually, in the late 1970's deindustrialization began in the USA as high paying manufacturing jobs were outsourced to poorer countries, with more easily exploitable, non-unionized, labour. A massive amount of inner-city factories suddenly closed down in the late 1970's - mid 1980's. 

On a side note, ever since that small, short boom, the USA has never achieved levels of economic growth seen before the breakup of Bretton Woods. This is even more true throughout the developing world

Secondly,

Every time the USA government has put in place a policy initiative to privatize portions of the public education system, the quality of the education in black, hispanic, poorer etc. inner-city community education systems suffer greatly. This includes initiatives of the Obama Presidency in recent years.


----------



## DOPA

@Miss Sally

There must be a serious case of black anxiety in Southern LA with all those Latinos moving in. Those poor innocent Latinos being feared due to their ethnicity .

I'm of course being sarcastic. The fear and anxiety (since we're using those terms) whenever the demographics of an area are changing are boiled down to the classic human psychology of tribalism, which in this case is based on the fear of the unknown or unfamiliar. 

We may think that in the 21st century that we are now above such primitive feelings but the truth is that we are not, nor will we ever likely be. If tribalism isn't caused due to differences of race or ethnicity, they can for example be caused also by ideology.

Are some of the anxieties and fears about demographic changes by certain people due to racism and racist thoughts? Sure, of course. I don't think many people will dispute that. These types of concerns however are clearly not limited to white people, anyone who isn't embroiled in identity politics will be able to see that. It is a very human based flaw and emotional response to the people and environment around them changing. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes for bad. But certainly something that can be identified across all types of people.


----------



## CamillePunk

Rolo Tomassi said:


> @Miss Sally
> 
> There must be a serious case of black anxiety in Southern LA with all those Latinos moving in. Those poor innocent Latinos being feared due to their ethnicity .
> 
> I'm of course being sarcastic. The fear and anxiety (since we're using those terms) whenever the demographics of an area are changing are boiled down to the classic human psychology of tribalism, which in this case is based on the fear of the unknown or unfamiliar.
> 
> We may think that in the 21st century that we are now above such primitive feelings but the truth is that we are not, nor will we ever likely be. If tribalism isn't caused due to differences of race or ethnicity, they can for example be caused also by ideology.
> 
> Are some of the anxieties and fears about demographic changes by certain people due to racism and racist thoughts? Sure, of course. I don't think many people will dispute that. These types of concerns however are clearly not limited to white people, anyone who isn't embroiled in identity politics will be able to see that. It is a very human based flaw and emotional response to the people and environment around them changing. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes for bad. But certainly something that can be identified across all types of people.


They. Vote. Left. 


Meanwhile

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/22/6905...ing-changes-to-federal-family-planning-progra



> Trump Administration Proposes Sweeping Changes To Federal Family Planning Program
> 
> The Trump administration has issued its final draft of a rule that makes sweeping changes to Title X, the federal program that provides birth control and other reproductive health services to millions of low-income Americans.
> 
> Under the new rule, posted Friday by the federal Department of Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs, any organization that provides or refers patients for abortions is ineligible for Title X funding to cover STD prevention, cancer screenings and contraception. Federal funding for abortion already is illegal in most cases.
> 
> The rule, first proposed last year, has been popular with President Trump's socially conservative base. It's expected to be formally published to the Federal Register soon, and would go into effect 60 days later.
> 
> Anti-abortion-rights activists have long called on lawmakers to "defund Planned Parenthood." They argue that no organization with any ties to abortion should receive the federal funds.
> 
> "Abortion is not part of family planning," Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs at the anti-abortion March for Life, said in a recent interview with NPR. "Those services should be separate and even have separate facilities."
> 
> Doreen Denny, senior director of government relations at Concerned Women for America, said her group supports a "bright line of separation between any kind of provider that would have any kind of engagement in abortion services" and federal Title X funding.
> 
> Abortion-rights supporters have criticized the regulation as a "gag rule" that will prevent doctors from speaking openly with pregnant women about options including abortion.
> 
> Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood, recently told NPR that withholding information about abortion from Title X patients would violate medical ethics. "As a doctor, this compromises the oath that I took to serve my patients and help them with making the best decision for their own health," Wen said. "My patients expect me to speak honestly with them, to answer their questions, to help them in their time of need. It's unconscionable and unethical for politicians to restrict doctors like me from speaking honestly to our patients."
> 
> Wen and other reproductive rights advocates say the new regulations would force groups like Planned Parenthood to refuse Title X funds, which could reduce the number of locations where low-income women and other recipients can receive reproductive health care. Wen said Planned Parenthood clinics serve 41 percent of Title X recipients nationwide and warned that dramatic changes to the program could jeopardize access to care for the 4 million low-income people served by the program.
> 
> In addition to blocking grants to organizations that provide abortions or referrals, some religiously affiliated groups are hoping the new regulations will enable organizations like crisis pregnancy centers, which counsel women against abortions, to receive the funds.
> 
> "There are a number of options out there that can take up the banner," said McClusky, with the March for Life. "And Planned Parenthood's not the only game in town."
> 
> Some of those organizations emphasize abstinence outside of marriage or promote fertility awareness methods, which depend on understanding a woman's cycle and restricting sexual activity at times she is fertile.
> 
> Mario Dickerson, executive director of the Catholic Medical Association, said he would like to see the program move in that direction.
> 
> "We could provide abstinence programs; we could provide natural family planning ... but not have to provide these other services," Dickerson said.
> 
> That idea worries Julie Rabinovitz, president of Essential Access Health, which administers Title X grants in California. She said the Trump administration is making "some of the most extreme policy shifts" in the history of the Title X program. She said diverting federal funds to groups that do not provide a full scope of contraceptive options could reduce the number of facilities where low-income women can be prescribed birth control pills or IUDs.
> 
> "Birth control is a time-sensitive service, and it's an essential health care service," Rabinovitz said. "And we want to make sure that women are able to get the kind of birth control that they need and want in a very timely manner."
> 
> Reproductive rights groups are expected to fight the regulations in court.


Good news.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> They. Vote. Left.


They vote _pseudo-_left. 

The _pseudo-_left has a very powerful propaganda machine. But they are not the real left.



Rolo Tomassi said:


> @Miss Sally
> 
> There must be a serious case of black anxiety in Southern LA with all those Latinos moving in. Those poor innocent Latinos being feared due to their ethnicity .
> 
> I'm of course being sarcastic. The fear and anxiety (since we're using those terms) whenever the demographics of an area are changing are boiled down to the classic human psychology of tribalism, which in this case is based on the fear of the unknown or unfamiliar. *
> 
> We may think that in the 21st century that we are now above such primitive feelings but the truth is that we are not,* *nor will we ever likely be. If tribalism isn't caused due to differences of race or ethnicity, they can for example be caused also by ideology.*
> 
> Are some of the anxieties and fears about demographic changes by certain people due to racism and racist thoughts? Sure, of course. I don't think many people will dispute that. These types of concerns however are clearly not limited to white people, anyone who isn't embroiled in identity politics will be able to see that. It is a very human based flaw and emotional response to the people and environment around them changing. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes for bad. But certainly something that can be identified across all types of people.


We all have the capability to communicate with one another, so then, why should we take this as a given? Just because it is difficult?


----------



## birthday_massacre

If you dont need any more evidence how stupid Trump is.


----------



## skypod

CamillePunk said:


> Good news.



Yay to abstinence! History has shown it's 100% fool-proof.


----------



## CamillePunk

skypod said:


> Yay to abstinence! History has shown it's 100% fool-proof.


Yeah man killing human fetuses or abstinence, those are definitely the only two options.


----------



## skypod

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah man killing human fetuses or abstinence, those are definitely the only two options.



Did you even read what you had posted? Besides, if you want more unwanted children born to poor mothers you need to increase government support.

This is why people who's main focus is how many boats a billionaire can buy have no fucking clue how people nearer the bottom of society actually live and thus can't help them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Well Done to Trump, more accolades:



> Trump picks up two Razzies as Holmes & Watson dominates worst of Hollywood
> 
> Trump wins for worst actor and worst screen combo, but the Will Ferrell detective comedy scores for worst film and director





> Trump won two worst actor Razzies for appearing as himself in the 2018 documentaries Death of a Nation, from Dinesh D’Souza, and Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 11/9. White House aide Kellyanne Conway was voted worst supporting actress for her archival footage in Fahrenheit 11/9.


https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...as-holmes-watson-dominates-worst-of-hollywood

Let's face it you could give him a razzie for his entire on-screen performance as the POTUS. Plus a shoe in for supporting actor to Guliani.


----------



## DaRealNugget




----------



## birthday_massacre

skypod said:


> Did you even read what you had posted? Besides, if you want more unwanted children born to poor mothers you need to increase government support.
> 
> This is why people who's main focus is how many boats a billionaire can buy have no fucking clue how people nearer the bottom of society actually live and thus can't help them.


You know the MO of Republicans. They only care about the unborn once they are born they couldn't give two shits about those kids


----------



## mariopepper

he will be the president few more years.. that is most interesting


----------



## Buttermaker

Memorandum of understanding. That is all


----------



## birthday_massacre

Buttermaker said:


> Memorandum of understanding. That is all


For Trump is more like Memorandum of misunderstanding


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> For Trump is more like Memorandum of misunderstanding


Too harsh mate, it's simply 'misspeaking' don't you remember? Could happen to anyone.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> Too harsh mate, it's simply 'misspeaking' don't you remember? Could happen to anyone.


That is why his supporters that claim that cant be taken seriously. 

Even though it was explained to him three times, he still didn't get it. And the funny thing is, even when his rep said, FINE we will never call it a MOU we will just call it a contract or deal, Trump thought he got a win even though nothing was changing except what they call it in front of Trump 

Anyone who claims Trump is smart should be embarrassed.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah man killing human fetuses or abstinence, those are definitely the only two options.


Let me guess you want more offensive wars just like your boy Ben Shapiro?


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> Let me guess you want more offensive wars just like your boy Ben Shapiro?


Outspokenly anti-war, try reading my posts some time instead of just reaching for the neg button.  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100880855763890177
:heston


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Outspokenly anti-war, try reading my posts some time instead of just reaching for the neg button.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100880855763890177
> :heston


I don't like Maddow so I don't know why you brought her up.


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> I don't like Maddow so I don't know why you brought her up.


Entire post wasn't about you fam.


----------



## skypod

So does this Cohen hearing mean anything or are we in the same cycle where Trump gets revealed as a slimy corrupt cheat but still gets elected in 2020? There could be video footage of him murdering people and his supporters wouldn't flinch.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> So does this Cohen hearing mean anything or are we in the same cycle *where Trump gets revealed as a slimy corrupt cheat* but still gets elected in 2020? There could be video footage of him murdering people and his supporters wouldn't flinch.


So you mean like every other candidate running for president then.


----------



## AlternateDemise

skypod said:


> So does this Cohen hearing mean anything or are we in the same cycle where Trump gets revealed as a slimy corrupt cheat but still gets elected in 2020? There could be video footage of him murdering people and his supporters wouldn't flinch.


I mean...the tax returns were enough to turn a good amount against him. I imagine he's lost quite a bit of support over his tenure as President, to the point where only the hardcore republicans still continue to support him. At this point it's hard to say where exactly he'll end up as far as overall support is concerned, but I'd be shocked if he came anywhere close to winning the next election, let alone actually winning it.

I still don't know why people continue to act as if him winning in 2020 is a forgone conclusion. He barely escaped with a victory in 2016 against one of the worst Presidential candidates of all time (and still lost the popular vote FYI). Hell, Bernie running and securing the candidacy would be a death sentence for Trump at this point. Of course, we all know that him securing the nomination is a tall task especially given what happened last time, but I'm sure if the Democrats want to avoid another four years of Trump's stupidity, they'd be wise to make sure the best option available is nominated this time as opposed to whoever they feel would fit the parties agenda best. I don't know if that's Bernie per say, but he most certainly was in 2016.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

HollyJollyDemise said:


> I mean...the tax returns were enough to turn a good amount against him. I imagine he's lost quite a bit of support over his tenure as President, to the point where only the hardcore republicans still continue to support him. At this point it's hard to say where exactly he'll end up as far as overall support is concerned, but I'd be shocked if he came anywhere close to winning the next election, let alone actually winning it.
> 
> *I still don't know why people continue to act as if him winning in 2020 is a forgone conclusion. He barely escaped with a victory in 2016 against one of the worst Presidential candidates of all time (and still lost the popular vote FYI). Hell, Bernie running and securing the candidacy would be a death sentence for Trump at this point.* Of course, we all know that him securing the nomination is a tall task especially given what happened last time, but I'm sure if the Democrats want to avoid another four years of Trump's stupidity, they'd be wise to make sure the best option available is nominated this time as opposed to whoever they feel would fit the parties agenda best. I don't know if that's Bernie per say, but he most certainly was in 2016.


trump beat hillary, hillary beat bernie.

if trump isn't a foregone conclusion, then i don't how you can say sanders IS a foregone a conclusion.


----------



## MrMister

I can't even believe there was a sign that said Liar Liar Pants on Fire!

:heston


----------



## deepelemblues

Oh God the massacre :trump vs BernieOld would be

The gnashing and wailing of teeth at all those old people who actually remember what socialism is turning out and RUINING THE FUTURE THAT THEY WON'T EVEN BE AROUND FOR by voting against the socialist

Can't wait for all the "should the right to vote be taken away once you hit 50?" 'think' pieces 

Talk about how awful a candidate Hillary was like it was all in a vacuum

She was an awful candidate who got more votes than BernieOld in the primaries :ha

Cry about delegate rigging all you want, she got 3.7 million more primary votes than BernieOld. But remember BernieOld was definitely far superior despite getting beat by 12% 

:trump made her an awful candidate by beating her over the head for months in a way pussy Republicans never do 

A Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney type would have lost honorably to "awful candidate" Hillary like Republicans are supposed to

These fantasies about :trump being easily beaten are great, they more than anything are helping ensure a repeat of 2016


----------



## Hoolahoop33

skypod said:


> So does this Cohen hearing mean anything or are we in the same cycle where Trump gets revealed as a slimy corrupt cheat but still gets elected in 2020? There could be video footage of him murdering people and his supporters wouldn't flinch.


Cohen's hearing doesn't mean anything because it should never have taken place. This guy literally has been disbarred and is going to jail for fraud, perjury and lying to Congress. Really low and embarrassing that the Democrats called Cohen in to testify, when he might just be the most untrustworthy character imaginable. Not only has he been convicted of federal crimes related to lying, he has every reason to continue to lie since he clearly has a personal vendetta against Trump and is obviously incredibly bitter that he is going to jail and not his client (even though he is the lawyer... his whole job is to make sure his client does not go to jail.) Anyone who ever trusted a word that came out of Cohen's mouth, whether that was was when he was a scumbag lawyer or now as a convicted felon, has got to be stupid. I refuse to believe anyone actually thinks Cohen is a trustworthy character, but I guess now he is against Trump, "He must be right!" 

Embarrassing and has to be a real low point in the history of politics, where there are congressman prepared to even hear what this felon, a perjurer, convicted of lying to Congress has to say. :Out

Meanwhile the president is in Vietnam, attempting to bring peace to the Korean peninsula after 60+ years of hostilities. Even if he isn't successful, I don't see how any person could argue that that isn't a noble cause. Is Michael Cohen noble? I'll leave you to ponder that one...


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Cohen's hearing doesn't mean anything because it should never have taken place. This guy literally has been disbarred and is going to jail for fraud, perjury and lying to Congress. Really low and embarrassing that the Democrats called Cohen in to testify, when he might just be the most untrustworthy character imaginable. Not only has he been convicted of federal crimes related to lying, he has every reason to continue to lie since he clearly has a personal vendetta against Trump and is obviously incredibly bitter that he is going to jail and not his client (even though he is the lawyer... his whole job is to make sure his client does not go to jail.) Anyone who ever trusted a word that came out of Cohen's mouth, whether that was was when he was a scumbag lawyer or now as a convicted felon, has got to be stupid. I refuse to believe anyone actually thinks Cohen is a trustworthy character, but I guess now he is against Trump, "He must be right!"
> 
> Embarrassing and has to be a real low point in the history of politics, where there are congressman prepared to even hear what this felon, a perjurer, convicted of lying to Congress has to say. :Out
> 
> Meanwhile the president is in Vietnam, attempting to bring peace to the Korean peninsula after 60+ years of hostilities. Even if he isn't successful, I don't see how any person could argue that that isn't a noble cause. Is Michael Cohen noble? I'll leave you to ponder that one...


yeah he was disbarred and is going to jail for fraud, perjury and lying to Congress FOR TRUMP

Trump should be locked up, it's now more obvious than ever


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah he was disbarred and is going to jail for fraud, perjury and lying to Congress FOR TRUMP
> 
> Trump should be locked up, it's now more obvious than ever


Either way Cohen is a terrible lawyer, a liar and his testimony is worthless.

That's not how the law works.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Either way Cohen is a terrible lawyer, a liar and his testimony is worthless.
> 
> That's not how the law works.


 They have signed checks by Trump for fucks sake. And he has more evidence as well Trump also called him a rat because he’s flipping on him. 

These are the kind of people Trump surrounds himself with. People that will lie to protect him 

Also fun fact Cohen was Deputy Finance chairman for the republican national Commmittee


Funny how you became a Trump defender

Are you going to pretend he didn’t break campaign finance laws.


----------



## CamillePunk

Imagine watching the Cohen hearing on the same day Alex Jones made his return to the Joe Rogan podcast. :lol Can't believe how some people spend their lives. Russiagate is Fake News. The whole thing was a Clinton campaign operation supported by their friends in the FBI (all of this is true). We need to be talking about the human chimeras in China, genetic memory, Nazi Nasa, and the interdimensional beings that are threatening to eradicate all human life.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

2017:

"cohen is so full of shit. all of trump's guys are full of shit"


2019:

"this guy knows what he's talking about. he wouldn't lie"


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> 2017:
> 
> "cohen is so full of shit. all of trump's guys are full of shit"
> 
> 
> 2019:
> 
> "this guy knows what he's talking about. he wouldn't lie"


 Cohen is going to jail for being full of shit back then lol. Now he’s admitting he was lying to protect Trump Lol. 


So we were right back then. Thanks for admitting I was right


----------



## yeahbaby!

Isn't the reason why he's testifying to get a reduced sentence etc? People do that all the time and they don't necessarily get thrown under the bus for being untrustworthy, otherwise why would the authorities want them to testify in the first place.


----------



## Draykorinee

If someone commits a crime/lies FOR someone and then turns on them and helps convict them they become unreliable?

I dunno how that makes a shred of sense.


----------



## deepelemblues

A technical violation of campaign finance law that if the president's name were Obama or Clinton or Bush or anything but Bad Orange Man would carry a minor fine is now a Very Serious Crime because the president's name is Bad Orange Man

Shit's not a crime anyway. When the DOJ tried to hang the same shit on John Edwards, multiple FEC commissioners stated that in their opinion nope not a violation and the DOJ got BTFO by a federal jury. You know how often the DOJ loses jury trials? About 10% of the time it takes a case to trial. 90% of federal cases end in plea bargains, 90% of the rest in convictions. It's fucking hard to get a jury to say this prosecution case is some bullshit in federal court but that's precisely what one did with John Edwards when the DOJ tried to do to the same thing that's being done to :trump now. When progressives tried to do the same thing to Scott Walker and conservatives in Wisconsin the Wisconsin Supreme Court finally told them fuck off what you're doing is political witch hunt bullshit

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/trump-hush-money-not-campaign-finance-law-violation/

:trump spending several hundred large of his own money to pay off bimbos through a middleman means he should be removed from office and be put in jail, give me a fucking break 

Fuck the double standard leftie politicians get excused for minor shit and rightie politicians get Vyshinky'd for minor shit. This is some Soviet-style nonsense 'crimes' demagogued into shocking transgressions that require outsized punishment to satisfy a political urge yeah no thanks still a free country. For now


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> If someone commits a crime/lies FOR someone and then turns on them and helps convict them they become unreliable?
> 
> I dunno how that makes a shred of sense.


Its only because its Trump. If someone liked for Hillary then flipped on her these same people would be claiming this person is extra reliable. 

It’s hilarious anyone can still defend Trump. He has signed checks from don and don jr. 

Plus there is even more evidence he could not discuss bc of another investigation that’s going on against Trump.


----------



## deepelemblues

Signed checks to pay off bimbos with his own money

Where are the smelling salts 

When did the left decide Jerry Falwell wasn't so wrong after all this timeline best timeline shit's so weird now. Because Orange Man Bad being promiscuous and paying to keep it quiet is a mortal sin now :draper2 

Hours and hours of this guy saying he can provide no evidence of collusion followed by 'is it your opinion that :trump COULD have colluded with the Russian government?' I didn't know it took a congressional hearing to find out this guy's opinion 

Then he says he consulted with Schiff and Cummings before his testimony yeah I'm sure they talked about the weather and not about what he should say and how he should say it 

:trump is done for the 9215th time and after he isn't done the Southern District of New York is gonna get him because of something something something inauguration. 9216 will be the time :trump is really done! 

Until it isn't either and time 9217 will have to be engineered because dammit one of these times he'll be done _for real! _(correct: January 20, 2025)


----------



## CamillePunk

THE TRUMP STAR EXPLODES

MICHAEL "SKYWALKER" COHEN FLIES AWAY IN TRIUMPH 

THE RESISTANCE HAS WON 

:heston


----------



## deepelemblues

Michael Cohen's testimony yesterday conclusively established that :trump WAS AWARE OF TWEETS BY THE WIKILEAKS TWITTER ACCOUNT THAT WERE PUBLIC TWEETS, ABLE TO READ BY ANYONE WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION 

Our long national nightmare is over. THEY GOT HIM. THEY FINALLY GOT HIM. THEY FINALLY GOT :trump :YES *swoons*


----------



## Strike Force

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Cohen's hearing doesn't mean anything because it should never have taken place. This guy literally has been disbarred and is going to jail for fraud, perjury and lying to Congress.


In countless cases, criminals and lowlifes are called to the stand to testify. Please explain, in great detail, why this is different and Cohen is different.

Man, I can't wait for this one.


----------



## njcam

*Trump Leaves Hanoi Without A Deal After Abrupt End To Kim Summit*

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/trump-leaves-hanoi-without-a-deal-after-abrupt-end-to-kim-summit



> The US-North Korea nuclear summit in Hanoi ended abruptly without a deal Thursday, with President Donald Trump saying he had decided to "walk" in the face of Kim Jong-un's demands to drop sanctions.


Thoughts?

- Interesting that North Korea say 'they promise not to do anymore nuclear testing'.... that's because they have done all the testing they needed to do, they know what they can do (Nuclear wise) now.

- Didn't the Pre-Summit teams that had meetings know that this 'No Deal' was going to happen?

- Trump came over well taking questions from the world's media (post-summit).

- Kim Jong-un needs to take up golf... then this issue will be resolved on the golf course.


----------



## deepelemblues

Strike Force said:


> In countless cases, criminals and lowlifes are called to the stand to testify. Please explain, in great detail, why this is different and Cohen is different.
> 
> Man, I can't wait for this one.


Most prosecutors wouldn't be dumb enough to call a witness who had already pled to perjury

Or dumb enough to call a witness who spent 90% of his testimony answering "no" to prosecution questions asking if he had evidence proving their theory of the case, or offering pure opinion and speculation

In a real trial in a real courtroom before a real judge, all of which a congressional hearing is not or lacks, Cohen's entire testimony would be under serious threat of being tossed or never allowed in the first place because of nearly of all it being speculation and prejudicial opinions unsupported in the evidentiary record 

Good analogy :trolldog

"Do you have evidence or were you aware of :trump colluding with Russia?"

"No."

"Do you think he _could _have?"

"Yeah sure."

They wouldn't even try to pull shit like that on Law & Order with a straight face


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Trump Leaves Hanoi Without A Deal After Abrupt End To Kim Summit*

Could have just had this in the Trump thread. 

Trump has done the right thing by sitting down with him, but he has failed to get the deal done so, no noble peace prize for him but a badge for participation award is fair.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Trump Leaves Hanoi Without A Deal After Abrupt End To Kim Summit*

I approve of the walk out. Kim went to China and asked how to get what he wants out of Trump and that failed. No way should we give up all sanctions for a "promise".


Trump made the right move, NK will come back to the table in a few months i assume ready to make concessions


----------



## njcam

*Re: Trump Leaves Hanoi Without A Deal After Abrupt End To Kim Summit*



Draykorinee said:


> Could have just had this in the Trump thread.


Didn't want too!!!! The 2 worst things about this forum is #1 the inclusion of new stories into existing threads, its so archaic.... #2 the people who mention that you should do so.


----------



## Strike Force

deepelemblues said:


> Most prosecutors wouldn't be dumb enough to call a witness who had already pled to perjury
> 
> Or dumb enough to call a witness who spent 90% of his testimony answering "no" to prosecution questions asking if he had evidence proving their theory of the case, or offering pure opinion and speculation
> 
> In a real trial in a real courtroom before a real judge, all of which a congressional hearing is not or lacks, Cohen's entire testimony would be under serious threat of being tossed or never allowed in the first place because of nearly of all it being speculation and prejudicial opinions unsupported in the evidentiary record
> 
> Good analogy :trolldog
> 
> "Do you have evidence or were you aware of :trump colluding with Russia?"
> 
> "No."
> 
> "Do you think he _could _have?"
> 
> "Yeah sure."
> 
> They wouldn't even try to pull shit like that on Law & Order with a straight face


So, just to be clear...100% clear...

You believe that credible prosecution should not call someone previously guilty of perjury?

Wait for it...wait for it...


----------



## birthday_massacre

Strike Force said:


> So, just to be clear...100% clear...
> 
> You believe that credible prosecution should not call someone previously guilty of perjury?
> 
> Wait for it...wait for it...


The funny thing they keep ignoring is he was lying to protect Trump. He got caught now hes rolling over on Trump. Its why Trump called him a rat a couple of months ago. 

They act like this is the first time this has ever happened in the history of law.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Trump Leaves Hanoi Without A Deal After Abrupt End To Kim Summit*



njcam said:


> Didn't want too!!!! The 2 worst things about this forum is #1 the inclusion of new stories into existing threads, its so archaic.... #2 the people who mention that you should do so.


#3 most of your threads.


----------



## njcam

*Re: Trump Leaves Hanoi Without A Deal After Abrupt End To Kim Summit*



Draykorinee said:


> #3 most of your threads.


And yet, you clicked on a thread started by me..... hmmm. No prizes for coming second.


----------



## Strike Force

njcam said:


> And yet, you clicked on a thread started by me..... hmmm. No prizes for coming second.





Draykorinee said:


> #3 most of your threads.


Skip to 2:50:


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> They have signed checks by Trump for fucks sake. And he has more evidence as well Trump also called him a rat because he’s flipping on him.
> 
> These are the kind of people Trump surrounds himself with. People that will lie to protect him
> 
> Also fun fact Cohen was Deputy Finance chairman for the republican national Commmittee
> 
> 
> Funny how you became a Trump defender
> 
> Are you going to pretend he didn’t break campaign finance laws.


The cheques are directed to Cohen though. The whole point of a lawyer is to work within the law and prevent their client from going to jail. If a client directs them to break the law (whether they are aware or not) the lawyer has two options, they can either tell them that this is illegal and thus they cannot carry out their request, or if they are insistent then they should drop them as a client. Cohen broke the law on behalf of Trump, that doesn't necessarily mean that Trump is an innocent party, but it does mean two things. Cohen is a terrible lawyer, and that he is responsible for any crimes committed, as he should know the law. He is a rat in that he is ratlike.

I would lie to protect my friends, whether I knew they were guilty or not. But that's just me.

That is a fun fact, and embarrassing that such a scumbag ever held that position, but then again this is politics, there's no shortage of scumbags!

I only defend him when I actually think he is right. I think his environmental policy for example is incredibly backward thinking and in many aspects dumb. I think his treatment of women, especially his wife in the past has been really bad. If I see convincing evidence on something I will change my mind, but this is not it.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Strike Force said:


> In countless cases, criminals and lowlifes are called to the stand to testify. Please explain, in great detail, why this is different and Cohen is different.
> 
> Man, I can't wait for this one.


It's not different, I just think it is generally wrong. Plea bargains and the like are (in general) not a good thing, and has led to many people being falsely imprisoned and even executed. In many ways they are an incentive to lie.

Moreover, in the case of Cohen and men like Cohen testifying before Congress, there is no way, without conclusive supporting evidence that their word can ever be trusted. Their questionable character means they are simply not trustworthy. Not to mention that Cohen clearly holds a grudge against Trump, it makes his testimony even more unreliable.

It was a show trial in many ways, the Democrats have already determined that Trump is guilty before the evidence has even been presented. The Republicans would do the same if the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure. To trust the word and character of a man like Cohen can only ever be because of confirmation bias.

So to directly respond to your question, there isn't any difference, but why does that make it right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> The cheques are directed to Cohen though. The whole point of a lawyer is to work within the law and prevent their client from going to jail. If a client directs them to break the law (whether they are aware or not) the lawyer has two options, they can either tell them that this is illegal and thus they cannot carry out their request, or if they are insistent then they should drop them as a client. Cohen broke the law on behalf of Trump, that doesn't necessarily mean that Trump is an innocent party, but it does mean two things. Cohen is a terrible lawyer, and that he is responsible for any crimes committed, as he should know the law. He is a rat in that he is ratlike.
> 
> I would lie to protect my friends, whether I knew they were guilty or not. But that's just me.
> 
> That is a fun fact, and embarrassing that such a scumbag ever held that position, but then again this is politics, there's no shortage of scumbags!
> 
> I only defend him when I actually think he is right. I think his environmental policy for example is incredibly backward thinking and in many aspects dumb. I think his treatment of women, especially his wife in the past has been really bad. If I see convincing evidence on something I will change my mind, but this is not it.



Hes paying Cohen back because Trump had Cohen pay to hide the hush payments. Trump is guilty of breaking campaign finance laws since he uses campaign contributions for the payments.

Cohen was Trumps fixer. Thats what he was paid to do.

Cohen has proof of what hes saying. He said he even has recordings of some of it right. 


Trump is courrupt as hell. Not sure how many more examples you need.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Hes paying Cohen back because Trump had Cohen pay to hide the hush payments. Trump is guilty of breaking campaign finance laws since he uses campaign contributions for the payments.
> 
> Cohen was Trumps fixer. Thats what he was paid to do.
> 
> Cohen has proof of what hes saying. He said he even has recordings of some of it right.
> 
> 
> Trump is courrupt as hell. Not sure how many more examples you need.


Oh I have no doubt, but it has to be proven that Cohen didn't do that on his behalf. That is very hard to do, which is probably why the courts decided that it was Cohen, as the lawyer who now takes responsibility. Guilt in all cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I thinks it's hard to say that it has here in this situation. Is breaking a campaign finance law a impeachable offence? Genuine question.

He is should still work within the law, even if he was a 'fixer.' Breaking the law and going to jail makes him a very bad fixer.

Is he more corrupt than most politicians? Seems to me at least that he has pursued (though perhaps not accomplished) much of what he promised to do in the campaign, even the stuff I don't like. A corrupt businessman? I'm sure. That's par for the course.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Oh I have no doubt, but it has to be proven that Cohen didn't do that on his behalf. That is very hard to do, which is probably why the courts decided that it was Cohen, as the lawyer who now takes responsibility. Guilt in all cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I thinks it's hard to say that it has here in this situation. Is breaking a campaign finance law a impeachable offence? Genuine question.
> 
> He is should still work within the law, even if he was a 'fixer.' Breaking the law and going to jail makes him a very bad fixer.
> 
> Is he more corrupt than most politicians? Seems to me at least that he has pursued (though perhaps not accomplished) much of what he promised to do in the campaign, even the stuff I don't like. A corrupt businessman? I'm sure. That's par for the course.


You are kidding right? Why would Cohen pay off someone else mistress? Explain that. He broke the law at the behest of Trump

And you are wrong about guilt in all cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In a lot of cases you just need a preponderance of evidence.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Berzerker's Beard said:


> trump beat hillary, hillary beat bernie.


Thanks for proving you have paid very little attention to the current political landscape and know little about the history of the US Presidency. If you did you would know this means nothing. 



Berzerker's Beard said:


> if trump isn't a foregone conclusion, then i don't how you can say sanders IS a foregone a conclusion.


Because one has been making a legitimate impact on congress during Trump's time as President. Meanwhile, Trump continues to lose support as the days go by. 

Seriously, it's not that hard to comprehend.



deepelemblues said:


> Oh God the massacre :trump vs BernieOld would be
> 
> The gnashing and wailing of teeth at all those old people who actually remember what socialism is turning out and RUINING THE FUTURE THAT THEY WON'T EVEN BE AROUND FOR by voting against the socialist
> 
> Can't wait for all the "should the right to vote be taken away once you hit 50?" 'think' pieces
> 
> Talk about how awful a candidate Hillary was like it was all in a vacuum
> 
> She was an awful candidate who got more votes than BernieOld in the primaries :ha
> 
> Cry about delegate rigging all you want, she got 3.7 million more primary votes than BernieOld. But remember BernieOld was definitely far superior despite getting beat by 12%
> 
> :trump made her an awful candidate by beating her over the head for months in a way pussy Republicans never do
> 
> A Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney type would have lost honorably to "awful candidate" Hillary like Republicans are supposed to
> 
> These fantasies about :trump being easily beaten are great, they more than anything are helping ensure a repeat of 2016


Your trolling act is starting to get old. Scratch that, it got old a while ago, but now it's getting to the point where it's become a major annoyance. I've seen you post when serious and are capable of giving meaningful discussions. A post as idiotic as this is well beneath you. 

If you are indeed a Trump supporter, posting like you're a twelve year old with no common sense will not help anyone in agreeing with what you say about him.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> You are kidding right? Why would Cohen pay off someone else mistress? Explain that. He broke the law at the behest of Trump
> 
> And you are wrong about guilt in all cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In a lot of cases you just need a preponderance of evidence.


Read what I wrote again. It am fully aware that he did it on the behest of Trump, but it would need to be proven that Trump directed Cohen to commit the illegal act, rather than saying 'make this go away' and Cohen then committing an illegal act. As it stands Cohen committed the actual act, and thus the crime. 

Well all criminal cases, which is what I thought we were talking about. A civil case couldn't really lead to impeachment or anything like that. So I would say 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the most relevant here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Read what I wrote again. It am fully aware that he did it on the behest of Trump, but it would need to be proven that Trump directed Cohen to commit the illegal act, rather than saying 'make this go away' and Cohen then committing an illegal act. As it stands Cohen committed the actual act, and thus the crime.
> 
> Well all criminal cases, which is what I thought we were talking about. A civil case couldn't really lead to impeachment or anything like that. So I would say 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the most relevant here.


Saying make it go away is enough. Not sure why you don’t understand that. And again Trump paid him back for the payoff. Thats the smoking gun. Trump committed the crime by using campaign funds. Not sure what you don’t understand about that


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

HollyJollyDemise said:


> Thanks for proving you have paid very little attention to the current political landscape and know little about the history of the US Presidency. If you did you would know this means nothing.
> 
> Because one has been making a legitimate impact on congress during Trump's time as President. Meanwhile, Trump continues to lose support as the days go by.


And I want to thank you for continuing to put your faith in mainstream media. 

"Donald Trump losing more and more support by the day"... brought to you by the same people that were behind "Hillary Clinton is a 98% lock to win the presidency".

You clearly have no idea how much Trump voters despise the democratic party. Even if they aren't 100% thrilled with the job he's doing it doesn't mean they're going to turn back now and vote democrat. Bernie is even more left than Hillary. He could never win the hearts and minds of most Trump voters.

If it came down to Trump and Bernie, Trump voters would probably be even MORE energized.


----------



## SomewhereElse

The confidence that trolls like deepelemblues and neophytes like Berzerker's Beard have in a hypothetical election between their man and Bernie. :booklel

Trump won the election vs. Hillary by turning reliably blue states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin red. He did this by the string of his teeth against a candidate that offered nothing to those states and barely bothered to visit. 

People in that region aren't looking for "inspiring, historical" candidates. They are looking for the anti-elite message Bernie is the OG with and that Trump unconvincingly peddles. Trump winning those states was a bit of a fluke to begin with (low turnouts) and only another vacuous identity politics candidate could POSSIBLY deliver him more razor thin margins in the Rust Belt. Bernie would easily return MI, PA, WI to Blue State status. Good chance Ohio and Iowa would follow suit. That's all Bernie would need to clinch it. 

The hilarious irony here is that the only thing that can stop Bernie from winning the nomination - and very likely, the presidency from Trump given his match-up favorability - is the media. The Sanders team's organization and army of donors/volunteers make the other Dem campaigns look like the Junior Varsity. MSM will torpedo him, which could ultimately save Trump, the president who media corporations have leaned on for record profits.


----------



## DaRealNugget

trump cultists are ignoring the political climate of 2016 that led to a trump election, and are ignoring the political climate of today that will lead to a bernie sanders election.

2016 was the perfect storm for trump. 8 years of a democratic presidency where hope and change was promised and not delivered. despite that, the dnc and mainstream media pushed and favored a shitty neolib that would maintain the status quo, and actively worked against a left-wing populist who went from a nobody senator to nearly winning the nomination within a year by unashamedly running for true, progressive change. instead of choosing said populist as her VP to court progressives, hillary clinton chose tim fucking kaine :lol. 

trump was so stupid and so vile, nobody believed he had a chance. he was a joke, so people thought they could vote their conscience or sit at home instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. they were told by the media that clinton had it in the bag(even though in all the polls, she was within the margin of error. those same polls had sanders ahead by double digits).

2020 will be a much more difficult fight. the three traditionally blue states that flipped and gave trump the presidency, flipped back blue during the midterms in 2018(2 of which were states sanders won in the primaries). the true populist movement(not this "drain the swamp" then go swimming in it BS that trump espouses) bernie sanders started has made its way to the mainstream, with nearly all of his policy proposals being supported by the majority of the american people, and nearly all the top presidential contenders having adopted much of his platform.

sanders is also the only candidate who's gotten shit accomplished in the last two years. along with pushing his ideas into the mainstream, he also pressured amazon and disney to raise their minimum wages to $15 an hour, and he got the senate to invoke the war powers act and vote to end an unauthorized war for the first time in history.

if sanders is the nominee, PA, MI, & WI go blue easily, which is all he needs. Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Georgia, NC, Arizona, and Texas(yes, even Texas) become competitive.

edit: and that doesn't take into account how the ongoing investigations into the trump crime family or a possible recession will affect him. if mueller's report is substantial AND a recession hits, a lot of those competitive states will easily become blue.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Trump Leaves Hanoi Without A Deal After Abrupt End To Kim Summit*



njcam said:


> And yet, you clicked on a thread started by me..... hmmm. No prizes for coming second.


Does anyone look at who started a thread when they click the title? Unlikely. I did say most of your threads, so maybe some of yours aren't terrible? Did you think before quoting?

Regardless, your thread was merged, as expected. Nice try though.

On the topic, Trump scraped through on the technicalities of the voting system, the Democrats may be incompetent but if Bernie is running they won't allow the same mistakes. Trump has a slim chance against him of course, but a lot of it depends on what he does in the next year.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Berzerker's Beard said:


> And I want to thank you for continuing to put your faith in mainstream media.
> 
> "Donald Trump losing more and more support by the day"... brought to you by the same people that were behind "Hillary Clinton is a 98% lock to win the presidency".
> 
> You clearly have no idea how much Trump voters despise the democratic party. Even if they aren't 100% thrilled with the job he's doing it doesn't mean they're going to turn back now and vote democrat. Bernie is even more left than Hillary. He could never win the hearts and minds of most Trump voters.
> 
> If it came down to Trump and Bernie, Trump voters would probably be even MORE energized.


So on top of not knowing anything about the history of US politics, you have now proven to us that you don't even know what undecided and non loyalist party voters are.


----------



## Draykorinee

HollyJollyDemise said:


> So on top of not knowing anything about the history of US politics, you have now proven to us that you don't even know what undecided and non loyalist party voters are.


Berserker thought non-profit organisations don't make profits.


----------



## Reaper

Hoolahoop33 said:


> The cheques are directed to Cohen though. The whole point of a lawyer is to work within the law and prevent their client from going to jail.


The whole point of a lawyer is to see that their client receives a fair trial in the court of law ... not to prevent their client from going to jail. 

What?


----------



## 777

Legal advisors are certainly in the business of preventing their client from going to jail. Proactive vs reactive applications of law.


----------



## Reaper

777 said:


> Legal advisors are certainly in the business of preventing their client from going to jail. Proactive vs reactive applications of law.


We can skirt around right vs wrong, but deep down we know what's morally right and what isn't.


----------



## 777

Reaper said:


> We can skirt around right vs wrong, but deep down we know what's morally right and what isn't.


Theoretically, the lawyers should be advising their clients to operate within acceptable practices.


----------



## SomewhereElse

HollyJollyDemise said:


> So on top of not knowing anything about the history of US politics, you have now proven to us that you don't even know what undecided and non loyalist party voters are.


He thinks "Trump voters" are this unstoppable force when in reality, they form a group that lost the popular vote in a low turnout election. :mj4


----------



## Strike Force

SomewhereElse said:


> He thinks "Trump voters" are this unstoppable force when in reality, they form a group that lost the popular vote *in a low turnout election*. :mj4


I'm glad you brought up turnout, because I've been thinking about it leading into 2020. Specifically, I've been wondering about black voter turnout.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/upshot/black-turnout-in-1964-and-beyond.html

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/1/15/16891020/black-voter-turnout

After rising for Obama in 2008 and 2012, black voter turnout plummeted 4.7% in 2016, putting it back at pre-Obama levels and significantly contributing to Hillary Clinton's defeat. Yes, not all blacks vote Democratic, but the vast majority do.

My question is a simple one: do the Democrats have to run a black candidate in order for black voters to turn out in big numbers?


----------



## Reaper

Strike Force said:


> My question is a simple one: do the Democrats have to run a black candidate in order for black voters to turn out in big numbers?


The simple answer is no obviously. 

The media is downplaying Bernie's support amongst minority voters. 

Once Bernie was screwed out of his nomination by the establishment democrats, the black voters stayed away from Hillary because of her and her husband's anti-black policies. Not because she was white. Hillary was a terribly unpopular candidate overall - and she still did win the minority vote. 

It's not about black or white. It's about whose politics appeal to the minorities the most and at this point with Trumpianism completely taken over by republican establishment politics it's created this situation of choosing between someone that's bad for you versus someone that's horrible for you. 

Given the way policies have disfavored blacks irrespective of which candidate they've voted for historically, they're disenfranchised due to lack of representation and not because the popular demcorat candidate is white or black.

Just look at Kamala's and Corey Booker's earlier numbers. They stink. Then look at Bernie's. Bernie is terrible at representing his own politics and that's where he'll lose.


----------



## DesolationRow

Blacks were fascinating to observe in their voting patterns through the 2016 Democratic primaries. Under 30, they barely favored Bernie Sanders. Blacks 30 and older, however, voted for Hillary Clinton with overpowering numbers over those who voted for Sanders. Clinton won approximately 74% of the black vote in states which featured large populations of the group throughout the Democratic primary season, with the much-coveted South Carolina serving as a bellwether. In the all-important South Carolina primary Clinton won black voters 86% while Sanders could only win 14% of that critical vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. He had only taken home 22% of the black vote in Nevada before that. 

Blacks were the single most important asset for Hillary throughout the Democratic primaries. Yes, youthful blacks voted just narrowly for Sanders over Hillary but their turnout was weak, as only 8-11% or so of the black vote was under 45 years of age. And even with blacks under 30 Sanders's advantage was through almost the entire run of Democratic primaries in 2016 only a 52-47 five-point sum.

This is why Sanders, who a few years ago admittedly did represent something of a contrast to the average Democratic candidate circa mid-, is now parroting the same tired rhetoric of establishment Democrats circa the late 2010s. As he prattled on about "racism" and "sexism" and is now in favor of the government distributing reparations on behalf of blacks in the U.S. after saying several years ago that such an idea was "divisive" it is rather obvious that he and his team received the message from black voters in 2016. So now instead of being a re-warmed variation of Eduard Bernstein-meets-Benito Mussolini-meets-Franklin Roosevelt-meets-Lyndon Johnson, Sanders is sounding more and more like the U.S. Secretary of State whose coronation was deemed inevitable that he dared to challenge in 2016. 

Having said that, as far as electoral politics go, much can and will change in a few short years. Donald Trump ran one of the best post-World War II campaigns which targeted specific states. Hillary Clinton's campaign marinated in such brazen arrogance that they found visiting Wisconsin too bothersome. Trump won the state by about 23,000 votes. Trump won Pennsylvania by about 44,000 or 45,000 votes. He won the quickly-demographically-changing Arizona by about 90,000. And the point @HollyJollyDemise; and @DaRealNugget; note is correct. Hillary Clinton was stupendously unpopular. This was the woman who was to be the first woman U.S. president ever. Yet the single most critical reason Trump won? 53% of white women voted for him over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The man whose most infamous moment (arguably) in terms of appearing like a "sexist pig" occurred roughly one short month before that election with the _Access Hollywood_ tape leak.

So what happened in 2016? By just about every measure the two least-popular candidates since the 1890s on record met in an election of mass polarization. If Hillary had simply been as well-liked as _Michael Dukakis_, who was crushed by George H.W. Bush in 1988, or Al Gore, or John Kerry, she almost certainly would have prevailed. If Donald Trump had been as popular as _Bob Dole_, who was easily lapped by Bill Clinton in 1996, he would have had the election sewn up a few weeks before the calendar flipped to November. Both candidates were intensely disliked (or despised).

One last point, which is that those who are keen on seeing Trump lose in 2020 should not put any stock in the 2016 popular vote results. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush represented in their electoral wallopings of their opponents Republican dominance in presidential elections for a quarter of a century, barring the post-Vietnam, but more critically post-Watergate scandal fallout 1976 Gerald Ford loss to James Earl Carter. Beginning in 1992, however, Republican presidential candidates have won the U.S. popular vote precisely one time: 2004. And with the one-party state of California representing more than the difference in the popular vote, it is evident that the days of Republican candidates ever winning the U.S. popular vote are in the rear-view mirror. It is now a demographic impossibility. Even if the GOP had run some bland, "likable" candidate in 2016 like the wonderfully moral gentleman John Kasich who seems to have the ethics of a rattlesnake and the desire to engage in war with approximately another 37 nations on earth along the myriad ones the U.S. is already engaged with militarily (Americans are hilarious in who they consider likable), they would not have won the popular vote. It is immaterial and correctly so.


----------



## Reaper

Bernie is an idiot who says nothing about his actual Civil Rights movement record ... this is a man who was literally on the ground, in the streets FOR black people instead of just casually sitting at home lecturing us on identity politics. This has to count for *something* but unfortunately he does not know how to present himself or his politics. He's too week and meek for his own good. 

Bernie is accused of playing identity politics today, but unfortunately if he actually played identity politics, he would have the minority vote. Him not taking the right message on identity politics (talking about prison and drug reform over simply saying I love black people shit) is one of the reasons why he remains a hopelessly weak candidate. Instead he talks about class warfare in a meek voice and yes, the accusations of him sounding establishment are somewhat correct (because he's INCREDIBLY soft on foreign policy and therefore indicates a guy who's not at all likely to shift the current American foreign policy at all), but at the end of the day I think that while America is ready for class warfare, it's not there yet and with Bernie showing no real fire of a revolutionary, it's not going to get it done for him.


----------



## MrMister

Clinton did that superpredator bit back in the 90s. I don't think black people trusted her at all. They were right not to trust her since she can't be trusted.

It's been said before and even as recently as DROW in the post above, Hillary lost because she was massively overconfident as were those all around her.


----------



## AlternateDemise

DesolationRow said:


> One last point, which is that those who are keen on seeing Trump lose in 2020 should not put any stock in the 2016 popular vote results. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush represented in their electoral wallopings of their opponents Republican dominance in presidential elections for a quarter of a century, barring the post-Vietnam, but more critically post-Watergate scandal fallout 1976 Gerald Ford loss to James Earl Carter. Beginning in 1992, however, Republican presidential candidates have won the U.S. popular vote precisely one time: 2004. And with the one-party state of California representing more than the difference in the popular vote, it is evident that the days of Republican candidates ever winning the U.S. popular vote are in the rear-view mirror. It is now a demographic impossibility. Even if the GOP had run some bland, "likable" candidate in 2016 like the wonderfully moral gentleman John Kasich who seems to have the ethics of a rattlesnake and the desire to engage in war with approximately another 37 nations on earth along the myriad ones the U.S. is already engaged with militarily (Americans are hilarious in who they consider likable), they would not have won the popular vote. It is immaterial and correctly so.


The reason why I do point out the popular vote is due to the exact fashion in which Donald Trump won and who he won against. He squeaked out a win against an extremely unpopular candidate, and the very support he had that helped him get to that point has without question dwindled. I'm not going to sit here and claim I know how much of it has. But the important thing to understand is that unless something drastically changes, Trump will be going into 2020 with less support than before, and will be facing a candidate that is not only far superior to Clinton, said candidate will most likely have greater support and will take this a lot more seriously than Hilary did. Trump needed a very specific set of circumstances to come out of 2016 with a win, and this involved stealing a few very important states from the Democrats (which he did). This is why I used Bernie as an example, because in his case, if he were the candidate, Trump would have a lot more trouble taking those states away, especially if his failed endeavors continue.


----------



## CamillePunk

Wow, the major immigration hubs are also the most populous states and tend to vote Democratic over Republican? :monkey 

This would be so relevant if we lived in a democracy instead of a republic. But we don't, and thank God for that. It's the only thing that's delayed the fall of our country this long.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Wow, the major immigration hubs are also the most populous states and tend to vote Democratic over Republican? :monkey
> 
> This would be so relevant if we lived in a democracy instead of a republic. But we don't, and thank God for that. It's the only thing that's delayed the fall of our country this long.


Well if you want us to speed it up, then lets just give Trump the 2020 election :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> The simple answer is no obviously.
> 
> The media is downplaying Bernie's support amongst minority voters.
> 
> Once Bernie was screwed out of his nomination by the establishment democrats, the black voters stayed away from Hillary because of her and her husband's anti-black policies. Not because she was white. Hillary was a terribly unpopular candidate overall - and she still did win the minority vote.
> 
> It's not about black or white. It's about whose politics appeal to the minorities the most and at this point with Trumpianism completely taken over by republican establishment politics it's created this situation of choosing between someone that's bad for you versus someone that's horrible for you.
> 
> Given the way policies have disfavored blacks irrespective of which candidate they've voted for historically, they're disenfranchised due to lack of representation and not because the popular demcorat candidate is white or black.
> 
> Just look at Kamala's and Corey Booker's earlier numbers. They stink. Then look at Bernie's. Bernie is terrible at representing his own politics and that's where he'll lose.


This isn't really accurate, Bernie bros were having racist fits online because Hillary was winning because of the black vote in quite a few states. In fact a lot of minorities didn't see Bernie as a candidate for them but for white college kids. 

Black people were voting for Hilary simply because of Bill.


----------



## dele

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Cohen's hearing doesn't mean anything because it should never have taken place. This guy literally has been disbarred and is going to jail for fraud, perjury and lying to Congress. Really low and embarrassing that the Democrats called Cohen in to testify, when he might just be the most untrustworthy character imaginable. Not only has he been convicted of federal crimes related to lying, he has every reason to continue to lie since he clearly has a personal vendetta against Trump and is obviously incredibly bitter that he is going to jail and not his client (even though he is the lawyer... his whole job is to make sure his client does not go to jail.) Anyone who ever trusted a word that came out of Cohen's mouth, whether that was was when he was a scumbag lawyer or now as a convicted felon, has got to be stupid. I refuse to believe anyone actually thinks Cohen is a trustworthy character, but I guess now he is against Trump, "He must be right!"
> 
> Embarrassing and has to be a real low point in the history of politics, where there are congressman prepared to even hear what this felon, a perjurer, convicted of lying to Congress has to say. :Out


Cohen has the shotgun. Trump has the briefcase. It's all in the game tho, right?


----------



## Headliner

dele said:


> Cohen has the shotgun. Trump has the briefcase. It's all in the game tho, right?


It's almost like people forget that those who are indicted/convicted/take plea deals for lying end up being the cooperating witness that helps take down other people by leading investigators to new documents, providing their own documents, leading them to other witnesses, etc. 

Cohen directly implicated Trump in Insurance Fraud, Bank Fraud and Tax Fraud. I'm starting to believe SDNY might attempt to bring a RICO charge against the Trump Organization. Bill Barr might not allow it, but SDNY is known for being aggressive like that.


----------



## xio8ups

Trump is the most popular pesron on this earth. And the best ever


----------



## BruiserKC

xio8ups said:


> Trump is the most popular pesron on this earth. And the best ever


What’s a pesron?


----------



## DesolationRow

_Pésrons_ make Mexico's bad _hombres_ pay for their _covfefe_.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow

Nick Gillespie, an open borders Trump-hating beltway Libertarian who writes for Reason magazine, wrote this glowing piece of Trump's CPAC speech, which I have not yet seen. :lol 

Here it is:






Wasn't really planning on watching the CPAC speech given my very low levels of satisfaction with and enthusiasm for Trump's presidency at this moment, but if it netted such a glowing review from someone like Gillespie I suppose it must be worth watching.  

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/02/trump-just-might-have-won-the-2020-elect



> Trump Just Might Have Won the 2020 Election Today
> 
> The president's speech at CPAC was a bedazzling mix of bravado, B.S., humor, and positive vision no Democrat will be able to top.
> 
> Nick Gillespie|Mar. 2, 2019 3:25 pm
> 
> It's way too early to be thinking this, much less saying it, but what the hell: If Donald Trump is able to deliver the sort of performance he gave today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the annual meeting of right-wingers held near Washington, D.C., his reelection is a foregone conclusion.
> 
> There is simply no potential candidate in the Democratic Party who wouldn't be absolutely blown off the stage by him. I say this as someone who is neither a Trump fanboy nor a Never Trumper. But he was not simply good, he was Prince-at-the-Super-Bowl great, deftly flinging juvenile taunts at everyone who has ever crossed him, tossing red meat to the Republican faithful, and going sotto voce serious to talk about justice being done for working-class Americans screwed over by global corporations.
> 
> In a heavily improvised speech that lasted over two hours, the 72-year-old former (future?) reality TV star hit every greatest hit in his repertoire ("Crooked Hillary," "build the wall," "America is winning again," and more all made appearances) while riffing on everything from the Green New Deal to his own advanced age and weird hair to the wisdom of soldiers over generals. At times, it was like listening to Robin Williams' genie in the Disney movie Aladdin, Howard Stern in his peak years as a radio shock jock, or Don Rickles as an insult comic. When he started making asides, Trump observed, "This is how I got elected, by going off script." Two years into his presidency and he's just getting warmed up.
> 
> First and foremost, Trump was frequently funny and outre in the casually mean way that New Yorkers exude like nobody else in America. "You put the wrong people in a couple of positions," he said, lamenting the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor, "and all of a sudden they're trying to take you out with bullshit." He voiced Jeff Sessions in a mock-Southern accent, recusing "muhself" and asked the adoring crowd why the former attorney generally hadn't told him he was going to do that before he was appointed.
> 
> Democrats backing the Green New Deal (GND) "are talking about trains to Hawaii," he said. "They haven't figured out how to get to Europe yet." He begged the Democrats not to abandon the GND because he recognizes that the more its details and costs are discussed, the more absurd it will become. "When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your energy," he said at one point. "Did the wind stop blowing, I'd like to watch television today, guys?" "We'll go back to boats," he said, drawing huge laughs when he added, "I don't want to talk [the Democrats] out of [the GND], I just want to be the Republican who runs against it."
> 
> He railed against Never-Trump Republicans: "They're on mouth-to-mouth resuscitation," he said, adding "they're basically dishonest people" that no one cares about. He joked about being in the White House all alone on New Year's because of the government shutdown. "I was in the White House and I was lonely, so I went to Iraq," he said, recounting that when his plane was approaching the U.S. airstrip in Iraq, all lights had to be extinguished for landing. "We spend trillions of dollars in the Middle East and we can't land planes [in Iraq] with the lights on," he said, shaking his head in disbelief. "We gotta get out." He then riffed on the generals he met there who, contrary to the Pentagon brass he dealt with, said they could vanquish ISIS in a week. He claimed to have talked with a general named "Raising Cane," which might be Brigadier Gen. J. Daniel Caine, but Trump is the farthest thing from a details guy, right? "Sometimes I learn more from soldiers than I do generals," he said, deftly moving from jokes to more-substantive discussions of policies or issues.
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1101922686169739272
> You can cover a huge amount of material in two-hours-plus, and Trump certainly did that. After speaking sympathetically of immigrants who want to come to the United States and saying that we need more people because the economy (well, his economy, as he takes credit for it) is doing so well, he immediately dismissed the Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Hondurans traveling north in caravans across Mexico. In a bizarre display of simultaneous empathy and contempt, he talked at length about how female migrants are being systematically "raped" but also how the caravans were filled with criminals and drug dealers. It was "sad to see how stupid we've become" to think that the caravans are filled with good people. As he has been doing since his State of the Union address, he has been laying out a partial, inchoate case for a skills-based immigration program. He explained walking away from the table with North Korea even as he noted yet again that he has a great relationship with the dictator Kim Jong Un. In a long riff on trade policy, he invoked the "Great Tariff Debate of 1888" and how China "and everyone else" had been taking advantage of us until he started pushing back. He took time to talk about how no, really, the crowd at his inauguration was in fact historically large despite all publicly available evidence.
> 
> All in all, it was, in the words of Daniel Dale, the Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, "one of the least-hinged speeches Trump has given in a long time." It was indeed all over the place but like the weirdly wide-ranging and digressive speech in which he declared a national emergency, it was also an absolute tour de force, laying out every major point of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats (abortion, the Second Amendment, and taxes, among other things) while tagging the latter aggressively as socialists who will not only end the private provision of health care but take over the energy sector too. Those charges take on new life in the wake of the announcement of the GND and comments, however short-lived, by Democrats such as Kamala Harris, who at one point recently called for an end to private health care. And over 100 House Democrats have signed on to a plan that would end private health insurance in two years. For all the biting criticism and dark humor in today's speech, Trump has mostly ditched the "American Carnage" rhetoric that marked his first Inaugural Address, pushing onto liberals and Democrats all the negativity and anger that used to surround him like the dust cloud surrounds Pigpen in the old Peanuts cartoons. "We have people in Congress right now who hate our country," he said. "We can name every one of them. Sad, very, very sad."
> 
> At moments, he seemed to be workshopping his themes and slogans for 2020. "We believe in the American Dream, not the socialist nightmare," he averred at one point. "Now you have a president who finally standing up for America." The future, he said "does not belong to those who believe in socialism. The future belongs to those who believe in freedom. I've said it before and will say it again: America will never be a socialist country." That's a line that may not work forever, but it will almost certainly get the job done in 2020.
> 
> None of this is to suggest that this speech wasn't as fact-challenged as almost every utterance Trump has given since announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination (go to Daniel Dale's Twitter thread for a running count of misstatements of fact). He hammered trade deficits in a way that will remind anyone with an undergrad economics course under their belt that he fundamentally doesn't know what he's talking about. He misrepresented both NAFTA and the new trade bill he crafted with Mexico and Canada, and at the exact moment that hundreds of wearied listeners started leaving the ballroom at The Gaylord Resort and Convention Center, he claimed that not a single person had left their seat.
> 
> But the 2020 presidential race is not going to be decided based on which candidate is more tightly moored to reality. It's going to be decided, like these things always are, by the relative health of the economy and the large vision of the future the different candidates put forward. As the economy continues to expand (however anemically compared to historical averages) and he continues to avoid credible charges of impeachable offenses, Trump is becoming sunnier and sunnier while the Democrats are painting contemporary America as a late-capitalist hellhole riven by growing racial, ethnic, and other tensions.
> 
> Trump isn't the creator of post-factual politics in America, he is merely currently its most-gifted practitioner (oddly, his ideological and demographic counterpart and fellow New Yorker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may become a challenger to him on precisely this score). Trump may have next to no credibility in profoundly disturbing ways, but American politics has been drifting away from reality for the entire 21st century, when the 2000 election was essentially decided by a coin flip, the United States entered the Iraq War under false premises, and Barack Obama took home Politifact's 2013 "Lie of the Year" award and dissembled unconvincingly in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations.
> 
> That Trump didn't invent the current situation doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it, but if he can continue to perform the way he did today at CPAC, it remains to be seen what Democratic rival can rise to that challenge.


----------



## deepelemblues

You see the reason :trump doesn't drink is that alcohol interferes with the working of all that cocaine

Don't get me wrong being ski'd and drunk at the same time is an excellent high if you hit the right balance but obviously :trump prefers getting geeked as fuck with no downers in the way 

And you gotta respect that


----------



## virus21




----------



## 777

@virus21, did you check out that video addressed to Tim from that conservative?


----------



## virus21

777 said:


> @virus21, did you check out that video addressed to Tim from that conservative?


Did not know of it. What was in it?


----------



## 777

virus21 said:


> Did not know of it. What was in it?


Tim briefly mentions it in the video you posted.




I'm hoping it's more along the lines of bridging the divide as opposed to switching sides.


----------



## ShiningStar

Miss Sally said:


> This isn't really accurate, Bernie bros were having racist fits online because Hillary was winning because of the black vote in quite a few states. In fact a lot of minorities didn't see Bernie as a candidate for them but for white college kids.
> 
> Black people were voting for Hilary simply because of Bill.



Bernie actually did better then her among black people under 30,in general the divide had a lot more to do with a generational divide then racial one. And I would think many black people were voting Hilary more because of things like policy,gender and also just because she was more a known quantity then him. Democratic "Socialism" is just never gonna fly with some old people even one's who are Democrats.


----------



## dele

Headliner said:


> It's almost like people forget that those who are indicted/convicted/take plea deals for lying end up being the cooperating witness that helps take down other people by leading investigators to new documents, providing their own documents, leading them to other witnesses, etc.
> 
> Cohen directly implicated Trump in Insurance Fraud, Bank Fraud and Tax Fraud. I'm starting to believe SDNY might attempt to bring a RICO charge against the Trump Organization. Bill Barr might not allow it, but SDNY is known for being aggressive like that.


How to rationally do this in one easy step:

1. Subpoena all related SARs from FinCEN related to Donald, his offspring, and the Trump organization



deepelemblues said:


> You see the reason :trump doesn't drink is that alcohol interferes with the working of all that cocaine
> 
> Don't get me wrong being ski'd and drunk at the same time is an excellent high if you hit the right balance but obviously :trump prefers getting geeked as fuck with no downers in the way
> 
> And you gotta respect that


That's why he sometimes brings Dennis Rodman with him to meet Kim. Neither Kim or Donald have ever chopped their own lines before.


----------



## birthday_massacre

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102554284632109057
Oh look Trump got questions just like Hillary did.


----------



## Miss Sally

ShiningStar said:


> Bernie actually did better then her among black people under 30,in general the divide had a lot more to do with a generational divide then racial one. And I would think many black people were voting Hilary more because of things like policy,gender and also just because she was more a known quantity then him. Democratic "Socialism" is just never gonna fly with some old people even one's who are Democrats.


And that number was tiny. There isn't really any way to spin it that makes Bernie look like some hero to non-whites. I can almost be 100% certain if Obama and Sanders went head to head, with the shit job Obama did with all the scandals he'd clean Bernie's clock. :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> And that number was tiny. There isn't really any way to spin it that makes Bernie look like some hero to non-whites. I can almost be 100% certain if Obama and Sanders went head to head, with the shit job Obama did with all the scandals he'd clean Bernie's clock. :laugh:


No, he wouldn't lol

Everyone knows what a fraud Obama turned out to be.

Bernie is the most popular politician in the country. And has the most popular policies.


----------



## DesolationRow

@HollyJollyDemise; Would not be surprised in the least if Donald Trump loses and loses in overwhelming fashion in 2020. Looking at 2016, Trump's campaign put everything on red, as it were, and won what was an electoral college triumph primarily because Hillary Clinton is remarkably unpopular and worse yet, Clinton's campaign operated as though they had minimal understanding of how the electoral college functions as well as evidently believing the _New York Times_ and _Time_ press clippings for Clinton, demonstrating stunning overconfidence. 

The critical matter for the Democrats at this point is selecting the best candidate to defeat Trump. Thus far their enormous roster of options is an uninspiring clown car but that is merely present-day American politics for you. Watching a few minutes from Trump's long-winded comedy act at CPAC (thank you, @CamillePunk just about nearly any of the potential match-ups have the keen possibility of spelling Mel Brooks-style self-parodying, which is at least swell for entertainment value.

The 2020 election is 20 months away, and the Democrats are probably at least approximately 12 months away from having an obvious nominee-to-be, so any predictions concerning the general election are perhaps dubious at best. Though it is indeed clear as numerous individuals here have stated that the Democratic Party machine and the vast media proxies which are at that machine's disposal have already selected Kamala Harris. Humorously Harris has been elevated chiefly through major donations from exceedingly wealthy and powerful donors--including Trump himself. 

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article226975319.html



> Big-dollar donors, including Donald Trump, fueled Kamala Harris’ political rise in California
> 
> WASHINGTON
> Asked last week if she believes President Donald Trump is a racist, California Sen. Kamala Harris told The Root, “I don’t think you can reach any other conclusion.”
> 
> In 2018, the Trump White House accused Harris of “supporting the animals of MS-13,” a gang formed by Central American immigrants in Los Angeles.
> 
> Earlier this decade, however, the two weren’t on such combative terms. In 2011 and again in 2013, Trump donated a total of $6,000 to Harris’ campaign for California attorney general. His daughter, Ivanka, also gave Harris $2,000 in 2014.
> 
> The first donation from Trump, for $5,000 in September 2011, came months after he had begun popping up on cable news promoting a conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States, something that’s been widely condemned as racist.
> 
> Harris campaign spokesman Ian Sams told McClatchy that Harris donated the $6,000 Trump had contributed to a non-profit that advocates for civil and human rights for Central Americans. But that donation wasn’t made until 2015, a year after she won her reelection for attorney general and as she was launching her run for the Senate.
> 
> The current president is just one of the notable contributors among the big dollar donors who gave to Harris’ campaigns in California — first for San Francisco district attorney, then attorney general, then United States senator.
> 
> Since entering the Senate in 2017, Harris has parlayed a rising national profile into a potent grassroots donor base. Over the past two years, the Oakland native has raised three-quarters of her Senate money from small donors giving less than $200. And her 2020 presidential campaign has been buoyed by a wave of small dollar online donations from around the country.
> 
> Harris’ campaign points out that she raised $1.5 million online in the first 24 hours after launching her presidential campaign in January, including individual contributions from all 50 states. The average contribution in the first 24 hours was under $40, according to the campaign.
> 
> “We are focused on engaging a broad grassroots network of supporters across the country to power this campaign,” Sams said.
> 
> But Harris’ rise in politics was fueled largely by well-heeled donors and interests ranging from California law firms and Hollywood A-listers to Bay Area business titans and San Francisco high society. More than a few out-of-state donors, like the Trumps, also chipped in..
> 
> In her 2016 Senate race, Harris raised just 15 percent of contributions from donors giving less than $200.
> 
> Those ties to the party’s wealthy donor class — whom she continues to court — could prove a double-edged sword in the Democratic presidential primary. Fundraising will be a major factor in determining who in the crowded field can survive the gauntlet of early primary states.
> 
> ut as Democrats have moved to the left, the party’s voters have become increasingly critical of the way money influences U.S. politics. It was an issue Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders highlighted to great effect in his dark horse 2016 primary challenge to Hillary Clinton, whom he painted as a tool of the “one percent.” Harris drew flack from Sanders supporters and other liberals for a highly-publicized Hamptons fundraiser in 2017.
> 
> Many Democratic candidates (including the California senator) have already sworn off donations from lobbyists and corporate donor committees known as PACs. Now some are taking it a step further. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced late last month that she will not hold high-dollar private fundraisers or participate donor calls in the primary race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WILLIE BROWN’S NETWORK
> Harris has proven to be a Democratic donor draw since her first race, for San Francisco district attorney in 2003. Despite being a little-known, 39-year-old prosecutor, Harris pulled in checks from an array of bold-faced names in San Francisco and beyond.
> 
> The Getty family, heirs of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty, gave a combined $3,750, as did then-CEO of Wells Fargo Richard Kovacevich. Bill Fazio, a local attorney who ran against Harris in the 2003 race, recalls hearing she received a donation from comedian Chris Rock (he indeed sent along $500 from New York). Actor Danny Glover kicked in another $500.
> 
> Fazio and others who observed Harris’ rise in San Francisco believe she made many of those glitzy connections via Willie Brown, then the mayor of San Francisco.
> 
> “She tapped really strongly into Willie Brown’s political network,” said Boise State political science professor Corey Cook, who was teaching at the University of San Francisco at the time.
> 
> Brown, a larger-than-life power broker in the state, also “helped introduce her around to the Pacific Heights area,” said Fazio, referring to the wealthy enclave overlooking the San Francisco Bay that is home to some of the city’s most prominent families.
> 
> Brown, whom Harris dated before she ran for office, caused a stir by acknowledging in a recent San Francisco Chronicle column that he “certainly helped with her first race for district attorney.” But Brown also pointed out that he helped Gov. Gavin Newsom get his start, as well as many other politicians from San Francisco. Fazio noted the same thing, and emphasized that he saw “absolutely nothing wrong with” Brown’s assistance..
> 
> Cook says there is another reason that Harris drew early financial support from such an array of powerful people. She had “an immediate buzz.,’ he said. “She was identified very early on as somebody who was going places.”
> 
> ‘FEMALE OBAMA’
> That buzz grew exponentially after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008. Harris was an early backer and key surrogate for Obama in California, and her brother-in-law, Tony West, was co-chair of Obama’s California fundraising operation.
> 
> Pundits began labeling Harris the “female Obama.” And her name began popping up in the San Francisco society columns, as she mingled with socialites who would go on to host fundraisers for her attorney general campaigns and 2016 Senate race.
> 
> But Cook says Harris was also engaged at the grassroots level while she was district attorney.
> 
> “San Francisco is a small town. It’s got dozens of these local political organizations and they all expect to meet the candidates,” he noted. “There was never any whiff of, she wouldn’t put in the work. She showed up to all those things.”
> 
> Not surprisingly, Harris raised a significant sum — $2.8 million — from attorneys and law firms during her two successful campaigns for California attorney general in 2010 and 2014. She’s raised a similar amount from the legal profession for her Senate campaign coffers.
> 
> She’s also raised millions for her attorney general and Senate campaigns from a long roster of entertainment executives and actors: Halle Berry, Leonardo DiCaprio, Steven Spielberg, and Sean Penn, to name just a few. Silicon Valley venture capitalists and others in the finance sector have also been a major source of funds, as have those in the real estate industry and those who are retired.
> 
> Harris is hardly the only high-profile Democrat who’s received a check from Trump. Clinton raised thousands from Trump and his family when she was New York senator and then in her 2008 presidential run.
> 
> Current New York Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand has raised nearly $10,000 from Trump, Ivanka and a son, Donald Trump Jr., since 2007. Ivanka Trump has also given more than $10,000 to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, another 2020 contender, in recent years.
> 
> California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Newsom’s predecessor, Jerry Brown, also received thousands from Trump last decade.
> 
> Questioned about his donations to Democrats during a Republican primary debate in 2015, Trump explained his bipartisan political giving as just the price of doing business. “I give to to everybody,” he said. “They call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me.”
> 
> Sams said that wasn’t the case for Harris. She never held a meeting or offered other special access to Trump when she was California attorney general, he said.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DesolationRow said:


> @HollyJollyDemise; Would not be surprised in the least if Donald Trump loses and loses in overwhelming fashion in 2020. Looking at 2016, Trump's campaign put everything on red, as it were, and won what was an electoral college triumph primarily because Hillary Clinton is remarkably unpopular and worse yet, Clinton's campaign operated as though they had minimal understanding of how the electoral college functions as well as evidently believing the _New York Times_ and _Time_ press clippings for Clinton, demonstrating stunning overconfidence.
> 
> The critical matter for the Democrats at this point is selecting the best candidate to defeat Trump. Thus far their enormous roster of options is an uninspiring clown car but that is merely present-day American politics for you. Watching a few minutes from Trump's long-winded comedy act at CPAC (thank you, @CamillePunk just about nearly any of the potential match-ups have the keen possibility of spelling Mel Brooks-style self-parodying, which is at least swell for entertainment value.
> 
> The 2020 election is 20 months away, and the Democrats are probably at least approximately 12 months away from having an obvious nominee-to-be, so any predictions concerning the general election are perhaps dubious at best. Though it is indeed clear as numerous individuals here have stated that the Democratic Party machine and the vast media proxies which are at that machine's disposal have already selected Kamala Harris. Humorously Harris has been elevated chiefly through major donations from exceedingly wealthy and powerful donors--including Trump himself.
> 
> http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article226975319.html


What are the chances Trump gets primaried and loses the primary


----------



## DesolationRow

birthday_massacre said:


> What are the chances Trump gets primaried and loses the primary


Difficult to ascertain at this juncture. The Republican machine seems to see Trump's presidency as something like a "necessary evil"; those constituting it are not _happy_, but they seem to at least comprehend that they cannot appear _excessively_ discontented with him as popular as he is among registered voting Republicans.

That political apparatus consequently resides between a rock and a--well, everyone knows the rest.

On making predictions one is compelled to consider _The Two Noble Kinsmen_ in judging the motives and possibilities of others: "Our reasons are not prophets/When oft our fancies are."


----------



## birthday_massacre

DesolationRow said:


> Difficult to ascertain at this juncture. The Republican machine seems to see Trump's presidency as something like a "necessary evil"; those constituting it are not _happy_, but they seem to at least comprehend that they cannot appear _excessively_ discontented with him as popular as he is among registered voting Republicans.
> 
> That political apparatus consequently resides between a rock and a--well, everyone knows the rest.
> 
> On making predictions one is compelled to consider _The Two Noble Kinsmen_ in judging the motives and possibilities of others: "Our reasons are not prophets/When oft our fancies are."


Bill Weld said he is considering primarying Trump, it would be interesting.


----------



## DesolationRow

Bill Weld trying to take on Donald Trump would be funny to observe. The man is utterly beholden to his tired ideological brand of classical liberalism. He will doubtless modify his rhetoric by stating that he is a True Conservative™ whereas Trump is not. Three years ago Republican politicians and radio talk show host personalities and the like squealed that Trump was not a True Conservative™ while being hesitant--understandably so--to ever delineate just what made a conservative a conservative, considering that their track record as of late has been to never conserve anything. 

Weld running against Trump would be fun to watch simply for the inevitable fireworks. The more entertainment, the better. Bread and circuses for all!


----------



## Reaper

Harris is Hillary part 2. 

She's the establishment's puppet and anyone that votes for her is voting for the same policies that have been in place for the last 30-40 years. Harris is a strong law and order candidate and she is not going to make any changes in the foreign policy level either. 

With Harris, we can forget about prison and drug reforms and we can forget about any kind of social welfare and forget about America changing their foreign policy. But she is exactly the kind of person that will satisfy the establishment in the best possible way. Just as Trump eventually did. 

That said the state is owned by the establishment through not just the president's office but by having the ability to put establishment puppets in both the Congress and the Senate as well. If you want change in this country you need to remove the corporate interests from the governing of the state and that is not going to happen. 

There isn't a single candidate that wants to do that or is capable of doing that in any way shape at all. The system is already too rigged.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> The critical matter for the Democrats at this point is selecting the best candidate to defeat Trump. Thus far their enormous roster of options is an uninspiring clown car but that is merely present-day American politics for you. Watching a few minutes from Trump's long-winded comedy act at CPAC (thank you, @CamillePunk just about nearly any of the potential match-ups have the keen possibility of spelling Mel Brooks-style self-parodying, which is at least swell for entertainment value.


Some of your best, I lolled. Clown car reference, Trump Comedy Act, Mel Brooks reference. 4.5/5.

I'd be interested in contributing to producing a 5 minute segment on politics where you dish it out. I'll have my people contact you.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Reaper said:


> Harris is Hillary part 2.
> 
> She's the establishment's puppet and anyone that votes for her is voting for the same policies that have been in place for the last 30-40 years. Harris is a strong law and order candidate and she is not going to make any changes in the foreign policy level either.
> 
> With Harris, we can forget about prison and drug reforms and we can forget about any kind of social welfare and forget about America changing their foreign policy. But she is exactly the kind of person that will satisfy the establishment in the best possible way. Just as Trump eventually did.
> 
> That said the state is owned by the establishment through not just the president's office but by having the ability to put establishment puppets in both the Congress and the Senate as well. If you want change in this country you need to remove the corporate interests from the governing of the state and that is not going to happen.
> 
> There isn't a single candidate that wants to do that or is capable of doing that in any way shape at all. The system is already too rigged.


But she smoked weed while listening to Snoop Dogg and Tupac in college, so obviously she is like one of us


----------



## Reaper

DMD Mofomagic said:


> But she smoked weed while listening to Snoop Dogg and Tupac in college, so obviously she is like one of us


I think anyone that isn't completely brainwashed knows how completely fictionalized that response was.

Anyone that gives her a pass for that bullshit needs to rethink everything they know about political theater.


----------



## DesolationRow

yeahbaby! said:


> Some of your best, I lolled. Clown car reference, Trump Comedy Act, Mel Brooks reference. 4.5/5.
> 
> I'd be interested in contributing to producing a 5 minute segment on politics where you dish it out. I'll have my people contact you.


Looking forward! 

It is more soothing to poke fun at the personalities of politicians angling for electoral success than it is to perceive how repetitious everything is. Cleistenes's thunderous rhetoric concerning the Spartans while leading the Alcmeonids won over the lowliest classes who generally despised the Spartans. By fundamentally streamlining the political order of the confederacy, placing greater responsibility upon persons of the _deme_, or most modest commonwealths within the larger polity beyond class distinctions Clestenes engendered what was called democracy in 520s B.C. Athens. Thucydides prudently perceived the truth of the matter during Pericles's stewardship, which had the most lasting effect of opening the democratic door to demagoguery as later manifested by Cleon. Critias oversaw brutish dictatorial "rebooting" to use the terminology of today in Hollywood. Athens would slink back toward a more conservative and tautly balanced form of democratic polity before falling into oligarchy. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote, "So it goes."


----------



## MrMister

DMD Mofomagic said:


> But she smoked weed while listening to Snoop Dogg and Tupac in college, so obviously she is like one of us


Did she really say this? 

Snoop Dogg's debut was in the early 90s.

From her wiki page...



> Harris served as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, California, from 1990 to 1998.


So when Snoop was making his debut, Kamala was already out of college. When she was in college, there was no Snoop Dogg yet. 

:heston


----------



## Reaper

She blurted out the first two black names that popped into her head. And the fact that the MSM collapsed in on itself defending her proves that she's a paid for corporate puppet. Please stay away from this candidate if you don't want history to repeat itself. 

Not surprisingly at all.


----------



## CamillePunk

y'all clearly never had that kush so good it makes you time travel


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> She blurted out the first two black names that popped into her head. And the fact that the MSM collapsed in on itself defending her proves that she's a paid for corporate puppet. Please stay away from this candidate if you don't want history to repeat itself.
> 
> Not surprisingly at all.


And if Bernie or AOC said something like that, the MSM would be bashing the hell out of them.


Speaking of that, did you see what a disaster Trump was at C Pac

How can anyone claim he is not mentally ill at this point.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/politics/donald-trump-cpac-speech/index.html


CNN)Fresh off an unsuccessful summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, President Donald Trump jetted back from Vietnam just in time to appear at the annual CPAC conference.

And appear he did! Egged on by the red-meat crowd, Trump went on and on (and on) -- rarely staying on script in a speech that amounted to a sort-of greatest hits double album.

CNN's Chris Cillizza cuts through the political spin and tells you what you need to know. By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy.


I went through the whole damn transcript -- and it was a doozy. The lines you need to see are below.
1. [Trump comes out on stage, claps, and then bear-hugs an American flag]
And away we go!
2. "What we did in 2016 -- the Election, we call it, with a capital 'E' -- it's never been done before."
Donald Trump, grammar expert. Also, copy editor. Also also, history-maker.
3. "I was probably more of a conservative than a Republican. People just didn't quite understand that. They didn't understand it."
They likely didn't understand it because Trump, prior to running for president as a Republican, had expressed any number of views -- on abortion, same-sex marriage and lots else -- that suggested he was more closely aligned with Democrats than the GOP.
4. "How many times did you hear, for months and months, 'There is no way to 270?' You know what that means, right? 'There is no way to 270.'"
The 2016 election ended 846 days ago.
5. "So I think we're going to do even better in 2020. I think we're going to do numbers that people haven't seen for a long time."
"Numbers."
6. "But I found some very old laws from when our country was rich -- really rich. The old tariff laws -- we had to dust them off; you could hardly see, they were so dusty."
Ah, those rich -- and dusty -- days. Man, they were great. Tough on the allergies. But great.
7. "You know I'm totally off-script, right?"
Oh, yes.
8. "You know I'm totally off-script right now. And this is how I got elected, by being off-script. True."
It IS true. Voters seemed to believe that Trump's often rambling, hard-to-understand speeches were evidence that he was an authentic politician who refused to be stage-managed. And they liked the idea of a guy who just, well, says stuff.
9. "And if we don't go off-script, our country is in big trouble, folks."
So going off-script is the key to future successes ... [sharpens pencil, breaks out new sheet of paper, begins calculations]
10. "When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric. Let's hurry up. 'Darling' -- 'Darling, is the wind blowing today? I'd like to watch television, darling.'"
"When the wind stop blowing, that's the end of your electric." -- The President of the United States. (Also, Trump is talking here about his sarcastic "support" for the "Green New Deal.")
11. "So the Great Tariff Debate of 1888 -- and then we had so much money we could do whatever we wanted."
Trump has taken to citing 1888 in his speeches of late. This will stun you, but his reading of the historical facts misses a few things.
12. "I won't use a certain words because it's not politically -- but everybody knows the word I'd love to use. Should I use it? I won't do it."
Trump has even turned his infamous love for cursing into some sort of anti-elites mantra. Amazing.
13. "If you tell a joke, if you're sarcastic, if you're having fun with the audience, if you're on live television with millions of people and 25,000 people in an arena, and if you say something like, 'Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton's emails. Please, Russia, please.'"
HA HA HA ... oh wait, on the same day Trump "jokingly" asked the Russians to get Hillary Clinton's deleted emails, the Russians began a cybercampaign to get Hillary Clinton's deleted emails.
14. "So everybody is having a good time. I'm laughing, we're all having fun."
"I really can't say I guess I laugh to keep from crying." -- Q-Tip
15. "I know there are people in the Republican Party and people -- really, even conservatives -- good conservatives -- they don't like tariffs. I'm not liking or not liking."
Here's the President on tariffs: "I'm not liking or not liking."

THE POINT -- NOW ON YOUTUBE!
In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!
16. "So they don't have anything with Russia. There's no collusion."
Here's a few numbers on the ongoing special counsel probe into Russian interference: 199 criminal charges have been brought against 37 people and entities, seven people have pleaded guilty while four have been sentenced to prison.
17. "I saw little Shifty Schiff yesterday."
"Little Adam Schitt" grimaces.
18. "So now we're waiting for a report, and we'll find out whether or not, and who we're dealing with. We're waiting for a report by people that weren't elected."
A terrific window into how much Trump has made the special counsel's report about him. Remember that special counsel Robert Mueller was asked to look into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the possibility that members of Trump's team may have colluded with the Russians. Instead of worrying about what it means that a malicious foreign power sought to influence our election, Trump is entirely focused on what the report -- and its findings -- mean for him.
19. "We had -- think of this: We had the greatest election -- in all fairness, I used to hear Andrew Jackson. This was now greater than the election of Andrew Jackson. People say that. No, people say it. I'm not saying it. Right? This was the equivalent or greater."
Well if "people say that," who am I to argue????
20. "Those red hats -- and white ones. The key is in the color. The key is what it says. 'Make America Great Again' is what it says. Right? Right?"
Wait. So is the key the color of the hats or what they say on them? I NEED TO KNOW.
21. "And unfortunately, you put the wrong people in a couple of positions, and they leave people for a long time that shouldn't be there. And, all of a sudden, they're trying to take you out with bullshit. OK? With bullshit."
I assume Trump is referring to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russia probe. Or maybe former FBI Director James Comey for launching the probe. Or deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for forming a special counsel to look into it. Maybe all of the above. Either way: It's total bullshit!
22. "Now, Robert Mueller never received a vote, and neither did the person that appointed him. And as you know, the attorney general says, 'I'm going to recuse myself.'"
Mueller and Rosenstein never received votes because they are career Justice Department officials. Mueller was a registered Republican, while Rosenstein was a Trump appointee. So ...
23. "You take a look at them. One of them was involved with the Hillary Clinton Foundation, running it. Another one has perhaps the worst reputation of any human being I've ever seen. All killers."
First, a fact check. No one on Mueller's team ran the Clinton Foundation. Jeannie Rhee was outside counsel to the foundation but never worked there on the payroll. Not sure which member of Mueller's teams "has perhaps the worst reputation of any human being I've ever seen" but I know at least one person who could challenge them for their title ... And, no, no one of Mueller's team is a convicted murderer or "killer."
24. "I had a nasty business transaction with Robert Mueller a number of years ago. I said, 'why isn't that mentioned?'"
Trump is referring to an episode in 2011 when Mueller left a Trump golf club because, according to Trump, of a dispute over dues. Mueller says there was no such dispute. And yet, it is mentioned. Regularly.
25. "He wanted the job as FBI Director."
It is true that Trump interviewed Mueller to be FBI director -- a job he held for a decade under Presidents Bush and Obama -- on the day before Mueller was named special counsel. It is not clear if Mueller expressed a desire to be the FBI director in those conversations.
26. "I have one of the great inventions in history. It's called TiVo. I think it's actually better than television, because television is practically useless without TiVo, right?"
"I invented the piano key necktie. I invented it!" -- Jacobim Mugatu
27. "And I fire a bad cop. I fire a dirty cop."
Trump is referring here to Comey, a career Justice Department official. Not to that cop in "The Wire" who was always taking money off of the street hustlers and keeping it form himself. (I see you, Randy!)
28. "So, just to finish -- and I'll tell you, Matt Schlapp is loving this."
He's not even halfway done.
29. "Number one, I'm in love, and you're in love. We're all in love together."
Trump is talking about why he is speaking for so long and so far off-script. It's because of love, obviously.
30. "There's so much love in this room, it's easy to talk. You can talk your heart out. You really could. There's love in this room. You can talk your heart out. It's easy. It's easy. It's easy."
What do you say to a man who has already said everything?
31. "We never had an empty seat."
Trump is claiming there was never an empty seat at ANY rally he held in 2018. Which, uh, isn't accurate.
32. "And from the day we came down the escalator, I really don't believe we've had an empty seat at any arena, at any stadium."
"The day we came down the escalator."
33. "They did the same thing at our big inauguration speech. You take a look at those crowds."
Trump's claims that more people attended or watched his inauguration than any other in history has been repeatedly -- and clearly -- debunked. And yet, here we are.
34. "Remember this also -- not that Obama would ever do this: But we had fencing all the way down to the Washington Monument. And it was raining and it was wet, and the grass was wet."
He's STILL making excuses for why the crowd at his inauguration didn't look bigger. The grass was wet! The fencing! The sun was in my eyes!
35. "We had a crowd -- I've never seen anything like it. And I have to live -- I have to live with 'crowd size.' It's all a phony deal."
This is actually a good illustration of how Trump's world works. From where he was giving his inaugural address, he saw lots and lots of people. Therefore, it must have been the most ever -- even if objective facts don't bear that out. Those objective facts, in his mind, are just part of the fake news media's attempts to smear him.
36. "But I saw a picture just the other night of practically no people. It was taken hours before our great day."
Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017. That was 773 days ago. But "just the other night" he was looking at a picture of his inauguration crowd. Totally normal stuff here!
37. "Then I'll show you where they showed, just the other day, an empty field -- like nobody on it. And you'll see the sun. You know, you can see it's very dark, because the sun is like starting to rise, right?"
In which the President of the United States reveals he has been closely studying pictures of his inauguration crowd in search of evidence that they had been taken very early in the morning and, therefore, missed the big crowds. Sure!
38. "You know, somebody said, 'Oh, the speech you made, sir, the State of the Union speech was incredible.' They said it was incredible. They said that was so great."
Who is this "somebody"?
39. "I didn't want to get it approved for a certain reason, because I thought somebody treated me very badly. Very badly. Don't get that vote very often. And I said, you know, I don't want to get it."
Trump is making clear here that he is not happy that he helped get drilling in ANWR approved because Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) wanted it to happen and he didn't want her to get something she wanted. Because she doesn't vote with him enough. Totally fine!
40. "By the way, you know I'm building the wall. We're finishing the wall. We got a lot of money. It's in the thing."
It is, indeed, in the thing.
41. "We have people in Congress that hate our country."
WOW WOW WOW.
42. "We have a lot of people here that are important people in terms of votes. We have some senators. We have some congressmen."
Yes, waiter, I'll have the word salad.
43. "For one thing, they don't respect us. They think we're 'stupido.'"
What were the odds in Vegas that Trump would say "stupido"? One in a million? Higher? Those oddsmakers were stupido.
44. "He called me up. He said, 'You're a great President. You're doing a great job.'"
According to Trump, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) told him how great he was doing. I, uh, doubt this is true.
45. "The leaves -- every once in a while, you have to remove the leaves because they are so -- a guy smoking a cigarette, he throws it away, he doesn't mean it."
Donald Trump on forest fires.
46. "He said, 'I just want to tell you you're a great President and you're one of the smartest people I've ever met.'"
So, the liberal governor of California called up Trump to tell him how great he is and how smart he is? Riiiiiiiiiight.
47. "But I was told by a general, who I had to fire -- I said, 'General, how long before we get 100% of the caliphate?' He said, 'Sir, two years.' I said, 'I can't take it two years.'"
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me." -- Donald Trump
48. "I never saw so many beautiful-looking machine guns. I'd look at that equipment and I'd say, 'Man ...' They sit in the trees. They sit on the lawn."
Words fail.
49. "I have pretty good vision. At least for my age, I have good vision. I guess for my age, I have great vision."
From good to great in two sentences: The life of Donald Trump.
50. "So we changed his name. Called him 'Mad Dog.' But it wasn't working too well. Mad Dog wasn't working too well."
Contrary to this claim, Trump didn't invent the nickname "Mad Dog" for his former Defense Secretary James Mattis. Not even close.
51. "And I said, 'Bring the cameras. I'm going to make a movie. This is the most incredible thing.'"
Trump was in Iraq to meet with generals. His first thought? Bring in the cameras. Let's make a movie.
52. "I mean, you talk central casting. These guys -- you couldn't -- I mean, it's incredible. They had a master sergeant. I could take him right now, bring him to Hollywood, make a military movie, and he's the star of the movie."
Trump reveals, on almost a daily basis, that he views being President as akin to serving as the executive producer for the world's greatest reality show.
53. "The drill sergeant was so incredible that he ended up starring in the movie, and he should have gotten the Academy Award, by the way, but he didn't. That's because Hollywood discriminates against our people. You know the movie I'm talking about, right? What was that movie? You know the movie."
Yes, it's called "Full Metal Jacket."
54. "Nobody has left. I watch those doors. Because a lot of times -- a lot of times -- well, one time, the press said people left. Yeah, you know where they went? To the bathroom. And then they came back."
This speech lasted TWO hours. TWO.
55. "And a certain fake news deal showed a picture on the front page of these two empty seats. They said Trump had empty seats. We never have empty seats."
Back to this then? Wasn't that sort of a first-hour-of-the-speech sort of thing?
56. "See, I don't have white hair. I don't have white hair."
Um, true!
57. "She's like -- she's like a crazed person. What she said about men is so bad. What she said about men is so bad."
Donald Trump on Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). Perfectly normal! Nothing to see here folks!
58. "We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness, and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous."
If Trump said just these two sentences over and over and over again, he would probably get re-elected. Because this anti-PC rhetoric resonates with lots and lots of people who likely aren't obvious Trump supporters. Of course, as this speech proves, he will never just say these two sentences. Or any two sentences.
59. "Mothers, who love their daughters, give them massive amounts of birth control pills because they know their daughters are going to be raped on the way up to our southern border."
I think this interview with a border patrol agent is where Trump got this idea. it's not at all clear if this was an isolated incident or a common practice.
60. "Not my fault I inherited this mess, but we're fixing it."
Trump is referring here specifically to the situation at the border. But really, he views every issue (and his whole life) through this lens. Someone else is responsible for the problem. But he will fix it.
61. "I did 32 big, fat rallies. And those rallies brought us to a tremendous Senate victory so that we can continue onward with our judges and our approvals."
So, Trump deserves credit for the 2018 election!
62. "One of the commentators -- and I appreciate it -- one of the shows where they were saying how I suffered a defeat, this commentator said, 'Excuse me, he didn't run.'"
So Trump doesn't deserve blame for the 2018 election! (Also: These two sentences were uttered by the President within 20 seconds of each other. Good times.)
63. "Then he had a tough race against the new star of the Democrat Party -- not Democratic. It's Democrat. We have to do that."
This is the dumbest thing ever. It is the "Democratic" Party. Republicans in the 1990s decided that they would start saying it was the "Democrat" Party because they didn't want people to think only one party was on the side of democratic ideals. Smart move, Republics!
64. "I hate to say in the speech, the 'Democrat Party' because it doesn't sound good. But that's all the more reason I use it, because it doesn't. They should change it because it sounds much better. Rhetorically, it's much better. Much better."
They don't need to change it! It's already called the Democratic Party! Republicans just have to stop saying "Democrat" Party. Come on people. We can do this!
65. "We had a rally at the airport, where 55,000 people showed up to the airport. It was one hangar. They had three other hangars that were full. They went so far back."
The rally for Georgia gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp was held in one hangar. Not two. And definitely not three. The MOST people who were there? Around 18,500.
66. "Fourth of July -- keep it open. We want to bring millions of people into the city, and we want people to come who love our country. Those are the people we want. The Fourth of July. (Applause.) A salute to America."
[checks calendar] I'm WIDE open on July 4!
67. "By the way, I'm watching those doors. Not one person has left, and I've been up here a long time. ... But not one person. So if you hear tomorrow, when they read 'people left' -- nobody left early. There hasn't been one person that's left."
He is totally and completely obsessed with crowds. And crowds staying. And loving him. This feels like a good place to end.


----------



## Reaper

I stopped paying attention to anything related to Trump. 

Not worth the time or energy.


----------



## Stephen90

Reaper said:


> She blurted out the first two black names that popped into her head. And the fact that the MSM collapsed in on itself defending her proves that she's a paid for corporate puppet. Please stay away from this candidate if you don't want history to repeat itself.
> 
> Not surprisingly at all.


She's black Hillary with MSM with trying to cram her down our throats.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> She's black Hillary with MSM with trying to cram her down our throats.


And Booker is discount Obama


----------



## Reaper

Unless Democrats run in a prison and drug reform campaign with a real solution to healthcare that doesn't involve corporatist interests, they have no chance in 2020. 

Bernie is going to lose the nomination. I won't say why but I think people are underestimating one of the main reasons. Has nothing to do with the deep state or establishment politics but with American psyche and brainwashing that has been going on for several decades. It's gotten to the point where as a country at least 80% of the people don't understand it.


----------



## Pratchett

Reaper said:


> Harris is Hillary part 2.
> 
> She's the establishment's puppet and anyone that votes for her is voting for the same policies that have been in place for the last 30-40 years. Harris is a strong law and order candidate and she is not going to make any changes in the foreign policy level either.
> 
> With Harris, we can forget about prison and drug reforms and we can forget about any kind of social welfare and forget about America changing their foreign policy. But she is exactly the kind of person that will satisfy the establishment in the best possible way. Just as Trump eventually did.
> 
> That said the state is owned by the establishment through not just the president's office but by having the ability to put establishment puppets in both the Congress and the Senate as well. If you want change in this country you need to remove the corporate interests from the governing of the state and that is not going to happen.
> 
> There isn't a single candidate that wants to do that or is capable of doing that in any way shape at all. The system is already too rigged.


----------



## DesolationRow

Probably the single most devastating problem for Bernie Sanders will be the unwillingness of younger voters to actually turn out and vote for him. Sanders wins polls concerning "popularity of politicians" routinely as this thread is reminded rather regularly, but young voters are notorious. Will always remember being just eligible to vote in 2004 and late on election night hearing countless pundits furiously criticizing the allegedly hopeless generation to which this poster belongs for not showing up to give John Kerry his much-deserved victory because his endeavors to maintain the neoliberal globalist _status quo_ George H.W. Bush described as a "new world order" (Bush must have known he was quoting Adolf Hitler, ha) would be be adorned with happy faces. Though to be fair, Kerry for all of his poor instincts was probably not so deranged as George W. Bush, whose rhetoric and actions were more out of the playbook of Robespierre and Bertrand Berère had they at their disposal the most powerful government in the history of the world. For as the dangerously ill-informed Bush stated in his is Second Inaugural address, "_t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." And as the Reign of Terror French revolutionaries ultimately implemented policies of de-Christianization in France to liberate mankind, so too did the purported Christian help to ultimately de-Christianize whole swaths of the Middle East, among other horrors.

Back to Sanders. Hugely popular among young voters, in the New Hampshire primary in 2016 those born in the before February 1986 ran toward him at a six-to-one ratio. In New Hampshire those under 30 years of age voted for Sanders over Hillary Clinton, five-to-one. The problem arises for Sanders elsewhere, as young voters showed up only anemically to vote in Iowa and Nevada. Compared to New Hampshire, where voters under 30 voted along the proportional lines one could forecast given their share of the population--which, in that New England state, is considerably smaller than states such as Iowa--elsewhere they mostly failed to do so. This was a terrible blow to Sanders's campaign, for while almost everywhere Sanders "had" young voters by four-to-one, five-to-one, six-to-one, seven-to-one, margins, that group consistently sat the primary election day out. Probably playing video games. This phenomenon alongside Hillary Clinton's dominance among 30-and-older black voters and the controversial "super-delegates" were a one-two-three combination that gave her "the high ground" through the Democratic primaries. @Hit-Girl; Hello *MrMister*_


----------



## deepelemblues

DesolationRow said:


> Probably the single most devastating problem for Bernie Sanders will be the unwillingness of younger voters to actually turn out and vote for him. Sanders wins polls concerning "popularity of politicians" routinely as this thread is reminded rather regularly, but young voters are notorious. Will always remember being just eligible to vote in 2004 and late on election night hearing countless pundits furiously criticizing the allegedly hopeless generation to which this poster belongs for not showing up to give John Kerry his much-deserved victory because his endeavors to maintain the neoliberal globalist _status quo_ George H.W. Bush described as a "new world order" (Bush must have known he was quoting Adolf Hitler, ha) would be be adorned with happy faces. Though to be fair, Kerry for all of his poor instincts was probably not so deranged as George W. Bush, whose rhetoric and actions were more out of the playbook of Robespierre and Bertrand Berère had they at their disposal the most powerful government in the history of the world. For as the dangerously ill-informed Bush stated in his is Second Inaugural address, "_t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." And as the Reign of Terror French revolutionaries ultimately implemented policies of de-Christianization in France to liberate mankind, so too did the purported Christian help to ultimately de-Christianize whole swaths of the Middle East, among other horrors.
> 
> Back to Sanders. Hugely popular among young voters, in the New Hampshire primary in 2016 those born in the before February 1986 ran toward him at a six-to-one ratio. In New Hampshire those under 30 years of age voted for Sanders over Hillary Clinton, five-to-one. The problem arises for Sanders elsewhere, as young voters showed up only anemically to vote in Iowa and Nevada. Compared to New Hampshire, where voters under 30 voted along the proportional lines one could forecast given their share of the population--which, in that New England state, is considerably smaller than states such as Iowa--elsewhere they mostly failed to do so. This was a terrible blow to Sanders's campaign, for while almost everywhere Sanders "had" young voters by four-to-one, five-to-one, six-to-one, seven-to-one, margins, that group consistently sat the primary election day out. Probably playing video games. This phenomenon alongside Hillary Clinton's dominance among 30-and-older black voters and the controversial "super-delegates" were a one-two-three combination that gave her "the high ground" through the Democratic primaries. @Hit-Girl; Hello *MrMister*_


_

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...j-poll-2020-race-will-be-uphill-trump-n978331

Only 3 categories don't get to 50%

Muslim president (barely) (49%)

President over 75 (37%)

Socialist president (25%)

I only point out this poll and, once again, Bernie Sanders getting 3.7 million fewer votes in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, and the likelihood that senior Democrats in Congress leaked the story of Miss Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff running what looks like a slush fund using $1 million in campaign money, and Kamala Harris being signaled as the 'inevitable' nominee by every left-wing opinion-signaler that matters (aka the New York Times and similar institutions), and the absolute mess that is the Democrat Party trolldog) in Virginia, to highlight that 2020 is, in important respects somehow shaping up to be a re-run of 2016. 

A less-united-than-you'd-be-led-to-believe Democrat Party trolldog) fighting a cultural war against the GOP in an election over what "America" is, with a fundamental misunderstanding of the strength of its position. We saw 2016 be the election where the general belief in "the emerging 'Democrat' trolldog) majority" posited by Teixiera and Judis cause severe hubris and consequent strategic mistakes by the Clinton campaign that lost an election they 'should have' won. Today we see a Democratic Party once again trending toward making a huge cultural bet, that it can sell "socialism" (whatever that means, this malleability being both the biggest political strength and weakness of "socialism"), while the Old Guard like Dianne Feinstein desperately - and hilariously - adopts the motto of the National Review (when it was still a conservative magazine): standing athwart history, yelling "Stop!" But not too loudly, because that would lose all the young "socialists" who aren't going to vote anyway but whose idols are media darlings. 

You said recently that it would not surprise you if :trump lost in overwhelming fashion. It would not surprise me if :trump flipped Virginia while losing 2/3 of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, once again shocking the world. He could lose all 3 and win Virginia, the other states remaining as they did in 2016, and win the presidency once more... with 271 electoral votes. The bare minimum. Or 273, if there are not 2 faithless electors in Texas this time around. 

It would also be totally unsurprising to see him brutally breezing to victory against a disunited, disjointed foe that can't get out of its own way. The embarrassment of the Democrat trolldog) House going on an endless, fruitless witch hunt against the president - essentially saying they don't care what the Mueller report is going to say now that all signs point it to saying nothing much, after two years of vociferously building Mueller up, because it's full steam ahead to GET :trump period - will be used by the president at every campaign stop in Deplorableville as Exhibit 1 of the uncontrollable rage and hatred the Democrat trolldog) Party has for 'those who want to MAGA,' to great effect. 

I look at 2020 and I see the president ruthlessly slandering and caricaturing his opponent - as he did in 2016 - enough to win, as long as the economy is not in free-fall. The likelihood of a recession in 2019 or 2020 seems rather low. Wait for the 2024 election socialists, the Chinese bubble may pop by then (ironically, this popping being aided by the economically, diplomatically and militarily confrontational policies of :trump) and when it does we're all in a heap of economic trouble. 

As to your characterization of George W. Bush, I must disagree and highly recommend to you the recent history of Christians in Kazakhstan, where the Obama Administration essentially abandoned them to the tender mercies of the Kazakh government, which had been restraining anti-Christian pogroms and discrimination thanks to the pressure of the Bush Administration. We see in country after country that it was simultaneously the policies of Bush which incompetently metastasized rather than excised Islamic radicalism and the policies of Bush that caused the governments of those countries to protect Christians, and the subsequent failure of the Obama Administration to make protecting Christian minorities a policy priority. 

What can be said is that Bush created the floodwaters but built and manned a dike to keep them back. Obama abandoned the dike and the deluge broke through shortly thereafter. The simple truth is that George W. Bush, with few exceptions, populated the higher levels of his administration with cronies of his father who had never done anything but ride Reagan's coattails. We saw the Peter Principle writ large from 2001-2009. Followed by an Administration from 2009-2017 filled with fart-sniffers direct from the South Park episode "Smug Alert!" Followed by... a man who makes faces like this on national television all the time :Trump_


----------



## Arya Dark

*As it stands right now I'm voting for Tulsi*


----------



## Reaper

If u needed more proof that Kamala is the anointed one then just look at the news. Hillary announced early she's not running.

Dems have no need to split the vote. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Booker drops out. He's polling worse than Kamala.


----------



## Miss Sally

Hit-Girl said:


> *As it stands right now I'm voting for Tulsi*


You should really check out Yang. His policies are actually pretty smart and he has an even hand on a lot of things. If he doesn't go anywhere will vote for Tulsi.


----------



## deepelemblues

Miss Sally said:


> You should really check out Yang. His policies are actually pretty smart and he has an even hand on a lot of things. If he doesn't go anywhere will vote for Tulsi.


Adding another $250 billion to the federal government's "balance" sheet every month on a single item is really even and actually pretty smart :eyeroll 

That's three trillion dollars a year in case anyone still cares

The definition of what is "smart" has really been dumbed down :draper2

Let's just have a budget of 20 trillion a year I mean who gives a fuck obviously. 3 trillion a year on "universal basic income," 4-5 trillion a year on socialist healthcare, 1-2 trillion a year on social security, 1-2 trillion a year on debt interest payments, .5-1 trillion a year on the military, 5 trillion a year on saving da earf from globul warmens, another 2 trillion on all the other shit the gubbmint does, vote Yang or Tulsi or whatever dipshit who thankfully won't come within 50 million votes of winning you want because numbers are meaningless. 2 + 2 = who gives a shit! :woo



> In a New York Times article featuring his 2020 Presidential campaign, he is noted as proposing various new policies such as a department focused on regulating the addictive nature of media


fpalm

This is America


----------



## Draykorinee

> New satellite images of North Korea suggest it is restoring a rocket launch site it had pledged to dismantle, say analysts.


One thing you can always trust in is not to trust North Korea. No noble peace prize yet.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/432871-trump-nixes-public-report-on-drone-strike-deaths



> *Trump nixes public report on drone-strike deaths*
> 
> President Trump on Wednesday ended an Obama-era requirement that the U.S. government publish an annual report on the number of people killed in drone strikes or other counterterrorism operations outside of war zones.
> 
> Trump issued an executive order revoking the requirement, capping months of speculation that he would revoke the disclosure rule.
> 
> The order says the director of national intelligence must no longer issue “an unclassified summary of the number of strikes undertaken by the United States government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities, as well as assessments of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from those strikes, among other information.”
> 
> The White House last year chose not to publish the unclassified report detailing the number of strikes carried out against terrorist targets and the number of combatants and civilians killed. The administration was facing a May 1 deadline to issue the next report.
> 
> Former President Obama mandated the public report in a July 2016 executive order following years of criticism that his administration’s use of drone strikes against terror groups in countries such as Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen was not transparent.
> 
> “This action eliminates superfluous reporting requirements, requirements that do not improve government transparency, but rather distract our intelligence professionals from their primary mission,” a National Security Council (NSC) spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday.
> 
> Officials pointed to a major defense law passed by Congress last year that requires the administration to submit a civilian casualty report to lawmakers. That measure, however, allows the Defense secretary to classify the report if he decides that its publication would pose a national security threat.
> 
> The provision applies to military operations and does not cover drone strikes carried out by the CIA, which oftentimes carries out strikes in areas where U.S. forces are not present.
> 
> Former Obama administration officials criticized Trump’s decision, which they said will deprive the public of the ability to hold the government accountable for civilian deaths.
> 
> “This requirement was about more than transparency,” Ned Price, an NSC spokesman under Obama, wrote on Twitter. “It allowed, for the first time, the US to counter disinformation from terrorist groups with facts about the effectiveness and precision of our operations. It was an important tool that we're again without.”
> 
> Daphne Eviatar, an official with Amnesty International USA, blasted Trump’s decision as “unconscionable” and a “complete disregard of fundamental human rights.”
> 
> “This is a shameful decision that will shroud this administration’s actions in even more secrecy with little accountability for its victims,” she said.
> 
> The use of drones in targeted anti-terror operations began under former President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and was dramatically expanded by Obama, who viewed it as a way to fight extremists without a large-scale U.S. troop presence overseas.
> 
> But Obama drew criticism from human-rights groups and others over the hundreds of civilians who were killed in the strikes, as well as the 2011 killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was allegedly working with al-Qaeda in Yemen.
> 
> Obama adopted a number of reforms to the program during his second term, including the casualty reporting requirement.
> 
> After Trump took office, he expanded the use of drone strikes across the Middle East and in places like West Africa. The Trump administration expanded CIA’s drone mission in Niger and Libya after Obama had limited the agency’s involvement in lethal strikes, The New York Times reported in September.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/432871-trump-nixes-public-report-on-drone-strike-deaths


Was just going to post this.

Trump showing what a Warhawk he is so he can hide all the innocent people he kills.

Also he needed to make himself feel better so he had to undo another Obama rule.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/432871-trump-nixes-public-report-on-drone-strike-deaths





birthday_massacre said:


> Was just going to post this.
> 
> Trump showing what a Warhawk he is so he can hide all the innocent people he kills.
> 
> Also he needed to make himself feel better so he had to undo another Obama rule.


I am against this move, I think stepping away from openness can not lead to any positive outcome.

However, from a purely objective and political point of view I can see the logic behind it. The initial requirement was pretty ineffectual, clearly both Trump and indeed Obama (despite the fact he introduced it) were not held accountable by the requirement, and there has been little backlash for the number of drone attacks/deaths under either administration, despite the fact they were pretty high. On the other hand, any person now claiming that Trump is a warhawk may now struggle to back that up without the available statistics, especially as operations in Afghanistan and Syria are wound down and further efforts are put towards lowering tensions on the Korean peninsula. So as I say, I don't like it, but I do see the logic in it.

On a separate, non-political note, I nearly fell off my chair before wen I saw a positive article about Trump from the BBC on my Facebook feed! It's actually quite nice, so I thought it was worth sharing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47461006



> Trump calls dying man to fulfil final wish
> 
> A terminally ill man in Connecticut has received his dying wish of speaking to US President Donald Trump in a surprise phone call.
> 
> The call to Jay Barrett, who has cystic fibrosis and was recently moved to home hospice care, was arranged by his big sister - a local Democratic lawmaker.
> 
> "You're my kind of man, Jay," Mr Trump said in the call. "You keep that fight going. We both fight," he said.
> 
> The president's son, Eric, has also promised to send him a special gift.
> 
> The call was first reported by the New Haven Register in Connecticut, which has been reporting on the bipartisan effort to connect him to the White House.
> 
> "My brother is very conservative, but politics aside, I think in a family, religion and politics are off the table," said his sister, First District City Councilwoman Bridgette Hoskie, who assured the newspaper that she is "100% Democrat".
> 
> Mr Trump began the call by telling the 44-year-old patient he had just seen a picture of him and he looked "handsome".
> 
> Mr Barrett laughed off the "kind honours" before using an expletive to describe his opinion of his own appearance.
> 
> The president told him: "You're a champ. You're fighting it, right?"
> 
> "That's what the Irish do, right?" Mr Barrett replied.
> 
> "Yeah that's what the Irish do - you better believe it," the president said, adding that he wished Mr Barrett could come to a rally and complimenting his "great" sister.
> 
> "I plan on coming down to DC before my expiration date," Mr Barrett told Mr Trump.
> 
> Mr Barrett said he is an independent voter who helped elect Barack Obama in 2008, but did not support him in 2012 because of his opposition to the former Democratic president's healthcare policy, the New Haven Register reported.
> 
> He told the newspaper he fell in love with Mr Trump's campaign immediately after its launch, and believed that Democrats are always reflexively trying to counter anything he says - right or wrong.
> 
> "If Trump came out and said, 'Oxygen is good,' they'd come out and say it's bad," Mr Barrett said.
> 
> Doctors say Mr Barrett has just six months to live but he is hoping to still be around in 2020.
> 
> "I told him, 'I plan on voting for you in 2020, God permitting,'" Mr Barrett told the Register.
> 
> But some dying Americans are hanging on in hopes of another outcome for Mr Trump.
> 
> On Tuesday, NPR reported on two different World War Two veterans who have said in their final moments they wanted to see the outcome of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia before they die.
> 
> "I was hoping to live to see the outcome of what I think it should be - justice. I'll be surprised and disappointed if it isn't," said 94-year-old Richard Armstrong.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump hiding how he's escalated the bombing of civilians alongside the terrorists, not surprised.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> I am against this move, I think stepping away from openness can not lead to any positive outcome.
> 
> However, from a purely objective and political point of view I can see the logic behind it. The initial requirement was pretty ineffectual, clearly both Trump and indeed Obama (despite the fact he introduced it) were not held accountable by the requirement, and there has been little backlash for the number of drone attacks/deaths under either administration, despite the fact they were pretty high. On the other hand, any person now claiming that Trump is a warhawk may now struggle to back that up without the available statistics, especially as operations in Afghanistan and Syria are wound down and further efforts are put towards lowering tensions on the Korean peninsula. So as I say, I don't like it, but I do see the logic in it.


You can easily show how Trump is a Warhawk by just using his first two years in office numbers. And him hiding how many civilians he is now killing would back that up even stronger. 

Also even if Trump and Obama are not held accountable for the number of civilians killed, at least that number was being reported. Now Trump still won't be held accountable and he will be hiding the number of civilians he is killing


----------



## Kabraxal

Draykorinee said:


> Trump hiding how he's escalated the bombing of civilians alongside the terrorists, not surprised.


It seems bombing people is just the presidential thing to do.... we’ll never get a president that will truly fight against the war machine..........


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Michael Cohen Sues Trump Organization for Allegedly Not Paying His Legal Fees*



> Michael Cohen filed a lawsuit against the Trump Organization in New York court Thursday, claiming that the president’s namesake business failed to pay him millions in owed legal fees. The lawsuit claims that since the summer of 2017, Cohen and the Trump Organization have had an indemnification agreement, meaning that the organization would be required to pay “attorney’s fees and costs incurred” by Cohen as a result of his work for the company. For about a year, the lawsuit claimed, the Trump Organization followed through on this promise, dutifully paying Cohen’s legal fees as he waded through the Stormy Daniels lawsuit and the early stages of the Mueller investigation. But when Trump and Cohen’s relationship soured the following summer, the company allegedly stopped paying Cohen’s legal fees “without notice or justification.” As a result, Cohen has incurred ever-growing legal fees as he continues to appear in a litany of cases. As of Jan. 25, 2019, the suit claims, the Trump Organization owes Cohen approximately $1.9 million.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-cohen-sues-trump-organization-bloomberg

trump is going to have to pay the guy who's been ratting him out :mj4 :mj4 :mj4


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> You can easily show how Trump is a Warhawk by just using his first two years in office numbers. And him hiding how many civilians he is now killing would back that up even stronger.
> 
> Also even if Trump and Obama are not held accountable for the number of civilians killed, at least that number was being reported. Now Trump still won't be held accountable and he will be hiding the number of civilians he is killing


I would say that having the stats is always more persuasive. 

You're exactly right though on your second point, which is why I am very much against this move; openness is always preferable.


----------



## DOPA

Kabraxal said:


> It seems bombing people is just the presidential thing to do.... we’ll never get a president that will truly fight against the war machine..........


Don't forget that CNN and MSNBC called him presidential for bombing the fuck out of Syria in response to a likely staged gas attack that was blamed on Assad.

Fucking MSM...


----------



## red dead2

Kabraxal said:


> It seems bombing people is just the presidential thing to do.... we’ll never get a president that will truly fight against the war machine..........


There will NEVER be an anti-war president

As much as I dislike Trump, war has been a projection of political power throughout history. Peace is made through war. 

If USA does not intervene in middle east and Europe you have bad things happening - look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and ISIL forming this happened during a period when America did not have the stomach for maintaing large numbers of combat troops and air sorties. 

Sadly there are rival nations, groups and madman who will always seek to benefit from a more isolationist America and thus essentially create a bigger problem for the west down the line. I understand that the US cannot be the Worlds policeman but it really is a catch 22 situation.


----------



## Draykorinee

red dead2 said:


> If USA does not intervene in middle east and Europe you have bad things happening -


:JLC2


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Would like to point out that Jimmy Carter was as close as we're ever going to get to an anti-war president and he has been lambasted for it for nearly 40 years. Not that that was the only reason, but it was a big part of it.


----------



## Strike Force

red dead2 said:


> There will NEVER be an anti-war president


WAT


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

red dead2 said:


> There will NEVER be an anti-war president
> 
> As much as I dislike Trump, war has been a projection of political power throughout history. Peace is made through war.
> 
> If USA does not intervene in middle east and Europe you have bad things happening - look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and ISIL forming this happened during a period when America did not have the stomach for maintaing large numbers of combat troops and air sorties.
> 
> Sadly there are rival nations, groups and madman who will always seek to benefit from a more isolationist America and thus essentially create a bigger problem for the west down the line. I understand that the US cannot be the Worlds policeman but it really is a catch 22 situation.


haven't seen anyone provide a counterargument to this post.


----------



## CamillePunk

The US didn't intervene in the Middle East for nearly two centuries and had zero issues. Meanwhile 9/11 was a direct result of US intervention in the Middle East. Citing ISIS's rise as a reason to be more interventionist is hilariously absurd given the vacuum they filled was created by the US invasion of Iraq in the first place. It's also only taken this long for ISIS to be defeated because the US was dicking around with arming ISIS-adjacent terrorists who were fighting the people fighting ISIS. Typical "If we didn't give you this crutch for that leg of yours that we broke, you wouldn't be getting around so well" nonsense that people always use to defend retarded government policies, from both sides of the aisle. 

Next bullshit pro-Imperial argument pls. Happy to knock them all down. The facts are so overwhelmingly on the side of non-intervention it's no bother really.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> The US didn't intervene in the Middle East for nearly two centuries and had zero issues. Meanwhile 9/11 was a direct result of US intervention in the Middle East. Citing ISIS's rise as a reason to be more interventionist is hilariously absurd given the vacuum they filled was created by the US invasion of Iraq in the first place. It's also only taken this long for ISIS to be defeated because the US was dicking around with arming ISIS-adjacent terrorists who were fighting the people fighting ISIS. Typical "If we didn't give you this crutch for that leg of yours that we broke, you wouldn't be getting around so well" nonsense that people always use to defend retarded government policies, from both sides of the aisle.
> 
> Next bullshit pro-Imperial argument pls. Happy to knock them all down. The facts are so overwhelmingly on the side of non-intervention it's no bother really.


Barbary Pirates don't like being so disrespected by you


----------



## Strike Force

Berzerker's Beard said:


> haven't seen anyone provide a counterargument to this post.





Strike Force said:


> WAT


Already did. Carter.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105468569800839169

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105471621672960000


----------



## yeahbaby!

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105468569800839169
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105471621672960000


Oh my fucking god what is he on.

Speaking of which:


----------



## 2 Ton 21

yeahbaby! said:


> Oh my fucking god what is he on.
> 
> Speaking of which:


He was autographing Bibles? That's... odd. You'd think religious people would be upset about that, holy book and all.


----------



## JasonLives

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105468569800839169
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105471621672960000


Wasent this in contrast to the Boeing crashes?
His point seems to be that airplanes are getting too computerized and complicated to fly, that if something does go wrong a pilot/physical person has limited chance to recover it. Just because its getting harder to understand them, unless you are a "computer scientist from MIT". 
In case of the Boeing crash the cause might be that the system wants the plane to go down no matter how much a pilot tries to gain altitude again. 
Dont know which information Trump has regarding the crashes.

Trumps delivery might not have been the best, but I do get the point.


----------



## deepelemblues

JasonLives said:


> Wasent this in contrast to the Boeing crashes?
> His point seems to be that airplanes are getting too computerized and complicated to fly, that if something does go wrong a pilot/physical person has limited chance to recover it. Just because its getting harder to understand them, unless you are a "computer scientist from MIT".
> In case of the Boeing crash the cause might be that the system wants the plane to go down no matter how much a pilot tries to gain altitude again.
> Dont know which information Trump has regarding the crashes.
> 
> Trumps delivery might not have been the best, but I do get the point.


Yeah basically. A lot of these crashes seem to involve the pilots and the automated systems being at odds at critical moments, or cascading problems of the automated systems that overwhelm the pilots.


----------



## Draykorinee

JasonLives said:


> Wasent this in contrast to the Boeing crashes?
> His point seems to be that airplanes are getting too computerized and complicated to fly, that if something does go wrong a pilot/physical person has limited chance to recover it. Just because its getting harder to understand them, unless you are a "computer scientist from MIT".
> In case of the Boeing crash the cause might be that the system wants the plane to go down no matter how much a pilot tries to gain altitude again.
> Dont know which information Trump has regarding the crashes.
> 
> Trumps delivery might not have been the best, but I do get the point.


The number of crashes have reduced from 11 for every million take offs to 1. How does anyone take objective facts and then go 'computers hard, plane crash'. Its asinine and stupid.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Him tweeting out shit like this really makes him look bad. 

I mean, I agree with grounding the 737 8 max planes right now given the crashes and the fact that they happened for similar reasoning allegedly. I think technological advancement is always great, and has definitely made transportation as a whole safer, but there should always be a human element to it, where automation can be overridden by humans if necessary. If the reports are correct, to have pilots themselves being overridden by the automated system on a plane, and then actually leading to tragic, fatal crashes, is something extremely troubling and which should be addressed by Boeing. 



> Marc Garneau, Canada’s transport minister, said on Wednesday that the satellite-tracking data revealed “vertical variations” in the Ethiopian Airlines flight reminiscent of those seen before the crash of the Lion Air Boeing 737 Max in Indonesia in October.
> 
> The investigation of the Ethiopian crash is still in its early stages, and the full data cited by the authorities has not been publicly released. Many experts cautioned that any conclusions are far from certain and don’t rule out other possibilities, such as pilot error or another malfunctioning system.
> 
> But aviation experts who reviewed the patterns in publicly available data said it suggests that the newly installed automated system known as M.C.A.S. may have been activated on the Ethiopian flight and could have contributed to the crash.


Excerpt from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/13/world/boeing-737-crash-investigation.html


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> The number of crashes have reduced from 11 for every million take offs to 1. How does anyone take objective facts and then go 'computers hard, plane crash'. Its asinine and stupid.


That's exactly what pilots said after the Indonesian crash though, there was new software that they hadn't been made aware of and hadn't got any training for. Pilots were really pissed at Boeing. The new MCAS anti-stall system which is believed to have caused both crashes wasn't mentioned in manuals or anywhere, pilots were led to believe that the new system worked the same way as the old one, where the pilots could cut out the system and cancel the automated dive by pulling back on the stick. New system, you have to hit a separate switch. Pulling back on the stick alone only gives the pilot 5 seconds of control before the MCAS forces the plane into a dive again

The reduction in crashes doesn't preclude crashes happening because computers hard, what an ignorantly silly thing to say :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...tutional-attorneys-general-column/3153552002/



> State attorneys general: Donald Trump's national emergency declaration is constitutional
> 
> In declaring a state of emergency, President Trump is using pre-existing statutory authority to address a legitimate crisis, say attorneys general from Texas, Indiana and Louisiana.
> 
> President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration is a proper use of executive power to protect our country’s borders and keep Americans safe. Unfortunately, the crisis at the southern border is one that only the federal government may truly solve. With no solutions coming from Congress, the president is faithfully executing the duties of his office by invoking a law Congress already passed: the National Emergencies Act (NEA).
> 
> In declaring a state of emergency pursuant to the NEA, President Trump is using pre-existing statutory authority to address a legitimate crisis created by lawless conduct at and beyond our southern border. This emergency declaration is not a case of the president relieving himself of restrictions under the law. To the contrary, our president is protecting our country’s borders through means contemplated by Congress and used many times by past presidents for matters less directly threatening than those present on the southern border.
> 
> The NEA gives the president broad authority. In fact, Congress did not define “national emergency” in the NEA, leaving it entirely at the president’s discretion to determine what constitutes such an emergency. But any president who makes such a declaration must tell Congress the statutory authority upon which he is relying, as President Trump has done here. The president’s action is neither new nor extraordinary.
> 
> The NEA has been used by every president since its adoption in 1976 and has been invoked more than 50 times. Past administrations issued emergency declarations on a wide variety of issues with less direct impact on the safety and security of Americans — including the sale of blood diamonds (Clinton) and misconduct by multiple foreign governments like Burundi (Obama), South Sudan (Clinton, Obama), Venezuela (Obama) and North Korea (Bush).
> 
> Many of these declarations have renewed annually for years or decades. The emergency declaration in response to the Iranian hostage crisis, for example, has been renewed each year since it was declared in 1979. (The hostages were released in 1981.)
> 
> Everyone knows there is a massive problem with illegal immigration and international organized crime operating on our borders. Congress has been talking about the crisis at the southern border for decades. Up until recently, border security was a bipartisan issue. In 2005, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — a Democrat who served in President Bill Clinton’s Cabinet — declared a state of emergency at his state’s southern border. In announcing the state of emergency, Richardson criticized the “total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government and Congress” in helping protect his state’s residents along the border. In describing the crisis, the 2005 declaration stated New Mexico has been “devastated by the ravages and terror of human smuggling, drug smuggling, kidnapping, murder, destruction of property and the death of livestock.”
> 
> Obama unlawfully used executive power
> As state attorneys general, we are the chief legal officers of our states, with the duty to defend our sovereigns from federal overreach. We have been quick to challenge executive actions that exceed the president’s lawful authority.
> 
> President Trump’s emergency declaration to address the crisis at the southern border is much different than the kinds of executive action we challenged in the past. Unlike President Barack Obama, who unlawfully used executive power to create new laws or rewrite laws Congress enacted, President Trump is lawfully using executive power to address a crisis worsened by congressional inaction. That is a stark difference but not the only one: This use of executive action is part of the core duties of the president — to protect the borders of our country. In doing so, he properly invoked power that Congress expressly granted him to deal with a national crisis.
> 
> Astonishingly, multiple meritless complaints have been filed against the president’s emergency declaration. This is the first time ever in the history of the NEA that the president has faced a court challenge. In four decades and more than 50 emergency declarations, only now has anyone challenged the president’s determination that an emergency exists.
> 
> The facts support Trump — Congress should, too
> The funding sources proposed by the president are also proper. Out of the $8 billion needed to address the crisis on the southern border, $4.5 billion does not depend on any declaration of a national emergency: $1.375 billion has already been appropriated by Congress, $600 million comes from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture fund and $2.5 billion stems from the Pentagon’s drug interdiction program fund, which specifically contemplates building a barrier that prevents drugs from crossing a border.
> 
> It is only the $3.6 billion from the Pentagon’s military construction project budget that requires a national emergency declaration. Even then, the only funds that can be used are funds that have been appropriated but not otherwise obligated. Therefore, any argument that any particular state would otherwise have gotten some of these funds for military construction projects in their states is entirely speculative.
> 
> The facts matter — these facts show the president has acted lawfully and within the scope of discretion Congress and the people vested in him. Congress should support President Trump.


They're right, like I've been saying for more than a month now. :draper2 There should be nothing controversial about this at all of course, but we have the Democrats who are automatically anti-Trump (in all matters except expanding the Empire) and depend on unfettered immigration as part of their political strategy, plus some feckless Republicans who are either uninformed, cowardly, or bought by special interests who want cheap labor. Thankfully not enough of them to prevent President Trump from veto'ing Congress' attempt to overreach their powers (what a change, Congress trying to restrain the executive branch, too bad the one time they try to do it they're completely in the wrong).


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...tutional-attorneys-general-column/3153552002/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State attorneys general: Donald Trump's national emergency declaration is constitutional
> 
> In declaring a state of emergency, President Trump is using pre-existing statutory authority to address a legitimate crisis, say attorneys general from Texas, Indiana and Louisiana.
> 
> President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration is a proper use of executive power to protect our country’s borders and keep Americans safe. Unfortunately, the crisis at the southern border is one that only the federal government may truly solve. With no solutions coming from Congress, the president is faithfully executing the duties of his office by invoking a law Congress already passed: the National Emergencies Act (NEA).
> 
> In declaring a state of emergency pursuant to the NEA, President Trump is using pre-existing statutory authority to address a legitimate crisis created by lawless conduct at and beyond our southern border. This emergency declaration is not a case of the president relieving himself of restrictions under the law. To the contrary, our president is protecting our country’s borders through means contemplated by Congress and used many times by past presidents for matters less directly threatening than those present on the southern border.
> 
> The NEA gives the president broad authority. In fact, Congress did not define “national emergency” in the NEA, leaving it entirely at the president’s discretion to determine what constitutes such an emergency. But any president who makes such a declaration must tell Congress the statutory authority upon which he is relying, as President Trump has done here. The president’s action is neither new nor extraordinary.
> 
> The NEA has been used by every president since its adoption in 1976 and has been invoked more than 50 times. Past administrations issued emergency declarations on a wide variety of issues with less direct impact on the safety and security of Americans — including the sale of blood diamonds (Clinton) and misconduct by multiple foreign governments like Burundi (Obama), South Sudan (Clinton, Obama), Venezuela (Obama) and North Korea (Bush).
> 
> Many of these declarations have renewed annually for years or decades. The emergency declaration in response to the Iranian hostage crisis, for example, has been renewed each year since it was declared in 1979. (The hostages were released in 1981.)
> 
> Everyone knows there is a massive problem with illegal immigration and international organized crime operating on our borders. Congress has been talking about the crisis at the southern border for decades. Up until recently, border security was a bipartisan issue. In 2005, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — a Democrat who served in President Bill Clinton’s Cabinet — declared a state of emergency at his state’s southern border. In announcing the state of emergency, Richardson criticized the “total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government and Congress” in helping protect his state’s residents along the border. In describing the crisis, the 2005 declaration stated New Mexico has been “devastated by the ravages and terror of human smuggling, drug smuggling, kidnapping, murder, destruction of property and the death of livestock.”
> 
> Obama unlawfully used executive power
> As state attorneys general, we are the chief legal officers of our states, with the duty to defend our sovereigns from federal overreach. We have been quick to challenge executive actions that exceed the president’s lawful authority.
> 
> President Trump’s emergency declaration to address the crisis at the southern border is much different than the kinds of executive action we challenged in the past. Unlike President Barack Obama, who unlawfully used executive power to create new laws or rewrite laws Congress enacted, President Trump is lawfully using executive power to address a crisis worsened by congressional inaction. That is a stark difference but not the only one: This use of executive action is part of the core duties of the president — to protect the borders of our country. In doing so, he properly invoked power that Congress expressly granted him to deal with a national crisis.
> 
> Astonishingly, multiple meritless complaints have been filed against the president’s emergency declaration. This is the first time ever in the history of the NEA that the president has faced a court challenge. In four decades and more than 50 emergency declarations, only now has anyone challenged the president’s determination that an emergency exists.
> 
> The facts support Trump — Congress should, too
> The funding sources proposed by the president are also proper. Out of the $8 billion needed to address the crisis on the southern border, $4.5 billion does not depend on any declaration of a national emergency: $1.375 billion has already been appropriated by Congress, $600 million comes from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture fund and $2.5 billion stems from the Pentagon’s drug interdiction program fund, which specifically contemplates building a barrier that prevents drugs from crossing a border.
> 
> It is only the $3.6 billion from the Pentagon’s military construction project budget that requires a national emergency declaration. Even then, the only funds that can be used are funds that have been appropriated but not otherwise obligated. Therefore, any argument that any particular state would otherwise have gotten some of these funds for military construction projects in their states is entirely speculative.
> 
> The facts matter — these facts show the president has acted lawfully and within the scope of discretion Congress and the people vested in him. Congress should support President Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> They're right, like I've been saying for more than a month now. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/7KU7Fqx.png" border="0" alt="" title="Draper" class="inlineimg" /> There should be nothing controversial about this at all of course, but we have the Democrats who are automatically anti-Trump (in all matters except expanding the Empire) and depend on unfettered immigration as part of their political strategy, plus some feckless Republicans who are either uninformed, cowardly, or bought by special interests who want cheap labor. Thankfully not enough of them to prevent President Trump from veto'ing Congress' attempt to overreach their powers (what a change, Congress trying to restrain the executive branch, too bad the one time they try to do it they're completely in the wrong).
Click to expand...

Ken Paxton is attorney general of Texas and chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association. Curtis Hill is attorney general of Indiana and vice chairman of RAGA. Jeff Landry is attorney general of Louisiana and president of the National Association of Attorneys General. 

You missed off the bias of the link though. 

Either way, Congress does not support him and they voted against him. Now it's up to him to veto and bypass them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Dr. Middy said:


> Him tweeting out shit like this really makes him look bad.
> 
> I mean, I agree with grounding the 737 8 max planes right now given the crashes and the fact that they happened for similar reasoning allegedly. I think technological advancement is always great, and has definitely made transportation as a whole safer, but there should always be a human element to it, where automation can be overridden by humans if necessary. If the reports are correct, to have pilots themselves being overridden by the automated system on a plane, and then actually leading to tragic, fatal crashes, is something extremely troubling and which should be addressed by Boeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/13/world/boeing-737-crash-investigation.html


Trump has been tweeting out dumb shit like this for two years. Are you just picking up on the stupid shit he says now LOL

I and a few others have been pointing this out all the time. I just stopped because there were too many of them and his supporters on this forum just pretend he is playing 48D chess because they can't defend how stupid Trump is


----------



## Draykorinee

Looks like Trump has got his wall started, weird system America has where one person can veto all the other elected officials, but whatever floats your boat.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> Looks like Trump has got his wall started, weird system America has where one person can veto all the other elected officials, but whatever floats your boat.


Especially when it involves said person


----------



## JasonLives

Draykorinee said:


> Looks like Trump has got his wall started, weird system America has where one person can veto all the other elected officials, but whatever floats your boat.


Dont think its that weird. A president should have some kind of power above the rest. Otherwise, why have a president?
Considering the amount of vetos the earlier presidents have cast then what Trump is doing is nothing.


----------



## BruiserKC

red dead2 said:


> There will NEVER be an anti-war president
> 
> As much as I dislike Trump, war has been a projection of political power throughout history. Peace is made through war.
> 
> If USA does not intervene in middle east and Europe you have bad things happening - look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and ISIL forming this happened during a period when America did not have the stomach for maintaing large numbers of combat troops and air sorties.
> 
> Sadly there are rival nations, groups and madman who will always seek to benefit from a more isolationist America and thus essentially create a bigger problem for the west down the line. I understand that the US cannot be the Worlds policeman but it really is a catch 22 situation.





Berzerker's Beard said:


> haven't seen anyone provide a counterargument to this post.


The term anti-war is rather misleading...many people realize that unfortunately war is necessary. It should be a last resort but at times it is sadly needed. I think the term should be there will never (and should never) be a pacifist president. I just can't have us jump through so many hoops that we would never retaliate no matter what if it's just. 

And unfortunately the world right now is a dangerous place. I would love nothing more then to have us stay in our corner of the sandbox and let everyone else figure stuff out. However, if we want the world to eventually be a more peaceful place we have to have a seat at the table. Otherwise, folks like Russia, China, Iran, etc...are more then willing to fill the vacuum we leave behind. We might not like the end result. 




CamillePunk said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...tutional-attorneys-general-column/3153552002/
> 
> They're right, like I've been saying for more than a month now. :draper2 There should be nothing controversial about this at all of course, but we have the Democrats who are automatically anti-Trump (in all matters except expanding the Empire) and depend on unfettered immigration as part of their political strategy, plus some feckless Republicans who are either uninformed, cowardly, or bought by special interests who want cheap labor. Thankfully not enough of them to prevent President Trump from veto'ing Congress' attempt to overreach their powers (what a change, Congress trying to restrain the executive branch, too bad the one time they try to do it they're completely in the wrong).


This is EXACTLY the one time they need to do it and they are completely right. We've been heading down this path for many years, I thought the culmination would have been Obama's illegal EO on the Dreamers. But all I hear is "Obama did it, so can we!" If that's the argument, then it's a poor one if what he did was wrong. Senator Lee had the right idea with his bill that would have put the kibosh on these national emergencies unless they truly are moving forward. So, we just opened up a Pandora's box where the next Democratic President can declare a national emergency on gun control and have the authority to start taking guns. You say that is a ridiculous concept...maybe so but that is where we're going. And when that day comes and one screams "government overreach!"...we will look at this day and have nothing to say. 

And if Trump could have gotten the money that was seized without having to declare the emergency, he could have just signed the bill, taken his $1.6 billion Congress gave him, took the confiscated cash, and been good. If he didn't like the bill, he should have vetoed THAT one...and put Congress on blast. Dare them to override the veto. 

Of course...there's another option...how about on day one start working with Congress to get your agenda pushed? Talk to the movers and shakers in Congress...get companies to line up bids for wall building...sit down with them over Chik-Fil-A and McDonald's. Go on television, make your case to the American people. He had two years to do this, especially with the power of the purse at his fingertips. Instead, he decided it was more fun to talk about the wall rather then actually do it. Suddenly, his broken promises catch up to him with losing the House. Now he decides to get serious about it and try to fool everyone into thinking he was.


----------



## Dr. Middy

For once I can actually can be really happy with something Trump did, even if all he did was sign it. Still, a win for environmentalists, which we don't get a lot of right now given how this administration didn't see to care about it much.



> *Trump signs major public lands, conservation bill into law
> *
> WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump signed a wide-ranging public lands bill Tuesday that creates five new national monuments and expands several national parks.
> 
> The new law also adds 1.3 million acres of new wilderness and permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which supports conservation and outdoor recreation projects nationwide. It’s the largest public lands bill Congress has considered in a decade, and it won large bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate.
> 
> More than 100 land and water conservation bills were combined to designate more than 350 miles of river as wild and scenic, and to create nearly 700,000 acres of new recreation and conservation areas.
> 
> The new law also withdraws 370,000 acres in Montana and Washington state from mineral development.
> 
> Trump signed the bill in the Oval Office during a private ceremony with acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, the White House said.
> 
> Bernhardt, who is awaiting Senate confirmation to become the department’s permanent leader, issued a written statement calling the law “extremely beneficial” to the American public.
> 
> The Land and Water Conservation Fund expired last fall after Congress failed to agree on language to extend it. Lawmakers ultimately voted to make the fund permanent, though its yearly funding will be subject to the annual appropriations process. The fund is one of the most popular and effective programs created by Congress, and it has supported more than 42,000 state and local projects nationwide since it began in 1964, using royalties from offshore oil and gas drilling to fund conservation and recreation projects.
> 
> Trump has said he wants clean air and clean water, but his administration has rolled back numerous environmental regulations, deeming them burdensome for business. The president has publicly doubted climate change and pulled the U.S. out of a multinational pact that aims to slow the rate of global warming.
> 
> He installed a former coal lobbyist to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, while Bernhardt is a former energy industry lobbyist. Meanwhile, the budget proposal Trump released Monday would cut the Interior Department’s permanent and discretionary funding for the conservation fund by three-fourths.
> 
> The law is named for Rep. John Dingell, who died in February. The Michigan Democrat was the longtime chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee and played a leading role in laws dealing with health care, the environment, civil rights and the auto industry.
> 
> Three new national monuments to be administered by the National Park Service and two others to be overseen by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will be created under the law.
> 
> The new monuments are the Medgar and Myrlie Evers Home National Monument in Mississippi; the Mill Springs and Camp Nelson national monuments in Kentucky; the former Saint Francis Dam site in Southern California; and the Jurassic National Monument in Utah.
> 
> In December 2017, Trump took the rare step of scaling back the sprawling Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah, which were created by Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, respectively. Trump had accused Obama and Clinton of exceeding their executive authority by creating both monuments, each of which had encompassed millions of acres of land.
> 
> Republicans say the new monuments were created the right way, through the legislative process and not by a president wielding his executive powers.
> 
> Trump’s move marked the first time in a half century that a president had undone these types of land protections.


http://www.apnews.com/8adbf18aaf2e4c8cbdfa0cbd8c378b9c


----------



## birthday_massacre

JasonLives said:


> Dont think its that weird. A president should have some kind of power above the rest. Otherwise, why have a president?
> Considering the amount of vetos the earlier presidents have cast then what Trump is doing is nothing.


If they got 60 votes Trump could not veto it. The GOP was playing games by getting just one short of that number.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...tutional-attorneys-general-column/3153552002/
> 
> They're right, like I've been saying for more than a month now. :draper2 There should be nothing controversial about this at all of course, but we have the Democrats who are automatically anti-Trump (in all matters except expanding the Empire) and depend on unfettered immigration as part of their political strategy, plus some feckless Republicans who are either uninformed, cowardly, or bought by special interests who want cheap labor. Thankfully not enough of them to prevent President Trump from veto'ing Congress' attempt to overreach their powers (what a change, Congress trying to restrain the executive branch, too bad the one time they try to do it they're completely in the wrong).


The President declaring a national emergency over a so called crisis he is continuing to lie and exaggerate to fill his political agenda absolutely is unconstitutional. It's not a matter of being anti-Trump. It's a matter of not being a fucking idiot. The wall isn't needed. And if he was smart about this, he'd wait until after 2020 to see if he's still President by that point. If he's not, the entire thing is going to be discontinued and this will all be a waste of time (which just about sums up his Presidency). 

Either way, this is another dumb move on his part. He's continuing to waste his time trying put forth his solution that would only solve one third of the reason regarding how and why illegal immigrants enter the country (and I again will stress that is fucking idiotic on his part). 

There is no crisis at the border. Illegal immigration has been decreasing over the years. Stop trying to justify what will most likely go down in history as one of the dumbest things any US President has ever done.


----------



## Strike Force

HollyJollyDemise said:


> There is no crisis at the border. Illegal immigration has been decreasing over the years. Stop trying to justify what will most likely go down in history as one of the dumbest things any US President has ever done.


Yep. This is one of those rare moments where the power players on both sides consider the president's agenda a gross misstep. Democrats know this is unconstitutional and wrong, and Republicans know that, if Trump gets away with this, it will set an absolutely awful precedent for all subsequent Democratic presidents.


----------



## Draykorinee

JasonLives said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Trump has got his wall started, weird system America has where one person can veto all the other elected officials, but whatever floats your boat.
> 
> 
> 
> Dont think its that weird. A president should have some kind of power above the rest. Otherwise, why have a president?
> Considering the amount of vetos the earlier presidents have cast then what Trump is doing is nothing.
Click to expand...

Why have a president if he can be overruled by the majority? He can still do what he wants it just means he's accountable to government, the fact that countless presidential emergencies have gone through shows it's not an issue normally.
He can still shape the country, he still has more power than most democratic systems, your point isn't valid.


----------



## El Grappleador

2 years, a month and 20 days since Trump Management and I'm seeing his American Greatness!!!

The US economic deficit increased 12.5% in ten years.

Arresting by illegal immigration increased 150% in twelve years in ciphers to be chaothic within the next months.

North Korea rebuilds a marooned missile facility.

Over millions of teenagers protest against global warming. Unconfortable consecuence once left Paris Covenant.

As Hillary divided Democrats, He divided families, neighbours, governors, servants, his and Putin's relationship, Legislative/Executive powers relationship and even the GOP Itself.

So, boys and girls, what are learning about it?

Answer: Greatness and delirious for itself (it calls Megalomania) are not the same.


----------



## CamillePunk

El Grappleador said:


> 2 years, a month and 20 days since Trump Management and I'm seeing his American Greatness!!!
> 
> The US economic deficit increased 12.5% in ten years.
> 
> Arresting by illegal immigration increased 150% in twelve years in ciphers to be chaothic within the next months.
> 
> North Korea rebuilds a marooned missile facility.
> 
> Over millions of teenagers protest against global warming. Unconfortable consecuence once left Paris Covenant.
> 
> As Hillary divided Democrats, He divided families, neighbours, governors, servants, his and Putin's relationship, Legislative/Executive powers relationship and even the GOP Itself.
> 
> So, boys and girls, what are learning about it?
> 
> Answer: Greatness and delirious for itself (it calls Megalomania) are not the same.


Yep, the US sucks and people shouldn't come here. Spread the word!


----------



## yeahbaby!

US is awesome! Only been once, keen to go back.

One thing I want to do is a BBQ tour of Texas and gain 10kgs+ of meat on my belly.


----------



## El Grappleador

CamillePunk said:


> El Grappleador said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 years, a month and 20 days since Trump Management and I'm seeing his American Greatness!!!
> 
> The US economic deficit increased 12.5% in ten years.
> 
> Arresting by illegal immigration increased 150% in twelve years in ciphers to be chaothic within the next months.
> 
> North Korea rebuilds a marooned missile facility.
> 
> Over millions of teenagers protest against global warming. Unconfortable consecuence once left Paris Covenant.
> 
> As Hillary divided Democrats, He divided families, neighbours, governors, servants, his and Putin's relationship, Legislative/Executive powers relationship and even the GOP Itself.
> 
> So, boys and girls, what are learning about it?
> 
> Answer: Greatness and delirious for itself (it calls Megalomania) are not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US sucks and people shouldn't come here. Spread the word!
Click to expand...

The country doesn't suck. This management does. A man with delirious of greatness can't achieve real greatness.
Trump's Biggest problem can't observe and learn from his mistakes.

I'll repeat this: the nation is not the problem. It's the way how he manages the goverment.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Yep, the US sucks and people shouldn't come here. Spread the word!


Honestly, they shouldn't.

The education system is a joke.

The Healthcare system is fucked.

The President is both of those things and more. 

And the country is filled with people who think said President is doing a good job. 

Go to Canada.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1108740557734637570
:heston


----------



## Miss Sally

Don't go to the US, go to Canada or Mexico, both are better!


----------



## Draykorinee

> US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said it is "possible" that President Donald Trump was sent by God to save the Jewish people from Iran.


How do mental people get so far up the chain.


----------



## deepelemblues

The We Tried Really Hard to Enact a Coup Based on Rumor and Innuendo Report has been delivered to the Attorney General

Not surprised the echo chamber thread hasn't been necro'd though since everyone knows the report is gonna be a huge disappointment to the MUH RUSSIA conspiracy theorists 

Senior Justice Department official says no more indictments recommended :ha

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/m...n-trump-campaign-election-live-updates-today/


----------



## CamillePunk

this may be the first time I ever watch Rachel Maddow


----------



## deepelemblues

The Surely :trump Is Done This Time Report is dumped on late Friday afternoon 

Late Friday afternoon is when stuff that people don't want attention paid to - like two years of absolute bullshit being revealed at last as absolute bullshit - gets dumped :heston


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> this may be the first time I ever watch Rachel Maddow


This might break her more than Hillary losing to Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

so hyped for the compilation videos

I got banned from a thread for having the objectively correct viewpoint :heston banned for NOT being a conspiracy theorist. :heston


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> The Surely :trump Is Done This Time Report is dumped on late Friday afternoon
> 
> Late Friday afternoon is when stuff that people don't want attention paid to - *like two years of absolute bullshit being revealed at last as absolute bullshit *- gets dumped :heston


You mean like illegal immigration being such a big problem to the point where a wall is needed? It's quite sad to see you try to make this out as a massive victory for Trump because he's been failing at everything else he's tried.


----------



## deepelemblues

Adam Schiff so butthurt he's talking about subpeonaing Mueller :HA

Let the impotent wailing and gnashing of teeth commence, all that butthurt, oh yeah they so mad right now :heston

The desperation on MSNBC right now is reaching levels previously thought unpossible, Chris Matthews is gently trying to get his guests to face reality and they're just having none of that


----------



## Ygor

Whole lotta nuthin'. Trump is President in 2019 and will be re-elected in 2020.


----------



## virus21

Draykorinee said:


> How do mental people get so far up the chain.


You're asking now?! People should have been asking that for almost 30 years


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> this may be the first time I ever watch Rachel Maddow


Her eyes welled up and she blinked about 10,000,000 times in 30 seconds to stop herself from crying

Good Lord it was the lulziest shit since election night 2016

Just imagine, you're rekt to the point of a near-breakdown because the president _didn't_ collude with a hostile foreign power :heston


----------



## SexiestOfAllTime

Sadly it's true. Trump is still president but here is the thing, Trump has Multiple weakness His ego, His hair, His attitude, His Comments on race and multiple other stuff. fact istrump is not presidential material. Sure he beat Hillary but he ain’t Got What it takes to be a proper leader


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> The We Tried Really Hard to Enact a Coup Based on Rumor and Innuendo Report has been delivered to the Attorney General
> 
> Not surprised the echo chamber thread hasn't been necro'd though since everyone knows the report is gonna be a huge disappointment to the MUH RUSSIA conspiracy theorists
> 
> Senior Justice Department official says no more indictments recommended :ha
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/m...n-trump-campaign-election-live-updates-today/












T-trump covered it up! Just like they covered up Obama being a secret Muslim..


----------



## Draykorinee

Kinda glad I never went with the Russia stuff.

There are so many more objective reasons to ridicule and admonish Trump on.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Kinda glad I never went with the Russia stuff.
> 
> There are so many more objective reasons to ridicule and admonish Trump on.


I said this, like out of all the things that you could legit critique him on people would pick the most inane and out there stuff. :laugh:


----------



## deepelemblues

The other stuff doesn't have the allure of a crusade and the thrill of loathing those dirty foreign Ivans


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

deepelemblues said:


> Her eyes welled up and she blinked about 10,000,000 times in 30 seconds to stop herself from crying
> 
> Good Lord it was the lulziest shit since election night 2016
> 
> Just imagine, you're rekt to the point of a near-breakdown because the president _didn't_ collude with a hostile foreign power :heston


rachel maddow is a very confused individual but you have to give her credit, she knows how to cut a promo.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

2 years and $25,000,000+ wasted to announce the results of a report that people who don't eat crayons or smell their own farts already knew from the get-go.

VINTAGE 'MURICA :cole

Anybody wanna guess how long it'll be before Mueller winds up dead from two *obviously* self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the back of his head? 8*D


----------



## CamillePunk

Anyone think we would've gotten so few indictments if we actually had an impartial DOJ and they bothered to investigate the Clinton campaign? :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Anyone think we would've gotten so few indictments if we actually had an impartial DOJ and they bothered to investigate the Clinton campaign? :lol


Yeah well you see Obama State Department officials who worked at the embassy in Kiev publicly admitting to colluding with Clinton campaign officials and representatives of the Ukrainian government to get dirt on :trump is totally not collusion even though it is totally collusion. Also shut up you traitorous Russki agent.


----------



## boomisbass

MrMister said:


> Like I said in the closed thread, I've lost count how many TRUMP threads there have been.















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## deepelemblues

*2130 days


----------



## Kabraxal

Watching the regressive meltfown has been amusing. It’s almost as amusing as the when the election results rolled in. Why so man cling to political footballs so intensely is baffling.


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> The other stuff doesn't have the allure of a crusade and the thrill of loathing those dirty foreign Ivans


We have issues with illegals on our Southern border and the worst of it is we have Cartels running drugs, weapons and human trafficking/sex slave rings into the US. They've killed US citizens and Law Enforcement yet the Russians are the bigger threat! :laugh:

You bring that up and it's "Xenophobia" yet when it's the Russians it's suddenly not Xenophobia, even though one issue is actually happening and the other is a manufactured fantasy of a Russian President. Didn't we have this idiocy with the whole Obama is a Muslim thing and is Kenyan? Are we on repeat here for conspiracy theories?

Of course there is going to be Russians lobbying and in our Political system, just like there are Saudis, Israelis and everyone else.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

I look forward to a longer version of this.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109574447445536768
While Russiagate finally dies for good and the truthers melt down, President Trump is golfing with Kid Rock. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

Kid Rock looks like he could be wearing a replica wrestling championship belt under his shirt :hmmm


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

boomisbass said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup, only 676 days until we get another 1460 days. :trump3



deepelemblues said:


> Kid Rock looks like he could be wearing a replica wrestling championship belt under his shirt :hmmm


Would be quite disappointed if it wasn't the U.S. Title (for obvious reasons).


----------



## CamillePunk

Nah it's just a regular-sized snakeskin belt. :lol 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109348853193441280
:lauren


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Nah it's just a regular-sized snakeskin belt. :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109348853193441280
> :lauren


Hey I looked at the full-sized photo too but I didn't want to ruin the dream thanks a lot you fifth columnist for the Kremlin

The goalpost shifting of the last 24 hours - SDNY! SDNY! Mueller's investigation ahcktuallee revealed impeachable offenses, release the full report and you'll see! - is a rearguard to provide cover with the completely :trump-deranged party base - 'we're going to impeach him no matter what!' And then when Nancy Palsy doesn't hold a vote because it would be disastrous, they can say 'we tried to impeach him as hard as we could but traitors in the Party traitor'd us!'


----------



## CamillePunk

Bernie Sanders is a piece of shit. :draper2

He's fine with the country believing the Trump campaign colluded with Russia as long as it helps him attain political power.

Not a well-intentioned nice old man with some wacky ideas. A. Piece. Of. Shit.


----------



## deepelemblues

The USSR isn't around anymore so go celebrate your wedding anniversary next May in Caracas, BernieOld.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Sad truth is that right now nobody in this country could give Trump a run for his money in a election no one. The guy is a fucking scumbag and yet he will win again because the other side at this point is filled with pussies that get his base more angry and pretty much don't care if he signs laws that hurt them as long as those other people get it from every angle.


----------



## CamillePunk

Mueller report was even more unambiguously in Trump's favor than I expected. :banderas I thought he'd throw some bones to the Russiagaters at least to keep the dream/delusion alive. 

Meanwhile all Trump has tweeted today is "Have a great day!" and MAGA. :lmao The master troll.


----------



## deepelemblues

Mueller was given carte blanche to investigate whatever the hell he wanted and could not find or manufacture credible evidence to file indictments for collusion or obstruction of justice

The desperate MUH RUSSIA conspiracy theorists are grabbing their last straw, 'MUH MUELLER DID NOT EXPLICITLY EXONERATE :trump OF OBSTRUCTION ALLEGATIONS' yeah because that's his way to try to cover his ass from the vengeance you now wish to wreak upon him for not giving them the president trussed-up on a silver platter 

No indictments for obstruction. No indictments for collusion. No collusion. No obstruction

It's over 

The last 48 hours have seen the Democrat Party implode into incoherent attempts to ensure that the president is re-elected


----------



## Headliner

Lmao trump clearly fired Comey to stop the investigation yet he says Trump didnt obstruct justice. Stopppppp.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.axios.com/mueller-repor...ess-d106072d-0120-4b6b-8cef-cbd6915a0f60.html



> The Special Counsel?s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to infuence the 2016 US. presidential election. As the report states: *"[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."*





> The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department of Justice offcials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department of Justice offcials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, *Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.* *Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.*


No collusion. No obstruction. Decision not based upon legal thinking in the DoJ that a sitting president cannot be indicted under the Constitution. Decision based upon standard DoJ prosecution guidelines (don't bring a case you can't possibly win)

It's over. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth and disbelieving exclamations mean jack shit. :trump won. GGNORE. Except in 2020, but 2020 was just rendered a foregone conclusion anyway. Enjoy five and 3/4 more years of :trump4 :trump3


----------



## Headliner

By the way, I'll take my L and move on. Trump lies 2500 times a day but he was right all along about this one thing. :toomanykobes


----------



## Miss Sally

Headliner said:


> By the way, I'll take my L and move on. Trump lies 2500 times a day but he was right all along about this one thing. :toomanykobes


Everyone gets the L! It sucks but it happens, with Trump being right on this.. well even a broken clock is right twice a day. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> Everyone gets the L! It sucks but it happens, with Trump being right on this.. well even a broken clock is right twice a day. :laugh:


:kobe


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> :kobe


It's early in the grieving/I'm not crying, YOU'RE crying/it's just a flesh wound process


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> Lmao trump clearly fired Comey to stop the investigation yet he says Trump didnt obstruct justice. Stopppppp.


Yeah Trump admitted to firing Comey to stop the investigation, he also fired or had other people step down that wouldn't fire him as well. But they didn't find obstruction? 

Its also funny how Don Jr admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirty on Hillary and Rudy even admitted it and claimed collusion is not a crime yet they dont find any examples of collusion? Not to mention Trumps campaign manager give 75 pages of polling data to Russian operatives during the campaign. Again no collusion? 

Please.


Trump knows he is guilty and that is why he tried so hard to shut this down. Muelllers scope was just not broad enough. Its also very telling how for as big as the Mueller report is, the summary does not give one completely quoted sentence from it. Its all partial quotes.


----------



## Draykorinee

Imagine the face on Maddow when Trump was pretty much exonerated on everything lol. IDGAF, corporate media sucks, they went with this instead of all the other shit and now they look like the idiots they are.


----------



## virus21

Draykorinee said:


> Imagine the face on Maddow when Trump was pretty much exonerated on everything lol. IDGAF, corporate media sucks, they went with this instead of all the other shot and now they look like the idiots they are.


I think they did it because most of the people they support are just of guilty of it as Trump. But election fraud with the foreign state? That something that keeps the fire away from their pals


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> Imagine the face on Maddow when Trump was pretty much exonerated on everything lol. IDGAF, corporate media sucks, they went with this instead of all the other shot and now they look like the idiots they are.


But Trump was not exonerated Mueller even made that clear.

And how are they idiots? They admitted to colluding with Russia and Trump did admit to objection of justice.


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> It's over. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth and disbelieving exclamations mean jack shit. :trump won. GGNORE. Except in 2020, but 2020 was just rendered a foregone conclusion anyway. Enjoy five and 3/4 more years of :trump4 :trump3


Without any ounce of trolling on your end, please do explain to me how Trump winning in 2020 just became a foregone conclusion?


----------



## VanillaGiant

AlternateDemise said:


> Without any ounce of trolling on your end, please do explain to me how Trump winning in 2020 just became a foregone conclusion?


Russian Collusion was the main and credible Democratic argument against Trump.

They now lose credibility


----------



## AlternateDemise

VanillaGiant said:


> Russian Collusion was the main and credible Democratic argument against Trump.
> 
> They now lose credibility


:kobe no they don't. If anything this will help the Democrats tremendously. Now they have no choice but to force themselves away from this embarrassment and focus on Trump's actual time as President, which they should have just been doing from the beginning. 

Trump literally declared a national emergency to use money to combat a nonexistent issue. 

That pretty much sums up his time as President.


----------



## deepelemblues

AlternateDemise said:


> Without any ounce of trolling on your end, please do explain to me how Trump winning in 2020 just became a foregone conclusion?


What in the world makes you think I will, now or in the future, give the slightest consideration to anything you have to say to me? Get back to babyraging. I will now get back to ignoring you as it was almost certainly a mistake to acknowledge your existence this time, some time in the future I'll probably make that mistake again but hopefully not for a while. Until then :bye and fare well.


----------



## virus21

AlternateDemise said:


> :kobe no they don't. If anything this will help the Democrats tremendously. Now they have no choice but to force themselves away from this embarrassment and focus on Trump's actual time as President, which they should have just been doing from the beginning.


Thats is when they aren't fighting each other


----------



## AlternateDemise

deepelemblues said:


> What in the world makes you think I will, now or in the future, give the slightest consideration to anything you have to say to me?


Because if you had any actual confidence in anything you were saying, you'd have no problem explaining it to anyone, including me, the very guy that continuously calls you out on your nonsense. 

You trying to dodge this just further proves my point. 



deepelemblues said:


> Get back to babyraging.


Babyraging about what? About something I said from the very beginning was never a real thing and that it's stupid for us to focus on it?

The only thing I've ever raged about is the terrible job Trump's done, because I at least expect legitimate competence on the part of the man put in charge of running the country (technically). I'm not expecting a blind Trump supporter to suddenly change their views on him because of something I say. 

So please, do try again to comeback with another sad retort because you can't defend the bullshit you constantly spew. That or ignore me. Those seem to be the only things you're good at.



deepelemblues said:


> I will now get back to ignoring you as it was almost certainly a mistake to acknowledge your existence this time, some time in the future I'll probably make that mistake again but hopefully not for a while. Until then :bye and fare well.


:mj4 

Let this be known to everyone. I got blocked by a Trump supporter because I asked him to back up his bold prediction about Trump winning in 2020 being a foregone conclusion.

It's almost like he doesn't want us to take him seriously.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

All it takes is a really bad October (for either side) to impact the 2020 election. Trump winning isn't a forgone conclusion, though the Democrats have quite the battle to nominate a candidate everyone's on board with and pick a winning attack vector. Not holding my breath.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Mifune Jackson said:


> All it takes is a really bad October (for either side) to impact the 2020 election. Trump winning isn't a forgone conclusion, though the Democrats have quite the battle to nominate a candidate everyone's on board with and pick a winning attack vector. Not holding my breath.


All that really needs to be done at this point is mention all the promises Trump's made and has failed to accomplish. This isn't even mentioning the ones he hasn't even attempted yet. Trump has a lot of work to do if he wants to keep undecided non-party voters who won him the election on his side. 

But yes, for the Democrats, finding the right candidate is most certainly their biggest challenge at the moment.


----------



## TripleG

Truth is, Trump was easy to beat from the beginning. 

Its just that the Democrats and the Media have acted like fucking idiots the entire time.


----------



## virus21

TripleG said:


> Truth is, Trump was easy to beat from the beginning.
> 
> Its just that the Democrats and the Media have acted like fucking idiots the entire time.


And are unlikely to stop acting like fucking idiots


----------



## .MCH

Trump has a tough path to re-election no matter what happens. Keeping MI and PA red is going to a near impossible task. Don't get me wrong, he can do it, as show in 2016, but it's going to be a challenge. He can use this Russia report as weapon for a short period of time, but a lot will change by next November, especially since it looks like we're in for another recession soon. 

Most of his support came from people who weren't conservatives but liked his populist policies. The problem is that he's not governed like a populist, hence why MI, WI, and PA went blue in the midterms. Also the "Keep America Great" slogan might be a bad idea if we are in indeed in another economic downturn.


----------



## .MCH

TripleG said:


> Truth is, Trump was easy to beat from the beginning.
> 
> Its just that the Democrats and the Media have acted like fucking idiots the entire time.


I mean democrats literally had the answer to Trump in 2016 with Bernie, but they were too short sighted to see the writing's on the wall. The democratic establishment and the media still think that it's the 90's and that someone like Sanders could never win a general election, despite Trump proving that theory wrong.

And unfortunately, it seems that they've learned nothing. They continue to run on the culture wars (which is what the right wants), when their key to victory is running on economic populism. Problem is, too many of them benefit from the current system, so they don't care to change it.


----------



## PresidentGasman

I really like this Andrew Yang guy, i don't think any of the Establishment Democrats really care about the average American's success but Yang's idea that UBI should be in the US is pretty good. if hes nominated (which admittedly is a big stretch) i honestly think he could beat Trump


----------



## deepelemblues

.MCH said:


> Trump has a tough path to re-election no matter what happens. Keeping MI and PA red is going to a near impossible task. Don't get me wrong, he can do it, as show in 2016, but it's going to be a challenge. He can use this Russia report as weapon for a short period of time, but a lot will change by next November, especially since it looks like we're in for another recession soon.
> 
> Most of his support came from people who weren't conservatives but liked his populist policies. The problem is that he's not governed like a populist, hence why MI, WI, and PA went blue in the midterms. Also the "Keep America Great" slogan might be a bad idea if we are in indeed in another economic downturn.


He has a cumulative 46-40 lead over 'generic Democrat' in MI-WI-PA-OH-IN according to a Wall Street Journal poll from last week. Which is incredibly good considering the conventional wisdom that he's unpopular as can be basically everywhere. And that is the conventional wisdom. The prevailing belief. It's probably just as well-founded as the belief that Hillary was gonna beat him handily everywhere save a rump consisting of Texas and the deep South

Russia conspiracy theory will be a weapon the entire time since the Democrats won't be smart enough to back off on hounding him over who he is instead of hounding his policies

Also simply false that most of his support came from non-Republican voters. Traditional Republican turnout was massive in 2016

MI-WI-PA could all flip and if he retained his other 2016 states and flipped a single medium-size state that Hillary won he'd still be above 270



TripleG said:


> Truth is, Trump was easy to beat from the beginning.
> 
> Its just that the Democrats and the Media have acted like fucking idiots the entire time.


That's just patently false. The fantasy that he would have been easy to beat was the fantasy in operation through the entire campaign, it's a large reason why he won

110% his advisers are hoping that people think it will be so easy to beat him 



.MCH said:


> I mean democrats literally had the answer to Trump in 2016 with Bernie, but they were too short sighted to see the writing's on the wall. The democratic establishment and the media still think that it's the 90's and that someone like Sanders could never win a general election, despite Trump proving that theory wrong.
> 
> And unfortunately, it seems that they've learned nothing. They continue to run on the culture wars (which is what the right wants), when their key to victory is running on economic populism. Problem is, too many of them benefit from the current system, so they don't care to change it.


He would have beat BernieOld like a rented mule. The fantasy of BernieOld being a slam-dunk in 2016 makes no sense at all. The guy is so easily caricatured and demagogued, and was even more divisive to the Democratic Party than :trump was to the Republican

He divided the Democratic Party to the great benefit of :trump with his constant raging against Clinton in the primaries. He's going to do it again whether he wins or loses. Moreso if he wins actually, if he loses this time it will be to a candidate who will be more acceptable to his angry childish supporters than Clinton was. If he wins large numbers of moderate Democrats will sit on their hands, like large numbers of left-wing Democrats did last time over being enraged that Hillary beat him. He's too old and set in his ways, he can't turn the old man yelling at clouds off. A lot of resentment and bad feelings are going to be the result of the 2020 Democratic primaries, just as in 2016

The man obliterated a decades-old political machine that outgunned him financially by a significant degree in 2016. He did it by relentlessly highlighting the unpleasant aspects of the other candidate and turning his own into actual advantages

I don't get how people don't understand that BernieOld couldn't win when facing a much less competent politician in Hillary. I almost feel bad for the doddering fart when I think about the destruction :trump will rain on him if he is the nominee next year. :trump _wants_ the election to be a referendum on the Democratic Party moving swiftly to the Left and wanting to take the country with it

The only way I see the president not being re-elected is a deep recession. People have been predicting it - and its imminence - for three-four years. They keep being wrong. This, that, and the other thing was held up as a historically predictive sign that a recession was not that far off at the latest. Today it's the yield curve. Next month it will be something else. Oh yes a recession is coming. If it doesn't happen sometime in the next 5 years I'll be very surprised. But there's no guarantee it will come _before_ the election. Or even swiftly after it

And back to BernieOld why was he so divisive? Partly because of his babyraging yelling at clouds style, partly because of his socialist ideas. They aren't that popular. There was another recent poll giving people a list of details and asking 'which of these are acceptable to you?' Socialist and over 75 years old were the 2 options that polled the worst. Significantly worse than being Muslim which came in third at 49% acceptable. Socialist and over 75 didn't get out of the 20s

BernieOld 2 for 2

You can point to all the polls showing how popular 'democratic socialist' ideas are all you like, those polls are not new. In broad strokes the ideas have polled well for years and years. Americans say wow that sounds like it'd be nice, I'm for achieving what those ideas say they'd achieve. Then they don't go out and vote for candidates who'd turn those ideas into law and policy. Because mean Republicans argue that those nice ideas are not so likely to achieve their goals as claimed, and remind Americans that they cost a shitload of money and will involve the government getting all up in people's asses even more

If a quasi-socialist or real socialist beats :trump I'll be the one fantasizing about how it would have been so easy to beat them. Absent a large rise in unemployment, going elbows-deep into the economy, pulling stuff out shoving stuff in and jumbling stuff around at great cost is not going to be a winning platform



PresidentGasman said:


> I really like this Andrew Yang guy, i don't think any of the Establishment Democrats really care about the average American's success but Yang's idea that UBI should be in the US is pretty good. if hes nominated (which admittedly is a big stretch) i honestly think he could beat Trump


Yang Gang 4 lyfe

Sailin on the Yang yacht

GET. THAT. BAG.

$1000 a month to every person in the country 18 and over is 2.5 trillion dollars a year

UBI is a pipe dream and you can pick whatever drug you like to say is loaded in that pipe


----------



## The real Axel

The Mueller/SDNY thread has disappeared?


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> But Trump was not exonerated Mueller even made that clear.
> 
> And how are they idiots? They admitted to colluding with Russia and Trump did admit to objection of justice.


I made it very clear myself by saying pretty much, I did not commit to an absolute.


----------



## .MCH

deepelemblues said:


> He has a cumulative 46-40 lead over 'generic Democrat' in MI-WI-PA-OH-IN according to a Wall Street Journal poll from last week. Which is incredibly good considering the conventional wisdom that he's unpopular as can be basically everywhere. And that is the conventional wisdom. The prevailing belief. It's probably just as well-founded as the belief that Hillary was gonna beat him handily everywhere save a rump consisting of Texas and the deep South
> 
> Russia conspiracy theory will be a weapon the entire time since the Democrats won't be smart enough to back off on hounding him over who he is instead of hounding his policies
> 
> Also simply false that most of his support came from non-Republican voters. Traditional Republican turnout was massive in 2016
> 
> MI-WI-PA could all flip and if he retained his other 2016 states and flipped a single medium-size state that Hillary won he'd still be above 270
> 
> 
> 
> That's just patently false. The fantasy that he would have been easy to beat was the fantasy in operation through the entire campaign, it's a large reason why he won
> 
> 110% his advisers are hoping that people think it will be so easy to beat him
> 
> 
> 
> He would have beat BernieOld like a rented mule. The fantasy of BernieOld being a slam-dunk in 2016 makes no sense at all. The guy is so easily caricatured and demagogued, and was even more divisive to the Democratic Party than :trump was to the Republican
> 
> He divided the Democratic Party to the great benefit of :trump with his constant raging against Clinton in the primaries. He's going to do it again whether he wins or loses. Moreso if he wins actually, if he loses this time it will be to a candidate who will be more acceptable to his angry childish supporters than Clinton was. If he wins large numbers of moderate Democrats will sit on their hands, like large numbers of left-wing Democrats did last time over being enraged that Hillary beat him. He's too old and set in his ways, he can't turn the old man yelling at clouds off. A lot of resentment and bad feelings are going to be the result of the 2020 Democratic primaries, just as in 2016
> 
> The man obliterated a decades-old political machine that outgunned him financially by a significant degree in 2016. He did it by relentlessly highlighting the unpleasant aspects of the other candidate and turning his own into actual advantages
> 
> I don't get how people don't understand that BernieOld couldn't win when facing a much less competent politician in Hillary. I almost feel bad for the doddering fart when I think about the destruction :trump will rain on him if he is the nominee next year. :trump _wants_ the election to be a referendum on the Democratic Party moving swiftly to the Left and wanting to take the country with it
> 
> The only way I see the president not being re-elected is a deep recession. People have been predicting it - and its imminence - for three-four years. They keep being wrong. This, that, and the other thing was held up as a historically predictive sign that a recession was not that far off at the latest. Today it's the yield curve. Next month it will be something else. Oh yes a recession is coming. If it doesn't happen sometime in the next 5 years I'll be very surprised. But there's no guarantee it will come _before_ the election. Or even swiftly after it
> 
> And back to BernieOld why was he so divisive? Partly because of his babyraging yelling at clouds style, partly because of his socialist ideas. They aren't that popular. There was another recent poll giving people a list of details and asking 'which of these are acceptable to you?' Socialist and over 75 years old were the 2 options that polled the worst. Significantly worse than being Muslim which came in third at 49% acceptable. Socialist and over 75 didn't get out of the 20s
> 
> BernieOld 2 for 2
> 
> You can point to all the polls showing how popular 'democratic socialist' ideas are all you like, those polls are not new. In broad strokes the ideas have polled well for years and years. Americans say wow that sounds like it'd be nice, I'm for achieving what those ideas say they'd achieve. Then they don't go out and vote for candidates who'd turn those ideas into law and policy. Because mean Republicans argue that those nice ideas are not so likely to achieve their goals as claimed, and remind Americans that they cost a shitload of money and will involve the government getting all up in people's asses even more
> 
> If a quasi-socialist or real socialist beats :trump I'll be the one fantasizing about how it would have been so easy to beat them. Absent a large rise in unemployment, going elbows-deep into the economy, pulling stuff out shoving stuff in and jumbling stuff around at great cost is not going to be a winning platform


Sanders would have destroyed Trump. 

1. The culture war argument the right has used for years wouldn't have worked. Trump couldn't have said Bernie was coming for your guns or was for open borders because there's a wide public record of him advocating the opposite.

2. Rural America is not economically conservative, they're culturally conservative, so Sanders populist appeals would have meant states like MI, WI, and PA would have stayed blue and a lot of other traditionally republican states would have come into play as well. Too many people are too caught up in the old way of politics to understand that neoliberalism is on it's last legs and that a populist realignment is currently underway. The old rules don't apply anymore. 

3. Young people wouldn't have voted third party, which is the thing that really screwed over Hillary the most. 

Also general election polling this early out is irrelevant. Especially since most show Trump having a tough path to re-election.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah Trump admitted to firing Comey to stop the investigation, he also fired or had other people step down that wouldn't fire him as well. But they didn't find obstruction?
> 
> Its also funny how Don Jr admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirty on Hillary and Rudy even admitted it and claimed collusion is not a crime yet they dont find any examples of collusion? Not to mention Trumps campaign manager give 75 pages of polling data to Russian operatives during the campaign. Again no collusion?
> 
> Please.
> 
> 
> *Trump knows he is guilty and that is why he tried so hard to shut this down. Muelllers scope was just not broad enough. * Its also very telling how for as big as the Mueller report is, the summary does not give one completely quoted sentence from it. Its all partial quotes.





birthday_massacre said:


> But Trump was not exonerated Mueller even made that clear.
> 
> And how are they idiots? They admitted to colluding with Russia and Trump did admit to objection of justice.


:HA :HA :HA

:lmao :lmao :lmao.

Bless you for keeping this going, the entertainment never stops. Please, continue.

At least Headliner admitted he was wrong all along.


----------



## Miss Sally

TripleG said:


> Truth is, Trump was easy to beat from the beginning.
> 
> Its just that the Democrats and the Media have acted like fucking idiots the entire time.


Ok this is what boggles my mind, these people call Trump an idiot, the worst President ever, a retard etc and they *LOST* to him.. So what's that say about them? :laugh:

Anyone remember the um think it was Time or Newsweek that was making doom and gloom pronouncements about how Trump supporters would get violent if he lost because they felt it was rigged.. Yet it wasn't Trump supporters that rioted or propped up a "Rigged Russian Election" scandal. :surprise:

There's so many things you can point out that Trump's fucked up on and this gaggle of nimrods haven't figured that out yet.

Our Political landscape is a bunch of fools accusing the others of acting like fools while being fools themselves. 

How is it that we have phones that are better than the first computers and all this tech yet most people are beyond stupid? :laugh:


----------



## Adam Cool

How much of a Moron do you have to be to spend 2 years and a half on a Conspiracy Theory rather than trying to unite the left 
The American Democrats are incompetent as fuck to let this happen


----------



## PresidentGasman

Adam Cool said:


> How much of a Moron do you have to be to spend 2 years and a half on a Conspiracy Theory rather than trying to unite the left
> The American Democrats are incompetent as fuck to let this happen


Capitalist Democrats- lets keep everything the same as the Obama/Clinton era and let people suffer economically and allow homelessness to increase 

Socialist Democrats- We acknowledge the problems with economic inequality and the wealth distribution in America but lets go about it the wrong way and become Venezuela 2.0

any sensible person knows that you cant drift too much toward either side, you cant have too much Capitalism or too much Socialism, you need to mix the two into an economic systems into one system that works, sorta like a Much less opprepressive version of China would be the mark that the US should go after.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

Miss Sally said:


> Anyone remember the um think it was Time or Newsweek that was making doom and gloom pronouncements about how Trump supporters would get violent if he lost because they felt it was rigged.. Yet it wasn't Trump supporters that rioted or propped up a "Rigged Russian Election" scandal. :surprise:


If there is one singular moment that woke me up to the Democrats, it was Hillary asking Trump if he would accept the results of the election, knowing that he wouldn't answer, and then her losing and this Russia crap starting up. It amazes me how inept they are. Not that Republicans aren't inept in their own way, but I no longer look at "Republicans vs Democrats" as a binary, nor associate with one side or the other.

I seriously can't believe how bad they are with strategy. Trump hands them plenty to work with and they routinely choose the worst course of action. Every time.



PresidentGasman said:


> Capitalist Democrats- lets keep everything the same as the Obama/Clinton era and let people suffer economically and allow homelessness to increase
> 
> Socialist Democrats- We acknowledge the problems with economic inequality and the wealth distribution in America but lets go about it the wrong way and become Venezuela 2.0
> 
> any sensible person knows that you cant drift too much toward either side, you cant have too much Capitalism or too much Socialism, you need to mix the two into an economic systems into one system that works, sorta like a Much less opprepressive version of China would be the mark that the US should go after.


Yeah, I got this a lot, too. I actually wasn't crazy about Bernie or Hillary (though I liked Bernie more and voted for him in the primary), but when I'd be critical of Hillary, one of my lefty friends would say "When are people going to be ready for socialism?" and I just couldn't go whole hog on that.

And then vice-versa, when I was critical of Bernie's ignorance of foreign policy and being kinda dishonest by calling things "free" (ie "free" college), my Hillary supporter friends would say "They just don't like Hillary because she's a woman. Everyone needs to compromise by embracing OUR candidate."

Can't wait for the Democratic primaries. I'm guessing it comes down to Bernie vs Kamala at this point, with Warren as some sort of compromise candidate that could siphon votes from both.


----------



## Draykorinee

PresidentGasman said:


> Socialist Democrats- We acknowledge the problems with economic inequality and the wealth distribution in America but lets go about it the wrong way and become Venezuela 2.0


Oh hello corporatist media I didn't know you posted on Wrestling forum.

No one wants Venezuela.

Labeling social democrats as socialists is the establishment smear campaign, be better than that. OR offer a single shred of proof that they want to take the means of production in to government hands. 

Next.



PresidentGasman said:


> any sensible person knows that you cant drift too much toward either side, you cant have too much Capitalism or too much Socialism, you need to mix the two into an economic systems into one system that works,


Like Norway, Denmark etc, the countries that social democrats highlight they want to emulate? How do you add 1 + 1 and get 0?


----------



## deepelemblues

When are Facebook/Twitter/Youtube/Instagram going to ban The New York Times/The Guardian/Slate/Washington Post/CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/NY Magazine/Bill Kristol/Eugene Robinson/Tom Nichols/Brennan/Clapper/Comey/literally hundreds of other "journalists" et al for peddling a conspiracy theory that generated incredible division and hatred in our republic and society? They did far more damage than Alex Jones ever has or will

Democracy Dies In Darkness :lmao


----------



## Kabraxal

The meltdown is no longer amusing... why can’t these people accept it and move on? Stop throwing a tantrum like a petulant brat and grow the fuck up. The democrats in congress and the media should be ashamed of this childish display. Christ, they just made Trump look like a completely professional adult... 

Those people need professional help.


----------



## ShiningStar

Kabraxal said:


> The meltdown is no longer amusing... why can’t these people accept it and move on? Stop throwing a tantrum like a petulant brat and grow the fuck up. The democrats in congress and the media should be ashamed of this childish display. Christ, they just made Trump look like a completely professional adult...
> 
> Those people need professional help.


It's really cable news media and a few northeast paper's going off about Russia. Like there is a ton of stuff to complain about with congress,but most of them have avoided focusing on the subject when on the campaign trail. Even one of the most Neoliberal establishment candidate's out there Harris has not made it a big issue other then saying a basic "the Muller report needs to be released for transparency" like statement. Most Dem's and Liberal's weren't getting their hope up about this anywhere near the degree a good chunk on the right got caught up in either Birtherism or Benghazi silliness


----------



## deepelemblues

ShiningStar said:


> It's really cable news media and a few northeast paper's going off about Russia. Like there is a ton of stuff to complain about with congress,but most of them have avoided focusing on the subject when on the campaign trail. Even one of the most Neoliberal establishment candidate's out there Harris has not made it a big issue other then saying a basic "the Muller report needs to be released for transparency" like statement. Most Dem's and Liberal's weren't getting their hope up about this anywhere near the degree a good chunk on the right got caught up in either Birtherism or Benghazi silliness


Americans got hung out to dry and were killed in Benghazi including a United States Ambassador because the CIA was running guns to jihadis without sufficient security.

Also what a fucking joke yeah most Dems and liberals weren't getting their hopes up about Mueller do you not live on planet earth :lol the last two years has been nothing but "Mueller is gonna destroy the president" 24/7/365 from Dems and liberals you don't get to live it down and minimize it within 72 hours of getting BTFO sorry (not sorry) doesn't work that way


----------



## PresidentGasman

Mifune Jackson said:


> If there is one singular moment that woke me up to the Democrats, it was Hillary asking Trump if he would accept the results of the election, knowing that he wouldn't answer, and then her losing and this Russia crap starting up. It amazes me how inept they are. Not that Republicans aren't inept in their own way, but I no longer look at "Republicans vs Democrats" as a binary, nor associate with one side or the other.
> 
> I seriously can't believe how bad they are with strategy. Trump hands them plenty to work with and they routinely choose the worst course of action. Every time.
> 
> Yeah, I got this a lot, too. I actually wasn't crazy about Bernie or Hillary (though I liked Bernie more and voted for him in the primary), but when I'd be critical of Hillary, one of my lefty friends would say "When are people going to be ready for socialism?" and I just couldn't go whole hog on that.
> 
> And then vice-versa, when I was critical of Bernie's ignorance of foreign policy and being kinda dishonest by calling things "free" (ie "free" college), my Hillary supporter friends would say "They just don't like Hillary because she's a woman. Everyone needs to compromise by embracing OUR candidate."
> 
> Can't wait for the Democratic primaries. I'm guessing it comes down to Bernie vs Kamala at this point, with Warren as some sort of compromise candidate that could siphon votes from both.


if it comes down to Bernie vs Kamala id go with Bernie, as someone who has struggled with Job search's before candidates like Yang and Bernie are more my style, i get the need for Private Corporations but their Greed is a major issue that needs to be addressed.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Impressed by the mutation of the MAGA message to KAG message. It says subtly that Trump has achieved making the country great and now you need me to keep it great.

It seems arbitrary but it will be effective as long as it's just as wrapped up in the US Flag and a huge feeling of patriotism.


----------



## CamillePunk

It's like the finale of a TV show where everything goes right for the good guys and terribly wrong for the bad guys (assuming a pro-Trump lens). :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110373305490571264

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110357868342116352
Let the good news keep rolling in! :mark:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110250006106259456
Totally qualified to run the CIA though! Muh intelligence agencies!

Man, CNN had both these guys on the air so much over the last two years. :lol How do they even survive this as a network?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Like I have been saying Trump and people like Trump can sadly run the White House till god knows when because all the Democrats don't have the brains to fight him. Plus I really do feel that a lot of the MAGA crowd hate them that much. They will trade their jobs and retirement savings in return for seeing the "AOC's" of the world get hammered into the ground so much they blow their brains out and feel death is better than living in the United States.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

If the Dems were smart, they would use this as a chance to start anew. Praise Trump when he does right - such as seeking an end to the Korean War, which I genuinely believe future generations will praise him for - and criticising him when he does wrong. Judge him on his record, not fantasies of wrongdoing which we now see have no bearing in reality.

People respect success, they respect action and even without his wall, it is my understanding that domestically Trump has created more jobs and grown the economy? This is a good record, and more so for keeping America out of any more costly foreign adventures.
To combat this, the Dems need a real vision, not just to behave as obstructionists hindering the President on principle. But I fear the lesson won't be learned by 2020.


----------



## Draykorinee

ForYourOwnGood said:


> People respect success, they respect action and even without his wall, it is my understanding that domestically Trump has created more jobs and grown the economy? This is a good record, and more so for keeping America out of any more costly foreign adventures.


Just to clarify Trump escalated costly foreign adventures by increasing drone strikes so much that he decided to do away with the requirement to report civilian deaths due to drone strikes. His foreign policy is poor. He's also increased the industrial war complex with a massive $80billion.

His economic growth is all part of a bull run started a long time ago but I will happily credit him with not breaking Obama's hard work for now.



CamillePunk said:


> BREAKING: The Defense Department has notified Congress that it has authorized the transfer of $1 billion to begin new wall construction along the US-Mexico border - CNN


Fence* not wall.

But certainly a good week for Trump.


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

The Hardcore Show said:


> Like I have been saying Trump and people like Trump can sadly run the White House till god knows when because all the Democrats don't have the brains to fight him. Plus I really do feel that a lot of the MAGA crowd hate them that much. They will trade their jobs and retirement savings in return for seeing the "AOC's" of the world get hammered into the ground so much they blow their brains out and feel death is better than living in the United States.


The dedication to your "they want to beat us until we kill ourselves" gimmick is :thumbsup

Heading towards 3 years of it now

I mean it's a stupid gimmick but the dedication to it should be acknowledged if not admired

Nobody wants you to kill yourself you should really stop being a 14 year old girl trying to melodrama everyone


----------



## Strike Force

Might be the best week of Trump's presidency. That much is beyond dispute, no matter your political affiliation. Big wins across the board.


----------



## boomisbass

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Yup, only 676 days until we get another 1460 days. :trump3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be quite disappointed if it wasn't the U.S. Title (for obvious reasons).




Highly unlikely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krtgolfing

boomisbass said:


> Highly unlikely.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Same way it was "highly unlikely" he was going to beat Hilary in 2016?


----------



## Strike Force

krtgolfing said:


> Same way it was "highly unlikely" he was going to beat Hilary in 2016?


Exactly, because...



boomisbass said:


> Highly unlikely.


Sitting Presidents are 23-9 in elections.

Haven't studied US history, have we?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

boomisbass said:


> Highly unlikely.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Tulsi is the dems' only candidate who looks even remotely viable as an overall pick. And guess what? Even though she is a female Samoan Hindu on active duty (which is like a laundry list of progressive hard-ons), the dems' are gonna bury her because she backed Bernie instead of Hilldog.

As it stands, "Creepy Uncle" Joe Biden could very well wind up being the nominee, thanks to his association with Obama making him the biggest name of the bunch aside from Bernie, who obviously won't win shit because socialism kills and his spinelessness burned berned (8*D) any of his supporters who have more than 5 brain cells.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump has every chance unless the economy crashes, the dems have given him nothing but opportunity to play the victim and its all washed off, and instead of making Trump look bad they look like a bunch of cocks.

Trump won't get in because he's a good president he'll get in because the democrats keep failing.


----------



## CamillePunk

Biden is this cycle's Jeb Bush 

he's going nowhere

Beto is the Rubio. He'll last fairly long because he's the fresh face golden boy or whatever but he's essentially a robot and won't beat kamala or bernie


----------



## El Conquistador

None of this matters. China is the new superpower anyways. Just signed an agreement with Italy for the Belt Road initiative. R.I.P America.

But good for Big Dick Don. It was a witch hunt the whole time.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/435880-push-to-override-trump-border-veto-fails-in-house



> The chamber voted 248-181 to override the veto, falling short of the roughly 290 votes, or two-thirds majority, needed. Trump issued the veto earlier this month to push back on a rebuke from Congress over his bid to reallocate Pentagon funding to build a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110357868342116352
The winning is going on everywhere.


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## deepelemblues

Senate vote on Green New Deal today:

57 nays (all 53 Republicans + 4 Democrats)
*0 ayes*
43 presents (the other 43 Democrats)

:ha


----------



## yeahbaby!

The wall is a massive mistake, mark my words. Even if it is started it will never be finished. It will be a money black hole and logistical nightmare.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm no advocate of the green new deal having not really read it but I imagine its poor reception on the right was more to do with mislabelling it socialism than anything inherently wrong with it, although I understand its not perfect. 

The Dems chose not to vote on it because this was just a political power play, to force the Dems in to voting for something that isn't finalised so the republicans can go 'gotcha, you love socialism'. I'm not surprised Deep doesn't understand the nuance of politics.


----------



## boomisbass

Strike Force said:


> Exactly, because...
> 
> 
> 
> Sitting Presidents are 23-9 in elections.
> 
> Haven't studied US history, have we?




I probably know American history better than you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krtgolfing

boomisbass said:


> I probably know American history better than you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:heston

Then tell us about American history and how it is highly unlikely he will repeat???


----------



## Strike Force

boomisbass said:


> I probably know American history better than you.












Dude, I _taught_ US History I/II for my first teaching gig before I got into the private sector. 

_You're_ the Einstein who declared it "highly unlikely" that Trump will be reelected when, in fact, we're coming off a streak of *three* two-term presidents and, historically, sitting presidents win the next election they're in at a rate of almost 3-1.

You're barking up the wrong tree here, champ. Trust me.



krtgolfing said:


> :heston
> 
> Then tell us about American history and how it is highly unlikely he will repeat???














yeahbaby! said:


> The wall is a massive mistake, mark my words. Even if it is started it will never be finished. It will be a money black hole and logistical nightmare.


The wall is a joke. I skew conservative on immigration reform, but even if you're a die-hard alt-right NOBODY IN EVER EVER EVER conservative, the wall should still bother you as a money pit and a waste of energy and political capital.



Draykorinee said:


> I'm no advocate of the green new deal having not really read it but I imagine its poor reception on the right was more to do with mislabelling it socialism than anything inherently wrong with it, although I understand its not perfect.


Yeah, this was just the opening salvo. Anyone who thinks there won't be more complete green new deal propositions coming isn't paying attention or doesn't understand politics.


----------



## Reaper

A lot of the times establishment Dems will gut bills and I highly doubt the center right Democratic party (which the majority of it is) will give up without a fight. Not like Obama's Healthcare wasn't a massive scam that broke American's backs or anything. Let's not forget about that and pretend that Democrats suddenly want to be genuine about giving people things. They don't want to do that. Not like Obama's corporate bailouts saved people or whatever. They were still right wing economic policies designed to save banks and companies while people we're still being forecolsed on, losing jobs, not getting enough pay etc. 

Biden, Kamala and most of the most highly pushed corporate media candidates are center right to far right already. 

I also think that the establishment Dems will prefer to lose the election to Trump than let Bernie win at this point. 

The real battle is between corporate owners and competing companies here but a lot of those same companies back both Republicans and Democrats and therefore most of the American Corporate interests matter now more than ever.

PS. The green deal or whatever I bet is probably still some sort of corporate manifesto that probably favors some new start ups looking for a leg up against oil companies anyways. Don't fucking trust corporate shills to actually understand the economic implications (or maybe they do, they just don't want us to see them).


----------



## boomisbass

Strike Force said:


> Dude, I _taught_ US History I/II for my first teaching gig before I got into the private sector.




Which is why I said probably.

You could no doubt school everyone here about our racist government that passes laws that are designed to benefit white people while holding people of color down, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Strike Force

Reaper said:


> The green deal or whatever I bet is probably still some sort of corporate manifesto that *probably favors some new start ups *looking for a leg up against oil companies anyways. Don't fucking trust corporate shills to actually understand the economic implications (or maybe they do, they just don't want us to see them).


So, the same people who want smaller government also don't want contract work to employ big companies or small companies or any companies. Makes perfect sense.



boomisbass said:


> You could no doubt school everyone here about our racist government that passes laws that are designed to benefit white people while holding people of color down, no?












What in the name of our lord and savior Bo Jackson does that have anything to do with Trump's re-election prospects?


----------



## boomisbass

Strike Force said:


> So, the same people who want smaller government also don't want contract work to employ big companies or small companies or any companies. Makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the name of our lord and savior Bo Jackson does that have anything to do with Trump's re-election prospects?




Nothing. 

It has to do with you teaching our children American history.
Did you teach them the truth or did you teach propaganda?
Did you teach them that this country came into being via war, hatred, lies, murder, and installing a racist government on land you invaded and stole from the people who were already here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Strike Force

boomisbass said:


> Did you teach them that this country came into being via war, hatred, lies, murder, and installing a racist government on land *you* invaded and stole from the people who were already here?


Um...my grandparents were all immigrants from Argentina, Italy, and Puerto Rico. I didn't steal anything from anyone.

You're lost, my friend. Tap. You have no point.


----------



## blaird

boomisbass said:


> Which is why I said probably.
> 
> You could no doubt school everyone here about our racist government that passes laws that are designed to benefit white people while holding people of color down, no?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I cant tell if this is a troll post but I will bite...

Can you tell me what laws are still being passed that hold people of color down? And were any of these laws passed during Obama's administration?

I may have missed laws like this being passed or read them and didnt think they were racist so hopefully you can explain and help me out.


----------



## Jokerface17

boomisbass said:


> Nothing.
> 
> It has to do with you teaching our children American history.
> Did you teach them the truth or did you teach propaganda?
> Did you teach them that this country came into being via war, hatred, lies, murder, and installing a racist government on land you invaded and stole from the people who were already here?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




You’re really reaching here
unkout


----------



## Draykorinee

Where is this going lol.


----------



## MrMister

birthday_massacre said:


>


I wonder if Donald can get back the ring Putin stole.


----------



## Twilight Sky

boomisbass said:


> Nothing.
> 
> 
> Did you teach them that this country came into being via war, hatred, lies, murder, and installing a racist government on land you invaded and stole from the people who were already here?


How about that. The history of many countries all in sentence.


----------



## Miss Sally

boomisbass said:


> Nothing.
> 
> It has to do with you teaching our children American history.
> Did you teach them the truth or did you teach propaganda?
> Did you teach them that this country came into being via war, hatred, lies, murder, and installing a racist government on land you invaded and stole from the people who were already here?


Hate to break it to you chief but the modern day native Americans that are here now aren't the first, they crossed over and wiped out the people here before them. Nobody says much about the mound builders and the others like them because they're all dead and gone, you can still see their structures they left in many places in the US.

So basically "The country was founded on murder!!" Yeah? Just like all Nations were. :laugh:






Details on the Green New Deal here if anyone is interested.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110987950605680642
If this is the case, it is hardly surprising. 

Celebrity CIA analysts such as Bob Baer were on CNN and MSNBC within weeks of the 2016 presidential election stating that "we may need a new vote."

The question that has to be asked today is which powerful actors within the American intelligence apparatus gift-wrapped this present to the states of other great powers by performing this industrial-scale psychological operation that won over millions of Americans in believing that Donald Trump was some sort of agent of the Kremlin, or "Putin's puppet," or any sort of monikers as Hillary Clinton stated 30 months ago? 

The hiring of ex-British spy Christopher Steele by Fusion GPS remains the major linchpin of the Robert Mueller investigation. According to reports Steele had sources from Russian intelligence who happily shared the dossier with him. The entire FISA court warrant was predicated on the dossier's distribution to certain parties within the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These parties gleefully commenced monitoring and shadowing Trump's campaign. As with Clinton campaign-CNN network collusion leading up to a CNN debate as Donna Brazile shared questions which would be asked during the broadcast to the Democrats' 2016 presidential candidate, at least some of these FBI actors clandestinely leaked details of the Steele-procured dossier to media surrogates to wound Trump's campaign, and later his presidency. 

Would be amusing to witness some of that old-fashioned "blowback" toward at least some tentacle of the CIA and general American intelligence sphere.


----------



## deepelemblues

Would be amusing to see Brennan go to jail for perjuring himself in Congressional testimony multiple times over the last ~15 years. Wouldn't even have to have anything to do with the president, Brennan was doing it years before :trump even announced his candidacy.



boomisbass said:


> Nothing.
> 
> It has to do with you teaching our children American history.
> Did you teach them the truth or did you teach propaganda?
> Did you teach them that this country came into being via war, hatred, lies, murder, and installing a racist government on land you invaded and stole from the people who were already here?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Go tell it to the Apaches and Pueblos etc. that the Comanche enslaved :draper2

Go tell it to the Algonquins enslaved by the Iroquois confederacy and vice versa :draper2


----------



## DesolationRow

deepelemblues said:


> Would be amusing to see Brennan go to jail for perjuring himself in Congressional testimony multiple times over the last ~15 years. Wouldn't even have to have anything to do with the president, Brennan was doing it years before :trump even announced his candidacy.


Brennan is prolific in his displays of duplicity, to be sure. He seems to have made lying to Congress a fine art. All while his CIA broke into Senate computer files and subsequently attempted to have Senate staff prosecuted. And his CIA performed these misdeeds many times. 

Brennan also notoriously stated in 2011 that there had not been "a single collateral death" from U.S. drone strikes due to the "exceptional proficiency [and] precision" they boast. This was in spite of being notified directly by the Pakistani government of the considerable U.S. drone strike three months earlier which had killed 42 of their citizens, the vast majority civilians. 

The man could have his own HBO or FX television series as the dark protagonist.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110987950605680642
> If this is the case, it is hardly surprising.
> 
> Celebrity CIA analysts such as Bob Baer were on CNN and MSNBC within weeks of the 2016 presidential election stating that "we may need a new vote."
> 
> The question that has to be asked today is which powerful actors within the American intelligence apparatus gift-wrapped this present to the states of other great powers by performing this industrial-scale psychological operation that won over millions of Americans in believing that Donald Trump was some sort of agent of the Kremlin, or "Putin's puppet," or any sort of monikers as Hillary Clinton stated 30 months ago?
> 
> The hiring of ex-British spy Christopher Steele by Fusion GPS remains the major linchpin of the Robert Mueller investigation. According to reports Steele had sources from Russian intelligence who happily shared the dossier with him. The entire FISA court warrant was predicated on the dossier's distribution to certain parties within the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These parties gleefully commenced monitoring and shadowing Trump's campaign. As with Clinton campaign-CNN network collusion leading up to a CNN debate as Donna Brazile shared questions which would be asked during the broadcast to the Democrats' 2016 presidential candidate, at least some of these FBI actors clandestinely leaked details of the Steele-procured dossier to media surrogates to wound Trump's campaign, and later his presidency.
> 
> Would be amusing to witness some of that old-fashioned "blowback" toward at least some tentacle of the CIA and general American intelligence sphere.


What a time when the FBI and CIA are trying to undermine the President and US Government for their own agendas. FBI used to be the one that's supposed to protect us, now they're as bad as the Politicians.


----------



## boomisbass

Twilight Sky said:


> How about that. The history of many countries all in sentence.




So don’t complain when it happens here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## boomisbass

Miss Sally said:


> Hate to break it to you chief but the modern day native Americans that are here now aren't the first, they crossed over and wiped out the people here before them. Nobody says much about the mound builders and the others like them because they're all dead and gone, you can still see their structures they left in many places in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> So basically "The country was founded on murder!!" Yeah? Just like all Nations were. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Details on the Green New Deal here if anyone is interested.




You should choose your words more carefully.
I don’t put up with racist remarks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## boomisbass

deepelemblues said:


> Would be amusing to see Brennan go to jail for perjuring himself in Congressional testimony multiple times over the last ~15 years. Wouldn't even have to have anything to do with the president, Brennan was doing it years before :trump even announced his candidacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Go tell it to the Apaches and Pueblos etc. that the Comanche enslaved :draper2
> 
> Go tell it to the Algonquins enslaved by the Iroquois confederacy and vice versa :draper2




How about I tell it to my people, the Cherokee who were raped and murdered by the United States government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stinger Fan

Draykorinee said:


> I'm no advocate of the green new deal having not really read it but I imagine its poor reception on the right was more to do with mislabelling it socialism than anything inherently wrong with it, although I understand its not perfect.
> 
> The Dems chose not to vote on it because this was just a political power play, to force the Dems in to voting for something that isn't finalised so the republicans can go 'gotcha, you love socialism'. I'm not surprised Deep doesn't understand the nuance of politics.


The Green New Deal is just plain bad, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on. I don't really follow conservative talkers but from what I saw, the criticisms weren't really about socialism but rather just how dumb it is. Criticisms like not using any fossil fuels ,making sure no one has gas fueled cars, killing millions of jobs,wanting to give money to people unwilling to work and costing trillions of dollars all within 10 years. To me, that's just plain stupid and unrealistic. The reason the Republicans put it to a vote was purely to mock the Green New Deal and those who support it unequivocally. It wasn't some power play to see who supports socialism, because many Democrats support it as is , they don't need this vote to prove it. It was a petty move that wasn't really necessary , however the Democrats didn't vote purely to avoid any internal conflict between one another. To me, those who didn't vote , showed how cowardly they were because they knew it would only cause issues to them regardless of how they voted but it doesn't make it any less cowardly. Also, there's a reason why AOC resorted to accusing Republicans of changing what her bill was, so much so that she took down the bill from their website ...why do you think that is? Because they realized how dumb it is


----------



## CamillePunk

Civilizations that don't advance get supplanted by ones that do. It's always been the way of the world. If you find history racist, then too bad. Be thankful to be alive and a part of western civilization. It's far, far better than what life would be like here if Europeans never came to the Americas at all. Or just keep complaining about shit that went down before you or anyone you know ever existed. I'm sure that'll lead to a happy and fulfilling life. 

The selective outrage against Europeans for doing what all peoples have tried to do throughout history is nauseating. No apologies will be forthcoming.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> the criticisms weren't really about socialism but rather just how dumb it is.





> Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, called the proposal a “utopian manifesto.” Senator John Thune of South Dakota called it a “socialist fantasy.”


Or



> Green New Deal? Slay the Socialist Monster Now
> COMMENTARY
> . By Frank Miele


Or



> Leader McConnell
> ✔
> @senatemajldr
> Nothing encapsulates the Democrat’s hard left turn towards socialism more than the “Green New Deal”. One estimate pegs the cost of this centrally-planned nightmare at around $93 trillion. That’s more than every dollar our federal government has spent in its entire history to date


Or the fact that the majority of voters erroneously believe its a socialist policy even though its not because socialism is about state ownership of the means of production.

This was a power play by the Republicans, they wanted to push through a vote on something that even Democrats knew wasn't ready to do a GOTCHA moment against socialism. It was a sham vote and we all know it.


----------



## CamillePunk

It was a sham vote, political theater and nothing more, but the Green New Deal is also completely impractical so who cares.


----------



## Dr. Middy

I mean, I like the idea of a Green New Deal, but the stuff she was proposing was so far off in space it actually made me laugh. I don't think the intention was to make somebody who is studying Environmental Science and who should support such a bill scoff at it, but that's what we got.


----------



## krtgolfing

boomisbass said:


> How about I tell it to my people, the Cherokee who were raped and murdered by the United States government.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:heston


----------



## CamillePunk

It's nice to have ideas. Problem is the government takes your nice ideas and uses them to destroy real people's lives. :draper2

I prefer technology-oriented, non-coercive solutions to problems. Not having the government point guns at people.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> It was a sham vote, political theater and nothing more, but the Green New Deal is also completely impractical so who cares.


When it was proposed they all talked so glowingly of the Green New Deal

Now the ones who did in the Senate can't even vote aye for it

The vote was useful to show that the thing was politics and not serious from the start, even though the party will inevitably adopt a platform including much of it in 2020



> boomisbass said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about I tell it to my people, the Cherokee who were raped and murdered by the United States government.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The history of the Cherokee pre-European contact is one that includes the Cherokee migrating south from somewhere around the eastern Great Lakes, and establishing themselves in their new home after a long period of warfare. :hmmm wonder what the ancestors of the Cherokee did to the tribes already living there :hmmm wonder why the ancestors of the Cherokee migrated south in the first place :hmmm

But guess what I'm not saying the Cherokee are racist ethnic cleansers that I hate because of shit that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> It was a sham vote, political theater and nothing more, but the Green New Deal is also completely impractical so who cares.


Agreed, AOC should have distanced herself from it not endorsed the thing.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> It's nice to have ideas. Problem is the government takes your nice ideas and uses them to destroy real people's lives. :draper2
> 
> I prefer technology-oriented, non-coercive solutions to problems. Not having the government point guns at people.


Sure but sometimes cultures of peoples that have nice ideas are just not advanced enough. They're just nice but not practical. So they get supplanted by other peoples that do have more and better ideas that will lead to significant advancement. It's just the way of the world. 

If the government has to overrule you because they have better, more western ideas, then so be it. It's for the greater good.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> It's nice to have ideas. Problem is the government takes your nice ideas and uses them to destroy real people's lives. :draper2
> 
> I prefer technology-oriented, non-coercive solutions to problems. Not having the government point guns at people.


Sure but sometimes cultures of peoples that have nice ideas are just not advanced enough. They're just nice but not practical. So they get supplanted by other peoples that do have more and better ideas that will lead to significant advancement. It's just the way of the world. 

If the government has to overrule you because they have better, more western ideas, then so be it. It's for the greater good.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Watched the rally with my Nana and we both cracked up at how the censors failed to catch him saying "bullshit". :heston



Headliner said:


> *By the way, I'll take my L and move on.* Trump lies 2500 times a day but he was right all along about this one thing. :toomanykobes












We still love you, breh. :salute



AlternateDemise said:


> :kobe no they don't. If anything this will help the Democrats tremendously. *Now they have no choice but to force themselves away from this embarrassment and focus on Trump's actual time as President, which they should have just been doing from the beginning.*
> 
> Trump literally declared a national emergency to use money to combat a nonexistent issue.
> 
> That pretty much sums up his time as President.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110985236677095424
A non-existent issue! :nerd: A left-wing rag that wants as many third world immigrants as possible because they vote overwhelmingly left told me so! :nerd:

Look how non-xenophobic I am! :nerd:


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110985236677095424
> A non-existent issue! :nerd: A left-wing rag that wants as many third world immigrants as possible because they vote overwhelmingly left told me so! :nerd:
> 
> Look how non-xenophobic I am! :nerd:


Yelling "NUH-UHHHHHHHHHHH" then getting mega immadbro is still the default strategy for opposing :trump

It's worked just as well as it did in 2016

Detention facilities are completely full, immigration case backlog is 300% of capacity, thousands of illegals being released because they need space for the new illegals, caravans of thousands forming every month trying to reach and cross the border, highest number of arrests and illegal crossings in over a decade (in some sectors, the most in 40 years), DEFINITELY NOT A CRISIS NO SIR :cudi


----------



## CamillePunk

Gotta love how people act like declaring a national emergency is some sacred government action. :lmao They mean next to nothing. It's just a way for Trump to get the funding (which he is doing, and the courts are completely helpless to stop it, as I told y'all they would be months ago when I was demanding he do this but he dragged his feet instead because his advisors are cowardly imbeciles at best and traitors at worst) because Congress is retarded and thinks we need to run every other country's affairs but god forbid we try and control our own border.

Thank God for Donald Trump. Conservatism Inc would destroy this country if they could. You don't even need the Democrats.


----------



## deepelemblues

I couldn't watch any more of Mike Lee's geeky as fuck speech tearing the Green New Deal a green new asshole once I got to the part about how people would get around Alaska, the answer being "taun-tauns, Mr. President. This is a beloved species of repto-mammals, native to the ice planet of Hoth. While perhaps not as efficient in some ways as airplanes or as snowmobiles, these hairy bipedal species of space-lizards offer their own unique benefits. Not only are taun-tauns carbon neutral, but according to a report, a long time ago, and issued far far away, they may even be fully recyclable, and usable for their warmth, especially on a cold night." :heston


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> The history of the Cherokee pre-European contact is one that includes the Cherokee migrating south from somewhere around the eastern Great Lakes, and establishing themselves in their new home after a long period of warfare. :hmmm wonder what the ancestors of the Cherokee did to the tribes already living there :hmmm wonder why the ancestors of the Cherokee migrated south in the first place :hmmm
> 
> But guess what I'm not saying the Cherokee are racist ethnic cleansers that I hate because of shit that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago


These types of people think the Native Americans sat around smoking peace pipes and relaxing and had no concept of personal property. 

Native Americans had their own group of men that ran things, wealth was determined by how many horses, slaves, furs, wives etc that you had. Native Americans were notorious traders, they'd trade in pretty much everything and with anyone. They also fiercely controlled territory and hunting grounds.

What's also interesting is their roles were defined by Gender, women did women work, men did men's work. Men were allowed multiple wives and their entire culture was pretty much a patriarchy. Something these romancers fail to see.

Early Native Americans had some tribes that practiced cannibalism and human sacrifice, these stopped probably because they realized taking slaves was far more practical. Some tribes entire existences were based on raiding other tribes. 

The migration of "Native Americans" to North America seen the genocide and annihilation of the peoples and cultures that existed here long before they came over. :laugh:


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

Fair play to Trump for overriding his government and deciding not to cut funds for the Special Olympics. He gets a lot of hate, and sometimes it's justified, but that was a kind move on his part.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Draykorinee said:


> Or
> 
> 
> 
> Or
> 
> 
> 
> Or the fact that the majority of voters erroneously believe its a socialist policy even though its not because socialism is about state ownership of the means of production.
> 
> This was a power play by the Republicans, they wanted to push through a vote on something that even Democrats knew wasn't ready to do a GOTCHA moment against socialism. It was a sham vote and we all know it.


You're pushing too hard for this to be a "gotcha" when it's more about mocking the Democrats . There's a reason why AOC is very sensitive about it, even going as far as to claim the Republicans made up negative parts of it despite removing the entire thing(or most of it) from the website afterwards . Democrats also accused Mitch McConnell of trolling them with this vote as well, why do you think that is? Hell, McConnell's team made a video showing the Democrats supporting it but refusing to vote for it. 






This was more about mocking Democrats who talked a big game but when it came time to prove it they backed off because all they wanted to do was pat themselves on the back by supporting something they thought would never make it to a vote.


----------



## Rugrat

Why is Trump so pro-Israel? Wasn't he in favour of draining the swamp, but now he is avidly supporting the interests of the largely Zionist banks?


----------



## ShiningStar

ForYourOwnGood said:


> Fair play to Trump for overriding his government and deciding not to cut funds for the Special Olympics. He gets a lot of hate, and sometimes it's justified, but that was a kind move on his part.


Would have been better if he had never appointed someone like that in the first place.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ol-begins-releasing-migrants-yuma/3301641002/



> Border Patrol begins releasing migrant families on the streets of Yuma
> 
> U.S. Border Patrol officials in Arizona said they have started releasing migrant families from their custody into the streets of Yuma because processing centers can't cope with the large numbers of arriving families and minors.
> 
> Community groups in the Yuma area have set up temporary facilities to house the families and to provide food and shelter while they assist migrants with travel plans to leave the border city.
> 
> The Border Patrol issued a statement Thursday announcing its decision, which followed the lead of officials in the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas, who last week began releasing families from their custody.
> 
> "U.S. Border Patrol processing centers are not designed to house the current numbers of families and small children that we are encountering," the Border Patrol's Yuma sector said in a written statement. "Due to capacity issues at our stations and the ongoing humanitarian crisis nationwide, Border Patrol has begun identifying detainees for potential release in Yuma with a notice to appear for their immigration hearings."
> 
> In a news conference on Thursday afternoon, Carl Landrum, the Yuma sector's deputy chief, explained Border Patrol made the decision as a dramatic surge in migrant families and minors overwhelmed their resources and holding spaces.
> 
> According to the latest government statistics, in the first five months of the fiscal year, agents in Yuma have apprehended 17,578 migrants traveling as a family. By contrast, in that same time period last year, they encountered 5,319 migrants. That's a 330 percent increase and does not include rising numbers of unaccompanied minors and other single-adult migrants.
> 
> The sector is on track to apprehend a total of 60,000 migrants, Landrum said. Those are the highest levels since 2007, when the installation of additional border fencing began to reduce the number of migrants crossing through Yuma.
> 
> Landrum added the sector has the capacity to hold 400 migrants at its processing center and three patrol stations in the sector, but that the facilities were designed to hold single adults for short periods.
> 
> With a vast majority of apprehensions consisting of Central American families and minors claiming asylum, they cannot be deported right away, so they remain in custody longer.
> 
> That's why they decided to begin releasing families, he said. Those eligible for release are migrant families who are released into the custody of relatives living in the United States and who have undergone medical screenings.
> 
> BY OMNI HOTELS GROUP
> Tips to Plan the Ultimate Weekend Vacation
> See more →
> 
> 
> “It’ll continue right now, there is not an end date established," he said about the releases in Yuma. "Until we can actually maintain the capacity ... We've been overcapacity about 200 percent for the past two years.”
> 
> Temporary facilities to house migrants
> Yuma Mayor Doug Nicholls also talked about the impact of these releases during Thursday's news conference. He said the Border Patrol could release up to 200 migrants into his community each day.
> 
> The decision prompted nonprofit groups in the Yuma area to "create a plan of action for a humanitarian response,"' he said. That plan included opening temporary facilities to house migrants and to help them arrange for transportation after their release.
> 
> But that effort has limitations, Nicholls said.
> 
> “The full capacity of the (nonprofit groups) in Yuma cannot address the full volume of migrants, should the volume increase as projected,” he warned.
> 
> Normally, once the Border Patrol apprehends migrants, the agency is legally obligated to detain them for no more than 72 hours and then transfer them into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
> 
> Immigration officials either would keep them in detention for longer periods of time, or, in the case of migrant families, release them into the custody of relatives living in the United States and give them a notice to appear in court later.
> 
> But in the past few months, the drastic surge of migrant families in southwestern Arizona has overwhelmed border agents as well as immigration officers.
> 
> MORE: ICE dropped off 300 migrants in Phoenix. Will the city help?
> 
> "The sheer volume of family units (FAMU) crossing the border has overwhelmed ICE’s limited transportation resources," spokeswoman Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe said in a statement. "Combined with a requirement to detain these individuals for no more than 20 days, the agency has no option but to expeditiously arrange for their release."
> 
> O'Keefe confirmed that even though the Border Patrol has begun to release some families, immigration officials still are taking other migrant families into their custody.
> 
> In October, ICE officials in Arizona made a similar decision when they announced they no longer would help arrange travel plans for migrant families released into the care of relatives.
> 
> ICE officials began releasing families into the streets of Yuma, overwhelming the only shelter for migrants in the city. Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona stepped in and began housing migrants at a hotel while it helped arrange transportation, despite limited options.
> 
> ICE's decision was met with backlash from local elected and community officials. Then-Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also intervened, sending a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to pressure them for a better solution.
> 
> She visited the Yuma area in late October. After her visit, ICE agreed to transport those families to Phoenix and Tucson instead.
> 
> Yuma mayor asks for help
> 
> Yuma Mayor Nicholls said he also reached out to fellow Republicans, including Gov. Doug Ducey and U.S. Sen. Martha McSally, to pressure the federal government to take action to mitigate these releases.
> 
> That could include allocating additional resources to ICE and Border Patrol, as well as "a FEMA-type response to handle the release of individuals and to provide judges to help facilitate legal proceedings that would reduce the flow of migrants," Nicholls said.
> 
> On Wednesday, McSally sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen expressing her concern about the release of families with little advance warning in Yuma, Phoenix and Tucson.
> 
> "People in Phoenix, Yuma and throughout Arizona are facing massive financial, public-safety, and humanitarian costs from an immigration crisis that they had no part in creating," she said in the letter. "We need to do better to reduce the burden imposed on them."
> 
> In an interview with Phoenix radio station KTAR-FM, Ducey also criticized the Border Patrol and ICE for releasing families in Arizona with little advance warning, saying he had an upcoming call to discuss the issue.
> 
> “The first thing we need to do is make sure that our federal government starts to better communicate with our state government, so that we can have a heads-up of what’s happening, how we can be helpful and what we can do,” he said.
> 
> State Rep. Tim Dunn, R-Yuma, who represents the area in the Arizona Legislature, followed in Ducey's footsteps.
> 
> “Yuma and other border cities simply don’t have the resources to handle an influx of migrants released into the community,” Dunn said in a statement. “It’s unbelievable that Border Patrol is putting both the migrants and the communities in this situation.
> 
> "Even worse, this policy is likely to motivate even more migrants to cross the border. The emergency on the border has escalated to a crisis situation that will continue to cause a run on our southern border,” he said.


One story after another like this at the border since Trump softened in the face of some criticism from newspaper editorial staffs who detested his presidency the minute he was sworn in and will detest his presidency the minute he leaves nine months ago, with escalating frequency.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110985236677095424
> A non-existent issue! :nerd: A left-wing rag that wants as many third world immigrants as possible because they vote overwhelmingly left told me so! :nerd:
> 
> Look how non-xenophobic I am! :nerd:


:kobe yes because what is happening right now is totally a reflection on what's been happening over the past two years. By all means though, continue to clutch onto what ever reasoning you can to build a non-effective wall that would only cause more problems.


----------



## Arkham258

Literally exhausted from all the I told you sos I've been doling out since the biggest nothing burger in years dropped with the Mueller Report

It's exhausting being right all the time. And seeing Rachel Maddow crying


----------



## virus21

Arkham258 said:


> Literally exhausted from all the I told you sos I've been doling out since the biggest nothing burger in years dropped with the Mueller Report
> 
> It's exhausting being right all the time. And seeing Rachel Maddow crying


Where have you been?! You like vanished from the board


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Rugrat said:


> Why is Trump so pro-Israel? Wasn't he in favour of draining the swamp, but now he is avidly supporting the interests of the largely Zionist banks?


I presume it's for the sake of keeping Israel on board as a middle eastern ally. Personally, I'd prefer if he fully (or at least drastically) cut monetary aid to them (and our other allies) and instead reroute that money toward homefront interests instead of foreign interests.



Arkham258 said:


> Literally exhausted from all the I told you sos I've been doling out since the biggest nothing burger in years dropped with the Mueller Report
> 
> It's exhausting being right all the time. And seeing Rachel Maddow crying


One does not simply get tired of WINNING, brah. Chug a red bull, take an aspirin, and get back to basking in the WINNING.

:trump3


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110985236677095424
> A non-existent issue! :nerd: A left-wing rag that wants as many third world immigrants as possible because they vote overwhelmingly left told me so! :nerd:
> 
> Look how non-xenophobic I am! :nerd:


even if it's NOT a code red type emergency... i still don't see a problem with addressing the issue. it's still a problem.

if there's a leak under your sink, sure it's not going to destroy your house but that doesn't mean you leave it unattended and unchecked. doing that is only going to make the problem worse over time. if you have resources and the means to fix it, you might as well do it. there's no good reason not to. and of course if left _completely _unattended it WILL destroy your house eventually.

any way you slice it people crossing over into the country illegally is a problem that needs to be addressed. the longer you hold out the worse it's going to be.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1111802910927671302
Apropos. :lol 

I see people want to pretend the border crisis we've been talking about for years started this week. :lol Yeah okay, not going to engage with that level of delusion, sorry.

Trump was right the entire time about the witch hunt, and he's been right the entire time about the southern border.


----------



## deepelemblues

Well more than a million additional illegal immigrants will be in the country at the end of the year than were in it at the start

DEFINITELY NOT A CRISIS

America takes in a million legal immigrants a year

In a good year the increase in illegals is 500,000

What country on earth would even be able to handle, much less tolerate, at least a million and a half immigrants EVERY YEAR. No country. Save the United States. And we've just about the reached the end of our " able to handle" capacity

MOST CERTAINLY NOT A CRISIS


----------



## DesolationRow

Federal holding facilities for migrants in "limbo" who largely apply for asylum in El Paso, Texas are completely overwhelmed, with a makeshift camp established by officials under a bridge which connects the U.S. and Mexico for dozens upon dozens of families. Elsewhere, approximately 700 miles eastward in McAllen, an ostensibly endless supply of buses strolls in, filled beyond capacity with migrants, and dropped off at numerous private and public facilities and venues. Tens of thousands of migrants are continuously managing release, folding into the greater U.S. Texans are saying that they have never seen anything like this, to this degree, before. That predictable late-empire stage is here.

Which brings one to Niccolò Machiavelli. Reading him brings much to mind as these events unfold. For as he noted in _The Prince_, "The first method for establishing the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him." 

Secretary of DHS Kirstjen Nielsen is being excoriated by various parties for the current calamity along the Mexican-U.S. border. Yet that is a critical point in evaluating Donald Trump's presidency to this juncture. He has a host of pawns, or surrogates, to stand as being responsible for numerous matters of state. So it becomes the _du jour_ standard operating procedure to verbally eviscerate these persons for being responsible for the mess. From Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump to his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to John Bolton, to Mick Mulvaney, to Mike Pompeo, and on it goes. 

Unfortunately for Trump, and to be fair to him, in spite of the myriad disappointments of his presidency to date--and equally to be measured when noting his successes--the pool from which to select officials was always chiefly going to remain that of the stagnant Beltway. Outside of his chief of staffs for the White House as well as advisers and officials who do not require confirmation from a legislative body's committee. Though, when evaluating Trump, it is not unimportant to note that most of those choices have been underwhelming. So while Trump keeps people in his orbit such as his daughter and her husband, who seem to have largely had a negative influence on his decision-making, as trusted confidantes and advisers, his "America First" rhetoric of the 2016 campaign trail was never readily applied to selecting those within the supra-bureaucracy of Washington, D.C. 

The immovable U.S. state has unsurprisingly become generally hostile toward anyone who potentially alters the status quo, a reality which makes it rather onerous to evaluate the most recent presidencies from one another in a number of areas, from George W. Bush's to Barack Obama's to Trump's. Each has established a relationship of one sort or another with aforementioned supra-bureaucracy, and even if they had been a respective entity removed from some of the more previously pertinent interests of that state, they had to forge some sort of _detente_ in order to politically survive. 

Trump is different in this regard largely only in how parties within the U.S. state's powerful intelligence-security apparatus reacted to his election; rather than attempt to establish an accord with him, they targeted him for an incestuously-tied U.S. mass media-ensured undoing of his presidential election. 

To evaluate presidencies with the assortment of details attached to the present U.S. state requires a more thorough-going examination of what C. Wright Mills called, with the title of his 1956 book, _The Power Elite_. His subsequent work _The Sociological Imagination_ further delineated the relationship between that which is inherent, ingrained, through that which shifts from one generation to the next. 

It is hardly a revelation to find that institutions follow similar trajectories. The U.S. state supra-bureaucracy's course does not shock one in seeing how the typical eventuating matrix of interests proceed, and that phenomenon which gradually deteriorates from a fructifying symbiotic process into one that is solely concerned with avaricious self-preservation. Whether or not Trump was sincere in his pledged efforts to "Drain the Swamp" or put "America First," it was always an unenviable task in seeking to locate a selection of candidates for his cabinet who would pass muster with the U.S. state's congressional and senatorial gatekeepers. 

Which is why if Trump is serious about future president-elects and presidents avoiding the fate he has endured--of those within the gates of the state over which he was elected to preside as the chief executive for four years attempting to undo his election--he has to wait for the time at which to act, but when that moment occurs he must use as much force as possible. 

For the time being, however, as useful as Machiavelli shall always remain, the U.S. state's supra-bureaucracy renders his above note only so useful. For it guards against any potential efforts to thwart its will--it sustains itself by acting as self-serving organism. Which unfortunately makes this exercise a paradox.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1111802910927671302
> Apropos. :lol
> 
> I see people want to pretend the border crisis we've been talking about for years started this week. :lol Yeah okay, not going to engage with that level of delusion, sorry.
> 
> Trump was right the entire time about the witch hunt, and he's been right the entire time about the southern border.


I like Alana. Continuing to call yourself a Breitbart 'reporter' takes some guts.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-he-is-saving-barrett-for-ginsburg-seat-axios



> Trump says he is 'saving' Barrett for Ginsburg seat: Axios
> 
> 
> President Trump has reportedly said he is "saving" Judge Amy Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, according to Axios.
> 
> Barrett was a popular choice among conservative activists as a candidate to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy before Trump eventually nominated Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
> 
> Axios reported that Trump has made clear his desire to replace Ginsburg with Barrett since Kennedy’s decision to retire, telling people on separate occasions, "I'm saving her for Ginsburg."
> 
> Trump also opted against nominating Barrett over concerns that her opposition to abortion rights would lead Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to vote against her, according to the news outlet. Aides were reportedly confident enough Republicans would gain Senate seats in the 2018 midterms that they decided a more conservative nominee would stand a better chance of confirmation after the elections.
> 
> Ginsburg, 86, recently returned to the bench after missing a series of cases in January because of cancer surgery last December.
> 
> The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.


:banderas


----------



## deepelemblues

DesolationRow said:


> That predictable late-empire stage is here.


This may be a popular line of thinking in certain circles, but 1) the full strength of the United States has not been marshaled for a single purpose in the last 75 years and 2) whatever "late-empire stage" means, when ascribed to previous powerful states, it included multiple examples of those states marshaling all the resources they could to face a threat and eventually failing. The Roman Empire gathered all of its strength multiple times with varied success and failure before its western half was overrun by Germans. The Byzantine Empire did the same thing when facing mass Slavic migrations over the Danube and the Caliphate emerging from the desert. Several crippling plagues also spread through Italy and western Europe in the centuries preceding the fifth, causing significant depopulation and economic disruption. The degradation of the city-states (which began in the 3rd century) also significantly weakened imperial power, as the city-state was the main vehicle for both administering territory politically and maintaining the economy. The British Empire exhausted itself twice fighting Germany, then found itself surpassed by the Soviets and Americans. Much as the Byzantines and Sassanids exhausted themselves with centuries of war, and then found their power eclipsed by the newly minted Caliphate. The Soviet Union was an empire with two pillars: the massive, if ponderous, strength of the Red Army, and the huge oil reserves the Soviet state controlled. When the United States convinced Saudi Arabia to open the floodgates and significantly reduce the global price of oil in the 1980s, the USSR had no other economic strengths to fall back on. 

The only truly deleterious condition afflicting the United States is a lack of political will to gather and use its incredible strength decisively most of the time. This has led to the misapprehension that this strength is either gone, or is increasingly and irreversibly waning. As Lee Corso says before donning a ridiculous oversized mascot head on College Gameday, "not so fast my friend." The United States has the strongest, most resilient, most dynamic, and perhaps more importantly, most self-sufficient economy on the planet. Hurricane Harvey, or the recent mass flooding that has ruined a million acres of prime farmland and killed a million head of cattle, would have effects ranging from a significant drag on the national economy, to crippling it or coming close, for any other country on the planet. The United States? It shrugged off Harvey. I have multiple relatives who live in Houston, Houston is doing incredibly well considering the amount of damage Harvey caused. Certainly this recovery was largely caused by the economic boom Houston and Texas had been enjoying before Harvey, and continue to enjoy to this day. The United States will shrug off the flooding. The farmland will be restored, the cattle will be replaced, in a period of time no other nation could possibly match. These are examples of what the United States is capable of using the barest fractions of its power.

What the United States would be capable of if faced with a truly _national_ *crisis,* which even the "Great Recession" was not... well, it would be best if that crisis did not involve war, because the last time the United States faced such a crisis, it did involve war, and the power America built and used was awesome. And terrifying. 

We return to the beginning to find the common rejoinder: that the United States lacks, perhaps (although the assertion most often seen is not perhaps but definitely) irreversibly, the political will to decisively use its power and thus achieve decisive results. 

Well, not so fast my friend. No great power has ever declined without going through at least one instance of finding that decisive will but also finding its power insufficient. The power of the United States is not the issue. As long as it is not, the issue of a lack of will will take care of itself, if the necessity of exercising such a will is imposed by events.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> I like Alana. Continuing to call yourself a Breitbart 'reporter' takes some guts.


Anyone calling themselves a reporter takes guts. Our News is less about facts and more about hot takes and agendas. Reporting should be called "News Entertainment".



DesolationRow said:


> That predictable late-empire stage is here.


I think we're along the lines of the Eastern Roman Empire. Corruption, greed, apathy and lack of foresight done them in. While not being able to pay the Hungarian cannon maker his gold to arm them with the weapons they so badly needed lost them Constantinople, it was own vices that ensured defeat. 

Even their own people didn't think their Empire would fall despite the signs it was failing until it was much too late. The other European powers could have bailed them out but were to busy with their petty squabbles which is funny because the Ottomans getting into Europe was one of the worst things for Europe.

Ironically ERE had one of the best armies in the world but it didn't amount to much when money, competent politicians and leaders and citizens who gave a damn were in such short supply.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Anyone calling themselves a reporter takes guts. Our News is less about facts and more about hot takes and agendas. Reporting should be called "News Entertainment".


I think the word you're looking for is tabloids.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Anyone calling themselves a reporter takes guts. *Our News is less about facts and more about hot takes and agendas. Reporting should be called "News Entertainment".
> *
> 
> 
> I think we're along the lines of the Eastern Roman Empire. Corruption, greed, apathy and lack of foresight done them in. While not being able to pay the Hungarian cannon maker his gold to arm them with the weapons they so badly needed lost them Constantinople, it was own vices that ensured defeat.
> 
> Even their own people didn't think their Empire would fall despite the signs it was failing until it was much too late. The other European powers could have bailed them out but were to busy with their petty squabbles which is funny because the Ottomans getting into Europe was one of the worst things for Europe.
> 
> Ironically ERE had one of the best armies in the world but it didn't amount to much when money, competent politicians and leaders and citizens who gave a damn were in such short supply.


Just like the US President right


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump is Political Entertainment. Which is the first time anyone in politics has contributed value to anyone besides bankers and corporate execs.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Trump is Political Entertainment. Which is the first time anyone in politics has contributed value to anyone besides bankers and corporate execs.


I would submit sexual predator/saxaphone playing/buffoon Bill Clinton provided ample entertainment.


----------



## CamillePunk

Clinton didn't provide entertainment, Clinton was a sexual deviate and people made fun of him and that was entertaining. Trump jokes are rarely funny. Trump himself is hilarious.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Tomato/Tomato


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Clinton didn't provide entertainment, *Clinton was a sexual deviate* and people made fun of him and that was entertaining. Trump jokes are rarely funny. Trump himself is hilarious.


Please stop making yourself look bad.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Just like the US President right


I find him entertaining as well as all the over the top reactions to anything and everything he does. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

Sorry to hear women never let you grab them by the pussy. Can't relate.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1111802910927671302
> Apropos. :lol
> 
> I see people want to pretend the border crisis we've been talking about for years started this week. :lol Yeah okay, not going to engage with that level of delusion, sorry.
> 
> Trump was right the entire time about the witch hunt, and he's been right the entire time about the southern border.


If he's been right the entire time, then please do show the data that backs up all the claims he's made about the border being bad as it is. Show us anything that showcases that things have been as bad as the link you posted this entire time. 

Oh and by the way, if the border has been in a crisis for two years and Trump knew this, why did he wait two years to declare it a national emergency? 

Your desperation is hilarious :mj4.

Oh and also, you should probably read the link you posted. Not only do they incorrectly state how many illegals are being held, they make it clear that they aren't getting a swarm of them at once, families are simply being held on for too long and it's starting to add up, and they even claim the laws within congress need to be changed. They make no mention of needing a wall. 

I wonder why that is? Maybe because a wall is an incredibly fucking stupid idea? Something like that I'm sure.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Sorry to hear women never let you grab them by the pussy. Can't relate.


Isn't that sexual harrasment by Trump? 23 women think so.


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> Isn't that sexual harrasment by Trump?


Unless he was touching Billy Bush's dick without his consent in that trailer, then no.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Unless he was touching Billy Bush's dick without his consent in that trailer, then no.


https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12


No corroboration or evidence for any of the claims. Yawn.

Meanwhile we've got Biden creeping on women and young girls on video.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> No corroboration or evidence for any of the claims. Yawn.
> 
> Meanwhile we've got Biden creeping on women and young girls on video.


Nice deflection and yes I agree about Biden.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Relax it was all locker room talk with Trump right? Also the paying off Busty McStormy was a myth, the getting too familiar with the Miss Worlds in their change rooms in his own beauty pageants was a lie etc etc.

The lengths people will go to exonerate that buffoon...


----------



## Stephen90

yeahbaby! said:


> Relax it was all locker room talk with Trump right? Also the paying off Busty McStormy was a myth, the getting too familiar with the Miss Worlds in their change rooms in his own beauty pageants was a lie etc etc.
> 
> The lengths people will go to exonerate that buffoon...


 @CamillePunk just did and he wonders why no one takes him seriously. Cam likes Trump and will go to any length to defend him.


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> Nice deflection and yes I agree about Biden.


Pointing out a lack of corroboration and evidence isn't a deflection. Allegations don't mean anything without that.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Pointing out a lack of corroboration and evidence isn't a deflection. Allegations don't mean anything without that.





> Mr. Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
> 
> Mr. Bush: Whatever you want.
> 
> Mr. Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.


Just stop embrassing yourself already. You're just as bad those R.Kelly defenders.


----------



## Hawkke

"Donald J. Trump is still President in 2019"

Thanks for the update!
:thumbsup


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> Just stop embrassing yourself already. You're just as bad those R.Kelly defenders.


Yeah, that's what's going on here. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> Isn't that sexual harrasment by Trump? 23 women think so.


Which ones?

The one on the plane who got completely discredited? She disappeared right quick

The one who had been in the same room as :trump one time, and there were tons of other people in the room, and no one else who was in the room would back up her story? She disappeared right quick too

The other ones who also completely dropped off the map as soon as the election was over? Whatever happened to them? Oh, their ploy didn't work so they also disappeared. As happens when a smear doesn't work. I don't give a shit about people who pop up out of the woodwork to make an allegation then are never heard from again when their allegation doesn't work. If they weren't bullshitting they wouldn't give up and go away. Bill Clinton's victims didn't go away

I have no doubt that the president has been loutish towards some women. Compare it to Bill Clinton throwing a woman down on a bed and raping her while Arkansas State Troopers guarded the hotel room door, or LBJ berating the Secret Service and installing an alarm system in the Oval Office after Lady Bird busted in on him banging a secretary on the presidential desk, or JFK getting reverse gangbangs from his secretaries in the White House swimming pool while Jackie O was playing with their children a few rooms away, or Daddy Bush screwing one of his secretaries for 12 years, or FDR going off to White Sulphur Springs to shack up with his girlfriend while Eleanor was back in DC making speeches about women's rights, or John McCain cheating on his crippled wife and marrying one of his girlfriends as soon as the divorce went through, or Mark Sanford dropping off the face of the earth to go see his South American chippie... Obama manspreading showing the hard-on in his pants in front of women reporters on his campaign plane, that's kinda loutish, but so fucking what about any of that other than serial rapist Bubba? A politician being faithful to their spouse - or not - is irrelevant. It always was irrelevant, but people pretended it wasn't. Thanks to Bubba and nearly the entire news media circling the wagons around him, they don't even pretend that it matters anymore unless it's a Republican dangerous to the left wing's attempts to gain or hold on to power. Then it's VERY SRS BSNS

This whole we suddenly give a shit about moral propriety in personal life when it's politically convenient is all a game


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

many of the women who claimed they were assaulted still somehow managed to find themselves alone with trump multiple times after the alleged incident occurred. all you need to know that it's BS. 

not one of those allegations were credible.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stephen90 said:


> yeahbaby! said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relax it was all locker room talk with Trump right? Also the paying off Busty McStormy was a myth, the getting too familiar with the Miss Worlds in their change rooms in his own beauty pageants was a lie etc etc.
> 
> The lengths people will go to exonerate that buffoon...
> 
> 
> 
> @CamillePunk just did and he wonders why no one takes him seriously. Cam likes Trump and will go to any length to defend him.
Click to expand...

A lost cause that one, he now degraded in to gotcha gutter politics. 

Could be worse, could be Berzerker who thinks sexual assault victims never return to their abusers or that those who do the abusing don't try to go back for more. He's the absolute worst poster in this thread.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ye no, the facts are on my side. Allegations without corroboration or evidence are meaningless. A jocular conversation between dudes in a trailer does not constitute evidence of anything.

Stephen90 red reps every post I make with the same "this is why nobody takes you seriously" message. :lol How he spreads around enough rep to do that is beyond me, but I admire the dedication. Can't imagine the lengths he goes to for people he DOES take seriously!


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> A lost cause that one, he now degraded in to gotcha gutter politics.
> 
> Could be worse, could be Berzerker who thinks sexual assault victims never return to their abusers or that those who do the abusing don't try to go back for more. He's the absolute worst poster in this thread.


yea... you definitely have no idea what you're talking about and you definitely didn't do any research regarding the trump allegations. caressing someone's leg doesn't exactly constitute abuse, especially if they continued having relations with him. 

nice try though. i could see you still hold some resentment towards me because of how badly i exposed you and had you stuttering over your words that one time during the billionaire morality debate.

"subjective morality" amirite? :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> yea... you definitely have no idea what you're talking about and you definitely didn't do any research regarding the trump allegations. caressing someone's leg doesn't exactly constitute abuse, especially if they continued having relations with him.
> 
> nice try though. i could see you still hold some resentment towards me because of how badly i exposed you and had you stuttering over your words that one time during the billionaire morality debate.
> 
> "subjective morality" amirite? :lol


Except I never once made any allusion to the Trump allegations, I ridiculed your pathetic stance on sexual assault by suggesting that sexual assault victims can't be sexually assaulted again by the same perpetrator. You are so devoid of any understanding of the topics you talk about its embarrassing.

I think you're confusing me stuttering with someone else, you have continuously shown yourself to be one of the jobbers of debates once again highlighted by your previous comment, its probably as bad as when you claimed not for profit organisations don't make money.


----------



## deepelemblues

Trying all the stuff that didn't work in 2016 again isn't going to work in 2020 either

Democrats have to run a campaign that is not 80% Orange Man Bad like the Clintons did

There was never much focus to their efforts, they'd just get whipped up and whipped around by whatever the Orange Man Bad subject of the week was

Meanwhile :trump hammered the economy + immigration constantly, the two supporting pillars of his message that 'the establishment' was a bunch arrogant jerks who looked down on everyone else and had messed up the country 

Hillary basically co-opted Bernie's economic platform for the general election and it didn't get her into the Oval Office

Right now it looks like they've smartened up a little and they're running about 70% Orange Man Bad 30% YANG GANG SECURE THE BAG. The first percentage needs to go way down and the second one way up for them to even have a chance. Promising sunshine and rainbows can work. It's what :trump did

All this indignant bitching about :trump promised this :trump promised that misses the point. :trump promised something. Hillary promised Orange Man Bad. House Democrats seem consumed with weighing down their 2020 candidate by continuing to make everything about the president all the time. Like how dumb are they, that's precisely what the president wants. He's a man who is energized by being the center of attention, and especially when he's in a fight

:trump's wet dream is being in a debate next year and getting the opportunity to land a "such a nasty woman"-style quip then make this face :Trump


----------



## CamillePunk

Andrew Yang seems like he cares about white people, I don't think he'd work out too well as the Democratic nominee.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Andrew Yang seems like he cares about white people, I don't think he'd work out too well as the Democratic nominee.


Adding 6-7 trillion to the yearly federal budget with $1000 a month to every adult and socialist healthcare is surely a winning strategy


----------



## TripleG

I've said it a million times, but the Trump Presidency is the Frankenstein Monster born of the Democrats' and the News Media's own stupidity. They basically threw the banana peel in front of themselves at every turn and you see where they got them. 

We still have a long way to go to 2020, but it feels like they've only doubled down on the things that caused them to lose in 2016 where they basically exposed themselves as the biased, arrogant, and preachy jerks Trump supporters accused them of being.


----------



## virus21

TripleG said:


> I've said it a million times, but the Trump Presidency is the Frankenstein Monster born of the Democrats' and the News Media's own stupidity. They basically threw the banana peel in front of themselves at every turn and you see where they got them.
> 
> We still have a long way to go to 2020, but it feels like they've only doubled down on the things that caused them to lose in 2016 where they basically exposed themselves as the biased, arrogant, and preachy jerks Trump supporters accused them of being.


Same reasons the Republicans lost to Bill Clinton in the 90s


----------



## Stephen90

Draykorinee said:


> A lost cause that one, he now degraded in to gotcha gutter politics.
> 
> Could be worse, could be Berzerker who thinks sexual assault victims never return to their abusers or that those who do the abusing don't try to go back for more. He's the absolute worst poster in this thread.


Cam's the only poster I actually have on ignore and I never put anyone on ignore. I don't know if he's trolling or really serious?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Except I never once made any allusion to the Trump allegations,* I ridiculed your pathetic stance on sexual assault by suggesting that sexual assault victims can't be sexually assaulted again by the same perpetrator*. You are so devoid of any understanding of the topics you talk about its embarrassing.
> 
> I think you're confusing me stuttering with someone else, you have continuously shown yourself to be one of the jobbers of debates once again highlighted by your previous comment, its probably as bad as when you claimed not for profit organisations don't make money.


uh.. you know these women weren't in a relationship with him right?. they weren't dating, they weren't married. they weren't obligated to spend more time with him. yet many of these woman still continued and pursued their relationship long after they were 'violated'.

just recently former knicks star kristaps porzingis was accused of rape by a former girlfriend. yet even after the alleged incident, she continued to have relations with him and even sent nude pics of herself.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rsued-romantic-relationship-alleged-rape.html

^ her story is BS of course and everyone knows it, but it didn't stop the press from running with the story. and any rational person with common sense can see what's clearly going on.

just not you apparently.

#woke 
#metoo 
#timesup
#subjectivemorality


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I never once made any allusion to the Trump allegations,* I ridiculed your pathetic stance on sexual assault by suggesting that sexual assault victims can't be sexually assaulted again by the same perpetrator*. You are so devoid of any understanding of the topics you talk about its embarrassing.
> 
> I think you're confusing me stuttering with someone else, you have continuously shown yourself to be one of the jobbers of debates once again highlighted by your previous comment, its probably as bad as when you claimed not for profit organisations don't make money.
> 
> 
> 
> uh.. you know these women weren't in a relationship with him right?. they weren't dating, they weren't married. they weren't obligated to spend more time with him. yet many of these woman still continued and pursued their relationship long after they were 'violated'.
> 
> just recently former knicks star kristaps porzingis was accused of rape by a former girlfriend. yet even after the alleged incident, she continued to have relations with him and even sent nude pics of herself.
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rsued-romantic-relationship-alleged-rape.html
> 
> ^ her story is BS of course and everyone knows it, but it didn't stop the press from running with the story. and any rational person with common sense can see what's clearly going on.
> 
> just not you apparently.
> 
> #woke
> #metoo
> #timesup
> #subjectivemorality
Click to expand...

That's all totally irrelevant to your original stance that because someone went back after being sexually assaulted then that proves they weren't sexually assaulted.

Anyone with a semblance of basic understanding of sexual assault know that it's incredibly common for a victim to stay within the perpetrators life, this is even more so when the perpetrator has some element of power. That could be financial, emotional, physical power etc all of which trump has. 

You're an ignorant person with an ignorant understanding of sexual assault. 

You can keep talking about trumps assaults all you like, it's not relevant to me as I'm not running any narrative about his supposed indiscretions.


----------



## CamillePunk

Stephen90 said:


> Cam's the only poster I actually have on ignore and I never put anyone on ignore. I don't know if he's trolling or really serious?


YOU REP EVERY POST I MAKE IN THIS THREAD IF YOU HAVE ME ON IGNORE THAT MEANS YOU GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO SEE MY POSTS AND THEN AGAIN TO REP THEM :lmao :lmao :lmao

This is like Reap going on rants about me in threads I've never posted in. I haven't paid rent in YEARS.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> YOU REP EVERY POST I MAKE IN THIS THREAD IF YOU HAVE ME ON IGNORE THAT MEANS YOU GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO SEE MY POSTS AND THEN AGAIN TO REP THEM :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> This is like Reap going on rants about me in threads I've never posted in. I haven't paid rent in YEARS.


----------



## Stephen90

deepelemblues said:


>


Not really since I just did it a day ago.


----------



## ShiningStar

TripleG said:


> I've said it a million times, but the Trump Presidency is the Frankenstein Monster born of the Democrats' and the News Media's own stupidity. They basically threw the banana peel in front of themselves at every turn and you see where they got them.
> 
> We still have a long way to go to 2020, but it feels like they've only doubled down on the things that caused them to lose in 2016 where they basically exposed themselves as the biased, arrogant, and preachy jerks Trump supporters accused them of being.


2020 is basically gonna be does Trump screw Trump late or do Dems screw Dems .In 2018 Dems almost ate defeat in the face of victory with their behaivor in the Kavannaugh circus,the polls tightened and until the last 2 weeks the house was suddenly a toss up. They lucked out Trump screwed Trump before the midterms with his attempted Caravan Fear Bait and handed them the pre Kavannaugh lead they had in polls.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TripleG said:


> I've said it a million times, but the Trump Presidency is the Frankenstein Monster born of the Democrats' and the News Media's own stupidity. They basically threw the banana peel in front of themselves at every turn and you see where they got them.
> 
> We still have a long way to go to 2020, but it feels like they've only doubled down on the things that caused them to lose in 2016 where they basically exposed themselves as the biased, arrogant, and preachy jerks Trump supporters accused them of being.


I give Trump and Team a bit more credit in the election win than just the weaknesses of the Dems and media. His direct patrotic-laden message of 'our country is crap and being laughed at now, but I'll make it better like it used to be' was extremely effective. That along with his celebrity status and downright absurd nature turned out to be attractive to a LOT of people.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> Not really since I just did it a day ago.


All I'm saying is living in anyone's head gotta be real cramped and even no rent would be too damn high

I mean it's just a head


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113251528423428096
Good news to all the haters, I am now dead :sodone


----------



## deepelemblues

Everyone's got a little Creepy Uncle Joe in them

Well, everyone's _had_ a little Creepy Uncle Joe in them :trolldog


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

interesting watching the dems tear down biden but had no problem with him when he was vice president.

interesting indeed....


----------



## Frost99

The left likes to "Eat there Own" from time to time


----------



## Draykorinee

Frost99 said:


> The left likes to "Eat there Own" from time to time


Eat there own...


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113538418124963840
Going to be interesting to hear more accounts from people who were targeted by the deep state in the Russiagate witch hunt.

They sent FBI agents with machine guns to Roger Stone's house. I hope people go to jail over this, but I'm not optimistic.


----------



## deepelemblues

Like every other witch hunt errr I mean special counsel investigation after Watergate the special counsel flailed about wildly for an extended period of time once he found no evidence for the allegation he was appointed to investigate, trying to threaten people so they would provide the evidence he couldn't find

There should never be another special counsel ever again. The Starr, Mueller and Fitzgerald investigations were humiliating national embarrassments whose purpose was not to uncover and prosecute actual crimes but to politically take out the president they targeted because the party out of power couldn't do it legitimately via elections. Three strikes and you should be out


----------



## Draykorinee

So with the noise from windmills causing cancer and the idea that wind energy should be forgotten because it isn't always windy are people going to see trump for the unscientific person he is?


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> So with the noise from windmills causing cancer and the idea that wind energy should be forgotten because it isn't always windy are people going to see trump for the unscientific person he is?


He's just as unscientific as all the people who have said multiple times over the last 25 years that we have X number of years to save the earth from the globul warmens and keep pushing the date back when X number of years passes and the earth wasn't destroyed

So, he's very unscientific. Difference is, while some of those other people are also politicians, others are supposedly real actual scientists with doctorates who have been published in real scientific journals and everything :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

Who the hell thought Donald Trump was scientific? :lol This is like people who go "AHA see Donald Trump isn't a true evangelical Christian!" 

No shit. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Who the hell thought Donald Trump was scientific? :lol This is like people who go "AHA see Donald Trump isn't a true evangelical Christian!"
> 
> No shit. :lol


The White House should be like a 50s sci-fi B movie, full of scientists yelling at each other until one of them comes up with the idea for the deus ex machina one day, builds a prototype the next, and mass-produces it the third day just in time to stop the Martian invasion


----------



## yeahbaby!

'Scientific' is one thing, lacking basic common sense a child tends to learn by age 11 is another.

But what can you expect of a man who can't:


Open an umbrella
Tell the difference between would and wouldn't
Makes up non-words to post on Twitter
Resist the temptation to say he's the best at everything at any opportunity


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> 'Scientific' is one thing, lacking basic common sense a child tends to learn by age 11 is another.
> 
> But what can you expect of a man who can't:
> 
> 
> Open an umbrella
> Tell the difference between would and wouldn't
> Makes up non-words to post on Twitter
> Resist the temptation to say he's the best at everything at any opportunity


Not very flattering to the people who don't like him that they keep losing to a man with purportedly less sense than an 11 year old :heston 

When the baby steals _your_ candy... well :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Who the hell thought Donald Trump was scientific? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> This is like people who go "AHA see Donald Trump isn't a true evangelical Christian!"
> 
> No shit. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />


I didn't say people thought he was scientific I was saying people should see him as being unscientific. 

But he often tries to have positions on scientific issues and supports it with gobbledigook for all to hear, and some people believe him.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump tweeted the creeper Biden meme video. :done


----------



## DesolationRow

The fact that Joe Biden may be the Democrats' best all-around candidate, speaking strictly politically, is a sad indictment of the party. Biden wedded to Stacey Abrams as his vice presidential pick would potentially be potent, since changing demographics in the state of Georgia indicate that she could conceivably bring home that state in 2020 for a theoretical Biden-Abrams ticket. Arizona is a state likelier to flip blue in 2020, and the Democrats are being fairly perspicuous in targeting Michigan and Wisconsin. Having said that, Biden is a buffoon in a way that is not even amusing, including his own plagiarizing of a speech by Neil Kinnock, the British Labor Party leader. Biden had proven to not be able to tell the truth regarding his own life story, but he is a politician so it is at the same time not altogether surprising.


----------



## birthday_massacre

NBC: Mueller report includes “detailed accounts of Trump campaign contacts with Russia” and depicts a “campaign whose members were manipulated by a sophisticated Russian intelligence operation.”


----------



## yeahbaby!

I heard Boris and Natasha spearheaded the whole thing


----------



## Ryder92

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, that's what's going on here. :lol


Some people (Actually, alot) these days can't be bothered with reality.


----------



## virus21

DesolationRow said:


> The fact that Joe Biden may be the Democrats' best all-around candidate, speaking strictly politically, is a sad indictment of the party. Biden wedded to Stacey Abrams as his vice presidential pick would potentially be potent, since changing demographics in the state of Georgia indicate that she could conceivably bring home that state in 2020 for a theoretical Biden-Abrams ticket. Arizona is a state likelier to flip blue in 2020, and the Democrats are being fairly perspicuous in targeting Michigan and Wisconsin. Having said that, Biden is a buffoon in a way that is not even amusing, including his own plagiarizing of a speech by Neil Kinnock, the British Labor Party leader. Biden had proven to not be able to tell the truth regarding his own life story, but he is a politician so it is at the same time not altogether surprising.


The Democratic Party as a whole is a total shit show at this point. Can't even call them a party anymore.


----------



## Strike Force

yeahbaby! said:


> But what can you expect of a man who can't:
> 
> 
> Open an umbrella
> Tell the difference between would and wouldn't
> *[*]Makes up non-words to post on Twitter*
> Resist the temptation to say he's the best at everything at any opportunity














DesolationRow said:


> The fact that Joe Biden may be the Democrats' best all-around candidate, speaking strictly politically, is a sad indictment of the party.


It's truly embarrassing, almost (if not quite) as embarrassing as Trump earning the '16 GOP nod. If he managed to get elected, he would be 82 at the end of his first time. The Democrats managed to skip grooming two generations of successors to the Clinton/Biden/Gore/Pelosi/Schumer generation, and now there's no one on the bench between those fossils and the AOCs of the world.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Strike Force said:


> It's truly embarrassing, almost (if not quite) as embarrassing as Trump earning the '16 GOP nod. If he managed to get elected, he would be 82 at the end of his first time. The Democrats managed to skip grooming two generations of successors to the Clinton/Biden/Gore/Pelosi/Schumer generation, and now there's no one on the bench between those fossils and the AOCs of the world.


It's kinda funny that presidents and SCOTUS' tend to be so damn old senior citizens, whereas in regular society seniors are generally forgotten and written of by regular society.


----------



## Strike Force

yeahbaby! said:


> It's kinda funny that presidents and SCOTUS' tend to be so damn old senior citizens, whereas in regular society seniors are generally forgotten and written of by regular society.


Well, that's not really true at all. The average age of presidents at inauguration is around 55. Granted, that number is skewed slightly due to increasing life expectancy over the course of the nation's history, but to say that presidents tend to be "damn old senior citizens" isn't historically or factually accurate in any way. You should also note that many of the most powerful people in the private sector tend to be much older. Not really sure where you're getting your intel.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Strike Force said:


> Well, that's not really true at all. The average age of presidents at inauguration is around 55. Granted, that number is skewed slightly due to increasing life expectancy over the course of the nation's history, but to say that presidents tend to be "damn old senior citizens" isn't historically or factually accurate in any way. You should also note that many of the most powerful people in the private sector tend to be much older. Not really sure where you're getting your intel.


Lol okay well I'll be firing my staff then 

It's just my impression from more recent times, I guess I'm thinking about recent political figures like John McCain, Bernie, Trump is old, and some 'popular' members of congress look like they're about to die of old age.


----------



## Draykorinee

Biden isn't even close to being an all round best candidate.


----------



## johnbadger

lets be honest people only hate Donald Trump because he's white and we all know it


----------



## SPCDRI

birthday_massacre said:


> NBC: Mueller report includes “detailed accounts of Trump campaign contacts with Russia” and depicts a “campaign whose members were manipulated by a sophisticated Russian intelligence operation.”


These nefarious, sophisticated manipulators...who couldn't get them to commit a single crime worthy of being indicted? Really? Its more red-scare crap. Doing business with Russians isn't illegal, ask Hillary Clinton about Rosatom and her husband getting a half a million dollar check before his wife, who was the secretary of state, fast tracked a uranium sale. Right after the deal authorization, these evil Rooskies were feeling awfully charitable when they gave the Clinton's "charity" over 100 million dollars! How kind of them!

President Trump was spied on and we don't have a pussy-whipped, sad-sack like Sessions as AG anymore. William Barr is going to get into that ass and you just know it when you see people like James Clapper shitting their pants on television over him. Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Strzok, Page, the Ohrs and Clapper are all shitting themselves right now and its awesome.



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol okay well I'll be firing my staff then
> 
> It's just my impression from more recent times, I guess I'm thinking about recent political figures like John McCain, Bernie, Trump is old, and some 'popular' members of congress look like they're about to die of old age.


Its mainly the senate. These old-school geezers all got into the senate when once they burrowed in like ticks it was so hard to boot them out. With politics being more polarized and volatile its not so much the case, but it used to be that any senator with more than 2 terms under his or her belt was more likely to be struck by lightning than voted out of office. That's why half the people in the senate are older than 63. 

The senate also operates on seniority and terms in office, especially for the Democrats since they put people on committees indefinitely rather than for fixed terms like democrats. Also, when a state is blue, a state is BLUE. Those old-timers got lifetime seats. 

The senate can legally vote to vote people out for being mentally and physically unfit, which is called an expulsion, but for practical purposes they cannot conduct expulsion proceedings, because if they opened up that can of worms it'd turn into a feeding frenzy of attempted ousters. A Republican or Democrat would vote to boot their rival, then a revenge expulsion would happen, etc. Even when people like Ted Kennedy and John McCain were in their 80s and dying of BRAIN CANCER they couldn't get ousted. 

Biden is the old-school Burrowed Tick senator. The senators pick an industry to toady to, in Joe Biden's case it was banking and credit card companies in Delaware since a credit card company only has to pay taxes in the state it is incorporated in, not do business in. Biden's job was to fight anything that made credit and loan companies angry, like usury laws, consumer finance protection laws and anything that would hinder credit card business and to keep the taxes on that industry in Delaware lower than whale shit. He did it admirably, which is why if he didn't decide to run for president and accept the vice president ticket opportunity, he could have served in the senate as the lackey for bankers until he dropped dead.

Edit: Senators also have 6 year terms instead of 2 and get more spent on them and more money sloshing around them. After a while, a senator becomes a sort of celebrity and he or she is a Made Man. The people who do the talk show circuit and radio circuit and cable news circuit as the Name Brand "Rockstar" people are usually senators. It makes it really hard to get somebody out of office once they accumulate a really big mystique or mythos and get all the connections and money and some media figures on their side as mouthpieces.


----------



## Draykorinee

johnbadger said:


> lets be honest people only hate Donald Trump because he's white and we all know it


Yeah, you aught to see how much people hate Bernie sanders...Trying to figure out which rejoiner you are.


----------



## deepelemblues

If the :trump campaign was being manipulated by a skilled Russian intelligence operation, why didn't the Obama Administration inform them? Say, "there are Russians trying to manipulate you, heads up. Let's work together to expose them because that would be best for our country."

They informed Dianne Feinstein immediately when it was discovered a Chinese spy was on her staff... 

Oh, the Obama Administration was more interested in spying on the :trump campaign to help the Clinton campaign than in protecting the integrity of American democracy from foreign meddling ploys

"Detailed accounts" lol detailed accounts of people working for the FBI and CIA approaching the :trump campaign claiming they were connected to Russia and had info on Clinton as part of an ill-conceived, ham-fisted entrapment scheme


----------



## yeahbaby!

Thread has really gone downhill. Seemingly the levels of Trumptainment have withered?


----------



## KingCosmos

deepelemblues said:


> If the :trump campaign was being manipulated by a skilled Russian intelligence operation, why didn't the Obama Administration inform them? Say, "there are Russians trying to manipulate you, heads up. Let's work together to expose them because that would be best for our country."
> 
> They informed Dianne Feinstein immediately when it was discovered a Chinese spy was on her staff...
> 
> Oh, the Obama Administration was more interested in spying on the :trump campaign to help the Clinton campaign than in protecting the integrity of American democracy from foreign meddling ploys
> 
> "Detailed accounts" lol detailed accounts of people working for the FBI and CIA approaching the :trump campaign claiming they were connected to Russia and had info on Clinton as part of an ill-conceived, ham-fisted entrapment scheme


Obama did send a warning.....


----------



## Ygor

Draykorinee said:


> Biden isn't even close to being an all round best candidate.


That clumsy, old Irishman is shameless and has no idea of what's appropriate. Wonder what kinda shenanigans he intends to pull this time around.


----------



## Interceptor88

How can be possible that this Trump guy tweets suggesting how to extinguish the Notre Dame incendium in an ignorant and "I know better than firefighters, engineers and architects for no reason!" way and he gets 166k likes. Are there thousands and thousands of Americans who believes everything Trump says is true? I mean, in my country (and believe me, Spain has a lot of terrible politicians), if our prime minister says something blatantly stupid, even his hierophants would admit he botched his statement or, at the very least, look the other way. But it looks like Trump can say literally anything and he can go with it. I mean, it's not the first time he tweets some huge nonsense and still hordes of people inmediately support what he just said. I'm really curious about this.


----------



## Draykorinee

I love that trump thought chucking hundreds tons of water over a weak structure is a good idea. That and saying noise from windmills give cancer are some of my favourite Trumpisms of recent weeks.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118299332577566720


----------



## CamillePunk

America First... 

:lauren


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> America First...
> 
> :lauren




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065289231977738240


----------



## Derpvillage

For a man who is in the headlines everyday about something illegal, it seems like we don't have any solid evidence against him. I'm over it.


----------



## Miss Sally

Ugh.. America First.. gives billions to Israel and supports Saudi Arabia against Yemen.. Yeah ok commander and Chief.


----------



## DesolationRow

Miss Sally said:


> Ugh.. America First.. gives billions to Israel and supports Saudi Arabia against Yemen.. Yeah ok commander and Chief.


Following Donald Trump's designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, with 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 2,000 lingering in Syria, with Iranian militias and support forces frequently nearby, the recently reelected Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Israel--for his fifth term--slam-dunked on everyone. :lol 

One cannot blame Netanyahu for the lack of humility. He declared through twitter, "Once again, you are keeping the world safe from Iran aggression and terrorism. ... Thank you for accepting another important request of mine." 

:lmao 

The Iranians responded by declaring the U.S. Central Command a terrorist group, which is almost funny. 

Unfortunately, less funny is analyzing what may or may not be occurring with that insipid son-in-law of Trump's, Jared Kushner, attempting to carry the ball down the field on the Middle East peace process, a process which is doubtless doomed as Netanyahu sees no point in Jewish settlers retreating. Netanyahu was viciously disagreeable toward Ariel Sharon when Sharon attempted to extricate 8,000 settlers from Gaza. With a stronger hand to play in 2019 as the U.S. president is enjoying higher polling numbers among Jewish voters thanks in large part to the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (or BDS) cause popular with the new generation of Democrats (partly due to the reality that as the Democratic Party becomes less and less white, there is far less emotional attachment to Israel than ever before within that party), Netanyahu is happy to assist Trump in assisting him with his problems in the Middle East. Trump's highly pro-Israel approach to the entire Middle East since his 2016 election has, according to _New York Times_ polling, helped him look better in certain places due to Jewish voters peeling off of a Democratic Party they view as recently increasingly hostile toward their interests. 

The Middle East is presently in the middle of something of a cold war with the Israelis aligned with the Sunnis, chiefly through the diplomatic marriage between Tel Aviv and Riyadh as well as the Gulf States in general against the Shia superpower Iran and Iran's greatest "little sister," in a sense, in Syria with the Bashar al-Assad regime. The U.S.'s CIA actively aided Sunni militias and terror groups such as the al-Nusra Front, the Syrian satellite of al-Qaeda, during the Barack Obama presidency in order to form the front against Russian-Iranian-Syrian interests in the Mideast alongside Israel, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait. 

The U.S.'s brashest political figures such as Chris Christie were rather transparent regarding this four or so years ago as they peddled the concept of shooting down Russian planes over Syria. Hillary Clinton was also rather visibly obsessed with simply overthrowing the Assad regime in Damascus rather than contain or annihilate ISIS militants. Evidence emerged regarding ISIS' stance in Syria being impacted so greatly by Russia that U.S., British and French intelligence considered it likely that Russian assaults on ISIS in Syria in 2015 were the most potent lashing ISIS had received to that date. Francois Hollande was rather adamant regarding the precariousness of the situation, seeking to allow the French government to align more closely with Moscow over the threat of ISIS, but Clinton was almost perpetually counter-signaling this. Clinton argued in myriad Democratic presidential debates that the Russians were the gravest threat of all, declaring Vladimir Putin as being the worst actor in the region. Clinton declared--in the face of Libya, where today thanks to the 2011 intervention, hell has broken loose with a rogue's gallery of militias preparing for war with one another in a Hobbesian struggle for power: http://www.apnews.com/76313fb7c3654a1a9270bbd7b4bd96f2 --that she was seeking yet another variation of an "Arab Awakening," which dovetailed rhetorically with the U.S.'s efforts to supply those who were designated "moderate" Islamist rebels. Many of whom were fanatics and at the very least often affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS. 

Yemen is the proxy war battleground for this conflict, as the Houthi rebels, Zaidi Shia, are backed by their fellow Shia in Tehran. The relationship between the Saudis and Israelis is rather perspicuous today. In a backhanded, circuitous way the bipartisan agreement to pull the plug on support for Saudi actions in Yemen is a stiff-arming of Israel, too, but in any event it is merely symbolic as Trump has vetoed it. To be sure, however, Trump, for all of his caginess in politics compared to the lightweight neoconservative imbeciles against whom he ran like Marco Rubio, has managed to allow himself to be guided in large part by a fellow in Kushner who is almost humorously unwise, given what is known about him. 

Vicky Ward's book _Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump_ is more genuinely scandalously revealing than a single jot in the much-vaunted empty McDonald's hamburger called The Mueller Report. The people around the presidents matter as much as the presidents do, and Trump has sadly placed his daughter and her husband in ostensibly the uppermost echelons of his inner-circle. Crown Prince Mohammed's reforms plan was being cooked up as Kushner threw together the last touches of his Mideast Peace Plan. Saudi Crown Prince Mahammed bin Salman and Muhammad bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi reportedly, according to the book, refer to Kushner as the "clown prince" who can barely tie his shoelaces together. According to Mohammed bin Salman, as reported by Ward, Kushner resides in Salman's "pocket," all while Salman laughed behind Kushner's back to multiple sources. Both bin Salman and bin Zayed characterized Kushner's Mideast peace process plan as being a juvenile, puerile fantasy.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118299332577566720














DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065289231977738240







Shame that Tulsi isn't even a blip on the radar, since she's probably the only dem candidate who would make for an interesting contrast against Trump.



Derpvillage said:


> For a man who is in the headlines everyday about something illegal, it seems like we don't have any solid evidence against him. I'm over it.


He'll do very stupid shit sporadically, such as:

- Airstriking Syria over what has become a very apparent false flag operation

- Donating a fuckton of money to Israel because of the preconceived notion that they're the innocent, helpless little engine that could, when they're actually gadflys toward Iran and could kick Iran's shit in whenever they feel like it

- Continuing to assist the Saudis in that link that @DesolationRow; posted earlier

Despite his shortcomings, Orange Man is overall not bad, but rather pretty good.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Redacted Mueller report has released. A few quick highlights, while it's being pored over.



> The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.





> "With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice."





> There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President's conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia Investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope.





> On November 3, 2015 the day after the Trump Organization transmitted the LOI, Sater emailed Cohen suggesting that the Trump Moscow projct could be used to increase candidate Trump's chances at being elected, writing: "Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this. I will manage this process...Michael, Putin gets on stage with Donald for a ribbon cutting for Trump Moscow, and Donald owns the Republicans. And possibly beats Hillary and our boy is in...We will manage this process better than anyone. You and I will get Donald and Vladimir on a stage together very shortly. That is the game changer."





> In brief, the key facts are that, on June 3, 2016, Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr., to pass along from Emin and Aras Agalarov an “offer” from Russia’s “Crown prosecutor” to “the Trump campaign” of “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr.’s] father.” The email described this as “very high level and sensitive information” that is “part of Russia and it’s government support to Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin” Trump Jr. responded: if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”. Trump Jr. and Emin Aglarov had follow-up conversations and, within days, scheduled a meeting with Russian representatives that was attended by Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner. The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support an inference that the Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects.





> Candidate Trump made public statements that included the following: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing"...Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office. After candidate Trump's remarks, Unit 26165 created and sent malicious links targeting 15 email accounts....The investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain. It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public.,





> Gates also reported that Manafort instructed him in April 2016 or early May 2016 to send Kilimnik Campaign internal polling data and other pudates so that Kilimnik, in turn, could share it with Ukrainian oligarchs. Gates understood that the information would also be shared with Deripaska, <redacted redacted redacted redacted>.
> 
> Gates stated that, in accordance with Manafort's instruction, he periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis.
> 
> According to Gates, it also included a discussion of "battleground" states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. Manafort did not refer explicitly to "battleground" states in his telling of the August 2 discussion. <redacted>
> 
> After the meeting, Gates and Manafort both stated that they left separately from Kilimnik because they knew the media was tracking Manafort and wanted to avoid media reporting on his connections to Kilimnik.


----------



## Stephen90

DaRealNugget said:


> Redacted Mueller report has released. A few quick highlights, while it's being pored over.


The question is what is Trump hiding? Why would he want Sessions to protect him?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Looking at the report looks like there was collusion and obstruction lol, also stuff not under the scope was giving to other agencies.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> The question is what is Trump hiding? Why would he want Sessions to protect him?


He's hiding nothing, as established by Saint Mueller. He wanted Sessions to protect him from a baseless investigation he believed was out to ruin his presidency regardless of the truth

Interesting and amusing listening to NPR today, and watching a bit of CBS and CNN. The goalpost shifting, and something more sinister that I will get into in a moment. First, Saint Mueller was going to indict :trump. Then, Saint Mueller was going to give House Democrats everything they needed to impeach even if he didn't bring indictments. Now, Saint Mueller doesn't matter, it is all up to Congress. That's quite the geographical relocation of the posts that define the boundaries of the goal

The last thing is what is more sinister. The entire time today, there was the constant implication by journalists that this matter should be handled in contradiction of John Adams' immortal quote: "a government of laws, not of men." Saint Mueller could not bring charges on obstruction of justice (if he had the president would have been acquitted or the charges dismissed, which is why Mueller did bring any such charges), but _really,_ all that matters is Congress. Obstruction of justice is a crime, with a specific definition. The narrative being subtly pushed by the mainstream media at the moment is that obstruction of justice means whatever Congress wants it to mean. That politics determines, not the law. A government of men, not of laws

No thanks to that


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118983114951397378
I like how the reasoning for Trump saying "This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked." is explicitly explained by Trump later on in the same paragraph and yet people have decided to push their own objectively false interpretations, clearly not having finished reading the paragraph. :lol Sad. Anything to cling to the collusion delusion!


----------



## Kabraxal

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118983114951397378
> I like how the reasoning for Trump saying "This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked." is explicitly explained by Trump later on in the same paragraph and yet people have decided to push their own objectively false interpretations, clearly not having finished reading the paragraph. :lol Sad. Anything to cling to the collusion delusion!


We all knew it would happen. No matter what happened, the collusion narrative would not stop. 2016 broke all chances at non partisan rationality. And the new gameplan is in place to completely mock and undermine a president until it’s the other side’s turn.

The cherry picking of quotes to “prove” a dogmatic belief is only proof that the tribal idiocy of humans is unstoppable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

which is funny since Trump Jr said they worked with Russia to get dirty on Hillary and Muller also said he didn't charge them with a felony because they were too dumb to know it was a felony. (the Trump tower meeting)


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1119254522365452290


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1119254522365452290


There's a Saddam Stargate conspiracy theory?


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> There's a Saddam Stargate conspiracy theory?


https://www.vice.com/sv/article/533...o-think-the-west-invaded-iraq-over-a-stargate

Fucken hilarious.


----------



## Twilight Sky

The entire report is the longest drawn out way of saying that there is simply not enough evidence to charge Trump. While it has seemingly appeared that the AG has picked certain parts out to make Trump look innocent/victim, that is merely only what most of us would like to think, myself included. All in all, Trump got away, end of story, but look at all the folks that fell in his wake during this mess.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> https://www.vice.com/sv/article/533...o-think-the-west-invaded-iraq-over-a-stargate
> 
> Fucken hilarious.


Holy shit :lmao

Thank you for this gift


----------



## TripleG

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118983114951397378
> I like how the reasoning for Trump saying "This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked." is explicitly explained by Trump later on in the same paragraph and yet people have decided to push their own objectively false interpretations, clearly not having finished reading the paragraph. :lol Sad. Anything to cling to the collusion delusion!


One of the reasons I hate modern politics is that the media spin their yarns and people get all worked up and crazy ready to shout down the other side without stopping to think if their side is even right to begin with. 

I always say that "People don't want the truth, they want their biases confirmed" and the media feeds into that on a daily basis.


----------



## Kabraxal

Reaper said:


> https://www.vice.com/sv/article/533...o-think-the-west-invaded-iraq-over-a-stargate
> 
> Fucken hilarious.


That one I wish were true... who wouldn’t want a Stargate?


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> He wanted Sessions to protect him from a baseless investigation he believed was out to ruin his presidency regardless of the truth


False. He asked someone to tell Sessions to un-rescue himself, then force Mueller to limit the investigation to "future election interference only".

I don't believe any of you read the full report. Primarily the Obstruction report. It lays out a continuous case of Obstructive behavior based on Mueller's own analysis of each section of the Obstruction report. 

This myth that the report is all roses is false. The report is actually somewhat politically embarrassing for Trump. Full of Trump asking people to lie, multiple attempts to abuse his power, pressing officials, people simply refusing to carry out his Obstruction orders, saying he doesn't recall 36 times in written answers which is most likely prejury, attempting to taint a grand jury, etc. The whole report overall just doesn't rise to impeachment levels. Which means in the end Trump is fine. 

Ya'll should be worried about the 14 different investigations that Mueller sent to other U.S Attorney offices. _One of them_ is probably a financial fraud case on the Trump Organization and/or Trump's children.


----------



## deepelemblues

Headliner said:


> False. He asked someone to tell Sessions to un-rescue himself, then force Mueller to limit the investigation to "future election interference only".


That doesn't refute what I said at all. Of course Sessions couldn't do anything unless he un-recused himself. Wanting to limit the investigation to "future election interference only" goes along with the president's belief that the investigation was a witch hunt intended to present falsities regarding 2016 to ruin his presidency



> I don't believe any of you read the full report. Primarily the Obstruction report. It lays out a continuous case of Obstructive behavior based on Mueller's own analysis of each section of the Obstruction report.


Sorry to disappoint, I have read the full report :draper2 

Mueller punted on obstruction to the Attorney General. For what reason? Mueller could have said, "It is the legal opinion of the Department of Justice that a sitting president cannot be indicted (which was offered up multiple times yesterday as the _real_ reason Mueller didn't indict by those pushing your narrative), nevertheless, it is the opinion of this report that the president committed obstruction of justice." That is impeachment on a silver platter wrapped up in a pretty bow. But Mueller didn't do that. Can you provide any kind of reason why not? 



> This myth that the report is all roses is false. The report is actually somewhat politically embarrassing for Trump. Full of Trump asking people to lie, multiple attempts to abuse his power, pressing officials, people simply refusing to carry out his Obstruction orders, saying he doesn't recall 36 times in written answers which is most likely prejury, attempting to taint a grand jury, etc. The whole report overall just doesn't rise to impeachment levels. Which means in the end Trump is fine.


:trump had absolute legal authority to end the investigation any time he wanted. The special counsel regulations can be repealed by executive order. The president could have issued such an order and fired Mueller himself. Or, he could have fired Rosenstein, found a yes-man to become the interim top official at the DOJ, and ordered him to fire Mueller. All 100% legal. How far you've fallen, "somewhat politically embarrassing," don't shortchange yourself now, because...

Most of that that shit you listed rises to the level of criminal, especially "attempting to taint a grand jury" (whatever that means, messing with a grand jury is a crime) yet Mueller punted to Barr. All that shit rises to the level of impeachment, yet Jerry Nadler said that "we're not there yet" (impeachment), and Steny Hoyer said "impeachment is not worthwhile at this point" in a rare mistake of being candid, until outrage from progressives on the Twatter made him walk that comment back hours later



> Ya'll should be worried about the 14 different investigations that Mueller sent to other U.S Attorney offices. _One of them_ is probably a financial fraud case on the Trump Organization and/or Trump's children.


I'll be just as worried about them as I was worried about the Mueller investigation which was supposed to be the end of :trump about 27 different times and now it's this weaksauce about SDNY you're offering. When those other investigations fail to get the president, what will you declare then is what we should be worried about? It'll have to be something. Maybe the dogcatcher in Dingleberry, Florida, will be investigating shocking allegations from Fusion GPS that Donald Jr. ran a dogfighting ring at Mar-a-Lago under direction of his father

All these "you should really be worried about this" posts of yours that you've been making for over a year every time some new failure to get :trump you had to deal with popped up have lost their shine 

Isn't your post better suited to your echo chamber no dissent allowed thread anyway? It's probably about 7 pages back now but it's still there


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> False. He asked someone to tell Sessions to un-rescue himself, then force Mueller to limit the investigation to "future election interference only".
> 
> I don't believe any of you read the full report. Primarily the Obstruction report. It lays out a continuous case of Obstructive behavior based on Mueller's own analysis of each section of the Obstruction report.
> 
> This myth that the report is all roses is false. The report is actually somewhat politically embarrassing for Trump. Full of Trump asking people to lie, multiple attempts to abuse his power, pressing officials, people simply refusing to carry out his Obstruction orders, saying he doesn't recall 36 times in written answers which is most likely prejury, attempting to taint a grand jury, etc. The whole report overall just doesn't rise to impeachment levels. Which means in the end Trump is fine.
> 
> Ya'll should be worried about the 14 different investigations that Mueller sent to other U.S Attorney offices. _One of them_ is probably a financial fraud case on the Trump Organization and/or Trump's children.


I always roll my eyes when people saying Trump wanted to end the infestation because it was baseless. If someone made some claim about me, i would want the investigation to show that I am innocent. But Trump did everything to get it shut down.

It also laughable how people claim the report says Trump did not collude and did not obstruct justice when it says nothing like that.

It pretty much says under the law he cannot charge Trump with obstruction since that is up to congress.

And even with the collusion thing like I said earlier, he said he did not charge Don Jr and people like Kushner with colluding with Russia because they were too stupid to know it was illegal.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1119254522365452290


The Russiagaters are getting pretty close to beating out the Obamabirthers with their insanity. Both are interesting at first and seem like something is there but when you look it's nothing. 

What's most interesting is many who didn't like the obamabirthers are russiagaters themselves.. live long enough to see yourself become the villain indeed! :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> The Russiagaters are getting pretty close to beating out the Obamabirthers with their insanity. Both are interesting at first and seem like something is there but when you look it's nothing.
> 
> What's most interesting is many who didn't like the obamabirthers are russiagaters themselves.. live long enough to see yourself become the villain indeed! :laugh:


Still ignoring all the evidence that Russia interfered in the election i see LOL

Even the Mueller report admitted Russia interfered in the election as well as US intelligence.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/19/ear...proof-that-slowdown-fears-were-overblown.html

Incoming recession?










Still way overdue for one, and despite things like this there are an increasing amount of indicators that one could happen in the medium future (in a year or two). But the strength of the economy at the moment is still pretty damn strong


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/19/ear...proof-that-slowdown-fears-were-overblown.html
> 
> Incoming recession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still way overdue for one, and despite things like this there are an increasing amount of indicators that one could happen in the medium future (in a year or two). But the strength of the economy at the moment is still pretty damn strong


How long have they been saying that?


----------



## deepelemblues

virus21 said:


> How long have they been saying that?


That a recession is coming?

Pretty much since November 9, 2016


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> That a recession is coming?
> 
> Pretty much since November 9, 2016


Thought as much
The scary thing is that people saying this want a recession to happen to stick it to Trump. Let me repeat that: These people want a recession, something that will cause hardship and misery to countless people, just to stick to one guy simply because he won an election and their candidate didn't.


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> Thought as much
> The scary thing is that people saying this want a recession to happen to stick it to Trump. Let me repeat that: These people want a recession, something that will cause hardship and misery to countless people, just to stick to one guy simply because he won an election and their candidate didn't.


LOL Trumps tax cuts for the rich is causing hardship and misery to countless people just not the rich.


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> That doesn't refute what I said at all. Of course Sessions couldn't do anything unless he un-recused himself. Wanting to limit the investigation to "future election interference only" goes along with the president's belief that the investigation was a witch hunt intended to present falsities regarding 2016 to ruin his presidency
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, I have read the full report :draper2
> 
> Mueller punted on obstruction to the Attorney General. For what reason? Mueller could have said, "It is the legal opinion of the Department of Justice that a sitting president cannot be indicted (which was offered up multiple times yesterday as the _real_ reason Mueller didn't indict by those pushing your narrative), nevertheless, it is the opinion of this report that the president committed obstruction of justice." That is impeachment on a silver platter wrapped up in a pretty bow. But Mueller didn't do that. Can you provide any kind of reason why not?
> 
> 
> 
> :trump had absolute legal authority to end the investigation any time he wanted. The special counsel regulations can be repealed by executive order. The president could have issued such an order and fired Mueller himself. Or, he could have fired Rosenstein, found a yes-man to become the interim top official at the DOJ, and ordered him to fire Mueller. All 100% legal. How far you've fallen, "somewhat politically embarrassing," don't shortchange yourself now, because...
> 
> Most of that that shit you listed rises to the level of criminal, especially "attempting to taint a grand jury" (whatever that means, messing with a grand jury is a crime) yet Mueller punted to Barr. All that shit rises to the level of impeachment, yet Jerry Nadler said that "we're not there yet" (impeachment), and Steny Hoyer said "impeachment is not worthwhile at this point" in a rare mistake of being candid, until outrage from progressives on the Twatter made him walk that comment back hours later
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be just as worried about them as I was worried about the Mueller investigation which was supposed to be the end of :trump about 27 different times and now it's this weaksauce about SDNY you're offering. When those other investigations fail to get the president, what will you declare then is what we should be worried about? It'll have to be something. Maybe the dogcatcher in Dingleberry, Florida, will be investigating shocking allegations from Fusion GPS that Donald Jr. ran a dogfighting ring at Mar-a-Lago under direction of his father
> 
> All these "you should really be worried about this" posts of yours that you've been making for over a year every time some new failure to get :trump you had to deal with popped up have lost their shine
> 
> Isn't your post better suited to your echo chamber no dissent allowed thread anyway? It's probably about 7 pages back now but it's still there


It's not the AG's job to make decisions for the Special Counsel. He didn't punt the decision to the AG. In fact he referenced that Congress had the authority to make a decision. The AG did that because he's a Trump loyalist. You're MAGA'd out which means your delusion will prevent you from acknowledging damaging information. It's either spun in Trump's favor or ignored. :toomanykobes


----------



## virus21

Oh for the love of God, get over yourselves.


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> Oh for the love of God, get over yourselves.


LOL till peddling that clowns videos eh.

Here is the summary of the Mueller report in a nut shell.

Trumps team was too stupid too know what they were doing (conspiracy with Russia) was illegal so that is why they were not charged.

Everyone disobeyed Trump when he ordered them to obstruct justice, so he is leaving it up to congress to charge Trump or not. He also said if Trump didn't obstruct the report would say that which it didn't.

So basically Trump and his team was not charged with conspiracy or obstruction is because they're too stupid and his people kept ignoring Trumps orders to obstruct.

The mueller report even admits Russia interfered in the election but keep ignoring that fact.

also the most ironic thing that idiots like him and his commenters always say is who cares what Celebs think or why should we care what celebs think when they themselves comment on politician issues. It like UM who cares what you think then, using their same logic.


----------



## yeahbaby!

It's to no end. He's Teflon Don.

Would love footage of him dressing down that little old man Sessions.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump is having a state visit early June, work days for me sadly so I can't go protest the odious oaf.


----------



## Miss Sally

I love the protests, always gives me something to laugh about. Especially the overly theatrical protesters.:laugh:


----------



## Hangman

Draykorinee said:


> Trump is having a state visit early June, work days for me sadly so I can't go protest the odious oaf.


:beckylol


----------



## deepelemblues

Miss Sally said:


> I love the protests, always gives me something to laugh about. Especially the overly theatrical protesters.:laugh:


You can make decent money as a paid protester 

I know a girl, 10 years ago fresh out of high school she decided her career was gonna be being a guinea pig for medical trials, that's all she did. Made decent money too. Nowadays she's a full time professional protester. Still making decent money. No actual work involved lol which is why both were attractive to her


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> You can make decent money as a paid protester
> 
> I know a girl, 10 years ago fresh out of high school she decided her career was gonna be being a guinea pig for medical trials, that's all she did. Made decent money too. Nowadays she's a full time professional protester. Still making decent money. No actual work involved lol which is why both were attractive to her



I've heard of this and even seen people asking for them on forums and ads. Is nothing sacred? Imagine being a paid protester for commies. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> I love the protests, always gives me something to laugh about. Especially the overly theatrical protesters.<img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/WrestlingForum_2014RED/smilies/tango_face_smile_big.png" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />


I love them too, one thing I generally don't like is kids being there unless it's climate related.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> I love them too, one thing I generally don't like is kids being there unless it's climate related.


I like the funny signs and people having a good time, also the cringe. It's like being at a swap meet, it's just great people watching!


----------



## CamillePunk

The Washington Post, BBC, Guardian, and more get caught out pushing yet more anti-Trump fake news:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121380362666614785


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121774895514304512
:lol


----------



## Strike Force

You know, there's something almost endearing about Trump's total disregard for reality or truth. He's one of the most self-assured, self-confident people walking the planet, and he's able to at least act like nothing can touch him. It's actually rather amazing to watch, in a sick sort of way.


----------



## MrMister

lmfao 

"I am a young vibrant man." - Donald J. Trump


----------



## deepelemblues

You're as young as and vibrant as your trolling

The president has the youth and vibrancy of someone who's turning 14 in five months :trump3

No doubt he's feeling his mushroom today with that 3.2% first-quarter GDP growth :drose


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm sure people will just credit Obama, who resigned himself and America to slow growth and high unemployment being "the new normal" during his presidency, and upon Trump's claims that we could have a great economy asked him "what magic wand do you have?". :lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Strike Force said:


> You know, there's something almost endearing about Trump's total disregard for reality or truth. He's one of the most self-assured, self-confident people walking the planet, and he's able to at least act like nothing can touch him. It's actually rather amazing to watch, in a sick sort of way.












:trump3


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> I'm sure people will just credit Obama, who resigned himself and America to slow growth and high unemployment being "the new normal" during his presidency, and upon Trump's claims that we could have a great economy asked him "what magic wand do you have?". :lol


:trump doesn't have a magic wand

He's got the magic mushroom :trump3

Space-computer wizard Barron has the space-wand from the year 5000, which is sufficiently advanced technology to be indistinguishable from magic


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CNN of all places suggesting that trump should part ways with pence and pick nikki haley as his running mate in 2020 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/opinions/what-if-trump-dumps-pence-for-nikki-haley-wierson/index.html



> Bucking tradition for the heck of it is a hallmark of this presidency, but if Trump were to part ways with Mike Pence it would be nothing more than raw political calculus: in one move, Trump would make history by selecting a woman of color with a deep political resumé and foreign policy gravitas -- making it the most diverse ticket in the history of the GOP.


i think the democrats would have a collective heart attack :lol

imagine if he does this, wins... and then ends his second term with the economy still going strong. nikki haley could run and probably win in 2024. democrats would be toast for the forseeable future.

:lol


----------



## CamillePunk

I like how they openly acknowledge the fact that people will vote differently based purely on demographic considerations, but Trump suggesting that a first generation Mexican-American judge might be biased against him was outrageous.  Everyone is so full of shit all of the time.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> I like how they openly acknowledge the fact that people will vote differently based purely on demographic considerations, but Trump suggesting that a first generation Mexican-American judge might be biased against him was outrageous.  Everyone is so full of shit all of the time.


It was a rather striking example of the double standard wherein racial feelings - including stereotypes and outright racism - are 100% legitimate if held and expressed and cause behaviors that are beneficial to the political prospects of the left wing, but a national crisis with the death camps nigh if beneficial to the right


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> It was a rather striking example of the double standard wherein racial feelings - including stereotypes and outright racism - are 100% legitimate if held and expressed and cause behaviors that are beneficial to the political prospects of the left wing, but a national crisis with the death camps nigh if beneficial to the right


Well at least your analysis *rhymes* with the correct one. :mj


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Well at least your analysis *rhymes* with the correct one. :mj


Your not understanding my analysis is my responsibility

There is, of course, a double standard wherein non-whites enjoy the privilege of racial solidarity and various racial avenues of thinking, that are proscribed to whites. In polite company at least. I don't see the legitimacy of racial solidarity or racial avenues of thinking for anyone, but the double standard doesn't care what I think about it


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

deepelemblues said:


> Space-computer wizard Barron has the space-wand from the year 5000, which is sufficiently advanced technology to be indistinguishable from magic


Relevant:


----------



## yeahbaby!

Strike Force said:


> You know, there's something almost endearing about Trump's total disregard for reality or truth. He's one of the most self-assured, self-confident people walking the planet, and he's able to at least act like nothing can touch him. It's actually rather amazing to watch, in a sick sort of way.


Agreed. There was a good ep of Last Week Tonight where John Oliver made the point that Trump can really make you laugh at the general absurdity of his vortex, and yes it is endearing.

The other side of the Trump coin in that respect is sometimes the most self confident people on the outside can be the most torn up on the inside. Therefore they grossly overcompensate with their mask only the public sees.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> I like how they openly acknowledge the fact that people will vote differently based purely on demographic considerations, but Trump suggesting that a first generation Mexican-American judge might be biased against him was outrageous.  Everyone is so full of shit all of the time.


That always happens, people deny demographic trends and statistics as nonsense, until it suits their needs or ideologies. It's all racist or not racist based on what the trend is, yet people will bring up trends based on age, sex and ideology freely and nobody bats an eye at it. :laugh:


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> I like how they openly acknowledge the fact that people will vote differently based purely on demographic considerations, but Trump suggesting that a first generation Mexican-American judge might be biased against him was outrageous.  Everyone is so full of shit all of the time.


He is also a white guy from Indiana and was originally appointed as a state level judge by a Republican Gov, so it's a bit presumptious to assume he is a Democrat even if you could predict someone's voting identity solely based on race and gender. Furthermore this dude actually in a case against Trump justice dept summarized in favor of Trumps administration in a border wall issue. People can be biased for all sorts of reasons including race,gender,religion,political affiliation etc,but if your gonna baselessly accuse someone of discrimination then congratulations you are a bigger player of Identity Politics then anyone on the Far Left.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-russia-probe-ends/1605373002/?csp=chromepush



> Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein resigns after two tumultuous years supervising Russia probe
> 
> WASHINGTON – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whose tumultuous tenure at the Justice Department was defined by his management of the sprawling investigation into Russian election interference, announced his departure Monday after two years in which he was often the target of President Donald Trump's scorn.
> 
> Rosenstein, whose exit has been expected for months, submitted a resignation letter to the president in which he offered both gratitude to Trump and veiled references to the extraordinary challenges posed by the investigation that shadowed the first two years of Trump's administration.
> 
> "I am grateful to you for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education and prosperty," Rosenstein wrote Monday. His resignation is set to take effect May 11.
> 
> Rosenstein's praise for the president comes less than two weeks after Russia special counsel Robert Mueller delivered a scathing account of Trump's conduct in which he repeatedly sought to limit or derail the investigation.
> 
> While Mueller did not resolve whether Trump's actions were criminal, Rosenstein and Attorney General William Barr determined that there was insufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction of justice. The investigation found that the Russian government launched a "sweeping and systematic" effort to intercede in the 2016 election and help Trump win the White House and that his campaign welcomed the assistance, but it did not find sufficient evidence to show that Trump or his aides conspired in the effort.
> 
> The investigation – and its conclusions – have been a fraught and partisan issue since Trump's first days in office.
> 
> "We enforce the law without fear or favor because credible evidence is not partisan and truth is not determined by opinion polls," Rosenstein said in his letter. "We ignore fleeting distractions and focus our attention on the things that matter, because a repoublic that endures is not governed by the news cycle."
> 
> A career federal prosecutor, Rosenstein was thrust into an unusually public role for the agency's second-in-command almost immediately after taking office when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in the midst of the Russia inquiry. Sessions' disqualification ceded authority for the extraordinary investigation into whether the president's campaign conspired with the Kremlin to his 54-year-old deputy.
> 
> Among his first actions as deputy attorney general, Rosenstein authored a memorandum that Trump used as the basis for firing then-FBI Director James Comey. Trump's abrupt action later became part of Mueller's examination of whether the president sought to obstruct the Russia probe.
> 
> Comey's firing so shook public confidence in the Russia inquiry that just days later Rosenstein appointed Mueller, a former FBI director, to lead the investigation as a Justice Department special counsel.
> 
> Throughout his tenure, Rosenstein often found himself in the middle of a politically-charged battle in which Trump and congressional allies cast the deputy attorney general as a ringleader in partisan "witch-hunt" while Democrats came to view the Republican as an unlikely guard against White House interference.
> 
> Rosenstein noted in a New York speech April 25 that the Obama administration chose not to publicize the full story of Russian computer hackers and social-media trolls attempting to undermine the country. The FBI disclosed classified information about the inquiry to lawmakers, which was then leaked to reporters. The FBI director alleged that Trump pressured him to close the investigation, but the president denied the conversation occurred.
> 
> "So that happened," Rosenstein said. "But the bottom line is, there was overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in many other countries."
> 
> Mueller's investigation concluded March 22 when Mueller submitted his confidential report to Attorney General William Barr. The inquiry did not establish that Trump or his campaign had coordinated with Russian efforts to influence the election. Although the special counsel did not resolve the issue of whether Trump obstructed justice, Barr and Rosenstein concluded that the president's conduct was not criminal.
> 
> Rosenstein rarely responded to the the president's criticisms even when their differences made him a likely target for dismissal. Indeed, Rosenstein had considered resigning from his post last year in the wake of a New York Times report indicating that the deputy attorney general suggested invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump.
> 
> Rosenstein strongly denied the report, which indicated that he suggested recording Trump's conversations in hopes of triggering the president's removal from office.
> 
> The incident prompted a hastily-called White House meeting where Rosenstein expected to be fired – only to return to the Justice Department later that day with his status unchanged.
> 
> While at the White House, Rosenstein spoke by telephone with Trump who at the time was attending the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The two reached an apparent understanding that Trump later acknowledged.
> 
> “My preference would be to keep him, and to let him finish up,” Trump said about Rosenstein, adding once again that the investigation “is a witch hunt.”
> 
> While the deputy attorney general's relationship with Trump was often uncertain, Rosenstein was a steady defender of Mueller and repeatedly assured lawmakers that the special counsel was proceeding appropriately.
> 
> After meeting with top members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2018 – Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. – Rosenstein thanked them for their commitment "to follow the facts wherever they lead without any improper outside interference." He said agents and prosecutors would base decisions on neutral standards and credible evidence, while completing the inquiry "as promptly as is feasible."
> 
> "I'm very confident that when the history of this era is written, it will reflect that the department was operated with integrity,” Rosenstein told USA TODAY during a rare interview in March 2018.
> 
> Trump nominated Jeffrey Rosen, the current deputy secretary at the Transportation Department, on March 26 to succeed Rosenstein.
> 
> Career prosecutor
> 
> Rosenstein had been a career attorney at the Justice Department before taking the No. 2 post. He graduated with highest honors from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in economics and then earned a law degree from Harvard, where he was an editor of the law review. He clerked for D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Douglas Ginsburg.
> 
> Rosenstein joined the department in 1990 through the attorney general’s honors program, and he prosecuted corruption case with the criminal division before taking a succession of roles in the department's headquarters.
> 
> In the 1990s, he joined independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton. Rosenstein helped convict three onetime associates of the Clintons – Susan McDougal, James McDougal and former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker – on fraud and conspiracy charges in May 1996.
> 
> Former President George W. Bush appointed Rosenstein the U.S. attorney in Maryland in 2005 and former President Barack Obama kept in place to 2017. Trump made him deputy attorney general, setting Rosenstein up for his biggest clash yet.
> 
> In his letter, Rosenstein said the Justice Department "bears a special responsibility to avoid partisanship."
> 
> "Political considerations may influence policy choices, but neutral principles must drive decisions about individual cases," Rosenstein wrote,
> 
> He quoted former attorneys general Robert Jackson, Edward Levi and John Ashcroft, all of whom have called for a Justice Department governed by impartiality and fairness.
> 
> "We enforce the law without fear or favor because credible evidence is not partisan, and truth is not determined by opinion polls," he wrote. "We ignore fleeting distractions and focus our attention on the things that matter, because a republic that endures is not governed by the news cycle."
> 
> Barr, who was attorney general under former President George H.W. Bush and returned to the post under the Trump administration, praised Rosenstein for his nearly 30 years with the Justice Department.
> 
> “Over the course of his distinguished government career, he has navigated many challenging situations with strength, grace, and good humor. Rod has been an invaluable partner to me during my return to the Department, and I have relied heavily on his leadership and judgment over the past several months. I have appreciated the opportunity to work closely with him, and I wish him well in his future endeavors," Barr said in a statement.
> 
> A presidential target
> 
> Rosenstein's relationship with the president was fraught almost from the start.
> 
> Thirteen days after Rosenstein was sworn in, Trump fired the director of the FBI, James Comey, a decision that provoked a partisan uproar and that the White House initially said was based on a recommendation from the new deputy attorney general. (Trump later said it wasn't.)
> 
> Comey's firing ultimately prompted Mueller's appointment.
> 
> “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt,” Trump tweeted in June 2017.
> 
> Donald J. Trump
> ✔
> @realDonaldTrump
> I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
> 140K
> 6:07 AM - Jun 16, 2017
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 104K people are talking about this
> 
> Trump, who ousted Sessions the day after the November 2018 midterm election, repeatedly criticized Sessions, Comey, Rosenstein and Mueller for their roles in the probe.
> 
> In April 2018, Trump again called it a “Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, head up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!”
> 
> Donald J. Trump
> ✔
> @realDonaldTrump
> Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!
> 91.3K
> 6:00 AM - Apr 11, 2018
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 64.1K people are talking about this
> 
> Lawmakers joined the fray. By February 2018, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released a report that documented that Rosenstein signed an application for a surveillance warrant targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, as had Comey and two other deputy attorneys general.
> 
> The criticism from House Republicans occasionally became heated. At a House Judiciary Committee hearing June 28, Republicans accused Rosenstein of hiding documents and argued that the 13-month investigation had already taken too long.
> 
> "We caught you hiding information!" said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
> 
> Rosenstein wagged a finger at the congressman seated to his left, calling his remarks "deeply wrong."
> 
> "It's not accurate, sir," Rosenstein said. "I am not hiding anything from you.”
> 
> Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., expressed his frustration with the Mueller investigation.
> 
> "Whatever you got, finish it the hell up!" Gowdy implored, adding that the inquiry was "tearing the country apart."
> 
> "I want him (Mueller) to finish the investigation as expeditiously as possible," Rosenstein responded.
> 
> Rosenstein acknowledged in his April 25 speech that not everybody was happy with the investigation. But he said it helps to keep a sense of humor in Washington because politicians evaluate issues in terms of immediate impact and mercenary critics are paid to express passionate opinions.
> 
> "They make threats, spread fake stories, and even attack your relatives," Rosenstein said of professional provocateurs. "My job is to enforce the law in a non-partisan way; that is the whole point of the oath of office."


----------



## CamillePunk

I think AG Barr will be largely seen as one of the very best things to happen to the Trump administration. 


ShiningStar said:


> He is also a white guy from Indiana


:mj4


> Furthermore this dude actually in a case against Trump justice dept summarized in favor of Trumps administration in a border wall issue.


It is great to see someone rise above their biases.  Trump inspired him, no doubt.


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> I think AG Barr will be largely seen as one of the very best things to happen to the Trump administration.
> :mj4It is great to see someone rise above their biases.  Trump inspired him, no doubt.



Any of the numerous judges who have ruled against Trump in a courtroom in his lifetime are not automatically biased for racial or political reasons or otherwise. Him claiming someone discriminated against him for political bias(who's political ideology if any exists is unknown) is as distasteful and meritless as when Serena Williams called out a ref for racism/sexism just because a call went against her. Although his case is worse because he was actually running for President and she was just an airhead running her mouth.


----------



## deepelemblues

Rosenstein getting out while the getting is good, so he doesn't have to be there when various buddies of his get BTFO by the inspector general and several of them get indicted by Barr


----------



## birthday_massacre

ShiningStar said:


> Any of the numerous judges who have ruled against Trump in a courtroom in his lifetime are not automatically biased for racial or political reasons or otherwise. Him claiming someone discriminated against him for political bias(who's political ideology if any exists is unknown) is as distasteful and meritless as when Serena Williams called out a ref for racism/sexism just because a call went against her. Although his case is worse because he was actually running for President and she was just an airhead running her mouth.


Don't listen to cam

he is a gimmick poster


----------



## Tater

I haven't been around here for awhile, so maybe somebody can fill me in... are there still dumbshits here who believe Trump won because of Russia or has everyone accepted the fact that Hillary was just that goddamned terrible?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Tater said:


> I haven't been around here for awhile, so maybe somebody can fill me in... are there still dumbshits here who believe Trump won because of Russia or has everyone accepted the fact that Hillary was just that goddamned terrible?


She was a shit candidate but the report still stated that Russia got involved in the campaign. It was pretty much viewed as something Trump had no problem with taking any help they would give him and in return they would want him to lift sanctions.

There were about 10 times he tried the obstruct justice and the people around him saved him.


----------



## Tater

The Hardcore Show said:


> She was a shit candidate but the report still stated that Russia got involved in the campaign. It was pretty much viewed as something Trump had no problem with taking any help they would give him and in return they would want him to lift sanctions.
> 
> There were about 10 times he tried the obstruct justice and the people around him saved him.


So there are still people who believe in the myth of Russiagate. Gotcha. Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Tater said:


> So there are still people who believe in the myth of Russiagate. Gotcha. Thanks for letting me know.


Muller wrote a 400 page report that said that somewhat cleared Trump on that charge saying he was not some mastermind behind it but Russia did try to use their hacking skills to get him elected. Most of the work was done by the people under Trump and he did nothing about it.

They felt that Trump was the best person to get in office to get rid of sanctions that Obama put on them. 

Bottom line it did happen. The bigger problem is how many times he could of been hit for Obstructing Justice by telling other people to come up with plans to fire Muller that they did not go through.


----------



## Tater

The Hardcore Show said:


> Russia did try to use their hacking skills to get him elected.


No, they didn't. The DNC emails were leaked, not hacked. And Russia didn't hack the voting machines to change vote totals either.



The Hardcore Show said:


> They felt that Trump was the best person to get in office to get rid of sanctions that Obama put on them.


So? Hillary is a fucking lunatic who wants to ramp up another cold war. Which, has also happened since Trump won. They got fucked either way.



The Hardcore Show said:


> Bottom line it did happen. The bigger problem is how many times he could of been hit for Obstructing Justice by telling other people to come up with plans to fire Muller that they did not go through.


Mueller destroyed the entire Russiagate narrative. I definitively did not happen. And if Dems want to try to take down Trump for obstructing justice on a crime that never happened in the first place, all they will accomplish is giving him a better chance at winning again.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

The Hardcore Show said:


> Muller wrote a 400 page report that said that somewhat cleared Trump on that charge saying he was not some mastermind behind it but *Russia did try to use their hacking skills to get him elected.* Most of the work was done by the people under Trump and he did nothing about it.
> 
> They felt that Trump was the best person to get in office to get rid of sanctions that Obama put on them.
> 
> Bottom line it did happen. The bigger problem is how many times he could of been hit for Obstructing Justice by telling other people to come up with plans to fire Muller that they did not go through.


When exactly did Russia 'use their hacking skills' and how did they contribute to Trump winning?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> No, they didn't. The DNC emails were leaked, not hacked. And Russia didn't hack the voting machines to change vote totals either.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Hillary is a fucking lunatic who wants to ramp up another cold war. Which, has also happened since Trump won. They got fucked either way.
> 
> 
> 
> Mueller destroyed the entire Russiagate narrative. I definitively did not happen. And if Dems want to try to take down Trump for obstructing justice on a crime that never happened in the first place, all they will accomplish is giving him a better chance at winning again.


 Yes it did happen. Marco Rubio admitted Russia hacked the Florida ballot box. Also Mueller said that Don jr did conspiring with Russia but he was too stupid to know it with illegal so he was not charged. 

And of course Trump obstructed justice. Even if you want to pretend there was no crime he still interfered with the investigation which is obstruction


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Tater said:


> No, they didn't. The DNC emails were leaked, not hacked. And Russia didn't hack the voting machines to change vote totals either.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Hillary is a fucking lunatic who wants to ramp up another cold war. Which, has also happened since Trump won. They got fucked either way.
> 
> 
> 
> Mueller destroyed the entire Russiagate narrative. I definitively did not happen. And if Dems want to try to take down Trump for obstructing justice on a crime that never happened in the first place, all they will accomplish is giving him a better chance at winning again.


"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials- hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government -began that same month. 

That is all BS then?


----------



## Draykorinee

> “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby,”


Lie after lie after lie. Such an despicable human being. He's Alex Jones lite.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes it did happen. Marco Rubio admitted Russia hacked the Florida ballot box. Also Mueller said that Don jr did conspiring with Russia but he was too stupid to know it with illegal so he was not charged.
> 
> And of course Trump obstructed justice. Even if you want to pretend there was no crime he still interfered with the investigation which is obstruction


I didn't miss you BM during my time away. :dance



The Hardcore Show said:


> "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials- hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government -began that same month.
> 
> That is all BS then?


Yessir, yes it is. All, 100%, unadulterated, bullshit. Do I even need to remind you that Mueller was one of the Dubya era Republicans who helped lie us into Iraq?


----------



## birthday_massacre

I know you didn’t miss me . Because I prove you wrong with facts and evidence. And that triggers you


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> I know you didn’t miss me . Because I prove you wrong with facts and evidence. And that triggers you


:ha

Never change, Bowel Movement. Never change.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> :ha
> 
> Never change, Bowel Movement. Never change.


 Sorry if the facts got in the way of your bullshit


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Sorry if the facts got in the way of your bullshit


If believing in fantasy conspiracy theories helps you sleep at night, you do you. Some of us don't want Trump to win again but if you want to help him get another 4 years, go right on ahead.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> If believing in fantasy conspiracy theories helps you sleep at night, you do you. Some of us don't want Trump to win again but if you want to help him get another 4 years, go right on ahead.


 Sorry if you don’t want to believe the facts over your fantasy. But that’s your typical MO


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Sorry if you don’t want to believe the facts over your fantasy. But that’s your typical MO


Facts. lol

These are the facts. 

Trump won because Hillary sucks. Russians didn't steal the emails. Russians didn't hack the vote totals. And a few crappy memes that hardly anybody saw did not change the election results. 

You can accept these facts. Or you can help Trump win again.

Me, I'd rather see Trump out of the White House. But if you want 4 more years of Trump, keep focusing on your retarded ass conspiracy theories instead of attacking him on his policies that are fucking over Americans.


----------



## Hangman

Where I live in a different country it is no business of mine what the American President does.


----------



## Strike Force

Ultron said:


> Where I live in a different country it is no business of mine what the American President does.


You're right in the sense that you can't vote in order to voice your approval or disapproval, but if you think the US President's actions don't have far-reaching implications around the world, you're simply not paying attention.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Facts. lol
> 
> These are the facts.
> 
> Trump won because Hillary sucks. Russians didn't steal the emails. Russians didn't hack the vote totals. And a few crappy memes that hardly anybody saw did not change the election results.
> 
> You can accept these facts. Or you can help Trump win again.
> 
> Me, I'd rather see Trump out of the White House. But if you want 4 more years of Trump, keep focusing on your retarded ass conspiracy theories instead of attacking him on his policies that are fucking over Americans.


Trump won the election by just under 70,000 votes across three states. Its also funny how you went from oh the Russians didn't interfere in the election to now moving your goal posts claiming well yeah they interfered but it didnt make a different lol 

AGAIN Marco Rubio admitted the Russians hacked at least one of FL voting ballots but claims it does not look ilke they flipped any votes. LOL like he would admit it if they did since his guy won (a republican). And of course they wont tell us which county it was.

This was even in the Mueller report but of course you ignore it


AGAIN Mueller even said the reason why he did not change people like Don Jr and others is because they were still stupid to know conspiring was illegal with Russian officials. 

And Finally Mueller said he does not think a sitting president can be indicted but said its up to congress if they want to impeach because of Trumps obstruction of justice.


He even said if Trump did not obstruct justice the report would say he didnt, and the report did not say he did not obstruct.

You can ignore all the facts you want but you just lose more and more cred when you do.


Also Trump has broken the law and do all these illegal acts, the president is not above the law, and it says a bad precident if you let him get away with it


So you think its ok that Trump is breaking the law? you think they should just let him get away with it?


Guess you think they should never have gone after Nixon either.

Because if you claim they should you are a hypocrite.


----------



## CamillePunk

Add another name to the list of people who have tried to take down Trump only to destroy themselves instead. :lol Something tells me many more names will be added to this list over the next "period of time". :trump 

Tom Arnold’s Obsession with ‘Taking Down’ Donald Trump & Alleged Prescription Drug Abuse Caused Failed Marriage



> Tom Arnold‘s estranged wife is laying out why her marriage ended with the actor, and she’s claiming his ongoing drug addiction mixed with a fixation on President Donald Trump was a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Ashley Groussman Arnold just filed documents, obtained by The Blast, in her ongoing divorce with Tom, asking for the court to establish child custody and support, as well as spousal support for herself.
> 
> Ashley is asking for $6,783 per month for their two children, Jax and Quinn, as well as $9,036 per month in spousal support. She’s basing those numbers off Tom’s reported 2017 income of $604,680.
> 
> In her declaration, Ashley goes into great detail about the marital struggles she endured with the “True Lies” star, and constantly points to his alleged drug abuse as a reason for the split.
> 
> Ashley says Tom’s behavior in the months leading up to their separation last year had been “increasingly erratic.” She says that after the split, Tom agreed to move out of the family home when it was listed for sale in December, but he has not yet left.
> 
> Instead, Ashley moved out and rented a home during the divorce proceedings, but claims, “Toms communications with me throughout these dissolution proceedings have been hostile and accusatory.”
> 
> She says, “I had hoped that things would cool down after I moved out, but that has not been the case.” Ashley says Tom and her had agreed to try and attend co-parenting therapy sessions, but Tom was “irrational and crazy during the sessions, which proved to be worthless as Tom did the exact opposite of e everything we discussed during our sessions.”
> 
> Ashley is accusing Tom of abusing prescription drugs, and writes, “Since separation, Tom has continued to engage in non-child centered conduct and abuse of prescription drugs.” Specifically, she claims he’s abusing Phentermine and Fenfluramine … which is known as Fen-Phen.
> 
> The drug combination is typically used as an appetite suppressant, but is also considered a substitute for amphetamine. Ashley explains, “Phentermine is an amphetamine like drug that should not be prescribed to addicts due to its addictive nature. Tom should not be taking phentermine in the first place.”
> 
> She claims Tom was supposed to be getting tested for phentermine, but has been dodging drug tests and is asking a court to force drug tests upon the star as part of a custody order.
> 
> Ashley also claims she confronted Tom about using prescription drugs in January 2019, and he “admitted that he had been using phentermine and Ambien.”
> 
> *Along with the drug use, Ashley believes Tom’s obsession with President Donald Trump and the alleged “Trump Tapes” contributed to the demise of their marriage.
> 
> She writes, “Tom’s fixation on ‘taking down’ Donald Trump was an ongoing issue in our marriage,” adding, “For the past two years it has consumed his life and presented numerous safety issues for our family.”
> 
> Ashley claims she was supposed to be featured on multiple episodes of “The Hunt for the Trump Tapes with Tom Arnold” on VICELAND, but thought it was unwise to continue feeding into the obsessive behavior.
> 
> She also says Tom lied to the Secret Service when they visited his home last year. “Tom told the Secret Service he did not have any guns in our home. This is untrue.”
> 
> As we previously reported, Secret Service agents came to the Arnold’s home last year after Tom challenged President Trump to a fight over Twitter. He received a strong scolding from the federal agents, but nothing else came of the matter.*
> 
> Ashley says she does not want to stop Tom from seeing his children, but is asking for a custody evaluation and strict measures put in place that would keep everyone safe and accountable. She’s also asking for Tom’s custodial time to be monitored by a nanny.
> 
> Tom first filed divorce documents in February after confirming that he and Ashley had split after 9-years of marriage. At the time, he said, “For the last couple years we grew apart and have been moving in different directions, which is why at this time we have decided to end our marriage.”
> 
> Ashley and her legal team, led by celebrity-attorney firm Hersh Mannis LLP, are requesting a hearing to discuss the entire ordeal.
> 
> The Blast reached out to reps for Tom Arnold for comment.


:heston


----------



## Ygor

I never understand why people call Trump a Nazi? Don't Nazis traditionally hate Jews? Isn't the proper term for Trump a Zionist? That's not exactly a compliment either. Trump's daughter is a convert Orthodox Jew and what exactly does Jared Kushner specifically do? Why would Netanyahu be so complimentary toward him if he were an anti-Semite? Is he just using Trump hoping Jews will get attacked so he can use those attacks for sympathy using that sympathy to encourage us to start new wars?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Ygor said:


> I never understand why people call Trump a Nazi? Don't Nazis traditionally hate Jews? Isn't the proper term for Trump a Zionist? That's not exactly a compliment either. Trump's daughter is a convert Orthodox Jew and what exactly does Jared Kushner specifically do? Why would Netanyahu be so complimentary toward him if he were an anti-Semite? Is he just using Trump hoping Jews will get attacked so he can use those attacks for sympathy using that sympathy to encourage us to start new wars?


Trump is a fascist.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump won the election by just under 70,000 votes across three states. Its also funny how you went from oh the Russians didn't interfere in the election to now moving your goal posts claiming well yeah they interfered but it didnt make a different lol
> 
> AGAIN Marco Rubio admitted the Russians hacked at least one of FL voting ballots but claims it does not look ilke they flipped any votes. LOL like he would admit it if they did since his guy won (a republican). And of course they wont tell us which county it was.
> 
> This was even in the Mueller report but of course you ignore it
> 
> 
> AGAIN Mueller even said the reason why he did not change people like Don Jr and others is because they were still stupid to know conspiring was illegal with Russian officials.
> 
> And Finally Mueller said he does not think a sitting president can be indicted but said its up to congress if they want to impeach because of Trumps obstruction of justice.
> 
> 
> He even said if Trump did not obstruct justice the report would say he didnt, and the report did not say he did not obstruct.
> 
> You can ignore all the facts you want but you just lose more and more cred when you do.
> 
> 
> Also Trump has broken the law and do all these illegal acts, the president is not above the law, and it says a bad precident if you let him get away with it
> 
> 
> So you think its ok that Trump is breaking the law? you think they should just let him get away with it?
> 
> 
> Guess you think they should never have gone after Nixon either.
> 
> Because if you claim they should you are a hypocrite.


"Moving the goalposts."

:ha

No one is moving any goalposts. You think a fucking clickbait farm swung the election with a few crappy memes? 

:ha

If you want to go after Trump, do it for something real. Attack him for violating the emoluments clause. Attack him for the genocide in Yemen. Stop with your stupid Russiagate bullshit. There are quite a few legitimate reasons to attack that mother fucking piece of shit in the White House and none of them involve fantasies about stealing an election with Russian help. All you're doing is helping him get reelected when you attack him for fake bullshit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> "Moving the goalposts."
> 
> :ha
> 
> No one is moving any goalposts. You think a fucking clickbait farm swung the election with a few crappy memes?
> 
> :ha
> 
> If you want to go after Trump, do it for something real. Attack him for violating the emoluments clause. Attack him for the genocide in Yemen. Stop with your stupid Russiagate bullshit. There are quite a few legitimate reasons to attack that mother fucking piece of shit in the White House and none of them involve fantasies about stealing an election with Russian help. All you're doing is helping him get reelected when you attack him for fake bullshit.


You are moving the goalposts, you were always sayign Russian didn't not interfere now you are claiming well they did but it didnt matter lol

that is moving goalposts. 

Its not fake bullshit lol Russia did interfere with the election. You even claim they did but ou are now sayign well it didnt matter.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> You are moving the goalposts, you were always sayign Russian didn't not interfere now you are claiming well they did but it didnt matter lol
> 
> that is moving goalposts.
> 
> Its not fake bullshit lol Russia did interfere with the election. You even claim they did but ou are now sayign well it didnt matter.


A clickbait farm putting out memes =/= Russia interfering in the election, so no, I am not moving the goalposts. There is no established connection between the clickbait farm and the Russian government.

Besides, even if there was, we're talking about a few crappy memes that barely anybody saw. It takes an extra special kind of stupid to believe that swung an election against the billion dollar Clinton machine.

I'm trying to be nice to you here because I want that orange buffoon out of the White House just as much as you do. I'm just smart enough to attack him for real issues. His tax bill was a massive giveaway to the rich that fucked over the working class. His looking out for the working class rhetoric was just that, rhetoric. The factories in the Rust Belt are still closing and jobs are still being shipped overseas. You think he should be impeached? Fine, impeach him for violating the emoluments clause by taking money from foreign governments through his businesses. Impeach him for his illegal war in Yemen. 

You don't need to make shit up to go after Trump. He is a piece of shit conman criminal who is doing tons of illegal stuff. Go after him for real issues instead of make believe cold war fantasies.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> A clickbait farm putting out memes =/= Russia interfering in the election, so no, I am not moving the goalposts. There is no established connection between the clickbait farm and the Russian government.
> 
> Besides, even if there was, we're talking about a few crappy memes that barely anybody saw. It takes an extra special kind of stupid to believe that swung an election against the billion dollar Clinton machine.
> 
> I'm trying to be nice to you here because I want that orange buffoon out of the White House just as much as you do. I'm just smart enough to attack him for real issues. His tax bill was a massive giveaway to the rich that fucked over the working class. His looking out for the working class rhetoric was just that, rhetoric. The factories in the Rust Belt are still closing and jobs are still being shipped overseas. You think he should be impeached? Fine, impeach him for violating the emoluments clause by taking money from foreign governments through his businesses. Impeach him for his illegal war in Yemen.
> 
> You don't need to make shit up to go after Trump. He is a piece of shit conman criminal who is doing tons of illegal stuff. Go after him for real issues instead of make believe cold war fantasies.


the HACKED at least one of the FL counties in the election where they could have changed the results but keep ignoring that. Love how you keep ignoring that fact. And that is just one they know of. 

And LOVE memes that barely anyone saw which is just more BS by you since we all saw them all over FB. You just lying once again. 

Also if Trump is so innocent he never would have kept trying to kill the mueller invesgiation. 

keep ignoring all the facts its what you do best.


----------



## Rugrat

Calling Trump a Nazi is the most ridiculous thing ever. Trump LOVES Israel, he would take a bullet for Benjamin Netanyahu. He wants to drain the swamp, but also support the interests of those largely in the swamp.

It's one of the things the left could properly nail him on, but instead it's just lazy "literally Hitler".


----------



## Ygor

Ygor said:


> I never understand why people call Trump a Nazi? Don't Nazis traditionally hate Jews? Isn't the proper term for Trump a Zionist? That's not exactly a compliment either. Trump's daughter is a convert Orthodox Jew and what exactly does Jared Kushner specifically do? Why would Netanyahu be so complimentary toward him if he were an anti-Semite? Is he just using Trump hoping Jews will get attacked so he can use those attacks for sympathy using that sympathy to encourage us to start new wars?





birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a fascist.


Is Benjamin Netanyahu also a fascist?


----------



## skypod

What's the word then for someone that likes white people (including and/or Jews depending on the person) but hates everyone else? White supremacist?


----------



## Rugrat

birthday_massacre said:


> I know you didn’t miss me . Because I prove you wrong with facts and evidence. And that triggers you


B A S E D


----------



## yeahbaby!

Welcome back Tater!

Wasn't the extent of the russian interference (somewhat proven) just neckbeards and bots etc posting dodgy negative stuff on social media against the Dems etc?

If so you can't prove how much impact they had so that's a zero sum game.


And lol at CP posting anything about Tom Arnold to boost the agenda, no one's cared about him since.... did anyone ever care about him? He couldn't get arrested in the modern day. I caught half an episode of his show - it's a total G-up and not serious.

For every crackpot against Trump there are just as many for him, or against Bernie for example. Let's not live in a dream world.


----------



## CamillePunk

skypod said:


> What's the word then for someone that likes white people (including and/or Jews depending on the person) but hates everyone else? White supremacist?


That'd be the white nationalist alt-right, which is anti-Trump given his pro-Israel policies and perceived pandering to African and Hispanic Americans, as well as his explicit condemnations of white nationalism/white supremacy. They love Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard though, funnily enough. :lol


----------



## skypod

CamillePunk said:


> That'd be the white nationalist alt-right, which is anti-Trump given his pro-Israel policies and perceived pandering to African and Hispanic Americans, as well as his explicit condemnations of white nationalism/white supremacy. They love Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard though, funnily enough. :lol


So you're saying racists and progressives hate Trump? Sounds like a lot of people, yet he has 50% support does he not?

I'm sure there's absolutely no racist remarks ever said on The Donald (I realise thats mostly the 20-30 white male incel part of his base) or at his rallies. (Infact a quick search on reddit shows me top up-voted comments usually have the word ****** in them). Any image or video of someone in a Trump tshirt shouting the n word at someone and telling them to go back to their own country is a deep state conspiracy.

But please try to peddle that Trumps base are the forward thinking open minded ones completely against discrimination.


----------



## deepelemblues

I wonder how many votes were influenced by the MUH RUSSIA hoax, which was begun and promulgated to the American people in the largest propaganda campaign in history months before the election, while the Clinton campaign and Obama Administration were, by their own admission, colluding with the government of Petro Poroshenko to obtain information (lies) that allegedly proved the hoax was not a hoax.

Another major disappointment for the conspiracy theorists today, as it was revealed that Mueller wrote a 'secret' letter complaining to Barr after Barr's 4-page no collusion, no obstruction letter was released. The ':trumpF IS DONE FOR REAL THIS TIME' reaction on social media was hilarious, especially when the conspiracy theorists realized the letter from Mueller to Barr complained about _media coverage *misrepresenting* the Mueller Report based on Barr's letter._ That media coverage, of course, at the time and up to this day, continued the propaganda that the president obstructed of justice


----------



## CamillePunk

skypod said:


> So you're saying racists and progressives hate Trump? Sounds like a lot of people, yet he has 50% support does he not?


I don't think I said either of those things.



> I'm sure there's absolutely no racist remarks ever said on The Donald (I realise thats mostly the 20-30 white male incel part of his base) or at his rallies. (Infact a quick search on reddit shows me top up-voted comments usually have the word ****** in them). Any image or video of someone in a Trump tshirt shouting the n word at someone and telling them to go back to their own country is a deep state conspiracy.
> 
> But please try to peddle that Trumps base are the forward thinking open minded ones completely against discrimination.


This is so unhinged and doesn't respond to anything I said. :lol Are you okay?

I've been a consistent lurker on The Donald for nearly 4 years now and don't recall seeing the use of the word "******" (except in relation to Milo, who self-brands as the "Dangerous ******" or something like that) or any racial slurs on there. The latter would be explicitly against the subreddit's rules.

Here's a search for top comments on The Donald which include the word "******": 

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search?q=******&restrict_sr=1&sort=top

The majority of the uses seem to be in relation to Milo. Aside from that it's used to attack people who aren't gay, i.e Glenn Beck, or its used ironically in support of pro-Trump LGBT folks. I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> the HACKED at least one of the FL counties in the election where they could have changed the results but keep ignoring that. Love how you keep ignoring that fact. And that is just one they know of.


You claim that Russia got Trump elected by hacking voting machines and changing the results. Show me the proof.



> And LOVE memes that barely anyone saw which is just more BS by you since we all saw them all over FB. You just lying once again.





> Then there is Facebook’s disclosure that fake accounts “likely operated out of Russia” paid $100,000 for 3,000 ads starting in June 2015. The New York Times editorial board described it as “further evidence of what amounted to unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy.” A $100,000 Facebook ad buy seems unlikely to have had much impact in a $6.8 billion election. According to Facebook, “the vast majority of ads…didn’t specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate” but rather focused “on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum—touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.” Facebook also says the majority of ads, 56 percent, were seen “after the election.”
> 
> SOURCE


You think $100,000 spent on 3000 ads, the vast majority of which did not reference a candidate, and over half of which were not seen until after the election, defeated the billion dollar Clinton machine?

:ha

If this was Putin's plan to rig the election, it's the dumbest plan in the history of dumb plans. AND, it did not involve any collusion from Trump's side. The reality is, the IRA is a clickbait farm, not a sinister KGB agency out to steal an election.



> Also if Trump is so innocent he never would have kept trying to kill the mueller invesgiation.
> 
> keep ignoring all the facts its what you do best.


Trump is guilty of a lot of things. Conspiring with Russia to steal an election is not one of them. Once he is out of the White House, he is most likely screwed on financial crimes. It makes total sense that he would want to shut down the Mueller investigation because he didn't want all his financial crimes exposed.

Maybe you missed the part where the Mueller investigation is over and not a single American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to steal the election.

Not. A. Single. One.

It's over. Done. Finished. You're not getting Trump out of the White House with impeachment. Even if the House tries to impeach him, the GOP controlled Senate will never remove him. If the Dems try to impeach him for obstruction of justice, it will only give him a better chance at winning in 2020, because he will be out there crowing about how there was no original crime.

The bottom line is this. Trump is never getting removed from the White House through impeachment over Russiagate. Accept it and move on. 



yeahbaby! said:


> Welcome back Tater!


Thanks. 



> Wasn't the extent of the russian interference (somewhat proven) just neckbeards and bots etc posting dodgy negative stuff on social media against the Dems etc?
> 
> If so you can't prove how much impact they had so that's a zero sum game.


More or less, yeah. A Russian clickbait farm paid for a few ads on FB that hardly anybody saw and no one can prove how much of an impact it had on the election. All the rest of it is bullshit.


----------



## kingnoth1n

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen on twitter when they look at Trumps comments the same 3-4 people always comment first and are at the top? The doctor, the brothers, the light skinned fella, and the weird neckbeard psychologist. I seen where the psychologist had commented for like 36 hours straight on Twitter before, extremely bizarre.


----------



## El Grappleador

Pro and Con about DJT...

Pro: He is intellectually smart.
Con: Not emotionally, though.

And one thing sicking me the way he channels his frustration on Twitter. It's a signal about can't handle emotions. Who did not whined on that social network? I know he moderates his language, but his statement against Mexicans (I'm one of them) are prejudiced and polarized.

Yeah, we are a violent country, but compared with everything else? The Philippines, Yemen, Venezuela, North Korea? Yes, it does. We are a violent country. Not to an extremist degree. And, if America (ambiguous slang, I'd rather call The USA or The US) is Mexico's neighbor, why don't offer collaboration to Interventing to improve living conditions in Mexico and Central America? Sadly but truly, It will never happen. Why? Cause he spends his sparing time whining on Twitter. 

Wrapping up: The real leaders don't whine on the social networks. If he has a problem, tell me face to face.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> *You claim that Russia got Trump elected by hacking voting machines and changing the results. Show me the proof.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think $100,000 spent on 3000 ads, the vast majority of which did not reference a candidate, and over half of which were not seen until after the election, defeated the billion dollar Clinton machine?
> 
> :ha
> 
> If this was Putin's plan to rig the election, it's the dumbest plan in the history of dumb plans. AND, it did not involve any collusion from Trump's side. The reality is, the IRA is a clickbait farm, not a sinister KGB agency out to steal an election.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is guilty of a lot of things. Conspiring with Russia to steal an election is not one of them. Once he is out of the White House, he is most likely screwed on financial crimes. It makes total sense that he would want to shut down the Mueller investigation because he didn't want all his financial crimes exposed.
> 
> Maybe you missed the part where the Mueller investigation is over and not a single American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to steal the election.
> 
> Not. A. Single. One.
> 
> It's over. Done. Finished. You're not getting Trump out of the White House with impeachment. Even if the House tries to impeach him, the GOP controlled Senate will never remove him. If the Dems try to impeach him for obstruction of justice, it will only give him a better chance at winning in 2020, because he will be out there crowing about how there was no original crime.
> 
> The bottom line is this. Trump is never getting removed from the White House through impeachment over Russiagate. Accept it and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> More or less, yeah. A Russian clickbait farm paid for a few ads on FB that hardly anybody saw and no one can prove how much of an impact it had on the election. All the rest of it is bullshit.


I never said that, love how full of shit you are.

quote me where I ever once said that.

Mueller said there was collusion FFS but said that Trump Jr and a few others were too dumb to know it was illegal so he did not charge them with it.

You can't even be honest. But again thats your MO.


----------



## Kabraxal

And the swing is coming... polls by CNN and NPR are starting to show independents getting fed up with continued whining over Mueller. If the democrats keep it up, they will be handing Trump a second term on a silver platter.

Cab we please get a third party in power?! A sane one!


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> I never said that, love how full of shit you are.
> 
> quote me where I ever once said that.
> 
> Mueller said there was collusion FFS but said that Trump Jr and a few others were too dumb to know it was illegal so he did not charge them with it.
> 
> You can't even be honest. But again thats your MO.


Dude



> the HACKED at least one of the FL counties in the election where they could have changed the results but keep ignoring that.


You literally said this. This is not edited in any way. This is from you.

Most of us want Trump out of office. He has been a terrible president. At this point it's hard to argue otherwise. But you're making it difficult for us to want to side with you because you continue to push the Russia narrative. Get the fuck over it and move on from it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Russiagate posts still?


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> Russiagate posts still?


"No gate's ever really gone..."

Well, the Senate is holding a hearing right now with AG Barr and the House will be holding a hearing with (ex?) Saint Mueller in a few weeks, so_ teknikuhlly_ it's still relevant...


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlternateDemise said:


> Dude
> 
> 
> 
> You literally said this. This is not edited in any way. This is from you.
> 
> Most of us want Trump out of office. He has been a terrible president. At this point it's hard to argue otherwise. But you're making it difficult for us to want to side with you because you continue to push the Russia narrative. Get the fuck over it and move on from it.


I was stating a fact. You do know it was found the Russians hacked a FL county right? Like I said he said i does not look like they changed any votes but again like they would even tell us if they were since the GOP won the election. Its also funny they did not tell us what county if was. 

https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/russia-hackers-florida-elections/

Are you going to deny this fact? Even Marco Rubio admitted it

what Tater was claiming I said was that Russia hacked all the polls and changed votes.

I never said that


----------



## deepelemblues

> In August 2016, GRU officers targeted employees of [REDACTED], a voting technology company that developed software used by numerous U.S. counties to *manage voter rolls*, and installed malware on the company network… the spearphishing emails contained an attached Word document coded with malicious software (commonly referred to as a Trojan) that permitted the GRU to access the infected computer.


The only things you could do if you hacked access to electronic voter rolls would be remove voter information from them (essentially, de-register those voters) or add fake voter information to them, not change vote tabulations 

And considering the scrutiny voter rolls underwent in 2016, the de-registering of large numbers of voters or adding of large numbers of fake voters wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Neither one happened


----------



## Dr. Middy

birthday_massacre said:


> I was stating a fact. You do know it was found the Russians hacked a FL county right? Like I said he said i does not look like they changed any votes but again like they would even tell us if they were since the GOP won the election. Its also funny they did not tell us what county if was.
> 
> https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/russia-hackers-florida-elections/
> 
> Are you going to deny this fact? Even Marco Rubio admitted it
> 
> *what Tater was claiming I said was that Russia hacked all the polls and changed votes.*
> 
> I never said that


He said



> You claim that Russia got Trump elected by hacking voting machines and changing the results. Show me the proof.


He never said all or a number. 

His claim basically is exactly what you're saying.

I don't understand why you just can't admit that. There's nothing wrong with doing so.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> He said
> 
> 
> 
> He never said all or a number.
> 
> His claim basically is exactly what you're saying.
> 
> I don't understand why you just can't admit that. There's nothing wrong with doing so.


I didnt say that, where did I say they chanted the results?

I clearly stated Rubio and the Mueller report admitted one of FL counties was hacked but it does not look like the votes were flipped.

And that is evidence.

Tater has always claimed even before the Mueller report came out that I claimed Russia hacked the voting and changed votes and I have never once said that.

he asked for evidence of Russia hacking voting machines and I gave it to him directly from the Mueller report


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> I didnt say that, where did I say they chanted the results?
> 
> I clearly stated Rubio and the Mueller report admitted one of FL counties was hacked but it does not look like the votes were flipped.
> 
> And that is evidence.
> 
> Tater has always claimed even before the Mueller report came out that I claimed Russia hacked the voting and changed votes and I have never once said that.
> 
> he asked for evidence of Russia hacking voting machines and I gave it to him directly from the Mueller report


ogba

I think BM is just looking for reasons to continue on with this nonsense at this point.


----------



## CamillePunk

I believe that BM will find the truth and finally bring down Trump, proving you naysayers wrong once and for all. Then again, you'll probably just ignore his facts since that's what you do best!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123782573442904064
Thank God. Could hardly sleep last night thinking about the situation in Venezuela. I'll never go to Venezuela and it seems unlikely I'll meet too many Venezuelans, but virtue signaling on the internet is extremely important to me so you better believe I spend most of my waking hours talking and thinking about their country instead of my own.


----------



## deepelemblues

Dammit I thought that chyron was gonna say "PRESIDENT :trump JOINS TRISH STRATUS" and I thought could it be true, could we get another Vince-:trump feud but this time FOR THE OVAL OFFICE? As every schoolchild knows, Article XXX of the Constitution provides that the presidency can be won (and lost) IN A STEEL CAGE MATCH AT SUMMERSLAM!


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> I don't think I said either of those things.
> 
> This is so unhinged and doesn't respond to anything I said. :lol Are you okay?
> 
> I've been a consistent lurker on The Donald for nearly 4 years now and don't recall seeing the use of the word "******" (except in relation to Milo, who self-brands as the "Dangerous ******" or something like that) or any racial slurs on there. The latter would be explicitly against the subreddit's rules.
> 
> Here's a search for top comments on The Donald which include the word "******":
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search?q=******&restrict_sr=1&sort=top
> 
> The majority of the uses seem to be in relation to Milo. Aside from that it's used to attack people who aren't gay, i.e Glenn Beck, or its used ironically in support of pro-Trump LGBT folks. I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.


I don't know why you bother with some of these people, CP. :laugh:



kingnoth1n said:


> Out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen on twitter when they look at Trumps comments the same 3-4 people always comment first and are at the top? The doctor, the brothers, the light skinned fella, and the weird neckbeard psychologist. I seen where the psychologist had commented for like 36 hours straight on Twitter before, extremely bizarre.


I noticed this too, even if there are other tweets with higher retweets and likes it's always the same people at the top. The brothers are such cringe too, makes me wonder if someone at twitter is making it so only these people get at the top?:hmmm


----------



## kingnoth1n

Miss Sally said:


> I don't know why you bother with some of these people, CP. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed this too, even if there are other tweets with higher retweets and likes it's always the same people at the top. The brothers are such cringe too, makes me wonder if someone at twitter is making it so only these people get at the top?:hmmm


Twitter is in on it for sure. I'm surprised Trump didn't confront Jack Dorsey about this to be honest. Those dorks and that neckbeard Psychologist said he was happy that Trump tower was on fire and people got injured. Conservatives have been deplatformed off Twitter for far less.


----------



## Miss Sally

kingnoth1n said:


> Twitter is in on it for sure. I'm surprised Trump didn't confront Jack Dorsey about this to be honest. Those dorks and that neckbeard Psychologist said he was happy that Trump tower was on fire and people got injured. Conservatives have been deplatformed off Twitter for far less.


Yeah and the brothers are paid anti-Trump shills. It seems impossible these guys would always be the top especially when the brothers get burned on a daily basis and never keep to their word on stuff.

I've not seen this happen to anyone else, I'd be curious too why the same people keep showing up. I'm surprised too that this wasn't asked. The pro-Trump or reasonable critique tweets get buried even when they have more likes. :laugh:


----------



## kingnoth1n

Miss Sally said:


> Yeah and the brothers are paid anti-Trump shills. It seems impossible these guys would always be the top especially when the brothers get burned on a daily basis and never keep to their word on stuff.
> 
> I've not seen this happen to anyone else, I'd be curious too why the same people keep showing up. I'm surprised too that this wasn't asked. The pro-Trump or reasonable critique tweets get buried even when they have more likes. :laugh:


I had read somewhere that they put on their tax return as an employer "Twitter Entertainer," take that for what you will. Can't recall the website though. I know they got busted running a pyramid scheme a few years back too, so they are already pretty fucking shady.


----------



## Draykorinee

I clearly don't pay enough attention to twitter.


----------



## CamillePunk

There are bots that automatically respond to anything Trump tweets by bringing up some completely unrelated story and going on about that. It's really cringe when it happens with Trump tweets that aren't remotely controversial (i.e thanking veterans or talking about having a nice time with some benign foreign leader).


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> I never said that, love how full of shit you are.





birthday_massacre said:


> the HACKED at least one of the FL counties in the election where they could have changed the results but keep ignoring that. Love how you keep ignoring that fact. And that is just one they know of.


:ha



AlternateDemise said:


> Dude
> 
> 
> 
> You literally said this. This is not edited in any way. This is from you.
> 
> Most of us want Trump out of office. He has been a terrible president. At this point it's hard to argue otherwise. But you're making it difficult for us to want to side with you because you continue to push the Russia narrative. Get the fuck over it and move on from it.


:applause



birthday_massacre said:


> I was stating a fact. You do know it was found the Russians hacked a FL county right? Like I said he said i does not look like they changed any votes but again like they would even tell us if they were since the GOP won the election. Its also funny they did not tell us what county if was.
> 
> https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/russia-hackers-florida-elections/
> 
> Are you going to deny this fact? Even Marco Rubio admitted it
> 
> what Tater was claiming I said was that Russia hacked all the polls and changed votes.
> 
> I never said that


From your OWN source:



> Mueller’s report confirmed that the FBI investigated the incident.
> 
> The office of Florida’s secretary of state said that Florida’s voter registration system “was and remains secure,” and “official results or vote tallies were not changed.”
> 
> Two years later, following the 2018 midterm elections, the Justice Department and Homeland Security said there was *“no evidence” of vote hacking or tampering.*


:ha

Also, citing Marco Rubio as a reliable source...

:ha


----------



## Stinger Fan

AlternateDemise said:


> ogba
> 
> I think BM is just looking for reasons to continue on with this nonsense at this point.


I remember he said he'd ask to be removed and banned from all political discussions if Trump wasn't impeached by now :lol yet Trump is living rent free in his head to this day


----------



## AlternateDemise

Stinger Fan said:


> I remember he said he'd ask to be removed and banned from all political discussions if Trump wasn't impeached by now :lol yet Trump is living rent free in his head to this day


Trump was never going to be impeached, regardless of how out of control this Russian thing got and if it ever ended up being legit (which it wasn't). The majority of the senate is still Republican. They aren't going to vote to get Trump kicked out of office, regardless of what he did.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> I remember he said he'd ask to be removed and banned from all political discussions if Trump wasn't impeached by now :lol yet Trump is living rent free in his head to this day


Oh look once again you are lying about this. 

I said if Trump was still president in 2020 then I would never post in the Trump thread again. Love how you always lie about this, the have to walk it back.

Quote me where I said if Trump was not impeached by now I wouldn't post anyone. I always said past 2020



AlternateDemise said:


> Trump was never going to be impeached, regardless of how out of control this Russian thing got and if it ever ended up being legit (which it wasn't). The majority of the senate is still Republican. They aren't going to vote to get Trump kicked out of office, regardless of what he did.



But the Russia thing was legit lol 

So tell me, Russia aside SHOULD Trump be impeached for all his crimes, and again not talking about Russia, everything else.

or do you think Trump is above the law and the president should be able to do anything they want and not follow the law or constitution.


----------



## Reaper

Impeaching Trump guarantees a Republican government for at least 8 more years. 

Beat him on policy, not hysterics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Impeaching Trump guarantees a Republican government for at least 8 more years.
> 
> Beat him on policy, not hysterics.


no it doesn't and Trumps illegal activity should not go unpunished, it sets a bad prescdient.

So do you think Nixon never should have been impeached ?


----------



## MrMister

Removing Trump from office is seemingly impossible with a GOP Senate, so it's a waste of time to impeach him.

I mean you'd have guys like MITT that would remove Trump, but I'm not sure how many MITTS you could find. It takes TWO THIRDS to remove a president.

Removing him from office will be the only way to get him out of there because he's not losing re-election.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> no it doesn't and Trumps illegal activity should not go unpunished, it sets a bad prescdient.
> 
> So do you think Nixon never should have been impeached ?


If Americans decided to prosecute all their presidents, I'm 100% sure 95% of them would be in jail for War Crimes within the first week of taking office. 

It's no secret pretty much all of our government is based on criminality ... What I don't get is that why is this a partisan issue? 

We've all accepted that we don't mind criminals in office.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> Removing Trump from office is seemingly impossible with a GOP Senate, so it's a waste of time to impeach him.
> 
> I mean you'd have guys like MITT that would remove Trump, but I'm not sure how many MITTS you could find. It takes TWO THIRDS to remove a president.
> 
> Removing him from office will be the only way to get him out of there because he's not losing re-election.


You need to get all the GOP members on record to not impeached and say these members think the president should be above the law, and that is how you get them voted out of office when their re-eleaction comes out.

And not holding Trump for all his illegal acts will just empower him to do it even more.

It will also let future presidents use this time to say well you can't impeach me, you didnt Trump and he did way worst things than me.


I will also ask you so using your logic Nixon should not have been impeached right




Reaper said:


> If Americans decided to prosecute all their presidents, I'm 100% sure 95% of them would be in jail for War Crimes within the first week of taking office.
> 
> It's no secret pretty much all of our government is based on criminality ... What I don't get is that why is this a partisan issue?
> 
> We've all accepted that we don't mind criminals in office.


Not everyone has accepted we don't mind criminals in office



Tater said:


> Funny how so many of the people who want Trump impeached had no problem whatsoever with the war crimes of Obama and Clinton.


Thats funny because I was against all the shit. So once again you show how full of shit you are.

Stop making shit up


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Not everyone has accepted we don't mind criminals in office


When it comes to War Crimes, yes we have. We pretend that they're not even happening anymore.


----------



## MrMister

The votes to remove Nixon were there. That's why Nixon resigned. He knew he'd be the first president removed from office.

If the votes are there to remove Trump then sure, impeach him and remove him. Congress has this power. 

My point, which was quite clear, is that if there aren't votes to remove, then don't impeach. It's a waste of time. It can also backfire politically.


----------



## Tater

Reaper said:


> When it comes to War Crimes, yes we have. We pretend that they're not even happening anymore.


Funny how so many of the people who want Trump impeached had no problem whatsoever with the war crimes of Obama and Clinton.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> The votes to remove Nixon were there. That's why Nixon resigned. He knew he'd be the first president removed from office.
> 
> If the votes are there to remove Trump then sure, impeach him and remove him. Congress has this power.
> 
> My point, which was quite clear, is that if there aren't votes to remove, then don't impeach. It's a waste of time. It can also backfire politically.


Its not a waste of time to get the GOP on record saying they think its ok Trump committed illegal acts and dont want to impeach him on it. 

How exactly would it backfire? If it would backfire on anyone its the GOP for letting him get away with it.


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> Funny how so many of the people who want Trump impeached had no problem whatsoever with the war crimes of Obama and Clinton.


That's _exactly_ my point. Criminality especially around neo-conservative interventionism is always project as a partisan issue by partisan hacks despite the fact that the only thing Democrats and Republicans always seem to agree on and unite for is bombing innocents all over the world. 






Chomsky indicts all post war American presidents for their war crimes. In fact, Chomsky actually went very easy on Clinton where he doesn't talk much about the destruction of Yugoslavia's infrastructure and bombing of civilian targets.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Funny how so many of the people who want Trump impeached had no problem whatsoever with the war crimes of Obama and Clinton.


Oh look a whatboutism because you can't defend Trump.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look a whatboutism because you can't defend Trump.


The _reason_ why you want Trump impeached is his _crimes_. This basically suggests that as a principled individual who doesn't want criminals in office, you should be hyper aware of the crimes of past presidents and would have wanted them impeached for their crimes as well. 

No one here is defending Trump. Just because we argue for something that disagrees with you isn't always a defence of the guy you dislike. 

However, logically you simply cannot focus on crimes of an individual that you don't like while ignoring the crimes of individuals you do support. 

The reason why I took the conversation in that direction is to let you know that crimes are not an impeachable offence as far as American Presidents are concerned. We accept them as part of their job and some of that is because we're not principled ourselves, or we simply lack power. But in your case it's partisanship. Nothing else. You don't want Trump out of office because you care about his crimes. If that were the case you would have wanted Obama out of office the first time he extended his war and you would have been screaming for his head (via impeachment) the moment he declared and started new wars all over the middle east. 

Your real motive here isn't to impeach Trump for his crimes - because if that was the case, you would be for the impeachment of every American president --- and likely even the next democratic one unless that president immediately pulls out 100% of all troops stationed everywhere in every war zone around the world. 

Is that a realistic proposition? Do you think that Bernie will immediately end all wars and all bombing campaigns? 

Will you want him impeached if he doesn't? 

Are you that principled BM?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> The _reason_ why you want Trump impeached is his _crimes_. This basically suggests that as a principled individual who doesn't want criminals in office, you should be hyper aware of the crimes of past presidents and would have wanted them impeached for their crimes as well.
> 
> No one here is defending Trump. Just because we argue for something that disagrees with you isn't always a defence of the guy you dislike.
> 
> However, logically you simply cannot focus on crimes of an individual that you don't like while ignoring the crimes of individuals you do support.
> 
> The reason why I took the conversation in that direction is to let you know that crimes are not an impeachable offence as far as American Presidents are concerned. Your real motive here isn't to impeach Trump for his crimes - because if that was the case, you would be for the impeachment of every American president --- and likely even the next democratic one unless that president immediately pulls out 100% of all troops stationed everywhere in every war zone around the world.
> 
> Is that a realistic proposition? Do you think that Bernie will immediately end all wars and all bombing campaigns?
> 
> Will you want him impeached if he doesn't?
> 
> Are you that principled BM?


Stop with the whataboutims we are talking about Trump.

Trump was 100% correct, he could shoot someone on 5th ave and he wouldn't get impeached.

As for your question about will Bernie end all wars, we all know that is impossible to stop right when it takes office. would it start to make moves to pull out of all those wars, yes he would.

And Bernie wouldn't join any new wars.

As for the crimes of past presidents, all these crimes Trump is commiting is to benefit himself and make himself richer off the american people. The fact is if Obama did half the shit Trump has done the GOP would have impeached him years ago. FFS they impeached Clinton for a blow job. 

There is always going to be war, somewhere so you can claim any president did war crimes. That is why that is a BS example.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look a whatboutism because you can't defend Trump.


Why the fuck would I want to defend Trump? :lmao

Trump is a piece of shit war criminal who deserves a prison cell in the Hague right alongside Obama and the Clintons and Cheney and Dubya and every other piece of shit war criminal from our authoritarian neocon war mongering government.

Just because I'm not stupid enough to fall for delusional conspiracy theory Maddow fantasies doesn't mean I ignore the very real crimes committed by the people in our government.


----------



## Reaper

Do u really think whining about impeaching a president on WF is going to get it done?.

The reason why I'm bringing up the whataboutism is so that we stop making the same mistakes of choosing the best of the worst and finally get a principled guy in office that isnt a criminal on *any* count and not just cherry-picked like @birthday_massacre seems to want to do here.

That's the only thing we have in control which is to continue to outvote anyone with any kind of neocon policy as much as is possible. 

What I really want is a revolution but good luck with that lol.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> As for your question about will Bernie end all wars, we all know that is impossible to stop right when it takes office. would it start to make moves to pull out of all those wars, yes he would.
> 
> And Bernie wouldn't join any new wars.
> 
> There is always going to be war, somewhere so you can claim any president did war crimes. That is why that is a BS example.


Why is it impossible for the president, the head of the executive branch and the commander in chief of the military to end all of his country's wars when he wants to? Why must we always be involved in wars and committing war crimes? None of these things that are self-evidently true to you are self-evidently true to me. Please walk me through it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look once again you are lying about this.
> 
> I said if Trump was still president in 2020 then I would never post in the Trump thread again. Love how you always lie about this, the have to walk it back.
> 
> Quote me where I said if Trump was not impeached by now I wouldn't post anyone. I always said past 2020


:lol Apologize for calling me a liar now! I've always posted your quotes, did you really think I didn't know where to find it? :lol




birthday_massacre said:


> If he does not get impeached or resign by the end of his first term I wont post in the Trump thread again for his second term. MRMR can just ban me from the thread.


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> But the Russia thing was legit lol
> 
> So tell me, Russia aside SHOULD Trump be impeached for all his crimes, and again not talking about Russia, everything else.
> 
> or do you think Trump is above the law and the president should be able to do anything they want and not follow the law or constitution.


I could care less about whether or not he should be impeached. That's not my point here. My point is that it's not going to happen, regardless of the reasoning, because the great majority of Republican Senate are going to continue to defend him to the end to avoid any political embarrassment on their parties part.


----------



## El Grappleador

I did wan't compare with him. Sadly, I see sometimes I don't understand internet communities. 

A fair question is, Why am I talking this on this thread?

When Trump Won, American People was happy. I understand Hillary is croocked. But I'm aware about something:
Wilderness, Transgression and Political Incorrectness sells, and political correctness don't. How ironic!

[user]@birthday_massacre[/user] tagged me as racist and sexist. Even though, you tolerate one. 

Is it not racist whining from your neighbor country? Is it not sexist a womanizer? Is it fair people american people tolerate a snobbish spoiled brat? 

[user]@Cesaro_rocks[/user] told I'm looking for Attention. TBH, I'm really confused. If I act like Trump, people is not agreed, If I act like Stephen Hawking, people don't understand me, If I act like Aristotle, people think I'm crazy. It so confused that I don't know if A'int me.

I can compare me with celebs and historical characters, especially with Trump. And It saddens me. feeling looked down as scum saddens me. But looking how you praise his trash talking depresses me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlternateDemise said:


> I could care less about whether or not he should be impeached. That's not my point here. My point is that it's not going to happen, regardless of the reasoning, because the great majority of Republican Senate are going to continue to defend him to the end to avoid any political embarrassment on their parties part.


Of course you wont answer the question.




El Grappleador said:


> I did wan't compare with him. Sadly, I see sometimes I don't understand internet communities.
> 
> A fair question is, Why am I talking this on this thread?
> 
> When Trump Won, American People was happy. I understand Hillary is croocked. But I'm aware about something:
> Wilderness, Transgression and Political Incorrectness sells, and political correctness don't. How ironic!
> 
> [user]@birthday_massacre[/user] tagged me as racist and sexist. Even though, you tolerate one.
> 
> Is it not racist whining from your neighbor country? Is it not sexist a womanizer? Is it fair people american people tolerate a snobbish spoiled brat?
> 
> [user]@Cesaro_rocks[/user] told I'm looking for Attention. TBH, I'm really confused. If I act like Trump, people is not agreed, If I act like Stephen Hawking, people don't understand me, If I act like Aristotle, people think I'm crazy. It so confused that I don't know if A'int me.
> 
> I can compare me with celebs and historical characters, especially with Trump. And It saddens me. feeling looked down as scum saddens me. But looking how you praise his trash talking depresses me.


You are just triggered because your anti-SJW thread blew up in your face and now you come to the Trump thread of course to cry about it, and we all know why lol

thanks for proving my point

And no the country was not happen when Trump won. more than half the country voted against him lol


----------



## Rugrat

I know he isn't particularly liked on the forum, but why is Obama loved so much in mainstream America? Across TV and social media, it's basically hagiography for the man.


----------



## DOPA

The only candidate on the ballot right now who would actually make strides to end the wars is Tulsi Gabbard.

And she's not going to win, so expect the status quo to continue.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course you wont answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just triggered because your anti-SJW thread blew up in your face and now you come to the Trump thread of course to cry about it, and we all know why lol
> 
> thanks for proving my point
> 
> And no the country was not happen when Trump won. more than half the country voted against him lol


That dodge though :lol



birthday_massacre said:


> If he does not get impeached or resign by the end of his first term I wont post in the Trump thread again for his second term. MRMR can just ban me from the thread.


Pepperidge farm remembers


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course you wont answer the question.


Of course I won't answer the fucking question. Why would I answer such a stupid question? The question of whether or not Trump should be impeached was never my point. You brought it in here so you could have an excuse to continue on with your Russiangate nonsense, so you could reply with a "see! You think he SHOULD be impeached, so you're in agreement then right?" No. You aren't going to bait me with such obvious bullshit. No one's taking your side on this. We're sick of it. You are at the point where you are grasping at straws harder than Donald Trump does in 90% of his speeches. Your (sometimes) irrational hatred for the man has gotten to the point where you are going out of your way to criticize him for everything he does. You've gotten worse than actual Trump supporters. They actually believe in their minds that Trump is doing a good job because they don't know any fucking better. You're taking anything you can find as a reason to say Trump's a terrible president, even going as far as to post articles that you don't bother reading because in said articles, they go on to praise Trump for the exact thing you are using to criticize him for. And why is that? Because your blind hatred for him has made you get to the point where you are no longer taking any of this on with an open and rational mind. 

You want me to answer the question? How about you acknowledge @Stinger Fan showcasing proof of you CLEARLY stating that you would leave this thread forever if Trump wasn't impeached by the end of his term. Since we know that isn't going to happen, please for the love of christ, leave.


----------



## Scissor Me Daddy-O!!

El Grappleador said:


> I did wan't compare with him. Sadly, I see sometimes I don't understand internet communities.
> 
> A fair question is, Why am I talking this on this thread?
> 
> When Trump Won, American People was happy. I understand Hillary is croocked. But I'm aware about something:
> Wilderness, Transgression and Political Incorrectness sells, and political correctness don't. How ironic!
> 
> [user]@birthday_massacre[/user] tagged me as racist and sexist. Even though, you tolerate one.
> 
> Is it not racist whining from your neighbor country? Is it not sexist a womanizer? Is it fair people american people tolerate a snobbish spoiled brat?
> 
> [user]@Cesaro_rocks[/user] told I'm looking for Attention. TBH, I'm really confused. If I act like Trump, people is not agreed, If I act like Stephen Hawking, people don't understand me, If I act like Aristotle, people think I'm crazy. It so confused that I don't know if A'int me.
> 
> I can compare me with celebs and historical characters, especially with Trump. And It saddens me. feeling looked down as scum saddens me. But looking how you praise his trash talking depresses me.


That's lower case cesaro, upper case ROCKS @cesrao_ROCKS. 

Why don't you stop acting like someone and do legitimate research to form your own opinion? Stop making comparisons to celebs; stop grouping celebs and historical figures together. Don't treat your political view as more important than others with its own thread hidden in the rants section of a wrestling forum. 

I don't like Trump. I didn't vote for him. I hope he is arrested. That's my opinion. I'll gladly take angry comments about it because it's what I believe.


----------



## deepelemblues

@CP

https://humanevents.com/2019/05/01/checkmate/

Interesting piece about how William Barr BTFO'd Robert Mueller's team of Angry Democrats. Indeed, :trump's appointment of Barr as AG looks like the cleverest inside baseball move of his presidency


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> That dodge though :lol
> 
> 
> Pepperidge farm remembers


LOL how your quote proves that you lied about what i actually said.


Here is what you said



Stinger Fan said:


> I remember he said he'd ask to be removed and banned from all political discussions if Trump wasn't impeached* by now* :lol yet Trump is living rent free in his head to this day


And I said 



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look once again you are lying about this.
> 
> I said if Trump was still president in 2020 then I would never post in the Trump thread again. Love how you always lie about this, the have to walk it back.
> 
> Quote me where I said if Trump was not impeached by now I wouldn't post anyone. * I always said past 2020*



Then you quote me saying exactly what I just said

"If he does not get impeached or resign by the end of his first term I wont post in the Trump thread again for his second term. MRMR can just ban me from the thread."


You do know Trumps first term ends 2020 right and not 2018

It sure does not seem that way. Just more proof you have no clue what you are talking about

Its hilarious how you just confirmed what I said and that you liked about me not posting in the Trump thread if he was still president in 2019

So I will wait for your apology
Please stop embarassing yourself when you try to misquote me.

This is like the 3rd time you have lied about what I said on this and its always funny when you bring up the quote, it says exactly what i stated.


----------



## Art Vandaley

What is really going to be interesting re the Mueller report is what happens after Trump is no longer President, particularly if he is replaced by a Democrat or there is a Democratic Governor of New York at that time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlternateDemise said:


> Of course I won't answer the fucking question. Why would I answer such a stupid question? The question of whether or not Trump should be impeached was never my point. You brought it in here so you could have an excuse to continue on with your Russiangate nonsense, so you could reply with a "see! You think he SHOULD be impeached, so you're in agreement then right?" No. You aren't going to bait me with such obvious bullshit. No one's taking your side on this. We're sick of it. You are at the point where you are grasping at straws harder than Donald Trump does in 90% of his speeches. Your (sometimes) irrational hatred for the man has gotten to the point where you are going out of your way to criticize him for everything he does. You've gotten worse than actual Trump supporters. They actually believe in their minds that Trump is doing a good job because they don't know any fucking better. You're taking anything you can find as a reason to say Trump's a terrible president, even going as far as to post articles that you don't bother reading because in said articles, they go on to praise Trump for the exact thing you are using to criticize him for. And why is that? Because your blind hatred for him has made you get to the point where you are no longer taking any of this on with an open and rational mind.
> 
> You want me to answer the question? How about you acknowledge @Stinger Fan showcasing proof of you CLEARLY stating that you would leave this thread forever if Trump wasn't impeached by the end of his term. Since we know that isn't going to happen, please for the love of christ, leave.


Its always funny how people can't answer a simple question but its because you know it will show your hypocrisy that is why you refuse to answer. yeah you dont want me to "bait" you until accidentally agreeing with me because you know I am right. Its just easier to not answer then to jump through all the hoops you have to try an avoid the facts. 

But that is what happens with the shit posters in the Trump thread.

As for Stinger his quote proves he lied about what I said LOL

Please don't tell me you think Trumps first term ended in 2018 too. lol

His second term won't start if he wins until 2020 which I when I said if he was still president I would not post in the thread anymore.

You do know how long a term for a president is right? Stinger doesnt seem to


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> @CP
> 
> https://humanevents.com/2019/05/01/checkmate/
> 
> Interesting piece about how William Barr BTFO'd Robert Mueller's team of Angry Democrats. Indeed, :trump's appointment of Barr as AG looks like the cleverest inside baseball move of his presidency


I love Will Chamberlain, have been following him closely for many moons now. 

One of the funniest things I've seen all year was CNN reacting to Mueller's impotent whining about how his report was being characterized with an article hilariously titled "Attorney General William Barr is in deep trouble". :lol (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/william-barr-robert-mueller-mueller-report/index.html) Of course they never quite lay out exactly how Barr is in "trouble" (these overgrown children :lol), it's just more corporate media whining about the Mueller report being a complete bust and Trump's presidency being 100% safe from the corrupt machinations of their clearly not-so-infallible deep state overlords.

I find the audacity of these lightweights endlessly tickling. They have no idea who they're dealing with and are completely out of their depth.


----------



## Reaper

"He's part of the billionaire club and you're not in it"

@alkomesh ; 

Hopefully you understand why this relates to your point.


----------



## AlternateDemise

birthday_massacre said:


> Its always funny how people can't answer a simple question but its because you know it will show your hypocrisy that is why you refuse to answer.


:mj4 How am I hypocrite for this? I'm refusing to answer the question because I know it'll give you a reason to continue on with this. I know the answer to your question will not matter. That's not hypocrisy. And what makes you think I'd care about what you or a bunch of Trump supporters think? 

This is why no one takes you seriously. 



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah you dont want me to "bait" you until accidentally agreeing with me because you know I am right. *Its just easier to not answer then to jump through all the hoops you have to try an avoid the facts.*


And you want to call me a hypocrite? 

You've been doing this the entire time.



birthday_massacre said:


> But that is what happens with the shit posters in the Trump thread.


People here are asking for you to leave, even the people who hate Trump. You've managed to turn everyone here against you. Even Camillepunk has people on his side. You're not allowed to claim who is and isn't a shit poster. 



birthday_massacre said:


> As for Stinger his quote proves he lied about what I said LOL
> 
> Please don't tell me you think Trumps first term ended in 2018 too. lol
> 
> His second term won't start if he wins until 2020 which I when I said if he was still president I would not post in the thread anymore.
> 
> You do know how long a term for a president is right? Stinger doesnt seem to


:kobefacepalm

It's like trying to explain climate change to Donald Trump. If anyone else wants to bother any further with this, feel free. I'm not wasting any more energy on this nonsense.


----------



## Twilight Sky

I don't like Trump because he doesn't support the values which were laid down by our founding fathers. However, I'm not ok with everyone trying to kick him out of office. I'd rather he be President right now, than Mike Pence - that guy worries me more than Trump.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> I love Will Chamberlain, have been following him closely for many moons now.
> 
> One of the funniest things I've seen all year was CNN reacting to Mueller's impotent whining about how his report was being characterized with an article hilariously titled "Attorney General William Barr is in deep trouble". :lol (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/william-barr-robert-mueller-mueller-report/index.html) Of course they never quite lay out exactly how Barr is in "trouble" (these overgrown children :lol), it's just more corporate media whining about the Mueller report being a complete bust and Trump's presidency being 100% safe from the corrupt machinations of their clearly not-so-infallible deep state overlords.
> 
> I find the audacity of these lightweights endlessly tickling. They have no idea who they're dealing with and are completely out of their depth.


https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4795...hals-question-notes-phone-call-robert-meuller



> BARR: HE IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL. I KNOW OF NO OTHER INSTANCE. BUT HE WAS ALSO A POLITICAL APPOINTEE WITH ME AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE LETTER IS A BIT SNITTY AND IT WAS PROBABLY WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS STAFF PEOPLE.
> 
> DA NANG DICK BLUMENTHAL (D-DA NANG): DID YOU MAKE A MEMORANDUM OF YOUR CONVERSATION? DID ANYONE, EITHER YOUR ANYONE ON YOUR STAFF MEMORIALIZE YOUR CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT MUELLER?
> 
> BARR: YES.
> 
> DA NANG DICK: WHO DID THAT?
> 
> BARR: THERE WERE NOTES TAKEN.
> 
> DA NANG DICK: AND WE HAVE THOSE NOTES?
> 
> BARR: NO.
> 
> DA NANG DICK: WHY NOT?
> 
> BARR: *WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE THEM?*


----------



## Dr. Middy

Deadhead said:


> The only candidate on the ballot right now who would actually make strides to end the wars is Tulsi Gabbard.
> 
> And she's not going to win, so expect the status quo to continue.


I'm rooting for her, she's my pick right now for many reasons. 

Her being right on top of environmental issues is one of many reasons.


----------



## Strike Force

AlternateDemise said:


> People here are asking for you to leave, even the people who hate Trump. You've managed to turn everyone here against you. Even Camillepunk has people on his side. You're not allowed to claim who is and isn't a shit poster.


Preach, child...there's a reason I have a grand total of two posters on my ignore list. One of them is Leon Knuckles, a cinder block masquerading as a human being. I'll give you three guesses as to the other.


----------



## Draykorinee

Russia gate is something I have avoided using to beat trump with because I knew this would happen, there plenty of objective ways to do it that don't feed in to the conspiracy nonsense.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlternateDemise said:


> How am I hypocrite for this? I'm refusing to answer the question because I know it'll give you a reason to continue on with this. I know the answer to your question will not matter. That's not hypocrisy. And what makes you think I'd care about what you or a bunch of Trump supporters think?
> 
> This is why no one takes you seriously.
> 
> .



It will show your hypocrisy because by you answering if will show you agree with me but you even admitted you dont want to be baited into agreeing with what I have said.




AlternateDemise said:


> And you want to call me a hypocrite?
> 
> You've been doing this the entire time.
> .



What exactly I have not answered? Do tell




AlternateDemise said:


> People here are asking for you to leave, even the people who hate Trump. You've managed to turn everyone here against you. Even Camillepunk has people on his side. You're not allowed to claim who is and isn't a shit poster.
> 
> 
> .



LOL Cam Punk has shit posters on his side, you think that is a good thing lol

And I could not care less who is on my "side" or not, it all about being right and I am have been right about everything that is why triggers the Trump supporters in this thread and even people like Tater.



AlternateDemise said:


> AlternateDemise said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like trying to explain climate change to Donald Trump. If anyone else wants to bother any further with this, feel free. I'm not wasting any more energy on this nonsense.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your projection is hilarious on this one. Stinger embarassed himself why claiming something I did not say then gave a quote that said exactly what I admitted I said.
> 
> Are you going to admit he was wrong?
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Middy

Dude just go to r/politics or something. At least there everybody will agree with you there.


----------



## Kabraxal

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> Dude just go to r/politics or something. At least there everybody will agree with you there.


I recently visited there... I regret it. What a fucking shithole.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> I recently visited there... I regret it. What a fucking shithole.


can't be a worst shithole than this thread lol


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123975598999789571
:heston

Oops wrong thread. Uhm, boy, if Biden somehow does win the nomination, then DONALD J. TRUMP (who is still President in 2019) will have a good time in 2020.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> can't be a worst shithole than this thread lol



You think this is bad? You’ll love the mindless echo chamber of r/pol then. Even on things I agree with that place is pure cringe.


----------



## DOPA

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> I'm rooting for her, she's my pick right now for many reasons.
> 
> Her being right on top of environmental issues is one of many reasons.


To be honest, I've not seen Tulsi say anything on environmental issues which isn't the current position of the Democratic party anyway. Though I know she was previously an environmentalist before running for Congress. So that we lead credibility to her base.

I don't agree with the Democrats on solutions to Climate Change for example anyway. I oppose the Green New Deal, I think there are better solutions to the problem than a massive government program.

The main reason I support her is simple: The UK is only effected by American politics in a couple of ways. Trade is one but I'm more concerned with our internal position on that issue, particularly with Brexit at the moment.

The biggest however is foreign policy and for decades presidents and administrations have been beholden to the military industrial complex. No president in my lifetime has really stood up to them. Not Clinton, Especially not Bush or Obama and not Trump either. There's few that would. 

Tulsi is the real deal, she won't and hasn't buckled under party pressure to back the big bad Russia narrative like even Bernie has to a degree. She understands how dangerous it is and has been, how it's led to Trump being more hawkish in order to prove that he's beholden to Russia because of this deluded conspiracy theory of the Russians helping him to steal the election. The man just a couple of months ago tore up the nuclear arms treaty that was established by Reagan and Gorbachev.

If Tulsi miraculously gets the nomination which she won't, I'll back her against Trump. If not, I'll be doing what I did in 2016 which is sitting out unless a good 3rd party candidate comes along.






We have paper ballots in the UK. They work.

The worst incident we've had in my lifetime was university students voting more than once during a general election and these were easily traced and made null and void.

Want to address election meddling? Start with this. The problem is the Democrats at large aren't interested in actually dealing with foreign interference. They are only interested in de-legitimizing Trump.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL how your quote proves that you lied about what i actually said.
> 
> 
> Here is what you said
> 
> And I said
> 
> Then you quote me saying exactly what I just said
> 
> "If he does not get impeached or resign by the end of his first term I wont post in the Trump thread again for his second term. MRMR can just ban me from the thread."
> 
> 
> You do know Trumps first term ends 2020 right and not 2018
> 
> It sure does not seem that way. Just more proof you have no clue what you are talking about
> 
> Its hilarious how you just confirmed what I said and that you liked about me not posting in the Trump thread if he was still president in 2019
> 
> So I will wait for your apology
> Please stop embarassing yourself when you try to misquote me.
> 
> This is like the 3rd time you have lied about what I said on this and its always funny when you bring up the quote, it says exactly what i stated.


Dude stop :lol . It's pretty clear as day that you got proven wrong by your own words and you still tried to lie about it. "By the end of" means before the end of, not after the end. Stop with the leftist tropes of trying to re-invent definitions to the meaning of words or sayings because you don't like them. :lol



birthday_massacre said:


> 2017 will probably end with Trump getting impeached





birthday_massacre said:


> Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year.





birthday_masscare said:


> And Trump is getting impeached or will resign, he will be lucky to last the year.





birthday_masscare said:


> Trump will be impeached or will be forced to resign by 2020, he will be lucky to even make it to the end of this year


^^^These are all from 2017, we're in May 2019 now :lol Give it a rest, you're only embarrassing yourself here. My work here is done :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124523453577682945
:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

Barr is investigating Democrats for the fake piss report, the CIA (the FBI yeah right) trying to honeypot spy on the :trump campaign, questionable FISA warrant applications, and their general illegal and un-American StasI style spying on their political opponent in 2016. Democrats have called on Barr to resign for making statements to Congress that were neither untrue or misleading but hey they're desperate, this guy might blow the top off the whole carnival 

Is not attempting to pressure the AG into resigning obstruction of justice?! Pretty sure under their own personal definition of the term as they have applied to the president, it is


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124645001533771776
Trump sticks his thumb in the eyes of the big tech fascists by tweeting out an InfoWars video. :lol Awesome.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Dude stop :lol . It's pretty clear as day that you got proven wrong by your own words and you still tried to lie about it. "By the end of" means before the end of, not after the end. Stop with the leftist tropes of trying to re-invent definitions to the meaning of words or sayings because you don't like them. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^These are all from 2017, we're in May 2019 now :lol Give it a rest, you're only embarrassing yourself here. My work here is done :lol


You really most have a comprehension problem. You are only making my point even stronger by posting all that lol

yes, I said Trump would be lucky to make it through 2017 yet I never said I wouldn't post in the Trump thread if he was not impeached by the end of 2017 like you keep claiming

I said if Trump isn't impeached or resigns by the end of his first term, wont post in the Trump thread in he is re-elected and you pulled my post saying exactly that lol

Stop embarrassing yourself dude. You still have not shown where I said i would not post in the Trump thread now if he was not impeached.

And you spent all the time looking for it, and didn't find it.

So again admit that you were wrong that I ever said I wouldn't post in the Trump thread if he was not impeached by NOW and not by the end of his first term, which would mean if re-elected I wouldn't post in that thread

You keep proving me right, its just funny you think it makes your case


----------



## Stephen90

Hilariously Trump is whining about people getting banned on facebook. Trump has violated twitter polices over and over again and still hasn't been banned.


----------



## kingnoth1n

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124645001533771776
> Trump sticks his thumb in the eyes of the big tech fascists by tweeting out an InfoWars video. :lol Awesome.


Millie weaver is such a fox too, tig ol bitties son.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> Hilariously Trump is whining about people getting banned on facebook. Trump has violated twitter polices over and over again and still hasn't been banned.


Twitter has always been selective on who they ban, they've banned people for nothing yet people who've said racist or violent things slide because they have the "right think".

Besides it would backfire, sure people would cheer Trump being banned but then how would all the anti-trumpers voice their opinions? The echo chamber would get old. Also Twitter couldn't make sure the same people get top comments all the time.

If Trump went to something like Gab, Twitter would take a huge hit because Trump followers, Politicians, Media and the anti-trumpers would follow him. Thousands who hate Trump would join simply because they cannot help themselves.They HAVE to see what he says.

Twitter will not risk losing their biggest celeb! Think of how much money is made off Trump hate, it's a fucking cash cow! :laugh:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

on one hand yes if twitter were to ban trump they would be letting go of their biggest star and they would also risk him jumping to a new platform and giving it credibility....

... but it would also be the ultimate virtue signal! what better way to show the people (and congress) that you're on the right side of history! 

i'm afraid the temptation might be too great.


----------



## DesolationRow

Miss Sally said:


> Twitter has always been selective on who they ban, they've banned people for nothing yet people who've said racist or violent things slide because they have the "right think".
> 
> Besides it would backfire, sure people would cheer Trump being banned but then how would all the anti-trumpers voice their opinions? The echo chamber would get old. Also Twitter couldn't make sure the same people get top comments all the time.
> 
> If Trump went to something like Gab, Twitter would take a huge hit because Trump followers, Politicians, Media and the anti-trumpers would follow him. Thousands who hate Trump would join simply because they cannot help themselves.They HAVE to see what he says.
> 
> Twitter will not risk losing their biggest celeb! Think of how much money is made off Trump hate, it's a fucking cash cow! :laugh:


This is the truth of it. 

One of the more hilarious elements to the entire imbroglio over this matter is that post-World War II U.S. "right" spent so many decades braying about the purity of the free market at the expense of almost everything else, while conserving nothing and having the gall to label themselves as "conservatives," while today many of them contend that the repulsive Silicon Valley is some hotbed of entrepreneurial enterprise utterly untouched by governmental intervention. 

The former U.S. diplomat Peter van Buren, banned from Twitter chiefly because he had the temerity to point out that he had to lie to reporters like the act was going out of style when he worked at the U.S. State Department and the U.S.'s self-appointed guardians of the truth were in reality quite sedate in recording and regurgitating these lies on behalf of the U.S. regime, was a solid example of what to expect as Silicon Valley and the U.S. government become all the more intertwined with one another. 

Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut was arguing that Twitter had not gone far enough. Senator Mark Warner from Virginia circulated a rather elephantine memo which listed all of the websites and unlikable (which for the U.S. regime and most U.S. journalists means embarrassingly truthful) actors who should be purged and Silicon Valley was all too pleased to swiftly comply. "Conservatives" and libertarians who argue breathlessly that Twitter and Facebook are private entities which means that they are akin to a mom-and-pop diner are doing the bidding of the very repulsive U.S. government they are supposed to be "limiting" the size and scope of; the Communications Decency Act's last-standing provisions provide Silicon Valley giants with _carte blanche_ immunization from any and all torts that could develop. These behemoths are free from prosecutions or lawsuits which may be engendered from any and all matters relating to their conducting of transactions between themselves and those who use their platforms. 

By arguing that they are "carriers" like an old pre-1980s phone company these Silicon Valley entities are able to finesse the very most colossal U.S. government on their behalf.

This should surprise no one, however. 

When, in the late 1950s, the Small Business Administration threw together a two-for-one fund-matching scheme in order to funnel venture capital, the original Silicon Valley initial public offerings such as HP and Varian, who were busily luring risk capital-specializing investing agents. When the U.S. government cut capital gains taxes dramatically in 1978 the venture capital industry experienced what is commonly referred to as an "inflection point" and consequently it was enlarged by a magnitude of over ten within days. Twenty years earlier in 1958 President Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully aided in laying the foundation for the U.S. government's Advanced Research Projects Agency, which was created in the wake of the Soviet Union's Sputnik (1), the first artificial satellite successfully launched as a low elliptical. 

The Advanced Research Projects Agency's greatest success story is what was once known as "ARPANET," merging "ARPA" and "NET," but today is known as the Internet. Working with the U.S. Department of Defense for decades since the height of the Cold War it was this agency which had as much to do with the formation the presently indispensable (unfortunately) master of public information consuming and information-dispensing known as Silicon Valley as anything. Indeed, the Advanced Research Projects Agency is the truest mother of the Internet. 

Even today most of the work this agency performs remains cloaked in secrecy for a host of reasons. However, it is rather obvious as numerous technology programming experts have noted, every last ingredient which goes into the iPhone of today was developed within the halls of the U.S. national-security bureaucracy. As for the Internet, Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn were most directly responsible, first running the program which Cerf theorized as the fresh "communications protocol," providing global networks to interact in as little time as a few seconds in 1977. 

The U.S. government agency aforementioned was responsible for not only the Internet but specific tools which are popular to this day, such as hyper-link texting as well as GPS which is frequently used. Sergei Brin and Larry page's algorithm for Google was initially rather robustly funded in the research for said algorithm from the U.S.'s National Science Foundation. 

Mariana Mazzucato demonstrates in the book _The Entrepreneurial State_--in concert with several anonymous ex-Silicon Valley truth-tellers--that Steve Jobs's entire Apple empire which presently enjoys hefty market capitalization beyond Jobs's wildest dreams, was largely technologically conceived by the U.S. Department of Defense. 

It is hardly difficult to see why Silicon Valley is lavished with the nearly wholly monopoly-style wedded to a host of U.S. government-sanctioned advantages and benefits during which time investment capital moved like lightning partly thanks to staggeringly low interest rates on behalf of "big tech" and its many octopus-like tentacles. Silicon Valley is as much a creation of the U.S. government as the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

And those who call themselves conservatives and libertarians are actively defending this institution, perhaps because they are ill-informed, or possibly because they are simply wholly unprincipled in every regard. It matters little in the end.


----------



## Miss Sally

Berzerker's Beard said:


> on one hand yes if twitter were to ban trump they would be letting go of their biggest star and they would also risk him jumping to a new platform and giving it credibility....
> 
> ... but it would also be the ultimate virtue signal! what better way to show the people (and congress) that you're on the right side of history!
> 
> i'm afraid the temptation might be too great.


Companies like Twitter don't give a shit, they'll ban only when they feel like there's no other choice. Money > Anything else.

A bunch of goobers can kiss the ass of these giant tech companies but in the end these companies only care about money. Which is why they been busted spying on people, firing americans to hire cheap foreign labor and being pretty much social media versions of the Umbrella Corporation.

Only a bunch of rubes wouldn't see through them. :laugh:


----------



## Rugrat

r/Politics is just the reverse of The Donald. No balance, just obsessive anti-Trump cheerleading.


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124229721431130112

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125105343154065409
When they say "diversity is our strength," I don't think they mean making children strong enough to decapitate people

I don't _think_ that's what they mean

But I wouldn't be surprised if it were


----------



## CamillePunk

"Wasn't vetted". :banderas

Oh well, let's pretend nothing is going on. :nerd:


----------



## deepelemblues

"Wasn't vetted" translation: "This was supposed to be for internal consumption only. You filthy infidels weren't supposed to see it!"


----------



## 2 Ton 21

> Trump pardons former US soldier who killed Iraqi prisoner
> 
> WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has pardoned a former U.S. soldier convicted in 2009 of killing an Iraqi prisoner, the White House announced Monday.
> 
> Trump signed an executive grant of clemency, a full pardon, for former Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, of Oklahoma, press secretary Sarah Sanders said.
> 
> Behenna was convicted of unpremeditated murder in a combat zone after killing a suspected al-Qaida terrorist in Iraq. He was paroled in 2014 and had been scheduled to remain on parole until 2024.
> 
> Oklahoma’s attorney general said Friday that he acted on his own when he sent a letter to President Donald Trump supporting a pardon requested by a former U.S Army soldier convicted of unpremeditated murder in a combat zone.
> 
> A military court had sentenced Behenna to 25 years in prison. However, the Army's highest appellate court noted concern about how the trial court had handled Behenna's claim of self-defense, Sanders said. The Army Clemency and Parole Board also reduced his sentence to 15 years and paroled him as soon as he was eligible.
> 
> Behenna's case attracted broad support from the military, Oklahoma elected officials and the public, Sanders said. She added that Behenna was a model prisoner while serving his sentence, and "in light of these facts, Mr. Behenna is entirely deserving" of the pardon.
> 
> Oklahoma’s two Republican senators, James Lankford and Jim Inhofe, hailed the pardon, thanking Trump for giving Behenna “a clean slate.”
> 
> Behenna acknowledged during his trial that instead of taking the prisoner home as he was ordered, he took the man to a railroad culvert, stripped him, and then questioned him at gunpoint about a roadside bombing that had killed two members of Behenna's platoon.
> 
> Behenna, a native of the Oklahoma City suburb of Edmond, said the man moved toward him and he shot him because Behenna thought he would try to take his gun.
> 
> Oklahoma’s attorney general first requested a pardon for Behenna in February 2018 and renewed his request last month. Attorney General Mike Hunter said he believed Behenna’s conviction was unjustified because of erroneous jury instructions and the failure of prosecutors to turn over evidence supporting a self-defense claim.


From 2008



> Several US and Iraqi witnesses testified against Warner.
> 
> On Sunday, an Iraqi translator, whose name was withheld for security reasons, gave gruesome testimony of how Mohammed was first shot and then had his face disfigured with a thermite grenade.
> 
> The murder was committed on May 16 under a bridge in the northern oil refinery town of Baiji, after the two soldiers left their base with Mohammed to set him free at a checkpoint.
> 
> "Lieutenant Behenna started talking with Ali Mansur and Sergeant Warner followed them," the witness said.
> 
> "Behenna and Warner started taking off Ali Mansur's clothes with their knives. They then cut his handcuffs."
> 
> Behenna ordered the detainee to sit, the translator said, adding that Behenna seemed to be keen to get information from the detainee regarding an attack on US troops in April.
> 
> The witness, who was acting as a translator to Behenna, said the officer asked the detainee several times: "What do you know you have to tell me."
> 
> "Ali Mansur said I will talk to you but Lieutenant Behenna pulled trigger and killed him," the translator said speaking in English, adding that Behenna had told him that the detainee was linked to an attack on US forces near Baiji on April 21.
> 
> That roadside bombing killed four people, including two American soldiers.
> 
> "Before we started the patrol, Lieutenant Behenna told to Ali Mansur 'I will kill you'. I thought Lieutenant Behenna was trying to scare him. I did not think he would go through (with it)," the translator added.
> 
> "I was standing 10 metres (yards) back during the shooting -- I could see everything even if it was getting dark -- and Sergeant Warner was next to me."
> 
> Warner then "took the grenade from his pocket, pulled the safety ring, walked around and put the grenade under Ali Mansur's head.
> 
> "Then they hid his clothes, and Behenna and Warner went back."
> 
> On Saturday, two US soldiers from the same battalion as the accused also testified against Warner.
> 
> Corporal Cody Atkinson said that Behenna and Warner, armed with a grenade, took Mohammed out of the vehicle and under the bridge.
> 
> Mohammed was initially believed to have been freed along with another detainee at a checkpoint, but his naked and badly burnt body was found under the bridge the next day.
> 
> "We all thought that we were going to jail for this. Sergeant Warner told us to write that Ali Mansur had been released," Atkinson told the hearing on Saturday.
> 
> When Atkinson was asked whether Warner told him Behenna killed Mohammed, he answered "Yes."
> 
> Another soldier, Sergeant Milton Sanchez, testified that Behenna told him Mohammed was a "bad guy."
> 
> "I know he (Behenna) was mad. He did not think that we should release him. He thought we were wrong to drop this detainee," Sanchez said.


Apparently Behenna's mom is a federal prosecutor in OK and is friends with the OK AG who has been pushing for the pardon.

Fox News was pretty happy about it. MSNBC wasn't.

Looked at the Military and Army subreddits and those soldiers aren't happy about it. One post that caught my eye.



> Honestly forget all of that.
> 
> All of it.
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> What matter is this: the military only works when people do their job and follow orders. Whether you like them or not. Whether you agree with them or not. The mission is fucking bigger than you.
> 
> I was on the treadmill at the gym this morning and they had the shining stars that grace us by way of Fox and Friends on the TV talking about this. They were like "the ROE is tying our troops hands. This guy was a terrorist and he killed him in self-defense" blah blah blah
> 
> Here's the thing, in fact the only thing that matters, that detainee was supposed to be dropped off and released because higher ups said so.
> 
> That's how this works. Maybe they wanted to release him back into the wild so they could monitor him and figure out the other members of his cell. Maybe they wanted his fellow jihadis to think he flipped and that's why he was released, thereby causing suspicion within the ranks. Maybe they did flip him and he's now an asset and intel source. Maybe he was a fucking under cover CIA agent from fucking Nebraska and that's why he was released. Or maybe hundreds of other fucking scenarios that don't need to be pushed out to some random fuckface PL that thinks he's above the law and knows better than the people above him.


----------



## Tater

One piece of shit war criminal pardons another piece of shit war criminal. America, fuck yeah!


----------



## yeahbaby!

> Behenna acknowledged during his trial that instead of taking the prisoner home as he was ordered, he took the man to a railroad culvert, stripped him, and then questioned him at gunpoint about a roadside bombing that had killed two members of Behenna's platoon.
> 
> Behenna, a native of the Oklahoma City suburb of Edmond, said the man moved toward him and he shot him because Behenna thought he would try to take his gun.


Sounds totally legit. Enhanced interrogation completely works I've been told.


----------



## birthday_massacre

So Trump tax figures from 1985-1994 showed his business losses of over $1 billion. LOL

Yeah he is such a great businessman.

All the poeple that defended Trum[p and claimed he was a great businessman


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

birthday_massacre said:


> So Trump tax figures from 1985-1994 showed his business losses of over $1 billion. LOL
> 
> Yeah he is such a great businessman.
> 
> All the poeple that defended Trum[p and claimed he was a great businessman


There's a very obvious way for the Trump cultists to flip this: even with losing over a billion dollars he's such a good business man that he was still able to convince businesses to invest with him and license his name on their buildings.

Libtards owned.


----------



## Strike Force

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Libtards owned.


Using the term "libtards" makes you look like an ignorant fool, just so you know.



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> There's a very obvious way for the Trump cultists to flip this: even with losing over a billion dollars he's such a good business man that *he was still able to convince businesses to invest with him and license his name on their buildings*.


Absolutely. The media seemed to blow this out of proportion. Why does it actually matter whether Trump was as successful a businessman as he claims? His business acumen isn't the same as his ability to lead the nation, and even if you take umbrage with the "lie"...well, people, he's told _far_ worse lies than that.



deepelemblues said:


> "Wasn't vetted" translation: "This was supposed to be for internal consumption only. You filthy infidels weren't supposed to see it!"





CamillePunk said:


> "Wasn't vetted". :banderas
> Oh well, let's pretend nothing is going on. :nerd:


Now, you people be quiet! There's nothing to see here! This was definitely just an innocent mistake and definitely not proof of indoctrination or anything else untoward! Move along! 

:toomanykobes


----------



## deepelemblues

So the son and grandson of immigrants from Scotland and Germany can lose a billion dollars in a decade, and two decades after that become President of the United States

Truly anything is possible in this greatest of countries :trump2


----------



## Stephen90

deepelemblues said:


> So the son and grandson of immigrants from Scotland and Germany can lose a billion dollars in a decade, and two decades after that become President of the United States
> 
> Truly anything is possible in this greatest of countries :trump2


George W Bush proved that years ago before Trump.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> George W Bush proved that years ago before Trump.


:trump's father wasn't a president, vice president, and head of government drug smuggling

:trump's grandfather's business empire at his death was like $7,000 in the bank and 3 rental properties


----------



## birthday_massacre

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> There's a very obvious way for the Trump cultists to flip this: even with losing over a billion dollars he's such a good business man that he was still able to convince businesses to invest with him and license his name on their buildings.
> 
> Libtards owned.


Trump is a master con-man that is for sure. Because simple minded people are tricked by him all the time.


----------



## JasonLives

birthday_massacre said:


> So Trump tax figures from 1985-1994 showed his business losses of over $1 billion. LOL
> 
> Yeah he is such a great businessman.
> 
> All the poeple that defended Trum[p and claimed he was a great businessman


Whats the deal with bringing up old news? Its been public knowledge for years that he had a massive loss, he has even said it himself he was billion of dollars in debt at one point. He even wrote a book about coming back from his huge loses. Nobody think he has made huge winning years after year in his career.
If, and thats if, he rebounded from that major loss then yes I think everyone would see him as a great businessman. 

Numbers från 20-25 years ago is not relevant. What do the anti Trump people expect? That the people who vote for him is gonna go "oh he was bad att business 25 years ago, better not vote for him now". I dont get the thought process behind it. 

Even Hillary tried that during the election and failed. Only difference from the 2016 release is the number of years and about 150 million dollars more. But the news is the same, the "1 billion dollar loser and how awful he was at business". 
So we are gonna rehash news from the last election and think it sticks this time? Come on.
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/...y-not-have-been-a-cash-loss-at-all-2016-10-03


----------



## Draykorinee

Doesn't really matter how old it is, its still new information we didn't have. 

The tired old debate of whether he is a good businessman is wearing thin, he has done good business and he's conned people out of millions knowingly (Trump Uni). You can claim either way and still be right.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> Doesn't really matter how old it is, its still new information we didn't have.
> 
> The tired old debate of whether he is a good businessman is wearing thin, he has done good business and he's conned people out of millions knowingly (Trump Uni). You can claim either way and still be right.


 No you can’t claim he’s a good businessman when pretty much all of his business ventures of failed. Trump bankrupt two casinos. 
His couple of successes are the outliers


----------



## Strike Force

birthday_massacre said:


> No you can’t claim he’s a good businessman when pretty much all of his business ventures of failed. Trump bankrupt two casinos.
> His couple of successes are the outliers


Simple question: why does it matter whether he's a successful businessman or not?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Strike Force said:


> Simple question: why does it matter whether he's a successful businessman or not?


Because that is what Trump and his supporters always brag about and its just not true.


----------



## Strike Force

birthday_massacre said:


> Because that is what Trump and his supporters always brag about and its just not true.


I'm firmly against Trump, and I honestly couldn't care less about this story. He says he's a successful businessman, turns out he wasn't as successful as he says. What does that have to do with his ability to govern?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Strike Force said:


> I'm firmly against Trump, and I honestly couldn't care less about this story. He says he's a successful businessman, turns out he wasn't as successful as he says. What does that have to do with his ability to govern?


Because Trump said he will run the country like this businesses and he is a disaster at both.


----------



## JasonLives

birthday_massacre said:


> Because that is what Trump and his supporters always brag about and its just not true.


Who is really to say its not true? There is no clear definition of a successful businessman. 
Should a persons success only be based on what happened 25 years ago, his next 25 years dont matter?
Still managed to become the president of the united states 25 years later. Thats a accomplishment in itself.

That he lost a billion dollars 25 years ago. Its not relevant, not to the overall public. He won the election, despite Hillary using it against him, so is people really gonna care four years later?
If anyone wanna beat Trump they need to focus on the last four years of him in office. What can they do to make things better? What can they do better then what Trump has done? 
A bunch of nonsense investigation and 25 year old numbers is not gonna do it. Thats another four years of Trump in office.

Trump could have lost million 5 years ago and I dont think it would change a thing. People dont want the past, they want the future. They want hope. So focus on his last four years and what the can do better for the public.


----------



## birthday_massacre

JasonLives said:


> Who is really to say its not true? There is no clear definition of a successful businessman.
> Should a persons success only be based on what happened 25 years ago, his next 25 years dont matter?
> Still managed to become the president of the united states 25 years later. Thats a accomplishment in itself.
> 
> That he lost a billion dollars 25 years ago. Its not relevant, not to the overall public. He won the election, despite Hillary using it against him, so is people really gonna care four years later?
> If anyone wanna beat Trump they need to focus on the last four years of him in office. What can they do to make things better? What can they do better then what Trump has done?
> A bunch of nonsense investigation and 25 year old numbers is not gonna do it. Thats another four years of Trump in office.
> 
> Trump could have lost million 5 years ago and I dont think it would change a thing. People dont want the past, they want the future. They want hope. So focus on his last four years and what the can do better for the public.


LOL 

nonsense investigations of Trumps illegal actives?

So you think Trump should be above the law?


----------



## jeffatron

Strike Force said:


> *Using the term "libtards" makes you look like an ignorant fool, just so you know.*
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. The media seemed to blow this out of proportion. Why does it actually matter whether Trump was as successful a businessman as he claims? His business acumen isn't the same as his ability to lead the nation, and even if you take umbrage with the "lie"...well, people, he's told _far_ worse lies than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you people be quiet! There's nothing to see here! This was definitely just an innocent mistake and definitely not proof of indoctrination or anything else untoward! Move along!
> 
> :toomanykobes



I just gotta say it, you're my favorite poster right now XP


----------



## deepelemblues

FBI and CIA are in a bit of a kerfuffle as to which organization is responsible for the government credulously accepting the piss dossier despite multiple concerns being expressed by various government officials about its accuracy BEFORE it was used as a justification for the FISA warrant authorizing spying on the :trump campaign and various individuals

The FBI swore to the FISA court that it had verified the underlying information in the warrant application. That now appears to have been a lie, at least as far as the piss dossier goes

:trump and Barr setting up this shit to explode right in the middle of next year's general election campaign. Former FBI lead counsel James Baker, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and more should all be very concerned about going to prison. "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" is gonna be making a comeback next year. That president being Obama. The top echelon of officials at the CIA and FBI under his watch did some real Stasi shit in 2016 and expected Hillary would win so they'd get away with it. Oops


----------



## Miss Sally

https://www.constructiondive.com/ne...-to-take-on-construction-work-by-2025/554653/

Automation is near!

*A growing number of construction companies are incorporating robots to solve labor shortages and reap the benefits of improved speed, efficiency, safety and profits, according to a new report.

Robots are beginning to make their way into a variety of construction tasks, which will change the way the industry operates, says the “Construction & Demolition Robots” report from market intelligence firm Tractica. The largest market will be for robot assistants used on construction sites; followed by infrastructure robots for demolition, site prep and road building; structure robots such as bricklayers, welders and 3D concrete printers; and finishing robots, which perform tasks such as drilling, drywall installation, cleaning and painting.

The report forecasts that revenue for suppliers will increase from $22.7 million in 2018 to $226 million annually by 2025. During that period, more than 7,000 construction robots will be deployed to address a variety of construction and demolition tasks. 

​Dive Insight:
Although the construction industry has historically resisted automation, a nationwide shortage of skilled labor may push U.S. firms to consider artificial intelligence to fill the gap. The technology is rapidly advancing, with robots being employed to hang drywall, weld and lay bricks.*


----------



## virus21

I for one welcome our new mechanical overlords


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> ​Dive Insight:
> Although the construction industry has historically resisted automation, a nationwide shortage of skilled labor may push U.S. firms to consider artificial intelligence to fill the gap. The technology is rapidly advancing, with robots being employed to hang drywall, weld and lay bricks.[/B]


It's almost as if importing mass amounts of cheap labor actually holds a society back. :monkey

Also, automation and AI are not the same thing. :lol We don't have anything resembling AI, and won't for a very, very long time, if ever. Any time someone seriously mentions AI in the context of the economy, they are sci-fi scare-mongering, and usually trying to justify expanding the state.


----------



## deadcool

He ain't winning 2020.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look

President Trump has pardoned former media mogul and friend Conrad Black. 

In 2007, Black was convicted of obstruction of justice and fraud, for illegally pocketing money that should have gone to stockholders.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> It's almost as if importing mass amounts of cheap labor actually holds a society back. :monkey
> 
> Also, automation and AI are not the same thing. :lol We don't have anything resembling AI, and won't for a very, very long time, if ever. Any time someone seriously mentions AI in the context of the economy, they are sci-fi scare-mongering, and usually trying to justify expanding the state.


Yeah, not sure why they mentioned AI, last AI I can remember was Tay and they had to cut her learning out to keep her as they wanted. We won't get true AI for a long time because atm we don't have the tech for true AI and there's no way they could prevent it from turning out like Tay. :laugh:

I been saying automation is coming, it's here! More and more places are having less workers, self checkouts etc but oh we'll have all these jobs, don't you worry! Suuure! 

Importing cheap labor, holding back on certain research and focusing on social political nonsense over fundamental knowledge has held society back. We're not going to explore the stars, the ocean, help the environment and make life overall better with the bullshit we think is important now.


----------



## yeahbaby!

^ Un yeah you're not exactly the only person who's been predicting automation in the workforce, not sure why you decided to brag!!!


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1129332521005735936

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1129194527720263680
OMG I am shocked, shocked I tell ya! You mean the government lied to us and the Trump regime bombed Syria based on a false flag?! I cannot believe it!

:sip


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> ^ Un yeah you're not exactly the only person who's been predicting automation in the workforce, not sure why you decided to brag!!!


Where did I say I was the only one? I just said I been saying it, especially on here for a while now. I stated that automation was coming and work force changes would be needed while some people here stated there wouldn't be much job loss. :shrug

@Tater I am shocked! People faked something in order to get something out of someone?! In this case an air strike based on a false flag? No way!


----------



## CamillePunk

The corporate media's not going to talk about it because they were as culpable as anyone, repeating the government's official story without skepticism. Absolute warmongering propagandists.

That means most people aren't going to know about this and we're unlikely to see any pressure on Washington.


----------



## deepelemblues

The federal 9th circuit court of appeals when :trump was inaugurated:

19 D appointees
6 R
4 vacancies

Next week, after 2 just confirmed appointees are seated:

16 D
11 R
2 vacancies

The way Cocaine Mitch is moving judicial nominees like he's slinging keys it will soon be:

16 D
13 R

By the end of 2020 the 9th circuit could and likely will have a majority of Republican appointed judges

"Fundamentally transformed" - once again :trump whips Obama :heston


----------



## rbhayek

In wrestling terms, he will retain his title in 2020. The Democrats do not have one single candidate that can challenge him outside Biden (who is old as fuck and pervy as fuck) and Bernie (who is also old as fuck and crazy as fuck. 

The only chance the Democrats have of beating Trump is playing his own game on him (which they will never do because they are too stupid to do so). 

Trump isn't that smart, but if he is cunning and an opportunist. He wouldn't even be president right now had Obama not made fun of him in 2011. That started the fire. 

Trump is handling foreign relations really poorly right now (all the presidents have since Clinton) but he is doing what Bush/Obama didn't (trying to do something about the mass numbers of illegal immigration).

He also cut off funding for the California bullet train which is probably the most corrupt overbudgeted scam in the history of scams. 

Economy is doing well now but it's bound to sink at any moment over the next year. 

I thought Beto had a chance to win but he is not nearly as smart as Obama was. If Obama ran again (if he were allowed to) but fired everyone from his cabinet and hired a new one, I would vote for him. I believe his presidency was weakened by his shitty underlings.


----------



## CamillePunk

Beto is a train wreck right now. :lol Buttigieg came along and did everything Beto was doing, but better. He's younger, better looking, more eloquent, AND he even has the identity politics card going for him by being gay, whereas Beto finds himself incessantly apologizing for being straight, white, and male. :lol He's basically Beto 2.0, new and improved. His appearances on Fallon and Maher were particularly strong. 

Of course he still doesn't talk about policies with any specificity, and even outright said that Democrats focus way too much on policy and basically said he would figure it out later, but that's typical of the neoliberals in the field. I was pretty confident that Kamala Harris was going to be the Democratic nominee based on her establishment and identity politics credentials, and Joe Biden's uncanny ability to say something outrageously off-putting to many liberals on a seemingly daily basis. Now, I'm not so sure. Outside of Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris (who seem to be making up the 'Big 4' among the Democratic candidates), Mayor Pete seems to be the "best of the rest", in terms of popularity and momentum.

Still super early though.  Interested to see things unfold, as someone who doesn't want any of these people to win. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

rbhayek said:


> In wrestling terms, he will retain his title in 2020. The Democrats do not have one single candidate that can challenge him outside Biden (who is old as fuck and pervy as fuck) and Bernie (who is also old as fuck and crazy as fuck.
> 
> The only chance the Democrats have of beating Trump is playing his own game on him (which they will never do because they are too stupid to do so).
> 
> Trump isn't that smart, but if he is cunning and an opportunist. He wouldn't even be president right now had Obama not made fun of him in 2011. That started the fire.
> 
> Trump is handling foreign relations really poorly right now (all the presidents have since Clinton) but he is doing what Bush/Obama didn't (trying to do something about the mass numbers of illegal immigration).
> 
> He also cut off funding for the California bullet train which is probably the most corrupt overbudgeted scam in the history of scams.
> 
> Economy is doing well now but it's bound to sink at any moment over the next year.
> 
> I thought Beto had a chance to win but he is not nearly as smart as Obama was. If Obama ran again (if he were allowed to) but fired everyone from his cabinet and hired a new one, I would vote for him. I believe his presidency was weakened by his shitty underlings.


Bernie and Warren would both crush Trump.


----------



## rbhayek

birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie and Warren would both crush Trump.


Are you positive about that? If California and New York were the only states voting I would agree with you. But you're forgetting that the majority of this country votes on 2 things
1. Safety
2. Wallet

So far, Trump is not hurting their wallet or their safety. 

In order for Warren or Bernie to have a chance, they need to campaign on something other than "Fuck Trump"

They have to show the American people what they can do for them. Warren will not make it to the final 3 of the Democratic primaries. Bernie will. Then, we will see.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Let's check in and see how the China tariffs are going.

*Putin says Russia will supply soy beans, poultry meat to China*

*China’s retaliation against new Trump tariffs will send U.S. hog farmers into a tailspin*

*China's new tariffs are hitting US farmers at 'every single angle,' economist says*

About the Russia one. So, you mean a competitor will jump in and fill the hole in a market if you create one? Who knew? :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

2 Ton 21 said:


> Let's check in and see how the China tariffs are going.
> 
> *Putin says Russia will supply soy beans, poultry meat to China*
> 
> *China’s retaliation against new Trump tariffs will send U.S. hog farmers into a tailspin*
> 
> *China's new tariffs are hitting US farmers at 'every single angle,' economist says*
> 
> *About the Russia one. So, you mean a competitor will jump in and fill the hole in a market if you create one? Who knew? *:shrug


This is undeniable proof of collusion now! :genius


----------



## birthday_massacre

rbhayek said:


> Are you positive about that? If California and New York were the only states voting I would agree with you. But you're forgetting that the majority of this country votes on 2 things
> 1. Safety
> 2. Wallet
> 
> So far, Trump is not hurting their wallet or their safety.
> 
> In order for Warren or Bernie to have a chance, they need to campaign on something other than "Fuck Trump"
> 
> They have to show the American people what they can do for them. Warren will not make it to the final 3 of the Democratic primaries. Bernie will. Then, we will see.


You mean like all those swing states that Trump barely won because he lied to them and now they now Trump lied to them?

Not to mention all the people Trump fucked over with is tax cuts for the rich, a lot of them were Trump supporters are now like WTF why did my tax refunds go down.

Its laughable for you to claim Trump has not hurt their wallets, everyone was bitching about their tax refunds, lets not also forget how Trump lied to some of those very same people and they all lost their jobs due to them going over seas.

As for Bernie and Warren needing to campaign on something other than "Fuck Trump" what the fuck are you watching exactly? My guess is nothing since that is not what they are doing.

Bernie and Warren are both for things like Medicare for all, $15 min wage, college debt forgiveness, getting money out of politics, etc etc


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> You mean like all those swing states that Trump barely won because he lied to them and now they now Trump lied to them?
> 
> Not to mention all the people Trump fucked over with is tax cuts for the rich, a lot of them were Trump supporters are now like WTF why did my tax refunds go down.
> 
> Its laughable for you to claim Trump has not hurt their wallets, everyone was bitching about their tax refunds, lets not also forget how Trump lied to some of those very same people and they all lost their jobs due to them going over seas.
> 
> As for Bernie and Warren needing to campaign on something other than "Fuck Trump" what the fuck are you watching exactly? My guess is nothing since that is not what they are doing.
> 
> Bernie and Warren are both for things like Medicare for all, $15 min wage, college debt forgiveness, *getting money out of politics*, etc etc



:lol :lol :lol

you mark


----------



## CamillePunk

Didn't BM say he was an accountant at one point? How does he not know how tax refunds work? :monkey


----------



## DOPA

I'm sorry but Warren would lose to Trump hands down. She's a fake progressive whose already been outed as a fraud. She has zero credibility left.


----------



## yeahbaby!

2 Ton 21 said:


> Let's check in and see how the China tariffs are going.
> 
> *Putin says Russia will supply soy beans, poultry meat to China*
> 
> *China’s retaliation against new Trump tariffs will send U.S. hog farmers into a tailspin*
> 
> *China's new tariffs are hitting US farmers at 'every single angle,' economist says*
> 
> About the Russia one. So, you mean a competitor will jump in and fill the hole in a market if you create one? Who knew? :shrug


'That's fake news. I love farmers, no one cares more about the farmers than me, believe me. We're going to get a better deal that puts America first blah blah blah'


----------



## deepelemblues

The president has the approval of 85-90%+ of Republican voters and as long as that doesn't change he will have as good a chance at re-election as any incumbent


----------



## rbhayek

birthday_massacre said:


> You mean like all those swing states that Trump barely won because he lied to them and now they now Trump lied to them?
> 
> Not to mention all the people Trump fucked over with is tax cuts for the rich, a lot of them were Trump supporters are now like WTF why did my tax refunds go down.
> 
> Its laughable for you to claim Trump has not hurt their wallets, everyone was bitching about their tax refunds, lets not also forget how Trump lied to some of those very same people and they all lost their jobs due to them going over seas.
> 
> As for Bernie and Warren needing to campaign on something other than "Fuck Trump" what the fuck are you watching exactly? My guess is nothing since that is not what they are doing.
> 
> Bernie and Warren are both for things like Medicare for all, $15 min wage, college debt forgiveness, getting money out of politics, etc etc


Dude, you are reacting emotionally. I am reacting practically. Bernie and Warren are hardcore socialists. Voters are not going to buy into that bullshit. 

Trump's lies are no different from any other politicans lies. But the economy is okay right now and that's the way it is right now. If the economy were to suddenly tank over the next year leading to the election, then he would have a chance of losing. 

And no before you think it, I'm not a Trump fan. Never have been, never will be. I am libertarian and the people that decided Trump in 2016 were mostly voters who weren't swinging to either party. He won 30 states overall. 

The Democratic Party will not win an election with a hardcore leftist. They need someone like Obama who at least was left-center. Bill Clinton was left-center. JFK was left-center. 

History has shown that people who run a format as extreme left as Sanders and Warren lose every single time. And don't get me started on the damage Kamala Harris has done in California. She would make us a welfare country.


----------



## DOPA

Out of all the likely contenders from the Democratic field, I think Bernie still has the best shot realistically to beat Trump. Though, at least in my opinion, he's hurt his chances somewhat with his association with the stupid Russiagate conspiracy theory despite the establishment Democrats screwing him the last time. Not to mention him pushing for stupid policies like giving Felons the right to vote without even specifying if we're talking about non-violent drug offenders which I think people could get on board with versus every type of criminal which nobody in their right mind would support. I'd still put him as a favourite versus Trump though.

A centrist would be dead in the water against Trump and I can say this as someone who is considered to be on the right. Hillary couldn't excite the Democratic base, it's the unsung story of the last election. Whereas Trump excited his base and managed to bring some cross over supporters to his cause, Hillary ran away from her base and alienated it's more hardcore supporters who decided to either switch to Trump, vote 3rd party or just stay out of it entirely. A Biden, Kamala or Beto isn't going to make the base of their party turn out in enough numbers to win an election. Plain and simple. A smaller turnout favours Trump because the Republican base is going to turn out in droves for him regardless, he's their most popular president in history for crying out loud.

Another thing that needs to be considered is that an incumberant president is always going to have a good shot at re-election to begin with. It's very difficult for a challenger to overcome a sitting president. Not impossible but still difficult. The most recent example of someone who managed to pull it off was Bill Clinton in 1992 but at the same time, you had Ross Perot who was a force to be reckoned with who was a new candidate. It's hard to say if without Perot, Clinton would have won in 1992. Even W. Bush when he was most unpopular due to the Iraq War, managed to see off John Kerry in 2004.

Honestly, if she could get through the primaries which she won't, the best shot beating Trump from the Democrats is Tulsi Gabbard, and I'm not saying that because I'm rooting for her. I'm saying that because she appeals to moderate, more non-interventionist Republicans and to Libertarians as well as the progressive base. Not to mention her military background would pull some other Republicans and independents too. She could build a strong coalition to beat Trump but the DNC is more heavily against her than even Bernie who has decided to play along with their games.

If Biden or Kamala get 2020 which is possible with either (Warren won't win), then Trump is getting a 2nd term.


----------



## Tater

rbhayek said:


> Dude, you are reacting emotionally. I am reacting practically. Bernie and Warren are hardcore socialists. Voters are not going to buy into that bullshit.
> 
> Trump's lies are no different from any other politicans lies. But the economy is okay right now and that's the way it is right now. If the economy were to suddenly tank over the next year leading to the election, then he would have a chance of losing.
> 
> And no before you think it, I'm not a Trump fan. Never have been, never will be. I am libertarian and the people that decided Trump in 2016 were mostly voters who weren't swinging to either party. He won 30 states overall.
> 
> The Democratic Party will not win an election with a hardcore leftist. They need someone like Obama who at least was left-center. Bill Clinton was left-center. JFK was left-center.
> 
> History has shown that people who run a format as extreme left as Sanders and Warren lose every single time. And don't get me started on the damage Kamala Harris has done in California. She would make us a welfare country.


_"Bernie and Warren are hardcore socialists."_

Bernie advocates for centrist social democrat policies. Warren is somewhere between the center and center right.

_"the economy is okay right now and that's the way it is right now."_

The economy is only good for those at the very top. The vast majority of Americans are still barely keeping their heads above water.

_"the people that decided Trump in 2016 were mostly voters who weren't swinging to either party."_

Trump won because he won the Rust Belt. How the rest of the country voted did not matter. He won the Rust Belt because he opposed the TPP in rhetoric and everyone remembers how badly NAFTA fucked over their region. Problem is, the factories are still shutting down and jobs are still being shipped out of the country. People in the Rust Belt are no better off now than they were before Trump got elected. He cannot win re-election without them.

_"Obama who at least was left-center. Bill Clinton was left-center."_

Clinton was center right. So was Obama.

_"The Democratic Party will not win an election with a hardcore leftist."

"History has shown that people who run a format as extreme left as Sanders and Warren lose every single time."_

The notion that Sanders and Warren are extreme left is just laughable. Bernie is a centrist and Warren is to the right of him. You have no idea what socialism is, do you? Bernie wants to tax capitalism to pay for social welfare programs. That is not the same thing as socialism. You know who else taxed capitalism to pay for social welfare programs? FDR. What history has shown us is that dude got elected 4 times. The reason our country is so fucked right now is because we have been steadily moving back to the pre- Great Depression far right ever since then. The USA has *never* had a leftist government but every time Democrats move away from representing the right (big corporations, big banks, Wall St., etc.) and move back towards the center (representing the working class), that's when they win.

Pretty much everything you said in your post was factually inaccurate. I'm hardly a Bernie fan and I would never vote for Warren in a million years because she is too far right for me. The point of this reply is to show you how wrong you are in your assessment of the situation. There are a ton of reasons to criticize the Democrats. Being too far left is not one of them. Trump would not be president right now and the Democrats would not have been wiped out nationally under Obama had they governed as centrists instead of right wing lackeys.

Before you ask, my candidate of choice is Tulsi Gabbard. Ending imperialist foreign intervention wars is my top issue. Everything else is secondary to that.


----------



## deepelemblues

Yay another episode of No True Socialist

Yelling that BernieOld is awkshooally a centrist :heston

Tulsi Gabbard 

Luap Nor with a cute face and tits :draper2 

I remember the deep appeal of the rEVOLution - don't you remember the landslide the good doctor won in 2008? Geez Louise fpalm can it be summer 2020 already so we can get Tulsi wuz robbed, it's less cringe than this Tulsi is just so appealing as fuck (to me) so ipso facto she's appealing as fuck to the multitude [citation needed]


----------



## rbhayek

Tater said:


> _"Bernie and Warren are hardcore socialists."_
> 
> Bernie advocates for centrist social democrat policies. Warren is somewhere between the center and center right.
> 
> _"the economy is okay right now and that's the way it is right now."_
> 
> The economy is only good for those at the very top. The vast majority of Americans are still barely keeping their heads above water.
> 
> _"the people that decided Trump in 2016 were mostly voters who weren't swinging to either party."_
> 
> Trump won because he won the Rust Belt. How the rest of the country voted did not matter. He won the Rust Belt because he opposed the TPP in rhetoric and everyone remembers how badly NAFTA fucked over their region. Problem is, the factories are still shutting down and jobs are still being shipped out of the country. People in the Rust Belt are no better off now than they were before Trump got elected. He cannot win re-election without them.
> 
> _"Obama who at least was left-center. Bill Clinton was left-center."_
> 
> Clinton was center right. So was Obama.
> 
> _"The Democratic Party will not win an election with a hardcore leftist."
> 
> "History has shown that people who run a format as extreme left as Sanders and Warren lose every single time."_
> 
> The notion that Sanders and Warren are extreme left is just laughable. Bernie is a centrist and Warren is to the right of him. You have no idea what socialism is, do you? Bernie wants to tax capitalism to pay for social welfare programs. That is not the same thing as socialism. You know who else taxed capitalism to pay for social welfare programs? FDR. What history has shown us is that dude got elected 4 times. The reason our country is so fucked right now is because we have been steadily moving back to the pre- Great Depression far right ever since then. The USA has *never* had a leftist government but every time Democrats move away from representing the right (big corporations, big banks, Wall St., etc.) and move back towards the center (representing the working class), that's when they win.
> 
> Pretty much everything you said in your post was factually inaccurate. I'm hardly a Bernie fan and I would never vote for Warren in a million years because she is too far right for me. The point of this reply is to show you how wrong you are in your assessment of the situation. There are a ton of reasons to criticize the Democrats. Being too far left is not one of them. Trump would not be president right now and the Democrats would not have been wiped out nationally under Obama had they governed as centrists instead of right wing lackeys.
> 
> Before you ask, my candidate of choice is Tulsi Gabbard. Ending imperialist foreign intervention wars is my top issue. Everything else is secondary to that.


I live in California. I am seeing how and what extreme leftism can do to a state. I have always been in favor of balance. We have the highest taxes in the nation and the poorest roads in the nation. 30% of this state is on welfare and there is no middle class. Homelessness is the worst it's ever been,

I want balance from the right and left, not one party in total control. 

And have you seen the new age Democrats? AOC? Omar? How can you possibly call their ideals not extreme leftism? 

And I like AOC and what she is trying to do, but I don't think even she fully understands what she is trying to do, and the effect it would have. 

But anyways, I rant. Back to Trump, I honestly don't care if he wins or loses. I was making a prediction based on how unsettled the Democratic Party is. It's not a prediction I alone am making. If Sanders can prove to be worthy, more power to him. But I don't think I could make a bet on him winning.

This Rust Belt as you mentioned help get Trump elected, they will again come out in full force. That's what I believe will happen at least.


----------



## Miss Sally

Bernie is probably the only one with a chance. 

Though after his words about Biden it makes him look like he'll bend the knee to the Democrat Party, his support will wane with the undecideds and independents.

It won't be an easy battle, it wouldn't even be a battle if Trump kept part of his promises and got rid of the warhawks on his team.

Warren isn't even a factor, she's been exposed as a fraud and she's just unlikable. 

Besides a lot of the loudest anti-trumpers want him to get another term. He's given their lives meaning, a villain and an easy way to make money. I mean what are people like Maddow gonna do? Report actual news!? Hah!

Trump is the Political version of BDSM, sure there's pain involved, it can be scary and embarrassing but overall it's just a show. The power is given by choice. "W-what's Master Trump g-gonna do to us p-poor resisters!!?" Only what you want him to do, cutie.:x


----------



## Tater

rbhayek said:


> I live in California. I am seeing how and what extreme leftism can do to a state. I have always been in favor of balance. We have the highest taxes in the nation and the poorest roads in the nation. 30% of this state is on welfare and there is no middle class. Homelessness is the worst it's ever been,
> 
> I want balance from the right and left, not one party in total control.
> 
> And have you seen the new age Democrats? AOC? Omar? How can you possibly call their ideals not extreme leftism?
> 
> And I like AOC and what she is trying to do, but I don't think even she fully understands what she is trying to do, and the effect it would have.
> 
> But anyways, I rant. Back to Trump, I honestly don't care if he wins or loses. I was making a prediction based on how unsettled the Democratic Party is. It's not a prediction I alone am making. If Sanders can prove to be worthy, more power to him. But I don't think I could make a bet on him winning.
> 
> This Rust Belt as you mentioned help get Trump elected, they will again come out in full force. That's what I believe will happen at least.


First you need to understand what leftism is, not what people in America thinks it is. Left vs right is about a collectively owned society vs a privately owned society. Capitalism rules the USA in all 50 states, including California. You can't be a capitalist and a leftist at the same time. It does not work that way. California is most definitely ruled by capitalists so by very definition, it cannot be leftist.

If balance between left and right is what you want, in a capitalist society, that would mean half the power would be with the working class (the left) and half the power would be with the owner class (the right). What we have in far right USA is near total control by the far right ruling elite. If California was an extreme leftist state, all the businesses would be owned by the government (authoritarian leftism) or by the workers themselves (libertarian leftism). Contrary to popular belief in the USA, raising taxes on capitalists =/= leftism.

Yeah, I've seen these new age Democrats. I am not overly fond of them either. They're centrists, same as Bernie. They want to tax the capitalists and put everyone on welfare. An actual leftist would want to get rid of capitalism, which none of them have been advocating for.

I'm a libertarian leftist myself. I believe we should break up all concentrations of wealth and power and decentralize society. Workers should work for themselves and own the businesses they work at. Local businesses should provide goods and services for local needs. I know a lot of people who consider themselves conservative who hate how the Wal-Marts of the world have destroyed Main Street USA. Small towns all across America have been gutted because they were completely dependent on a capitalist business who decided to up and move away because they can profit more elsewhere. I'll tell you this, we would not have a problem with jobs being shipped out of the country if the workers owned those businesses because they would not vote to ship their own jobs away.

These new age Democrats are not interested in putting power back into the hands of the people. They have no desire to depose the ruling elite. What they want to do is leave the same people in power but take from them to redistribute wealth to the commonfolk.

Whether or not Trump gets a 2nd term will come down to the economy and who the Dems run against him. The economy is barely hanging on by a thread as it is, and if it tanks before the election, Trump has zero chance of reelection. Basically, Trump's only chance of winning is if the economy doesn't do a complete nosedive and the Dems put up another Clintonite. If the economy crashes, it probably won't matter who the Dems run. Americans are not the most economically literate people in the world, so regardless of how much blame Trump actually deserves, he will get most of it. People might not know how the economy works but they know who is in the WH when it collapses.


----------



## rbhayek

Tater said:


> First you need to understand what leftism is, not what people in America thinks it is. Left vs right is about a collectively owned society vs a privately owned society. Capitalism rules the USA in all 50 states, including California. You can't be a capitalist and a leftist at the same time. It does not work that way.* California is most definitely ruled by capitalists so by very definition, it cannot be leftist.
> *
> 
> I want you to come visit California, walk around LA and San Francisco (and the shit and needles all around). Listen to what Gavin Newsom says at every single presser (the social justice programs).
> 
> The entire identity of California is defined by leftism. The economy in this state is boosted by the tech companies and Hollywood. If any of them were to bolt, or collapse, the rest of the state would. And you are essentially saying the Right controls the corporations, yet all the leaders of these corporations are hardcore liberals that enjoy their leftism.
> 
> Go on Twitter and look at all the Hollywood leftists (minus hardcore righty James Woods who is batshit insane, yet entertaining as fuck).
> 
> While I can agree with a lot of what you have said, to say California is not leftist makes me throw a chair at a TV. It's simply not close to true.


----------



## Tater

rbhayek said:


> I want you to come visit California, walk around LA and San Francisco (and the shit and needles all around). Listen to what Gavin Newsom says at every single presser (the social justice programs).
> 
> The entire identity of California is defined by leftism. The economy in this state is boosted by the tech companies and Hollywood. If any of them were to bolt, or collapse, the rest of the state would. And you are essentially saying the Right controls the corporations, yet all the leaders of these corporations are hardcore liberals that enjoy their leftism.
> 
> Go on Twitter and look at all the Hollywood leftists (minus hardcore righty James Woods who is batshit insane, yet entertaining as fuck).
> 
> While I can agree with a lot of what you have said, to say California is not leftist makes me throw a chair at a TV. It's simply not close to true.


It's only true in the sense that Americans do not understand the definition of leftism. Like I said, if California was the extreme leftist state that you claim it to be, then all the businesses would either be owned by the government or the workers. Hollywood and the tech companies are owned by capitalists. That makes them right wing by very definition. I didn't create the political spectrum. I'm just explaining how it works. Don't shoot the messenger.

And for the record, liberalism and SJW bullshit has absolutely nothing to do with being a leftist. I don't like that shit any more than you do. I view liberals and SJWs as an enemy of the left because they masquerade as leftists when they are not and they distract from real leftist issues. That's the game Democrats play. They tell you that being on the left means abortion rights and gay weddings because they don't want you talking about breaking up the power and wealth concentration that is in the hands of their capitalist overlords.


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130485892819357696
He's right you know :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130530702007689217
Dude just came out and said it. :bjpenn



> President Donald Trump took aim at the military industrial complex in an interview with Fox News, saying that while he wants to bring troops home, “they never want to leave, they always want to fight.”
> The president was discussing Iran and how he prefers to solve tensions economically, but is up against people that would send “thousands of soldiers” into Syria if it was up to them.
> 
> Hilton had asked the president if he could “reassure people you’re not looking for some kind of conflict in Iran?” His response was far different than his tough tweet about Iran on Sunday.
> 
> “Well, I’m the one that talks about these wars that are 19 years (long), and people are just there. And don’t kid yourself, you do have a military industrial complex. They do like war,” Trump said in his interview with Fox News’s Steve Hilton.
> 
> “You know, In Syria with the caliphate, so I wipe out 100% of the caliphate that doesn’t mean you’re not going to have these crazy people going around, blowing up stores and blowing up things, these are seriously ill people…But I wiped out 100 percent of the caliphate,” Trump continued. “I said, I want to bring our troops back home — the place went crazy. They want to keep– you have people here in Washington, they never want to leave. I said, you know what I’ll do, I’ll leave a couple hundred soldiers behind, but if it was up to them they’d bring thousands of soldiers in.”
> 
> Trump added, “someday people will explain it, but you do have a group, and they call it the military-industrial complex.”
> 
> “They never want to leave, they always want to fight. No. I don’t want to fight, but you do have situations like Iran. You can’t let them have nuclear weapons. You just can’t let that happen,” Trump said.


----------



## birthday_massacre

rbhayek said:


> Dude, you are reacting emotionally. I am reacting practically. Bernie and Warren are hardcore socialists. Voters are not going to buy into that bullshit.
> 
> Trump's lies are no different from any other politicans lies. But the economy is okay right now and that's the way it is right now. If the economy were to suddenly tank over the next year leading to the election, then he would have a chance of losing.
> 
> And no before you think it, I'm not a Trump fan. Never have been, never will be. I am libertarian and the people that decided Trump in 2016 were mostly voters who weren't swinging to either party. He won 30 states overall.
> 
> The Democratic Party will not win an election with a hardcore leftist. They need someone like Obama who at least was left-center. Bill Clinton was left-center. JFK was left-center.
> 
> History has shown that people who run a format as extreme left as Sanders and Warren lose every single time. And don't get me started on the damage Kamala Harris has done in California. She would make us a welfare country.


LOL Voters are already buy into it. Bernie got cheered at a fox townhall lol and Bernie is one of the most popular politicians in the country and all of his ideas are some of the most popular in the country You are the only one who is acting emotionally here because you can't deal with the facts.

And yes the democrats can win an an election with a hardcore leftist, that is what they need. The last thing they need is a centrist, if yo are going to vote for that then just vote republican. 

Hillary won a centrist campaign and lost tote most unpopular politician of all time. 

Times have changed and all the most popular politics are left not center.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look Deutsche Bank flagged Trump and Kushner for potential money laundering with Russia lol


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...transactions-involving-trump-kushner-n1007501



Deutsche Bank employees reportedly flagged suspicious transactions involving Trump and Kushner
Tammy McFadden, a former Deutsche Bank employee, said she reviewed transactions that involved Kushner's company and Russians in the summer of 2016.

Anti-money laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank flagged multiple transactions involving Donald Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, from 2016 and 2017. Those specialists recommended the activity be reported to the federal government's financial crimes unit, The New York Times reported Sunday.

But top executives at the global financial giant rejected that advice, current and former employees told The Times.

The transactions that came under review "set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity," five current and former Deutsche Bank employees told The Times. Those transactions were then reviewed by the bank's compliance staff, who prepared suspicious activity reports that they felt should be sent to the U.S. Treasury Department.

Those reports were never filed, The Times reported, adding that the nature of the transactions was unclear, though at least some of them involved foreign entities or individuals, which raised red flags with bank employees. The Times noted that those red flags "did not necessarily mean the transactions were improper."

Over the past few years, Deutsche Bank has been punished by both U.S. and European authorities for its role in money laundering schemes, paying hundreds of millions in fines as a result. The bank has a substantial relationship with Trump, as it was the only major financial institution to continue lending to Trump after he went through a financial downturn in the 1990s. Deutsche Bank lent Trump and his businesses more than $2.5 billion and, when he became president, the bank held more than $300 million in Trump's debt.

“We have increased our anti-financial crime staff and enhanced our controls in recent years and take compliance with the (anti-money laundering) laws very seriously," Kerrie McHugh, a Deutsche Bank spokeswoman, said in a statement. "An effective (anti-money laundering) program requires sophisticated transaction screening technology as well as a trained group of individuals who can analyze the alerts generated by that technology both thoroughly and efficiently."

"At no time was an investigator prevented from escalating activity identified as potentially suspicious," she said. "Furthermore, the suggestion that anyone was reassigned or fired in an effort to quash concerns relating to any client is categorically false."

Tammy McFadden, a former anti-money laundering specialist at Deutsche Bank who reviewed some of the transactions, told The Times that she was moved to a different department at the bank after she raised the concerns before she was fired last year.

"You present them with everything, and you give them a recommendation, and nothing happens," McFadden told The Times. "It’s the D.B. way. They are prone to discounting everything."

In 2016, McFadden reviewed a series of transactions involving Kushner's real estate company, Kushner Companies, that were flagged by the bank's software system. McFadden told The Times that she found that money had moved from the real estate company to Russians and felt the transactions needed to be reported to the Treasury Department — particularly as Deutsche Bank had come under intense scrutiny for its involvement in Russian money laundering schemes.

But bank managers in New York felt McFadden's concerns were unwarranted and did not send a report to the federal government, employees told The Times.

Then, after Trump became president, an internal anti-financial crime team reviewed the president's transactions and "produced multiple suspicious activity reports involving different entities that Mr. Trump owned or controlled," three former bank employees who saw the reports told The Times.

The reports involved Trump's LLC's and the now-defunct Trump Foundation. But, as The Times reported, the bank chose not to file those reports as well.

Recommended
POP-CULTURE
'Game of Thrones' is over. Here's how the internet is reacting
POLITICS
Buttigieg attacks Fox News hosts at Fox News town hall
Trump responded to the story in a lengthy series of Monday tweets. The president accused news outlets of "writing phony stories about how I didn't use many banks because they didn't want to do business with me."

"WRONG!" Trump continued. "It is because I didn't need money. Very old fashioned, but true. When you don't need or want money, you don't need or want banks. Banks have always been available to me, they want to make money."

Trump added, "Now the new big story is that Trump made a lot of money and buys everything for cash, he doesn’t need banks."

"But where did he get all of that cash?" Trump wrote. "Could it be Russia? No, I built a great business and don’t need banks, but if I did they would be there...and Deutsche Bank.....was very good and highly professional to deal with — and if for any reason I didn't like them, I would have gone elsewhere....there was always plenty of money around and banks to choose from. They would be very happy to take my money. Fake News!"

Congress and the New York attorney general are investigating Trump's relationship with the bank and have subpoenaed the financial institution for records related to the president, his family, and their businesses. Deutsche Bank has begun turning over documents to the New York attorney general, while Trump and his family last month sued Deutsche Bank to block it from producing records to House Democrats.

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization told NBC News, "We have no knowledge of any ‘flagged’ transactions with Deutsche Bank," adding that the company has "no operating accounts with Deutsche Bank."

Emily Wolf, general counsel for Kushner Companies, said, "Any allegations regarding Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Kushner Companies which involved money laundering is completely made up and totally false."

House Democrats quickly highlighted the report.

"As more and more damning evidence against @realDonaldTrump comes into public view, it becomes clear why he is hiding information from the American people and blowing off Congress," Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., tweeted. "If Congress cannot gather evidence, we need to seriously consider an impeachment inquiry."

"This report makes Congress’s investigations of Trump’s shadowy finances more pressing," Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., tweeted. "The bank has even more questions to answer and Congress needs to hear from this whistleblower."

Allan Smith
Allan Smith is a political reporter for NBC News.

by Taboola
Sponsored Stories
IHEADPHONES
The most successful wireless headphones in USA
WWW.NDTV.COM
Meghan Celebrates Mother's Day With Pic Of Baby Archie


----------



## rbhayek

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Voters are already buy into it. Bernie got cheered at a fox townhall lol and Bernie is one of the most popular politicians in the country and all of his ideas are some of the most popular in the country You are the only one who is acting emotionally here because you can't deal with the facts.
> 
> And yes the democrats can win an an election with a hardcore leftist, that is what they need. The last thing they need is a centrist, if yo are going to vote for that then just vote republican.
> 
> *Hillary won a centrist campaign* and lost tote most unpopular politician of all time.
> 
> Times have changed and all the most popular politics are left not center.


Except Hilary was hated by a lot of people, on both sides which is why she didn't win. The extreme liberals tried to get people to vote for her simply because she was a woman, no matter what she did in the past (good or bad). What kind of idiotic logic is that? (not by you, by the people who presented this type of thinking). 

And it's actually quite scary about that....I wouldn't call left politics popular. I would call it media brainwashing. Do you want to live in a society where the press doesn't question the President and his actions? That's what will happen if an extreme leftist becomes president. My proof of that? California politics. Gavin Newsom has not had one tough question thrown at him despite
1. Increasing Homelessness
2. Essentially pardoning murderers and terrible people
3. Terrible Unethical Taxes

If it were up to me, the Democratic and Republican Parties would take a hit and another (Libertarian or any other) would step up. But for some reason, we are forced to choose between two major parties, not any more (and yes I know how that works with the votes per seat). 

Sidenote, I do wish Trump would shut the fuck up every time he tweets something. It's getting annoying and not as entertaining as it used to be.


----------



## birthday_massacre

rbhayek said:


> Except Hilary was hated by a lot of people, on both sides which is why she didn't win. The extreme liberals tried to get people to vote for her simply because she was a woman, no matter what she did in the past (good or bad). What kind of idiotic logic is that? (not by you, by the people who presented this type of thinking).
> 
> And it's actually quite scary about that....I wouldn't call left politics popular. I would call it media brainwashing. Do you want to live in a society where the press doesn't question the President and his actions? That's what will happen if an extreme leftist becomes president. My proof of that? California politics. Gavin Newsom has not had one tough question thrown at him despite
> 1. Increasing Homelessness
> 2. Essentially pardoning murderers and terrible people
> 3. Terrible Unethical Taxes
> 
> If it were up to me, the Democratic and Republican Parties would take a hit and another (Libertarian or any other) would step up. But for some reason, we are forced to choose between two major parties, not any more (and yes I know how that works with the votes per seat).
> 
> Sidenote, I do wish Trump would shut the fuck up every time he tweets something. It's getting annoying and not as entertaining as it used to be.


the more popular platforms in the US are medicare for all, $15 min wage, college debt forgiveness, getting money out of politics, all things Bernie Sanders is for.

its funny you bring up a society in which people dont question yet it all the liberals are are saying Trump needs to be impeached 

You dont even make any sense. 


What exactly are unethical taxes


----------



## DesolationRow

Neocons saying Donald Trump is anti-American again for rebutting the military. :lol :lol :lol


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/20/trump-pardons-war-crime-cases/3732814002/



> *Trump may pardon troops in war crime cases, including SEAL Edward Gallagher, reports say*
> 
> President Donald Trump is considering pardons for American troops who have been accused or convicted of war crimes, and he may issue them as the country commemorates Memorial Day, according to The New York Times and CBS News.
> 
> Citing two unidentified U.S. officials, The Times reported Saturday that the White House made "expedited requests" last week for the paperwork needed to process the pardons.
> 
> One unidentified official told CBS the Justice Department had requested the case files from the Pentagon.
> *
> The reports said some high-profile cases are under consideration for pardons. One involves Navy SEAL Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, who is accused of using a knife to kill a teenage Islamic State prisoner in Iraq, as well as separate incidents of killing unarmed Iraqi civilians.
> 
> According to prosecutors, a SEAL medic said he had just gotten the wounded prisoner stabilized when Gallagher walked up and stabbed the teen in the neck and body. They say he posed with the prisoner's body and included it as a prop in his re-enlistment ceremony, bragging, "I got this one with my knife."
> 
> Seven Navy SEALs were granted immunity in the case. Investigators said Gallagher occasionally fired indiscriminately into crowds of civilians. He also is accused of shooting an elderly man carting a water jug in Mosul in June 2017 and a girl walking along a riverbank in the same area a month later. *
> 
> In March, Trump said that in "honor of his past service to our Country," he was having the Bronze Star recipient moved to "less restrictive confinement" while he awaits trial, which is set to begin May 28 in San Diego.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1111965027483951105On May 8, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said he would ask Trump to pardon Gallagher after viewing footage from a helmet camera, which he said exonerates the 19-year veteran. Hunter himself is awaiting trial on a 60-count federal indictment for improper use of campaign funds. *
> 
> Nicholas Slatten, a former contractor for the security firm Blackwater – now known as Academi – is also being considered for a pardon, according to the reports. Slatten was convicted in December of first-degree murder on charges that he sparked a shooting that ended with 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians dead and another 17 wounded.*
> *
> It was the second time Slatten was found guilty in the case. A federal judge ordered a retrial after his first conviction in 2014 on the grounds that Slatten had not been allowed to introduce evidence that another man may have fired the first shots. *
> 
> *The 2007 rampage in Baghdad's Nisour Square was investigated by the military and a congressional panel. Slatten and three other Blackwater security guards were part of a convoy escorting a U.S. diplomat when they came to the busy circle where they opened fire with machine guns and grenade launchers.
> 
> They said they fired when a sedan lurched toward them, which they feared could have been a bomb. But no device was found and the medical student driving the car was unarmed.
> **
> Another case under consideration, according to The Times, is that of Maj. Mathew Golsteyn. He is charged with murder for shooting an unarmed Taliban bombmaker in Afghanistan in 2010. In December, Trump said he would be reviewing Golsteyn's case, calling him a "U.S. Military hero." *
> *
> A group of Marines who faced charges for urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters after video of the 2011 incident surfaced are also being looked at for pardons, The Times reported. *
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1074319076766433280According to The Times, the pardoning process for service members usually is a matter of months, but the Justice Department asked that the files be ready by Memorial Day weekend, when the president planned to announce the pardons.
> 
> It would not be the first time Trump has used his pardon power in a military case. Earlier this month, he pardoned former Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, who had been convicted in the 2009 killing of a suspected al-Qaida terrorist who had been taken prisoner in Iraq.
> 
> The American Civil Liberties Union called that pardon a "presidential endorsement of a murder."


Saw this comment from an army vet.



> It's purely a political move. It's one of those things that sounds good to people that think we should just kill every single Muslim in the middle east. The type of people that say "it's war, the troops are supposed to be killing people,that's what the terrorists are doing". Completely forgetting that if we don't hold ourselves to a standard of conduct, then we have no argument for a moral high ground. If we kill innocent people "cause it's war", then the only difference between us and terrorists is funding.
> 
> I've done three tours in Afghanistan, I get that sometimes things get questionable. However it's very telling when a lot of these war criminals are reported by their own guys. If your own team members are going out of their way to report you for war crimes when they were in the same situation, there's a 99% chance you deserve to rot in jail.


He's right. How bad do you have to be for your own guys to turn you in?

Let's say the stories are accurately reported. Forget who the victims are, even though at least a couple appear to be civilians minding their own business, think about what it takes for someone to do these things. That's someone that likes killing and hurting people. I get the idea behind "fuck 'em they're the enemy", but after you saw a guy shoot and kill a girl just walking down a riverbank in the stomach, would you really trust him at all anymore?


----------



## rbhayek

birthday_massacre said:


> the more popular platforms in the US are medicare for all, $15 min wage, college debt forgiveness, getting money out of politics, all things Bernie Sanders is for.
> 
> its funny you bring up a society in which people dont question yet it all the liberals are are saying Trump needs to be impeached
> 
> You dont even make any sense.
> 
> 
> *What exactly are unethical taxe*s


A tax that is forced on the voter for an entity's horrible decision making (like the California fires which were caused by PG&E and Southern California Edison). 

Come on BM, you're better than that. I'm sure you have heard this plenty of times but "Taxation without Representation is Theft".


----------



## birthday_massacre

rbhayek said:


> A tax that is forced on the voter for an entity's horrible decision making (like the California fires which were caused by PG&E and Southern California Edison).
> 
> Come on BM, you're better than that. I'm sure you have heard this plenty of times but "Taxation without Representation is Theft".


So are you for taxes being used for something like medicare for all?


----------



## rbhayek

birthday_massacre said:


> So are you for taxes being used for something like medicare for all?


Yes if done properly. Through the proper channels. I like the systems in place in other countries and am not the right-wing fanatic that says that "healthcare is a privilege" 

I wouldn't mind paying taxes on that if done correctly. It's the stupid stuff (like the bullet trains that no one rides, the free drugs for homeless people) that irritates me. 

Healthcare should be affordable and available. 

I quote California a lot because it's my own backyard. We not only have the highest taxes but the highest pensions in the country and Caltrans just got rejected by the Trump Administration for more money on their already overbudget bullet train (by 3 times) that dumbass Arnold Scwarzenegger approved. It's stuff like that. 

I got nothing against Bernie or Warren. It's just I don't think they can win. Maybe I will be wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre

rbhayek said:


> Yes if done properly. Through the proper channels. I like the systems in place in other countries and am not the right-wing fanatic that says that "healthcare is a privilege"
> 
> I wouldn't mind paying taxes on that if done correctly. It's the stupid stuff (like the bullet trains that no one rides, the free drugs for homeless people) that irritates me.
> 
> Healthcare should be affordable and available.
> 
> I quote California a lot because it's my own backyard. We not only have the highest taxes but the highest pensions in the country and Caltrans just got rejected by the Trump Administration for more money on their already overbudget bullet train (by 3 times) that dumbass Arnold Scwarzenegger approved. It's stuff like that.
> 
> I got nothing against Bernie or Warren. It's just I don't think they can win. Maybe I will be wrong.


That is why I asked you about what is unethical taxes. I agree if our taxes are not used to help the people it represents then its wrong.
some people think all taxes are theft, that is why I just wanted to make sure that is not what you were getting at 


Bernie has the best shot against Trump than anyone. Trump would dismantle Biden especially with all the creepy shit Biden has done.


----------



## rbhayek

birthday_massacre said:


> That is why I asked you about what is unethical taxes. I agree if our taxes are not used to help the people it represents then its wrong.
> 
> 
> Bernie has the best shot against Trump than anyone. Trump would dismantle Biden especially with all the creepy shit Biden has done.


That video with him and his granddaughter still gives me nightmares.


----------



## birthday_massacre

rbhayek said:


> That video with him and his granddaughter still gives me nightmares.


If I had to take someone that is not Bernie, i would go with Tulsi. I like Warren but with the two native american think, I think that will kill her chances. 

I am on the fence with Buttigieg, he says a lot of good things but doesnt really give out his full platform and he likes to do some republican talking points like about how democrats can't tell how they will pay for medicare for all when they really do.

So I am not sure what to think of him but i would take him over Biden or Harris any day.


----------



## rbhayek

birthday_massacre said:


> If I had to take someone that is not Bernie, i would go with Tulsi. I like Warren but with the two native american think, I think that will kill her chances.
> 
> I am on the fence with Buttigieg, he says a lot of good things but doesnt really give out his full platform and he likes to do some republican talking points like about how democrats can't tell how they will pay for medicare for all when they really do.
> 
> So I am not sure what to think of him but i would take him over Biden or Harris any day.


If Tulsi makes it out of the first and second rounds (I approach this like sports hahA) I may vote for her. She has to get past the tough stage first.


----------



## Tater

rbhayek said:


> Except Hilary was hated by a lot of people, on both sides which is why she didn't win. The extreme liberals tried to get people to vote for her simply because she was a woman, no matter what she did in the past (good or bad). What kind of idiotic logic is that? (not by you, by the people who presented this type of thinking).
> 
> And it's actually quite scary about that....I wouldn't call left politics popular. I would call it media brainwashing. Do you want to live in a society where the press doesn't question the President and his actions? That's what will happen if an extreme leftist becomes president. My proof of that? California politics. Gavin Newsom has not had one tough question thrown at him despite
> 1. Increasing Homelessness
> 2. Essentially pardoning murderers and terrible people
> 3. Terrible Unethical Taxes
> 
> If it were up to me, the Democratic and Republican Parties would take a hit and another (Libertarian or any other) would step up. But for some reason, we are forced to choose between two major parties, not any more (and yes I know how that works with the votes per seat).
> 
> Sidenote, I do wish Trump would shut the fuck up every time he tweets something. It's getting annoying and not as entertaining as it used to be.





rbhayek said:


> "Taxation without Representation is Theft".


The only thing you are actually wrong about is calling this extreme leftist politics. I don't disagree with most of what you are saying.

Let me ask you this though... RE: Taxation without representation is theft.

Would you agree that the voters should have a say in how tax money is spent via some form of direct democracy? Because that is something I advocate for from the libertarian left.

Politicians are supposed to be public employees. They are supposed to be working for us. We pay their salaries. Yet, they have no obligation whatsoever to do what we want. By and large, politicians in the USA do what their big money donors tell them to do. If you hire someone to paint your kitchen, they don't get to decide what color to paint it. They were hired to do a job, you tell them how you want it done, then they do it.

We should treat politicians like someone being hired to do a job. Let the people vote on policies they want implemented then elect or "hire" the politicians to carry out those policies. If they don't do their jobs, have a system in place where they are immediately removed from office or "fired" from their job like any other employee would be if they did not do the job they were hired to do.

Thoughts?



rbhayek said:


> If Tulsi makes it out of the first and second rounds (I approach this like sports hahA) I may vote for her. She has to get past the tough stage first.


The establishment hates Tulsi much more than they hate Bernie because she is a genuine anti-war candidate. That's why she receives so much praise from the Ron Paul libertarian right and you saw how the establishment treated Ron Paul. Opposing neocons is not a left vs right issue. It is a libertarian vs authoritarian issue. I may not agree with the libertarian right on economic policy but you will not find a better anti-war ally than that group.


----------



## CamillePunk

The idea that other people can magically decide that someone else represents you and therefore forcing you to pay them money isn't theft is absurd. :lol It's theft. The civilization you guys want is based on theft being acceptable for certain groups of people. Just admit it, no need to participate in the gas-lighting. :lol "Yes, we need theft. It's better than the alternatives." I don't know why honesty is hard for so many people.


----------



## rbhayek

Tater said:


> The only thing you are actually wrong about is calling this extreme leftist politics. I don't disagree with most of what you are saying.
> 
> Let me ask you this though... RE: Taxation without representation is theft.
> 
> Would you agree that the voters should have a say in how tax money is spent via some form of direct democracy? Because that is something I advocate for from the libertarian left.
> 
> Politicians are supposed to be public employees. They are supposed to be working for us. We pay their salaries. Yet, they have no obligation whatsoever to do what we want. By and large, politicians in the USA do what their big money donors tell them to do. If you hire someone to paint your kitchen, they don't get to decide what color to paint it. They were hired to do a job, you tell them how you want it done, then they do it.
> 
> We should treat politicians like someone being hired to do a job. Let the people vote on policies they want implemented then elect or "hire" the politicians to carry out those policies. If they don't do their jobs, have a system in place where they are immediately removed from office or "fired" from their job like any other employee would be if they did not do the job they were hired to do.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment hates Tulsi much more than they hate Bernie because she is a genuine anti-war candidate. That's why she receives so much praise from the Ron Paul libertarian right and you saw how the establishment treated Ron Paul. Opposing neocons is not a left vs right issue. It is a libertarian vs authoritarian issue. I may not agree with the libertarian right on economic policy but you will not find a better anti-war ally than that group.



Voters have a say but a lot of them are mislead and uneducated (look up Prop 6 in 2018 California race). The No for Prop 6 ran the campaign telling voters that bridges would fall and everyone would die if they didn't vote down the prop (which was attempting to repeal a gas tax) and 55% bought it. Then later, many said the proposition confused them (which hurt my head when I heard that)

And I agree that we should treat politicians like they work for us. The problem is a lot of people instead treat them like celebrities. 

Look at any Twitter/Facebook convo about Obama or Trump. Those two are either Jesus Christ or the Devil. That is the problem. 

As I was telling BM, I have no problem with taxes going to essentials and social programs that are needed (healthcare). But being taxed for every mile I drive (which is actually being considered in California, I shit you not) is the stupidest thing I have heard, they literally are trying to force us to stop driving our cars...in the state where you need to drive to get anywhere.


----------



## Tater

rbhayek said:


> Voters have a say but a lot of them are mislead and uneducated (look up Prop 6 in 2018 California race). The No for Prop 6 ran the campaign telling voters that bridges would fall and everyone would die if they didn't vote down the prop (which was attempting to repeal a gas tax) and 55% bought it. Then later, many said the proposition confused them (which hurt my head when I heard that)
> 
> And I agree that we should treat politicians like they work for us. The problem is a lot of people instead treat them like celebrities.
> 
> Look at any Twitter/Facebook convo about Obama or Trump. Those two are either Jesus Christ or the Devil. That is the problem.


I agree about how woefully ignorant the people are of policy but that just means we need to take steps to educate them. It's better than the alternative of big money owning the politicians and the people having no say, even if the people sometimes vote for stupid policies. When they do, they will have to suffer the consequences until they get the chance to vote to change the policies. Call it a learning experience.



> As I was telling BM, I have no problem with taxes going to essentials and social programs that are needed (healthcare). But being taxed for every mile I drive (which is actually being considered in California, I shit you not) is the stupidest thing I have heard, they literally are trying to force us to stop driving our cars...in the state where you need to drive to get anywhere.


I assume you're talking about a gas tax as a way to fight climate change? Yeah, I call bullshit on that. It's a way to take more money from poor people instead of actually going after the oil barons. (hint: not a leftist policy)


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> The idea that other people can magically decide that someone else represents you and therefore forcing you to pay them money isn't theft is absurd. :lol It's theft. The civilization you guys want is based on theft being acceptable for certain groups of people. Just admit it, no need to participate in the gas-lighting. :lol "Yes, we need theft. It's better than the alternatives." I don't know why honesty is hard for so many people.


You can always take yourself off the grid and live in the forest - no need to pay taxes.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://nypost.com/2019/05/18/average-us-salaries-on-the-rise-thanks-to-booming-economy/










I seem to remember some sour grapes last year about BUT WAGES AREN'T RISING :Trump

(Even though they were rising then too)


----------



## Tater

yeahbaby! said:


> You can always take yourself off the grid and live in the forest - no need to pay taxes.


He can't go live in a privately owned forest because that would be theft so maybe he could go live in a publicly owned forest that is paid for by theft of taxpayer money.

Wait...

:lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

LOL at all the Trump supportes and people like Tater ignoring the whole Trump money laundering thing which I called two years ago.

Keep showing your true colors and keep your heads in the sand. 

I just love being right about this stuff. All that egg on your faces is great


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at all the Trump supportes and people like Tater ignoring the whole Trump money laundering thing which I called two years ago.
> 
> Keep showing your true colors and keep your heads in the sand.
> 
> I just love being right about this stuff. All that egg on your faces is great


You are just as full of shit as ever. I have always said from the very beginning that Trump is a corrupt businessman. He is guilty of all kinds of financial crimes and now war crimes too. I'm just not stupid or gullible enough to fall for the Russiagate hoax. 

This is what you fail to comprehend. I attack Trump for real crimes, not imaginary ones. He is an absolute piece of shit who deserves a cell in the Hague. You don't need to invent Manchurian Candidate fantasies to go after him when there are very real crimes that he should be locked up for.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater going back on his bullshit again. You have been giving me shit for years about me saying Trump laundering money from Russia.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Tater going back on his bullshit again. You have been giving me shit for years about me saying Trump laundering money from Russia.


Your imagination is getting the best of you. I've never denied that Trump has been in involved in money laundering and all sorts of other criminal activities. You make yourself look even more foolish than usual every time you act like I am some sort of Trump fan or defender. I am one of Trump's biggest critics. The difference between you and me is that everything I attack Trump for is real while you tend to get involved in fantasies like Russiagate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Your imagination is getting the best of you. I've never denied that Trump has been in involved in money laundering and all sorts of other criminal activities. You make yourself look even more foolish than usual every time you act like I am some sort of Trump fan or defender. I am one of Trump's biggest critics. The difference between you and me is that everything I attack Trump for is real while you tend to get involved in fantasies like Russiagate.


 You said over and over again Trump didn’t have a Russian connections especially when it came to money laundering. You said over and over again Russiagate when ever anyone brought up Trump Russia connections. Just admit that you were wrong


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> You said over and over again Trump didn’t have a Russian connections especially when it came to money laundering. You said over and over again Russiagate when ever anyone brought up Trump Russia connections. Just admit that you were wrong


You are conflating 2 separate issues. Financial crimes with Russian banks and businesses is not the same thing as conspiring with Russia to steal the election from Queen Cuntface. 

Is Trump a criminal that has committed financial crimes such as money laundering with many countries around the world including Russia? Yes.

Is Trump a Putin puppet who colluded with the Kremlin to rig the election? No.

This has been my position from the start and it has not changed once. It's not my fault you do not have the cognitive capabilities to differentiate between the two.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> You are conflating 2 separate issues. Financial crimes with Russian banks and businesses is not the same thing as conspiring with Russia to steal the election from Queen Cuntface.
> 
> Is Trump a criminal that has committed financial crimes such as money laundering with many countries around the world including Russia? Yes.
> 
> Is Trump a Putin puppet who colluded with the Kremlin to rig the election? No.
> 
> This has been my position from the start and it has not changed once. It's not my fault you do not have the cognitive capabilities to differentiate between the two.


Lpl. You’re so full of shit. I’ve been theme for two years and you kept giving me shit for claiming it


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Lpl. You’re so full of shit. I’ve been theme for two years and you kept giving me shit for claiming it


You do realize that when I say Russiagate is a hoax, that is not me saying that Trump hasn't committed financial crimes, yes? 

I've been giving you shit for believing that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election. I still do. But we're on the same side on calling Trump a criminal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Keep your backtracking up Lol you’re the biggest fraud on the forum


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep your backtracking up Lol you’re the biggest fraud on the forum


If I said what you claim I said, then prove it.

:draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> If I said what you claim I said, then prove it.
> 
> :draper2


Lol that you are now claiming you agreed with me on this. Oh never change tater. Wipe all that egg your face.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Lol that you are now claiming you agreed with me on this. Oh never change tater. Wipe all that egg your face.


Yep. I have said all along that Trump is a criminal. Show me where I didn't.


----------



## birthday_massacre

pretty quiet in here by Trump supporters because he is self destructing before our very eyes.

You guys dont really still support Trump anymore do you

He got cucked by Pelosi and Schumer today lol

How embarrassing

Trump and his administration showing what POS they are once again

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-roll-back-healthcare-protections/1220950001/

Trump administration to scrap rule protecting transgender patients from discrimination

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration is rolling back protections for transgender patients that were provided under the Affordable Care Act.

The Department of Health and Human Services announced Friday it plans to remove gender identity from the class of people protected from discrimination in health care.

The agency said it is revising a section of Obamacare that provides protection against discrimination in health care on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability and age. A rule published under the Obama administration in 2016 confirmed that transgender people were protected under the law’s provisions that prohibit discrimination from providers and insurers.

Homeless shelters: Shelters could deny transgender people under Trump rule

“When Congress prohibited sex discrimination, it did so according to the plain meaning of the term, and we are making our regulations conform,” said Roger Severino, director of the department’s Office for Civil Rights.

“The American people want vigorous protection of civil rights and faithfulness to the text of the laws passed by their representatives,” Severino said. “The proposed rule would accomplish both goals.”

The agency said it will continue to vigorously enforce prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and sex in health care.

ADVERTISEMENT


Advocates for transgender rights warned that the new policy would impact 2 million Americans who already face significant barriers to accessing adequate and life-saving health care.

Like what you're reading?: Download the USA TODAY app for more

The Obama-era regulation has helped doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies to update policies, train staff and eliminate coverage exclusions for transition-related care, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality.


“This is not about free healthcare or special treatment,” said Mara Keisling, the center’s executive director. “It’s about the right of every American to be treated with dignity when they walk into an emergency room, meet a new doctor or find the right insurance plan.”

The proposed rule “will promote ignorance and hate that no American should have to face while seeking care,” Keisling said.

End of Obamacare? End of Obamacare? President Donald Trump resumes an old battle. Here's why.

Livesaving healthcare: Some Americans are denied 'lifesaving' health care because they are transgender

Working full-time for health coverage? Many who want part-time jobs stymied by costs


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Livesaving healthcare: Some Americans are denied 'lifesaving' health care because they are transgender


That's horrible. Any examples?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-arms/defying-congress-trump-sets-8-billion-plus-in-weapons-sales-to-saudi-arabia-uae-idUSKCN1SU25R



> *Defying Congress, Trump sets $8 billion-plus in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, UAE*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - *U.S. President Donald Trump, declaring a national emergency because of tensions with Iran, swept aside objections from Congress on Friday to complete the sale of over $8 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. *
> 
> The Trump administration informed congressional committees that it will go ahead with 22 military sales to the Saudis, United Arab Emirates and Jordan, infuriating lawmakers by circumventing a long-standing precedent for congressional review of major weapons sales.
> 
> Members of Congress had been blocking sales of offensive military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for months, angry about the huge civilian toll from their air campaign in Yemen, as well as human rights abuses such as the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi consulate in Turkey.
> 
> Lawmakers and congressional aides warned earlier this week that Trump, frustrated with Congress holding up weapons deals including the sale of bombs to Saudi Arabia, was considering using a loophole in arms control law to go ahead by declaring a national emergency.
> 
> “President Trump is only using this loophole because he knows Congress would disapprove ... There is no new ‘emergency’ reason to sell bombs to the Saudis to drop in Yemen, and doing so only perpetuates the humanitarian crisis there,” said Senator Chris Murphy.
> 
> Murphy, a Democrat, made public on Twitter on Wednesday that Trump was considering the loophole in the Arms Control Export Act to clear the sales.
> 
> Several of Trump’s fellow Republicans, as well as Democrats, said they would object to such a plan, fearing that blowing through the “holds” process would eliminate Congress’ ability to check not just Trump but future presidents from selling weapons where they liked.
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement that U.S. partners in the Middle East needed the contracts to be completed to help deter Iran, and that the decision to circumvent Congress was meant to be a “one-time event.”
> 
> It is not the first time Congress and Trump have clashed over policy in the region, or the division of powers between the White House and Capitol Hill. The House and Senate voted to end U.S. military support for the campaign in Yemen earlier this year, but Trump vetoed the resolution.
> 
> In documents sent to Congress, Pompeo listed a wide range of products and services that would be provided to the countries.
> 
> They include Raytheon precision-guided munitions (PGMs), support for Boeing Co F-15 aircraft, and Javelin anti-tank missiles, which are made by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin Corp.
> 
> Other companies that will benefit include General Electric, now cleared to sell engines for use in F-16 fighter jets operated by the UAE and the U.S. unit of French firm Thales, which was cleared to sell a fuzing system for Paveway IV precision guided bombs to Britain and the UAE.
> 
> It will also likely be welcome news for Britain’s BAE Systems Plc and Europe’s Airbus, clearing the way for installation of Paveway laser-guided bombs on European-built Eurofighter and Tornado fighter jets sold to Saudi Arabia, as well F-15 fighters built by Boeing.
> 
> “I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Trump Administration has failed once again to prioritize our long-term national security interests or stand up for human rights, and instead is granting favors to authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia,” Senator Bob Menendez said in a statement.
> 
> Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vowed to fight the action, and said he was in talks with both Democrats and some of Trump’s fellow Republicans on ways to preserve congressional review of arms sales.
> 
> The Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Republican Senator Jim Risch, said he had received formal notification of the administration’s intent to move forward.
> 
> In a statement, Risch said, “I am reviewing and analyzing the legal justification for this action and the associated implications.”
> 
> In his memorandum justifying the emergency declaration, Pompeo listed years of actions by Iran. “Iranian malign activity poses a fundamental threat to the stability of the Middle East and to American security at home and abroad,” he wrote, and cited “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Tehran.


Of course, it's an emergency any time the U.S. isn't metaphorically sucking Saudi Arabia's dick.

This is the kind of thing that could gets Dems traction against Trump, but they'll never go after it. It's like the tariffs hurting farmers. That's a good one to run on and they barely mention it. Maybe go after Trump for pardoning war criminals? 

No? Russia or bust, I guess.


----------



## virus21

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-arms/defying-congress-trump-sets-8-billion-plus-in-weapons-sales-to-saudi-arabia-uae-idUSKCN1SU25R
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's an emergency any time the U.S. isn't metaphorically sucking Saudi Arabia's dick.
> 
> This is the kind of thing that could gets Dems traction against Trump, but they'll never go after it. It's like the tariffs hurting farmers. That's a good one to run on and they barely mention it. Maybe go after Trump for pardoning war criminals?
> 
> No? Russia or bust, I guess.


Considering the Dems sold SA weapons in the past, of course they won't


----------



## deepelemblues

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-arms/defying-congress-trump-sets-8-billion-plus-in-weapons-sales-to-saudi-arabia-uae-idUSKCN1SU25R
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's an emergency any time the U.S. isn't metaphorically sucking Saudi Arabia's dick.
> 
> This is the kind of thing that could gets Dems traction against Trump, but they'll never go after it. It's like the tariffs hurting farmers. That's a good one to run on and they barely mention it. Maybe go after Trump for pardoning war criminals?
> 
> No? Russia or bust, I guess.


Well the alternative is probably Saudi Arabia making nukes with secret help from Israel and things going from there 

Plus 8 billion :vince$ is 8 billion :vince$

Also no it could not get the Democrats traction, nobody gives a fuck about jihadis jihading each other in Yemen 

Despite the impression you may get from the interwebs or from listening to NPR like I do all the time driving to and from work, 98% of the public doesn't give a shit about Yemen and whatever happens there is pure whatever to them

It's simply not an issue and won't be one either


----------



## 2 Ton 21

deepelemblues said:


> Well the alternative is probably Saudi Arabia making nukes with secret help from Israel and things going from there
> 
> Plus 8 billion :vince$ is 8 billion :vince$
> 
> Also no it could not get the Democrats traction, nobody gives a fuck about jihadis jihading each other in Yemen
> 
> Despite the impression you may get from the interwebs or from listening to NPR like I do all the time driving to and from work, 98% of the public doesn't give a shit about Yemen and whatever happens there is pure whatever to them
> 
> It's simply not an issue and won't be one either


Oh, I know no one cares about Yemen. I meant the continuous kowtowing to SA. Would work better than the Russia thing anyway. Of course, dems would have to stop their's as well, which they wont. They talk shit about SA in public, but they're just as beholden.
anyway

You really listen to that much NPR? I might turn it on once or twice a year on a long drive or something, but every work day?


----------



## Draykorinee

Arming a theocratic dictatorship to stop another theocratic dictatorship. Keep on Americaning.


----------



## Stephen90

Calls Biden low IQ while misspelling his name is classic Trump.









Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at all the Trump supportes and people like Tater ignoring the whole Trump money laundering thing which I called two years ago.
> 
> Keep showing your true colors and keep your heads in the sand.
> 
> I just love being right about this stuff. All that egg on your faces is great





Tater said:


> You are just as full of shit as ever. I have always said from the very beginning that Trump is a corrupt businessman. He is guilty of all kinds of financial crimes and now war crimes too. I'm just not stupid or gullible enough to fall for the Russiagate hoax.
> 
> This is what you fail to comprehend. I attack Trump for real crimes, not imaginary ones. He is an absolute piece of shit who deserves a cell in the Hague. You don't need to invent Manchurian Candidate fantasies to go after him when there are very real crimes that he should be locked up for.





birthday_massacre said:


> Tater going back on his bullshit again. You have been giving me shit for years about me saying Trump laundering money from Russia.





Tater said:


> Your imagination is getting the best of you. I've never denied that Trump has been in involved in money laundering and all sorts of other criminal activities. You make yourself look even more foolish than usual every time you act like I am some sort of Trump fan or defender. I am one of Trump's biggest critics. The difference between you and me is that everything I attack Trump for is real while you tend to get involved in fantasies like Russiagate.





birthday_massacre said:


> You said over and over again Trump didn’t have a Russian connections especially when it came to money laundering. You said over and over again Russiagate when ever anyone brought up Trump Russia connections. Just admit that you were wrong





Tater said:


> You are conflating 2 separate issues. Financial crimes with Russian banks and businesses is not the same thing as conspiring with Russia to steal the election from Queen Cuntface.
> 
> Is Trump a criminal that has committed financial crimes such as money laundering with many countries around the world including Russia? Yes.
> 
> Is Trump a Putin puppet who colluded with the Kremlin to rig the election? No.
> 
> This has been my position from the start and it has not changed once. It's not my fault you do not have the cognitive capabilities to differentiate between the two.





birthday_massacre said:


> Lpl. You’re so full of shit. I’ve been theme for two years and you kept giving me shit for claiming it





birthday_massacre said:


> Keep your backtracking up Lol you’re the biggest fraud on the forum





Tater said:


> If I said what you claim I said, then prove it.
> 
> :draper2





birthday_massacre said:


> Lol that you are now claiming you agreed with me on this. Oh never change tater. Wipe all that egg your face.





Tater said:


> Yep. I have said all along that Trump is a criminal. Show me where I didn't.


Hey BM, you ready to admit you were wrong about this yet? 

It's okay, little buddy. We're all wrong sometimes. No one is going to think any less of you than they already do.

Just go ahead and admit you were wrong. Believe it or not, my respect for you will ever so slightly go up for you if you are man enough to admit that you got this one wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Hey BM, you ready to admit you were wrong about this yet?
> 
> It's okay, little buddy. We're all wrong sometimes. No one is going to think any less of you than they already do.
> 
> Just go ahead and admit you were wrong. Believe it or not, my respect for you will ever so slightly go up for you if you are man enough to admit that you got this one wrong.


But I was not wrong you were lol

I called all of this for the past two years and you kept denying it when I would bring up Trumps russian connection and money laundering. Keep doubling down. Just admit you were wrong.

are you gong to admit you were wrong about saying we are better off with Trump as President than we would be if Hillary won?


----------



## yeahbaby!

So apparently Trump's master persuading effect of Kim Jong wears off after a while.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> But I was not wrong you were lol
> 
> I called all of this for the past two years and you kept denying it when I would bring up Trumps russian connection and money laundering. Keep doubling down. Just admit you were wrong.


Don't say I never gave you the chance to admit you were wrong. We're all wrong sometimes and I would have respected you more had you more had you manned up and admitted you were wrong. Sadly enough but entirely expected, manning up to your mistake is just not something you are capable of.

Here is the the issue at hand... I have said all along that Russiagate is bullshit, Trump did not collude with Russia to steal the election from Queen Cuntface, but I have also maintained that Trump is a corrupt criminal businessman. Now you want to claim that I denied his criminal behavior.

Well, guess what, you are wrong, chico, and here is the proof. We've actually had this conversation before,* a year and a half ago.*



birthday_massacre said:


> You do know its not an either-or type of situation right?
> 
> Hillary and Trump could BOTH have Russian collusion. Just because one does not mean the other does not.
> 
> Anyone claiming Trump does not have ties to Russia with all the evidence is just lying to themselves
> 
> Funny how no Trump supporters are commenting on the possible money laundering between Trump, the NRA and Russia
> 
> 
> There is a reason why Trump is against everyone looking into this investigation. Because Trumps knows they are getting closer and closer brining him down.





Tater said:


> Corruption and collusion are not the same thing. Does Trump have corrupt business dealings with Russians? Of course he does, so does every other oligarch and with many other countries. That's par for the course. What Trump didn't do is collude with Russia to steal the election. That shit has already been thoroughly debunked. The only reason Democrats are still pushing the narrative is because they are desperate to distract from the epic failure of their own party.





birthday_massacre said:


> Oh so you admit I was right all along Trump has shady business ties to Russia.





Tater said:


> You say that like I was someone who denied it. Did you forget who you were responding to? Of course Trump has shady business ties with Russia and dozens of other countries, just the same as every other oligarch. File that in the duh category. I've never said otherwise. What I have done is point out that corruption is not the same thing as colluding to steal an election.





birthday_massacre said:


> Also, why do people keep saying it has been debunked Russia helped Trump win the election, not saying that happened but *it has not been debunked.*





Tater said:


> Yes, yes it has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read some of Caitlin Johnstone's work. She has thoroughly shredded the Russiagate bullshit in at least a dozen different articles. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone
> 
> And then there was this glorious interview done by Aaron Maté of some jackass who wrote an entire book about Trump and collusion but when he was asked real questions by a real reporter, he couldn't offer up a single shred of proof that any of it was legit.
> 
> Original interview:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy's interview of Aaron:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caity's article about it:
> 
> What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater
> 
> You're not helping your cause by continuing to be suckered in by the Russiagate propaganda.


You can continue lying all you want if it makes you feel better about yourself but I just proved you wrong. My position now is the same position as it has always been and here is the proof. Russiagate is bullshit and Trump is a corrupt businessman who has committed untold amounts of financial crimes.

Now is your opportunity to man up and admit you were wrong. I don't expect you to but hey, look at it this way, you actually have the chance to prove me wrong this time because I do not expect you to admit you wrong.

What will be more satisfying to you? Proving me wrong by admitting you were wrong about this or continuing to lie because you are too stubborn to admit you were wrong? I am genuinely curious to see how you react to being proven wrong.



> are you gong to admit you were wrong about saying we are better off with Trump as President than we would be if Hillary won?


Bonus question: My opinion on this has not changed on this either. A Hillary win would only have been better in the short term. It would have royally fucked us in the long run. She would have been a 1 term president and after 4 years, we'd have a president Ted Cruz or someone even worse and the GOP would have super majorities in both houses of congress with control of enough states to call for a constitutional convention. We got lucky that Trump is such an incompetent moron. You don't want to see what a president Cruz or Pence would do in the White House.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Don't say I never gave you the chance to admit you were wrong. We're all wrong sometimes and I would have respected you more had you more had you manned up and admitted you were wrong. Sadly enough but entirely expected, manning up to your mistake is just not something you are capable of.
> 
> Here is the the issue at hand... I have said all along that Russiagate is bullshit, Trump did not collude with Russia to steal the election from Queen Cuntface, but I have also maintained that Trump is a corrupt criminal businessman. Now you want to claim that I denied his criminal behavior.
> 
> Well, guess what, you are wrong, chico, and here is the proof. We've actually had this conversation before,* a year and a half ago.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can continue lying all you want if it makes you feel better about yourself but I just proved you wrong. My position now is the same position as it has always been and here is the proof. Russiagate is bullshit and Trump is a corrupt businessman who has committed untold amounts of financial crimes.
> 
> Now is your opportunity to man up and admit you were wrong. I don't expect you to but hey, look at it this way, you actually have the chance to prove me wrong this time because I do not expect you to admit you wrong.
> 
> What will be more satisfying to you? Proving me wrong by admitting you were wrong about this or continuing to lie because you are too stubborn to admit you were wrong? I am genuinely curious to see how you react to being proven wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Bonus question: My opinion on this has not changed on this either. A Hillary win would only have been better in the short term. It would have royally fucked us in the long run. She would have been a 1 term president and after 4 years, we'd have a president Ted Cruz or someone even worse and the GOP would have super majorities in both houses of congress with control of enough states to call for a constitutional convention. We got lucky that Trump is such an incompetent moron. You don't want to see what a president Cruz or Pence would do in the White House.




LOL keep embarrassing yourself dude. You are the one who keeps lying about this, but what ever makes you sleep at night.

You were wrong about all Trumps Russia connections I always pointed out and you were wrong about always dissing me when I pointed out Trumps money laundering with Russia.

But keep trying to spin it, you should be so embarrassed over all of this and also claiming Trump was a good thing that he was elected

Its just funny how you are again admitting you were wrong even back in 2018 yet continued to give me shit from then to now pointing out all this money laundering from Trump. Shows what an even bigger fraud you are.

I will wait for your apology. Its just funny you keep proving me right yet claim I was wrong lol Its even funnier you keep claiming all these things were debunked yet https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-found-more-russian-bots-trump-interacted-with-many-2018-1 which I posted back then

Keep digging your hole dude

And finally you claim Hillary would have been better short term but in the long term is better that Trump won? Really dude? you still want to admit that lol

Trump so far has gotten 2 SCOTUS picks and hundreds of other judges, and we have seen all the fuckd up shit they have done already. You dont think that will have long term effects for decades? Not to mention all the regulations he has rolled back to fuck over everyone but the rich. 

You really still want to go with that? You are even more embarrassing than I thought.

And you have zero proof Ted Cruz and the GOP would have won the house if Hillary was president, you just pull that out of your ass like everything else you make up when it comes to Trump and the GOP


----------



## El Grappleador

IDK if publish the following new on Next Generation Consoles thread or here. Any, Trade war will hurt the first one.



> How US 25 percent tariffs might affect next-generation consoles
> 
> 
> The U.S.’ trade war with China might enter a new phase as the Trump administration proposes tariffs of up to 25% for thousands of imported goods. Among them are a number of items related to video games, specifically consoles.
> 
> 
> The timing for the proposal is unfortunate as the industry is preparing for the arrival of the next-gen consoles.
> 
> The economics behind consoles typically rely on the loss leader strategy. It means that the console manufacturers sell the hardware to retailers at a loss to themselves. The idea is to incentivize customers to buy the consoles at an attractive price. Then, over time, companies break even through game sales and subscriptions.
> 
> Imposing 25% tariffs would force companies into mitigating their initial loss. The pricing would inevitably go up, which will likely discourage consumers. This, in turn, might delay the transition to the next-generation consoles.
> 
> “Tariffs will hurt the American economy, its industries, and its consumers.”
> 
> Entertainment Software Agency, via GameDaly.biz.
> 
> The previous wave of 10% tariffs has already affected AMD and Nvidia. Besides video games, the tariffs also target tabletop games and coin-op arcade games.
> 
> Hearings on the new tariffs will commence on June 17. New tariffs could come into force as early as June 24, which would have an adverse effect on the video game industry in this fiscal year.
> 
> http://gameworldobserver.com/2019/05/27/25-percent-tariffs-consoles/


Sad gamers in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> That's horrible. Any examples?


Yes this is concerning, I've had a few trans patients but they've all had insurance.

I'd like to know where these trans people are being let die.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Yes this is concerning, I've had a few trans patients but they've all had insurance.
> 
> I'd like to know where these trans people are being let die.


You are better than this. The reason why I have cam on ignore is because of his trolling.

Did you even read the article I posted where it said Trump administration is* rolling back protections for transgender patients that were provided under the Affordable Care Act.*
that means they are currently protected thus why you see how the trans people you have seen have insurance but once Trump undoes that, that could no longer be the case because insurance could deny them.


----------



## Strike Force

Tater said:


> Don't say I never gave you the chance to admit you were wrong. We're all wrong sometimes and I would have respected you more had you more had you manned up and admitted you were wrong. Sadly enough but entirely expected, manning up to your mistake is just not something you are capable of.


You thought BM might admit he was wrong, particularly in a political discussion?












Tater said:


> A Hillary win would only have been better in the short term. It would have royally fucked us in the long run. She would have been a 1 term president and after 4 years, we'd have a president Ted Cruz or someone even worse and the GOP would have super majorities in both houses of congress with control of enough states to call for a constitutional convention. We got lucky that Trump is such an incompetent moron. You don't want to see what a president Cruz or Pence would do in the White House.


It's a testament to the sad state of affairs in this country that you're right; somehow, the reality where Trump wins is actually the less disastrous universe.



Tater said:


> I have said all along that Russiagate is bullshit, Trump did not collude with Russia to steal the election from Queen Cuntface, but I have also maintained that Trump is a corrupt criminal businessman. Now you want to claim that I denied his criminal behavior.


I do believe there was collusion between Trump's operatives and the Russian government to try to gain an advantage in the election, but I do not believe they "stole" the election, stole votes, or most of the other liberal talking points. There's definitely some fire generating all the smoke of the last 3+ years, but definitely not enough to impeach the man. We all need to move on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Strike Force said:


> You thought BM might admit he was wrong, particularly in a political discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a testament to the sad state of affairs in this country that you're right; somehow, the reality where Trump wins is actually the less disastrous universe.
> 
> 
> 
> *I do believe there was collusion between Trump's operatives and the Russian government to try to gain an advantage in the election,* but I do not believe they "stole" the election, stole votes, or most of the other liberal talking points. There's definitely some fire generating all the smoke of the last 3+ years, but definitely not enough to impeach the man. We all need to move on.


So you agree with me on this, where as Tater said Trump did not collude with Russia. 

So why should I admit I was wrong again?

You are saying Tater is wrong just like I am on this.

The whole time I have been saying Trump collude with Russia
And Trump has laundered money from Russia, thus why he owes them.

So tell me what I have been wrong about


----------



## Twilight Sky

Basically Mueller couldnt nail Trump, because its unconstitutional.


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1133761738518802432


> SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER STATED THREE TIMES TO US IN THAT MEETING IN RESPONSE TO OUR QUESTIONING THAT HE EMPHATICALLY WAS NOT SAYING THAT BUT FOR THE OLP OPINION HE WOULD HAVE FOUND OBSTRUCTION.





> *SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER STATED THREE TIMES TO US IN THAT MEETING IN RESPONSE TO OUR QUESTIONING THAT HE EMPHATICALLY WAS NOT SAYING THAT BUT FOR THE OLP OPINION HE WOULD HAVE FOUND OBSTRUCTION.*





> *SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER STATED THREE TIMES TO US IN THAT MEETING IN RESPONSE TO OUR QUESTIONING THAT HE EMPHATICALLY WAS NOT SAYING THAT BUT FOR THE OLP OPINION HE WOULD HAVE FOUND OBSTRUCTION.*


The desperation of these bitter clingers to petulantly remain in their fantasyland where Mueller had :trump dead to rights but just couldn't do anything because he was president :heston

Butthurt Mueller can't get his over his failure and has to try to justify his failure to himself and the residents of fantasyland so he puts out lawyer-ese statements to whip them into another frenzy



> You don't want to see what a president Cruz or Pence would do in the White House.


Of course Tater doesn't want to see a Cruz or Pence presidency with a congressional "supermajority" (which is entirely meaningless in the House, but when you get on that hyperbole hobby horse it's hard to step off), it would be the end of the political Left for a generation in this country and that Tater simply cannot even contemplate much less abide. The slow decline of left-wing politics in the West that started in the late 1970s and continues to this day would continue on with no end in sight. Which it will anyway, but doing so in the form of Cruz or Pence at the fore would be particularly galling



Strike Force said:


> It's a testament to the sad state of affairs in this country that you're right; somehow, the reality where Trump wins is actually the less disastrous universe.


This is an attempt to sound moderate and reasonable but in reality it differs little from the general hysteria displayed in nearly every election year and about nearly every president ever since the 1930s that the country is going to be radically changed for the worse in an irreparable way regardless of who are the presidential candidates or which one of them actually wins

And meanwhile, the country somehow manages to survive and usually thrive despite the misplaced attention given to this venting of negative feelings caused by the fear of a particular candidate (both major-party candidates, either communism is descending on the country or fascism is, take your pick but somehow the communism and fascism lands on Europe instead, to mangle the quote. And regardless of whether it's communist or fascist, also always descending is buffoonery or sinister Machiavellianism, often simultaneously, which don't make no damn sense but that's the way it is :draper2)



Strike Force said:


> I do believe there was collusion between Trump's operatives and the Russian government to try to gain an advantage in the election, but I do not believe they "stole" the election, stole votes, or most of the other liberal talking points. There's definitely some fire generating all the smoke of the last 3+ years, but definitely not enough to impeach the man. We all need to move on.


You belie your own opinion with the last statement

A presidential candidate colluding with a country like Russia to win the general election is eminently serious and 'I believe it happened and I'll toss in the most banal of clichés to justify this evidence-free belief but since there isn't any evidence I have no choice but to give up and move on. Everyone else should too' 

That's some cowardly bullshit right there. The nature of the charge is so serious that if you believe it to be true, there is no reasonable justification for giving up. Unless a presidential candidate colluding with a country like Russia to win the general election actually _isn't_ that serious, in which case what the fuck was the last 3 years about again? 

It's also an attempt to shift attention from how unreasonable your position actually is by implying that others who believe the same as you and don't want to give up are the ones being unreasonable

The president having a secret working arrangement with a rival foreign power (that ostensibly leaves him in the personal debt of that foreign power) is not something that can be 'move[d] on' from. If that's what you believe and aren't willing to fight it out on that line, what exactly would be important enough to not 'move on from' (read: give up on)? 

Occam's Razor is a bit rusty these days, but it still cuts. No evidence -> banalities about smoke and fire don't cut the mustard


----------



## birthday_massacre

Twilight Sky said:


> Basically Mueller couldnt nail Trump, because its unconstitutional.



Robert Mueller closed with "There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American."


----------



## Kabraxal

deepelemblues said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1133761738518802432
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The desperation of these bitter clingers to petulantly remain in their fantasyland where Mueller had :trump dead to rights but just couldn't do anything because he was president :heston
> 
> Butthurt Mueller can't get his over his failure and has to try to justify his failure to himself and the residents of fantasyland so he puts out lawyer-ese statements to whip them into another frenzy
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Tater doesn't want to see a Cruz or Pence presidency with a congressional "supermajority" (which is entirely meaningless in the House, but when you get on that hyperbole hobby horse it's hard to step off), it would be the end of the political Left for a generation in this country and that Tater simply cannot even contemplate much less abide. The slow decline of left-wing politics in the West that started in the late 1970s and continues to this day would continue on with no end in sight. Which it will anyway, but doing so in the form of Cruz or Pence at the fore would be particularly galling
> 
> 
> 
> This is an attempt to sound moderate and reasonable but in reality it differs little from the general hysteria displayed in nearly every election year and about nearly every president ever since the 1930s that the country is going to be radically changed for the worse in an irreparable way regardless of who are the presidential candidates or which one of them actually wins
> 
> And meanwhile, the country somehow manages to survive and usually thrive despite the misplaced attention given to this venting of negative feelings caused by the fear of a particular candidate (both major-party candidates, either communism is descending on the country or fascism is, take your pick but somehow the communism and fascism lands on Europe instead, to mangle the quote. And regardless of whether it's communist or fascist, also always descending is buffoonery or sinister Machiavellianism, often simultaneously, which don't make no damn sense but that's the way it is :draper2)
> 
> 
> 
> You belie your own opinion with the last statement
> 
> A presidential candidate colluding with a country like Russia to win the general election is eminently serious and 'I believe it happened and I'll toss in the most banal of clichés to justify this evidence-free belief but since there isn't any evidence I have no choice but to give up and move on. Everyone else should too'
> 
> That's some cowardly bullshit right there. The nature of the charge is so serious that if you believe it to be true, there is no reasonable justification for giving up. Unless a presidential candidate colluding with a country like Russia to win the general election actually _isn't_ that serious, in which case what the fuck was the last 3 years about again?
> 
> It's also an attempt to shift attention from how unreasonable your position actually is by implying that others who believe the same as you and don't want to give up are the ones being unreasonable
> 
> The president having a secret working arrangement with a rival foreign power (that ostensibly leaves him in the personal debt of that foreign power) is not something that can be 'move[d] on' from. If that's what you believe and aren't willing to fight it out on that line, what exactly would be important enough to not 'move on from' (read: give up on)?
> 
> Occam's Razor is a bit rusty these days, but it still cuts. No evidence -> banalities about smoke and fire don't cut the mustard. Neither does this mixing of metaphors, but that's a bit less important than the president allegedly owing Moscow for it helping him get elected


What I hate about all this Mueller shit: innocent til proven guilty is inching closer to death. Mueller sad there was not enough evidence to prove guilt, so why tossin “but we didn’t prove innocence!”. No shit! Our justice system doesn’t prove innocence; it bloody assumes it and requires we prove guilt.

It is terrifying how many ignorant people are screaming about needing to prove innocence. If that becomes the standard freedom is dead.


----------



## deepelemblues

Kabraxal said:


> What I hate about all this Mueller shit: innocent til proven guilty is inching closer to death. Mueller sad there was not enough evidence to prove guilt, so why tossin “but we didn’t prove innocence!”. No shit! Our justice system doesn’t prove innocence; it bloody assumes it and requires we prove guilt.
> 
> It is terrifying how many ignorant people are screaming about needing to prove innocence. If that becomes the standard freedom is dead.


Because it was all political theater from the very beginning. Political spying, political investigation, and now feeble attempts at political Parthian shots

Mueller is just as butthurt as BM over the failure to find evidence even sufficient to indict on any possible charge. This is his last official attempt to influence politics, which was the sole purpose of his investigation, and the allegations he was investigating, from the start


----------



## virus21

Welcome to Dr Strangelove: Real Life Edition


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lol at people pretending Mueller didn’t say the law wont let him indict Trump. Its up to congress to impeach


----------



## deepelemblues

Mueller's refusal to say anything beyond what was written in the report shows the bankruptcy of the business he's trying to sell.

His comments today were better suited to Kafka than to an official of the United States government who had been vested with great power to investigate serious allegations

In the United States, you are not guilty because the investigator claims he couldn't prove you innocent. You aren't even supposed to be under a cloud. It isn't the investigator's place to "prove" you innocent. That's police state bullshit. You're innocent period until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mueller couldn't even find evidence to indict much less convict. But he can make assertions that go contrary to 2,000 years of American, British and Roman common law that are the underpinnings of our liberties and political hacks seize upon those Alice-in-Wonderland assertions, just as he intended, to circumvent those most ancient and venerable principles for perceived political gain 

Shameful comments today from Mr. Mueller, but they are no surprise considering his past record of ethical lapses


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1133804605622505472
It is amusing to watch these deep state weasels like Comey and Mueller try to nimbly navigate the line between fulfilling their role as false agents of justice and also covering their own asses. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

Mueller's feeble political Parthian shots revealed that he was and is functioning as a political operative, who conducted a political investigation caused by political allegations, for political purposes. He couldn't prove crimes, but Congress get off your duff and use what he produced in his failure, to impeach! 

Pathetic. What kind of dirt does :trump have on these people that they continue to aid his reelection with their shameful behavior


----------



## Kabraxal

Watching the reactions by the extreme left over this is sickening... what the fuck is wrong with these people? Stop trting to keep this shit alive because you lost an electiom. Grow up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Watching the reactions by the extreme left over this is sickening... what the fuck is wrong with these people? Stop trting to keep this shit alive because you lost an electiom. Grow up.


Trump is not above the law. If you think he should be then you are part of the problem.


----------



## deepelemblues

If the case for impeachment and removal is so open and shut, then obviously the Republicans would suffer mightily at the hands of an outraged public after refusing to vote in the House for impeachment or in the Senate to remove an obviously guilty president.

So why is Pelosi resisting? 

Oh, because a majority of the public doesn't want impeachment; it wants Congress to move on. There is no case and everyone but the bitter clingers and those beholden to them know it.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is not above the law. If you think he should be then you are part of the problem.


Except our law FUCKING REQUIRES GUILT TO BE PROVEN! Not your “I hate Trump and he wasn’t proven innocent so he’s guilty!” Bullshit.

Stop letting your emotion overcome simple rational thinking. Mueller did not prove guilt, therefore the law cannot punish Trump. That is how our system works.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Except our law FUCKING REQUIRES GUILT TO BE PROVEN! Not your “I hate Trump and he wasn’t proven innocent so he’s guilty!” Bullshit.
> 
> Stop letting your emotion overcome simple rational thinking. Mueller did not prove guilt, therefore the law cannot punish Trump. That is how our system works.


LOL Mueller said Trump was guilty of obstruction but can't indict a sitting president so its up to congress to impeach.

What part of that dont you understand

He also said Russia did interfere in the election. 

You are the one not being rational.

Keep ignoring what he said. You are as bad as the trolls like blues and cam.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Mueller said Trump was guilty of obstruction but can't indict a sitting president so its up to congress to impeach.
> 
> What part of that dont you understand
> 
> He also said Russia did interfere in the election.
> 
> You are the one not being rational.
> 
> Keep ignoring what he said. You are as bad as the trolls like blues and cam.


Do I need to out you back on ignore? 

Mueller stated he could not prove collusion. He stated there was not enough evidence to indict on obstruction, especially because indicting a sitting oresident is already difficult. 

That right there is saying he cannot prove guilt to the point he can take this to court. But you want to scream like that shithole r/politics that it clearly proves guilt despite every rational, non partisan person seeing the actual truth. Stop wearing a jersey like this is some fucking sport for once. Plenty of us here detest Trump but can admit when our system of justice thankfully does not require innocence to proven, just guilt.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Do I need to out you back on ignore?
> 
> Mueller stated he could not prove collusion. He stated there was not enough evidence to indict on obstruction, especially because indicting a sitting oresident is already difficult.
> 
> That right there is saying he cannot prove guilt to the point he can take this to court. But you want to scream like that shithole r/politics that it clearly proves guilt despite every rational, non partisan person seeing the actual truth. Stop wearing a jersey like this is some fucking sport for once. Plenty of us here detest Trump but can admit when our system of justice thankfully does not require innocence to proven, just guilt.


GO put your head in the sand. He did not say here was not enough evidence to indict on obstruction LOL

You can't even be honest. He said the exact opposite you are saying when it comes to obstruction. He clearly stated he did not clear Trump on obstruction. 

Put me on ignore because you dont deal in facts


----------



## Twilight Sky

Since it was reported by CNN, who has mad beef with Trump, I just figured they twisted the truth on the thing about Meuller a bit.

My feelings on impeachment haven't changed. Trump should be allowed to finish out his term.


----------



## birthday_massacre

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134066371510378501

Trump admits Russia helped him win the election ..


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134233033878528000
Hillary would've collapsed by the third one (okay she obviously wouldn't have chosen to shake any hands at all). :lol Quite the spectacle. I'm sure Trump's base loved this. It's quite clear that the graduates did.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/willia...d-whether-trump-obstructed-justice-exclusive/

:banderas


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134240653926232064
@El Grappleador won't like this...


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134240653926232064
> @El Grappleador won't like this...


A good idea that should have been implemented on day one

So should have been a 50% tax on all remittances to any country that is a significant source of illegal immigration (so every country south of the Rio Grande) but Chamber of Commerce Cuck Republicans would never have voted for it in the House let alone the Senate


----------



## DaRealNugget

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134240653926232064


set to increase to 25% by October.

:mj4:mj4:mj4

what a fucking moron. he's got literally one and only one chance of winning reelection, and that's the economy not tanking. with his trade war with china not slowing down, and this, he's accelerating towards a cliff. fucking joe biden would be able to beat trump at this rate. hell maybe even klobuchar :lol

he just got done negotiating a trade agreement with Mexico and now he's made ratification of said agreement impossible. :lmao:lmao:lmao

what better way to stop illegal immigration then *checks notes* increasing the price American's pay for imported goods, as well as hurting the Mexican economy thereby leading to layoffs thereby leading to Mexican workers crossing the border for American jobs. :lmao:lmao:lmao

i'm sure the market will love this news tomorrow.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump once again leveraging the severely underestimated strength of the United States on a recalcitrant nation that has gotten too big for its britches and has believed for some time that it can snub its nose at and take advantage of the United States

Still not tired of having a president that understands and believes in the strength of the country and using it to achieve beneficial objectives 

One of the most sterling accomplishments of his administration is the revelation that the United States is not some weak little bitch dependent on others for its prosperity 

The total value of all Chinese and Mexican exmports to the United States is less than 4% of the United States' yearly GDP. It's about damn time the United States stopped acting like that percentage was several times larger


----------



## Draykorinee

So not only are Americans paying for the wall but they're paying for illegal immigration too.

Good to see the right happy with taxing its own people for the failings of trump to negotiate.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DaRealNugget said:


> what better way to stop illegal immigration then *checks notes* increasing the price American's pay for imported goods, as well as hurting the Mexican economy thereby leading to layoffs thereby leading to Mexican workers crossing the border for American jobs. :lmao:lmao:lmao
> 
> i'm sure the market will love this news tomorrow.


There's a really good chance Trump thinks tariffs are things the other side has to pay.


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> A good idea that should have been implemented on day one
> 
> So should have been a 50% tax on all remittances to any country that is a significant source of illegal immigration (so every country south of the Rio Grande) but Chamber of Commerce Cuck Republicans would never have voted for it in the House let alone the Senate


It's not bad but he needs to go after the American companies hiring illegals in the first place. That would pretty much dry up the problem.

It would probably make the hardcore capitalists cry though, along with the people who love or foreign slave labor that drives down American wages. :shrug



deepelemblues said:


> The total value of all Chinese and Mexican exmports to the United States is less than 4% of the United States' yearly GDP. It's about damn time the United States stopped acting like that percentage was several times larger


The problem is that the people who are losing even a little money are the ones making the fuss and causing mass hysteria over it all.


----------



## deepelemblues

The Mexican presidente asked yesterday for talks between US representatives and the Mexican foreign minister to happen in DC today 

Translation "Mr. :trump we know you can wreck us and there's nothing truly effectual we can do about it so please don't make us bend the knee too hard let's talk about it please."

Less than 24 hours and Mexico has already essentially signalled it wants to negotiate terms

:trump3


----------



## Strike Force

deepelemblues said:


> Less than 24 hours and Mexico has already essentially signalled it wants to negotiate terms


As much as Trump has been an absolutely god-awful president in most ways, I agree 100% here: he truly, genuinely believes in the power of the United States and wants to see other nations respect that power. Trade negotiations have previously been conducted largely as if the US and countries like Mexico are equals, when in reality we hold the vast majority of the cards and should conduct ourselves accordingly.


----------



## Draykorinee

Less than 24 hours and mexicos president says fuck all will change. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48477335


----------



## birthday_massacre

Strike Force said:


> As much as Trump has been an absolutely god-awful president in most ways, I agree 100% here: he truly, genuinely believes in the power of the United States and wants to see other nations respect that power. Trade negotiations have previously been conducted largely as if the US and countries like Mexico are equals, when in reality we hold the vast majority of the cards and should conduct ourselves accordingly.


LOL right until all the other countries say F the US and cut them out of everything.


----------



## deepelemblues

Strike Force said:


> As much as Trump has been an absolutely god-awful president in most ways, I agree 100% here: he truly, genuinely believes in the power of the United States and wants to see other nations respect that power. Trade negotiations have previously been conducted largely as if the US and countries like Mexico are equals, when in reality we hold the vast majority of the cards and should conduct ourselves accordingly.


Sometimes I wish he wouldn't maybe dilute his effort by laying down the line on 4 different targets in the space of 9 days or whatever, but he seems to have gauged the capability of the United States to handle these simultaneous campaigns and brouhahas better than I have :draper2



Draykorinee said:


> Less than 24 hours and mexicos president says fuck all will change.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48477335


He's not sending his foreign minister to DC if the president accepts because he wants to rumble

The Mexicans talked tough about NAFTA too then they were the first to fold 

Presidente is not a dumb man, Mexico can hurt the US this much in an exchange of tariffs. The US can hurt Mexico thiiiiiiiiiis much. And :trump will much more likely than not go through with his threat if Mexico doesn't satisfy him

The political calculation is not complex on either side

With the huge numbers of illegal aliens crossing the border every month, the US president has to stick to his oft-elucidated principles and escalate his efforts to control the border, or abandon them and lose reelection 17 months before the day

Presidente has to deal with the :fact that Mexico can stub the US's toe but the US can break Mexico's leg


----------



## birthday_massacre

Dow drops 350 points today lol

Trump just can't spot winning. What a great idea to put tarrfit on Mexico. 

Trump is the worst businessman ever.


----------



## El Grappleador

birthday_massacre said:


> Dow drops 350 points today lol
> 
> Trump just can't spot winning. What a great idea to put tarrfit on Mexico.
> 
> Trump is the worst businessman ever.


Each time get worse.
Dollar currency gonna up 20 pesos again. 
Worst president ever.
He no matter but himself.


----------



## El Grappleador

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134240653926232064
> @El Grappleador won't like this...


I'm gonna be sincere about this. This idea of imposing punitive tariffs is stupid. It looked The trade war end up putting up to the price of many products which American consumers need. Clothes, Shoes, TVs, diapers, frozen meals, paper products even pencil sharpeners.

Now, Apply tariffs to products coming from Mexico cause it's hard to resolve the immigration problem is the same old shit than the trade war. I'll ask a question:
why does migration exist?
Central Americans try to escape from violence.
Cubans are not agreed with the Castro Regime.
Africans and Haitians live on poorness conditions.

Punish country increasing tariffs end up putting high prices of products how American Consumers buys. And This is why is so incoherent.

That's why this guy pissed me off because it supposed the president must be an example of respect and honor. He promised greatness, the bad news: I can't see the greatness. I see a jester simulating being king. I see a mediocre salesman without experience of human or diplomatic relationships. That's why I wrote that letter. Ok, Hillary separated democrats, but this man separated families, friends, partners even the republicans themselves. Abraham Lincoln should be wallow in his tomb from shame watching how pathetic guys like Trump, Alexandra Ocazio Cortez, Ann Coulter and This shitty tabloid call Fox News.

This is the People has chosen this is the resentment against the US. 

The good news: The road to The White House 2020 just started. And if Democrats choose a Coherent candidate. The People won't voted by that candidate. Otherwise, the people vote against Trump.

Remember the catchphrase: "United We Stand. Divided We Fall."


----------



## deepelemblues

The Mueller Report was deceptively edited at least with regards to Michael Flynn, in order to create the appearance of obstruction:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134574689592832000

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134603399238828033
What. A. Surprise. :eyeroll


----------



## Draykorinee

El Grappleador said:


> And if Democrats choose a Coherent candidate.


:mase

Got bad news for you brother, its going to be another establishment hack.


----------



## El Grappleador

Draykorinee said:


> :mase
> 
> Got bad news for you brother, its going to be another establishment hack.


Good point. So, why Elections have to be a war between a turd sandwich VS a giant douche? Why don't electoral college allows more parties in the competition? Anyway, wherer wins, it will be same old shit.

Does it not supposed to Republicans uses logic and reasoning?(Emotional Reasoning not valid).


----------



## El Grappleador

My first tweet to him:

https://twitter.com/grappleador/status/1135652767182180352


----------



## CamillePunk

"The cartels run my country's government and we basically don't have borders which make us essentially not a sovereign nation, but right now I need to tweet the American president to complain about his mean words." 

:heston


----------



## deepelemblues

Good for you, express your opinion!


----------



## NotGuilty

Well, I didn't know you were so nasty..


----------



## skypod

Draykorinee said:


> :mase
> 
> Got bad news for you brother, its going to be another establishment hack.



Americans (right and "left") tear down anyone that tries to give them healthcare, workers rights, vacation days, clean air and water, safety regulations, any sort of safety net. They don't deserve these things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

skypod said:


> Americans (right and "left") tear down anyone that tries to give them healthcare, workers rights, vacation days, clean air and water, safety regulations, any sort of safety net. They don't deserve these things.


YUP I always laugh when they vote against their best interest.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> Americans (right and "left") tear down anyone that tries to give them healthcare, workers rights, vacation days, clean air and water, safety regulations, any sort of safety net. They don't deserve these things.


not everyone looks for government to provide. 

the government doesn't technically 'give' anything, they just pay for things using our tax dollars. nothing is free.


----------



## Draykorinee

Nearly everyone is more than happy for the Government to provide, they just have one or two aspects they seem to not want. They're happy for schools, firemen, police, waste disposal, military etc.


----------



## Tater

I had to take a break from this conversation. You are just so goddamned tiresome. There's a right way and a wrong way to oppose Trump. The right way is talking about how the policies of this administration is fucking over Americans. The wrong way is screaming about Russiagate all day long. The Democrats might impeach Trump and there will be a giant spectacle of political theater but in the end, the Senate will never remove him from office. No matter what happens with the Russiagate bullshit, the only way Trump is leaving office is if he is defeated next year or after he finishes his 2nd term.



birthday_massacre said:


> So you agree with me on this, where as Tater said Trump did not collude with Russia.
> 
> So why should I admit I was wrong again?
> 
> You are saying Tater is wrong just like I am on this.
> 
> The whole time I have been saying Trump collude with Russia
> And Trump has laundered money from Russia, thus why he owes them.
> 
> So tell me what I have been wrong about


Honest question: do you really not understand the difference between corrupt business dealings and collusion to steal an election?

You keep saying Trump laundered money from Russia, so he owes them. First of all, Trump has probably laundered money from businesses in a dozen other countries too. Why do you not say he colluded with Saudi Arabia and Israel? By your own logic, he would be their puppets too because he owes them.

Secondly, laundering money from businesses in Russia *is not the same thing* as being involved in a Kremlin plot with Putin and the Russian government. Newsflash, Russia isn't communist anymore. They have the same shitty capitalism that we do now. Having corrupt business dealings with Russian oligarchs does not mean Trump is a puppet of the Russian government.

Literally everything Trump has done since getting in office has been anti-Russia. He's attacked Putin's ally in Syria, Assad. They somewhat backed off that for a little while so they could try to topple the government of Venezuela, another ally of Russia. He pulled out of the INF treaty, setting off another arms race Putin definitely does not want. He's been trying to get Germany to stop buying natural gas from Russia, which would completely fuck Russia's economy. I've lost count of how many more sanctions they have put on Russia. Every single time something happens that involves Russia, it is not in their best interests. Scream all you want about collusion but the policy evidence says otherwise.

Here's a novel idea. Let's not escalate tensions between the other nuclear armed superpower. Do you really trust Trump to be able to handle a situation like the Cuban missile crisis? Keep calling him a Putin puppet and see what happens. That moron would push the button just to prove everyone wrong but it still wouldn't work on hardcore Russiagaters like you. We'd all be dead and people like you would be screaming at the nukes flying overhead that it was Putin's plan all along to end life on earth.



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL keep embarrassing yourself dude. You are the one who keeps lying about this, but what ever makes you sleep at night.
> 
> You were wrong about all Trumps Russia connections I always pointed out and you were wrong about always dissing me when I pointed out Trumps money laundering with Russia.
> 
> But keep trying to spin it, you should be so embarrassed over all of this and also claiming Trump was a good thing that he was elected
> 
> Its just funny how you are again admitting you were wrong even back in 2018 yet continued to give me shit from then to now pointing out all this money laundering from Trump. Shows what an even bigger fraud you are.
> 
> I will wait for your apology. Its just funny you keep proving me right yet claim I was wrong lol Its even funnier you keep claiming all these things were debunked yet https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-found-more-russian-bots-trump-interacted-with-many-2018-1 which I posted back then
> 
> Keep digging your hole dude


I posted the quotes from our past conversations. My position has not changed. Trump is a corrupt piece of shit businessman but he did not steal the election by colluding with Russia. Get over it and move on. There are plenty of very real policy reasons to attack Trump on that do not involve fantasy spy thrillers.



> And finally you claim Hillary would have been better short term but in the long term is better that Trump won? Really dude? you still want to admit that lol
> 
> Trump so far has gotten 2 SCOTUS picks and hundreds of other judges, and we have seen all the fuckd up shit they have done already. You dont think that will have long term effects for decades? Not to mention all the regulations he has rolled back to fuck over everyone but the rich.
> 
> You really still want to go with that? You are even more embarrassing than I thought.
> 
> And you have zero proof Ted Cruz and the GOP would have won the house if Hillary was president, you just pull that out of your ass like everything else you make up when it comes to Trump and the GOP


fpalm

Stop for a moment and think about this. Really think about this. Do you think Americans *like* having Trump as president? Is getting fucked on everything from economics to healthcare so the government can continue funneling money to the top something that the common American man agrees with?

Even you have to know that Americans don't want this shit.

Now ask yourself why the Democrats lost a thousand state seats and both houses of Congress to Republicans during the Obama years? Democrats were failing hard long before Trump got elected. 

Sure, electing Hillary might have been a little less shitty than Trump but really not by very much. She'd have been starting wars abroad while continuing to fuck over the working man at home but she'd have been a little nicer to the minorities and lgbtq crowd.

Here's the thing you are unwilling to accept. As long as the neoliberal Clintonites are running the DNC, they will continue losing to Republicans. That's why they lost so much to them during the Obama years. Americans gave Obama super majorities in both houses of Congress and the first thing he did was give away trillions of money to the bankers who crashed the economy while fucking over all the millions who lost their homes because of the corrupt banks, then he passed right wing Romneycare without even so much as a public option. Americans want change. They didn't get it with Obama, so now they are giving Trump a chance. 

Trump ain't changing shit either. Outside of all the bullshit Russiagate political theater, all the actual policies are the same bullshit Republican policies we would have gotten from Jeb! or Romney or Cruz or any other one of them. Eventually Americans will get tired of them and give the Democrats another chance. The only way to keep these kind of fascist right wing monsters out of office is to actually move to the left and represent your constituents instead of your donors. I do believe you understand this somewhat because you support Bernie Sanders. Hillary would have continued on the exact same path moving right as Obama laid out and you know it. We've seen what happens when her kind of Democrat is in the White House. First it got us Dubya and then it got us Trump. Do you really wanna see who the Republicans would elect next if the neolib Clintonites continue running the DNC? Because I sure as fuck do not.

You have to think beyond one election, my friend. Look at the entire history of which party wins the White House. It goes back n forth between Republicans and Democrats for a reason. You're not going to stop electing the Trumps of the world until you break that cycle. Electing Hillary would have only continued propping up the status quo. The people knew that too, so they sent Trump to Washington because they thought he was the outsider who would break the status quo. Nope, that hasn't happened either. The status quo of the majority of Americans continuing to get poorer while those at the top continuing to get richer is moving right along. The only thing Trump broke is the brains of quite a few liberals.

All I can say is that everyone better hope the DNC is not successful in their attempts to rig the primary for Biden because that mother fucker is even worse than Hillary. If it's him vs Trump, Trump will be getting 4 more years. If there was a god and he cared about the USA, Tulsi Gabbard would win the nomination but short of that, old man Sanders would still be the best shot at not only beating Trump but beating future Trumps because he, unlike Hillary, would actually try to do something to help the common American.

And that's what it all boils down to. You don't want fascist Republicans in office? End neoliberal Clintonite control of the DNC. Until that happens, future Trumps will continue winning elections.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

I enjoyed this.....

Tried posting a link from imgur but each link I copied wouldn't display for some reason


----------



## skypod

Berzerker's Beard said:


> not everyone looks for government to provide.
> 
> the government doesn't technically 'give' anything, they just pay for things using our tax dollars. nothing is free.



Look at what Europeans get in terms of healthcare, vacation days etc. for the taxes they pay. Look at workers in the 20,000-50,000 bracket specifically. 

There's Americans who pay more in insurance than a lot of Europeans do for their FULL taxes during the calendar year. The system of waiting for corporations to give you anything they don't have to isn't working.

Look at what British Amazon employees give their workers compared to what they do in the US. We believe it or not have a lot of American companies who have places here and work within the system, for example giving any employee that walks through the door 28 days a year vacation pay. The real con is believing that companies can't work inside a regulated system.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> I had to take a break from this conversation. You are just so goddamned tiresome. There's a right way and a wrong way to oppose Trump. The right way is talking about how the policies of this administration is fucking over Americans. The wrong way is screaming about Russiagate all day long. The Democrats might impeach Trump and there will be a giant spectacle of political theater but in the end, the Senate will never remove him from office. No matter what happens with the Russiagate bullshit, the only way Trump is leaving office is if he is defeated next year or after he finishes his 2nd term.
> 
> 
> 
> Honest question: do you really not understand the difference between corrupt business dealings and collusion to steal an election?
> 
> You keep saying Trump laundered money from Russia, so he owes them. First of all, Trump has probably laundered money from businesses in a dozen other countries too. Why do you not say he colluded with Saudi Arabia and Israel? By your own logic, he would be their puppets too because he owes them.
> 
> Secondly, laundering money from businesses in Russia *is not the same thing* as being involved in a Kremlin plot with Putin and the Russian government. Newsflash, Russia isn't communist anymore. They have the same shitty capitalism that we do now. Having corrupt business dealings with Russian oligarchs does not mean Trump is a puppet of the Russian government.
> 
> Literally everything Trump has done since getting in office has been anti-Russia. He's attacked Putin's ally in Syria, Assad. They somewhat backed off that for a little while so they could try to topple the government of Venezuela, another ally of Russia. He pulled out of the INF treaty, setting off another arms race Putin definitely does not want. He's been trying to get Germany to stop buying natural gas from Russia, which would completely fuck Russia's economy. I've lost count of how many more sanctions they have put on Russia. Every single time something happens that involves Russia, it is not in their best interests. Scream all you want about collusion but the policy evidence says otherwise.
> 
> Here's a novel idea. Let's not escalate tensions between the other nuclear armed superpower. Do you really trust Trump to be able to handle a situation like the Cuban missile crisis? Keep calling him a Putin puppet and see what happens. That moron would push the button just to prove everyone wrong but it still wouldn't work on hardcore Russiagaters like you. We'd all be dead and people like you would be screaming at the nukes flying overhead that it was Putin's plan all along to end life on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the quotes from our past conversations. My position has not changed. Trump is a corrupt piece of shit businessman but he did not steal the election by colluding with Russia. Get over it and move on. There are plenty of very real policy reasons to attack Trump on that do not involve fantasy spy thrillers.
> 
> 
> 
> fpalm
> 
> Stop for a moment and think about this. Really think about this. Do you think Americans *like* having Trump as president? Is getting fucked on everything from economics to healthcare so the government can continue funneling money to the top something that the common American man agrees with?
> 
> Even you have to know that Americans don't want this shit.
> 
> Now ask yourself why the Democrats lost a thousand state seats and both houses of Congress to Republicans during the Obama years? Democrats were failing hard long before Trump got elected.
> 
> Sure, electing Hillary might have been a little less shitty than Trump but really not by very much. She'd have been starting wars abroad while continuing to fuck over the working man at home but she'd have been a little nicer to the minorities and lgbtq crowd.
> 
> Here's the thing you are unwilling to accept. As long as the neoliberal Clintonites are running the DNC, they will continue losing to Republicans. That's why they lost so much to them during the Obama years. Americans gave Obama super majorities in both houses of Congress and the first thing he did was give away trillions of money to the bankers who crashed the economy while fucking over all the millions who lost their homes because of the corrupt banks, then he passed right wing Romneycare without even so much as a public option. Americans want change. They didn't get it with Obama, so now they are giving Trump a chance.
> 
> Trump ain't changing shit either. Outside of all the bullshit Russiagate political theater, all the actual policies are the same bullshit Republican policies we would have gotten from Jeb! or Romney or Cruz or any other one of them. Eventually Americans will get tired of them and give the Democrats another chance. The only way to keep these kind of fascist right wing monsters out of office is to actually move to the left and represent your constituents instead of your donors. I do believe you understand this somewhat because you support Bernie Sanders. Hillary would have continued on the exact same path moving right as Obama laid out and you know it. We've seen what happens when her kind of Democrat is in the White House. First it got us Dubya and then it got us Trump. Do you really wanna see who the Republicans would elect next if the neolib Clintonites continue running the DNC? Because I sure as fuck do not.
> 
> You have to think beyond one election, my friend. Look at the entire history of which party wins the White House. It goes back n forth between Republicans and Democrats for a reason. You're not going to stop electing the Trumps of the world until you break that cycle. Electing Hillary would have only continued propping up the status quo. The people knew that too, so they sent Trump to Washington because they thought he was the outsider who would break the status quo. Nope, that hasn't happened either. The status quo of the majority of Americans continuing to get poorer while those at the top continuing to get richer is moving right along. The only thing Trump broke is the brains of quite a few liberals.
> 
> All I can say is that everyone better hope the DNC is not successful in their attempts to rig the primary for Biden because that mother fucker is even worse than Hillary. If it's him vs Trump, Trump will be getting 4 more years. If there was a god and he cared about the USA, Tulsi Gabbard would win the nomination but short of that, old man Sanders would still be the best shot at not only beating Trump but beating future Trumps because he, unlike Hillary, would actually try to do something to help the common American.
> 
> And that's what it all boils down to. You don't want fascist Republicans in office? End neoliberal Clintonite control of the DNC. Until that happens, future Trumps will continue winning elections.



LOL still making excuses because you were wrong and still won't admit it

Its cool, I'm used to that with you by now


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL still making excuses because you were wrong and still won't admit it
> 
> Its cool, I'm used to that with you by now


You are so hilariously predictable. I literally quoted posts from a year and a half ago proving that my position has never changed and you are still claiming it has. You may not like Trump but you lie about as competently as he does.

BTW, have fun with having a meltdown when the Senate doesn't impeach Trump and this ridiculous Russiagate bullshit ends up helping his chances at reelection. The Democrats are doing everything in their power to get him another term and liberals are too goddamned blind to see what is right in front of them.

Me, I'll be enjoying the show. When shit gets this stupid, it's all you can reasonably do. :crow


----------



## CamillePunk

Let's rewind back to January when the idea of Trump declaring a national emergency to build the wall was being discussed, and the "common wisdom" of the MSM and this thread was that the courts would shoot it down.


birthday_massacre said:


> trump can't keep winning can he lol
> 
> *And sorry but the courts never would have let Trump use the state of emergency BS to build the wall.*





CamillePunk said:


> Incorrect. *Any lawsuit would be dismissed due to lack of standing. *Trump has full authority to declare a national emergency and build a wall. He's just a pussy. :draper2 Someone should grab him and tell him he's the president of the United States.
> 
> Instead we had a government shutdown for 3 weeks and ZERO to show for it except lower approval ratings and several displays of absolute weakness. You can't negotiate with people who don't want to negotiate with you and have no reason to.





CamillePunk said:


> Stop defending Trump smh, typical Trump supporter.
> 
> The criteria for what constitutes a national emergency isn't as strict as you seem to think. Obama declared a national emergency over civil strife in Burundi FFS. I'll wait while you google Burundi. Don't worry, I never heard of it until recently either.
> 
> He has full authority to declare a national emergency over the border situation, and to divert funds towards any civil projects he seems fit to address the emergency. There is no party with any standing with which to file a lawsuit, any such lawsuit would be dismissed immediately.
> 
> Trump could've built the wall Day 1. With a Republican House and Senate, he elected not to, expecting them to do the right thing. Fair enough. Now we have a Democratic House who were never EVER going to negotiate with him on the issue. He's still playing games and being weak.
> 
> It's not going to happen, and he's going to get murdered in 2020. He should just re-sign now and go back to New York.





birthday_massacre said:


> *No, he cants LOL* In the 50s Truman declared a state of emergency to nationalize the steel industry and the SCOTUS struck it down.
> 
> Also by you saying Trump could have built the wall day 1, that just shows it's not an emergency.





birthday_massacre said:


> You ignore facts all the time. Nothing I said was incorrect.
> 
> Go read any article on Trump declaring a state of emergency, every Judge is saying he can't and it will get struck down.





2 Ton 21 said:


> Thing is if he does declare national emergency and gets his way, that sets a pretty big precedent.
> 
> Now any president that doeesn't get what he wants out of congress can just declare a national emergency.
> 
> Health care is fucked in this country, declare a national emergency and fund universal health care.
> 
> I being hyperbolic, but you get my point.





CamillePunk said:


> Completely incorrect, sorry. No precedent would be set because the powers he'd be using are explicitly granted by the constitution. That doesn't apply to healthcare.
> 
> I know this is a common MSM and even alt media talking point but it's wrong.
> 
> What would most likely happen is a lawsuit would be filed to challenge it and *said lawsuit would be thrown out due to lack of standing.*


Meanwhile: 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/03/judge-trump-border-wall-emergency-1352445



> Judge shoots down House attempt to block Trump’s border wall emergency
> 
> A federal judge on Monday rejected an attempt by the Democrat-led House to bar President Donald Trump from spending $6.1 billion in unappropriated funds to build a border wall.
> 
> In a 24-page opinion, D.C.-based District Court Judge Trevor McFadden said that the court lacked authority to resolve a funding dispute between the executive and legislative branches.
> 
> *“While the Constitution bestows upon members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the executive branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority,” McFadden wrote.*
> 
> The ruling deals a momentary victory to Trump. A separate Oakland-based federal judge in late May issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the transfer of roughly $1 billion in Defense Department counter-drug funding to cover expansions and enhancement of border barriers.
> 
> Trump declared a national emergency in February as part of a strategy to access $6.7 billion to build a border wall after Congress turned down a similar request. Democrats blasted the move, and House leaders challenged it in federal court — one of several lawsuits targeting the emergency.
> 
> The House argued that the White House violated the Constitution and federal regulatory law when it sought to transfer roughly $6.1 billion based on authority outlined in two federal statutes related to counter-drug and military construction funds.
> 
> The legislative body did not challenge the transfer of $600 million from a Treasury Department drug forfeiture fund toward wall construction.
> 
> In the ruling Monday, McFadden — a Trump nominee confirmed by the Senate in 2017 — said in the opinion that the legislative branch can use the appropriations process to respond to executive actions without assistance from the courts.
> 
> “Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power,” he wrote. “These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House.”


So yeah, totally legal for Trump to declare a national emergency to get funding for the wall, as I was saying.  Credit to Will Chamberlain for his excellent legal analysis on this matter.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Let's rewind back to January when the idea of Trump declaring a national emergency to build the wall was being discussed, and the "common wisdom" of the MSM and this thread was that the courts would shoot it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/03/judge-trump-border-wall-emergency-1352445
> 
> So yeah, totally legal for Trump to declare a national emergency to get funding for the wall, as I was saying.  Credit to Will Chamberlain for his excellent legal analysis on this matter.


Ah, I see you're using my tactic of using post quotes to show BM how wrong he is. It won't matter. He'll do what he always does and invent his own reality. :shrug


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> Look at what Europeans get in terms of healthcare, vacation days etc. for the taxes they pay. Look at workers in the 20,000-50,000 bracket specifically.
> 
> There's Americans who pay more in insurance than a lot of Europeans do for their FULL taxes during the calendar year. The system of waiting for corporations to give you anything they don't have to isn't working.
> 
> Look at what British Amazon employees give their workers compared to what they do in the US. We believe it or not have a lot of American companies who have places here and work within the system, for example giving any employee that walks through the door 28 days a year vacation pay. The real con is believing that companies can't work inside a regulated system.


if an employer wants to give their employee 28 days a year in vacation pay, they have that freedom. 

but they should not be required to do so by the govt. and if you think they should be, then we're just going to have to disagree.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Plot Twist: BM is actually trolling us to show us what it must be like to have a conversation with Donald Trump in the white house.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> if an employer wants to give their employee 28 days a year in vacation pay, they have that freedom.
> 
> but they should not be required to do so by the govt. and if you think they should be, then we're just going to have to disagree.


Yep, you're totally right. The working class should have no democratically decided power at all in their employment arrangements. They should all be treated like dollar signs by their corporate overlords then tossed aside when they can no longer produce.

Nailed it.

:JLC3


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Ah, I see you're using my tactic of using post quotes to show BM how wrong he is. It won't matter. He'll do what he always does and invent his own reality. :shrug


LOL you were wrong Tater, its just cute you keep pretending you were right. You were giving me shit all the time for saying how Trump was Russia bitch beause he owns them for all the money he laundered from them. And now look its all comping out. Cant wait until even more comes out then you keep pretending I was wrong and you were right lol Typical tater

As for the quotes Cam gave, all the judges were backing up what I said. Even Cam admitted they were backing up what I said. But of course you ignore the fact one judge blocked it then another over turned it.

But once again you showing you ignore all facts

Its just funny you think it was actual legal for Trump to bypass congress, but Trump has been getting away with breaking the law over and over, so guess I should not have been surprised.

What he did was still not legal just like how its not legal for Trump to break the Emoluments Clause yet he does so over and over again. Just because he is getting away with it, does not mean its legal.

Even Fox's favorite Judge, Judge Napolitano said it was not legal.



Tater said:


> You are so hilariously predictable. I literally quoted posts from a year and a half ago proving that my position has never changed and you are still claiming it has. You may not like Trump but you lie about as competently as he does.
> 
> BTW, have fun with having a meltdown when the Senate doesn't impeach Trump and this ridiculous Russiagate bullshit ends up helping his chances at reelection. The Democrats are doing everything in their power to get him another term and liberals are too goddamned blind to see what is right in front of them.
> 
> Me, I'll be enjoying the show. When shit gets this stupid, it's all you can reasonably do. :crow


Love how you keep ignoring Russiagate when Trump himself admitted Russia helped him win the election. Are you going to deny that? I was right once again lol but of course you will ignore that Russia helped Trump win. 

And yeah the dems trying to make sure Trump gets impeached for breaking the law is such a bad thing. Its just funny you still are ok with Trump breaking the law and saying its bad then are trying to impeach him for it.

Go put your head back in the sand.


----------



## The real Axel

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL you were wrong Tater, its just cute you keep pretending you were right.
> 
> As for the quotes Cam gave, all the judges were backing up what I said. Even Cam admitted they were backing up what I said. But of course you ignore the fact one judge blocked it then another over turned it.
> 
> But once again you showing you ignore all facts
> 
> Its just funny you think it was actual legal for Trump to bypass congress, but Trump has been getting away with breaking the law over and over, so guess I should not have been surprised.
> 
> What he did was still not legal just like how its not legal for Trump to break the Emoluments Clause yet he does so over and over again. Just because he is getting away with it, does not mean its legal.
> 
> Even Fox's favorite Judge, Judge Napolitano said it was not legal.


Do you still expect Trump to be impeached by the end of the year?


----------



## birthday_massacre

The real Axel said:


> Do you still expect Trump to be impeached by the end of the year?


Do you think he* should be* impeached?


Will he be, not with that turtle as the head of the GOP congress.

We all know if Obama did half of what Trump has done, the GOP would have impeached him by now. they impeached Clinton for a blow job in the house FFS.

I didn't think the GOVT was this corrupt to let Trump get away with everything he has. 

Trump could have easily been impeached for at least a dozen things by now but they just let him get away with it.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> Yep, you're totally right. The working class should have no democratically decided power at all in their employment arrangements. They should all be treated like dollar signs by their corporate overlords then tossed aside when they can no longer produce.
> 
> Nailed it.
> 
> :JLC3


not having an *entire month's* vacation is akin to being treated inhumanely? :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

Berzerker's Beard said:


> not having an *entire month's* vacation is akin to being treated inhumanely? :lol


It's a crime against humanity that my job doesn't provide me with a snifter (FILLED TO THE BRIM) of Cristal and a pre-rolled blunt dipped in sizzurp every shift really :draper2



> Look at what Europeans get in terms of healthcare, vacation days etc. for the taxes they pay. Look at workers in the 20,000-50,000 bracket specifically.
> 
> There's Americans who pay more in insurance than a lot of Europeans do for their FULL taxes during the calendar year. The system of waiting for corporations to give you anything they don't have to isn't working.
> 
> Look at what British Amazon employees give their workers compared to what they do in the US. We believe it or not have a lot of American companies who have places here and work within the system, for example giving any employee that walks through the door 28 days a year vacation pay. The real con is believing that companies can't work inside a regulated system.


Also look at the endemic higher unemployment of Europe, the flight of human capital off the Continent, and quarterly GDP growth higher than 2% anywhere in Europe outside of a handful of countries being a historic event :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

We have free at point of care healthcare, workers get good maternity /paternity leave and annual leave etc etc for our taxes. 

Yeah but what about your GDP growth...


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL you were wrong Tater, its just cute you keep pretending you were right. You were giving me shit all the time for saying how Trump was Russia bitch beause he owns them for all the money he laundered from them. And now look its all comping out. Cant wait until even more comes out then you keep pretending I was wrong and you were right lol Typical tater
> 
> Love how you keep ignoring Russiagate when Trump himself admitted Russia helped him win the election. Are you going to deny that? I was right once again lol but of course you will ignore that Russia helped Trump win.


Trump "said" Russia helped him win the election. And? That doesn't mean anything. Trump says stupid shit all the time. It does not correlate into there being some kind of grand conspiracy to steal an election.

I have maintained from the start that Trump is a corrupt businessman but he did not conspire with Russia to steal the election. That's still just as true now as the first day I said it. 

Notice how you still have no response on every policy Trump does that goes against Russia's interests. If Trump was Putin's bitch, he wouldn't be trying to end their natural gas sales to Germany, he wouldn't be trying to take out his allies in Syria and Venezuela and he wouldn't have pulled out of the INF treaty. Trump has done nothing to help Russia while in office and everything to hurt them. Funny how you Russiagaters ignore everything Trump does against Russia because it does not fit your narrative.



> And yeah the dems trying to make sure Trump gets impeached for breaking the law is such a bad thing. Its just funny you still are ok with Trump breaking the law and saying its bad then are trying to impeach him for it.


I did not say Trump shouldn't impeached. He has been guilty of violating the emoluments clause since day 1. The Dems aren't going to make it about that though. They aren't going to make it about the genocide in Yemen either. They are going to make it about the Russiagate hoax and obstructing justice on said hoax. 

Of course Trump should be impeached, not for your stupid Russiagate hoax but for the very real emoluments violations and the war in Yemen. What I said is that trying to impeach him is bad strategy. The Senate will never remove him from office, even you understand that, and it will give him a boost for reelection because he gets to boast about winning.

Giving Trump help winning again? Call me crazy but I think that is pretty fucking bad strategy.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> not having an *entire month's* vacation is akin to being treated inhumanely? :lol


Crazy thought, I know, but other countries consider other things like human happiness rather than solely how much profit they can produce for their capitalist overlords. Shocking, I know, but these things happen around the world. Americans would have you believe corporations would flee the country if you forced them to treat their workers decently. Funny, they still operate in those other countries where the workers are treated better. Funny, indeed.


----------



## Hangman

We saw him today in my hometown Portsmouth!

He got a thundering ovation. Don't believe the media, everyone was happy to see him.


----------



## Draykorinee

Ultron said:


> We saw him today in my hometown Portsmouth!
> 
> He got a thundering ovation. Don't believe the media, everyone was happy to see him.


You are so fill of shit lol, my friend was there with the protestors who outnumbered any supporters of his.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Ultron said:


> We saw him today in my hometown Portsmouth!
> 
> He got a thundering ovation. Don't believe the media, everyone was happy to see him.


For anyone reading this not from the UK, we often refer to Portsmouth as the armpit of the UK.

For reasons like this.



Draykorinee said:


> You are so fill of shit lol, my friend was there with the protestors who outnumbered any supporters of his.


A Trump supporter full of shit?!?! Surely not!!


----------



## krtgolfing

Berzerker's Beard said:


> if an employer wants to give their employee 28 days a year in vacation pay, they have that freedom.
> 
> but they should not be required to do so by the govt. and if you think they should be, then we're just going to have to disagree.


The humanity! The owner of my company only gives himself 29 vacation days a year. So an entry level guy should have that many vacation days as well? I am up to 22 vacation days a year. However I have worked here for about 7 years and been promoted many times.

We tried to hire a new engineer who just graduated Clemson last week and we offered him 15 vacation days with a damn good salary and he turned it down because he wanted a minimum of 20. :nah


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Draykorinee said:


> You are so fill of shit lol, my friend was there with the protestors who outnumbered any supporters of his.


Kinda sad that anyone was protesting today. Today's memorial service in Portsmouth wasn't about Trump whether you like him or not - it was about remembering the brave men who sacrificed themselves on the beaches of Normandy 75 years ago, and honouring the veterans that risked their lives and fought, so that we could be free today. 

If protesting Trump being part of the ceremony to honour those men was your priority today, then I think that's pretty shameful.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

krtgolfing said:


> The humanity! The owner of my company only gives himself 29 vacation days a year. So an entry level guy should have that many vacation days as well? I am up to 22 vacation days a year. However I have worked here for about 7 years and been promoted many times.
> 
> We tried to hire a new engineer who just graduated Clemson last week and we offered him 15 vacation days with a damn good salary and he turned it down because he wanted a minimum of 20. :nah


I work in China and get 12 vacation days per year - not including national holidays of course. Local teachers though in their initial contract get 2 (!) vacation days per year. :bahgawd

Not really making a point here, it just blew my mind. Really puts things in perspective though.


----------



## Draykorinee

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so fill of shit lol, my friend was there with the protestors who outnumbered any supporters of his.
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda sad that anyone was protesting today. Today's memorial service in Portsmouth wasn't about Trump whether you like him or not - it was about remembering the brave men who sacrificed themselves on the beaches of Normandy 75 years ago, and honouring the veterans that risked their lives and fought, so that we could be free today.
> 
> If protesting Trump being part of the ceremony to honour those men was your priority today, then I think that's pretty shameful.
Click to expand...

Possibly, I wouldn't have protested myself but I am not convinced it's shameful.


----------



## Hangman

Draykorinee said:


> You are so fill of shit lol, my friend was there with the protestors who outnumbered any supporters of his.


Yeah we spent our afternoon chucking beer glasses at them :lmao

Trust me they outnumbered no one.


----------



## deepelemblues

Mexico has been greatly increasing the amount of arrests and deportations of illegal aliens entering Mexico from further south for the last two months. 9100 deportations from Mexico in March, over 15000 in April, and even more in May. Setting up roadblocks and breaking up caravans. In response to American pressure. Obrador had been on pace to deport 37% fewer than his predecessor Nieto. Now he's on pace to outdo Nieto. And Obrador is promising :trump even more to keep the tariffs from being imposed. Senator Grassley has predicted that a deal to avoid tariffs could be made by as early as tomorrow

:trump getting results again


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Draykorinee said:


> Possibly, I wouldn't have protested myself but I am not convinced it's shameful.


Maybe that was a bit harsh, but their priorities were out of order. There is a time and a place - feel free to protest on Monday and Tuesday, but to do so during the commemoration was insensitive and wrong, IMO.


----------



## skypod

krtgolfing said:


> The owner of my company only gives himself 29 vacation days a year. So an entry level guy should have that many vacation days as well?




Yes.


----------



## virus21

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Maybe that was a bit harsh, but their priorities were out of order. There is a time and a place - feel free to protest on Monday and Tuesday, but to do so during the commemoration was insensitive and wrong, IMO.


Agreed. This wasn't about them and it wasn't about Trump. Then again, most protesters these days care almost entirely about themselves.


----------



## krtgolfing

skypod said:


> Yes.


:heston

Good one!


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> ]Crazy thought, I know, but other countries consider other things like* human happiness* rather than solely how much profit they can produce for their capitalist overlords. Shocking, I know, but these things happen around the world. Americans would have you believe corporations would flee the country if you forced them to treat their workers decently. Funny, they still operate in those other countries where the workers are treated better. Funny, indeed.


happiness is all relative brother. if someone isn't happy at their job then a month's vacation isn't going to change that. what happens when people start complaining that a month doesn't make them 'happy' enough and now they want two months? 

you are responsible for your own happiness, not your employer. their responsibility is to run a business.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> happiness is all relative brother. if someone isn't happy at their job then a month's vacation isn't going to change that. what happens when people start complaining that a month doesn't make them 'happy' enough and now they want two months?
> 
> you are responsible for your own happiness, not your employer. *their responsibility is to run a business.*


AKA their responsibility is to make as much money for themselves as possible and fuck them workers. 

I'd post the studies showing that workers who are given more vacation time are happier and more productive while on the job but it wouldn't make a difference.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> AKA their responsibility is to make as much money for themselves as possible and fuck them workers.
> 
> I'd post the studies showing that workers who are given more vacation time are happier and more productive while on the job but it wouldn't make a difference.


i'm sorry do you work for free? 

isn't everyone's responsibility to make as much money as they can? are workers there because they care deeply about the benefit of their employers or are they there for a paycheck?

why isn't your employer's 'happiness' being considered into this equation? do you think the average business owner has the luxury of taking several vacations a year away from their business? let alone while they're trying to become established?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Trump "said" Russia helped him win the election. And? That doesn't mean anything. Trump says stupid shit all the time. It does not correlate into there being some kind of grand conspiracy to steal an election.
> 
> I have maintained from the start that Trump is a corrupt businessman but he did not conspire with Russia to steal the election. That's still just as true now as the first day I said it.
> 
> Notice how you still have no response on every policy Trump does that goes against Russia's interests. If Trump was Putin's bitch, he wouldn't be trying to end their natural gas sales to Germany, he wouldn't be trying to take out his allies in Syria and Venezuela and he wouldn't have pulled out of the INF treaty. Trump has done nothing to help Russia while in office and everything to hurt them. Funny how you Russiagaters ignore everything Trump does against Russia because it does not fit your narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say Trump shouldn't impeached. He has been guilty of violating the emoluments clause since day 1. The Dems aren't going to make it about that though. They aren't going to make it about the genocide in Yemen either. They are going to make it about the Russiagate hoax and obstructing justice on said hoax.
> 
> Of course Trump should be impeached, not for your stupid Russiagate hoax but for the very real emoluments violations and the war in Yemen. What I said is that trying to impeach him is bad strategy. The Senate will never remove him from office, even you understand that, and it will give him a boost for reelection because he gets to boast about winning.
> 
> Giving Trump help winning again? Call me crazy but I think that is pretty fucking bad strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> Crazy thought, I know, but other countries consider other things like human happiness rather than solely how much profit they can produce for their capitalist overlords. Shocking, I know, but these things happen around the world. Americans would have you believe corporations would flee the country if you forced them to treat their workers decently. Funny, they still operate in those other countries where the workers are treated better. Funny, indeed.


LOL
Trumps admits Russia helped him and you are like AND... Just what I expected from you. More excuses. Trump admits Russia helped him and you still ignore it. Keep ignoring facts.

Welcome to the ignore list.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> isn't everyone's responsibility to make as much money as they can?


I hate to break it to ya but no, most people's life priorities are not making as much money as they can.



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL
> Trumps admits Russia helped him and you are like AND... Just what I expected from you. More excuses. Trump admits Russia helped him and you still ignore it. Keep ignoring facts.
> 
> Welcome to the ignore list.


Trump also said he loved wikileaks then charged Assange under the espionage act, so Trump saying something means exactly jack shit nothing. The only person ignoring things here is you when you cannot explain why Trump's policies constantly go against Russian interests.

Actually... you putting so much faith in Trump's word alone is actually quite hilarious. :lol

Trump said it so it must be true! I know this because I always post about how much Trump lies! Nailed it! :lmao


----------



## skypod

Berzerker's Beard said:


> happiness is all relative brother. if someone isn't happy at their job then a month's vacation isn't going to change that. what happens when people start complaining that a month doesn't make them 'happy' enough and now they want two months?
> 
> you are responsible for your own happiness, not your employer. their responsibility is to run a business.



So to all the people who work non-stop all year, what the fuck is the point of these people waking up in the morning? 

People talk about how taxation is theft because technically we didn't ask to be born into a country/system that takes our money. Well nobody asked to be born into a system where they have to work 6 days a week in a crappy area to support a disabled parent + pick up their little brother from school. And before you say "well work your way up" you know damn well a lot of people stay within a similar income bracket and never leave the trappings of their upbringing. And you need people to work remedial jobs because the country wouldn't run with 400 million independent contractors. There's always people that are going to be at the bottom of the income bracket. How about we not make their lives miserable for the 70 years they're here? The system is failing the people. 

You only have one life and fuck sitting at a desk or a machine pushing a button when you can be out exploring the world. On my vacation days in my twenties I was able to travel to Cancun, Shanghai (multiple), Amsterdam, New York, LA, Chicago, Vegas, Spain (multiple), Greece. And my boss does it too, and so does her boss, and so does his boss. Why wouldn't you want to give people this freedom?

Government isn't going away anytime soon so you might as well get the most out of it while you can. Americans that are disgruntled about there even being a government (and therefore not demanding anything of them) are fighting a losing battle. 


Still waiting on hearing how anyone in the US in the 20k-50k bracket gets more out of their tax dollars than someone in Europe. These conversations about income are usually dominated among people who are at least on 200k and therefore people only hear one side.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> So to all the people who work non-stop all year, what the fuck is the point of these people waking up in the morning?
> 
> People talk about how taxation is theft because technically we didn't ask to be born into a country/system that takes our money. Well nobody asked to be born into a system where they have to work 6 days a week in a crappy area to support a disabled parent + pick up their little brother from school. And before you say "well work your way up" you know damn well a lot of people stay within a similar income bracket and never leave the trappings of their upbringing. And you need people to work remedial jobs because the country wouldn't run with 400 million independent contractors. There's always people that are going to be at the bottom of the income bracket. How about we not make their lives miserable for the 70 years they're here? The system is failing the people.
> 
> You only have one life and fuck sitting at a desk or a machine pushing a button when you can be out exploring the world. On my vacation days in my twenties I was able to travel to Cancun, Shanghai (multiple), Amsterdam, New York, LA, Chicago, Vegas, Spain (multiple), Greece. And my boss does it too, and so does her boss, and so does his boss. Why wouldn't you want to give people this freedom?
> 
> Government isn't going away anytime soon so you might as well get the most out of it while you can. Americans that are disgruntled about there even being a government (and therefore not demanding anything of them) are fighting a losing battle.
> 
> 
> Still waiting on hearing how anyone in the US in the 20k-50k bracket gets more out of their tax dollars than someone in Europe. These conversations about income are usually dominated among people who are at least on 200k and therefore people only hear one side.


well you or whomever you claim to speak for sounds very angry and resentful. 

"we didn't ask to be born into this"... these are the words of someone who is angry with life. no amount of raise (or money) is going to fix this. this person's problem isn't lack of money or lack of paid vacation. it's lack of humility.

whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, you do have the freedom to move up the economic ladder in this country. it is not some herculean or impossible feat. immigrants have come here with nothing and made themselves millionaires.

unfortunately having the freedom to succeed means also having the freedom to fail.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Berzerker's Beard said:


> happiness is all relative brother. if someone isn't happy at their job then a month's vacation isn't going to change that. what happens when people start complaining that a month doesn't make them 'happy' enough and now they want two months?
> 
> you are responsible for your own happiness, not your employer. their responsibility is to run a business.


Good businesses also do look out for the well being of their staff too. Considering your job is something you most likely well spend a vast amount of your time at, sometimes not by choice, then technically the employer does have a say in said "happiness" or well being of you. 

Any good business is hard work sure, but good businesses also take care of their employees as well. I'm not a huge fan of the work I do right now and would rather be at another job doing something more with my current master's program, but my boss generally works hard and treats us all well, even going the extra step to have lunch for us on Fridays where he buys from a local eatery and has all of us eat together in our conference room (it's a small office mind you, only around 10 of us).

Also, you really think more vacation for somebody in a job they don't particularly like won't be helpful? For many that is probably welcomed. I generally don't understand why you don't think that will help at all.


----------



## Tater

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> Good businesses also do look out for the well being of their staff too. Considering your job is something you most likely well spend a vast amount of your time at, sometimes not by choice, then technically the employer does have a say in said "happiness" or well being of you.
> 
> Any good business is hard work sure, but good businesses also take care of their employees as well. I'm not a huge fan of the work I do right now and would rather be at another job doing something more with my current master's program, but my boss generally works hard and treats us all well, even going the extra step to have lunch for us on Fridays where he buys from a local eatery and has all of us eat together in our conference room (it's a small office mind you, only around 10 of us).
> 
> Also, you really think more vacation for somebody in a job they don't particularly like won't be helpful? For many that is probably welcomed. *I generally don't understand why you don't think that will help at all.*


It's a mindset indoctrinated into many Americans from youth, so you've got people like BB here worshiping the "job creators" and acting like the people who are "lucky" enough to work there should be grateful for whatever meager wages they get and their happiness should come from the glory of producing profit for said job creators.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> It's a mindset indoctrinated into many Americans from youth, so you've got people like BB here worshiping the "job creators" and acting like the people who are "lucky" enough to work there should be grateful for whatever meager wages they get and their happiness should come from the glory of producing profit for said job creators.


i think people should be grateful for _everything_ they have in life. if you define happiness by how much money you make then you already lost. 

there's no need to be jealous or resentful that your boss makes more money than you do. that's why they're the boss and you aren't. you could live a boss's life too if you were willing to make the sacrifice but instead you're complaining about not having enough paid vacation time and crying about bullshit.


----------



## Twilight Sky

I mean, only folks who've worked in the US workforce for any decent amount of time would have a problem with what you're saying. Do 20 years in retail, then come back to me and lets see if you'll talk to the same tune. I can say, that I loved my job, it was _the job itself_ that made me happy, but the company's attitude towards workers often offset said happiness and made a lot of us rather miserable. That and the "mandatory" overtime where you're likely to have 15-16 hour work days, and scheduled in such a way where you would not get the OT pay to go with it. Vacations were godsend, and even then those were beginning to be throttled/reduced.

There's no jealously or resentment either when it comes to bosses pay. Most of the problems with employee pay stems from much higher in the chain.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i think people should be grateful for _everything_ they have in life. if you define happiness by how much money you make then you already lost.
> 
> there's no need to be jealous or resentful that your boss makes more money than you do. that's why they're the boss and you aren't. you could live a boss's life too if you were willing to make the sacrifice but instead you're complaining about not having enough paid vacation time and crying about bullshit.


A person who works a full time job and does not make enough money to make ends meet is "complaining" and "crying about bullshit". That's the USA we live in. Thanks for proving my point.

It's a joke that you act like we live in anything remotely resembling a meritocracy where all you gotta do it work hard and you will succeed in life. The majority of Americans are working their asses off and barely getting by. Oh, _they're the boss but you could be the boss but you're not because they're the boss_. fpalm Yeah, because the mega corporations in this country have not bought the government to write the laws in their favor and the little guy can rise up to be the boss if he just works hard enough. 

It's stunning how clueless Americans can be about this shit and actually still preach that hard work equals success. That takes some serious indoctrination. Then to say that they are complaining and crying about bullshit because they think they deserve a little bit more back from the billionaire class that they are breaking their backs to support? Just an absolute stunning amount of indoctrination. To believe that, you gotta either be the ones in charge doing the brainwashing or one of the brainwashed sheep because that sure as shit is not how things work in reality for everyone else.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Tater said:


> AKA their responsibility is to make as much money for themselves as possible and fuck them workers.
> 
> I'd post the studies showing that workers who are given more vacation time are happier and more productive while on the job but it wouldn't make a difference.


You don't get it man. The great Free Market will step in and solve everything. 

Those workers who are unsatisfied are more than free to simply leave their company en masse, then find another one with better benefits. The stingy company goes out business while the new one thrives. Pretty simple.


----------



## krtgolfing

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> Good businesses also do look out for the well being of their staff too. Considering your job is something you most likely well spend a vast amount of your time at, sometimes not by choice, then technically the employer does have a say in said "happiness" or well being of you.
> 
> Any good business is hard work sure, but good businesses also take care of their employees as well. I'm not a huge fan of the work I do right now and would rather be at another job doing something more with my current master's program, but my boss generally works hard and treats us all well, even going the extra step to have lunch for us on Fridays where he buys from a local eatery and has all of us eat together in our conference room (it's a small office mind you, only around 10 of us).
> 
> Also, you really think more vacation for somebody in a job they don't particularly like won't be helpful? For many that is probably welcomed. I generally don't understand why you don't think that will help at all.


I am the VP of engineering so I oversee all the engineering on all projects. I do whatever I can to make sure things are as stress free as possible for all my employees. If I see a certain employee running behind I will offer to help them out or ask if there is anything I can do. 

However, I am not afraid to lay into an employees ass if they are continually running behind on projects / constantly making mistakes. I hate having to be that guy but it has to be done occasionally. My performance is not based on happiness of employees. However, treating your employees fairly will only benefit the entire company. I think I have only had one employee bad mouth me in an exit interview. He was fired for a multitude of things, so take that what you will.


----------



## Tater

krtgolfing said:


> I am the VP of engineering so I oversee all the engineering on all projects. I do whatever I can to make sure things are as stress free as possible for all my employees. If I see a certain employee running behind I will offer to help them out or ask if there is anything I can do.
> 
> However, I am not afraid to lay into an employees ass if they are continually running behind on projects / constantly making mistakes. I hate having to be that guy but it has to be done occasionally. My performance is not based on happiness of employees. However, treating your employees fairly will only benefit the entire company. I think I have only had one employee bad mouth me in an exit interview. He was fired for a multitude of things, so take that what you will.


This is how it should be done. Sometimes you gotta be tough on employees but that is not the same thing as treating them like shit. A happy employee is a hard working employee. They will be more productive while on the job when they are less stressed. It doesn't seem like it should be such a difficult concept to grasp but still so many Americans are brainwashed with this idea that the business should take no role in the happiness of their employees. It's just good business. 

A business staffed with employees who are paid good and get proper vacation time will have employees who want to be at work and will do a better job while they are there, which in turn will create a more successful business. Here in the good ol' USA, most places treat employees like they are expendable. Work till you drop, then next man up. We can always find someone who is more desperate than you who will work for less.


----------



## krtgolfing

Tater said:


> This is how it should be done. Sometimes you gotta be tough on employees but that is not the same thing as treating them like shit. A happy employee is a hard working employee. They will be more productive while on the job when they are less stressed. It doesn't seem like it should be such a difficult concept to grasp but still so many Americans are brainwashed with this idea that the business should take no role in the happiness of their employees. It's just good business.
> 
> A business staffed with employees who are paid good and get proper vacation time will have employees who want to be at work and will do a better job while they are there, which in turn will create a more successful business. Here in the good ol' USA, most places treat employees like they are expendable. Work till you drop, then next man up. We can always find someone who is more desperate than you who will work for less.


My last job was pretty much like your second paragraph. I worked there for about 1.5 years. Should of quit after about 6 months, but did not want to be one of those employees that jumps from job to job as that does not look good on a resume. The pay was really good but the vacation days were terrible. I think when I quit I was up to about 4 vacation days a year, and since I was one of the newer employees I could only ask to take a vacation day up to a month in advance. How can one plan a really good vacation in about a month??? 

I already had an offer on a table for a job at the company I am currently with, but told them I would think about it. The next day not my boss, but his boss laid into my ass saying that I did not submit a project on time. Thankfully my boss overheard this screaming contest and got him to STFU as the project was submitted last week. Let's just say I put in my 2 weeks right then and there.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> A person who works a full time job and does not make enough money to make ends meet is "complaining" and "crying about bullshit". That's the USA we live in. Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> *if you cannot make ends meet maybe you have too many expenses and are living above your means? it's not about how much you earn, it's about how much you save and how much you spend.*
> 
> It's a joke that you act like we live in anything remotely resembling a meritocracy where all you gotta do it work hard and you will succeed in life. The majority of Americans are working their asses off and barely getting by. Oh, _they're the boss but you could be the boss but you're not because they're the boss_. fpalm Yeah, because the mega corporations in this country have not bought the government to write the laws in their favor and the little guy can rise up to be the boss if he just works hard enough.
> 
> It's stunning how clueless Americans can be about this shit and actually still preach that hard work equals success. That takes some serious indoctrination. Then to say that they are complaining and crying about bullshit because they think they deserve a little bit more back from the billionaire class that they are breaking their backs to support? Just an absolute stunning amount of indoctrination. To believe that, you gotta either be the ones in charge doing the brainwashing or one of the brainwashed sheep because that sure as shit is not how things work in reality for everyone else.
> 
> *these are the thoughts of a of a lazy, negative person. if an immigrant with a poor handle on the language and no money in their pocket can make something of themselves then there's no excuse for anyone else. instead of blaming all of your problems on something else maybe you should consider how you can improve your own life and then take the necessary steps.
> 
> and also maybe learn some humility.*


bolded.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> bolded.


Learn how to use the fucking quote function. 

And stop spewing factually incorrect bullshit too based on ideology while you are at it. 

75-80% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck. Sorry, that is not because people are living above their means. 50-60 years ago a man with a high school education could get a job and buy his home where his wife and kids stayed while he saved for retirement. Do you really want to argue that people could still do that today if they just spend their money more wisely? Cause I'd really love to see you try. Most of the people in the USA just didn't all of a sudden forget how to spend money in the past 50 years. What money they have has lost it's buying power and the money they do make has not kept up with what it costs to live.

Don't act like this hasn't been done intentionally to the working class by the ruling elite. Every single time we try going even further with your ideology, the working class gets poorer while those at the top get richer. That's by design. 

Just be honest and admit you believe most people should live in poverty while providing a lavish lifestyle for the owner class because then at least you would be honest and wouldn't look foolish arguing that everything would be just fine if people didn't waste all their money.


----------



## CamillePunk

50-60 years ago we weren't taking nearly as many immigrants from third world countries and didn't have a massive welfare state. :mj


----------



## Tater

50-60 years ago people had the balls to quote you when they were responding to you. At least BB gave a "bolded" response.


----------



## CamillePunk

:mj4


----------



## deepelemblues

We should go back to the pre-industrial revolution where the basic economic unit was the family and not the individual 

Get married and have kids and work on the farm, 6 people have more economic utility than 1 lonely bitter butthurt person crying that a life of extreme convenience and material abundance can't be sustained on an unskilled menial fulltime job :draper2


----------



## Kabraxal

deepelemblues said:


> We should go back to the pre-industrial revolution where the basic economic unit was the family and not the individual
> 
> Get married and have kids and work on the farm, 6 people have more economic utility than 1 lonely bitter butthurt person crying that a life of extreme convenience and material abundance can't be sustained on an unskilled menial fulltime job :draper2


And let's be honest... I'm all for better pay and vacations. Anyone you ask probably is. Just a lot of us don't want the government to use its force to accomplish that. I never want the gov't to feel comfortable exerting force. They should always second guess that as a rule... not "GOV'T SMASH!" being the first fucking thought.


----------



## sw61776

I am with Pelosi. No to impeachment, let him stay in office until 2020. There are better candidates than Trump and I even think some Trump voters in 2016 are seeing the errors of their ways. Arrest him as soon as he leaves the WH. Because the senate won't impeach him and he can use that if he gets prosecuted for his many other crimes.


----------



## skypod

Kabraxal said:


> And let's be honest... I'm all for better pay and vacations. Anyone you ask probably is. Just a lot of us don't want the government to use its force to accomplish that. I never want the gov't to feel comfortable exerting force. They should always second guess that as a rule... not "GOV'T SMASH!" being the first fucking thought.



It's that hesitation that puts you into a system where you pay government currently and get barely anything back because no-one holds their feet to the fire. 

In which year do you think business owners will become human beings and offer health insurance and at least 28 days vacation to its employees across the board so that 100% of Americans are covered? And I get the impression from BB that some Americans would actually say no the above because they feel like they don't deserve it or some patriotic garbage like that. 


Still waiting on hearing how Americans in the 50k and below income bracket get more for their taxes than British people do.


----------



## Tater

skypod said:


> It's that hesitation that puts you into a system where you pay government currently and get barely anything back because no-one holds their feet to the fire.
> 
> In which year do you think business owners will become human beings and offer health insurance and at least 28 days vacation to its employees across the board so that 100% of Americans are covered? And I get the impression from BB that some Americans would actually say no the above because they feel like they don't deserve it or some patriotic garbage like that.
> 
> 
> Still waiting on hearing how Americans in the 50k and below income bracket get more for their taxes than British people do.


There are quite a lot of Americans who are so ignorant of history that they are pushing for pre-Great Depression economic policies. Not only do they think that will somehow make things better, they have no idea what will happen next.

Indoctrination is a powerful weapon against the masses.


----------



## Kabraxal

skypod said:


> It's that hesitation that puts you into a system where you pay government currently and get barely anything back because no-one holds their feet to the fire.
> 
> In which year do you think business owners will become human beings and offer health insurance and at least 28 days vacation to its employees across the board so that 100% of Americans are covered? And I get the impression from BB that some Americans would actually say no the above because they feel like they don't deserve it or some patriotic garbage like that.
> 
> 
> Still waiting on hearing how Americans in the 50k and below income bracket get more for their taxes than British people do.


I don't think they will become thoughtful beings. But I'm not an ignorant fool that think the same kind of people that run the gov't will suddenly become anything other than trash. Sorry to break the harsh reality to you... the exact same people running the corporations you hate are running the gov't. They attract the psycopaths and sociopaths in this world. Do you really want to give the power to the gov't, which has FAR MORE power, than to corporations? Yeah, they both suck. But one sucks far worse. 

Luckily for me, I'm intelligent enough to realise you never hand power to the gov't.


----------



## CamillePunk

The communist already gave the game away. Our economy was fantastic and people could support themselves and their families out of high school back when the government was much, much smaller. :draper2 The idea that this could be used as an argument to make the government even bigger now than it's already become is laughably backwards.

What we need to do is get immigration back under control, deport the illegal third-worlders, scale down the welfare state, and make health insurance an actual free market industry. Less government is the solution to the problems that have been created by more government.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> The communist already gave the game away. Our economy was fantastic and people could support themselves and their families out of high school back when the government was much, much smaller. :draper2 The idea that this could be used as an argument to make the government even bigger now than it's already become is laughably backwards.
> 
> What we need to do is get immigration back under control, deport the illegal third-worlders, scale down the welfare state, and make health insurance an actual free market industry. Less government is the solution to the problems that have been created by more government.


This is a comically retarded misrepresentation of my position. But thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Kabraxal

CamillePunk said:


> The communist already gave the game away. Our economy was fantastic and people could support themselves and their families out of high school back when the government was much, much smaller. :draper2 The idea that this could be used as an argument to make the government even bigger now than it's already become is laughably backwards.
> 
> What we need to do is get immigration back under control, deport the illegal third-worlders, scale down the welfare state, and make health insurance an actual free market industry. Less government is the solution to the problems that have been created by more government.


"Nah. We need a nanny with big guns to force us to behave!" 

Like that has actually worked throughout history... some people just can't accept facts sadly.


----------



## virus21

Kabraxal said:


> "Nah. We need a nanny with big guns to force us to behave!"
> 
> Like that has actually worked throughout history... some people just can't accept facts sadly.


Sadly far to many people with far too much influence think that way


----------



## Kabraxal

virus21 said:


> Sadly far to many people with far too much influence think that way


Mixed with far too many people are willing to be servants to those people for... reasons? I never understood the mentality so I really don't know why anyone likes to put authority over themselves into other people's hands.


----------



## CamillePunk

Mexico already sending thousands of troops to its southern border to halt the flow of migrants from Central and South America through Mexico to the US, in an attempt to secure a deal with the US that will avoid Trump's proposed tariffs (which have not yet gone into effect).  Progress.


----------



## Tater

Kabraxal said:


> "Nah. We need a nanny with big guns to force us to behave!"
> 
> Like that has actually worked throughout history... some people just can't accept facts sadly.


Unchecked power in the hands of government has never worked throughout history. You know what else has never worked throughout history? Unchecked power in the hands of private entities.

You are only taking half the step when you decry big government. The problem is not big government. The problem is concentrated power itself, regardless of who is wielding that power. 

Right now we've got a mixture of the 2. Big government and big corporation are all intertwined together. If you only get rid of one without getting rid of the other, we haven't actually solved our problem. We'll just continue ending up right back in this same place.

The answer is decentralization and the breaking up of concentrated power.


----------



## Draykorinee

Can't tick off Venezuela on my big government bingo, come on guys, this is so half hearted.



> For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!


Trump thinks the moon is a part of Mars, you do have to love the buffoon sometimes. However, credit where its due, he got the Mexicans to do 'something', I don't like bully boy tactics but this is a win for him so he can make as many gaffs as he wants right now and his voter base will still suck him off.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

Draykorinee said:


> Can't tick off Venezuela on my big government bingo, come on guys, this is so half hearted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!
> 
> 
> 
> Trump thinks the moon is a part of Mars, you do have to love the buffoon sometimes. However, credit where its due, he got the Mexicans to do 'something', I don't like bully boy tactics but this is a win for him so he can make as many gaffs as he wants right now and his voter base will still suck him off.
Click to expand...

Trump could of worded that tweet better. lol But that's not what he was implying lol It was a reference to NASA building up for the moon to get to Mars. 

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/


----------



## Tater

Pencil Neck Freak said:


> Trump could of worded that tweet better. lol But that's not what he was implying lol It was a reference to NASA building up *for the moon to get to Mars.*
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/


So instead of Trump thinking the moon is a part of Mars, he wants for the moon to get to Mars. Yeah, that makes much more sense. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Pencil Neck Freak said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't tick off Venezuela on my big government bingo, come on guys, this is so half hearted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!
> 
> 
> 
> Trump thinks the moon is a part of Mars, you do have to love the buffoon sometimes. However, credit where its due, he got the Mexicans to do 'something', I don't like bully boy tactics but this is a win for him so he can make as many gaffs as he wants right now and his voter base will still suck him off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump could of worded that tweet better. lol But that's not what he was implying lol It was a reference to NASA building up for the moon to get to Mars.
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/
Click to expand...

Yeah, I assumed it was something like that but couldn't help laugh. It's his usual inability to be consistent that baffles me so often. 

13 May Trump said in a tweet: “We are going back to the moon,” while in March Nasa administrator Jim Bridenstine, who was appointed by Trump, announced plans to send US astronauts to the moon by 2024. In October Mike Pence, the vice-president, said: “Our determination is to see Americans back on the moon in the very near future”.

Now hes having a dig at Nasa for something he encouraged only a month ago.


----------



## Twilight Sky

At some point in his delusional escapade, he'll slap tarriffs on the entire planet.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump wins again as mexico bends the knee and :trump gives them a hand back up to their feet

Very simple negotiating tactic, :trump held the Sword of Damocles over everyone's head (including his own) and said to the Mexicans and to his own negotiating team make a fucking deal I'll swing this damn thing you know I'll swing it if you don't make a fucking deal, they made a fucking deal



Twilight Sky said:


> At some point in his delusional escapade, he'll slap tarriffs on the entire planet.


A deal was announced 11 hours before this post

And you still posted it

:heston


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> Learn how to use the fucking quote function.
> 
> And stop spewing factually incorrect bullshit too based on ideology while you are at it.
> 
> 75-80% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck. Sorry, that is not because people are living above their means. 50-60 years ago a man with a high school education could get a job and buy his home where his wife and kids stayed while he saved for retirement. Do you really want to argue that people could still do that today if they just spend their money more wisely? Cause I'd really love to see you try. Most of the people in the USA just didn't all of a sudden forget how to spend money in the past 50 years. What money they have has lost it's buying power and the money they do make has not kept up with what it costs to live.
> 
> Don't act like this hasn't been done intentionally to the working class by the ruling elite. Every single time we try going even further with your ideology, the working class gets poorer while those at the top get richer. That's by design.
> 
> Just be honest and admit you believe most people should live in poverty while providing a lavish lifestyle for the owner class because then at least you would be honest and wouldn't look foolish arguing that everything would be just fine if people didn't waste all their money.


the average person in america is living in poverty? and you accuse me of not being honest? either you're completely delusional or you are so privileged that you have no conception of what poverty really is :lol

funny disneyland is still always packed. that's not a cheap stay. you still have lines around the block when a new tech item or video game console comes out... or a new pair of sneakers. people pay 40-50 dollars to see an avengers movie in the theater 5 times. there's not enough time to work but they'll binge watch 60 episodes of their favorite show and log 100 hours in a video game.

the spending habits of the average american have absolutely changed, and it's ridiculous that you would even deny that. we didn't even have credit cards at one point one so you had no choice but to live within your means. now people are up to their eyeballs in debt over shit they don't even need. store credit cards, smart phone upgrade plans... all non essential bullshit. 

no one is going to feel sorry for you. you are a privileged person living in a country where you have all the freedom in the world to better yourself and move up the economic ladder. for someone who claims money isn't everything you sure do spend a lot of time whining about people not having enough and resenting other people that do.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> *the average person in america is living in poverty?* and you accuse me of not being honest? either you're completely delusional or you are so privileged that you have no conception of what poverty really is :lol


Show me where I said the average person in America is living in poverty. Your reading comprehension skills are about on par with your ideological beliefs.



> funny disneyland is still always packed. that's not a cheap stay. you still have lines around the block when a new tech item or video game console comes out... or a new pair of sneakers. people pay 40-50 dollars to see an avengers movie in the theater 5 times. there's not enough time to work but they'll binge watch 60 episodes of their favorite show and log 100 hours in a video game.


You have to argue with anecdotal evidence because you can't argue against the big picture.



> the spending habits of the average american have absolutely changed, and it's ridiculous that you would even deny that. *we didn't even have credit cards at one point* one so you had no choice but to live within your means. now people are up to their eyeballs in debt over shit they don't even need. store credit cards, smart phone upgrade plans... all non essential bullshit.


Arguing against credit cards is arguing against your own ideology. It's laughable that you do not realize this.

I happen to agree with you that people shouldn't spend things they do not need with debt they cannot afford. You are factually incorrect to argue that this is the reason why debt is skyrocketing for most of the country while wealth continues accumulating for those at the top. The problem is systemic. Funny how you say people had no choice but to live within their means but you cite a time when people could afford to live without going into debt and still be better off financially than they are today. It's like... you're teetering on the edge of realization but are too terrified to look into what has actually caused all this.



> no one is going to feel sorry for you. you are a privileged person living in a country where you have all the freedom in the world to better yourself and move up the economic ladder. for someone who claims money isn't everything you sure do spend a lot of time whining about people not having enough and resenting other people that do.


More ideological bullshit not based in reality. If you had any grasp on what life is like in most first world countries in comparison to the self proclaimed greatest nation in the world, you might actually realize at some point just how full of shit you really are. Although, I won't be holding my breath. You can't even understand the words that I type, so all you can do is respond with right wing talking points and meaningless cliches.

Here's a newsflash for ya, genius. Not everyone can get the promotion, no matter how hard they work. Somebody has to do the work at the bottom of the rung. We can't populate every store with all managers and no workers. The economic system as it is currently constructed would collapse without the people at the bottom. The difference between you and me is that I don't believe those at the bottom should be treated like shit and you do. You can't even be honest about your own ideology.

Everybody can succeed and move up the ladder if they just work hard! You sound like a fucking pull toy. It's embarrassing. You remind me of someone who would blame the janitor for the Titanic hitting an iceberg because he just didn't keep the floors clean enough for the captain.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

tater have you ever considered that it's not the system and that maybe you're just a real negative person with a negative outlook?



Tater said:


> The problem is not that wealthy people exist. The problem is that poverty exists. The problem is systemic. The system is designed for wealth concentration. There's enough resources to go around that we could have both wealthy people while ending poverty. *But we don't do that. Because we are a failure as a species. Hopefully whatever species takes over after we wipe all ourselves out does a better job with the planet because humans fucking suck.*


^ i mean come on this is bordering on a monologue you'd hear from a comicbook supervillain right before he carries out his evil plan to snap half the human race out of existence. :lol

surely you don't include yourself in that right? i take it you're one of the "good" humans that doesn't deserved to be cleansed?


----------



## deepelemblues

> The system is designed for wealth concentration. There's enough resources to go around that we could have both wealthy people while ending poverty.


The system that is allegedly designed for wealth concentration has eliminated more poverty and distributed wealth more equally in the 150 years it has existed than was the case in the 15,000 years before it. And not more successfully by a little bit, more successfully by exponential amounts

:heston

If you want to reduce poverty and distribute wealth more equally, only ignorance or mendacity can explain opposition to the only system that has successfully done so: capitalism 

Even if you throw "late-stage" in front of it because you're looking to get a rise, despite "late-stage" being an empty term with no meaning whatsoever, other than signifying it's wishcasting time :ha


----------



## DOPA

Elizabeth Warren is not an anti-establishment politician.


----------



## deepelemblues

Only 530 guns have been turned in to New Zealand authorities in the 2 months since their stunning and brave passing of mass gun confiscation that was expected to result in the 1.2-1.5 million privately owned guns in the country to be swiftly and massively reduced in numbers :lol

And people seriously think that they can successfully implement control over 400 million guns in private hands in America when much more left wing New Zealand is straight up ignoring their stunning and brave new gun control laws


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> tater have you ever considered that it's not the system and that maybe you're just a real negative person with a negative outlook?
> 
> 
> 
> ^ i mean come on this is bordering on a monologue you'd hear from a comicbook supervillain right before he carries out his evil plan to snap half the human race out of existence. :lol
> 
> surely you don't include yourself in that right? i take it you're one of the "good" humans that doesn't deserved to be cleansed?


You're a silly person with silly talking points. Yes, the system is fucked. Yes, it is going to collapse. Yes, it is going to screw everyone over even worse than they already have been. Me pointing all of this out has nothing to do whatsoever with my positivity or negativity as a person. It's a sign of intelligence and being able to accurately point out what is going wrong. Hell, it doesn't even take all that much intelligence. I am not the smartest guy in the world. But I can at least tell you that 2+2 does not equal 5. All you have to be is capable of minimal critical thinking skills combined with not being a baaing indoctrinated sheep. That last part is admittedly kind of important.

You can't argue details, so you resort to cliche right wing talking points and meaningless ad hominems about me. It's pathetic and easier to shoot down than a one winged turkey.


----------



## Strike Force

Despite the fact that he's established himself as one of the 5-10 worst presidents of all time, you have to give Trump credit for his absolute lack of fear in negotiations and confrontations. He's been lucky so far in terms of the battles he's chosen, and his recklessness could easily cost his country dearly, but you can't deny that Trump is willing to take risks and genuinely believes that the USA should always be negotiating (threatening?) from a position of strength. I'll give him that.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> You're a silly person with silly talking points. Yes, the system is fucked. Yes, it is going to collapse. Yes, it is going to screw everyone over even worse than they already have been. Me pointing all of this out has nothing to do whatsoever with my positivity or negativity as a person. It's a sign of intelligence and being able to accurately point out what is going wrong. Hell, it doesn't even take all that much intelligence. I am not the smartest guy in the world. But I can at least tell you that 2+2 does not equal 5. All you have to be is capable of minimal critical thinking skills combined with not being a baaing indoctrinated sheep. That last part is admittedly kind of important.
> 
> You can't argue details, so you resort to cliche right wing talking points and meaningless ad hominems about me. It's pathetic and easier to shoot down than a one winged turkey.


it sounds like you want a system that doesn't allow for people to fail, well sorry i don't want that. if you put a floor on someone's failures then that means you must also put a ceiling on someone else's success. that doesn't sound fair to me. i prefer a free country. if you are afraid to provide for yourself and would rather have the govt play nanny... by all means you don't have to live in america. there are plenty of people who would kill to trade places.

you assume that because someone is at the bottom economically that they cannot lead a happy life, well that just isn't true. perhaps you're just a very materialistic person who equates happiness with money. it sounds like your definition of suffering is not having the latest iphone or not being able to take a 14 day vacation in maui at the drop of a dime. if that's what you want out of life then fine, but don't assume it's going to be handed to you.

there are plenty of people out there who live comfortably on 40-50k salary and sleep just fine. if you are living paycheck to paycheck and are 500 dollars away from being totally piss poor, then the problem is you. learn how to live within your means and save money.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Only 530 guns have been turned in to New Zealand authorities in the 2 months since their stunning and brave passing of mass gun confiscation that was expected to result in the 1.2-1.5 million privately owned guns in the country to be swiftly and massively reduced in numbers <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> And people seriously think that they can successfully implement control over 400 million guns in private hands in America when much more left wing New Zealand is straight up ignoring their stunning and brave new gun control laws


They've got till September, you are incorrect on the expectations, there was literally an expectation of tens of thousands out of 1.2 million so at least start from a base of truth.



> "Its a great unknown question...everybody appreciates that there is no register of firearms with regards to the type of firearms we are talking about," Clement said.
> 
> "So It could be in the tens of thousands, it could be more," he added.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> it sounds like you want a system that doesn't allow for people to fail, well sorry i don't want that. if you put a floor on someone's failures then that means you must also put a ceiling on someone else's success. that doesn't sound fair to me. i prefer a free country. if you are afraid to provide for yourself and would rather have the govt play nanny... by all means you don't have to live in america. there are plenty of people who would kill to trade places.


If you don't like America then you can git out! You sound like a parody of a parody. :lol

Or, and here is a mind blowing thought, maybe I love my country and want to see it improved. Crazy, I know.

You prefer a free country, do you? Then you are the one who needs to get out of the USA. We have the largest prison population on the planet. The NSA records everything we do and stores it on a massive server. A patriot like Edward Snowden has to hide in Russia just to escape the torture our government would do to him for exposing their unconstitutional spying. They want nothing more than to execute Julian Assange for showing the world our war crimes. Our government gave free trillions in our taxpayer money to the criminal bankers instead of prosecuting them for the crimes while letting those same criminals steal the homes of millions. Do I even need to get started on how much the military industrial complex is taking from us so they can support their war mongering around the globe?

Land of the free, my ass. You've made a lot of dumb arguments before but arguing that we live in a free country is right up there.

I'm the one who wants to take the power out of the hands of these corrupt oligarchs and give freedom back to the people. You're just talking out of your ass, especially when you accuse me of wanting a nanny state. What about opposing big government do you not understand?



> you assume that because someone is at the bottom economically that they cannot lead a happy life, well that just isn't true. perhaps you're just a very materialistic person who equates happiness with money. it sounds like your definition of suffering is not having the latest iphone or not being able to take a 14 day vacation in maui at the drop of a dime. if that's what you want out of life then fine, but don't assume it's going to be handed to you.


Again with the ad hominems. Who the fuck said anything about new iphones and Hawai'ian vacations? People in the USA can't afford basic fucking housing and keeping their kids fed. I am arguing for the basics, not luxuries. No one in this country should go to bed hungry at night so some rich asshole can buy his 4th yacht. The problem is not that we have rich people. The problem is that the system funnels so much wealth to the top that there isn't enough left over for the people who actually did the work to generate that wealth. 

You keep acting like I want big government to give everyone a hand out when the exact opposite is what I want. What _*I*_ want is for the wealth to stay in the hands of the people who actually generated the wealth.

BTW, I don't need to take a 14 day vacation in Hawai'i. I already live here. I'm not a rich man but I get by. I got everything I have because I moved here on my own and built a life for myself. Remember that the next time you want to wade into ad hominem territory.



> there are plenty of people out there who live comfortably on 40-50k salary and sleep just fine. if you are living paycheck to paycheck and are 500 dollars away from being totally piss poor, then the problem is you. learn how to live within your means and save money.


See, this is what you fail to grasp. What you are saying people should do is not possible within this current system. Everyone can do everything exactly right by your standards and they would still be living paycheck to paycheck. Get that through your skull. The problem is not people spending their money unwisely. The problem is the system. Until you can understand that one simple concept, this will keep flying right over your head.


----------



## deepelemblues

Fascistbook is deleting posts that consist of the word honk

Because of that silly clown pepe meme

The world is officially a Mel Brooks movie


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

@tater

i don't know where you get your data from but the average person in america is living nowhere near as badly as you pretend, otherwise these mega retail corporations wouldn't be able to stand. 

how else do you think starbucks can sustain over 28,000 locations? how else do you think they managed to gross over 22 billion dollars last year? you're telling me the average person in america is struggling and living check to check but they can afford 6 bucks on a fancy coffee drink? 

does this not suggest that the average person is doing just fine and has money to spare?


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> @tater
> 
> i don't know where you get your data from


Might I suggest a follow for you?

Check out David Stockman on Twitter. https://twitter.com/DA_Stockman

He's a right wing economist and a Reagan guy. He was Reagan's budget director and even he can see the crash course our economy is on. He tweets out actual facts every day showing just how fucked we are right now. He is one of my top sources for data.

Of course, we have very different ideas on how to fix the problems but he very accurately points out what the problems are. Just the same as far left economist, Richard Wolff. https://twitter.com/profwolff He also regularly tweets out economic facts showing how fucked we are.

One is a far right wing economist and one is a far left wing economist and even though they both have very different solutions to fix what is wrong, they both accurately point out what the problems are.

So if the lefty and the righty economists agree that we're fucked, you can damned well better believe we are fucked. I know you want to believe I am some lefty loon only getting my news from one side but I listen to Stockman just as much as I listen Wolff.

Stockman's YT channel.

Wolff's YT channel.

Don't listen to me. Listen to the actual economists. Our economy is fucked and a massive crash is going to happen. What we are doing is not sustainable. We should be arguing over what should be done to fix it. Spewing cliches and talking points about working hard and spending your money properly accomplishes nothing when the system is as broken as ours is. Acting like everything would be just fine if people were more fiscally responsible is not an argument based in reality. Yes, you're right, of course that is what people should be doing, but the economy is so fucked right now that it's impossible.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

i mean that's great and all but i really was curious to hear your thoughts regarding my question.

could a retail business like starbucks, an operation that sells overpriced coffee, really thrive in an economy where the average person is struggling and doesn't have money to spare?

if the average american is doing so poorly, could you explain the success of a company like starbucks?


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i mean that's great and all but i really was curious to hear your thoughts regarding my question.
> 
> could a retail business like starbucks, an operation that sells overpriced coffee, really thrive in an economy where the average person is struggling and doesn't have money to spare?
> 
> if the average american is doing so poorly, could you explain the success of a company like starbucks?


You're not asking the right questions. I don't give two shits about Starbucks. Their existence in and of itself does not prove anything one way or the other. I'm looking at the big picture here.

This is the same argument people with your point of view always makes right before a big crash happens. The good times will never end! Look, the unemployment rate is low! People are buying coffee! Meanwhile, the cliff keeps getting closer.

Do you know why they called it the Roaring 20s? They thought the good times would never end that time either. We are now in a situation where I could point to a long list of economic numbers that are just as bad as they were then or are even worse. It doesn't take a genius to learn from history and see how it repeats itself when people make the same mistakes.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> You're not asking the right questions. I don't give two shits about Starbucks. Their existence in and of itself does not prove anything one way or the other. I'm looking at the big picture here.
> 
> This is the same argument people with your point of view always makes right before a big crash happens. The good times will never end! Look, the unemployment rate is low! People are buying coffee! Meanwhile, the cliff keeps getting closer.
> 
> Do you know why they called it the Roaring 20s? They thought the good times would never end that time either. We are now in a situation where I could point to a long list of economic numbers that are just as bad as they were then or are even worse. It doesn't take a genius to learn from history and see how it repeats itself when people make the same mistakes.


i feel like you're changing the subject. we weren't talking about the likelihood of there being an economic crash, we were talking about life for the average american. you claimed that the working class was failing under the system, that there wasn't enough wealth funneling down and that the average person was living paycheck to paycheck struggling to make ends meet. there is simply no way for that to be true considering the amount of money being spent collectively on non-essential items. 

with all due respect i think the reason you don't want to talk about starbucks is because their very existence exposes the falsehoods of your narrative.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Berzerker's Beard said:


> @tater
> 
> i don't know where you get your data from but the average person in america is living nowhere near as badly as you pretend, otherwise these mega retail corporations wouldn't be able to stand.
> 
> how else do you think starbucks can sustain over 28,000 locations? how else do you think they managed to gross over 22 billion dollars last year? you're telling me the average person in america is struggling and living check to check but they can afford 6 bucks on a fancy coffee drink?
> 
> does this not suggest that the average person is doing just fine and has money to spare?


Be honest, how old are you?


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1137568535977385994
"hoebiz"... :lmao What is :trump suggesting? Or does he not know how to spell? Still delving into the mysteries of _covfefe_. :drose


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1137568535977385994
> "hoebiz"... :lmao What is :trump suggesting? Or does he not know how to spell? Still delving into the mysteries of _covfefe_. :drose




Honestly what is wrong with this man? He's not right in the head.

Put aside the spelling for a second, he's the POTUS FFS why does he think it's in any way appropriate to tweet about this shit? Oh wait that's a word he doesn't understand. Another one.


----------



## Viper87

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1137568535977385994
> "hoebiz"... :lmao What is :trump suggesting? Or does he not know how to spell? Still delving into the mysteries of _covfefe_. :drose




Nice of him to use his direct line to the people to call out Donny Deuch and all these other Democrat mass media clowns who have and continue to falsely slander him and his presidency since before he was even sworn in.


----------



## Blisstory

Nothing to add, I just like opening this thread to be reminded Trump is still President :trump


----------



## yeahbaby!

Blisstory said:


> Nothing to add, I just like opening this thread to be reminded Trump is still President :trump


You need a WF thread to realise that? I would've thought the jobs falling from the sky, the booming economy, the de-weaponisation of NK that Trump achieved would be reminder enough.


----------



## Viper87

Blisstory said:


> Nothing to add, I just like opening this thread to be reminded Trump is still President :trump


Haha, the little joys of life


----------



## Arkham258

Best president ever, but even though he keeps winning and is on track to get re-elected based on many polls and predictions, some people still won't admit it

And as desperate democrats keep grasping at straws for a reason to impeach him while Trump haters keep crying I'm just like...


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i feel like you're changing the subject. we weren't talking about the likelihood of there being an economic crash, we were talking about life for the average american. you claimed that the working class was failing under the system, that there wasn't enough wealth funneling down and that the average person was living paycheck to paycheck struggling to make ends meet. there is simply no way for that to be true considering the amount of money being spent collectively on non-essential items.
> 
> with all due respect i think the reason you don't want to talk about starbucks is because their very existence exposes the falsehoods of your narrative.


I'm the one changing the subject when I've been talking big picture the entire time and you've responded with nothing but cliches and ad hominems. Riiiiiiight.

But okay. Let's play this game. Let's play dunk on your retarded talking Starbucks talking point. Oh hey, I'm a right winger and all these idiot poor people wouldn't be poor if they would just stop spending on anything but the bare minimum. Wait, oh shit, the economy just crashed because nobody is spending money anymore. 

See how that works? See how retarded your talking point is? It is a GOOD thing for the working class to have disposable income. Right wingers like to bitch at them for buying a cup of coffee but they never really think that one all the way through. They don't actually want people to stop spending money on the economy because the economy does not function when velocity of money comes to a screeching halt. They just want to use it as one of their retarded ass talking points.

You give yourself away with your wealth funneling down comment. You've got things completely backasswards, per usual. It's the working class who generates that wealth. It's capitalism that funnels it to the top. There is no funneling down. There is only what little remains after the capitalists take the bulk share for themselves.

You want to get rid of the leeches in society, do you not? Then you should be advocating to get rid of the capitalists who leech off everyone else's hard work. Keep the wealth in the hands of the people who actually did the work to generate that wealth. Problem solved.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> I'm the one changing the subject when I've been talking big picture the entire time and you've responded with nothing but cliches and ad hominems. Riiiiiiight.
> 
> But okay. Let's play this game. Let's play dunk on your retarded talking Starbucks talking point. Oh hey, I'm a right winger and all these idiot poor people wouldn't be poor if they would just stop spending on anything but the bare minimum. Wait, oh shit, the economy just crashed because nobody is spending money anymore.
> 
> See how that works? See how retarded your talking point is? *It is a GOOD thing for the working class to have disposable income.* Right wingers like to bitch at them for buying a cup of coffee but they never really think that one all the way through. They don't actually want people to stop spending money on the economy because the economy does not function when velocity of money comes to a screeching halt. They just want to use it as one of their retarded ass talking points.
> 
> You give yourself away with your wealth funneling down comment. You've got things completely backasswards, per usual. It's the working class who generates that wealth. It's capitalism that funnels it to the top. There is no funneling down. There is only what little remains after the capitalists take the bulk share for themselves.
> 
> You want to get rid of the leeches in society, do you not? Then you should be advocating to get rid of the capitalists who leech off everyone else's hard work. Keep the wealth in the hands of the people who actually did the work to generate that wealth. Problem solved.


yeah no shit sherlock, that's what i've been trying to tell you. the average working person in america DOES have disposable income. we are not a nation of working peasants. quite the opposite in fact.

you were the one claiming otherwise.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Arkham258 said:


> Best president ever, but even though he keeps winning and is on track to get re-elected based on many polls and predictions, some people still won't admit it


Probably because the last time this happened, Clinton was heavily favored and she lost.

Also, "best president ever" :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Viper87

Tater said:


> I'm the one changing the subject when I've been talking big picture the entire time and you've responded with nothing but cliches and ad hominems. Riiiiiiight.
> 
> But okay. Let's play this game. Let's play dunk on your retarded talking Starbucks talking point. Oh hey, I'm a right winger and all these idiot poor people wouldn't be poor if they would just stop spending on anything but the bare minimum. Wait, oh shit, the economy just crashed because nobody is spending money anymore.
> 
> See how that works? See how retarded your talking point is? It is a GOOD thing for the working class to have disposable income. Right wingers like to bitch at them for buying a cup of coffee but they never really think that one all the way through. They don't actually want people to stop spending money on the economy because the economy does not function when velocity of money comes to a screeching halt. They just want to use it as one of their retarded ass talking points.
> 
> You give yourself away with your wealth funneling down comment. You've got things completely backasswards, per usual. It's the working class who generates that wealth. It's capitalism that funnels it to the top. There is no funneling down. There is only what little remains after the capitalists take the bulk share for themselves.
> 
> You want to get rid of the leeches in society, do you not? Then you should be advocating to get rid of the capitalists who leech off everyone else's hard work. Keep the wealth in the hands of the people who actually did the work to generate that wealth. Problem solved.


What do have against people running these companies making money...specifically big businesses? They have the idea, often starting small, and after time and success are able to expand their businesses; thus being able to employ more people to various jobs and honest day's work in the business that help keep up supply for the demand, contribute to the economy and puts food on these people's tables. 
The rich people you are complaining about have the idea, build up their businesses, lay out the capital and generally take the risks financially, submit business plans and wisely invest the profits back into the business and other areas which allow the business to grow and continue employ more people.

You want all the workers to get the bulk of the money? Why? They are employed by someone else to maintain the business operations (whether that involves working behind a counter, driving a truck, sorting and buying inventory, managing the financials, managing the human resources, etc). Some people will be paid better or get more benefit depending on the nature, skill required and scarcity of the job they perform but ultimately they get what they agree to. Nobody if forcing these people to work in a job if they aren't happy with their pay.

What in your mind do you have against capitalists and capitalism (AKA the free market)? Thanks to these "capitalists" taking all the risks and having the vision, people today (yes even those in the lower income brackets) are able to live better overall quality lives, with more services and goods available easily and often in plentiful amounts. 
If you want a coffee you can go to the corner store or go to a Starbucks, or order a coffee online somewhere. You are spoiled for choice in a supermarket for all the different food you can buy potentially at any second (vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, processed food, organic food, healthy food, junk food, raw food, cooked food, fast food)(Want cookies and cake, take you pick. Want vanilla frosting, do you want strawberry frosting, do you want chocolate frosting, you you whole grain mixture, do you want smooth mixture, do you want raw ingredients, easy bake ingredients, a ready made cake from the bakery, big, small, 1, 2, 10, etc).
You have more choice, easily available at your disposal than at any time in recorded human history, which wouldn't be possible without these rich "evil" "capitalists" getting off their ass and getting the ball rolling, starting small and earning their way. Compared to decades ago and previous generations, you (and us all) are living by comparison better than kings of previous eras in history. 

Ungrateful is what you are. Or maybe spoiled and entitled is more like it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Not sure giving the credit to the oligarchs and 1% for the social and societal changes pushed through in the face of capitalism is the right route to go.

But you do you.

The main reason we don't have abject poverty is through curtailing capatilism through regulation and social, programming. I'm not against capatilism but let's not go giving capatilism all the credit for something it only has a part to play in. You only need to look at developing countries to see what unfettered capatilism does.

Capatalism was built on the near enslavement of people and it still continues to this day.


----------



## 7x0v

Trump saved America. He knows how to make it great again. More Norway immigration, deporting all illegals, building the wall, made in USA products, more jobs, less welfare, etc.

He is completely correct.

All these things should've been done a long time ago, but no president had the nerve say it. If it weren't for Trump, this country would be filling up with illegal immigrants and gang members, even more so than it already is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Wow this thread is even more of a shit show and all these rejoiners coming back in under new names SMH

have fun people, im done with this thread.


----------



## Viper87

Draykorinee said:


> Not sure giving the credit to the oligarchs and 1% for the social and societal changes pushed through in the face of capitalism is the right route to go.
> 
> But you do you.
> 
> The main reason we don't have abject poverty is through curtailing capatilism through regulation and social, programming. I'm not against capatilism but let's not go giving capatilism all the credit for something it only has a part to play in. You only need to look at developing countries to see what unfettered capatilism does.
> 
> *Capatalism was built on the near enslavement of people and it still continues to this day.*


"Capitalism"/The Free Market allows people to do what they want, create whatever business they want, pay people what they want, allows people to decide what sector of the economy they want to work in, decide if they feel like accepting a job or not, accepting the terms that go-hand in hand with said job or not, allows people to spend their money however the hell they feel like.
A person's time is precious and because so much of it (generally) is required throughout the course of a day, or a week, or a month, or a year, or a lifetime; the payment is reimbursement for that time that they could otherwise be doing something else. Depending on the type of sector, or work that someone does, they have the ability to negotiate the reimbursement for their time and enter into it as a mutually agreed business contract. People working lower end jobs maybe are or are not as luckily or maybe don't have as much, if any negotiating power. They can balance this out by becoming better skilled, more valuable or further their qualifications and moving on to better opportunity elsewhere. Some are able to still make good, decent livings for their families.

Socialism dictate everything from the top down for the collective, dictates which sector and jobs are needed and dictates who will be working in those jobs and dictates for exactly how much they will be paid and exactly how big a chunk of their money will be ripped away by the state to spend elsewhere on whatever they decide it is for.

Under this system, the time put into their labor is effectively being stolen away from them.

Some US states are already implementing similar anti liberty policies by taxing people through the nose for this thing, that thing and the other and whatever else they can get a cut from, particular in heavy blue states like New York or California, where in the case of the former the people are taxed endlessly and even heavily if they pass away (the sate takes a steep cut of the estate) or if people have had enough and want to move elsewhere they are taxed yet again for that.

It is very clear to anyone of even modest intelligence which system is the one that enslaves people. 

Like it or not, the world operates in such a way that people have to work in some form or fashion to live. Very few get the luxury of getting by doing nothing at all or things that would be a dream for anyone else like playing sports for example. And even then those people are devoting countless hours of their lives to it and are being rewarded for that investment in time financially.

There's nobody is an slave as you suggest under the free market. If people aren't happy they can quit their job and go elsewhere where they would feel less "enslaved". Good luck trying trying that in socialist states where the government makes all the decisions and decides how much of the states money they will keep and where the rest goes, to hell with the people as far as they're concerned (EG: See Venezuela) .

You talk tough but would fold like paper if you had to live in one of those countries, not realizing how good you have it in your country (assuming you are in fact fro the US).


You talk about elsewhere in the world. As someone from one of those developing countries in the world that operates under a free market system yet also implements many socialist style welfare and racial transformation policies, it has nothing to do with the free market. It has everything to do with corrupt and abusive government, stealing state funds paid for by taxes a small minority of the country that has to curry the burden of the majority of the country who is does not pay taxes (due to being either low skilled, or breaking the law or suffering from entitlement). These taxes which would then go to maintaining infrastructure like roads, paying teachers, maintaining government run hospital and medical centres, and other such things then go to a bloated government (made up of countless government departments of which many don't need to exist in the first place, ministers as well as deputy ministers and their assistant deputy ministers in each department) who loot the state coffers outright and spend it on themselves. They tax and want registration fees for almost anything across almost every sector of our modern society and then abuse their office by stealing these funds, which are sorely needed, on themselves. 

Such discrepancies between haves and have nots around here have nothing to do with "capitalism", but a failing of goverement that overtaxes, government run utilities like municipalities and electricity that are mismanaged (of which there is no free market competition in this regard but merely 1 single government owned and operated electricity supplier throughout the country which is also rife with corruption, every other year asks for a heavy increase from consumers and then squanders the funds, leading to lack of infrastructure maintenance and multiple rounds of near economy crippling countrywide power cuts from 2008 until present day) resulting in the effective stealing of our time and labor with little tangible benefit derived from these taxes. That's got nothing to do with capitalism/the free market and everything to do with a failed country that prioritizes its grip on power over the needs of all it's people. 

The free market here at least helps in so far as people can still choose what they want to do for a living and have the potential through merit, or further development of skills, education, longevity perhaps to earn a good enough living that if they earn enough can stay above the inflation against better world currencies, taxation and government sponsored theft of your earnings (since only a small portion of the taxes collected actually are used for what they are meant to be used for).

And it's clear to see from the policy decisions in blue states in the US, the cesspool that has become cities like San Francisco and the mad quest for power by those of the left and progressive Democrat establishment that your country will slowly go the same way if such radical people are allowed to assume and further pervert your very laws and constitution to cling to power.


----------



## Draykorinee

Viper87 said:


> And it's clear to see from the policy decisions in blue states in the US, the cesspool that has become cities like San Francisco and the mad quest for power by those of the left and progressive Democrat establishment that your country will slowly go the same way if such radical people are allowed to assume and further pervert your very laws and constitution to cling to power.


I'm from the UK. The rest of your tirade was either based on a childish view of capatalism and/or strawmanning as you're randomly throwing in socialism in to a discussion that isn't about that. At least you got Venezuela in there, we can tick that off the conflating social democracy with socialism bingo card.

Venezuela is to the right what Nazi is to the left, thrown out by people who have no idea what they're on about.


----------



## 7x0v

birthday_massacre said:


> Wow this thread is even more of a shit show and all these rejoiners coming back in under new names SMH
> 
> have fun people, im done with this thread.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-wants-less-shthole-immigrants-more-norwegians

:agree:


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> yeah no shit sherlock, that's what i've been trying to tell you. the average working person in america DOES have disposable income. we are not a nation of working peasants. quite the opposite in fact.
> 
> you were the one claiming otherwise.


Hey, you bought a cup of coffee, so you must be able to save for retirement and put your kids through college all the while keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table.

Jesus tap dancing Christ are you seriously incapable of understanding the difference between being able to buy a cup of coffee and being able to afford the big ticket items needed to survive in this society? You proclaiming victory in your mind because someone bought a 5 dollar cup of coffee while the bank takes their house from them is the stupidest point yet of this conversation.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1136637646963388417


> Millennial Economic Prospects---No Unicorns Or Rainbows Need Apply
> By David Stockman. Posted On Thursday, June 6th, 2019
> 
> The net worth of millennials (18- to 35-year-old) has collapsed 34% since 1996, according to a new, shocking report from Deloitte. Millennials are financially worse off than any other generation before them. With student loans, auto and credit card debts, rising rents, and out of control, health-care costs have pushed their average net worth below $8,000.


I point out that people are being crushed by student and car loans for example and your response is that they bought a cup of coffee and you apparently do not even understand how retarded your response is. fpalm One costs 5 bucks. The others costs tens of thousands of dollars. See if you can spot the difference.


----------



## Draykorinee

Millenials buy avocado toast and then complain about not being able to buy a house don't they?


----------



## Viper87

Draykorinee said:


> I'm from the UK. The rest of your tirade was either based on a childish view of capatalism and/or strawmanning as you're randomly throwing in socialism in to a discussion that isn't about that. At least you got Venezuela in there, we can tick that off the conflating social democracy with socialism bingo card.
> 
> Venezuela is to the right what Nazi is to the left, thrown out by people who have no idea what they're on about.


Yeah well I'm from South Africa, your countries former colony and part of the Commonwealth. This country is a mess so I can appreciate ones that work.

If you're such an expert, explain Venezuela?

Hopefully terrorist sympathizing Corbin doesn't gain the Prime Minister vote to avoid the deterioration of the UK and hopefully London can survive the vile reign of Sadiq Khan (another terrorist sympathizer and apologist) without too much consequence by the time his run as mayor is up and hopefully quietly f***s off into obscurity.


----------



## Draykorinee

Viper87 said:


> Yeah well I'm from South Africa, your countries former colony and part of the Commonwealth. This country is a mess so I can appreciate ones that work.
> 
> If you're such an expert, explain Venezuela?
> 
> Hopefully terrorist sympathizing Corbin doesn't gain the Prime Minister vote to avoid the deterioration of the UK and hopefully London can survive the vile reign of Sadiq Khan (another terrorist sympathizer and apologist) without too much consequence by the time his run as mayor is up and hopefully quietly f***s off into obscurity.


A jumbled mix of right wing talking points that don't really go anywhere.


----------



## Viper87

Draykorinee said:


> A jumbled mix of right wing talking points that don't really go anywhere.


That's a lazy answer


----------



## Draykorinee

Viper87 said:


> That's a lazy answer


For a lazy question. IDGAF about Venezuela, its a failed socialist lite state that has been hammered by American sanctions. I. Do. No. Support. Socialism.


----------



## Viper87

Draykorinee said:


> For a lazy question. IDGAF about Venezuela, its a failed socialist lite state that has been hammered by American sanctions. *I. Do. No. Support. Socialism.*


Okay, fair play to that. Finally something we can agree on.

:nod


----------



## deepelemblues

> You only need to look at developing countries to see what unfettered capatilism does.


Dramatic reductions in poverty and increases in the quality of material life? 

Not sure what "unfettered capatilism" means, there is not an example of it occurring at any time in a developing country as most of them went socialist immediately after independence for a shorter or greater period of years

We could look at the example of India, which immediately went central planning and state control for 4 decades after 1947 and achieved very little success in "developing" the country or reducing poverty until socialism was jettisoned for capitalism in the late 80s/early 90s. Save in the area of agriculture, the only economic sector where the Indian government somewhat took the heavy hand of itself off the enterprise in the 1970s, and which was the sector of India's economy that saw the most success prior to the general liberalization of a generation ago

Oh, we're not talking about facts, we're talking about narratives, as evidenced by this:



> Capatalism was built on the near enslavement of people and it still continues to this day.


But perhaps capatalism is something different from capitalism. Sorry couldn't resist that one :trolldog

But the idea that capitalism was built on either the enslavement or near enslavement of people is patently false, as any glance at economic data available from the time of early capitalism shows. The earliest expression of capitalism was, of course, the shift from the manorial system, where rent on land was paid for by labor or in kind, to the freeholding system, where the peasant farmer paid his rent in money and soon thereafter swapped and purchased tracts in the common fields to give himself a compact piece of land that he soon thereafter purchased from the lord, freeing himself from most or all feudal obligations. This happened because the lord of the manor found, that with the rise of towns where he could sell the surplus of his manor (the rise of towns being another capitalist beginning), there was incentive to encourage the production of surpluses, and the serf found that the lord of the manor was willing to pay money for said surplus, money that could be paid in lieu of the corvee or other feudal obligations. Of course this process was not uniform over even a single country like England (where the most documentary evidence from that time exists), but from the very beginning capitalism has signified a liberalization of economic and political power structures and relationships away from a small elite towards the masses

I would be glad to move on from the 14th and 15th centuries to the 16th, 17th, and 18th, where we see even greater trends of individual freedom paired with the growth of what would later be identified as capitalism. Or capatalism. Or even capatilism



> For a lazy question. IDGAF about Venezuela, its a failed socialist lite state that has been hammered by American sanctions. I. Do. No. Support. Socialism.


And yet you belie your claim by asserting that Venezuela is a "socialist lite" system with the implication that much of the damage has been caused by American sanctions, when an examination of the chronology alone shows that is false, much less a holistic examination

You. Do. Support. Socialism. You. Get. Very. Defensive. And. Annoyed. When. Socialism's. Failures. Get. Pointed. Out. And. Jump. To. Employ. The. No. True. Scotsman. Fallacy. And. Also. Desperately. Cast. About. For. Ways. To. Blame. Some. Other. Cause


----------



## skypod

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you assume that because someone is at the bottom economically that they cannot lead a happy life, well that just isn't true. perhaps you're just a very materialistic person who equates happiness with money. it sounds like your definition of suffering is not having the latest iphone or not being able to take a 14 day vacation in maui at the drop of a dime. if that's what you want out of life then fine, but don't assume it's going to be handed to you.
> 
> there are plenty of people out there who live comfortably on 40-50k salary and sleep just fine. if you are living paycheck to paycheck and are 500 dollars away from being totally piss poor, then the problem is you. learn how to live within your means and save money.




Agreed. We should tax people earning over 100K 50% because as you just said, people can live happily on half of that :laugh: You're starting to sound a bit like a socialist, honestly.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> You. Do. Support. Socialism. You. Get. Very. Defensive. And. Annoyed. When. Socialism's. Failures. Get. Pointed. Out. And. Jump. To. Employ. The. No. True. Scotsman. Fallacy. And. Also. Desperately. Cast. About. For. Ways. To. Blame. Some. Other. Cause


I never said sanctions were the main cause, I said they were hammered by sanctions.

I don't support socialism, you can throw random aspersion about me defending socialism when I never have. 

Let me make it clear, Socialist states don't work and should not be anyones objective. Good day troll.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'll give Dray the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.


----------



## deepelemblues

skypod said:


> Agreed. We should tax people earning over 100K 50% because as you just said, people can live happily on half of that :laugh: You're starting to sound a bit like a socialist, honestly.


What passes for wit is really disappointing in current year


----------



## yeahbaby!

Tater said:


> Hey, you bought a cup of coffee, so you must be able to save for retirement and put your kids through college all the while keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table.
> 
> Jesus tap dancing Christ are you seriously incapable of understanding the difference between being able to buy a cup of coffee and being able to afford the big ticket items needed to survive in this society? You proclaiming victory in your mind because someone bought a 5 dollar cup of coffee while the bank takes their house from them is the stupidest point yet of this conversation.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1136637646963388417
> 
> I point out that people are being crushed by student and car loans for example and your response is that they bought a cup of coffee and you apparently do not even understand how retarded your response is. fpalm One costs 5 bucks. The others costs tens of thousands of dollars. See if you can spot the difference.


Don't you get it dude? That percentage is simply not smart enough to work themselves up the chain or don't have the inclination, they're lazy. Either that or they spend too much on dinner. Poor economic management.

These young kids these days want everything handed to them!!!

Everyone is in complete control of their financial destiny. What societal conditions? How does an economy work anyway?

:trump

:heston


----------



## 7x0v

Trump is the best president. More Norway immigration, deport all illegals, less welfare, etc. Trump 2020


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> Hey, you bought a cup of coffee, so you must be able to save for retirement and put your kids through college all the while keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table.
> 
> Jesus tap dancing Christ are you seriously incapable of understanding the difference between being able to buy a cup of coffee and being able to afford the big ticket items needed to survive in this society? You proclaiming victory in your mind because someone bought a 5 dollar cup of coffee while the bank takes their house from them is the stupidest point yet of this conversation.
> 
> I point out that people are being crushed by student and car loans for example and your response is that they bought a cup of coffee and you apparently do not even understand how retarded your response is. fpalm One costs 5 bucks. The others costs tens of thousands of dollars. See if you can spot the difference.


if someone routinely spends 5 dollars on a cup of coffee, it can only mean one of two things. 

either:


- that person is doing just fine economically and has money to spare on non essential luxury items

- that person is not doing fine economically and is careless with what little money they have


these are the facts. only a spoiled and entitled person would dispute this. no one 'needs' a 5-6 dollar coffee drink.

and if someone does fall into that second category, believe me it doesn't end at starbucks. if they're liable to waste money on coffee god knows what else they are liable to waste money on.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

"i'm oppressed and subjugated by an unfair economic system"

- said tater as he took a sip of his venti iced caramel machiato he paid $6 for.

:lol


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> "i'm oppressed and subjugated by an unfair economic system"
> 
> - said tater as he took a sip of his venti iced caramel machiato he paid $6 for.
> 
> :lol


Sounds disgusting. I don't go to Starbucks but nice ad hominem.

Do you know why your avocado toast argument is so retarded? Because no matter how you try to spin it, the math will never be on your side. And that's why you have to resort to it. Because you cannot reply to the hard economic facts I have posted with a substantive response. 

If everyone in the USA lived by your standards, they would still be struggling to get by and it would make the economy even more fucked up than it already is. If everyone cut all spending on anything that is not the bare essentials, they still would not be able to buy a home and keep the family fed and save for retirement, etc. This is a basic economic fact that your Shitbucks argument will never be capable of addressing.


----------



## virus21

Im shock people even go to Starbucks. Paying that much for shit coffee.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> Sounds disgusting. I don't go to Starbucks but nice ad hominem.
> 
> Do you know why your avocado toast argument is so retarded? Because no matter how you try to spin it, the math will never be on your side. And that's why you have to resort to it. Because you cannot reply to the hard economic facts I have posted with a substantive response.


uh... the math is on my side? they have 28,000 locations in the US alone. that's an average of 500 starbucks per each state. clearly there is a growing demand for 5 dollar caramel lattes or else this wouldn't be the case. they would be a niche market in upper class communities, not a national chain that has locations in rest stops along the freeway. 

but by all means keep ignoring this blatant fact of reality and cling to graphs you pulled from the internet.



Tater said:


> If everyone in the USA lived by your standards, they would still be struggling to get by and it would make the economy even more fucked up than it already is. If everyone cut all spending on anything that is not the bare essentials, they still would not be able to buy a home and keep the family fed and save for retirement, etc. This is a basic economic fact that your Shitbucks argument will never be capable of addressing.


how about if you can't afford a home, maybe you shouldn't buy one? i'm sorry do you hold the belief that everyone who lives and breathes is entitled to own their own house? 

even if you are at the bottom of the economic ladder, there is a multitude of trades and skills that afford one the ability to make decent money. so long as you are literate and motivated to work... no american is more than a few years away from being able to earn a comfortable living.

but it would require actually doing it, not complaining and waiting for someone to hand it to you.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

virus21 said:


> Im shock people even go to Starbucks. Paying that much for shit coffee.


america spent 22 billion on starbucks last year.

if everyone took that money they intended to spend at starbucks and donated it to a charity fund instead, i'm sure that money could solve a multitude of societal issues.

but it's easier for politicians to point the finger and blame something else as opposed to asking the average person to go without starbucks.


----------



## Mr.Monkey




----------



## Crona

Berzerker's Beard said:


> america spent 22 billion on starbucks last year.
> 
> if everyone took that money they intended to spend at starbucks and donated it to a charity fund instead, i'm sure that money could solve a multitude of societal issues.
> 
> but it's easier for politicians to point the finger and blame something else as opposed to asking the average person to go without starbucks.


Are you seriously living and dying on the hill of "Starbucks is successful therefore the average person is not poor"? Sound out your argument to see how dumb it sounds. Actually sound it out. Or not, you do you.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Crona said:


> Are you seriously living and dying on the hill of "Starbucks is successful therefore the average person is not poor"? Sound out your argument to see how dumb it sounds. Actually sound it out. Or not, you do you.


poor people can afford 5 dollar lattes? :lol

sounds like a pretty great country (Y)


----------



## yeahbaby!

Trump is a starbucks fan. He accounted for atleast 1 billion of that from the taxpayer.


----------



## Miss Sally

While people do spend money on stupid crap, such as shoes, coffee and the latest tech. There is still no denying that the opportunities are fading and the wealth gap increasing.

This isn't completely on Millennials, sure we're mostly boomers 2.0 but unlike boomers who inherited a debt free society from the generation that actually accomplished something. Millenials inherited debt an aging infrastructure and robber barons running everything. 

Let's look at the 50's and 60's, cars, houses and common goods were affordable. Health Care had plenty of Doctors/Nurses, schooling was cheap and for people who actually were smart and jobs were plentiful. You could apply for a job and get trained for it and today you'd need two degrees and to give the interviewer a blowjob just to get an intern position. Items such as TVs and Stereos etc were expensive and that's because they were luxuries! The culture was to get the basics and get a career.

Nowadays it's the opposite, luxuries are cheap, stuff you need is insanely expensive and cheaply made. Now the culture is endless consumption fueled by people who were never taught any better by their parents or schools. People who spend because the outlook of no real jobs and crushing debt is depressing. People who get full of ideological spunk and then find out it's absolutely meaningless and guess what, you owe loads of money! If you're smart and get a useful career, you're still on the hook with years of debt! Those Colleges that once taught fundamental knowledge have to get money for their pointless sports programs, insane professor salaries and garbage feel good classes. 

People have a right to complain, we're fucked! Automation will replace jobs, cheap slave labor will keep workers from making a real living and foreign workers are cheaper to ship over so fuck you and your College degree, go train your replacement. Meanwhile the multi-millionaires are now billionaires and you're stuck trying to squeak out a middle class living that is going to become more and more meaningless each year.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Miss Sally said:


> While people do spend money on stupid crap, such as shoes, coffee and the latest tech. There is still no denying that the opportunities are fading and the wealth gap increasing.
> 
> This isn't completely on Millennials, sure we're mostly boomers 2.0 but unlike boomers who inherited a debt free society from the generation that actually accomplished something. Millenials inherited debt an aging infrastructure and robber barons running everything.
> 
> Let's look at the 50's and 60's, cars, houses and common goods were affordable. Health Care had plenty of Doctors/Nurses, schooling was cheap and for people who actually were smart and jobs were plentiful. You could apply for a job and get trained for it and today you'd need two degrees and to give the interviewer a blowjob just to get an intern position. Items such as TVs and Stereos etc were expensive and that's because they were luxuries! The culture was to get the basics and get a career.
> 
> Nowadays it's the opposite, luxuries are cheap, stuff you need is insanely expensive and cheaply made. Now the culture is endless consumption fueled by people who were never taught any better by their parents or schools. People who spend because the outlook of no real jobs and crushing debt is depressing. People who get full of ideological spunk and then find out it's absolutely meaningless and guess what, you owe loads of money! If you're smart and get a useful career, you're still on the hook with years of debt! Those Colleges that once taught fundamental knowledge have to get money for their pointless sports programs, insane professor salaries and garbage feel good classes.
> 
> People have a right to complain, we're fucked! Automation will replace jobs, cheap slave labor will keep workers from making a real living and foreign workers are cheaper to ship over so fuck you and your College degree, go train your replacement. Meanwhile the multi-millionaires are now billionaires and you're stuck trying to squeak out a middle class living that is going to become more and more meaningless each year.


i don't agree that there aren't jobs available. there is always a demand for tradespeople and skilled workers. milennials for the most part just tend to look down on that type of work. they think they're too good for it. they envision themselves in some comfy office job or media job where they get paid to do nothing.

they were raised on hip-hop and mtv cribs, they see their favorite celebs on IG sporting designer brands and taking exotic trips. nobody looks up to the blue collar working man anymore. they would never consider being a plumber for instance because that would mean they aren't the unique and special snowflake their parents told them they were. it's too rough and too dirty. no they *need* to shoot for the stars and make a living as an entrepreneur or social media vlogger or some other fantasy job.

but hey even if they aren't there yet it's not gonna stop them from wasting what little money they have on luxuries and useless bullshit they don't need. they don't want to give up the comfortable lifestyle their parents afforded them as children. they don't want to go through the everyday struggle of being an adult and making daily sacrifices. they don't want to pass up on starbucks or prepare their own meals instead of eating out. "they don't have the time" they'll say. meanwhile they just got done binge watching 30 hours of netflix. 

like i said earlier in this thread, no american is a few years away from earning a comfortable living. there are plenty of real opportunities out there. you just have to be willing to take advantage of them. 

(Y)


----------



## Draykorinee

Prince of whales, I bloody love trump for his memes.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Berzerker's Beard said:


> uh... the math is on my side? they have 28,000 locations in the US alone. that's an average of 500 starbucks per each state. clearly there is a growing demand for 5 dollar caramel lattes or else this wouldn't be the case. they would be a niche market in upper class communities, not a national chain that has locations in rest stops along the freeway.
> 
> but by all means keep ignoring this blatant fact of reality and cling to graphs you pulled from the internet.


If your argument had any basis on facts or reality, you wouldn't be trying to use fucking starbucks as proof that people in America are doing well. It sounds like the kind of argument Trump would make.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i don't agree that there aren't jobs available. there is always a demand for tradespeople and skilled workers. milennials for the most part just tend to look down on that type of work. they think they're too good for it. they envision themselves in some comfy office job or media job where they get paid to do nothing.
> 
> they were raised on hip-hop and mtv cribs, they see their favorite celebs on IG sporting designer brands and taking exotic trips. nobody looks up to the blue collar working man anymore. they would never consider being a plumber for instance because that would mean they aren't the unique and special snowflake their parents told them they were. it's too rough and too dirty. no they *need* to shoot for the stars and make a living as an entrepreneur or social media vlogger or some other fantasy job.
> 
> but hey even if they aren't there yet it's not gonna stop them from wasting what little money they have on luxuries and useless bullshit they don't need. they don't want to give up the comfortable lifestyle their parents afforded them as children. they don't want to go through the everyday struggle of being an adult and making daily sacrifices. they don't want to pass up on starbucks or prepare their own meals instead of eating out. "they don't have the time" they'll say. meanwhile they just got done binge watching 30 hours of netflix.
> 
> like i said earlier in this thread, no american is a few years away from earning a comfortable living. there are plenty of real opportunities out there. you just have to be willing to take advantage of them.
> 
> (Y)


Holy fucking generalization batman, what an embarrassing post.

You sound like some kind of ranting baby boomer type who just wants to shit on the younger generation for some reason. I mean, if you wanted to make it shorter, just call all of them lazy, uninspired losers or something instead of hiding it under some thin veil where it actually sounds constructive.


----------



## yeahbaby!

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> Holy fucking generalization batman, what an embarrassing post.
> 
> You sound like some kind of ranting baby boomer type who just wants to shit on the younger generation for some reason. I mean, if you wanted to make it shorter, just call all of them lazy, uninspired losers or something instead of hiding it under some thin veil where it actually sounds constructive.


He probably sends in these rants to Fox News wanting a job as a 'contributor'.


----------



## Draykorinee

So we're losing Sanders, one of the most objectively redundant press secretaries ever.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Draykorinee said:


> So we're losing Sanders, one of the most objectively redundant press secretaries ever.


Another one bites the dust. Can't wait for the tell all book.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

"Donald J. Trump is still President in 2019" is literally the most damning indictment of humanity as a species that it's possible to make.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reservoir Angel said:


> "Donald J. Trump is still President in 2019" is literally the most damning indictment of humanity as a species that it's possible to make.


Sure if you look at History from an angle of a few years, solely focused on the US and ignoring the rest of the World it is, even then it's debatable. :shrug


----------



## DesoloutionRow

So how long before they spread some Freedom & Democracy™ to Iran?


----------



## Miss Sally

LouEW on TNT said:


> So how long before they spread some Freedom & Democracy™ to Iran?


All too soon and most likely it wasn't even Iran that probably did it.

Did they not learn nothing from the "Syrian Gas Attacks"?

Not like there hasn't been any false flag attacks in the region.. or involving boats in the past..


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> Holy fucking generalization batman, what an embarrassing post.
> 
> You sound like some kind of ranting baby boomer type who just wants to shit on the younger generation for some reason. I mean, if you wanted to make it shorter, just call all of them lazy, uninspired losers or something instead of hiding it under some thin veil where it actually sounds constructive.


looks like my post struck a nerve with a few people.

the truth hurts. (Y)


----------



## 2 Ton 21

It's been released by Mexico. It's a non-binding agreement that they'll try harder and talk about it later if they don't. Or I could be misreading it.


----------



## 7x0v

So why didn't Bush or Bill Clinton build a wall?


----------



## yeahbaby!

7x0v said:


> So why didn't Bush or Bill Clinton build a wall?


Well Clinton was too busy with BUSH amirite?!

:heston


----------



## 7x0v

*President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ice-begin-removing-millions-illegal-aliens-week-donald/story?id=63777604&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_hed

President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter late Monday night that Immigration and Customs Enforcement next week would begin "removing the millions of illegal aliens" from the U.S. "as fast as they come in."

*TRUMP 2020* :smile2:


----------



## kingnoth1n

*Re: President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*

ONE 

MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLYUUUUN

ALIENS

I'll believe it when I see it, Americans say they want tougher immigration enforcement in poll after poll but literally every center of power in the country except the President and the people are against it 

And the people aren't for it passionately enough or focused enough to make those centers of power afraid of crossing them


----------



## Cheshire

*Re: President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*


----------



## Draykorinee

I said I was going to run a marathon by the time I was 40

Oh, this thread isn't about claiming things you are unlikely to do?


----------



## goldbergstraps97

*Re: President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*

I say do it. 

I'm totally behind him.


----------



## La Parka

*Re: President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*

i thought his wall kept em all out?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*

why isn't this in the Trump thread?


----------



## Reservoir Angel

*Re: President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*

Am I the only one remembering him promising that ICE would be doing this literally as soon as he was sworn into office back when he was campaigning to be elected the first time?

This isn't a thing that's going to happen, this is buzzword red meat to satisfy the racist shit-flinging impulses of his lowest common denominator shithead cultists to propel him into an undeserved second term by drumming up bullshit fear that if he's not re-elected every street corner will be flooded with fucking taco trucks or whatever dumb verbal diarrhea he sharted out last time he played this exact same fucking card.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*Re: President Trump says ICE will begin removing millions of illegal aliens next week*

Just like he was gonna build that wall. And how's that going?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1141452318610743296
How about not having advisers that have a directly oppositional foreign policy vision to the one you campaigned on?


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1141452318610743296
> How about not having advisers that have a directly oppositional foreign policy vision to the one you campaigned on?


Yeah i don't get this either. If you rather would not escalate things then having advisers that are anti-war would be best. Didn't mind some of the Generals because at least they'd know what they were talking about.

People like Bolton need to go.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1141452318610743296
> How about not having advisers that have a directly oppositional foreign policy vision to the one you campaigned on?


Trump keeps acting like he does not want to get into more wars but he packed his administration with neocons and refuses to fire them. He's either willingly going along with their war mongering while wanting it privately but objecting publicly or he is too much of a weak willed bitch boy to put a stop to it. Neither look is a good one for him.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1141481558160891910
Tucker :mark:


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Ir...is-planning-a-tactical-assault-in-Iran-592832



> U.N. OFFICIALS: U.S. PLANNING A 'TACTICAL ASSAULT' IN IRAN
> 
> The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
> 
> BY SHLOMO SHAMIR/MAARIV ONLINE JUNE 17, 2019 20:05
> 
> Is the US going to attack Iran soon?
> 
> Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
> 
> According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to President Donald Trump.
> 
> The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
> 
> "The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target," said a Western diplomat.
> 
> The decision to carry out military action against Iran was discussed in the White House before the latest report that Iran might increase the level of uranium enrichment.
> 
> The officials also noted that the United States plans to reinforce its military presence in the Middle East, and in the coming days will also send additional soldiers to the area.
> 
> The sources added that President Trump himself was not enthusiastic about a military move against Iran, but lost his patience on the matter and would grant Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is pushing for action, what he wants.
> 
> Pompeo has repeatedly made statements against Iran in recent days. He claimed that there is no doubt that the recent explosions in tankers in the Gulf were carried out by Iran.
> 
> The possibility of a US attack came at the time of the deterioration of relations between the United States and Iran, against the backdrop of the US's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement a year ago, and the sanctions on the economy of the Islamic Republic.
> 
> In recent days, Iran has announced that it intends to deviate from the nuclear agreement signed in 2015 and to enrich uranium at a higher level than the maximum it has committed to within the framework of the nuclear deal.
> 
> In addition to the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program, the United States accuses Tehran of trying to extend its arm across the Middle East and destabilize the region from Yemen to Syria.
> 
> Among other things, the White House blamed Iran for the attack on several oil tankers in recent weeks in the Persian Gulf and even published a video showing Iranian fighters apparently removing a mine that did not explode from a ship that was attacked.
> 
> For its part, Iran is threatening to continue countering the US sanctions, as long as the other signatories to the nuclear agreement do not compensate for the economic damage caused to it, and even to withdraw from the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), which prevents countries from developing nuclear weapons.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> Trump keeps acting like he does not want to get into more wars but he packed his administration with neocons and refuses to fire them. He's either willingly going along with their war mongering while wanting it privately but objecting publicly or he is too much of a weak willed bitch boy to put a stop to it. Neither look is a good one for him.


People may mock him for it and of course the anti-trumpers will say the opposite of him no matter what.. But if he fired the neocons and warmongerers, it would be the best thing ever. If he just told them to get lost they won't push him or the US into a war, it would be beautiful.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back*



> President Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing an American surveillance drone, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night after a day of escalating tensions.
> 
> As late as 7 p.m. Thursday, military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations.
> 
> Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.
> 
> The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.
> 
> The abrupt reversal put a halt to what would have been the president’s third military action against targets in the Middle East. Mr. Trump had struck twice at targets in Syria, in 2017 and 2018.
> 
> It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.
> 
> Asked about the plans for a strike and the decision to hold back, the White House declined to comment, as did Pentagon officials. No government officials asked The New York Times to withhold the article.
> 
> The retaliation plan was intended as a response to the shooting down of the unmanned, $130 million surveillance drone, which was struck Thursday morning by an Iranian surface-to-air missile, according to a senior administration official who was briefed on the military planning and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential plans.
> 
> The strike was set to take place just before dawn Friday in Iran to minimize risk to the Iranian military or to civilians.
> 
> But military officials received word a short time later that the strike was off, at least temporarily The possibility of a retaliatory strike hung over Washington for much of the day. Officials in both countries traded accusations about the location of the drone when it was destroyed by a surface-to-air missile launched from the Iranian coast along the Gulf of Oman.
> 
> Mr. Trump’s national security advisers split about whether to respond militarily. Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; John R. Bolton, the national security adviser; and Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, had favored a military response. But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for American forces in the region.
> 
> Congressional leaders were briefed by administration officials in the Situation Room.
> 
> The destruction of the drone underscored the already tense relations between the two countries after Mr. Trump’s recent accusations that Iran is to blame for explosions last week that damaged oil tankers traveling through the strait, the vital waterway for much of the world’s oil. Iran has denied that accusation.
> 
> Iran’s announcement this week that it would soon breach one of the key limits it had agreed to in a 2015 pact intended to limit its nuclear program has also fueled tensions. Mr. Trump, who pulled the United States out of the 2015 pact, has vowed that he will not allow Tehran to build a nuclear weapon.
> 
> On Thursday, Mr. Trump insisted that the United States’ unmanned surveillance aircraft was flying over international waters when it was taken down by an Iranian missile.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=14515&user_id=31bc511e350ee92704b09ae264598c25&regi_id=83601822ing-news


----------



## CamillePunk

> Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; John R. Bolton, the national security adviser; and Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, had favored a military response.


Fire all of these psychos please as well as thanks


----------



## Hoolahoop33

President Trump - 



> President Obama made a desperate and terrible deal with Iran - Gave them 150 Billion Dollars plus I.8 Billion Dollars in CASH! Iran was in big trouble and he bailed them out. Gave them a free path to Nuclear Weapons, and SOON. Instead of saying thank you, Iran yelled Death to America. I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions. They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my Presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East. Now they are Bust! On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. *We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.* I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD


Is it not insane that people like Bolton, Pompeo and the MSM would support killing 150 ordinary people (and subsequently probably many more) just because Iran shot down a unmanned drone? I'm glad the president had a very human response to this situation. PLEASE, NO MORE WAR.


----------



## deepelemblues

Declining a tit-for-tat strike that isn't really tit-for-tat and screams "Bolton is fishing for some a dat MUH MISHUN CREEP" is what I expect from a president because they should know that if you give war hawks an inch, they'll take a six-month carpet-bombing campaign


----------



## skypod

Sort of besides the point but does Trump clear what hes going to tweet with the national security council after he steps out of the Situation Room? Saying you had 3 targets and the number of people involved seems like a reveal of classified intelligence no?


----------



## Miss Sally

skypod said:


> Sort of besides the point but does Trump clear what hes going to tweet with the national security council after he steps out of the Situation Room? Saying you had 3 targets and the number of people involved seems like a reveal of classified intelligence no?


Nothings been Top Secret since Wikileaks or Hillary's Email Adventure.

While I'm unsure if this is the plan, it's just a thought.. But Trump tweeting this stuff out would be a good way to get the Public to voice against it. If he is against conflict with Iran, leaking stuff in this way could make sure that those pushing for conflict see there will be blowback.


----------



## Headliner

It seems to me like ya'll boy is trying to start a war with Iran for re-election purposes. While trying to make it seem like he's being forced into war due to Iran's actions. Basically playing sympathy victim.


----------



## Draykorinee

Our boy Ben is taking a playbook from Pompeo, calling for all out war.


----------



## virus21

We need more money and serfs dammit!


----------



## CamillePunk

skypod said:


> Sort of besides the point but does Trump clear what hes going to tweet with the national security council after he steps out of the Situation Room? Saying you had 3 targets and the number of people involved seems like a reveal of classified intelligence no?


He's the commander in chief, he can declassify anything he wants to. 

Glad Trump's conscience kicked in. Now he needs to fire the psychopaths.


----------



## Reaper

No point in denying the man the credit for the credit he does deserve. 

He's both backtracked on Venezuela or at least delayed it enough that now that turd Guido or whatever has been exposed as scum, and now backing off on Iran. With a bloodthirsty country of war mongerers him refusing to start new wars is what he promised he would do. 

If we had any other man / woman as president right now we would be warring on at least 9 fronts and not just the 7 we're in right now. 

And yes, in this day and age not starting new wars is something we have to praise our presidents for....


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> And yes, in this day and age not starting new wars is something we have to praise our presidents for....


Which says alot about the the mindset in this country.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

I find it odd people giving him glowing credit for not taking warmongering advice... from the advisors and officials that he himself specifically hired.

Like sorry but for me he doesn't get credit for ignoring Pompeo and Bolton when the only reason they're in a position to give him advice is because he wanted them to be.

So he either hired them specifically just to ignore them anyway, which is weird if nothing else. Or he doesn't actually give a shit about the war issue one way or the other and anything he says on the subject is a spur-of-the-moment impulse at best (seems the likely option given previous behavioural patterns from the lunatic) and testing the waters to see if his base will cheerlead for him starting a war at worst.

Because if one thing is certain about Trump, it's that if his rally-attending base want something he'll promise to do it because they're basically the only people he cares about other than himself and maybe Ivanka depending on what she's wearing.


----------



## Twilight Sky

Add that to my list of don't dos. Don't impeach Trump, and now don't entice him to start wars.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142157838153895941
King of trolls. :lol


----------



## Reservoir Angel

... I remember when Presidents of the United States didn't spend their time aggressively shitposting on Twitter.


----------



## CamillePunk

Reservoir Angel said:


> ... I remember when Presidents of the United States didn't spend their time aggressively shitposting on Twitter.


Yeah, that was a boring time for sure. Who even talked or cared about politics back then?


----------



## Reservoir Angel

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, that was a boring time for sure. Who even talked or cared about politics back then?


Seemingly people who didn't define their entire political ideology by being able to laugh at people being "triggered."

That's directed at the gormless fuckskulls I primarily encounter on Facebook, not at you btw.


----------



## CamillePunk

Reservoir Angel said:


> Seemingly people who didn't define their entire political ideology by being able to laugh at people being "triggered."
> 
> That's directed at the gormless fuckskulls I primarily encounter on Facebook, not at you btw.


It's gotten everyone more involved, to be fair. Under Obama and especially presidents before him barely anyone ever discussed politics. You were weird if you did. Now everyone has an opinion. :lol People wanna say Trump has been bad for democracy or is a threat to it, I think he's been quite the opposite. If the idea is that democracy works best when everyone is involved, then democracy lovers should love Trump for achieving that (even if people still don't seem to vote as much as they talk about politics...). Of course people will complain that everyone is irrational and petty with their involvement, but that was always going to be the case. :lol Democracy is a system ostensibly designed for a populace of rational thinkers that does not and has never existed.


----------



## Reaper

Trump refusing or delaying a new war in spite of his horrible personality still makes him a much better president than Obama who destroyed 3 countries including mine during his reign who did take the advice of the war mongerers in his administration.


----------



## deepelemblues

Being upset that the president didn't start a war just because the president's name is Donald :trump :heston

Sullenly trying to find ways to suggest not starting a war shouldn't be creditable :ha

How... Sad! :trump3


----------



## GothicBohemian

Ok, so folks Trump appointed, like Bolton, have a history of calling for military intervention with Iran.
A 'crisis' suddenly appears involving ... Iran.
The Trump-appointed administration hawks call for action (terrible idea, but exactly what they were hired to do).
Trump says he will take charge.
Trump backs off from military intervention.
Trump is cheered for averting war, regains ground with faltering anti-war supporters.

Does this not all seem a little too convenient? Some of you jump at every conspiracy possible and this doesn't feel manufactured _at all_ to you? If military options re-emerge later, which would please the hawkish types, the doves are still able to believe he tried to stop the "deep state warmongers" - it's all so nicely planned out as win-win for a president with less than 50% support but seeking re-election. 
:shrug

Maybe this public announcement-and-backtracking is the result of incompetence - entirely possible, given the track record - and I've taken a turn onto Conspiracy Lane (free tin foil hats for every visitor) but I kinda feel like this is the most intelligent pr move the Trump administration has pulled together. I'll give them credit for that - smart political play for a change.


----------



## CamillePunk

GothicBohemian said:


> Ok, so folks Trump appointed, like Bolton, have a history of calling for military intervention with Iran.
> A 'crisis' suddenly appears involving ... Iran.
> The Trump-appointed administration hawks call for action (terrible idea, but exactly what they were hired to do).
> Trump says he will take charge.
> Trump backs off from military intervention.
> Trump is cheered for averting war, regains ground with faltering anti-war supporters.


Trump has regained ground with no one. We're relieved he didn't do it. We'll praise him when he actually fires John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. If he fires them.

This is more of a "Okay so hope isn't entirely lost" situation rather than a "WOO TRUMP" situation. That's true for every prominent pro-Trump anti-war voice I know of.


----------



## Draykorinee

Its fair to credit Trump while also suggesting that we shouldn't have to if he hadn't appointed the worst neocons he possibly could.


----------



## DOPA

Well thank goodness Trump's conscience kicked in at the last moment and he pulled back on the initial strike on Iran. I think it is fair to say that the likes of Bush, Obama and Hillary if she were president would have not thought twice about retaliating against Iran in this situation. It certainly is a low standard to credit a president for not starting another war but in these times with the last 2 decades of terrible foreign policy credit is certainly due.

Now for goodness sake, get rid of Pompeo and especially Bolton.


----------



## CamillePunk

Get Gina Haspel the fuck out as CIA Director too. In fact, abolish the CIA, thanks.


----------



## Reaper

GothicBohemian said:


> Ok, so folks Trump appointed, like Bolton, have a history of calling for military intervention with Iran.
> A 'crisis' suddenly appears involving ... Iran.
> The Trump-appointed administration hawks call for action (terrible idea, but exactly what they were hired to do).
> Trump says he will take charge.
> Trump backs off from military intervention.
> Trump is cheered for averting war, regains ground with faltering anti-war supporters.
> 
> Does this not all seem a little too convenient? Some of you jump at every conspiracy possible and this doesn't feel manufactured _at all_ to you? If military options re-emerge later, which would please the hawkish types, the doves are still able to believe he tried to stop the "deep state warmongers" - it's all so nicely planned out as win-win for a president with less than 50% support but seeking re-election.
> :shrug
> 
> Maybe this public announcement-and-backtracking is the result of incompetence - entirely possible, given the track record - and I've taken a turn onto Conspiracy Lane (free tin foil hats for every visitor) but I kinda feel like this is the most intelligent pr move the Trump administration has pulled together. I'll give them credit for that - smart political play for a change.


Not starting a war for re-election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Starting 3 wars and no one caring and still getting re-elected. 

Of course Trump could still start wars. This is an issue with ALL American presidents. 

But let's be happy for the 1000's of people he didn't kill in Iran for now. Doesn't absolve him for continuing America's war policies started by presidents before him, but at least he hasn't started a new war. At least. At least. I mean, how can you people NOT see that as a good thing is BEYOND my scope of ability to understand. 

I mean, I wish I could say the same for thousands of civilians Obama butchered in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Lybia and Yemen (yes, that are still dying, but at least no NEW country has been added to that list!).


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Not starting a war for re-election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Starting 3 wars and no one caring and still getting re-elected.
> 
> Of course Trump could still start wars. This is an issue with ALL American presidents.
> 
> But let's be happy for the 1000's of people he didn't kill in Iran for now. Doesn't absolve him for continuing America's war policies started by presidents before him, but at least he hasn't started a new war. At least. At least. I mean, how can you people NOT see that as a good thing is BEYOND my scope of ability to understand.
> 
> I mean, I wish I could say the same for thousands of civilians Obama butchered in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Lybia and Yemen (yes, that are still dying, but at least no NEW country has been added to that list!).


I'm more disappointed that he just didn't focus on the Economy and our Trade. (The trade is totally screwed against us, even Bernie wants to reform it.) Had he not appointed Neocons, focused more on jobs, economy, trade, business like stuff it wouldn't be so bad. 

If he can avoid War for the next few years that's a win, just wish he just stuck to working on America over playing footsie with Neocons and dancing around the Mid East with some shady people.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> Get Gina Haspel the fuck out as CIA Director too. In fact, abolish the CIA, thanks.


Last guy who tried to do that got his head blown off in Texas


----------



## CamillePunk

No worry there, Teflon Don is a man who cannot be killed.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Get Gina Haspel the fuck out as CIA Director too. In fact, abolish the CIA, thanks.


Donald Trump disbands the CIA, arrests key members for war crimes would be nice but then the MSM would be crying about how we need the CIA. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Would also be crying about how not bombing brown people half way around the world is what's really racist.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Would also be crying about how not bombing brown people half way around the world is what's really racist.


Thats the sick thing, they would.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...e_i_oppose_killing_high_quality_iranians.html



> Trump: Everybody Said I Was A Warmonger, Now Say I'm A Dove; "I'm A Man With Common Sense"
> 
> President Trump defended his decision to not strike Iran, calling himself a man with common sense, in a media availability Saturday morning. Trump called Iranians "high quality people" and he is not interested in killing any "unless it's absolutely necessary." The president touted crippling sanctions on the country and said he hopes to make Iran a wealthy nation again and be their "best friend" if they give up their nuclear weapons program. Trump called the plan "Make Iran Great Again."
> 
> "What are the next steps with Iran? Is a possible strike off the table?" a reporter asked.
> 
> "Well, we'll see what is it with Iran," Trump answered. "Everybody was saying I'm a warmonger and now they say I am a dove. I think I'm neither if you want to know the truth. I'm a man with common sense and that is what we need in this country is common sense. But I didn't like the idea of them knowingly shooting down an unmanned drone then we kill 150 people. I didn't like that."
> 
> "Just so you know, I come from New York City. In New York City, we have a lot of Iranians and they are great people," Trump said. "I have friends who are Iranians, many friends. Living in New York City, you meet many Iranians. They're very smart, they're very ambitious and they have tremendous -- they're high quality people. But I have many friends that are Iranian. I don't want to kill 150 Iranians. I understand it. I don't want to kill 150 of anything or anybody unless it's absolutely necessary. And most people very much agree with what I'm doing."
> 
> "If the leadership of Iran behaves badly then it's going to be a very, very bad day for them but hopefully they're smart and hopefully they really care for their people and not themselves," Trump added.
> 
> "If Iran wants to become a wealthy nation again, a prosperous nation -- we will call it 'let's Make Iran Great Again,' does that make sense? It's okay with me. But they're never going to do it if they think in five or six years they're going to have a nuclear weapon. I know too much about nuclear -- a lot about nuclear. And let me just tell you, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon... They're not going to have a nuclear weapon and when they agree to that they are going to have a wealthy country. They are going to be so happy. And I am going to be their best friend. I hope that happens. I hope that happens. But it may not," Trump told reporters.
> 
> Trump was also asked about Tucker Carlson's criticism of John Bolton and other advisors around the president who are hawkish.
> 
> "Your National Security Advisor came under some harsh criticism by Tucker Carlson and others for pushing too hard on Iran. You said you're not a warmonger, but do you have confidence in the judgment of your National Security Advisor John Bolton?" a reporter asked.
> 
> "Yes, I do because I have John Bolton who I would definitely say is a hawk," Trump responded. "And I have other people that are on the other side of the equation. Ultimately I make the decisions so it doesn't matter."
> 
> "I disagreed very much with John Bolton, his attitude on the Middle East and Iraq was going into Iraq," he said. "I think that was a big mistake, I think I have been proven right, but I have been against that war forever. John Bolton is doing a very good job. But he takes it generally a tough posture. But I have other people who don't take that posture."
> 
> "The only one that matters is me because I will listen to everybody and I want people on both sides," the president said. "Having people on both sides to me is very important."


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Would also be crying about how not bombing brown people half way around the world is what's really racist.


Well to be fair, the US is an equal opportunity merc Army. They'd bomb white people, well anyone for the right price. The MSM would praise it all too. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Well to be fair, the US is an equal opportunity merc Army. They'd bomb white people, well anyone for the right price. The MSM would praise it all too. :laugh:


Do you think their operations and wars against non-whites is entirely coincidental?


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Do you think their operations and wars against non-whites is entirely coincidental?


Considering the US history of fighting with Spain, Germany, England and various other European powers I'd say it's more likely the US doesn't care who it attacks, only who they can fuck with the most and get stuff from. 

If the Mid East and Europe were switched, they'd be bombing the fuck out of Europe. Considering how badly how many people want to fuck with Russia, I'd say it's a safe bet the US simply doesn't care. 

If the US was focused on "Eliminating the Brown menace", the Southern Border would be a killing field, the inflow of brown illegals and legals would stop and they'd not be creating a refugee crisis by flooding Europe with brown refugees. They're doing a pretty shit job on attacking the brown because their population keeps increasing. 

You're looking at it from a "Well the countries being bombed are brown, so therefore they're after brown people!" instead of "The US is targeting countries and areas that cannot defend themselves so it can take their resources and would attack anyone for them." 

If we're looking at it from your point of view then China must be after brown people too with their push into Africa and other brown areas.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> If we're looking at it from your point of view then China must be after brown people too with their push into Africa and other brown areas.


This one's anti-China propaganda btw. It's more of the same "don't look at what we're doing in Africa, but DEM EVIL CHINESE THO". 

Keeps the population's focus on an external enemy. Wouldn't fall for it if I were you.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> This one's anti-China propaganda btw. It's more of the same "don't look at what we're doing in Africa, but DEM EVIL CHINESE THO".
> 
> Keeps the population's focus on an external enemy. Wouldn't fall for it if I were you.


I'm not denying anything the US is doing, simply pointing out that both China and the US are in a race to target the countries they can bully and steal from. I don't believe either care about the demographics of their target, just if that target has something they want.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> I'm not denying anything the US is doing, simply pointing out that both China and the US are in a race to target the countries they can bully and steal from. I don't believe either care about the demographics of their target, just if that target has something they want.


Everyone with power is doing this. But the narrative is incredibly one-sided today which is all I was pointing out. 

China's incursions into Africa are economic and they're only doing to Africa what they've done to their own country using the model they learned from American capitalists. 

The same "liberal" media here bitching about China's oppression of Africa is completely silent about America's oppression of China because they all want their cheap iPhones.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Everyone with power is doing this. But the narrative is incredibly one-sided today which is all I was pointing out.
> 
> China's incursions into Africa are economic and they're only doing to Africa what they've done to their own country using the model they learned from American capitalists.
> 
> The same "liberal" media here bitching about China's oppression of Africa is completely silent about America's oppression of China because they all want their cheap iPhones.


China opened itself up to that, America is definitely a bad guy and a bully there's always going to be those. You know me, if it were up to me we'd make our own stuff, pay for what it's worth and have a balanced economy based on trade and not exploitation. 

The people who are directing the US are rich, the rich don't care about race or creed. They'd let you fuck their sister for a nickle, they're simply using the US to fleece whoever they can. 

It wouldn't surprise me if the US and SA are directing the refugee crisis to try and destabilize Europe for their own gain.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1143128642878410752
The "Straight." :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1143128642878410752
> The "Straight." :lol


It's been like that for a long (many years) time.


----------



## Draykorinee

Straight lol.


----------



## Reaper

We get 91% of ours from the Gay.


----------



## Nothing Finer

What a fucking idiot. It's not the misspelling that's the real problem with that tweet, it's the idea that the US doesn't get anything from the work it does maintaining global order. It doesn't come in the form of a direct bank transfer, but politically and economically the benefits for the US are tremendous. Trump is destroying so much goodwill towards the US with his stream of consciousness Tweets and he doesn't have a fucking clue what he's doing.


----------



## Twilight Sky

He knows exactly what he's doing, and it's working perfectly. As an american expat, I can feel the effects way over here in Finland -.-.

As for his spelling, well I'd say that's an honest mistake, it's one of the many things about English that trips people up, even native speakers.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1144473991601541121
:lol

The conspiracy theorists in corporate media are furious.


----------



## NotGuilty

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1144473991601541121
> :lol
> 
> The conspiracy theorists in corporate media are furious.


troll level 10/10 :banderas


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1144473991601541121
> :lol
> 
> The conspiracy theorists in corporate media are furious.


It's times like these that make realize how many gems Trump has given us. Obama got all the TV spots but Trump is far more entertaining! :laugh:

I have to laugh even harder because Israel lobbyists want to end Tulsi's campaign, the Saudis gave Hillary loads of money for her campaign but "MUH RUSSIA".

:dino


----------



## deepelemblues

It is fascinating to watch :trump act towards Putin like Vlad is the leader of a second-rate power, which he is, and to see Putin be satisfied with such treatment

The difference in the way :trump acts toward Xi Jingping is quite informative. Xi is treated as the man on the other side of the table whereupon matters of the gravest consequence are laid, Putin is treated as a prop for jokes. I wonder if the ex-KGB Colonel fully understands the meaning of the way :trump speaks of and to him


----------



## NotGuilty

Tweeted out that if Kim sees it, he’d meet him at the DZ border while in South Korea to say hello.

Wonder if Rocketman will show up :hmm


----------



## Tater

Jimmy Dore interviewing Ron Paul.

:sodone

Fucking love it. Our government would be amazing if the right was Ron Paul's version and the left was Jimmy Dore's version. There'd still be plenty of strong disagreements but at least we would be out of all these insane foreign interventionist wars, end the war on drugs and have strong civil liberties.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Jimmy Dore interviewing Ron Paul.
> 
> :sodone
> 
> Fucking love it. Our government would be amazing if the right was Ron Paul's version and the left was Jimmy Dore's version. There'd still be plenty of strong disagreements but at least we would be out of all these insane foreign interventionist wars, end the war on drugs and have strong civil liberties.


That was a great interview indeed, listened to the podcast version a few days ago. Not only does he show where the left and right ought to unite on foreign policy, but he also makes a great case for what I've always said on here, which is that what we have today in the US is not capitalism or really close to it, and instead capitalism is being blamed for the mass ill effects of government intervention into our economy by destroying the value of our money and writing laws that protect corporations from competition and the consequences of bad business practices. No matter how you feel about capitalism as an abstract concept, these facts are inescapable should be included in any serious and informed evaluation of our economic system. The left should really talk more about it, but they'd prefer to just promise free stuff in exchange for political power. The right should talk more about it, but it seems most of the right is more focused on criticizing prospective socialism for the poor rather than the existing socialism for the wealthy.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> That was a great interview indeed, listened to the podcast version a few days ago. Not only does he show where the left and right ought to unite on foreign policy, but he also makes a great case for what I've always said on here, which is that what we have today in the US is not capitalism or really close to it, and instead capitalism is being blamed for the mass ill effects of government intervention into our economy by destroying the value of our money and writing laws that protect corporations from competition and the consequences of bad business practices. No matter how you feel about capitalism as an abstract concept, these facts are inescapable should be included in any serious and informed evaluation of our economic system. The left should really talk more about it, but they'd prefer to just promise free stuff in exchange for political power. The right should talk more about it, but it seems most of the right is more focused on criticizing prospective socialism for the poor rather than the existing socialism for the wealthy.


It is kind of hard to argue save by the 'it'll all come crashing down one day because of this craziness!' mode when it comes to the real problem, which is the artificial inflation of available credit by the now generation-long manipulation of interest rates

And why

Because the poor and the middle class have greatly benefited materially from the perceived lesser consequences of debt. Gotta own that home. Gotta have it full of the latest toys. Gotta have those 4 cars. Gotta pay for soccer and lacrosse and piano lessons. Phones. Clothes. Vehicles. Great amounts of consumption have taken place across all economic classes 

But the middle and the low are less able to deal with the hidden inflationary effects of cheap money than the wealthy. Two obvious examples are the price of post-secondary education, and healthcare. Tell me again about inflation flummoxing you because the official rate remains low in spite of everything, economists

And the great increase in productivity over the last 20 years that should have resulted in great wage growth and more new investment was diluted by the cheapness of credit. There is less pressure to raise wages if there are easily accessible alternative sources of money - like debt cheaper than a 50 cent whore

Credit became available to the vast majority of the population. Commence the frenzy. When it exhausts itself and collapses, inject it with a bunch of steroids and adrenaline. We're ten years past that, what are they going to do next time? 

We've been trying a bastardized form of universal basic income for going on 20 years and various ways to make 'profits' off that adventure and it has got us castles built on air


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> That was a great interview indeed, listened to the podcast version a few days ago. Not only does he show where the left and right ought to unite on foreign policy, but he also makes a great case for what I've always said on here, which is that what we have today in the US is not capitalism or really close to it, and instead capitalism is being blamed for the mass ill effects of government intervention into our economy by destroying the value of our money and writing laws that protect corporations from competition and the consequences of bad business practices. No matter how you feel about capitalism as an abstract concept, these facts are inescapable should be included in any serious and informed evaluation of our economic system. The left should really talk more about it, but they'd prefer to just promise free stuff in exchange for political power. The right should talk more about it, but it seems most of the right is more focused on criticizing prospective socialism for the poor rather than the existing socialism for the wealthy.


Well, and you know I've told you this many times before, but I don't want a big government with a giant welfare state. I want Americans making American goods for American needs. My problem with capitalism is the owner/worker relationship. I think the owners and the workers should be the same people. If the workers owned their own businesses, you can be certain they would not be shipping their own jobs overseas. All those things we used to make in America? We'd still be making them here.

The problem, as I see it, is concentrated power. It does not matter if that power is in the hands of the state or the hands of a private entity. As long as that power exists, it will be abused.

Decentralization is the answer.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145222416634769408


----------



## Tater

I mean, I want to call this a good thing, but you can't trust any foreign policy from an administration that has John fucking Bolton in it. Hey, look, we didn't start a war with North Korea. Yay! Oops, we just started a war with Iran. Fuck.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Tater said:


> Well, and you know I've told you this many times before, but I don't want a big government with a giant welfare state. I want Americans making American goods for American needs. My problem with capitalism is the owner/worker relationship. I think the owners and the workers should be the same people. If the workers owned their own businesses, you can be certain they would not be shipping their own jobs overseas. All those things we used to make in America? We'd still be making them here.
> 
> The problem, as I see it, is concentrated power. It does not matter if that power is in the hands of the state or the hands of a private entity. As long as that power exists, it will be abused.
> 
> Decentralization is the answer.


What people don't understand is big government is a hand and big business is a hand. They're both on the same body and they're high fiving each other all day, every day.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Maybe I'm naturally distrustworthy of Trump in any context whatsoever (I mean he is very fond of demonstrable bullshit) but somehow I can't see this latest meet-cute with the North Korean dictator as anything but a way to grab headlines away from the Democratic debate.

Shit like this typically is announced way, way in advance and yet this latest dalliance with absolute fucking pointlessness seems to have been slapped together in a couple of days and consists of nothing but a nice photo-op and Trump being able to claim he "made history" by setting foot in North Korea for a brief moment.

Nothing was achieved but he knows all he needs is a big headline-grabbing photo-op and his fans will rush to his defence parading his name as the greatest President in history and how he's totally solved world peace now.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145222416634769408


Will he get the Peace Prize?


----------



## deepelemblues

Meeting and talking to your enemies is just absolutely the worst and should not be tolerated

I am shaking so hard doesn't :trump understand that making overtures for peace might actually lead to a more peaceful situation?

I can't even right now at this buffoon president showing his naivete and lack of capability to fulfill the duties of his office, making jaw-jaw instead of war-war :no:


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Miss Sally said:


> Will he get the Peace Prize?


Maybe if he actually achieves anything with this outside of flattering photo-ops for himself.

Wouldn't be holding my breath for that though.


----------



## WrestlingPrototype

I don't like for nothing the trend that seems affect the world with this absurd populism. Donald Trump together with Salvini are going to send this world into recession.


----------



## deepelemblues

It would be better if the president continued previous US policy of offering no carrots and all stick

The track record of that policy is garlanded in triumph, to wit: multiple unprovoked North Korean attacks on South Korea that killed dozens of South Korean military personnel, several South Korean civilians, and threatened full-scale war. And in North Korea not even entertaining the possibility of negotiations

That was much better than summits and photo-ops. Damn that :trump for thinking talking and taking pictures is better than dead bodies and threats



WrestlingPrototype said:


> I don't like for nothing the trend that seems affect the world with this absurd populism. Donald Trump together with Salvini are going to send this world into recession.


The global managerial class has certainly never sent anywhere into recession any time lately. Well, except multiple countries in Asia and South America in the 1990s. And the entire world in 2000. And again in 2008. But that's okay because they're not absurd or anything


----------



## CamillePunk

Reservoir Angel said:


> Maybe I'm naturally distrustworthy of Trump in any context whatsoever (I mean he is very fond of demonstrable bullshit) but somehow I can't see this latest meet-cute with the North Korean dictator as anything but a way to grab headlines away from the Democratic debate.
> 
> Shit like this typically is announced way, way in advance and yet this latest dalliance with absolute fucking pointlessness seems to have been slapped together in a couple of days and consists of nothing but a nice photo-op and Trump being able to claim he "made history" by setting foot in North Korea for a brief moment.
> 
> Nothing was achieved but he knows all he needs is a big headline-grabbing photo-op and his fans will rush to his defence parading his name as the greatest President in history and how he's totally solved world peace now.


God forbid a _Republican_ make calculated political moves. :lol


----------



## Reservoir Angel

CamillePunk said:


> God forbid a _Republican_ make calculated political moves. :lol


It's not that I don't think he'd be willing to engage in long game politically calculated maneuvering. If this was any other Republican as President right now I'd be thinking a lot deeper about the motivations for this slapped-together bit of non-diplomatic diplomacy-whoring.

I just don't think Trump is mentally capable of any train of thought more complex than "hey, look at me" given I don't think I've ever seen him approach anything with an attitude other than 'obnoxious toddler' for more than maybe an hour at a time if I'm being generous.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> God forbid a _Republican_ make calculated political moves. :lol


I mean... Pompeo and Bolton are still there. :shrug


----------



## Arkham258

Reservoir Angel said:


> Maybe if he actually achieves anything with this outside of flattering photo-ops for himself.
> 
> Wouldn't be holding my breath for that though.


^Completely misses the importance of him stepping foot on North Korean soil

And Obama got a peace prize for much less. Hell, he did much less his entire presidency than Trump has done in two years. Particularly for an illegitimate president who was born in Kenya


----------



## Tater

Arkham258 said:


> ^Completely misses the importance of him stepping foot on North Korean soil
> 
> And Obama got a peace prize for much less. Hell, he did much less his entire presidency than Trump has done in two years. *Particularly for an illegitimate president who was born in Kenya*


You sound as ridiculous as liberals who think Trump won because of Russia.

There are plenty of reasons to attack Obama without making up fantasies.


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> It would be better if the president continued previous US policy of offering no carrots and all stick
> 
> The track record of that policy is garlanded in triumph, to wit: multiple unprovoked North Korean attacks on South Korea that killed dozens of South Korean military personnel, several South Korean civilians, and threatened full-scale war. And in North Korea not even entertaining the possibility of negotiations
> 
> That was much better than summits and photo-ops. Damn that :trump for thinking talking and taking pictures is better than dead bodies and threats
> 
> 
> 
> The global managerial class has certainly never sent anywhere into recession any time lately. Well, except multiple countries in Asia and South America in the 1990s. And the entire world in 2000. And again in 2008. But that's okay because they're not absurd or anything


Populism BAD!

Globalism GOOD!

Even though Globalism is nothing more than modern day colonialism and the ability to use developing nations as slave/cheap labor and take all their resources. Cannot believe people still buy into Globalism when it's obvious what exactly it is.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Arkham258 said:


> Hell, he did much less his entire presidency than Trump has done in two years.


What has Trump done in his two years of Presidency that compares with fixing an entire economy?


----------



## deepelemblues

Reservoir Angel said:


> It's not that I don't think he'd be willing to engage in long game politically calculated maneuvering. If this was any other Republican as President right now I'd be thinking a lot deeper about the motivations for this slapped-together bit of non-diplomatic diplomacy-whoring.
> 
> I just don't think Trump is mentally capable of any train of thought more complex than "hey, look at me" given I don't think I've ever seen him approach anything with an attitude other than 'obnoxious toddler' for more than maybe an hour at a time if I'm being generous.


Well maybe if you looked at his policy for longer than 2 seconds and considered him as a man and not a fetish object you'd see he's doing the same damn shit he did for almost 50 years in the New York real estate and global branding markets

He has an unshakable faith in the power of his personality and willingness to make deals - and not only deals, _fabulous_ deals, and you get to tell everybody so, and if they disagree or don't like it it doesn't matter

And faith that he can rely on his strength to gain leverage, ie be a stubborn son of a bitch 

Kim Jong-Un's wish to have some kind of (very) limited market economy and (hopefully, much less limited) foreign investment is generally believed to be genuine. And his willingness to make nuclear concessions is believed to be genuine, if much more uncertain in Kim's mind, too

The president sees opportunity to make hay somewhere far off that a lot of people think is very important, and he can score points off not so friendly frenemy China in the process

If Kim agreed to give up the bombs he has and dismantle his nuclear and missile programs, :trump would probably give North Korea a trillion dollars or something

Not a high price to pay for some NOBEL swag, being able to wave it in Obama's face :trump2

Is any of that realistic no but these are all steps that have to happen if this relict problem of the last century is to finally be laid to rest


----------



## Tater

AlternateDemise said:


> What has Trump done in his two years of Presidency that compares with fixing an entire economy?


Yeah, Obama really "fixed" the entire economy alright by giving away trillions of free money to the criminals who crashed the economy in the first place and did jack shit nothing to fix things for the working class. His owners are real happy with his performance. He's being paid handsomely for it now.

Things worked out perfectly. So when the Republicans tank the economy again, the ruling elite will bring in another Democrat to "fix" things.

Any American who can't see how they are being played by the duopoly is a sucker.


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> Arkham258 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Completely misses the importance of him stepping foot on North Korean soil
> 
> And Obama got a peace prize for much less. Hell, he did much less his entire presidency than Trump has done in two years. *Particularly for an illegitimate president who was born in Kenya*
> 
> 
> 
> You sound as ridiculous as liberals who think Trump won because of Russia.
> 
> There are plenty of reasons to attack Obama without making up fantasies.
Click to expand...

Stop giving him attention.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Tater said:


> Yeah, Obama really "fixed" the entire economy alright by giving away trillions of free money to the criminals who crashed the economy in the first place and did jack shit nothing to fix things for the working class. His owners are real happy with his performance. He's being paid handsomely for it now.
> 
> Things worked out perfectly. So when the Republicans tank the economy again, the ruling elite will bring in another Democrat to "fix" things.
> 
> Any American who can't see how they are being played by the duopoly is a sucker.


It was a broken economy in a broken system. I don't really know what other way you expect someone to fix the economy. What, the right and proper way that benefits all American's? You should know by now that's not going to ever be the case, at least not anytime soon. 

But never the less, it was something. Tell me, what issues are still plaguing the country that Trump has fixed, regardless of whether or not the way he did it benefits everyone involved? 

And CamilliePunk, why are you liking Tater's post? What he just described is basically what Trump did with his tax cuts.


----------



## Tater

AlternateDemise said:


> It was a broken economy in a broken system. I don't really know what other way you expect someone to fix the economy. What, the right and proper way that benefits all American's? You should know by now that's not going to ever be the case, at least not anytime soon.
> 
> But never the less, it was something. Tell me, what issues are still plaguing the country that Trump has fixed, regardless of whether or not the way he did it benefits everyone involved?
> 
> And CamilliePunk, why are you liking Tater's post? What he just described is basically what Trump did with his tax cuts.


It's still a broken economy in a broken system. Obama didn't fix anything. He just gave a bunch of free taxpayer money to the criminal bankers to tide them over until the next time they crash the economy. Everyone but the top is worse off than they were before the crash. We're still on the same path. When the economy tanks the next time, which will be sooner rather than later, they'll throw a few trillion more at the criminals and life will get worse again for everyone else.


----------



## CamillePunk

AlternateDemise said:


> And CamilliePunk, why are you liking Tater's post? What he just described is basically what Trump did with his tax cuts.


There's a difference between bailouts and tax cuts. Obama gave our money to failing and fraudulent corporations. Trump just decided the government would take less of everyone's money. I've had much less taken from me in taxes than I would've under the Obama administration. While I make a good amount of money these days, I'm hardly a corporate executive. So the idea that only the very elite are seeing the benefits of Trump's tax cuts is not true, they're just seeing the most benefit because they have the most money. They have the most money in no small part because Obama took it from us and gave it to them. A lot of these companies would be in the ground were it not for his intervention, which is where they belong. 

So no, it's not basically the same thing, it's a completely different thing entirely.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

About the bailouts by Bush and Obama. If we were going to just hand over that much money, why not get something for it in return?

What if instead of just handing the banks all that money, we paid off all those mortgages for the same amount? Banks still get the money and at least a lot of people are better off by either just giving them their deeds are transforming those notes into low interest mortgages they could afford.

Of course if we did that the banks couldn't take the money *and* repossess the homes and sell them for a profit.


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> About the bailouts by Bush and Obama. If we were going to just hand over that much money, why not get something for it in return?
> 
> What if instead of just handing the banks all that money, we paid off all those mortgages for the same amount? Banks still get the money and at least a lot of people are better off by either just giving them their deeds are transforming those notes into low interest mortgages they could afford.
> 
> Of course if we did that the banks couldn't take the money *and* repossess the homes and sell them for a profit.


I don't have a mortgage. Why should money be taken from me and given to banks, whether it pays off someone else's mortgage or not? Explain the morality of that to me, please.

There isn't any. And ultimately it doesn't matter what we want. Our government is owned by corporations. We are the underclass, programmed into compliance to the state and distracted by the media into conflict with each other while the corporations and the political elite get filthy rich. Look at us, debating the merits of capitalism vs socialism and vice versa while the corporatists bleed us all dry. :lol I'm so done with it.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> There's a difference between bailouts and tax cuts. Obama gave our money to failing and fraudulent corporations. Trump just decided the government would take less of everyone's money. I've had much less taken from me in taxes than I would've under the Obama administration. While I make a good amount of money these days, I'm hardly a corporate executive. So the idea that only the very elite are seeing the benefits of Trump's tax cuts is not true, they're just seeing the most benefit because they have the most money. They have the most money in no small part because Obama took it from us and gave it to them. A lot of these companies would be in the ground were it not for his intervention, which is where they belong.
> 
> So no, it's not basically the same thing, it's a completely different thing entirely.


This is... not entirely untrue. I don't want to argue all the details of the duopoly game of Democratic bailouts and Republican tax cuts but even you have to admit that the Trump tax cuts were intentionally designed to help the most those who need it the least. For some poor people, it was actually a tax increase. Most people don't understand the full ramifications of what was done. They just think at a base level, tax cuts good more money yay! Things don't exactly play out how most of them think it will. For example, all those investments the corporations claimed they were going to make were instead used on stock buybacks and executive bonuses.

BTW, the Trump tariffs have effectively been a tax increase on many businesses, which has fucked over workers even more.



2 Ton 21 said:


> About the bailouts by Bush and Obama. If we were going to just hand over that much money, why not get something for it in return?
> 
> What if instead of just handing the banks all that money, we paid off all those mortgages for the same amount? Banks still get the money and at least a lot of people are better off by either just giving them their deeds are transforming those notes into low interest mortgages they could afford.
> 
> *Of course if we did that the banks couldn't take the money and repossess the homes and sell them for a profit.*


You just answered your own question. None of this happened by accident. It was all by design.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> I don't have a mortgage. Why should money be taken from me and given to banks, whether it pays off someone else's mortgage or not? Explain the morality of that to me, please.
> 
> There isn't any. And ultimately it doesn't matter what we want. Our government is owned by corporations. We are the underclass, programmed into compliance to the state and distracted by the media into conflict with each other while the corporations and the political elite get filthy rich. Look at us, debating the merits of capitalism vs socialism and vice versa while the corporatists bleed us all dry. :lol I'm so done with it.


CP I'm only saying if we were absolutely giving them the money, we should have got something for it, instead of just giving it to them with no strings. Really I'm stating Ron Paul 's position from back then. 

The reason we just gave it to them and prosecuted no one besides Madoff is because of what you wrote about in your second paragraph.


----------



## Tater

2 Ton 21 said:


> CP I'm only saying if we were absolutely giving them the money, we should have got something for it, instead of just giving it to them with no strings. Really I'm the stating Ron Paul 's position from back then.
> 
> The reason we just gave it to them and prosecuted no one besides Madoff is because of what you wrote about in your second paragraph.


They only went after Madoff because he stole from other rich people. They don't have any problem with them stealing from poor people.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> There's a difference between bailouts and tax cuts. Obama gave our money to failing and fraudulent corporations. Trump just decided the government would take less of everyone's money. I've had much less taken from me in taxes than I would've under the Obama administration. While I make a good amount of money these days, I'm hardly a corporate executive. So the idea that only the very elite are seeing the benefits of Trump's tax cuts is not true, they're just seeing the most benefit because they have the most money. They have the most money in no small part because Obama took it from us and gave it to them. A lot of these companies would be in the ground were it not for his intervention, which is where they belong.
> 
> So no, it's not basically the same thing, it's a completely different thing entirely.


So basically what you're telling is what Trump did is worse than what Obama did.

Got it.


----------



## CamillePunk

AlternateDemise said:


> So basically what you're telling is what Trump did is worse than what Obama did.
> 
> Got it.


:swaggyp


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145895747038142464:lol


----------



## AustinRockHulk

> *Donald Trump: Homelessness Is a ‘Phenomenon That Started Two Years Ago’*
> 
> During his interview with President Trump that aired on Monday night on Fox News, Tucker Carlson got the president to weigh in on a topic that he and other Fox News hosts have devoted copious amounts of airtime to lately—homelessness in largely Democratic-run cities and states.
> 
> And, according to Trump, the homeless problem is a rather recent phenomenon.
> 
> Noting that they were in Japan during the president’s visit to the G20 summit, Carlson contrasted the cleanliness of their metro areas to large American cities, adding that “there is no graffiti” or people “going to the bathroom on the streets” in Japan.
> 
> After the president mildly protested that only “some of our cities” are like that, the Fox News star said that New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles all “have a major problem with filth.”
> 
> “Why is that?” Carlson wondered aloud.
> 
> “It’s a phenomenon that started 2 years ago,” Trump declared. “It’s disgraceful. I'm going to maybe—I am looking at it very seriously.”
> 
> After seemingly claiming homelessness in America only arose 24 months ago, the president went on to suggest that police officers are getting sick simply by walking near homeless people—likely referencing reports that some Los Angeles police officers have shown signs of typhoid fever. The officers all work in a precinct that was recently fined for unsanitary working conditions.
> 
> “You can’t have what’s happening—where police officers are getting sick just by walking the beat,” he exclaimed. “I mean, they’re getting actually very sick, where people are getting sick, where the people living there are living in hell, too."
> 
> While stating that mental illness is part of the reason for homelessness, Trump went on to blame the “liberal establishment” for exacerbating the problem before claiming he “ended it very quickly” in Washington, D.C. when he became president. Homelessness has been falling in D.C. steadily for the past three years.
> 
> Trump, meanwhile, groused about the situation in San Francisco, pointing out that he owns property there and that there were areas “that you used to think as very special” but have now become “terrible.”
> 
> “So we’re looking at it very seriously,” Trump added. “We may intercede. We may do something to get that whole thing cleaned up. It’s inappropriate.”


https://news.yahoo.com/trump-tucker-homelessness-phenomenon-started-022758462.html

Homelessness started 2 years ago? This is news to me.


----------



## CamillePunk

He didn't say homelessness started 2 years ago, they were talking specifically about the wretched state of some of our major (Democrat-ran) cities where the homelessness has gotten so bad that the streets are running with human feces and syringes. He's still wrong though, they've been that way for longer than that.

The quotes they give debunk the ridiculous headline of the article itself.


----------



## Tater

Liberals blame conservatives for homelessness. Conservatives blame liberals for homelessness. Both serve the system that creates homelessness. And around and around the shithole we go.


----------



## CamillePunk

Here's the full interview with President Trump and Tucker Carlson: 






Quite a lot here about our foreign policy and Trump's personal views versus what his generals tell him. They also talk about the "homelessness" thing towards the end. Let me know if you can find where he says "homelessness started 2 years" ago or anything close. Never happened. Tucker's question to him didn't even include the word "homelessness". Fake News strikes again.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump says dumb stuff enough that we don't need to make up ridiculous headlines for talking points...


----------



## deepelemblues

So Pence canceled a speech in NH because Air Force 2 got turned around because Pence's presence was rather unexpectedly required at the White House by the President

Marc Short, Pence's chief of staff, has said that we will get to find out what is going on but it will be 'weeks from now'

At the same time Putin cancelled his daily schedule and 'very urgently' (Kremlin statement) had a meeting with his defense minister (although this is probably concerning the Russian nuclear "research submarine" fire that killed 14 Russian sailors today, BUT... does that incident have nothing to do with Pence's U-turn back to DC? US and Russian subs still play hide and seek with each other 24/7/365...)

:hmmm


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> :swaggyp
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145895747038142464:lol


Oh, what, you want an explanation now? After all the bullshit claims you've made that I asked for an explanation on and never got? You want to talk nonsense, so will I. That seems to be the only thing you're good at nowadays.


----------



## Draykorinee

Donald knows so much about history, he knows more about history than anyone. That's why he said the Americans took over the airports.


----------



## 2pacallypz85

Hahahahaha, that was gold. He made another mistake regarding the defense of Fort McHenry against British Bombardment on September 13th/14th of 1814 during the War of 1812, but the mistake about airports is just unreal Bush Jr./Sarah Palin type idiocy.


----------



## Miss Sally

2 Ton 21 said:


> About the bailouts by Bush and Obama. If we were going to just hand over that much money, why not get something for it in return?
> 
> What if instead of just handing the banks all that money, we paid off all those mortgages for the same amount? Banks still get the money and at least a lot of people are better off by either just giving them their deeds are transforming those notes into low interest mortgages they could afford.
> 
> Of course if we did that the banks couldn't take the money *and* repossess the homes and sell them for a profit.


I think me, Tater and Reaper brought something like this up when the car bailouts happened. Instead of giving companies money that they proved they wouldn't make good use of. why not give people care vouchers? Enough to outright buy a car or help pay for one. 

People get cars, the struggling companies get help and everyone wins! And if there was even a hint of paying CEOs and execs bonuses from the money received, they'd all be arrested for negligence. Put them in hardcore Federal prison, I'm talking with killers, rapists and the whole lot. They belong with them.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Draykorinee said:


> Donald knows so much about history, he knows more about history than anyone. That's why he said the Americans took over the airports.


I like to think that someone on his staff is just trying to fuck with him in really petty ways and is purposely inserting dumb shit like that into his teleprompter for big speeches because they damn well know he's too dumb to proofread shit beforehand or understand any of it so he'll just read it regardless.

I'm fully expecting him to at some point soon be in the middle of a big speech and end up actually saying the words "holy for applause" out loud.

And his fans will still defend him somehow when he does it, that's the hilarious thing.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> I think me, Tater and Reaper brought something like this up when the car bailouts happened. Instead of giving companies money that they proved they wouldn't make good use of. why not give people care vouchers? Enough to outright buy a car or help pay for one.
> 
> People get cars, the struggling companies get help and everyone wins! And if there was even a hint of paying CEOs and execs bonuses from the money received, they'd all be arrested for negligence. Put them in hardcore Federal prison, I'm talking with killers, rapists and the whole lot. They belong with them.


They all say, give us tax breaks, and we will use that money to raise worker salaries and make investments. They get their tax breaks, then all that extra money goes into bonuses and stock buybacks. If everyone involved was serious about tax breaks being used for raising salaries and investments, they would write a tax law that gave them tax breaks specifically for raising salaries and investments.

When it comes to tax breaks from Republicans and bailouts from Democrats, they never come with strings attached and that money is never used for what they say it will be. Sure, the bailout money could have come in the form of paying off car and house debt but 2 Ton 21 answered the question already. This was all about them getting both the bailout money and the cars/homes.

They're doing it all over again. All the bubbles have been reinflated. They will pop again, probably worse than last time. Then all the same people will go to the government looking for money. Again.

And they'll get it too. They own the government. What's happening is all by design. They know they are going to crash the economy with their business practices and they know the government will bail them out again.

None of them will be sent to prison. They'll get even richer while everyone else gets poorer.

Around and around the toilet bowl we go.


----------



## 2pacallypz85

The Russians are to blame for hacking into his teleprompter :wink2: Also, great post tater. There were very few to no strings attached, depending on the financial institution, but yeah, instead of giving that money directly to people to payoff mortgages or at least forcing banks to refinance and write-down loans, Gov't did basically nothing and the Fed even purchased over a trillion of these crappy trenched CODs from the financial institutions. Obama did nothing to prosecute the crooks.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reservoir Angel said:


> I like to think that someone on his staff is just trying to fuck with him in really petty ways and is purposely inserting dumb shit like that into his teleprompter for big speeches because they damn well know he's too dumb to proofread shit beforehand or understand any of it so he'll just read it regardless.
> 
> I'm fully expecting him to at some point soon be in the middle of a big speech and end up actually saying the words "holy for applause" out loud.
> 
> And his fans will still defend him somehow when he does it, that's the hilarious thing.


I said I was not going to post in this thread anymore because of the fuckery from Trump supporters but just wanted to see what people were saying about this lol

Trump said the prompter was out, so he was not reading from anything, that is why he said that. So no one told Trump to say that. he is just that stupid he thought there were airports back then.

Now back out of this shit show thread


----------



## DesolationRow

Latest amassing of all polls on the subject of impeachment with U.S. citizens as of July 3, 2019:



> Based on what you know about Robert Mueller's investigation into charges of colluding with Russia President Donald Trump should or should not be impeached and removed from office?
> 
> 45% of adults say *Yes, he should be impeached and removed from office*.
> 
> *Gender*
> 
> 37% of Males say *Yes, he should be impeached and removed from office*.
> 
> 52% of Females says *Yes, he should be impeached and removed from office*.
> 
> *Race*
> 
> White: 36%
> 
> Nonwhite: 66%
> 
> *Age*
> 
> 18-34: 58%
> 
> 35-54: 45%
> 
> 55+: 37%
> 
> *Party ID*
> 
> Republican: 7%
> 
> Independent: 47%
> 
> Democrat: 81%


----------



## Draykorinee

45% of adults are wrong.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Old white men foisted him upon the nation to begin with because he validated their rampant persecution complex, no wonder they want to keep the cunt around.


----------



## Tater

2pacallypz85 said:


> great post tater. There were very few to no strings attached, depending on the financial institution, but yeah, instead of giving that money directly to people to payoff mortgages or at least forcing banks to refinance and write-down loans, Gov't did basically nothing and the Fed even purchased over a trillion of these crappy trenched CODs from the financial institutions. Obama did nothing to prosecute the crooks.


This is an aspect of the bailout that barely even gets a mention. I don't bring it up often either and most people don't even realize it. A lot of these banks that got bailout money from the government turned around and loaned the money back to the government, who has to pay interest on it.

I want everyone to stop and think about how fucked up that is. The taxpayer is paying interest on money that was taken from them in the first place to give to criminals.

Yeah.



Reservoir Angel said:


> Old white men foisted him upon the nation to begin with because he validated their rampant persecution complex, no wonder they want to keep the cunt around.


Neoliberal democrats foisted him upon the nation to begin with because they would rather lose to someone like Trump than ever move to the left and represent their voters instead of their donors.

Fixed it for you.


----------



## Stephen90

AlternateDemise said:


> Oh, what, you want an explanation now? After all the bullshit claims you've made that I asked for an explanation on and never got? You want to talk nonsense, so will I. That seems to be the only thing you're good at nowadays.


He's a troll who tries to bait people it's best to ignore him


----------



## Glacier X

Trump will win again in 2020. Count on it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Jeffrey Epstein may be going down. :mj Bill Clinton must be pretty nervous right about now.

Credit to Mike Cernovich. Journalists taking down corrupt and evil billionaires.  You love to see it.


----------



## deepelemblues

The sheer bitterness and contempt is why the president will win re-election, it's so easy to get people riled up by saying "they hate you" and when they really do hate you that's the extra sprinkles on top

White working class turnout is gonna set a comfortable record the way this carnival is proceeding :draper2


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Jeffrey Epstein may be going down. :mj Bill Clinton must be pretty nervous right about now.
> 
> Credit to Mike Cernovich. Journalists taking down corrupt and evil billionaires.  You love to see it.


Clinton isn't the only person who has been elected to the WH who should be worried about the Epstein arrest.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> Clinton isn't the only person who has been elected to the WH who should be worried about the Epstein arrest.


----------



## Draykorinee

> The Trump administration has been labelled "inept", insecure and incompetent in leaked emails from the UK ambassador to Washington.
> 
> Sir Kim Darroch said that the White House was "uniquely dysfunctional" and "divided" under Donald Trump.
> 
> But he also warned that the US president should not be written off.
> 
> The Foreign Office said the leak of the memos to the Mail on Sunday was "mischievous" but did not deny their accuracy.
> 
> The White House has not yet responded to the revelation of the contents of the memos, but it could test the so-called "special relationship" between the US and UK.
> 
> In the messages, Sir Kim said: "We don't really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction-riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept."
> 
> He questioned whether this White House "will ever look competent".
> 
> Image copyrightPA MEDIA
> Image caption
> The UK ambassador in Washington says Trump needs "simple, even blunt" arguments
> Although Sir Kim said Trump was "dazzled" by his state visit to the UK in June, the ambassador warns that his administration will remain self-interested, adding: "This is still the land of America First".
> 
> Differences between the US and the UK on climate change, media freedoms and the death penalty might come to the fore as the countries seek to improve trading relations after Brexit, the memos said.
> 
> To get through to the president, "you need to make your points simple, even blunt", he said.
> 
> In a message sent last month, Sir Kim branded US policy on Iran as "incoherent, chaotic".
> 
> Mr Trump's publicly stated reason for calling off an airstrike against Tehran with 10 minutes to go - that it would cause 150 casualties - "doesn't stand up", Sir Kim said.
> 
> Instead, he suggested the president was "never fully on board" and did not want to reverse his campaign promise not to involve the US in foreign conflicts.
> 
> 'Infighting and chaos'
> Sir Kim said it was "unlikely that US policy on Iran is going to become more coherent any time soon" because "this is a divided administration".
> 
> The leaked files date from 2017 to the present day, covering the ambassador's early impressions that media reports of "vicious infighting and chaos" in the White House were "mostly true".
> 
> They also give an assessment of allegations about collusion between the Trump election campaign and Russia, saying "the worst cannot be ruled out". The investigation by Robert Mueller has since found those claims were not proven.
> 
> A Foreign Office spokesman said the public expects diplomats to provide ministers with an "honest, unvarnished assessment" of politics in their country.
> 
> "Their views are not necessarily the views of ministers or indeed the government. But we pay them to be candid," he said.
> 
> He said ministers and civil servants would handle this advice "in the right way" and ambassadors should be able to offer it confidentially.
> 
> The UK embassy in Washington has "strong relations" with the White House and these would continue despite "mischievous behaviour" such as this leak, the spokesman said.


A treasure trove.


----------



## Tater

I don't think anyone from the UK government is the right person to be calling our government inept and incompetent. Not that they're wrong but it's a pot meet kettle situation.


----------



## JustAName

Reservoir Angel said:


> ... I remember when Presidents of the United States didn't spend their time aggressively shitposting on Twitter.


I would say I agree with you, but my problem is that these 3 years has felt like 3 decades so unfortunately I can't say I remember that


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> I don't think anyone from the UK government is the right person to be calling our government inept and incompetent. Not that they're wrong but it's a pot meet kettle situation.


Ha, that is very very true.


----------



## Tater

JustAName said:


> I would say I agree with you, but my problem is that these 3 years has felt like 3 decades so unfortunately I can't say I remember that


This is the kind of amnesia Democrats are relying on to regain power. They want everyone to forget that it was their failure that led to Trump in the WH and Republicans everywhere else. They want everyone to remember those Obama years as wonderful and awesome and great and kind and happy until the evil monster Trump and his band of deplorables came along and ruined everything. They want everyone to believe everything would be just fine and dandy again if only we vanquish the great orange beast and his minions and restore them as the rightful rulers of the Empire.

Take it away, Admiral...


----------



## JustAName

Tater said:


> This is the kind of amnesia Democrats are relying on to regain power. They want everyone to forget that it was their failure that led to Trump in the WH and Republicans everywhere else. They want everyone to remember those Obama years as wonderful and awesome and great and kind and happy until the evil monster Trump and his band of deplorables came along and ruined everything. They want everyone to believe everything would be just fine and dandy again if only we vanquish the great orange beast and his minions and restore them as the rightful rulers of the Empire.
> 
> Take it away, Admiral...


Not really it, would just be slightly safer to sleep at night for the world as a whole. The problems in the US will persist, but he's an emotionally unstable loose cannon. For right now I don't see any candidate this unsafe for the world's safety as a whole as him when it comes to presidency so it's quite simple really and not about US politics for me, rather international. Don't care if it's a democrat or whatever, preferably should just off the whole system but we know that's not happening in our life time, maybe never


----------



## Tater

JustAName said:


> Not really it, would just be slightly safer to sleep at night for the world as a whole. The problems in the US will persist, but he's an emotionally unstable loose cannon. For right now I don't see any candidate this unsafe for the world's safety as a whole as him when it comes to presidency so it's quite simple really and not about US politics for me, rather international. Don't care if it's a democrat or whatever, preferably should just off the whole system but we know that's not happening in our life time, maybe never


Tell me, how did that world's safety work out for Libya with Obama in the WH?


----------



## Hoolahoop33

JustAName said:


> Not really it, would just be slightly safer to sleep at night for the world as a whole. The problems in the US will persist, but he's an emotionally unstable loose cannon. For right now I don't see any candidate this unsafe for the world's safety as a whole as him when it comes to presidency so it's quite simple really and not about US politics for me, rather international. Don't care if it's a democrat or whatever, preferably should just off the whole system but we know that's not happening in our life time, maybe never


:rockwut

So let me get this straight, your main concern is world safety - yet you long for the days of Bush and Obama when the US started bombed the hell out of numerous countries and basically made the middle east totally unstable, also causing a migrant crisis in Europe. Yeah these 'three years have felt like three decades' in terms of time without the US starting a new war.

Please do tell me, how Hillary would have been a better solution for world stability, given her track record as Secretary of State and hawkish views on Russia, Syria and N. Korea.

Please tell me why a 'loose cannon' who hasn't started any wars in three years in office, is so much worse than a President such as Bush or Obama who presumably knew exactly what they were doing, yet still wrought death, destruction and misery across the world. 

I can't work out whether you are totally insincere and faking being concerned about world stability or you are really so blind to reality.

:larry


----------



## Tater

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Yeah these 'three years have felt like three decades' in terms of time without the US starting a new war.


Let's not give Trump too much credit here. They've done everything short of militarily invade Venezuela to try to install a puppet dictator there. Trump vetoed the Yemen resolution which somehow miraculously made it through Congress because selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is more important than ending our involvement in the biggest humanitarian crisis on Earth. They are also doing everything within their power to try to provoke Iran into doing something that would justify starting a war there. None of the wars started by Bush and Obama have been ended either.

A photo op with Un is better than another war there but let's not act like this has not been an administration full of war crimes.


----------



## JustAName

Hoolahoop33 said:


> :rockwut
> 
> So let me get this straight, your main concern is world safety - yet you long for the days of Bush and Obama when the US started bombed the hell out of numerous countries and basically made the middle east totally unstable, also causing a migrant crisis in Europe. Yeah these 'three years have felt like three decades' in terms of time without the US starting a new war.
> 
> Please do tell me, how Hillary would have been a better solution for world stability, given her track record as Secretary of State and hawkish views on Russia, Syria and N. Korea.
> 
> Please tell me why a 'loose cannon' who hasn't started any wars in three years in office, is so much worse than a President such as Bush or Obama who presumably knew exactly what they were doing, yet still wrought death, destruction and misery across the world.
> 
> I can't work out whether you are totally insincere and faking being concerned about world stability or you are really so blind to reality.
> 
> :larry


Can't remember saying any of that, keep jumping to conclusions though, unless you can find a quote where I said it. Spoiler: you won't find it for a reason


----------



## JustAName

Tater said:


> Tell me, how did that world's safety work out for Libya with Obama in the WH?


You don't need to understand it, but having someone mentally and emotionally unstable with delusions having nukes available changes things.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

"Trump is an anti-war President!"

He hasn't stopped any of the wars the US is involved with, has sent more troops to Afghanistan, and is constantly trying to bait Iran into doing something that John Bolton, who Trump voluntarily hired as National Security Advisor, can use to justify bombing the shit out of them too.

Trump isn't an anti-war President, unless you buy into the hypothetical nonsense scenario that Hillary Clinton would have launched wars with Russia and North Korea which was always a bullshit talking point.


----------



## Tater

JustAName said:


> You don't need to understand it, but having someone mentally and emotionally unstable with delusions having nukes available changes things.


What I understand is our foreign policy has changed remarkably little with Trump in the WH. The "he's a mentally deranged lunatic with nukes" argument means nothing to me. The results are in and so far we have been on more or less the exact same trajectory laid out by the last 2 presidents.

What you need to understand is that if you replace Trump with the very same failed ideology that led to his rise in the first place, you'll get an even worse Trump next time.


----------



## JustAName

Tater said:


> What I understand is our foreign policy has changed remarkably little with Trump in the WH. The "he's a mentally deranged lunatic with nukes" argument means nothing to me. The results are in and so far we have been on more or less the exact same trajectory laid out by the last 2 presidents.
> 
> What you need to understand is that if you replace Trump with the very same failed ideology that led to his rise in the first place, you'll get an even worse Trump next time.


It's fine that argument means nothing to you, I am not trying to convince YOU of anything, I am saying it does mean something to me (evidently, right?), that's what was questioned here to begin with, my reasoning for MY statement.

I also stated that I think the whole system is a complete disaster from top to bottom and think it needs to be removed, but that's a utopia and this is so far on the other side of the spectrum of that, it's no point even dreaming of it.

I would sleep better at night with regards to a possible world war 3 if Trump was not the president and most others were. Yes I slept better with Obama as a president based on that than I do Trump, but that means nothing. You can't jump to political conclusions on my behalf based on that statement, all you can see is that in MY view the world as a whole felt a lot safer than it does with Trump. IF you want to show me facts of the opposite, that Trump being president makes this world a safer place with regards to a WW3 than before I am willing to listen, I might not end up agreeing, but I will check it out and listen


----------



## Tater

JustAName said:


> It's fine that argument means nothing to you, I am not trying to convince YOU of anything, I am saying it does mean something to me (evidently, right?), that's what was questioned here to begin with, my reasoning for MY statement.
> 
> I also stated that I think the whole system is a complete disaster from top to bottom and think it needs to be removed, but that's a utopia and this is so far on the other side of the spectrum of that, it's no point even dreaming of it.
> 
> I would sleep better at night with regards to a possible world war 3 if Trump was not the president and most others were. Yes I slept better with Obama as a president based on that than I do Trump, but that means nothing. You can't jump to political conclusions on my behalf based on that statement, all you can see is that in MY view the world as a whole felt a lot safer than it does with Trump. IF you want to show me facts of the opposite, that Trump being president makes this world a safer place with regards to a WW3 than before I am willing to listen, I might not end up agreeing, but I will check it out and listen


If having Obama as president helps you sleep better at night than Trump as president, I can't tell you how to feel about these things. What I can tell you is that it's a feeling that is not backed up by any real evidence.

That's how the Democrats plan to regain power. TRUMP SCARY OMG YOU NEED TO BE SCARED LOOK AT THE SCARY BAD MAN OMG OH NOEZ!!! :woo

The worst thing you can do with Trump as president is let him take away your critical thinking skills. Examine the evidence. The same neocon war machine that really runs the show has stayed in power throughout administrations. The war budget has continually increased. The thousand bases worldwide have not been closing down. We still have troops in Syria and Afghanistan. We are still bombing 7 or more different countries. We are still using sanctions to commit economic warfare against even more countries than that. These are all things that were already happening under Obama. Trump is continuing his legacy, not changing it.

The only thing that has really changed is the theatrics surrounding it all. Sure, it might make you feel more comforted to hear the smooth talking Obama than it does the ramblings of the buffoon currently in the WH but the people on the receiving end of the bombs get blown up just the same.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

JustAName said:


> Can't remember saying any of that, keep jumping to conclusions though, unless you can find a quote where I said it. Spoiler: you won't find it for a reason


I found it.





> So let me get this straight, your main concern is world safety - yet you long for the days of Bush and Obama when the US started bombed the hell out of numerous countries and basically made the middle east totally unstable, also causing a migrant crisis in Europe. Yeah these 'three years have felt like three decades' in terms of time without the US starting a new war.





JustAName said:


> *I would say I agree with you, but my problem is that these 3 years has felt like 3 decades so unfortunately I can't say I remember that*





JustAName said:


> *the world as a whole felt a lot safer than it does with Trump*







> Please do tell me, how Hillary would have been a better solution for world stability, given her track record as Secretary of State and hawkish views on Russia, Syria and N. Korea.





JustAName said:


> *I don't see any candidate this unsafe for the world's safety as a whole as him when it comes to presidency so it's quite simple really and not about US politics for me, rather international.*







> Please tell me why a 'loose cannon' who hasn't started any wars in three years in office, is so much worse than a President such as Bush or Obama who presumably knew exactly what they were doing, yet still wrought death, destruction and misery across the world.





JustAName said:


> *he's an emotionally unstable loose cannon. *





JustAName said:


> *Yes I slept better with Obama as a president based on that than I do Trump*



Where exactly did I misrepresent your point of view?

To clarify, why exactly do you believe Trump is unstable and how exactly has that impacted the foreign policy of the United States in a negative way?

Would you feel like the world was a safer place in the preceding years if you were a Libyan citizen for example?

When prior US presidents have consistently involved the military in new conflicts in recent times, why do you feel the only president who hasn't started any new wars in the last 30+ years (Reagan - multiple, Bush Sr - Gulf War, Clinton - Balkan conflict, Bush jr - multiple, Obama - multiple) is the most unsafe candidate? most unsafe for who exactly?

I'm not trying to convince you to another point of view, you are welcome to feel however you like - but I want to know what has led you to feel this way. As Tater has stated, there are plenty of reasons you might oppose Trump, but when you cite how you feel over actual facts then it is pretty ineffectual.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Tater said:


> Let's not give Trump too much credit here. They've done everything short of militarily invade Venezuela to try to install a puppet dictator there. Trump vetoed the Yemen resolution which somehow miraculously made it through Congress because selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is more important than ending our involvement in the biggest humanitarian crisis on Earth. They are also doing everything within their power to try to provoke Iran into doing something that would justify starting a war there. None of the wars started by Bush and Obama have been ended either.
> 
> A photo op with Un is better than another war there but let's not act like this has not been an administration full of war crimes.


You are 100% correct and certainly the jury is still out regarding this administration. For me any improvement is welcome, but a lot remains to be seen. I think though it is just so false to claim that the world is a less safe place now than it was under Obama or Bush - those two have a lot of blood on their hands.


----------



## deepelemblues

When the lawyer of one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims was sued by Epstein in 2009, many, many subpoenas were issued to powerful people who knew Epstein by the lawyer to get information to defend himself

One person responded

One

:trump

He called the lawyer, offered to give everything he knew, gave everything he knew, and it was "good information" that was "very helpful"

Terrible monster that :trump is :eyeroll


----------



## ellthom

Feel bad for you Americans you had the choice of choosing between Trump and Hilary. 

That's like choosing between falling 1000 ft onto concrete or falling into a boiling volcano...


----------



## AlternateDemise

ellthom said:


> Feel bad for you Americans you had the choice of choosing between Trump and Hilary.
> 
> That's like choosing between falling 1000 ft onto concrete or falling into a boiling volcano...


Don't. The more I have thought about it, the more I've come to realize that this is what America's needed.

I used to despise the very idea of Trump and Hilary having been our only options. I've gone on record many times to state that Trump has been, without question, one of the worst Presidents in the history of this country. And I continue to laugh at people who defend him. But honestly? We needed someone like him in office. This needs to be America's wake up call. People who are incompetent, unintelligent, and straight up disregard science and facts shouldn't be in office. And we're seeing first hand why they shouldn't be. And we need to use this as an example as to why we should never let something like this ever happen again. 

The system in of itself is broken, and a lot needs to be changed. But first and foremost, preventing something like this from ever happening again is the first step. And hopefully, this will be the only time (at least in my lifetime) that this ever happens. Because looking at the big picture, this is without question one of the lowest points in the history of this country.


----------



## Tater

AlternateDemise said:


> Don't. The more I have thought about it, the more I've come to realize that this is what America's needed.
> 
> I used to despise the very idea of Trump and Hilary having been our only options. I've gone on record many times to state that Trump has been, without question, one of the worst Presidents in the history of this country. And I continue to laugh at people who defend him. But honestly? We needed someone like him in office. This needs to be America's wake up call. People who are incompetent, unintelligent, and straight up disregard science and facts shouldn't be in office. And we're seeing first hand why they shouldn't be. And we need to use this as an example as to why we should never let something like this ever happen again.
> 
> The system in of itself is broken, and a lot needs to be changed. But first and foremost, preventing something like this from ever happening again is the first step. *And hopefully, this will be the only time (at least in my lifetime) that this ever happens.* Because looking at the big picture, this is without question one of the lowest points in the history of this country.


I wouldn't be overly optimistic about this. The Democrats are doing everything in their power to replace Trump with the very same ideology that led to his rise in the first place. As much as it pains me to say it, the odds are in their favor of succeeding. If/when they do, we'll be looking at the next Trump in 4-8 years.


----------



## DOPA

Yeah, considering the Democrats are pushing Kamala Harris to be the nominee in 2020 shows they've learnt absolutely nothing from Trump's election. They don't want to learn, they want to maintain the same neo-liberal/neo-conservative war driven agenda.

If you want to talk about the deep state, the deep state to me has always been the military industrial complex and the intelligence agencies (the CIA) who work hand in hand with each other. They are the shadow governments people talk about. The president since at least Kennedy have been nothing but puppets of those people.


----------



## deepelemblues

The first clown has fell out of the car

Eric if you resist giving up your guns, we got nukes hint hint Swallowswell has ended his bid for the Democratic nomination

A moment of silence for this pissant please


----------



## CamillePunk

I wonder which candidate will get the lion's share of his 0% support.


----------



## deepelemblues

BernieOld has demanded that 0% be divided equally among the other candidates

Upset at getting beat out of that gate by Bernie, Warren has demanded it be divided doubleplus equally

Kamala wants it bussed an hour across town


----------



## MrMister

He really thought his rehearsed catch phrases were going to work. He looked at himself in the mirror and pumped himself up and his wife went along with it even though at the moment she realized what a mistake her whole life has been.


----------



## CamillePunk

It was probably the "Guns > Kids" poll result that broke his spirit. He has no one but himself to blame for trying to be edgy.


----------



## Kabraxal

CamillePunk said:


> It was probably the "Guns > Kids" poll result that broke his spirit. He has no one but himself to blame for trying to be edgy.


Hadn’t seen that poll... got a chuckle seeing it blow up in his face like it did.


----------



## El Grappleador

Mothefucker! He did it again. He announced tariffs to mexican steel. He broke the migratory aggrement. Not cool!

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...china-alleging-unfair-subsidies/#.XSP209m700O

He is unpredictably irritant. He got no ethics nor values (not reffered to monetary ones). He just cares his altered vision of american greatness and himself. God mercy America if he reached the high state of madness.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148298497189392384
Damn Donnie how you gonna do Theresa like that man

She's fragile


----------



## Draykorinee

Whilst his 'I gave her the right idea'. Is probably bullshit, the rest is quite correct.


----------



## DOPA

If there is anyone who deserves to be BFTO'd by Trump it's Theresa May.


----------



## deepelemblues

Dude is entitled to his opinions

It's his duty to share those opinions with his superiors in his own country's government

But man if you're an ambassador and those are your opinions about the leader of the country you are ambassador to don't do it over email. Do it verbally over the phone, on a secured line, or face to face, or by physically sending written reports in a secure fashion

If I were :trump I'd tell the British government that Sir Darroch is going to be declared _persona non grata_; after the declaration, he will have 24 hours to leave the United States of his own volition, or he will be kicked out. They can send a replacement ambassador. Or not send a replacement at all, and see if they like the consequences of that. I would not find it possible to work with someone who spoke of me that way when our working relationship requires at least a facade of public cordiality and respect... as the working relationship between ambassadors and heads of state does. That facade no longer publicly exists between the British ambassador and the US president -> new ambassador time

Theresa May's government has been incredibly inept in its relations with the United States since January 20, 2017. Undoubtedly. A less incompetent and more intelligent Prime Minister would have gladly responded to the United States' repeated overtures for closer trade relations, and at the very least played the US and EU off each other. Tell the EU, well, if you don't start negotiating on Brexit in better faith and with better terms, the Americans are making us some very nice offers and we'll have to go that way. Tell the US, well, we are only 20 miles off the coast of Europe and you're going to have to offer us some extremely enticing terms to get us to back off them and towards you

But Theresa May is a blithering idiot so she has managed to push both the Americans and the Europeans away. An incredible achievement of British diplomacy, perhaps unmatched since Ethelred the Redeless decided to deal with the diplomatic complications of the Danelaw and its ties to the Kingdom of Denmark by attempting to kill all the Danes living in England, which brought the wrath of Danish King Sweyn Forkbeard down upon England and later on the taking of the Anglo-Saxon/English throne by Sweyn's son Cnut


----------



## El Grappleador

I'm sick from him. I can't kept begging to reason with someone annyoying. So, this is my last post on this thread.



> Here’s why Trump might not like Mexico
> Buyers sued after Baja resort had been sold as a Trump project
> Published on Thursday, February 26, 2015
> 80
> SHARES
> Thanks to the monitoring of real estate developer Donald Trump’s Twitter account, the world knows what he thinks of the Academy Awards, the winning Mexican director’s film Birdman, and investing in Mexico which, in short, is very little.
> 
> What the world might not know is that Trump’s tweet regarding investing in Mexico might stir up some unpleasant memories for nearly 200 people who paid a total of more than US $20 million in deposits on luxury ocean-view condominiums at Trump Ocean Resort Baja.
> 
> The seven-hectare waterfront resort development at Playa Bandera, Baja California, 16 kilometers from the U.S. border, was to include 526 condo-hotel units in three 16-story towers, and was announced in 2006 as a Trump project. A report by SanDiegoRed says the emphasis would be on luxury living and exclusivity: swimming pools, spas, tennis courts and fine dining.
> 
> 
> 
> Ground was broken but that was as far as it got: it was hit by financial problems in 2008 and shut down in 2009.
> 
> Shortly after, a lawsuit was filed by nearly 70 plaintiffs against Donald Trump, his children and the developer. They claimed that they were deceived into believing they were buying into a Trump project.
> 
> But in fact they were not.
> 
> Trump claimed that he did no more than license his name to the developer and that he was not responsible for the development, although his name appeared on all its marketing materials. That, said an attorney representing the plaintiffs, gave a sense of security to buyers who would not have invested had they known the truth.
> 
> Trump told the San Diego Union-Tribune at the time that while he was not happy with what had occurred, he had never been to the site and that the developers had simply licensed his name.
> 
> 
> Four years later, the plaintiffs reached a settlement with Trump.
> 
> A similar situation has since occurred in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where buyers sued after a Trump International Hotel & Tower project went off the rails. In that case as well, Trump denied responsibility, saying he had done nothing more than license his name.
> 
> https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/heres-trump-might-not-like-mexico/


And this is not the first failed business:

On early twentyfirst century, his children did attented to several government report from Joaquin Hendricks Diaz, on Quintana Roo (Cancun). He devised to build Punta Arrecifes Resort. But neighbours did protested on consequences about an ecologist damage. This episode ended up considering building zone as protected area.

And on 2010, he met Sonora Governor
Guillermo Padres to built another resort. 
However, the project was rejected and replaced by Puerto Peñasco enviroment and coast highway building.

So, based on those loses, he devised a revenge through rise to The White House. And so the jigsaw pieces wee aligned to get revenge.

http://www.laprensademn.com/trasfondo-del-resentimiento-de-donald-trump-hacia-mexico/

And this is why He hates Mexico.

Opinion personal: Now I know it, He is the most grotesque beign. And this is why I hate him.

Questions?


----------



## CamillePunk

Why are you so obsessed with our president lmao your government is controlled by drug cartels and is a human trafficking highway where the traffickers are also rapists, maybe focus on that for a minute?


----------



## 341714

You really showed him!!

https://v.redd.it/qlbnhkql8p831


----------



## deepelemblues

Sir Darroch has resigned, as I figured would happen

Bye Felecia


----------



## El Grappleador

CamillePunk said:


> Why are you so obsessed with our president lmao your government is controlled by drug cartels and is a human trafficking highway where the traffickers are also rapists, maybe focus on that for a minute?


Cause in first place: I'm an exception to the rule. I don't deal, I don't kill, I don't consume drugs, and I don't rape neither. Those ideas are generalized and quoting Blake once again "to generalize is to be an idiot." Or do you look fair I tell America is populated by greedy firegun-lover satanistic sociopath ********? Don't answer. It's an hypotetical situation.
In second place: I repeat it: all this anti-mexican management is nothing but a revenge created by a series of frustrated business and here are the proofs. And it makes me see he has a low self-steem and is a bad loser.

Any question else?


----------



## deepelemblues

The US and Mexico are closer than they've been for a long time, AMLO is really making an honest effort on immigration and I just read yesterday that cars built in Mexico are coming into the US in record numbers

Give up your bitterness and join this new era of US-Mexico cooperation brought to you by the presidents of our two great countries :trump2


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

El Grappleador said:


> I'm sick from him. I can't kept begging to reason with someone annyoying. *So, this is my last post on this thread.*
> 
> And this is not the first failed business:
> 
> On early twentyfirst century, his children did attented to several government report from Joaquin Hendricks Diaz, on Quintana Roo (Cancun). He devised to build Punta Arrecifes Resort. But neighbours did protested on consequences about an ecologist damage. This episode ended up considering building zone as protected area.
> 
> And on 2010, he met Sonora Governor
> Guillermo Padres to built another resort.
> However, the project was rejected and replaced by Puerto Peñasco enviroment and coast highway building.
> 
> So, based on those loses, he devised a revenge through rise to The White House. And so the jigsaw pieces wee aligned to get revenge.
> 
> http://www.laprensademn.com/trasfondo-del-resentimiento-de-donald-trump-hacia-mexico/
> 
> And this is why He hates Mexico.
> 
> Opinion personal: Now I know it, He is the most grotesque beign. And this is why I hate him.
> 
> *Questions?*


Bit weird to ask if anyone has any questions if it's going to be your last post in this thread........



El Grappleador said:


> Cause in first place: I'm an exception to the rule. I don't deal, I don't kill, I don't consume drugs, and I don't rape neither. Those ideas are generalized and quoting Blake once again "to generalize is to be an idiot." Or do you look fair I tell America is populated by greedy firegun-lover satanistic sociopath ********? Don't answer. It's an hypotetical situation.
> In second place: I repeat it: all this anti-mexican management is nothing but a revenge created by a series of frustrated business and here are the proofs. And it makes me see he has a low self-steem and is a bad loser.
> 
> Any question else?


LIAR!!!!










Trump is still a bellend


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Why are you so obsessed with our president lmao your government is controlled by drug cartels and is a human trafficking highway where the traffickers are also rapists, maybe focus on that for a minute?


And this, my friends, is what a post from a man who is defeated and has no proper retort looks like.


----------



## Tater

AlternateDemise said:


> And this, my friends, is what a post from a man who is defeated and has no proper retort looks like.


You people need to stop making defend CP. It breaks the natural of order of things. CP is my natural enemy. I am the one who is supposed to be in here fighting with him. Stop saying stupid shit so I have to take his side. It breaks everything we have built in this thread.


----------



## CamillePunk

El Grappleador said:


> Cause in first place: I'm an exception to the rule. I don't deal, I don't kill, I don't consume drugs, and I don't rape neither. Those ideas are generalized and quoting Blake once again "to generalize is to be an idiot." Or do you look fair I tell America is populated by greedy firegun-lover satanistic sociopath ********? Don't answer. It's an hypotetical situation.
> In second place: I repeat it: all this anti-mexican management is nothing but a revenge created by a series of frustrated business and here are the proofs. And it makes me see he has a low self-steem and is a bad loser.
> 
> Any question else?


An exception to what rule? You're a human trafficker who doesn't rape? Your posts don't make any sense.


----------



## Draykorinee

How weak are we, bowing to the pathetic response from trump which proved Darroch correct. 

We're a laughing stock, we can't even back a guy who told the truth in private.


----------



## El Grappleador

CamillePunk said:


> El Grappleador said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause in first place: I'm an exception to the rule. I don't deal, I don't kill, I don't consume drugs, and I don't rape neither. Those ideas are generalized and quoting Blake once again "to generalize is to be an idiot." Or do you look fair I tell America is populated by greedy firegun-lover satanistic sociopath ********? Don't answer. It's an hypotetical situation.
> In second place: I repeat it: all this anti-mexican management is nothing but a revenge created by a series of frustrated business and here are the proofs. And it makes me see he has a low self-steem and is a bad loser.
> 
> Any question else?
> 
> 
> 
> An exception to what rule? You're a human trafficker who doesn't rape? Your posts don't make any sense.
Click to expand...

1. -there is always a case which breaks the wrong belief. For example: "Superheavywwight Wrestlers are clumpsy to move in-ring." That's not true. What about Vader? Umaga? The Big Show?Rikishi? Heavy Machinery? The Headhunters? Tamba, El Elefante Volador?
2.- So you think you know my life? Well, I dare you to know my life. What do you think if I film a vlog about life in my community? I don't guarantee an cool and morbid vlog, cause real life is not as like that as entertainment media plays. Have you ever know Slice of Life genre?


----------



## Draykorinee

Now I know that this is going to be called appeal to authority BUT I am a nurse and I'm sure the Kidney does not have a special place in the heart.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-speech-executive-order-disease-a8999991.html

He is way way way more gaff prone than Bush and its fantastic.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Tater said:


> You people need to stop making defend CP. It breaks the natural of order of things. CP is my natural enemy. I am the one who is supposed to be in here fighting with him. Stop saying stupid shit so I have to take his side. It breaks everything we have built in this thread.


WHY CAN'T I MAKE YOU HATE ME?! LET IT HAPPEN ALREADY!


----------



## Tater

AlternateDemise said:


> WHY CAN'T I MAKE YOU HATE ME?! LET IT HAPPEN ALREADY!


Jobbers aren't worth the effort.


----------



## CamillePunk

So much desperation by Democrats to tie Trump to Epstein. :mj4 Trump kicked him out of his club 15 years ago for being a creep and helped the government investigate him. Meanwhile a lot of big name Democrats have gone to his secret island. Alex Jones and others have been talking about it for years, but now that pro-Trump journalist Mike Cernovich finally exposes him the Democrats and their media partners go into full-on spin mode. Not only do they not credit Cernovich, but they try and use Trump to provide cover for the real pedophiles who are connected to their party. Absolutely despicable.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Now I know that this is going to be called appeal to authority BUT I am a nurse and I'm sure the Kidney does not have a special place in the heart.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-speech-executive-order-disease-a8999991.html
> 
> He is way way way more gaff prone than Bush and its fantastic.


Pretty sure special place in the heart is a phrase. Kind of odd when using it to describe organs but seems he meant importance. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Pretty sure special place in the heart is a phrase. Kind of odd when using it to describe organs but seems he meant importance. :laugh:


I mean, yeah its just the like fish and humans coexisting, its just a gaff rather than him actually thinking the kidney has a physical place in the heart


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1151897633151000576
Trump disavows "Send her back" chants. The media proceeds to equate "You can go back if you want, or stay" with "Send her back" to assure everyone that Trump is definitely racist.


----------



## Draykorinee

Pretty sure he didn't say you can go back if you want, or stay. He said, and I quote: 



> Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.


When you're so desperate to not have Trump labelled a racist for saying a racist thing you have to make shit up.

Go back to where you came from, or stay...Yeah, that was not said.



> Trump asserts that he tried to stop the “send her back” chant: "I think I did -- I started speaking very quickly."


He literally paused when the chants started...


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*"TRUMP IS A WITCH I TELL YOU! A WITCH!!"*










I'm curious are there degrees of being wacist or is it just one giant hodgepodge of evil and nazisim?

I mean the line is always moving. Just a few years ago Biden was a democratic babyface and the running partner of the first black president. He couldn't possibly be a bad guy and a wacist, right? Wrong, now he's having to defend himself against accusations coming from his own party.

What about Nancy Pelosi? She couldn't possibly be a wacist or harbor any racial convictions right? That is until she had the audacity to criticize a non-white congresswoman, and per AOC should have "known better". 

And of course the Oscar Awards ceremony is wacist as we all know. And the NFL. And Disney. And so is the half the country that voted for Trump... who of course is an obvious wacist. So only a wacist could vote for him.

Plus all the political pundits on television are also wacist, especially the ones on Fox News. So is Ben Shapiro. So is Dave Rubin. So is Steven Crowder. So are the vloggers and media personalities who have them as guests... or dare to disagree with some of the more recent progressive 'takes' on Twitter. 

It's wacist to use the n-word when referencing a movie or singing along to a rap song. It's wacist to criticize hip-hop. It's wacist to disagree with BLM. People, especially white people, that fall into any of these groups are clearly wacist.

So all of these people have the same thing in common... they have been called wacists. So what does that mean exactly? What does it expose about them? I mean sure I get they're wacist... but what are we supposed to take away from it? That they harbor hate for anyone that isn't white? Do they want America to endorse slavery again? Do they want to exterminate all non-whites? Or maybe just an additional sales tax for anyone that isn't white? What _exactly_ does their brand of racism entail? 

Trump said something antagonistic on Twitter towards Omar, so that of course makes him a witch and a wacist... and that makes him _Hitler_?


----------



## skypod

If you have a friend who you constantly have to remind people "oh he's not racist, what he meant was" on a weekly basis, then your friend is most likely just a fucking racist. 








And maybe I would rethink my positions and speech if it was attracting these types of people? I dunno, maybe you hear just as much "fuck that N******" and "fuck those dirty *******" at Bernies rallies idk.


----------



## El Grappleador

[User]CamillePunk[/user] It's so funny argue with you. I gave you a chance to know my country getting rid of fear and each argue takes me to find a new path at this labyrinth.

First, you tagged me as a no rapist drug traficker. Yes, I don't rape. Neither do I trafic. Or may you find out my file to prove it?

Second, I agreed. Russia has not the fault. Just hold on, it doesn't mean he is free of fault. Even through Russia has not involved directly, the country (not the government) was just a scapegoat. It was a quarter from an dissolved Think-Tank (a marketing studying center). You know the name of that mindmaster behind Trump's victory? I'll refresh your memory: Cambridge Analytica. This company take U.S.S. MAGA into victory port. Therefore, undisputably they cheated.

Third, I told it before: all of his resentment against come from his frustrated Mexican business dream (proofs above). I admit it: he is witty strategically. Not emotionally though.

I'm aware I can't take your blindfold off. Well, there's no worse blind who won't watch the facts.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.apnews.com/10a56574703d43799a3f3a0cc8ddeb29



> *American warship destroys Iranian drone in Strait of Hormuz*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.S. warship on Thursday destroyed an Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz after it threatened the ship, President Donald Trump said. The incident marked a new escalation of tensions between the countries less than one month after Iran downed an American drone in the same waterway and Trump came close to retaliating with a military strike.
> 
> In remarks at the White House, Trump blamed Iran for a “provocative and hostile” action and said the U.S. responded in self-defense. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, told reporters as he arrived for a meeting at the United Nations that “we have no information about losing a drone today.”
> 
> The clash in one of the busiest waterways for international oil traffic highlighted the risk of war between two countries at odds over a wide range of issues. After Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal last year and imposed additional economic sanctions, the Iranians have pushed back on the military front, allegedly sabotaging Saudi and other oil tankers in the Gulf, shooting down a U.S. drone on June 20 and stepping up support for Houthi rebels in Yemen.
> 
> Adding to the economic pressure on Tehran, the Treasury Department said Thursday it was imposing sanctions on what it called a network of front companies and agents involved in helping Iran buy sensitive materials for its nuclear program. It said the targeted individuals and entities are based in Iran, China and Belgium.
> 
> Trump said the Navy’s USS Boxer, an amphibious assault ship, took defensive action after the Iranian aircraft closed to within 1,000 yards of the ship and ignored multiple calls to stand down.
> 
> 
> “The United States reserves the right to defend our personnel, facilities and interests and calls upon all nations to condemn Iran’s attempts to disrupt freedom of navigation and global commerce,” Trump said.
> 
> The Pentagon said the incident happened at 10 a.m. local time Thursday in international waters while the Boxer was transiting the waterway to enter the Persian Gulf. The Boxer is among several U.S. Navy ships in the area, including the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier that has been operating in the nearby North Arabian Sea for weeks.
> 
> “A fixed-wing unmanned aerial system approached Boxer and closed within a threatening range,” chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a written statement. “The ship took defensive action against the UAS to ensure the safety of the ship and its crew.”
> 
> Neither Trump nor the Pentagon spelled out how the Boxer destroyed the drone. CNN reported that the ship used electronic jamming to bring it down rather than hitting it with a missile.
> 
> The Iranians and Americans have had close encounters in the Strait of Hormuz in the past, and it’s not unprecedented for Iran to fly a drone near a U.S. warship.
> 
> In December, about 30 Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels trailed the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier and its strike group through the strait as Associated Press journalists on board watched. One small vessel launched what appeared to be a commercial-grade drone to film the U.S. ships.
> 
> Other transits have seen the Iranians fire rockets away from American warships or test-fire their machine guns. The Guard’s small fast boats often cut in front of the massive carriers, running dangerously close to running into them in “swarm attacks.” The Guard boats are often armed with bomb-carrying drones and sea-to-sea and surface-to-sea missiles.
> 
> Thursday’s incident was the latest in a series of events that raised U.S.-Iran tensions since early May when Washington accused Tehran of threatening U.S. forces and interests in Iraq and in the Gulf. In response, the U.S. accelerated the deployment of the Lincoln and its strike group to the Arabian Sea and deployed four B-52 long-range bombers to the Gulf state of Qatar. It has since deployed additional Patriot air defense missile batteries in the Gulf region.
> 
> Shortly after Iran shot down a U.S. Navy drone aircraft on June 20, Trump ordered a retaliatory military strike but called it off at the last moment, saying the risk of casualties was disproportionate to the downing by Iran, which did not cost any U.S. lives.
> 
> Iran claimed the U.S. drone violated its airspace; the Pentagon denied this.
> 
> Zarif said Thursday that Iran and the U.S. were only “a few minutes away from a war” after Iran downed the American drone. He spoke to U.S.-based media on the sidelines of a visit to the United Nations.
> 
> At the meeting, Zarif also said Iran would be willing to move up an Iranian parliament ratification of an agreement Tehran made with the International Atomic Energy Association — one that outlined access to Iranian nuclear sites and other information.
> 
> A spokesman for Zarif explained that Iran is already abiding by the agreement under the 2015 nuclear deal, but it doesn’t have the force of law because it’s not supposed to be ratified by the Iranian parliament until 2023. Zarif told reporters that the ratification could come earlier if the U.S. eased sanctions.
> 
> A senior administration official responded that Trump has repeatedly said he is willing to have a conversation with Iranian leaders. The official said that if Iran wants to make a “serious gesture,” it should immediately stop enriching uranium and negotiate an agreement that includes a permanent end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, including development of nuclear-capable missiles. The official was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue and spoke only on condition of anonymity.
> 
> Zarif blamed Washington for the escalation of tensions.
> 
> “We live in a very dangerous environment,” he said. “The United States has pushed itself and the rest of the world into probably the brink of an abyss.” Zarif accused the Trump administration of “trying to starve our people” and “deplete our treasury” through economic sanctions.
> 
> Earlier Thursday, Iran said its Revolutionary Guard seized a foreign oil tanker and its crew of 12 for smuggling fuel out of the country, and hours later released video showing the vessel to be a United Arab Emirates-based ship that had vanished in Iranian waters over the weekend.
> 
> The announcement cleared up the fate of the missing ship but raised a host of other questions and heightened worries about the free flow of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical petroleum shipping routes. One-fifth of global crude exports pass through the strait.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> If you have a friend who you constantly have to remind people "oh he's not racist, what he meant was" on a weekly basis, then your friend is most likely just a fucking racist. .


Or perhaps those people are overly sensitive and don't know what the word racist means.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> Pretty sure he didn't say you can go back if you want, or stay. He said, and I quote:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're so desperate to not have Trump labelled a racist for saying a racist thing you have to make shit up.
> 
> Go back to where you came from, or stay...Yeah, that was not said.
> 
> 
> 
> He literally paused when the chants started...


And let them continue.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Pretty sure he didn't say you can go back if you want, or stay. He said, and I quote:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're so desperate to not have Trump labelled a racist for saying a racist thing you have to make shit up.
> 
> Go back to where you came from, or stay...Yeah, that was not said.


That's just as benign. :lol And yes, he did say the quote I gave as well. 



El Grappleador said:


> [User]CamillePunk[/user] It's so funny argue with you. I gave you a chance to know my country getting rid of fear and each argue takes me to find a new path at this labyrinth.
> 
> First, you tagged me as a no rapist drug traficker. Yes, I don't rape. Neither do I trafic. Or may you find out my file to prove it?


I did not. :mj4 I was talking about human traffickers who rape women and then you quoted me and told me you were the exception. Please get a better command of the English language.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-lead-2020-field-n1031506?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

:maury


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1151319630335492097
:heston

I hope that every single second of every single day from now until November 3, 2020, is all demagogues who cry racism, all the time

Didn't learn from 2016. Keep it up. The tears after election day will be the most delicious in humanthingstory


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reporter: Do you think it's just a coincidence that the president is attacking these four women and none of them are white?

Woman: Maybe there aren't any white women to mention in this instance because the congresswomen haven't befriended any of their white female colleagues and accepted them into their group?

Reporter:


----------



## DaRealNugget

It's almost as if interviewing hardcore Trump supporters will net automatic defenses of their dear leader. :hmmm


----------



## Draykorinee

DaRealNugget said:


> It's almost as if interviewing hardcore Trump supporters will net automatic defenses of their dear leader. <img src="https://i.imgur.com/qADWU4j.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Hmmm" class="inlineimg" />


I'd rather watch fox than CNN right now.


----------



## DOPA

Draykorinee said:


> I'd rather watch fox than CNN right now.


15 years ago I would laugh at and constantly mock Fox news because of how obvious the propaganda was.

15 years later whilst they've not changed much, they are the best or should I say least offensive out of all the major MSM networks in the US.

The world's turned upside down.

It's like the Ole Anderson quote towards Cornette: "Cornette, I used to think you were a dumb fuck, but there are so many other dumb fucks now that you've moved up the ladder without doing anything".

That's basically the state of the MSM.


----------



## Kabraxal

DOPA said:


> 15 years ago I would laugh at and constantly mock Fox news because of how obvious the propaganda was.
> 
> 15 years later whilst they've not changed much, they are the best or should I say least offensive out of all the major MSM networks in the US.
> 
> The world's turned upside down.
> 
> It's like the Ole Anderson quote towards Cornette: "Cornette, I used to think you were a dumb fuck, but there are so many other dumb fucks now that you've moved up the ladder without doing anything".
> 
> That's basically the state of the MSM.


I used to watch all the msm outlets... then MSNBC went full on parody and CNN is absolutely obsessed with a few stories, to hell with anything else. And honestly, I can’t stand most of Fox News either. I only watch Gutfeld’s saturday show because it is more humour at the insanity around them.

The workd has gone off the rails.


----------



## CamillePunk

DOPA said:


> 15 years ago I would laugh at and constantly mock Fox news because of how obvious the propaganda was.
> 
> 15 years later whilst they've not changed much, they are the best or should I say least offensive out of all the major MSM networks in the US.
> 
> The world's turned upside down.
> 
> It's like the Ole Anderson quote towards Cornette: "Cornette, I used to think you were a dumb fuck, but there are so many other dumb fucks now that you've moved up the ladder without doing anything".
> 
> That's basically the state of the MSM.


CNN was still awful 15 years ago, we just didn't know any better

Fox has Tucker Carlson and lets him tell the truth about our wars, that makes them better than all other corporate media

But his show is the only one worth watching


----------



## deepelemblues

The only information worth consuming is serious works (aka stuff written before ~1964)


----------



## NotGuilty

I used to check CNN for some stuff but i stopped doing that like 4 years ago. That is no where near credible news.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1152311234902913024
The dude just makes me laugh. :lol 5 more years won't be enough.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

He's now defending the "send her back" crowd.

https://www.apnews.com/edbb34fffc3d44e7ae11e1a588c6561e




> *In reversal, Trump disavows criticism of chanting crowd*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has reversed his previous criticisms of a North Carolina campaign crowd that chanted “send her back” about a Somali-born congresswoman.
> 
> Trump on Friday defended the rally-goers as “patriots” while again questioning the loyalty of four Democratic lawmakers of color. His comments marked a return to a pattern that has become familiar during controversies of his own making: ignite a firestorm, backtrack, then strongly reaffirm his original, inflammatory position.
> 
> When reporters at the White House asked if he was unhappy with the Wednesday night crowd, Trump responded: “Those are incredible people. They are incredible patriots. But I’m unhappy when a congresswoman goes and says, ‘I’m going to be the president’s nightmare.’”
> 
> It was another dizzying twist in a saga sparked by the president’s racist tweets about Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who moved from Somalia as a child, and her colleagues Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.
> 
> The moment took an ugly turn at the rally when the crowd’s “send her back” shouts resounded for 13 seconds as Trump made no attempt to interrupt them. He paused in his speech and surveyed the scene, taking in the uproar, though the next day he claimed he did not approve of the chant and tried to stop it
> 
> But on Friday, he made clear he was not disavowing the chant and again laced into Omar, the target of the chant.
> 
> “You can’t talk that way about our country. Not when I’m president,” Trump said. “These women have said horrible things about our country and the people of our country.”
> 
> He also tweeted that it was “amazing how the Fake News Media became ‘crazed’ over the chant ‘send her back’ by a packed Arena (a record) crowd in the Great State of North Carolina, but is totally calm & accepting of the most vile and disgusting statements made by the three Radical Left Congresswomen.”
> 
> Omar was defiant after the rally, telling reporters at the Capitol that she believes the president is a “fascist” and casting the confrontation as a fight over “what this country truly should be.”
> 
> “We are going to continue to be a nightmare to this president because his policies are a nightmare to us. We are not deterred. We are not frightened,” she told a cheering crowd that greeted her like a local hero at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport as she returned from Washington.
> 
> The back-and-forth captured the potential impacts of Trump’s willingness to inject racist rhetoric into his reelection fight. Trump’s allies distanced themselves from the chant, fretting over the voters it might turn off in next year’s election and beyond. Democrats, meanwhile, pointed to the episode as a rallying cry to energize and mobilize their supporters to vote Trump out of office.
> 
> Trump’s double flip-flop was reminiscent of his response to the violent clash between white supremacists and anti-racist demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.
> 
> Then, he initially blamed violence on “both sides” of the altercation. After a wave of bipartisan condemnation and scathing cable news coverage, he issued a cleanup statement at the White House days later. Yet, after watching the response to his reversal, he doubled back to his original position during a wild Trump Tower news conference.
> 
> Trump started the tumult this past week by tweeting Sunday that Omar and three other freshmen congresswomen could “go back” to their native countries if they were unhappy here.
> 
> The chants at the Trump rally brought criticism from GOP lawmakers as well as from Democrats, though the Republicans did not fault Trump himself.
> 
> House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California declared that the chant has “no place in our party and no place in this country.”
> 
> GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois tweeted that it was “ugly, wrong, & would send chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers. This ugliness must end, or we risk our great union.”
> 
> Citing Trump’s rhetoric, House Democrats said they were discussing arranging security for Omar and the three other congresswomen.
> 
> Even by Trump’s standards, the campaign rally offered an extraordinary tableau for American politics: a president drinking in a crowd’s cries to expel a congresswoman from the country who’s his critic and a woman of color.
> 
> It was also the latest demonstration of how Trump’s verbal cannonades are capable of dominating the news. Democrats had hoped the spotlight Thursday would be on House passage of legislation to boost the minimum wage for the first time in a decade.


----------



## CamillePunk

Where was the disavowal of his criticism? Where was the reversal? There wasn't one. He never said he didn't think they were great people in the first place. People really milking this for the virtue signaling. :lol Move on already, there are bigger issues in the country than whether or not people were mean to Ilhan Omar, an awful person.


----------



## Draykorinee

Only stupid people bought his disavowment of his crowd. You only had to look at his lies about talking fast.

He was more than happy, and now he's t doubling down on his divisive rhetoric.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

I don't see what the problem is with the 'send her back' chant. It's a political rally. The crowd is full of marks and Omar plays for the other team. She's the heel. 'Send her back' is shorthand for _if you don't like the country then get out_. It is not a rallying cry for her deportation. Nobody gives a flying fuck that's she's brown. Brown people vote republican too.

If Trump is a so called monster for not disavowing a harmless chant, what does that make "The Squad" for not disavowing the antifa terrorist? Or antifa in general? Could you _imagine_ if large bodies of Trump supporters took to the streets wearing masks and carrying weapons... shutting down city streets and attacking people? 










^ *"MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" *










^ *"NO FAKE NEWS! NO FAKE NEWS!"*


Who do you think is more at risk of being harmed? A liberal at a Trump rally or a Trump supporter at an Antifa rally? 

Hmmm, I wonder.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/294094883394838528
:lol 

If only Republicans cared about the debt. Then again, caring about the debt also makes the liberal media cast you as someone who wants 9/11 victims and heroes to SUFFERRRRR


----------



## deepelemblues

If you think it's slightly unreasonable to spend 4.5 trillion dollars a year while your revenue is only 3.3 trillion dollars a year, you something something want people to die in the gutters something something


----------



## CamillePunk

And even a fine man like Rand Paul who CURES BLIND PEOPLE in poor countries for free is moral high grounded by people who tweet about how offended they are for a living. :lol 

It's so easy to just say "the government should do it, we'll just pass the debt onto our (read: your) children".


----------



## MrMister

Trump doesn't really care about "send her back" chants save it fed his ego and he gets to continue to dictate what the media talks about. 

Donald Trump is the media's puppet master.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Who do you think is more at risk of being harmed? A liberal at a Trump rally or a Trump supporter at an Antifa rally?
> 
> Hmmm, I wonder.


Depends, will there be any roads nearby because driving cars at people seems something a Trump supporter might do?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Depends, will there be any roads nearby because driving cars at people seems something a Trump supporter might do?


Charlottesville wasn't a Trump rally (Y). 

Trump also disavowed the white nationalist groups that took part in the violence. 

The point I was trying to make, which you obviously understood, is that the media is making Trump out to be a monster for not disavowing the people at his rallies. Because as you know, they're the _real_ people we need to be worried about.

Yet nobody in MSM presses "The Squad" when it comes to Antifa. It's a clear double standard.


----------



## deepelemblues

Trying to assassinate a dozen Republican members of Congress at a practice session for the the annual Congressional Softball Game For Charity seems like something a BernieBro actually did

Of course that was memory holed because it doesn't fit The Narrative


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends, will there be any roads nearby because driving cars at people seems something a Trump supporter might do?
> 
> 
> 
> Charlottesville wasn't a Trump rally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Trump also disavowed the white nationalist groups that took part in the violence.
> 
> The point I was trying to make, which you obviously understood, is that the media is making Trump out to be a monster for not disavowing the people at his rallies. Because as you know, they're the _real_ people we need to be worried about.
> 
> Yet nobody in MSM presses "The Squad" when it comes to Antifa. It's a clear double standard.
Click to expand...

You made 2 points, one was trying to conflate trump rallies with Antifa rallies and safety, both sides are quite capable of vomiting acts of violence, although the question was pretty biased when you compare a trump rally with an Antifa one. 

The other was the MSM having to ask omar to denounce Antifa if trump has to denounce racists, Omar doesn't have Antifa chanting at her rallies so it's not comparable. However, if she does get asked then I would expect her to denounce them.


----------



## CamillePunk

Except it sure seems like Omar's family engaged in immigration fraud to get here, including a sham marriage on her part to her own brother, so perhaps sending her back wouldn't be all that inappropriate after all. :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1152721726159151105
Well said. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Except it sure seems like Omar's family engaged in immigration fraud to get here, including a sham marriage on her part to her own brother, so perhaps sending her back wouldn't be all that inappropriate after all. :draper2


We must not send back someone who in all likelihood committed immigration fraud - though, of course, a full investigation and hearing must take place to make such a determination - and is a raging hater of the Joos because sending her back to somewhere her Joo-hating is more acceptable would be hateful itself 

:aries2

It is so strange how so many on the left leap to the defense of Joo-haters


----------



## CamillePunk

They're not anti-Jew, they're anti-Israel. :nerd: It just so happens they share much of the same rhetoric and many of the same political priorities as people who want to exterminate Jews (and America). Total coincidence.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1152748499840249857
Now Trump wants every brown AND black person deported? Should we alert Ben Carson? Is he still considered black by the left?

I mean... how does no one call her out for this? She sounds like a lunatic. This kind of rhetoric is more extreme and more divisive than anything Trump has ever tweeted.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1152748499840249857
> Now Trump wants every brown AND black person deported? Should we alert Ben Carson? Is he still considered black by the left?


Carson is an idiot savant. He's really good at one thing and a complete fucking retard at everything else.


----------



## Hangman

Berzerker's Beard said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1152748499840249857


I try not to comment in this thread too much as I'm from England and have to business talking about American politics, but fucking hell is she for real? 

Surely what she says classifies as hate speech?


----------



## Draykorinee

Ultron said:


> Surely what she says classifies as hate speech?


:chlol

Of course it fucking doesn't. What she said was dumb but jesus christ, hate speech? Its not because you're British that you shouldn't comment, its that your take is utterly devoid of any sense.


----------



## MontyCora

I legit HATE Trump. I think he's about as low as you can get when it comes to pond scum(and considering the Epstein rape lawsuit, very plausibly he's a pedophile rapist) but even I'm struggling to understand how anything she said was even approaching the territory of hate speech. Maybe I missed something at the end.


----------



## Tater

MontyCora said:


> I legit HATE Trump. I think *he's about as low as you can get when it comes to pond scum*(and considering the Epstein rape lawsuit, very plausibly he's a pedophile rapist) but even I'm struggling to understand how anything she said was even approaching the territory of hate speech. Maybe I missed something at the end.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> They're not anti-Jew, they're anti-Israel. :nerd: It just so happens they share much of the same rhetoric and many of the same political priorities as people who want to exterminate Jews (and America). Total coincidence.


Well I find it hilarious that people toss around terms like "Alt-Right" and label everything as Alt-Right without even knowing what the fuck those people believe. The Alt-Right share a large amount of their core beliefs with the American Left, except different forms of identity politics. 

I won't use quotation marks on Left this time since too many Identity Politic loving, authoritarian types think they're Left and ignore their own nonsense. 

First it's the Russians, now the Joos. Wonder who's next? :x


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Well I find it hilarious that people toss around terms like "Alt-Right" and label everything as Alt-Right without even knowing what the fuck those people believe. The Alt-Right share a large amount of their core beliefs with the American Left, except different forms of identity politics.
> 
> I won't use quotation marks on Left this time since too many Identity Politic loving, authoritarian types think they're Left and ignore their own nonsense.
> 
> First it's the Russians, now the Joos. Wonder who's next? :x


Methinks we should start teaching the political spectrum in school, so people actually know what authoritarian right/left and libertarian left/right actually fucking means. It would help when establishment Democrats run around calling themselves liberal or centrist or center left or whatever when the bulk of them are borderline authoritarian right wing fascists.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> Methinks we should start teaching the political spectrum in school, so people actually know what authoritarian right/left and libertarian left/right actually fucking means. It would help when establishment Democrats run around calling themselves liberal or centrist or center left or whatever when the bulk of them are borderline authoritarian right wing fascists.


Seriously.

People should learn more than labels and if you're going to label someone you should at least have a gist of what you're talking about. Nobody's perfect, I had to learn too.

What annoys me is people calling anyone who disagrees with basically anything "Alt-Right" while they themselves share more in common with that group compared to the people they're bashing. Don't like this or that? Have a logical reason? don't matter, you're Alt-Right! It's so dumb. :laugh:

I really appreciate the people here who know a lot. Without you I wouldn't know the difference because the MSM and academia don't say the difference.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Seriously.
> 
> People should learn more than labels and if you're going to label someone you should at least have a gist of what you're talking about. Nobody's perfect, I had to learn too.
> 
> What annoys me is people calling anyone who disagrees with basically anything "Alt-Right" while they themselves share more in common with that group compared to the people they're bashing. Don't like this or that? Have a logical reason? don't matter, you're Alt-Right! It's so dumb. :laugh:
> 
> I really appreciate the people here who know a lot. Without you I wouldn't know the difference because the MSM and academia don't say the difference.


I've talked to quite a few people who consider themselves right wing conservatives but actually agree with my libertarian left policies when I explain it to them. Believe me, there are a lot of Republican voters who hate that we lost Main Street USA and replaced it with malls and mega corporations.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Tater said:


>


Wasn't this the guy who tried convincing us for the longest time that Cuba had a bunch of secret weapons and tried firing a guy who said he was full of shit?


----------



## Tater

AlternateDemise said:


> Wasn't this the guy who tried convincing us for the longest time that Cuba had a bunch of secret weapons and tried firing a guy who said he was full of shit?


I know he's the guy who is going to start a war with Iran.


----------



## LongPig666

Miss Sally said:


> Well I find it hilarious that people toss around terms like "Alt-Right" and label everything as Alt-Right without even knowing what the fuck those people believe.


I find it hilarious as well, the alt-right are white supremacists. End of story.


----------



## red dead2

The radical left and alt-right probably have more in common then people think

They appeal to a similar economic demographic, are against Jews and pretty much have an outlook on International politics that follows the agenda of the Russian Federation.

Even Steve Bannon, the master strategist who created Breitbart and helped Trump win the election was pretty much the middle man in setting up a coalition between a far right party and a leftist party in Italy.

both ideologies are against liberalism and will work in unison to further their goals just like Nazi Germany and Soviet Union did when they invaded Poland together.


----------



## red dead2

Ultron said:


> I try not to comment in this thread too much as I'm from England and have to business talking about American politics, but fucking hell is she for real?
> 
> Surely what she says classifies as hate speech?


lol no

What congresswoman Omar said was probably a severley overblown reaction or her intentionally using a Strawman fallacy to get at Trump.

But Hate speech? No way Jose.


----------



## Tater

red dead2 said:


> The radical left and alt-right probably have more in common then people think
> 
> They appeal to a similar economic demographic, are against Jews and pretty much have an outlook on International politics that follows the agenda of the Russian Federation.
> 
> Even Steve Bannon, the master strategist who created Breitbart and helped Trump win the election was pretty much the middle man in setting up a coalition between a far right party and a leftist party in Italy.
> 
> both ideologies are against liberalism and will work in unison to further their goals just like Nazi Germany and Soviet Union did when they invaded Poland together.


This is quite possibly the most retarded post I have ever seen in all of the Trump threads and considering some of the posters we have around here, that is saying a lot.


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/254078504898011136
Maybe cutting a promo on someone you're feuding with and saying 'why don't you get the fuck outta here' is just an expression of personal ire and nothing more :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49116539



> Both the White House and Turning Point say they don't know how the doctored seal made its way on screen, and the conservative group denies any harmful intent.
> 
> Here's what's behind the unwelcome alterations.
> But the eagle that appeared on screen this week was not the eagle hand-picked by the Founding Fathers. Instead, the two-headed bird briefly projected next to Mr Trump bears a striking resemblance to the eagle featured on the Russian flag.


Trololol


----------



## AlternateDemise

So I guess Trump is getting 2.5 billion for the border wall.


----------



## deepelemblues

That brief shining moment yesterday when the only political thread on the first page was the one whining about the fascism that is always descending but never lands :trump2


----------



## CamillePunk

The people who got behind this guy and this bullshit investigation. :banderas


----------



## deepelemblues

That diastematic fartsniffer in the blue t-shirt is the perfect embodiment of the decline of the Republic


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156216401398575106
A short generation from now young people will be completely stunned to learn that Texas was once a ruby-red state, much like Virginia only a generation before her. :lol


----------



## Kabraxal

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156216401398575106
> A short generation from now young people will be completely stunned to learn that Texas was once a ruby-red state, much like Virginia only a generation before her. :lol


Not like it should be all that surprising... with Texas's popularity as a destination state and its growth in urban centres, it was doomed to fall into the same trap as every other major state with a heavy urban population. Doesn't help that Californians and Illinoisans are fleeing their respective dumpster fires to Texas and making the same mistakes in their new home.......


----------



## Art Vandaley

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156216401398575106
> A short generation from now young people will be completely stunned to learn that Texas was once a ruby-red state, much like Virginia only a generation before her. :lol


Fascinating.

Shocked to see Bernie doing better than Sanders in Texas.... 

And also shocked by such a dire result for Biden.

I love that Trump gets the same vote against both Biden and Sanders, but gets an extra 2% against Harris and 1% against Warren. 

If that is not 100% proof of racism and sexism in the electorate I don't know what is.


----------



## njcam

I'm impressed with Tulsi Gabbard. Really shows that she is in politics to make a difference.

Would like to see her as Vice President in 2020.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156237442904576001
Trump continues to show how smart he is. Bigly


----------



## deepelemblues

Ninja Hedgehog said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156237442904576001
> Trump continues to show how smart he is. Bigly


I read a ton - certainly far more than the president - and there are words and names I'm not sure how to pronounce because I never encounter them in conversation

I would have pronounced that as "Whythe" and been wrong :draper2

Meanwhile I watched 20 seconds of the president's rally and holy fuck is he over

These white folks between the Missouri River and the Appalachian Mountains 

And below the Mason-Dixon

And in Texas and the Great Plains

They can't get enough of him even when he's rambling on and being almost intolerable to listen to. For me anyway, I have an editor working constantly in my head all these politicians I can't listen to I'm immediately thinking that would have been said way better this way 

But goddamn all the right people are underestimating him again you'd think they would have learned last time


----------



## CamillePunk

njcam said:


> I'm impressed with Tulsi Gabbard. Really shows that she is in politics to make a difference.
> 
> Would like to see her as Vice President in 2020.


If you're impressed by her, why would you want her in such an inconsequential role?


----------



## Draykorinee

Sanders is quite old to be fair...

But yeah, she needs to be in a role that can more effectively use her anti-interventionism.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157296584985649157
This is what you fucking retarded ass Russiagaters have gotten us. So, thanks for that.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157259424794324992
:lol Goodness. The reality show presidency continues.


----------



## Stephen90

Trump can't even get the names of cities that were attacked right.


----------



## PresidentGasman

Trump blaming video games, fuckin idiot man, we gotta impeach the asshole before he turns this country into a Christian Dictatorship.


----------



## Kabraxal

Christ... back to blaming games? Can we stop blaming everything else but the assholes that did this? Some people are just evil. End of.


----------



## red dead2

Kabraxal said:


> Christ... back to blaming games? Can we stop blaming everything else but the assholes that did this? Some people are just evil. End of.


Of course Trump cannot be directly blamed for these massacres but you cannot deny that his rhetoric and statements about Muslims, Latinos & Charlottseville since becoming President has not helped at all. 

When you live in a country of over 300 million people, in which the citizens have easy access to weapons, including those who have rather radical political viewpoints, your words as President or leader of said country can be the match that lights the fuel which ignites crazy racists and ultra-nationalists to start justifying the murder of minorities.

Trump needs to become a President who represents all Americans instead of his voting base. I hope this is a wake up call to him that a section of his supporters are complete fascists and loonies who have no qualms in committing awful crimes on U.S soil. 

If not then I really am concerned for America. Because even when Trump leaves you will still have a radical partisan divide that can't seem to be bridged to the detriment of your country.


----------



## Kabraxal

red dead2 said:


> Of course Trump cannot be directly blamed for these massacres but you cannot deny that his rhetoric and statements about Muslims, Latinos & Charlottseville since becoming President has not helped at all.
> 
> When you live in a country of over 300 million people, in which the citizens have easy access to weapons, including those who have rather radical political viewpoints, your words as President or leader of said country can be the match that lights the fuel which ignites crazy racists and ultra-nationalists to start justifying the murder of minorities.
> 
> Trump needs to become a President who represents all Americans instead of his voting base. I hope this is a wake up call to him that a section of his supporters are complete fascists and loonies who have no qualms in committing awful crimes on U.S soil.
> 
> If not then I really am concerned for America. Because even when Trump leaves you will still have a radical partisan divide that can't seem to be bridged to the detriment of your country.


That is not unique to Trump... look at the most covered politicians right now and you'll find each of them fans the divide. Let's not act like Trump is the sole voice adding to the discontent.


----------



## Brodus Clay

Games again, xD this guy it's retarded af even his fanboys have better arguments.


----------



## red dead2

Kabraxal said:


> That is not unique to Trump... look at the most covered politicians right now and you'll find each of them fans the divide. Let's not act like Trump is the sole voice adding to the discontent.


That's true but Trump is now the President. It is his moral duty to unite the country and not say things that may bring people to turn against one another or cause divisions in society.

Ever since he took the oath of office in January of 2016 his words have had more meaning and impact than in his civilian days. If he promotes Hatred instead of harmony this will only galvanize those groups of fascists to commit crimes as these people would feel like they have gained some sort of legitimacy or justification for their evil actions.

If Bernie Sanders were President now and defended an Antifa Mob who murdered people the reaction should be the same. To conclude Trump is not just the president of a Maga Crowd but of over 300 million US citizens.


----------



## Kabraxal

red dead2 said:


> That's true but Trump is now the President. It is his moral duty to unite the country and not say things that may bring people to turn against one another or cause divisions in society.
> 
> Ever since he took the oath of office in January of 2016 his words have had more meaning and impact than in his civilian days. If he promotes Hatred instead of harmony this will only galvanize those groups of fascists to commit crimes as these people would feel like they have gained some sort of legitimacy or justification for their evil actions.
> 
> If Bernie Sanders were President now and defended an Antifa Mob who murdered people the reaction should be the same. To conclude Trump is not just the president of a Maga Crowd but of over 300 million US citizens.


Sadly no politician thinks that way anymore. They are the President and it is their way, fuck their opposition. We will not see this change anytime soon.


----------



## Tater

Kabraxal said:


> *Sadly no politician thinks that way anymore. * They are the President and it is their way, fuck their opposition. We will not see this change anytime soon.


Tulsi seems to be pretty interested in representing all Americans. She gets a fair amount of support from the right too, despite her leftist domestic policies.

Just throwing that out there.


----------



## Stephen90

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/tr...hter to release a sex tape: New York Magazine

Published

*21 hours ago*

on

*August 5, 2019

By

*Sarah K. Burris

A recent profile on Ivanka Trump has revealed a lot about*her self-obsession and lack of self-awareness,*as well as her obsession with an Ayn Rand character who*used her beauty to outwither opponents. But it also divulged the president’s fascination with Paris Hilton’s sex tape,*reported*New York Magazine.

The piece talked about Ivanka’s perfected role as the “dutiful daughter,” who “never talked back or even rolled her eyes,” even when he does cringe-worthy things.


“Among the members of New York society in the ’90s and early aughts, [Donald Trump] was seen as a credit clown, a joke, but never to Ivanka,” the profile outlined. “His chauvinism frustrated her, however, and she was repelled by the way he talked about women’s bodies — who was fat, who was not.”

But after Paris Hilton’s sex tape was posted to the internet in 2003, the president couldn’t stop talking about it.

“Paris is laughing all the way to the bank, she’s got the last laugh, she’s marvelous,” Trump allegedly said.


“Ivanka could not believe her father was not only idolizing an airhead heiress caught blowing a guy on a night-vision video but encouraging her to follow Paris’s lead.”

When asked about the recollection, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham denied the account, calling it “untrue and disgusting.”

“The thing with Paris hurt Ivanka a lot,” a friend told*New York Magazine. “He was heartbreaking to her at times.”


The piece said that she “buried her feelings and moved on,” thinking her father’s feelings about women were “complicated.”

“Donald hired many women at the Trump Organization, she knew, and these women weren’t universally pretty; he wanted to employ women with traditionally masculine attitudes and almost enjoyed feeling discomfited by them, having them boss him around,” the piece continued. “Her father may have had issues with women, she felt, but he did not meet the textbook definition of a misogynist — a belief she seems to hold to the present day.”


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Haven't been in Trump threads for a while because of work, but I'm gonna cut to the chase on one thing: Trump came off like a typical ignorant-ass boomer by blaming vidya for violent shooters. However, in spite of this latest gaffe joining his 15 second flip-flopping between proclaiming himself a nationalist and globalist (before firmly saying he's the former) and allowing the Syrian airstrike to happen because of Ivanka crying as the most facepalm-inducing moments I've had as a supporter of his, I'm still on board the Trump Train in spite of his buffoonish dad moments.

:trump3

That being said, @Tater is right in that Tulsi is actually a competent politician and deserves a fair shake, even though she won't get it despite being a progressive wet dream (a woman who is enlisted and is both a racial and religious minority) because she's not your typical neoliberal scumfuck.


----------



## Tater

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Haven't been in Trump threads for a while because of work, but I'm gonna cut to the chase on one thing: Trump came off like a typical ignorant-ass boomer by blaming vidya for violent shooters. However, in spite of this latest gaffe joining his 15 second flip-flopping between proclaiming himself a nationalist and globalist (before firmly saying he's the former) and allowing the Syrian airstrike to happen because of Ivanka crying as the most facepalm-inducing moments I've had as a supporter of his, I'm still on board the Trump Train in spite of his buffoonish dad moments.
> 
> :trump3
> 
> That being said, @Tater is right in that Tulsi is actually a competent politician and deserves a fair shake, even though she won't get it despite being a progressive wet dream (a woman who is enlisted and is both a racial and religious minority) because she's not your typical neoliberal scumfuck.


If by some miracle it was Tulsi vs Trump in the general, who would you vote for?

One of them would waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars illegally launching missiles into a country that didn't attack us to appease a crying girl.

One of them would not.

Eh?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> If by some miracle it was Tulsi vs Trump in the general, who would you vote for?
> 
> One of them would waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars illegally launching missiles into a country that didn't attack us to appease a crying girl.
> 
> One of them would not.
> 
> Eh?


Tulsi is in favor of free college, universal health care, and banning "muh assault weapons". The first two are noble, but nevertheless the fever dreams of madmen. The third is the first of many dominoes that will fall when it comes to infringing upon the 2nd Amendment when we actually need to take a serious grip on treating folks with mental health issues.

Those flaws aside, I commend her for waking up to how retarded the green new deal is. Aside from her strong desire to maintain U.S.-Israel relations (because fuck Bibi and his ilk for getting a big dick because of us constantly holding their hands and wiping their asses), I largely agree with her other stances. Oh and kneecapping that cunt Kamala earned her brownie points from me.

bama4

Ultimately, Trump, in spite of his flaws, is the bold and brash upheaval our governing process needed in the wake of dynasties (Bush and Clinton) and the general limp-dicked, two-faced, ineffectual leadership brought about by neoliberalism and neoconservatism. He'll win 2020 because things are going well instead of being a reprise of the 10 plagues of Egypt like normies swore up and down would happen. So yeah, he's got my vote (same goes for DeSantis because of him being a pretty good Guv so far here in Florida).

Although Tulsi is sadly being blatantly drowned out despite being the only reasonable person in a clown car of democratic candidates, odds are I'll vote for her or Rand come 2024.

:draper2


----------



## Tater

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Tulsi is in favor of free college, universal health care, and banning "muh assault weapons". The first two are noble, but nevertheless the fever dreams of madmen. The third is the first of many dominoes that will fall when it comes to infringing upon the 2nd Amendment when we actually need to take a serious grip on treating folks with mental health issues.
> 
> Those flaws aside, I commend her for waking up to how retarded the green new deal is. Aside from her strong desire to maintain U.S.-Israel relations (because fuck Bibi and his ilk for getting a big dick because of us constantly holding their hands and wiping their asses), I largely agree with her other stances. Oh and kneecapping that cunt Kamala earned her brownie points from me.
> 
> bama4
> 
> *Ultimately, Trump, in spite of his flaws, is the bold and brash upheaval our governing process needed in the wake of dynasties (Bush and Clinton) and the general limp-dicked, two-faced, ineffectual leadership brought about by neoliberalism and neoconservatism.* He'll win 2020 because things are going well instead of being a reprise of the 10 plagues of Egypt like normies swore up and down would happen. So yeah, he's got my vote (same goes for DeSantis because of him being a pretty good Guv so far here in Florida).
> 
> Although Tulsi is sadly being blatantly drowned out despite being the only reasonable person in a clown car of democratic candidates, odds are I'll vote for her or Rand come 2024.
> 
> :draper2


You do realize this is 100% factually incorrect, no? We are still living under the same neo/neo policies that gave us Trump in the first place. He has continued and furthered the neoliberal economic policies of his predecessors. More deregulation, more tax cuts for the rich, jobs are being outsourced at a rate even higher than when Obama was in office, his trade wars have been backfiring no matter how much spin he tries to put on it. The people who put him into office are no more financially secure now than they were before. Massive debt bubbles are being created everywhere and the next crash will be even worse than the last. 

Do I even need to explain the neocon thing? I mean, he has John fucking Bolton and Mike Pompeo in his administration. He has not ended any of the Dubya/Obama wars. They just blockaded Venezuela in an attempt to starve the population just so they can get rid of Maduro and get their hands on that oil. They've been sanctioning and baiting and outright using false flags against Iran, trying to find any reason to justify invading that country and start a war there. He has illegally bombed Syria based on a false flag chemical attack manufactured by US backed terrorists, the one you said he did because darling little Ivanka cried. He said he was going to withdraw troops from the country. That hasn't happened either.

So tell me again how Trump has changed things? The only thing that is different is the political circus. Policy-wise, we are on the exact same trajectory we were before he got elected. 

He is the deep state's little bitch boy and the sooner his supporters figure that out, the better off we'll all be.


----------



## Reaper

No. He's just Jesus who's fighting against witchcraft.


----------



## Draykorinee

Fuck me are we still pretending trump is some pioneering anti establishment president?
He's one of the most blatantly pro establishment president we've seen, even if you talk like a buffoon and are overly aggressive and brash you still have to do the bare minimum policy changes to even be contemplated as anti establishment and he clearly has not.

Fuck someone else used the R word as well, where are the police?


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Tulsi is in favor of free college,* universal health care, and banning "muh assault weapons". The first two are noble, but nevertheless the fever dreams of madmen. *The third is the first of many dominoes that will fall when it comes to infringing upon the 2nd Amendment *when we actually need to take a serious grip on treating folks with mental health issues.*


Isn't this a contradiction? How do we treat widespread mental illness issues without Universal health care? There are 41M Americans underinsured and 27M uninsured how can we ensure that they're all mentally healthy enough to not be a threat when they can't afford to see mental health specialists?

Isn't mental health just a strawman to deflect from the gun control debate that conservatives have no actual interest in addressing?


----------



## RainmakerV2

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Isn't this a contradiction? How do we treat widespread mental illness issues without Universal health care? There are 41M Americans underinsured and 27M uninsured how can we ensure that they're all mentally healthy enough to not be a threat when they can't afford to see mental health specialists?
> 
> Isn't mental health just a strawman to deflect from the gun control debate that conservatives have no actual interest in addressing?


You can't have universal healthcare and open borders. You have to pick one. Tulsi is also for reparations if I remember correctly. Wheres all this money gonna come from exactly?


----------



## Draykorinee

RainmakerV2 said:


> You can't have universal healthcare and open borders. You have to pick one. Tulsi is also for reparations if I remember correctly. Wheres all this money gonna come from exactly?


Well, seeing as no one is advocating open borders why don't we pick the one that they're all advocating for - Universal Healthcare.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166723478776684544
:lol


----------



## FriedTofu

Tweet storm to distract from this news I guess.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...children-of-u-s-military-abroad-idUSKCN1VI2SM



> (Reuters) - Some children born to U.S. citizens stationed abroad as government employees or members of the U.S. military will no longer qualify for automatic American citizenship under a policy change unveiled on Wednesday by the Trump administration.
> 
> Effective Oct. 29, certain parents serving overseas in the U.S. armed forces or other agencies of the federal government must go through a formal application process seeking U.S. citizenship on their children’s behalf by their 18th birthday, the policy states.
> 
> A government fact sheet, however, listed several caveats appearing to exempt many such children from the new requirement, including those with at least one U.S. citizen parent who lived in the United States before the child’s birth.
> 
> Currently, children born to U.S. citizens stationed by their government in a foreign country are legally considered to be “residing in the United States,” thus allowing their parents to simply obtain a certificate showing their children acquired citizenship automatically.
> 
> But in an 11-page “policy alert,” the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency said it found the prevailing rules contradictory and at odds with other parts of federal immigration law and State Department procedures.
> 
> Beyond that, the rationale for the policy revision remained unclear.
> 
> “It’s a solution in search of a problem,” Tennessee-based attorney Martin Lester, who chairs the military assistance program for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told Reuters. He added that the scope of the change seemed fairly limited.
> 
> “I’m sure, to be fair, it’s a relatively small number of people,” Lester said.
> 
> Acting USCIS director Ken Cuccinelli stressed on Twitter that the new rule “does NOT impact birthright citizenship” - the doctrine - criticized by President Donald Trump - by which anyone born in the United States or its possessions automatically acquires U.S. citizenship.
> 
> But the change could conceivably give Trump room to argue that his administration curtailed birthright benefits that a citizen with little or no actual U.S. residency can automatically confer to their foreign-born offspring.
> 
> “It only affects children who were born outside the US and were not US citizens,” Cuccinelli tweeted.
> 
> The larger American expatriate community is likewise unaffected. Children born overseas to non-military, non-government parents still automatically gain U.S. citizenship so long as at least one parent is a U.S. citizen who has previously lived in the United States for five years or more.
> 
> The new policy, which is not retroactive, sparked immediate consternation on the part of some organizations representing members of the armed forces.
> 
> “Military members already have enough to deal with, and the last thing that they should have to do when stationed overseas is go through hoops to ensure their children are U.S. citizens,” said Andy Blevins, executive director of the Modern Military Association of America.
> 
> He urged Congress to take action to address the situation to “ensure our military families don’t suffer the consequences of a reckless administration.”​


First salvo fired at attempting to contest birthright citizenship I guess even though they are denying it. :shrug

To be sure, this seem to affect very few people, I read somewhere else it only will impact 100 or so annually. They can probably sweep this under the rug as not damaging to the military to their base since most are not impacted.


----------



## BruiserKC

red dead2 said:


> That's true but Trump is now the President. It is his moral duty to unite the country and not say things that may bring people to turn against one another or cause divisions in society.
> 
> Ever since he took the oath of office in January of 2016 his words have had more meaning and impact than in his civilian days. If he promotes Hatred instead of harmony this will only galvanize those groups of fascists to commit crimes as these people would feel like they have gained some sort of legitimacy or justification for their evil actions.
> 
> If Bernie Sanders were President now and defended an Antifa Mob who murdered people the reaction should be the same. To conclude Trump is not just the president of a Maga Crowd but of over 300 million US citizens.


Meanwhile...this article was written before Trump announced VP Pence would be going in his place for the 80th anniversary of the start of WWII. A man that once risked everything to help his people obtain their freedom and became an inspiration now feels the United States is no longer a leader of the world...courtesy of Yahoo News. 

*Walesa to Trump: US no longer moral, political world leader*

_Warsaw (AFP) - Poland's freedom icon Lech Walesa on Thursday said the United States was "no longer the main global power" in political and moral leadership ahead of a visit by President Donald Trump.

Trump is due in Poland on Sunday for ceremonies marking 80 years since the outbreak of World War II.

"President Trump, I urge you to regain the position of world leader for the USA," Walesa said in an interview published in Thursday's edition of Poland's centrist Rzeczpospolita daily.

"The world needs the leadership of the USA. Moral and political leadership, not only economic and military leadership," added Walesa, a Nobel Peace laureate.

Walesa led the Solidarity labour movement that brought a peaceful end to communism in Poland in 1989 and became its first post-war democratically elected president in 1990.

Working as a shipyard electrician in the Baltic port city of Gdansk, he stunned the communist bloc and the world when he led a 1980 strike by 17,000 shipyard workers.

The communist regime was forced to grudgingly recognise Solidarity as the Soviet bloc's first and only independent trade union after it gained millions of followers across Poland in the wake of the Gdansk strike.

"I have a message for President Trump: The United States was for years a good empire that led the world. Today the USA is no longer the main global power," Walesa told Rzeczpospolita.

"It still has military advantage, economically you are still ahead of others, but morally and politically the USA is no longer the world leader," he added.

Shunned by Poland's controversial right-wing government, Walesa said he would not be taking part in Sunday ceremonies in Warsaw marking the WWII anniversary.

Aside from Trump, few other major leaders are expected in the Polish capital, as French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are not coming, while Russian President Vladimir Putin was not invited.

According to the Polish presidency, around 40 foreign delegations are expected, half of them led by heads of state._

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile...it goes without saying, but I will anyway. If Trump was getting at least a chunk of his agenda done, he wouldn't have two and possibly three primary opponents. None of this Deep State nonsense and bullshit. Primary opponents for an incumbent President says that the President is not doing his job.


----------



## LinerHead

I've been really amused how he's just turned on Fox news because they didn't completely cover him in glory for once. In his defense, he obviously recognises the importance of their support to his campaign but completely turning on them the moment they're not totally Pro-Trump could low-key prove to be his biggest mistake.


----------



## Dat dude Savage

*Trump wants to team up with big tech to spy on us*

He added: “But the president has a real opportunity here to leave a legacy in health care.”

The idea is for the agency to develop a “sensor suite” using advanced artificial intelligence to try to identify changes in mental status that could make an individual more prone to violent behavior. The research would ultimately be opened to the public.

HARPA would develop “breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence,” says a copy of the proposal. “A multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis.”

The document goes on to list a number of widely used technologies it suggests could be employed to help collect data, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home. The document also mentions “powerful tools” collected by health-care provides like fMRIs, tractography and image analysis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mental-health-violent-behavior/?noredirect=on

Not good...


----------



## yeahbaby!

:heston :heston :heston


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Tweet storm to distract from this news I guess.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...children-of-u-s-military-abroad-idUSKCN1VI2SM
> 
> 
> 
> First salvo fired at attempting to contest birthright citizenship I guess even though they are denying it. :shrug
> 
> To be sure, this seem to affect very few people, I read somewhere else it only will impact 100 or so annually. They can probably sweep this under the rug as not damaging to the military to their base since most are not impacted.



I don't think US Military should be able to even marry foreign wives and bring them back. they should have to be like everyone else if they want to sponsor someone to come over and marry. I had this discussion with some military docs and Nurses who were like the state of all this is insane. I won't go into details. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170089069105340416
:lol That's his pinned tweet right now btw. Absolute God level troll. I know from personal experience that those who dislike you because they are cynical and overemotional can't fucking stand when you're right. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

ohmagerd the president tweeted a video where the CNN logo careens off the road and erupts into a flaming hulk of twisted metal and roasted flesh!

THIS IS SUCH A DANGER TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT #RESIST


----------



## CamillePunk

Watching what constitutes journalism these days is a fucking comedy. :lol "If true". :mj4


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> Watching what constitutes journalism these days is a fucking comedy. :lol "If true". :mj4



Cable news has ceased being about journalism years ago.Fox News is largely state media for the President,MSNBC is state media for the Democratic Establishment,and CNN is a clown car trying to duplicate the sensationalism of FoxNews,Local Sports Media and TMZ but not being nearly as successful or compelling.


----------



## Draykorinee

ShiningStar said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watching what constitutes journalism these days is a fucking comedy. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> "If true". <img src="https://i.imgur.com/PTgSHgD.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cable news has ceased being about journalism years ago.Fox News is largely state media for the President,MSNBC is state media for the Democratic Establishment,and CNN is a clown car trying to duplicate the sensationalism of FoxNews,Local Sports Media and TMZ but not being nearly as successful or compelling.
Click to expand...

Not any more, Trump has turned on Fox!

There are elements of bias in UK TV news channels but its about 5% of the level in the US. The US system is disgusting.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Not any more, Trump has turned on Fox!
> 
> There are elements of bias in UK TV news channels but its about 5% of the level in the US. The US system is disgusting.


FOX wasn't too keen on Trump in the first place if I recall correctly, it was only a matter of time. 

Some of their biggest and best FOX contributors don't like FOX, Tucker seems to have strife with many FOX personalities and stances.

BBC is garbage, ran by garbage people. They're near American levels of garbage News, at least they're better than CNN. Aren't they State funded too?

I'm guessing Trump is going to launch his own News Network eventually. It's something I feel will happen.


----------



## 7x0v

Has anyone noticed how biased New York Times and CNN are? They hate Trump.

Bias is bad. Why? It is one-sided, meaning it leaves out information from the other side. So, this means you are getting an incomplete picture.

You could randomly call a guy an idiot all day, and leave out his good parts, but it would be an incomplete picture of the guy.

I can't stand the New York Times. The editorials are obviously going to be opinion, but even the news headlines have a fairly obvious slant, especially against Trump.

Bias is fake news. You can't be one-sided, leave out information you don't like, etc, and be considered the truth. That would make your news fake, or at the very least, incomplete. New York Times will never tell you the whole story about Trump, never say a single good thing about any single action Trump makes, because most the workers there personally don't like him. Their personal problems are in the way of giving you real news.

I would never give the New York Times one red cent. They can go out of business for all I care. If you want fake news, New York Times is your place. Exclusion of any positive words about Trump, and inclusion of anti-Trump wording is the order of the day there, day in and day out. All from writers with personal problems. They bring their private problems to work with them.


----------



## Draykorinee

7x0v said:


> Has anyone noticed how biased New York Times and CNN are?


We've literally been taking about media bias the last page or two...


----------



## Stephen90

7x0v said:


> Has anyone noticed how biased New York Times and CNN are? They hate Trump.
> 
> Bias is bad. Why? It is one-sided, meaning it leaves out information from the other side. So, this means you are getting an incomplete picture.
> 
> You could randomly call a guy an idiot all day, and leave out his good parts, but it would be an incomplete picture of the guy.
> 
> I can't stand the New York Times. The editorials are obviously going to be opinion, but even the news headlines have a fairly obvious slant, especially against Trump.
> 
> Bias is fake news. You can't be one-sided, leave out information you don't like, etc, and be considered the truth. That would make your news fake, or at the very least, incomplete. New York Times will never tell you the whole story about Trump, never say a single good thing about any single action Trump makes, because most the workers there personally don't like him. Their personal problems are in the way of giving you real news.
> 
> I would never give the New York Times one red cent. They can go out of business for all I care. If you want fake news, New York Times is your place. Exclusion of any positive words about Trump, and inclusion of anti-Trump wording is the order of the day there, day in and day out. All from writers with personal problems. They bring their private problems to work with them.


CNN,MSNBC and Fox News are all bias welcome to American journalism.


----------



## virus21

The news stations are only loyal to themselves and their profits.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170076884106960897


----------



## skypod

Watched a bit of CNN when I was in Toronto as it was always the first channel in the hotel room. Jesus Christ it was unbearable. It was like listening to a girl in high school obsessively talking about how much she hates this other girl 24/7. So much about Trumps idiosyncrasies and nothing about the amazon being on fire for example. News anchors are so snarky and insert far too much of their own personalities. American news in general I find unbearable because of this. No professionalism whatsoever. 

I have issues with the BBC but I urge any Americans to watch BBC news for 5 minutes to see what American news probably used to be 50 years ago. Not this sad side show with low IQ squabbling.


----------



## Therapy

We literally have a sitting President who is now using cat like memes to troll mass media.. This adds to the long list of shit this moron has done to make it embarrassing to be an American


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170546650651271169


----------



## CamillePunk

Nah, the media is embarrassing because they're awful at their jobs and are largely bought by nefarious state-dependent corporations. Trump trolling them is just hilarious.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'll be honest, trolling mass media doesn't bother me much. Not in the same week he's backed out of talks with the taliban and confirmed he isn't pulling out of Afghanistan.


----------



## DOPA

Imagine defending the media in 2019 :HA.

Trump trolling the media is one of the best things about his presidency. The MSM are absolute garbage on all sides, they deserved to get bashed.


----------



## Draykorinee

So whats the deal with Pence going to Trump hotel's for his visit to Ireland? More nepotism?

Can guarantee that would be attacked if it was Obama.


----------



## Lenny Leonard

skypod said:


> Watched a bit of CNN when I was in Toronto as it was always the first channel in the hotel room. Jesus Christ it was unbearable. It was like listening to a girl in high school obsessively talking about how much she hates this other girl 24/7. So much about Trumps idiosyncrasies and nothing about the amazon being on fire for example. *News anchors are so snarky and insert far too much of their own personalities. American news in general I find unbearable because of this. No professionalism whatsoever. *
> 
> I have issues with the BBC but I urge any Americans to watch BBC news for 5 minutes to see what American news probably used to be 50 years ago. Not this sad side show with low IQ squabbling.


Exactly yes. Cannot stand american 24 hour news for those reasons. Along with the BBC, I feel CBC news here in Canada is good for professionalism


----------



## Miss Sally

People defending the MSM in 2019... lol!

People never cease to amuse me.

No professionalism, no integrity, pushing propaganda and opinions as facts, all owned by companies looking to make a buck. 

How did we get to this?


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> I'll be honest, trolling mass media doesn't bother me much. Not in the same week he's backed out of talks with the taliban and confirmed he isn't pulling out of Afghanistan.


Taliban has been using the "talk to us" misdirection for 2 decades. 

They use the time to reorganize their leadership and make new plans. 

Anyone "talking" to the Taliban is an idiot and shouldn't be taken seriously because they're playing right into their hands. 

This happened in 2013 as recently, where they did manage to whinge their way into "talks". During the talks, they ramped up terrorist attacks, played football with the heads of children and then launched a massive attack on a military school of army children where they butchered more than 100 children aged 4-16. 

Fuck talking to the Taliban. The only way to end them is to exterminate all of them without prejudice. And this is coming from someone who's generally a pacifist. I suppose when you don't see body parts strewn all over a mosque nor smell the stink of burning flesh, you don't really quite understand the monster you're dealing with.

That said, I also don't want the Americans to do anything about either. When the Americans were involved, the Taliban were much stronger and showed no signs of weakening. They were constantly able to raid the incompetent supply chain of the Americans and continued to from strength to strength ... Since 2014 with the decreased American involvement, they've been halted mostly at least in Pakistan and Afghanistan will eventually figure their own shit out as well.

At this point we need to accept that Americans are just horribly incompetent at war and that's the primary reason why they shouldn't be involved in any wars around the world.

Speaking of American incompetence.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Taliban has been using the "talk to us" misdirection for 2 decades.
> 
> They use the time to reorganize their leadership and make new plans.
> 
> Anyone "talking" to the Taliban is an idiot and shouldn't be taken seriously because they're playing right into their hands.
> 
> This happened in 2013 as recently, where they did manage to whinge their way into "talks". During the talks, they ramped up terrorist attacks, played football with the heads of children and then launched a massive attack on a military school of army children where they butchered more than 100 children aged 4-16.
> 
> Fuck talking to the Taliban. The only way to end them is to exterminate all of them without prejudice. And this is coming from someone who's generally a pacifist. I suppose when you don't see body parts strewn all over a mosque nor smell the stink of burning flesh, you don't really quite understand the monster you're dealing with.
> 
> That said, I also don't want the Americans to do anything about either. When the Americans were involved, the Taliban were much stronger and showed no signs of weakening. They were constantly able to raid the incompetent supply chain of the Americans and continued to from strength to strength ... Since 2014 with the decreased American involvement, they've been halted mostly at least in Pakistan and Afghanistan will eventually figure their own shit out as well.
> 
> At this point we need to accept that Americans are just horribly incompetent at war and that's the primary reason why they shouldn't be involved in any wars around the world.
> 
> Speaking of American incompetence.


The people the American Military recruits are bottom of the barrel. I live near a base and I feel shame when most of these clowns come around. It's like an Army of autists, without the talent. Our saving grace is our Spec Ops, superior firepower and technology. There's a reason why American general military struggles to hold anything or secure much.

You also got people higher up who have no idea what they're doing. They're glorified yes men. It seems like very few can do their actual jobs well. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> The people the American Military recruits are bottom of the barrel. I live near a base and I feel shame when most of these clowns come around. It's like an Army of autists, without the talent. Our saving grace is our Spec Ops, superior firepower and technology. There's a reason why American general military struggles to hold anything or secure much.
> 
> You also got people higher up who have no idea what they're doing. They're glorified yes men. It seems like very few can do their actual jobs well. :laugh:


This is what happens when wars are literally nothing more than a money-making scam. The objective is to get billions of dollars of funding to private contractors. There is no other objective. That's why there's no quality control at any level, and there's no end to the wars either.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Common footage of Trump lying*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171455806069305346


----------



## deepelemblues

Oh no the president told the warmonger on his staff that they'd talk tomorrow when he'd already decided to fire him

Awful

All those Syrians and Libyans who won't get killed by Sunni jihadis with future CIA provided weapons now and all those Iranians and Americans and Israelis and Lebanese and Iraqis and Saudis who won't get killed in a US-Iran war that is now almost an impossibility barring a whirlwind of events that run wild and are now also much less likely to happen are quite indignant at this political chicanery


----------



## Draykorinee

+10 to Trump for firing Bolton, -11 for ever hiring him in the first place.

He only hires the best people.


----------



## CamillePunk

Obviously glad to see John Bolton go, but I'll reserve any praise for Trump until we see who he replaces him with.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Miss Sally said:


> The people the American Military recruits are bottom of the barrel.


:kobe my little brother and one of my cousins were marines, and if I didn't have infractions put on me already I would flame the shit out of you for this post. There's no need for shit like this, because you and I both know that isn't true.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Have there always been this many resignations and firings in previous president's cabinets? It seems people can't take The Donald for more than a few months at best.


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> Have there always been this many resignations and firings in previous president's cabinets? It seems people can't take The Donald for more than a few months at best.


Bolton was likely (I'm 100% convinced) _forced_ into the administration to push for and star the War with Iran or with Venezuela or just any war they could start. Trump disagreeing with him and forcing him out is the greatest news out of this administration.


----------



## Miss Sally

AlternateDemise said:


> :kobe my little brother and one of my cousins were marines, and if I didn't have infractions put on me already* I would flame the shit* out of you for this post. There's no need for shit like this, because you and I both know that isn't true.


I'd have liked to have seen this attempt. I'm always curious what people will say.

Yeah, I'm so sure the Army is recruiting top notch guys. That's why their recruiting practices prey on the broke, young and dumb and patriots. There's always been complaints about how the Military does their recruiting. 

I have family in the military but most of the people they recruit are questionable at best. They don't get my worship, they get paid to do a job just like anyone else. :shrug

Besides we were talking about the state of the military, there has to be a reason for such ineptness right? I think it's unqualified leaders and having lots of low quality personnel.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171631144414208000
:heston

A co-worker was telling me he was certain Trump would not leave office if he loses in 2020. I was tempted to suggest a bet. :lol


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

I'd love to see Trump refuse to leave office, it'll be the most important stress test of our Constitution and sense of common values. Personally, I think we'd fail.


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171631144414208000
> :heston
> 
> A co-worker was telling me he was certain Trump would not leave office if he loses in 2020. I was tempted to suggest a bet. :lol


By 2024 he will turn 78,given his obesity and love of fast food and diet soda he should be more concerned about still having a pulse by 2024.


----------



## yeahbaby!

That's actually to do with his next wife after Melania's contract expires. Will the new bride be 20 or 24.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171631144414208000
> :heston
> 
> A co-worker was telling me he was certain Trump would not leave office if he loses in 2020. I was tempted to suggest a bet. :lol


Would be funny!

With Bolton fired, I'd love to see Tulsi take his spot since it would cause such a shit show! :laugh:


----------



## MrMister

Still really think Trump hired Bolton for the sole purpose to fire him later.


any way you slice it this is :sundin


----------



## DesolationRow

Donald Trump's readiness to fire people--a quality which he made (in)famous on that reality television series that, even if one chose to not watch it, one could not escape the memes pouring out of same--has remained perhaps his finest attribute as president. Not surprisingly. This poster was prognosticating back when Trump was being inaugurated that his ruthlessness in disposing of unwanted bureaucrats would likely come in handy. 

However, Trump's mere hiring of John Bolton, the single most unrepentant Iraq War-pushing neoconservative in the Beltway, suggests how deeply in debt he found himself to Sheldon Adelson. This firing represents a major shift in Trump's foreign policy as it relates to the Middle East in particular, for Adelson is responsible for Bolton's appointment as well as Trump's divorcing the U.S. from the "Iran deal" of which the forty-fifth president has spoken so unfavorably for years. The twin moves in 2018 seemed as much driven by what the Adelson wing of Trump's donor base sought. Now, suddenly, Trump has moved to "the left" regarding Israeli interests, with the Department of Defense presently chastising Israel's drone-spearheaded attacks in Syria and Iraq, acts which are placing U.S. and U.S.-backed actors in both direct and indirect harm. 

Due to Benjamin Netanyahu's government battling a legion of problems, largely internal and scandalous due to massive charges of widespread corruption, Trump finds himself in a spot from which he may place Netanyahu in the hot seat in U.S.-Israeli "deal-making" as Trump would doubtless characterize the process. Netanyahu has been out on the campaign trail in Israel and his increasingly grand declarations of his government's intentions to wholly colonize and possess Palestine "forever" as he put it himself in one of his most recent addresses have him in the position of having to go "all in" on his relationship with Trump as the, well, _trump card_ in his efforts to keep his regime afloat with election day looming on Tuesday, September 17. 

Predictably, Adelson and those who are effectively his voices within U.S. media such as Ben Shapiro, Josh Hammer and a plethora of others are presently writhing in agony over Trump's dismissal of Bolton, largely equating this with "appeasing Hitler"--which of course is the Iranian regime. 

*MrMr* is probably correct. Based on everything that has transpired to date, Trump ostensibly brought Bolton into the administration mainly to placate the neoconservatives and Adelson, et. al., and with Netanyahu being confronted with "hard times" in Israel with the election fast approaching, he saw the opportunity to at least temporarily turn the tables in the geopolitical relationship. Usually U.S. presidents--George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, now Trump--find themselves over the past generation or so finally blanching under the constant barrage of demands from the Israelis, and Trump, having delivered more for Israel than any U.S. president since Richard Nixon found himself helping Israel in her time of need while most of his cabinet members ardently disagreed with him during the Yom Kippur War, decided to use the credit he had stored up for the first 31 months of his presidency right now.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> Donald Trump's readiness to fire people--a quality which he made (in)famous on that reality television series that, even if one chose to not watch it, one could not escape the memes pouring out of same--has remained perhaps his finest attribute as president. Not surprisingly. This poster was prognosticating back when Trump was being inaugurated that his ruthlessness in disposing of unwanted bureaucrats would likely come in handy.
> 
> However, Trump's mere hiring of John Bolton, the single most unrepentant Iraq War-pushing neoconservative in the Beltway, suggests how deeply in debt he found himself to Sheldon Adelson. This firing represents a major shift in Trump's foreign policy as it relates to the Middle East in particular, for Adelson is responsible for Bolton's appointment as well as Trump's divorcing the U.S. from the "Iran deal" of which the forty-fifth president has spoken so unfavorably for years. The twin moves in 2018 seemed as much driven by what the Adelson wing of Trump's donor base sought. Now, suddenly, Trump has moved to "the left" regarding Israeli interests, with the Department of Defense presently chastising Israel's drone-spearheaded attacks in Syria and Iraq, acts which are placing U.S. and U.S.-backed actors in both direct and indirect harm.
> 
> Due to Benjamin Netanyahu's government battling a legion of problems, largely internal and scandalous due to massive charges of widespread corruption, Trump finds himself in a spot from which he may place Netanyahu in the hot seat in U.S.-Israeli "deal-making" as Trump would doubtless characterize the process. Netanyahu has been out on the campaign trail in Israel and his increasingly grand declarations of his government's intentions to wholly colonize and possess Palestine "forever" as he put it himself in one of his most recent addresses have him in the position of having to go "all in" on his relationship with Trump as the, well, _trump card_ in his efforts to keep his regime afloat with election day looming on Tuesday, September 17.
> 
> Predictably, Adelson and those who are effectively his voices within U.S. media such as Ben Shapiro, Josh Hammer and a plethora of others are presently writhing in agony over Trump's dismissal of Bolton, largely equating this with "appeasing Hitler"--which of course is the Iranian regime.
> 
> *MrMr* is probably correct. Based on everything that has transpired to date, Trump ostensibly brought Bolton into the administration mainly to placate the neoconservatives and Adelson, et. al., and with Netanyahu being confronted with "hard times" in Israel with the election fast approaching, he saw the opportunity to at least temporarily turn the tables in the geopolitical relationship. Usually U.S. presidents--George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, now Trump--find themselves over the past generation or so finally blanching under the constant barrage of demands from the Israelis, and Trump, having delivered more for Israel than any U.S. president since Richard Nixon found himself helping Israel in her time of need while most of his cabinet members ardently disagreed with him during the Yom Kippur War, decided to use the credit he had stored up for the first 31 months of his presidency right now.


It was a good move and we help Israel far too much. Many of their former leaders, academics and higherups have said some really vile stuff that makes me wonder why in the hell we help this country so much. They cause problems and make peace near impossible because they act like a snotty little kid with a mean big brother so they think they're untouchable. 

I hope Trump actually starts going with the anti-intervention route. Also becoming less beholden to Israel, it will be hard because Israeli identitarians like Shapiro will say Israel needs more support and they're our greatest ally etc. You'll also have the Israeli lobby working to change stuff, the same that threaten to end Tulsi's chances at becoming president. That in itself is enough take a step back and look at our relationship with this country and the neocons in power.


----------



## Reaper

So the idiot president is launching a personalized attack on flavored vapes. 

Now, this is something they really should just say "Thoughts and Prayers" to and ignore. 

But what do I know. 

Idiocracy after all. I wish I could think like an idiot because then America's retardation towards policy-making would make sense to me like it does to most people in this country.


----------



## cewfa85

Reaper said:


> So the idiot president is launching a personalized attack on flavored vapes.
> 
> Now, this is something they really should just say "Thoughts and Prayers" to and ignore.
> 
> But what do I know.
> 
> Idiocracy after all. I wish I could think like an idiot because then America's retardation towards policy-making would make sense to me like it does to most people in this country.


I have two thoughts on this, first being that the government has no right to tell me or anyone else what they can put in or do with their bodies. The second thought is that what we have here is another "won't someone *please* think of the children" moment. Call me crazy, but I would much rather have kids vape, than do drugs, have promiscuous sex or any number of things that kids do that cause themselves and others real problems.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171844518808870913
Holy shit I just did an actual spit take :heston


----------



## deepelemblues

New numbers from pew

In a few short months of democratic campaigning the democratic partys favorability edge has entirely vanished

45-52 for both parties

It was +9 for the democratic party and -9 for the republican party on election day 2018 

My goodness

Keep pushing that government control over this that and the other thing let's turn huge chunks of the economy into the fucking DMV people will love that. We're gonna take away your air conditioning and your meat and your airplane rides and your non electric cars and your guns and your private health insurance and your domestic energy production and raise taxes and open the borders and spend trillions more dollars a year

That is really a hell of a winning message

And anyone who wants to, feel free to cry that isnt what the Democrats are pushing all you like. That is what :trump is gonna be telling all those screaming marks in their tens of thousands at his rallies. White turnout will spike again - unexpectedly! - and he'll win an even larger share of the white vote. Ruy Teixeira will push his prediction of when the united states will functionally become a one party state back another 15 years just like he did after 2016 :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Yeah, that's not what the Democrats are pushing but that's what liars and manipulators will say. That's politics I guess.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> So the idiot president is launching a personalized attack on flavored vapes.
> 
> Now, this is something they really should just say "Thoughts and Prayers" to and ignore.
> 
> But what do I know.
> 
> Idiocracy after all. I wish I could think like an idiot because then America's retardation towards policy-making would make sense to me like it does to most people in this country.


Cigarettes killed thousands a year and they're not banned. Vapes have killed a few people due to people buying tainted juice but that's more on the people themselves. 

Personally wish they'd ban tobacco, mostly because I hate working with smokers.



Draykorinee said:


> Yeah, that's not what the Democrats are pushing but that's what liars and manipulators will say. That's politics I guess.


It's hard to know what they stand for when it's vague nonsense that changes daily.


----------



## bradatar

Lol the vaping epidemic isn't from the legal shit. It is from people making their own THC cartridges and China importing bad ones. Banning it won't do a damn thing. Anyone who spends 5 minutes reading into this should know that. (I'm an avid smoker and have been sold the bad carts in the past)


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> Yeah, that's not what the Democrats are pushing but that's what liars and manipulators will say. That's politics I guess.


I could find statements from the top 4 Democratic candidates outlining each one of those positions if you like 

Sanders and Warren both have their transformative trillions of dollars 'green new deals' and trillions of dollars spent in expansion of government paid for medical care

Did you watch any of the CNN environmental debate at all? Air conditioning, airplanes, red meat, non electric vehicles, nuclear power and fossil fuels all got it right between the eyes. Or in the back of the neck. Warren has promised to ban all fracking and significantly restrict or ban new conventional drilling too 

Biden has said the US should be taking in 2 million refugees a year and nobody but Biden has contradicted Julian Castro's statement about how crossing the border illegally shouldn't be a crime at all he made in one of the first debates

Bernie wants the government to push private business out of healthcare almost entirely as he recently explained 

Raising taxes is promised by all of them and Warren most of all is enamored with a wealth tax smdh 

Biden talks about banning guns that can fire more than a single shot before reloading, maybe he's just being senile Biden saying stuff he doesn't understand. Harris talks about using executive orders with the heavy implication that said orders will have the same effect that majorly restrictive new gun laws would. Warren and Harris have repeatedly said there's no reason private citizens should possess semi automatic rifles that look scary, what is the implication there for the 15-20 million of them already in private hands?

I've left out the fringe nobodies like Beto and even still :draper2

And I didn't even mention reparations until now :heyman6


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's not what the Democrats are pushing but that's what liars and manipulators will say. That's politics I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> I could find statements from the top 4 Democratic candidates outlining each one of those positions if you like
> 
> Sanders and Warren both have their transformative trillions of dollars 'green new deals' and trillions of dollars spent in expansion of government paid for medical care
> 
> Did you watch any of the CNN environmental debate at all? Air conditioning, airplanes, red meat, non electric vehicles, nuclear power and fossil fuels all got it right between the eyes. Or in the back of the neck. Warren has promised to ban all fracking and significantly restrict or ban new conventional drilling too
> 
> Biden has said the US should be taking in 2 million refugees a year and nobody contradicted Julian Castro when he said crossing the border illegally shouldn't be a crime at all in one of the first debates
> 
> Bernie wants the government to push private business out of healthcare almost entirely as he recently explained
> 
> Raising taxes is promised by all of them and Warren most of all is enamored with a wealth tax smdh
> 
> Biden talks about banning guns that can fire more than a single shot before reloading, maybe he's just being senile Biden saying stuff he doesn't understand. Harris talks about using executive orders with the heavy implication that said orders will have the same effect that majorly restrictive new gun laws would. Warren and Harris have repeatedly said there's no reason private citizens should possess semi automatic rifles that look scary, what is the implication there for the 15-20 million of them already in private hands?
> 
> I've left out the fringe nobodies like Beto and even still <img src="http://i.imgur.com/7KU7Fqx.png" border="0" alt="" title="Draper" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

Fracking should be banned. 

Bernie does not want to push out private companies. 

None of them want to spend trillions on healthcare seeing as they suggest it saves money etc etc.


----------



## deepelemblues

Oh yeah I forgot harris saying plastic straws must die too then immediately saying paper straws are a bitch to drink out of but whatever :draper2

Biden is the only one who seems to understand that triangulating towards the center in the general election requires being somewhere within a country mile of the center in the first place


----------



## Draykorinee

Paper Straws are fine, they just get a bit mushy at the top after a while.


----------



## deepelemblues

Best comment I've seen so far tonight is that these candidates are talking like they are all either 100% sure they will lose to :trump, or 100% sure they will beat him

I see no way in which any of the remarks made so far tonight has contradicted my several previous posts in any form or fashion. America is a racist oligarchy with too much power concentrated at the top so we need a new oligarchy with even more power concentrated at the top. And we'll end the racism by calling people racist and browbeating them. We'll fix the little people having no power by telling the big people and little people both what to do, all the time


----------



## Draykorinee

Most of that bunch 100% would lose to trump, if he can still campaign on the economy or avoid any major scandals the majority of them have no chance. 

He may be an awful human being and a mostly terrible president (imo) , but people don't care about that especially as he sticks it to the libs.


----------



## MontyCora

He and his buddy Epstein were accused of rape by a child, Mueller's report strongly implies he thoroughly obstructed justice at the very least and he fucked a gross porn star months after his son was born, and then his lawyer paid the woman off and went to jail for three years because of it, leaving Trump an unindicted co-conspirator(you cannot indict a sitting President for such a crime). That's just some of the many scandals he's been a part of, the tip of the iceberg.

NO scandal will be what brings him down. They could come out with proof that he raped that girl and somehow he would still dodge that shit.


----------



## FriedTofu

Draykorinee said:


> Most of that bunch 100% would lose to trump, if he can still campaign on the economy or* avoid any major scandals* the majority of them have no chance.
> 
> He may be an awful human being and a mostly terrible president (imo) , but people don't care about that especially as he sticks it to the libs.


He has one every other week. His supporters will just blame anything on the deep state or the establishment and still vote for him.

A candidate that refused to release his tax returns, as President refused to release them upon request by congress, and is almost finishing his first term would be a major scandal for anyone but someone like Trump who create TMZ level of outrage every time he tweets.


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> He has one every other week. His supporters will just blame anything on the deep state or the establishment and still vote for him.
> 
> A candidate that refused to release his tax returns, as President refused to release them upon request by congress, and is almost finishing his first term would be a major scandal for anyone but someone like Trump who create TMZ level of outrage every time he tweets.


I guess I meant by his metrics lol.


----------



## Allur

Draykorinee said:


> Paper Straws are fine, they just get a bit mushy at the top *after a while*.


You must mean immediately


----------



## Draykorinee

Allur said:


> You must mean immediately


Depends, I generally just refuse to have a straw now, which I know isn't always an option.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

How come the right wing "law and order" crowd don't care about Trump violating the emoluments clause?


----------



## DOPA

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> How come the right wing "law and order" crowd don't care about Trump violating the emoluments clause?


Because when you scream about Trump being a RUSSIAN AGENT/PUPPET OF VLADIMIR PUTIN for three years and then predictably after an incredibly long investigation, nothing is found to substantiate those claims, anything that is short of Trump being a traitor seems benign in comparison.

In short, the Democrats and their aligned MSM (particularly CNN and MSNBC) played themselves.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

DOPA said:


> Because when you scream about Trump being a RUSSIAN AGENT/PUPPET OF VLADIMIR PUTIN for three years and then predictably after an incredibly long investigation, nothing is found to substantiate those claims, anything that is short of Trump being a traitor seems benign in comparison.
> 
> In short, the Democrats and their aligned MSM (particularly CNN and MSNBC) played themselves.


So it's about politics and not actually about the principles of the law?


----------



## DOPA

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> So it's about politics and not actually about the principles of the law?


If it were about the principles of the law, the Democrats would have at some point abandoned Russiagate and instead tried to nail Trump on the emoluments clause which at least has some merit.

Yet close to 0 of them pushed on it until their hopes were dashed in terms of proving Trump to be complicit with Russia.

It's all been politics in regards to this issue.

My point was that the Democrats went so far with the Russiagate nonsense that by the time it got round to even questioning him on the emoluments clause, most people, not even just republicans had zoned out. It may be a principled case, but when you look like you've been on a witch hunt for years trying to oust a sitting president for political reasons (which the democrats did do), you're gonna have a hard time getting people to listen to your objections.

People aren't going to listen to you or take you seriously when it appears like you're just doing it for partisan reasons.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

DOPA said:


> If it were about the principles of the law, the Democrats would have at some point abandoned Russiagate and instead tried to nail Trump on the emoluments clause which at least has some merit.
> 
> Yet close to 0 of them pushed on it until their hopes were dashed in terms of proving Trump to be complicit with Russia.
> 
> It's all been politics in regards to this issue.
> 
> My point was that the Democrats went so far with the Russiagate nonsense that by the time it got round to even questioning him on the emoluments clause, most people, not even just republicans had zoned out. It may be a principled case, but when you look like you've been on a witch hunt for years trying to oust a sitting president for political reasons (which the democrats did do), you're gonna have a hard time getting people to listen to your objections.
> 
> People aren't going to listen to you or take you seriously when it appears like you're just doing it for partisan reasons.


I'm not talking about the Democrats making the case, I'm talking about right wing journalists and pundits not explaining to their audience that Trump is breaking the law. I've been searching the Fox News YT channel and there's absolutely nothing on there about Pence staying at Trump's resort in Ireland or Air Force planes being rerouted to his resort in Scotland. That is literally news with no partisan spin on it and they won't even report on it.

Shep Smith and Chris Wallace have no problem telling viewers when Trump lies or is wrong which has gained them credibility on the left as the only actual journalists at Fox so why won't they report on the actual crimes the president is currently committing? Wouldn't the _law and order_ crowd want to know that their president is currently breaking the law?

The left reported on Obama's illegal spying, why won't the right report on Trump's illegal profiting off the presidency?


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> Taliban has been using the "talk to us" misdirection for 2 decades.
> 
> They use the time to reorganize their leadership and make new plans.
> 
> Anyone "talking" to the Taliban is an idiot and shouldn't be taken seriously because they're playing right into their hands.
> 
> This happened in 2013 as recently, where they did manage to whinge their way into "talks". During the talks, they ramped up terrorist attacks, played football with the heads of children and then launched a massive attack on a military school of army children where they butchered more than 100 children aged 4-16.
> 
> Fuck talking to the Taliban. The only way to end them is to exterminate all of them without prejudice. And this is coming from someone who's generally a pacifist. I suppose when you don't see body parts strewn all over a mosque nor smell the stink of burning flesh, you don't really quite understand the monster you're dealing with.


Which is why it was a bonehead move for Trump to want to talk to the Taliban at Camp David. Especially bringing them here on the eve of 9/11. Talking to them is not an issue, talks have been taking place in Qatar for almost a year. But to bring the folks who harbored the mastermind behind 9/11 to our shores? Not a smart move. 

I get Trump promised to bring the troops home from Afghanistan. I want them to come home, earlier this year I attended the funeral of a friend of mine who died from complications as a result of injuries he suffered over there. But I don't want a bad deal just to check off a campaign promise.


----------



## CamillePunk

Yeah, don't give a fuck about having the Taliban over here for a meeting or what day it is. Just get a peace deal done. See, I _actually_ want to bring the troops home and stop intervening in every other country's affairs, unlike some who merely pretend.


----------



## El Grappleador

In the wake of new Immigration policy, I break my promise of not coming back to this thread. The reason: Share some lessons what I've learned.

Lesson 1: The American Dream was the biggest social consumerism campaign. 
Lesson 2: Wherer Cuba, Africa, Central America, Mexico, even the US, societies has lost humanity gradually than I was not aware of it.
Lesson3: After Mass shootings and intolerance, and considering previous lessons, I wrap up my necessities are not crossing the borderline. These are in my community, my environment, my work station (a grocery store), my friends, my family.


Thank you, Donnie T. I'll appreciate what I have and What I am.

P.S. BTW, [User]CamillePunk[/user], you're right. I was just daydreaming.


----------



## CamillePunk

Focus on making your own country better, my friend.  I wish you luck.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, don't give a fuck about having the Taliban over here for a meeting or what day it is. Just get a peace deal done. See, I _actually_ want to bring the troops home and stop intervening in every other country's affairs, unlike some who merely pretend.


Problem is if we just want a deal done just to get one done, then it's a bad deal. Ben Shapiro had a good article over at the Daily Wire about it. We tend to bounce between isolationism and reactive interventionism. While we don't need to intervene everywhere, complete isolation is probably not an option anymore. When Washington said don't get involved in foreign entanglements invading forces took three months to get here. A missile can reach us within 30 minutes. Then the pattern starts all over again.

Trump would like to be seen as someone who actually got a good peace deal rather then become this generation's Neville Chamberlain .


----------



## CamillePunk

Staying for one more day is a bad deal.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Staying for one more day is a bad deal.


This is essentially correct and I say so for a host of reasons different from CP's

At this point what would be necessary to eradicate the Taliban or reduce it to such a pathetic state that it would fade into history would be politically impossible and worth much less than spending the financial, human and material resources to try to stay far enough ahead of China militarily that they dont think they're strong enough to win a war 15 years from now. A war that would be far more destructive 

The time when it would have been possible was the initial invasion, the US had the domestic political will to put a million troops in Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan and annihilate anyone who tried to fight back. And decisively crush poppy production. In which case Afghanistan and Pakistan and America would be better off today. Instead we got neocons telling us you dont have to make any changes in your life just go ahead like usual we are so awesome strong we can use 1% of our total national strength and win anyway. Yeah how'd that work out


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173781443199172608


----------



## Draykorinee

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173781443199172608


Wow, this is making me lol a bit too much.

Reminds me of his brain pills he used to sell.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/462072-warren-shows-signs-of-broadening-her-base



> Warren shows signs of broadening her base
> 
> BY JONATHAN EASLEY - 09/19/19 06:00 AM EDT


Elizabeth Warren's _souffle_ seems to be rising with excellent timing. Up from 5 percent support from black voters in July to 11 percent now. The endorsement of the Working Families Party, which endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016, is a major signal that she is presently consolidating the "progressive wing" of the party versus Barack Obama era-buttressed Joe Biden. Time has evidently passed Sanders by, which is hardly surprising. Almost every proposal of the Sanders campaign in 2016 have been co-opted and taken as the default 2019 "mainstream Democrats" position, such as Medicare-For-All. Warren, for all of her foibles, is today seen as more attractive as a candidate. Whereas Sanders typically comes off as something of an angry grouch, Warren has, whatever else one may say about her, engendered an image of a kind of schoolmarm "progressive" figure that is resonating with the current base of the Democrats for whatever reasons. 

Something else that has happened is Kamala Harris has completely imploded, and the space left over from that implosion--which occurred thanks to a critical assist from Tulsi Gabbard--has benefited Warren immensely. Today's Harris would have been a terrific package as a candidate back when Obama was new to the national scene, but makeup of the electorate has changed. When Donald Trump is championing his prison reform bill and Republicans are cheering on the freeing of heavily black and brown prisoners of certain offenses, no "tough cop" figure is going to end up doing too well for what is deemed "the left" in the U.S. 

Biden remains the clay pigeon frontrunner to be picked off by Warren unless she is unable to continue capitalizing on the expanding success of her campaign.


----------



## Reaper

Warren is the second coming of Obama. She's a Clintonite at heart. A true Demorat.

If you're gonna put in a corporate whore, you might as well keep Trump. At least with Trump we still haven't gotten a new war. The dude's doing that right.


----------



## Stephen90

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173781443199172608


Shapiro's popularity has taken such a hit since the BBC interview and it's been a joy to watch.


----------



## Draykorinee

Whats all this impeachement stuff about then? Someone tell me this isn't the Dems giving another boost to Trump?


----------



## red dead2

For Wrestlemania 36: Greta Thunberg vs 'President of the US' Donald J Trump in a 60 minute climate change debate match

book it vince! honestly half the world would subscribe to the network just for this!


----------



## bradatar

Draykorinee said:


> Whats all this impeachement stuff about then? Someone tell me this isn't the Dems giving another boost to Trump?




It absolutely is. He baited her into impeachment. He called her bluff. Time to see where the young democrats in the country stand in those red states. They’ll need to vote with the party. Pelosi won’t get the votes and they’ll look stupid or Trump will release the transcripts and it’ll be pie over not only her face but the entire party who will be voting along side her. Gonna be a bad look. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Whats all this impeachement stuff about then? Someone tell me this isn't the Dems giving another boost to Trump?


A fundraising tactic that will ultimately blow up in the Democrats' faces, as all of their schemes tend to do. :lol


----------



## deadcool

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-ukraine-09-24-2019/index.html

It's more serious than what's being said here. He's going to go through hell, that's for sure especially once the "whistleblower" reveals everything. In my opinion, the jig is up, the fool will get impeached in due time.


----------



## Blisstory

I dont think he'll get impeached but if he does he will ultimately end up acquitted (much like Clinton), it will be a waste of peoples time & money. He'll still get re-elected and Dems will spend the next 4 years throwing a fuss cause they couldnt (again) get their way.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Late Show Audience give the announcement a standing ove. They know what's up.


----------



## Irish Jet

It will never lead to him getting impeached but it's about fucking time Pelosi acted, the disgrace.


----------



## Twilight Sky

Blisstory said:


> I dont think he'll get impeached but if he does he will ultimately end up acquitted (much like Clinton), it will be a waste of peoples time & money. He'll still get re-elected and Dems will spend the next 4 years throwing a fuss cause they couldnt (again) get their way.


Both sides pretty much want the guy out, just that the reps are less vocal about it because reasons.

It's stupid though to attempt this so late in his current presidency. It just looks like they are trying to prevent him from running :/ could have done that like in the 2nd year or something.


----------



## deepelemblues

This Ukraine business is clearly a ploy to distract the screaming baby faction of Pelosi's caucus and to get Biden out of the race 

The idea that it was seriously expected to finally get :trump is laughable. The Ukrainian president and PM both said nothing happened similar to what has been alleged. Biden bragged on camera of doing exactly what :trump is accused of. Democratic Senators in 2018 wrote to Ukraine urging investigations that they thought could help the Mueller failed coup attempt

CNN of all places is talking about how bad this looks for Hunter Biden and Daddy Joe regarding Ukraine and China

The whistleblower only had secondhand hearsay about the phone call. The inspector general has released that the whistleblower is a TDS sufferer. Pelosi has said this what they're doing is an inquiry. She will never call an impeachment vote. She's pulling the wool over the eyes of the screaming baby faction to get them off her back

Whoever decided to do this just to take out Biden is an idiot. They've sealed the fate of the only candidate who stood a chance of beating :trump and once the transcript is released they will look like utter fools for the hundredth time


----------



## Therapy

Welp, the Transcript is out and someone clearly forgot to edit out all the parts involving a crime.. He's guilty dead to rights..


----------



## deepelemblues

Transcript is out and my goodness :trump wins again 

Nothing improper whatsoever in the entire conversation

No threats, no pressure, no explicit or implied quid pro quo, nothing. Requests to investigate the obvious corruption involving Hunter Biden and his father. Democrats are allowed to request Ukraine investigate :trump on fake MUH RUSSIA allegations but :trump isnt allowed to request Ukraine investigate corruption Joe Biden admitted to in front of a video camera

Please please please vote to begin an impeachment trial over this

Please

The most interesting part by far is :trump tearing the Germans a new asshole over their being fake tough on Russia and Zelensky agreeing with every word :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

It's not a full transcript though is it, it's a memo put out by the Whitehouse.

It might well be a nothing burger, but let's not pretend this is an actual transcript of the conversation.


----------



## Interceptor88

deepelemblues said:


> Transcript is out and my goodness :trump wins again
> 
> Nothing improper whatsoever in the entire conversation
> 
> No threats, no pressure, no explicit or implied quid pro quo, nothing. Requests to investigate the obvious corruption involving Hunter Biden and his father. Democrats are allowed to request Ukraine investigate :trump on fake MUH RUSSIA allegations but :trump isnt allowed to request Ukraine investigate corruption Joe Biden admitted to in front of a video camera
> 
> Please please please vote to begin an impeachment trial over this
> 
> Please
> 
> The most interesting part by far is :trump tearing the Germans a new asshole over their being fake tough on Russia and Zelensky agreeing with every word :lol


It's almost like you want Trump to keep being president.


----------



## Draykorinee

Interceptor88 said:


> It's almost like you want Trump to keep being president.


There's two extremes of Trump derangement Syndrome, Deep is on the pro TDS spectrum. Most of the MSM and the Democrats are on the anti TDS spectrum.


----------



## bradatar

Interceptor88 said:


> It's almost like you want Trump to keep being president.




It’s almost like the democrats do considering all this is doing is giving him 2020. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TripleG

This was a really really REALLY bad move by the DNC. 

Even if there was anything to the accusations, the Republicans control the Senate, so no way in hell they'd ever get a 2/3 vote to do anything about it. They were never going to get the result they wanted. 

This is going to piss off Republicans, piss off the Democrats for it not working, and piss of Independents like me who just want the media to stop talking about Trump 24/7 unless there is something worth talking about. 

It also creates the appearance that they have little faith to win in 2020. To seek impeachment the year before an election just as the selection process for a DNC candidate has started does not inspire confidence. 

This was just a bad move all around. I get wanting to look strong against the opposition, but this just made them look like they thought they could win the PGA Masters because they practiced for 30 minutes at the local driving range.


----------



## Miss Sally

bradatar said:


> It’s almost like the democrats do considering all this is doing is giving him 2020.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Trumping winning in 2020 keeps someone like Bernie from winning which is a win for everyone in Politics.


----------



## Alexander_G

deepelemblues said:


> The most interesting part by far is :trump tearing the Germans a new asshole over their being fake tough on Russia and Zelensky agreeing with every word :lol


As a German, I concur, sadly.


----------



## TripleG

Miss Sally said:


> Trumping winning in 2020 keeps someone like Bernie from winning which is a win for everyone in Politics.


I'm going to be an asshole here. 

I believe Bernie is a career candidate that uses these campaigns to make money (that 47th home isn't going to buy itself!) and has no intention and never had any intention of actually becoming president.


----------



## bradatar

TripleG said:


> I'm going to be an asshole here.
> 
> I believe Bernie is a career candidate that uses these campaigns to make money (that 47th home isn't going to buy itself!) and has no intention and never had any intention of actually becoming president.


I don't even think that he knows what day of the week it is sometimes. Though with your point, I think I agree.


----------



## deepelemblues

Interceptor88 said:


> It's almost like you want Trump to keep being president.


He's not a bitchy socialist who wants to take my guns and my money and regulate the piss out of every aspect of my life 'for my own good' and castigate me and impute original sin and collective guilt to me because my skin is 'white' so yeah I would prefer he remains the Chief Executive


----------



## DaRealNugget

lol at thinking this impeachment is in any way good news for trump. his blatant corruption getting 24/7 news coverage is a disaster for his reelection chances. even if the incompetent dems play only 25% of impeachment right, trump is so fucking corrupt it will be enough. if house dems didn't impeach the most clearly impeachable president in US history, it would set a horrible precedent and do irreversible harm to the democratic party for being complete and utter cowards.

no the senate won't convict. but 23 republican seats are up for reelection in 2020, many of them in swing states. forcing them to vote on impeachment will either piss off the rabidly loyal trump base or piss off the moderates and independents who still care about the rule of law, giving the dem challengers a huge advantage.

as long as the dems walk and chew bubble gum at the same time and don't solely focus on the ukraine scandal, they'll have plenty of ammunition to impeach and then defeat trump(and take the senate) in 2020.



TripleG said:


> I'm going to be an asshole here.
> 
> I believe Bernie is a career candidate that uses these campaigns to make money (that 47th home isn't going to buy itself!) and has no intention and never had any intention of actually becoming president.


based on what? you're going to need evidence if you're going to accuse the most consistently pro working class member of congress for the past 40 years of being in it for himself. or are you merely talking out of your ass?


----------



## TripleG

DaRealNugget said:


> based on what? you're going to need evidence if you're going to accuse the most consistently pro working class member of congress for the past 40 years of being in it for himself. or are you merely talking out of your ass?



Call me crazy, but I think if Bernie actually wanted to hold the top office, he would have fought Hillary a little harder when shady tactics were used to basically take the nomination from him in 2016. 
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_ted_rall/hillary_cheated

With all the support and momentum he had and questions as to whether or not Hillary should have gotten the nomination, I probably would have fought a little harder for it instead of just supporting her. 

Bernie strikes me as the type of candidate that tries to play Santa Claus, promise of a lot of things that sound great, but ultimately, he benefits from the money he gets from being an electred official and running for office to begin with and can just coast off of that without having to do too much. 

To be fair though, I would describe a majority of politicians that way since I kinda sorta hate all of them.


----------



## Strike Force

TripleG said:


> Call me crazy, but I think if Bernie actually wanted to hold the top office, he would have fought Hillary a little harder when shady tactics were used to basically take the nomination from him in 2016.
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_ted_rall/hillary_cheated
> 
> With all the support and momentum he had and questions as to whether or not Hillary should have gotten the nomination, I probably would have fought a little harder for it instead of just supporting her.


Eh, that's not realistic. Sanders was a victim of the DNC's super-delegate system (which has subsequently been modified); screaming and yelling about it in 2016 not only would *not* have changed the system in time for him to get the nomination, but would have actively served to undermine Hillary's run against Trump AND would have all but ensured that any future Sanders runs would have been even more actively scuttled by the Democratic powers-that-be. He had no recourse.


----------



## Interceptor88

deepelemblues said:


> He's not a bitchy socialist who wants to take my guns and my money and regulate the piss out of every aspect of my life 'for my own good' and castigate me and impute original sin and collective guilt to me because my skin is 'white' so yeah I would prefer he remains the Chief Executive


I don't know what's more worrying: that you think like that, or that there seems to be people who think the same. Maybe you'd be surprised if you knew that in other parts of the world nobody has guns and we're not doing that badly. Eh, it's almost a good thing that not everyone have a death tool! In fact, hear me out: I don't feel any urge to own a gun. I don't feel like having one would magically make me _'freer'_. I don't think that remote possibility of having to use it to defend myself -from what? never ever knew a single person who in a single situation thought having a gun would have been a good thing- compensates how dangerous they are. Also it's pretty funny when some people in the USA think every person has the 'freedom' to own something that gives them the power to kill anyone, but them act so worried when North Korea, Iran or whatever_ may own nuclear weapons someday_. The same philosophy would dictate that every country should have the right to possess something that could kill all of us. Why not? 

Do you know, by the way, that in the richer countries of the world, the ones with the best education, the best sanitary systems, etc etc, people pay a shit ton of taxes? And believe me, I've been in Denmark a couple of times and they look pretty happy. People are glad they contribute to the creation of a strong public system that gives everyone real opportunities. University is free there. And their GDP is slightly higher than in the USA. Even the "right wing" supports paying taxes and having a strong State. Same can be said about many European countries. German conservatives would be socialists for you. 

One thing that always surprised me about some conservative people from the USA is how do you truly believe in that American exceptionalism that seems to justify your belief in things that works better than fine in a lot of countries being totally outrageous in there. I'm sure you don't care but that makes you look, like, really deranged. People in most of the developed world are happy without owning guns, and they're happy paying taxes in exchange for a welfare state, and can clearly see how it's* way *better that way, but for you that's Satanic. 

Well, I don't live in the USA-been there on a long trip but nothing more- and don't have any intention to moving there, soooo... good luck with your massively outdated views that stopped making sense 200 years ago. I bet you don't even believe in the climate change. But since I actually like the USA, I don't think you're putos yankis or something like that, I really hope the likes of Ocasio-Cortez rule the country in no time. Even Buttigieg seems OK.


----------



## deepelemblues

Interceptor88 said:


> I don't know what's more worrying: that you think like that, or that there seems to be people who think the same. Maybe you'd be surprised if you knew that in other parts of the world nobody has guns and we're not doing that badly. Eh, it's almost a good thing that not everyone have a death tool! In fact, hear me out: I don't feel any urge to own a gun. I don't feel like having one would magically make me _'freer'_. I don't think that remote possibility of having to use it to defend myself -from what? never ever knew a single person who in a single situation thought having a gun would have been a good thing- compensates how dangerous they are. Also it's pretty funny when some people in the USA think every person has the 'freedom' to own something that gives them the power to kill anyone, but them act so worried when North Korea, Iran or whatever_ may own nuclear weapons someday_. The same philosophy would dictate that every country should have the right to possess something that could kill all of us. Why not?
> 
> Do you know, by the way, that in the richer countries of the world, the ones with the best education, the best sanitary systems, etc etc, people pay a shit ton of taxes? And believe me, I've been in Denmark a couple of times and they look pretty happy. People are glad they contribute to the creation of a strong public system that gives everyone real opportunities. University is free there. And their GDP is slightly higher than in the USA. Even the "right wing" supports paying taxes and having a strong State. Same can be said about many European countries. German conservatives would be socialists for you.
> 
> One thing that always surprised me about some conservative people from the USA is how do you truly believe in that American exceptionalism that seems to justify your belief in things that works better than fine in a lot of countries being totally outrageous in there. I'm sure you don't care but that makes you look, like, really deranged. People in most of the developed world are happy without owning guns and paying taxes in exchange for a welfare state, and can clearly see how it's* way *better that way, but for you that's Satanic.
> 
> Well, I don't live in the USA-been there on a long trip but nothing more- and don't have any intention to moving there, soooo... good luck with your massively outdated views that stopped making sense 200 years ago. I bet you don't even believe in the climate change. But since I actually like the USA, I don't think you're putos yankis or something like that, I really hope the likes of Ocasio-Cortez rule the country in no time. Even Buttigieg seems OK.


The United States spends like 4 trillion dollars a year on a welfare state buddy

I dont give a fuck how they want to live their lives and run their country. I dont give a fuck what you do or dont do or believe or dont believe. You are free to live as you like. You are free to run your country as you like, within the bounds of not genociding people and shit like that. I have no legitimacy or wish to change any of that

If you dont wish to extend me the same courtesy then the only fuck I give is to tell you I disagree and am not going to follow your prescriptions especially when you couch them in such insulting terms. I dont give a fuck what their or your opinion of how the United States handles its internal business is

I will leave you to ponder this CS Lewis quote:



> Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.


----------



## DaRealNugget

TripleG said:


> Call me crazy, but I think if Bernie actually wanted to hold the top office, he would have fought Hillary a little harder when shady tactics were used to basically take the nomination from him in 2016.
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_ted_rall/hillary_cheated
> 
> With all the support and momentum he had and questions as to whether or not Hillary should have gotten the nomination, I probably would have fought a little harder for it instead of just supporting her.
> 
> Bernie strikes me as the type of candidate that tries to play Santa Claus, promise of a lot of things that sound great, but ultimately, he benefits from the money he gets from being an electred official and running for office to begin with and can just coast off of that without having to do too much.
> 
> To be fair though, I would describe a majority of politicians that way since I kinda sorta hate all of them.


Bernie doesn't care about being president, but not in the way you were describing, as a means to enrich himself. He cares about bringing the most progressive change as possible to help struggling and working people. And he's not going to let his ego get in the way of helping people. Skip to :39






And there's countless examples like that.

So could he have fought harder against Hillary? Of course. But that would have risked everything and helped no one but his own ego(as well as massively damaged his 2020 run). At that point in time, it would have fractured the party further and given Trump a free ride to the presidency. Bernie couldn't drag Trump to the left, but if Hillary won, he'd have been able to use his grassroots momentum and organization in 2016 to pressure her into signing more progressive legislation than otherwise. If you're ultimate goal is to help working people, you're not going to throw that opportunity away to pursue some third party vanity run that only benefits your opposition.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Interceptor88 said:


> I don't know what's more worrying: that you think like that, or that there seems to be people who think the same. Maybe you'd be surprised if you knew that in other parts of the world nobody has guns and we're not doing that badly. Eh, it's almost a good thing that not everyone have a death tool! In fact, hear me out: I don't feel any urge to own a gun. I don't feel like having one would magically make me _'freer'_. I don't think that remote possibility of having to use it to defend myself -from what? never ever knew a single person who in a single situation thought having a gun would have been a good thing- compensates how dangerous they are. Also it's pretty funny when some people in the USA think every person has the 'freedom' to own something that gives them the power to kill anyone, but them act so worried when North Korea, Iran or whatever_ may own nuclear weapons someday_. The same philosophy would dictate that every country should have the right to possess something that could kill all of us. Why not?
> 
> Do you know, by the way, that in the richer countries of the world, the ones with the best education, the best sanitary systems, etc etc, people pay a shit ton of taxes? And believe me, I've been in Denmark a couple of times and they look pretty happy. People are glad they contribute to the creation of a strong public system that gives everyone real opportunities. University is free there. And their GDP is slightly higher than in the USA. Even the "right wing" supports paying taxes and having a strong State. Same can be said about many European countries. German conservatives would be socialists for you.
> 
> One thing that always surprised me about some conservative people from the USA is how do you truly believe in that American exceptionalism that seems to justify your belief in things that works better than fine in a lot of countries being totally outrageous in there. I'm sure you don't care but that makes you look, like, really deranged. People in most of the developed world are happy without owning guns, and they're happy paying taxes in exchange for a welfare state, and can clearly see how it's* way *better that way, but for you that's Satanic.
> 
> Well, I don't live in the USA-been there on a long trip but nothing more- and don't have any intention to moving there, soooo... good luck with your massively outdated views that stopped making sense 200 years ago. I bet you don't even believe in the climate change. But since I actually like the USA, I don't think you're putos yankis or something like that, I really hope the likes of Ocasio-Cortez rule the country in no time. Even Buttigieg seems OK.


I feel comfortable saying you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the U.S.


----------



## Draykorinee

Undertaker23RKO said:


> I feel comfortable saying you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the U.S.


I feel comfortable saying your viewpoint has always been redundant.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Draykorinee said:


> I feel comfortable saying your viewpoint has always been redundant.


Cool story bro.


----------



## FriedTofu

TripleG said:


> This was a really really REALLY bad move by the DNC.
> 
> Even if there was anything to the accusations, the Republicans control the Senate, so no way in hell they'd ever get a 2/3 vote to do anything about it. They were never going to get the result they wanted.
> 
> This is going to piss off Republicans, piss off the Democrats for it not working, and piss of Independents like me who just want the media to stop talking about Trump 24/7 unless there is something worth talking about.
> 
> It also creates the appearance that they have little faith to win in 2020. To seek impeachment the year before an election just as the selection process for a DNC candidate has started does not inspire confidence.
> 
> This was just a bad move all around. I get wanting to look strong against the opposition, but this just made them look like they thought they could win the PGA Masters because they practiced for 30 minutes at the local driving range.


They know they won't remove Trump from office even with an impeachment. I believe the play here is two fold. One is to show those on the center left of the democratic party that leadership is doing something. They won't ever satisfy those on the left, but they can show they aren't completely resting on their laurels to the rest of the party.

Secondly, it is to get the message out there that the GOP is morally and ethically corrupt. To attack their position as the law and order, morally correct and patriotic party. I myself is doubtful it will work since GOP voters still voted for the two Bushes in elections after scandals of Iran-Contra and the 2nd Iraq war became common knowledge. History suggests GOP voters value hating liberals more than being correct.


----------



## Draykorinee

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel comfortable saying your viewpoint has always been redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool story bro.
Click to expand...

Thanks bro



> There has been no President in the history of our Country who has been treated so badly as I have. The Democrats are frozen with hatred and fear. They get nothing done. This should never be allowed to happen to another President. Witch Hunt!


What a pussyhole, he's such a fragile little baby.

He's seems like such a happy man looking forward to the future PMSL.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Ukraine story going exactly how I thought it would go. :banderas They probably had permission to release the transcript ages ago and he just wanted to give them as much rope as they needed to hang themselves. :lol


----------



## bradatar

CamillePunk said:


> The Ukraine story going exactly how I thought it would go. :banderas They probably had permission to release the transcript ages ago and he just wanted to give them as much rope as they needed to hang themselves. :lol




He baited them like I said. I knew this shit was a set up by him lol. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

deepelemblues said:


> The United States spends like 4 trillion dollars a year on a welfare state buddy
> 
> I dont give a fuck how they want to live their lives and run their country. I dont give a fuck what you do or dont do or believe or dont believe. You are free to live as you like. You are free to run your country as you like, within the bounds of not genociding people and shit like that. I have no legitimacy or wish to change any of that
> 
> If you dont wish to extend me the same courtesy then the only fuck I give is to tell you I disagree and am not going to follow your prescriptions especially when you couch them in such insulting terms. I dont give a fuck what their or your opinion of how the United States handles its internal business is
> 
> I will leave you to ponder this CS Lewis quote:


Lol at thinking an educated populace, a modern infrastructure, affordable quality health care and a strong social safety net amount to "oppression" and "torment".


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Lol at thinking an educated populace, a modern infrastructure, affordable quality health care and a strong social safety net amount to "oppression" and "torment".


lol at thinking capitalism and free markets amount to oppression and torment.

more government is not the answer to any of those things you proposed.


----------



## Draykorinee

I mean, free market capatalism does not opress Americans, that's pretty obvious. It's just Chinese people etc that make everything so Americans can enjoy the benefits of a free market capatalism system.

Turning a blind eye to the oppression of others is part and parcel of a free market system.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Berzerker's Beard said:


> lol at thinking capitalism and free markets amount to oppression and torment.
> 
> more government is not the answer to any of those things you proposed.


Where did you see me say the free market oppresses or torments? Nothing that I said is contrary to the free market since those things exist in actual first world capitalist societies.

But I'll bite, I can defend the words you put in my mouth-- the free market is oppressive in the fact that wages have stagnated for 30 years, drastically failing to match the rate of inflation, as a result Americans earn significantly less in real dollars than they used to, the free market oppresses when it busts up unions, the free market oppresses when it monopolizes industries, the free market oppresses when it outsources jobs or replaces them with automation, the free market oppresses when it favors polluting air and water to save money on waste disposal and clean emissions, the free market oppresses when drug companies collude to price fix, the free market oppresses when corporate lobbyists pay off politicians to go against the will of their constituents... I could keep going all day but I'm sure you get the picture by now.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

I've heard some conflicting data on the stagnant wages stuff. The basic summary IIRC is that the 70's-80's sucked and are the major reason the overall number is low. If you went from 90's to now it's something like a 20% increase. Another story I read said those numbers don't include benefits either, which are far greater today compared to years past. I haven't independently confirmed either of those claims so I don't know how true they are. 

I don't know jack about unions and I sure as hell won't defend monopolies or shipping jobs overseas. The whining about climate is getting old though. The U.S. is the number reducer of carbon emissions the past two years. I wouldn't be surprised if 2019 makes it three. Clearly the effort is being made and we are doing our part to help. Go tell China to do the same. Lobbying wouldn't be a problem if the government had less power. No point in bribing if you don't get anything out of it.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Where did you see me say the free market oppresses or torments? Nothing that I said is contrary to the free market since those things exist in actual first world capitalist societies.
> 
> But I'll bite, I can defend the words you put in my mouth-- the free market is oppressive in the fact that wages have stagnated for 30 years, drastically failing to match the rate of inflation, as a result Americans earn significantly less in real dollars than they used to, the free market oppresses when it busts up unions, the free market oppresses when it monopolizes industries, the free market oppresses when it outsources jobs or replaces them with automation, the free market oppresses when it favors polluting air and water to save money on waste disposal and clean emissions, the free market oppresses when drug companies collude to price fix, the free market oppresses when corporate lobbyists pay off politicians to go against the will of their constituents... I could keep going all day but I'm sure you get the picture by now.


your problem is with corrupt politicians and crony capitalism, not the free market.


----------



## Miss Sally

The biggest issue is America went from being a manufacturer to being largely consumer. 

The best growth seems to be around the late 50's- 70's where Americans were making the goods, buying the goods and investing in America itself. This has always been a successful way of doing things. When the US went to consuming cheaply made goods it changed the whole culture. Now everything is done with the mentality of maximum profit no matter what, regardless if it costs jobs, damage to the environment or if it's only short term gains. 

We're addicted to cheap and it's a problem. We are like a person who went from making hearty, healthy meals for themselves with the occasional treat to simply eating treats because it's cheaper and "less work". It's not sustainable.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Berzerker's Beard said:


> your problem is with corrupt politicians and crony capitalism, not the free market.


Crony capitalism is the only possible capitalism in 'Murica without the government protections that social democracies offer.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Crony capitalism is the only possible capitalism in 'Murica without the government protections that social democracies offer.


we only require the government to protect consumers and employees from unfair practices, we do not require them to control everything. that only invites more corruption.

the government cannot 'educate the populace' and give everyone free healthcare as you suggest without drastically lowering the standards for everyone involved. the only way to maintain both quality and innovation is to ensure that there is honest competition among the private sector.


----------



## Draykorinee

Is there anything more objectively incorrect than competition breeds better healthcare? I mean every statistic under the sun refutes the argument, but it goes on and on and on, keep trotting out the argument and it just won't die.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Berzerker's Beard said:


> we only require the government to protect consumers and employees from unfair practices, we do not require them to control everything. that only invites more corruption.
> 
> the government cannot 'educate the populace' and give everyone free healthcare as you suggest without drastically lowering the standards for everyone involved. the only way to maintain both quality and innovation is to ensure that there is honest competition among the private sector.


Ignoring the fact that there currently is no innovation or honest competition.

Why did Lockheed Martin get a trillion dollar no-bid contract to develop the F-35?

Why does insulin cost $6 to manufacture but retail for $600? 

Why do Americans spend twice as much per capita on healthcare costs than the next highest nation when we have the 11th best quality of health care according to the World Health Organization?

Shouldn't the prices of those things be driven down by competition? Shouldn't Americans be getting higher quality health care than nations with socialized medicine?

How come the government can't educate the populace? Government funded state universities offer significantly better education and job prospects than for profit universities.


I don't know how people came to the conclusion that the free market solves all problems, it's not a moral force, it doesn't care about people, it's only goal is to maximize profits damn the human consequences.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> *Is there anything more objectively incorrect than competition breeds better healthcare? *I mean every statistic under the sun refutes the argument, but it goes on and on and on, keep trotting out the argument and it just won't die.


yes, this post right here. ^

whenever a single entity has total control over an industry and doesn't face any competition, we know it is always a bad thing for the consumer.

are you suggesting that a monopoly is a good thing? that competition in the marketplace is _bad_?


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is there anything more objectively incorrect than competition breeds better healthcare? *I mean every statistic under the sun refutes the argument, but it goes on and on and on, keep trotting out the argument and it just won't die.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, this post right here. ^
> 
> whenever a single entity has total control over an industry and doesn't face any competition, we know it is always a bad thing for the consumer.
> 
> are you suggesting that a monopoly is a good thing? that competition in the marketplace is _bad_?
Click to expand...

No, you can have competition and a single player healthcare system, scandanavian systems for example have private run hospitals paid for by the tax payer.

The UK has multiple services now under private ownership that are functioning okay under a single payer system.

But the truth of the matter is a gross, bloated corporate money grabbing healthcare system funded by rapacious insurance companies is objectively worse than those that don't.

I will admit my post was badly worded, no competition is also a bad idea,,to suggest otherwise is silly so I'll accept that. I meant in regards to unfettered corporate greed and not competition as a whole.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> No, you can have competition and a single player healthcare system, scandanavian systems for example have private run hospitals paid for by the tax payer.
> 
> The UK has multiple services now under private ownership that are functioning okay under a single payer system.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is a gross, bloated corporate money grabbing healthcare system funded by rapacious insurance companies is objectively worse than those that don't.
> 
> I will admit my post was badly worded, no competition is also a bad idea,,to suggest otherwise is silly so I'll accept that. I meant in regards to unfettered corporate greed and not competition as a whole.


okay so it sounds like what the U.S. needs is more competition within the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

people need to have a litany of choices to choose from.


----------



## CamillePunk

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Crony capitalism is the only possible capitalism in 'Murica without the government protections that social democracies offer.


Except government protections for corporations from competition and the consequences of their own disastrous business practices is what makes it crony capitalism in the first place. :lol

We don't have free market capitalism in the US. Stop repeating this idiotic lie please, people.


----------



## deepelemblues

lol the fed took an unspecified but absolutely gargantuan amount of money onto its balance sheets 11 years ago to prevent a large number of extremely large and/or 'important' corporations from going under

and it took a significant amount of money onto its balance sheets from the ECB to enable that venerable central bank to do the same thing across the atlantic
the corn gas industry exists solely because of the government

the fed and wall street might as well be siamese twins

the fed has abused its power to set interest rates for 20 years (many would say much longer). they have mainlained extremely low interest rates into the economy's veins to the point where major industries are fucking junkies for debt 

i could go on and on and on

this has enabled nearly every interest to become a special interest. money doesnt mean anything, it's some numbers on a computer screen. the government pig trough, either directly, or indirectly through the fed keeping interest rates low for forever, has finally become big enough for nearly everyone 

you know what the only crony capitalism was, back in the days of those nasty robber barons who built the infrastructure in this country that enabled living standards to skyrocket 

tariffs on steel, ensuring state legislatures would approve the formation of new corporations, trusts etc., and calling out the state militia when strikes got hot 

the government is a lot more powerful today and the potential services it can offer to business to ensure success, or at least prevent meaningful competition and failure, range so much wider and deeper

things are still more capitalistic than otherwise. mostly because of strong property rights - which of course fucking idiots like warren and sanders want to erode with this wealth tax idiocy and other dumb ideas - which encourage small and medium sized businesses and keep them economically feasible, and of course they benefit large businesses as well. the ability to keep the government's mitts off wealth and property is a huge part of the reason investment in the United States, either by Americans or foreigners, is so attractive. it is still a strong and vibrant economy and country

but it is becoming a little more hollowed out every day by these insane policies that run counter to economic growth in the long term, and potentially threatened by these even more insane proposed policies that run counter to economic growth in all three of the short, medium, and long terms

and all of this nonsense either originates with the government or requires the government - the big, strong, has the authority to intervene in so many ways in so many places government - to occur


----------



## Draykorinee

New York times showing why MSM media continues to be shockingly bad at its job.

Trump is sending soldiers and equipment to the number 1 terrorist sponsor in the world to defend them and they're too busy trying to out a whistleblower FFS...

We've had a President who sold himself on his anti-interventionism do the opposite of what he promised. We have got to defend that big oil money at all costs, even if it means propping up a human rights abusing, terrorist supporting theocracy.

Did Bolton and the Neocons get in to Trumps head or was he always going to tow the necon line?


----------



## CamillePunk

It's the petrodollar fam


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Shouldn't the prices of those things be driven down by competition? Shouldn't Americans be getting higher quality health care than nations with socialized medicine?
> 
> How come the government can't educate the populace? Government funded state universities offer significantly better education and job prospects than for profit universities.


Because America is unhealthier than all those countries, as well as litigation for malpractice in America is exponentially more.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/03/07/482609.htm



> One report —Medical Liability Claim Frequency Among U.S. Physicians — analyzes medical liability claims frequency among patient care physicians in the U.S. and finds that getting sued is virtually a matter of when, not if, for physicians. In addition to finding that older physicians had a higher incidence of claims than younger ones, the report also found a wide variation in claim incidence by specialty. General surgeons and obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYN) were the physicians most likely to be sued, more than 3½ to 4 times greater than pediatricians and psychiatrists, who have the lowest risk. Before they reach the age of 55, more than 50 percent of general surgeons and obstetricians/gynecologists have already been sued.


Well, you could say "Then stop hiring shitty doctors, except:



> “Even though the *vast majority of claims are dropped, dismissed or withdrawn, the heavy cost associated with a litigious climate takes a significant financial toll on our health care system* when the nation is working to reduce unnecessary health care costs,” Dr. Barbe said.


So, the insurance companies raise rates because payouts are getting bigger and bigger, because medical malpractice is big business for lawyers.

The issue comes up is that do you truly believe that Americans will start to live better lives (there is a huge obesity problem in America that has gone up YoY for the past few year) and will Americans stop suing people for frivolous suits to bring the costs of insurance for the doctors down.

We can talk about big Pharma, and the problems they cause (they are a lot) but I think the problems with these arguments is we focus so much on the top 1-5% we forget the overwhelming majority are also doing the same job.

Also, your last comment about government funded universities vs. for profit universities makes me think you are talking about public vs. private, is that true?


----------



## Draykorinee

I'd be interested in quantifiable data as to what Private health companies do about health promotion, the public sector depends on investing heavily on health promotion to reduce the burden on the service. Its a large part of working in a public sector. 

I'm just not sure if its very incentivised in the private sectors, although I have been unable to find any data to suggest either way, but why would they spend the millions to prevent a disease/condition they make money from?

A bit like private prisons wanting more criminals so they can make more money.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Draykorinee said:


> I'd be interested in quantifiable data as to what Private health companies do about health promotion, the public sector depends on investing heavily on health promotion to reduce the burden on the service. Its a large part of working in a public sector.


I found this:

https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/upl...-Insurance-Plans__Final-Technical-Report4.pdf

Apologies if it isn't what you are looking for however, I may have misunderstood.

If you are talking about just promotion of health, as in living a better life, most of that stuff goes hand in hand with some benefits.

I know my private insurance is cheaper if i don't smoke, and if I take a wellness check each year to show i am healthy.



> I'm just not sure if its very incentivised in the private sectors, although I have been unable to find any data to suggest either way, but why would they spend the millions to prevent a disease/condition they make money from?
> 
> A bit like private prisons wanting more criminals so they can make more money.


The difference is that you can't pay a shit ton of money to private insurance if you are dead. Obesity and cigarettes lead to fatal diseases that can stop the money train real quick.

The big increase(and a lot of big pharma's money) is from over diagnosing of psychiatric drugs.

https://www.statnews.com/2018/10/22/flooding-world-psychiatric-drugs-boost-burden-mental-disorders/

From the article:



> Yet even as more and more people have been getting medical treatment for psychiatric disorders, the number of adults on government disability due to these disorders has more than tripled since 1987. The number of children so disabled by psychiatric disorders has increased more than 30-fold during this period.


This was written in 2018, and keep in mind it is a lot easier to get a person to believe a pill makes everything better, than almost anything else.

IMO, private business promotes a lot of health stuff to keep you alive, but ignore the stuff that would obviously make you dependent


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

I think logically health insurance companies would promote health because it limits claims. They are going to make money regardless based on prescriptions. If they can limit what they pay out that's the best way to profit. I've never looked into it though. The numbers may not support that thought.


----------



## Draykorinee

Both valid points tbh, its certainly not a hill I would choose to die on, I think that no matter what happens health promotion is done but people just ignore it.

I do like the idea that Insurance companies actively discourage smoking etc with cheaper premiums, that makes sense.

However they can also just not insure those people or increase premiums and deductibles and not do health promotion so I think if they were truly rapacious that could be abused but again, I have no data to back that up.

Its quite interesting to read about how health insurance was not even a for profit thing until the 1990s.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Draykorinee said:


> Both valid points tbh, its certainly not a hill I would choose to die on, *I think that no matter what happens health promotion is done but people just ignore it.*
> 
> I do like the idea that Insurance companies actively discourage smoking etc with cheaper premiums, that makes sense.
> 
> However they can also just not insure those people or increase premiums and deductibles and not do health promotion so I think if they were truly rapacious that could be abused but again, I have no data to back that up.
> 
> Its quite interesting to read about how health insurance was not even a for profit thing until the 1990s.


I wish it would work. It certainly hasn't.

https://www.stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> I'd be interested in quantifiable data as to what Private health companies do about health promotion, the public sector depends on investing heavily on health promotion to reduce the burden on the service. Its a large part of working in a public sector.
> 
> I'm just not sure if its very incentivised in the private sectors, although I have been unable to find any data to suggest either way, but why would they spend the millions to prevent a disease/condition they make money from?
> 
> A bit like private prisons wanting more criminals so they can make more money.


private insurers want healthy clients because that's less money they have to pay out in claims. policies also include varying degrees of preventative care to boot.

also worth noting that the private sector outperforms the public sector in just about every respect.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> private insurers want healthy clients because that's less money they have to pay out in claims. policies also include varying degrees of preventative care to boot.
> 
> also worth noting that the private sector outperforms the public sector in just about every respect.


The first point was raised already but I accept that.

The second bit is of course objectively untrue by every metric measured.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> The first point was raised already but I accept that.
> 
> The second bit is of course objectively untrue by every metric measured.


assuming cost was no issue... name me one instance in which you personally would pass on a private service in favor of a public service.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Because America is unhealthier than all those countries, as well as litigation for malpractice in America is exponentially more.
> 
> https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/03/07/482609.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you could say "Then stop hiring shitty doctors, except:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the insurance companies raise rates because payouts are getting bigger and bigger, because medical malpractice is big business for lawyers.
> 
> The issue comes up is that do you truly believe that Americans will start to live better lives (there is a huge obesity problem in America that has gone up YoY for the past few year) and will Americans stop suing people for frivolous suits to bring the costs of insurance for the doctors down.
> 
> We can talk about big Pharma, and the problems they cause (they are a lot) but I think the problems with these arguments is we focus so much on the top 1-5% we forget the overwhelming majority are also doing the same job.
> 
> Also, your last comment about government funded universities vs. for profit universities makes me think you are talking about public vs. private, is that true?


Even if that is the reason for our health care being so expensive how come we have the 11th best quality of health care? Shouldn't the free market cause America to have better quality doctors and hospitals than nations with socialized health care?

And I wasn't talking about private universities, I was talking about for profit colleges like Trump University and ITT Tech.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first point was raised already but I accept that.
> 
> The second bit is of course objectively untrue by every metric measured.
> 
> 
> 
> assuming cost was no issue... name me one instance in which you personally would pass on a private service in favor of a public service.
Click to expand...

The top hospital and health services in the world are all public options with the best outcomes. 

Discussing healthcare as an individual person, with no costs is a vapid gotcha argument. But here's your quote you want, if I had to have surgery and cost was not an option I would go to a private hospital.

If cost was not an option I would pay to have sex Peta Jensen. 

If my aunt had a cock she would be my uncle.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Even if that is the reason for our health care being so expensive how come we have the 11th best quality of health care? Shouldn't the free market cause America to have better quality doctors and hospitals than nations with socialized health care?


You would have to show me where you get those stats from.

It could be as simple as I said, the risk vs reward for becoming a doctor is not going to be beneficial in the long run for a lot of people. 

It could be that America has crappy healthcare, I haven't been able to find the 11th best quality, but I am interested in seeing it.



> And I wasn't talking about private universities, I was talking about for profit colleges like Trump University and ITT Tech.


Ok, but still this analogy doesn't work in this sector.

The reason why medical bills are high, are not only litigation, but because of the mystery that comes from simple procedures.

If a person needs to go to school, they are able to research, and see how much the school costs. You can't do that within the health field.

You can have a surgery tomorrow, and not know how much it will costs, that is not a solution.

What I am saying is there should be more clarity for what people are getting into, you shouldn't have to guess how much your bill will be before you receive it.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> The top hospital and health services in the world are all public options with the best outcomes.
> 
> Discussing healthcare as an individual person, with no costs is a vapid gotcha argument. But here's your quote you want,* if I had to have surgery and cost was not an option I would go to a private hospital.*
> 
> If cost was not an option I would pay to have sex Peta Jensen.
> 
> If my aunt had a cock she would be my uncle.


thank you, of course you would. 

privately owned enterprises operate more efficiently and provide superior service than publicly funded government programs. they are held to a higher standard.

the goal should not be to lower the standards for everyone, it should be to raise the standards. you can only accomplish this through free market capitalism. yes you will have to pay a premium but so is life. if there are enough competitors the costs will come down and more people will be able to afford it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top hospital and health services in the world are all public options with the best outcomes.
> 
> Discussing healthcare as an individual person, with no costs is a vapid gotcha argument. But here's your quote you want,* if I had to have surgery and cost was not an option I would go to a private hospital.*
> 
> If cost was not an option I would pay to have sex Peta Jensen.
> 
> If my aunt had a cock she would be my uncle.
> 
> 
> 
> thank you, of course you would.
> 
> privately owned enterprises operate more efficiently and provide superior service than publicly funded government programs. they are held to a higher standard.
> 
> the goal should not be to lower the standards for everyone, it should be to raise the standards. you can only accomplish this through free market capitalism. yes you will have to pay a premium but so is life. if there are enough competitors the costs will come down and more people will be able to afford it.
Click to expand...

The standards in private health are the exact same in public, I'd just have a shorter wait and a single room.

My treatment would be identical. 

You're making the mistake of thinking I want to go private for better care, that's not the case at all, which is why your question was just a gotcha question.

I would hate for our standards to be lowered to those of the US private system and so would every western country with universal health care.

You're also still conflating privately run hospitals through single payer systems with a free market, rapacious insurance lead system.

The Democrats pushing for impeachment has seen a Trump surge and a Biden surge, looks like their plan is both a success and an abjact failure.

Success because Trump is going to go against their chosen one Biden and failure because Biden will get absolutely roasted by Trump at every level.

Is there a more incompetent party in global politics than the Democrats?


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> Is there a more incompetent party in global politics than the Democrats?


Incompetence is a mischaracerization based on a misunderstanding of what the party really stands for and wants to accomplish. If you stop assuming for a minute that Democrats are an opposition party to the Republicans, then you'll finally be able to understand what they do and why they do what they do.

They are extremely competent at their politics. Equally as competent as the other party.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> *The standards in private health are the exact same in public, I'd just have a shorter wait and a single room.*
> 
> My treatment would be identical.
> 
> You're making the mistake of thinking I want to go private for better care, that's not the case at all, which is why your question was just a gotcha question.
> 
> I would hate for our standards to be lowered to those of the US private system and so would every western country with universal health care.
> 
> You're also still conflating privately run hospitals through single payer systems with a free market, rapacious insurance lead system.


uh... i don't....

forget it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> uh... i don't....
> 
> forget it.


Probably best, because you're still trying to argue that the worst rated healthcare system in the world is more efficient and effective than the public ones rated more efficient and effective on nearly every metric.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Some assertion that Pvt health hospitals are officially held to a higher standard when it comes to levels of actual treatment as in the efficacy of different procedures etc is ridiculous.

Drayk is correct in the assertion that Pvt would mean simply shorter waiting time and a single room and that's probably it.

People who consistently live in this dreamland scenario where the free market ensures the cream will rise to the top every time never ceases to amaze me.

The fact that opponents to universal healthcare in the US continue to ignore the fact it works solidly in every other developed country and make excuses as to why their country is somehow unique is really getting old.


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> Some assertion that Pvt health hospitals are officially held to a higher standard when it comes to levels of actual treatment as in the efficacy of different procedures etc is ridiculous.
> 
> Drayk is correct in the assertion that Pvt would mean simply shorter waiting time and a single room and that's probably it.
> 
> People who consistently live in this dreamland scenario where the free market ensures the cream will rise to the top every time never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> The fact that opponents to universal healthcare in the US continue to ignore the fact it works solidly in every other developed country and make excuses as to why their country is somehow unique is really getting old.


The myth of "American Exceptionalism" has these people convinced that everyone around the world is more backward than they are and no one is getting better medical care than they are and therefore the costs are justified. "You pay for the best". 

Meanwhile, Americans are currently ranked 43rd in life expectancy due to many factors including unafforadable healthcare being a major one of them since most people who die early are the ones who do not get healthcare at all. Medical mistaks are the No. 3 killer in America as well. I have no clue where the myth of "best healthcare" comes from when literal incompetency is taking hundreds of thousands of lives here. 

The only thing this country is "exceptional" in is propagandizing its populace to vote against its own interests.


----------



## Draykorinee

yeahbaby! said:


> Some assertion that Pvt health hospitals are officially held to a higher standard when it comes to levels of actual treatment as in the efficacy of different procedures etc is ridiculous.
> 
> Drayk is correct in the assertion that Pvt would mean simply shorter waiting time and a single room and that's probably it.
> 
> People who consistently live in this dreamland scenario where the free market ensures the cream will rise to the top every time never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> The fact that opponents to universal healthcare in the US continue to ignore the fact it works solidly in every other developed country and make excuses as to why their country is somehow unique is really getting old.


The funny thing is our private ward which covers 200k people is in the exact same hospital as the public one. 

It's the same food but you get a little silver cover. It's the same staff and staff ratios being paid the same wages. It's the same doctors and the same surgeons using the same theatre. 

So it literally is a shorter wait and nicer room. 

I've worked in private healthcare as a nurse, but BB watched a fox news article or something so I guess he knows something I don't.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Probably best, because you're still trying to argue that the worst rated healthcare system in the world is more efficient and effective than the public ones rated more efficient and effective on nearly every metric.


you just admitted in your own post that you would have a shorter wait time in a private system. that means superior care.

you can't say "the standards are exactly the same... oh but my wait time will be longer in a public system". 

you really sound like a bunch of geniuses when you say this.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably best, because you're still trying to argue that the worst rated healthcare system in the world is more efficient and effective than the public ones rated more efficient and effective on nearly every metric.
> 
> 
> 
> you just admitted in your own post that you would have a shorter wait time in a private system. that means superior care.
> 
> you can't say "the standards are exactly the same... oh but my wait time will be longer in a public system".
> 
> you really sound like a bunch of geniuses when you say this.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. It means getting in to the hospital quicker. 

The actual care in the hospital is the same.

Can you explain why your private system ranks so low in both affordability and quality?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> It doesn't. *It means getting in to the hospital quicker. *
> 
> The actual care in the hospital is the same.
> 
> Can you explain why your private system ranks so low in both affordability and quality?


"no no no not shorter wait times! i was wrong! i meant you'll reach the hospital faster! you see it's... it's.. it's really just as good this public healthcare!"

:lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. *It means getting in to the hospital quicker. *
> 
> The actual care in the hospital is the same.
> 
> Can you explain why your private system ranks so low in both affordability and quality?
> 
> 
> 
> "no no no not shorter wait times! i was wrong! i meant you'll reach the hospital faster! you see it's... it's.. it's really just as good this public healthcare!"
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you thought you were making with this. You've yet to answer the question asked of you because unlike me, you're not an honest poster, just a troll.

Why is your private healthcare financially more inefficient and on most health outcomes more ineffective by every measured study?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

dray:

_"you get into the hospital quicker with private care"

"you have your own room with private care"

"aside from those two things, everything else is the same"_


also dray:

_"public healthcare is better because studies"_ 


are there two of you? am i being worked?


----------



## FriedTofu

Berzerker's Beard said:


> dray:
> 
> _"you get into the hospital quicker with private care"
> 
> "you have your own room with private care"
> 
> "aside from those two things, everything else is the same"_
> 
> 
> also dray:
> 
> _"public healthcare is better because studies"_
> 
> 
> are there two of you? am i being worked?


It just means people choosing to use private care are willing to pay a premium to get attended to faster or to have more privacy. The treatment and care received are generally the same.

It isn't whether private or public healthcare is inherently better. It is finding the balance so that the most people get access to the care they need at the price they are able to afford.

Now, don't be a pussy and answer Dray's question why is the US spending almost twice but getting less result than countries with a larger public healthcare in their system? Since in your opinion private is always better?



PS: Why is this in a Trump thread?

Shouldn't we be talking about his usual rants in here? Imagine Hilary saying all the shit Trump has said the past week but about her Bengazhi. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Teflon Don can say what the fuck he likes.

Funny thing is, this impeachment is just another positive for him, another gimme by the Democrats. 

So Don, why did you ask Ukraine to look in to corruption?

Because Biden is corrupt.

Oh...yeah he is. Isn't Biden the Democrats number one choice?

So the Democrats are advocating a corrupt politician just like they did with Hilary?

Slam dunk for Trump and another utter failure by the worst bunch of politicians for a long time.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> are there two of you? am i being worked?


kay2


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

FriedTofu said:


> It just means people choosing to use private care are willing to pay a premium to get attended to faster or to have more privacy. The treatment and care received are generally the same.


faster care is superior care, full stop. stop trying to argue otherwise.



FriedTofu said:


> It isn't whether private or public healthcare is inherently better. It is finding the balance so that the most people get access to the care they need at the price they are able to afford.


you don't accomplish this by creating a monopoly. doesn't matter if it's healthcare or if it's professional wrestling, we know for a fact that whenever a single entity has full control over an industry it has not been good for the public at large. 

if you want to improve quality and lower prices, you need to encourage and make room for competition. it boils down to common sense supply and demand.



FriedTofu said:


> Now, don't be a pussy and answer Dray's question why is the US spending almost twice but getting less result than countries with a larger public healthcare in their system? Since in your opinion private is always better?


i don't know what figures you are referring to.

yes private is always better. i even asked dray to give me an example of a service in which he would opt for a public option instead of a private option and he couldn't give me one. 

do you honestly think that if the U.S. adopted a medicare for all type system that the rich and wealthy still wouldn't receive superior care?


----------



## FriedTofu

Draykorinee said:


> Teflon Don can say what the fuck he likes.
> 
> Funny thing is, this impeachment is just another positive for him, another gimme by the Democrats.
> 
> So Don, why did you ask Ukraine to look in to corruption?
> 
> Because Biden is corrupt.
> 
> Oh...yeah he is. Isn't Biden the Democrats number one choice?
> 
> So the Democrats are advocating a corrupt politician just like they did with Hilary?
> 
> Slam dunk for Trump and another utter failure by the worst bunch of politicians for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> kay2


The problem I guess is voters don't Trump to any standards. As long as he gives them a conservative court + economy doesn't tank, Trump has secured his base. 



Berzerker's Beard said:


> faster care is superior care, full stop. stop trying to argue otherwise.


You are ignoring the costs. 





> you don't accomplish this by creating a monopoly. doesn't matter if it's healthcare or if it's professional wrestling, we know for a fact that whenever a single entity has full control over an industry it has not been good for the public at large.
> 
> if you want to improve quality and lower prices, you need to encourage and make room for competition. it boils down to common sense supply and demand.


All you have is theory based talking points. Real world data shows other developed countries have spent much less than America while achieving better results in healthcare. Please explain how you are going to increase supply or reduce demand for healthcare in America to get costs more comparable to other countries's spending as a percentage of their GDP?





> i don't know what figures you are referring to.
> 
> yes private is always better. i even asked dray to give me an example of a service in which he would opt for a public option instead of a private option and he couldn't give me one.
> 
> do you honestly think that if the U.S. adopted a medicare for all type system that the rich and wealthy still wouldn't receive superior care?


Go google healthcare spending across countries if you want the figures. I'm not falling for your stupid troll attempt at making others do the work only to ignore it again and again.

No private is not always better if you factor in affordability. Nobody is arguing against the rich and wealthy being able to afford better care if they are willing to spend on it. The argument is giving the less well off the access to reasonable care that they are being currently denied due to prohibitive costs.

Once again you pussied out in answering the question and attempted another deflection with silly absolutes and frankly a sad attempt at class warfare baiting. I guess we have to wait till a conservative talking head comes up with a better talking point for you to continue any discussion in this topic.


----------



## Draykorinee

BB is Woat tier, only interested in gotcha questions for a little quote.

No interest in the nuance around health care, no interest in acknowledging the irrefutable argument that private health care is only going to be better for anyone who can get it

I would prefer a UK public hospital system to a US private system. He says I can't give him a service, but that's one right there.

I'd also take the German public train system over our private UK one. 

There is evidence to suggest public schools in the US are getting better results on some metrics than private ones. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...gly-choosing-public-over-private-schools/amp/

The idea that private means better is a fallacious argument not grounded in objective fact.

I'd also take the Swiss post service over our disastrous royal mail. 

If you want to pretend private healthcare in the US is better, more efficient than public healthcare in the UK then prove it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

I still see how delsional people are in this thread lol

And Trumps approval rating is under 40%, how is this impeachmnet talk helping him?

its also hilarous how Trump is breaking law after law and people are still saying he shouldnt be impeached.

This thread is still the biggest joke on WF

And Tofu the econ has been tanking, have you not been paying attention


----------



## red dead2

Holy shit that Finland press conference was such a meltdown from trump lol

you might as well have had Vince McMahon up there taking questions from that 'off the record' guy



birthday_massacre said:


> I still see how delsional people are in this thread lol
> 
> And Trumps approval rating is under 40%, how is this impeachmnet talk helping him?
> 
> its also hilarous how Trump is breaking law after law and people are still saying he shouldnt be impeached.
> 
> This thread is still the biggest joke on WF
> 
> And Tofu the econ has been tanking, have you not been paying attention


I think Trump will be impeached as more and more scandalous information comes out and I also do believe that the Senate will vote him guilty in a trial or he will be pressured to resign before they do.

Ultimately it is in the GOP's best interest. Let's get real for a minute, regardless if Trump leaves office after an election next year or in 4 years time his legacy will be completely tarnished, he will be way more unpopular than George W Bush was after the Iraq war and the GOP will take the pounding for it the most and be decimated as a party.

Not to mention that either by next year or in 4 years time Latino's will be a major voting force in elections and the GOP will forever lose that voting base to the democrats which will make winning future elections in a post-trump era very unlikely.

As a politician you can't be so divisive. Trump is his own worst enemy and the GOP will eventually realise how much of a liability he is. I think Pence will go down with him but Dems will probably reach some agreement for him to be POTUS for one day before another Republican becomes president in early 2020 so it does not look like a coup of sorts.

Would not be surprised if someone like Romney or even Lindsey Graham is thrown into becoming President if such a scenario occurs tbh


----------



## DOPA

Trump is not going to get impeached whilst there is a majority Republican Senate :lol. Democrats best chance is to beat him in 2020 which won't happen if Biden or Warren are the nominee.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179502966606352386
Best head of state in the history of the world do not even begin to consider @'ing me


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179502966606352386
> Best head of state in the history of the world do not even begin to consider @'ing me



Tweeting Nickelback= Most Impeachable thing a President has ever done

If he up's the Anti and start's using Limp Bizkit then give him a way 1 way Plane Ticket to Guantanamo


----------



## Draykorinee

Sad day for the economy, we've had dips recently and recoveries but how many times can that happen? Trump is ofc blaming the Democrats even though the stock market fell after it was shown he's failed the manufacturing industry with his trade tariffs. 

If Trump loses the economy then even Biden ca...Who am I kidding Trump would still eat Biden alive.

What will you do about the economy Mr Biden?

Well, you put the record players on so the kids can hear words.


----------



## Stephen90

ShiningStar said:


> Tweeting Nickelback= Most Impeachable thing a President has ever done
> 
> If he up's the Anti and start's using Limp Bizkit then give him a way 1 way Plane Ticket to Guantanamo


Trump losing to Nickelback and getting his video removed for copyright infringement is the most hilarious thing I've ever seen.


----------



## bradatar

I find it hilarious the people most active in bashing Trump in here aren't even American.


----------



## Draykorinee

It's funny that people bashing the most powerful man in the world aren't from America? The leader of the country that influences everything in the global stage. 

Bradatar, that's dumb even for you.

Hey guise, we're number 1, but don't talk about us yeah.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> BB is Woat tier, only interested in gotcha questions for a little quote.


a hypothetical scenario is not a gotcha question.

your inability to name a single instance in which you would opt for a public service over a private service is not due to trick questioning. direct, relevant questions aren't 'gotcha' questions. 

the public sector doesn't do a single thing better or more efficiently than the private sector. this is why you cannot come up with an example.

you're going to have to do a lot better defending your shaky arguments. (Y)


----------



## CamillePunk

Remember when y'all were acting like that Fire & Fury book was factually based? :heston


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> a hypothetical scenario is not a gotcha question.
> 
> your inability to name a single instance in which you would opt for a public service over a private service is not due to trick questioning. direct, relevant questions aren't 'gotcha' questions.
> 
> the public sector doesn't do a single thing better or more efficiently than the private sector. this is why you cannot come up with an example.
> 
> you're going to have to do a lot better defending your shaky arguments. (Y)


I gave copious examples in this thread, go read it. 

Your inability to explain why your private health service is so poorly rated continues to be duly noted.


----------



## CamillePunk

The current US healthcare system isn't a good example of a private service being better than a public service as it's little more than a corporatist scheme designed to enrich insurance companies and inflate the costs of healthcare through the force of government. Medicare For All being cheaper and more efficient isn't really a high bar compared to what we have. What would be even more superior is a totally free market healthcare system where insurance companies aren't protected from competition or the consequences of their own terrible business practices by the strong arm of government.

But yes, any private service where the government doesn't interfere at all will of course be better than a public service. Private companies have to offer you something more valuable than your money, and go out of business if they don't meet your needs. The government has no such incentives.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> I gave copious examples in this thread, go read it.
> 
> Your inability to explain why your private health service is so poorly rated continues to be duly noted.


my apologies, you did. i didn't see that post.

you compared services across countries, that's not a fair answer. insinuating that one country's public system is superior to another country's private system depends greatly on the country. the united states healthy industry, like most things, is insanely corrupt and needs to be overhauled. 

and yes it is objective fact that a private enterprise will operate more efficiently than any govt funded program, if only by sheer virtue of there being less participants and less bureaucracy. 

you talk about "studies" showing that public schools are producing better than private schools. do you know how smart you sound when you say things like this? 

if public schools were so much better then how come so many politicians and wealthy elites send their kids to private school? if they're so confident in the system then why not just enroll them in public school? 

kind of interesting, no?


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> my apologies, you did. i didn't see that post.
> 
> you compared services across countries, that's not a fair answer. insinuating that one country's public system is superior to another country's private system depends greatly on the country. the united states healthy industry, like most things, is insanely corrupt and needs to be overhauled.
> 
> and yes it is objective fact that a private enterprise will operate more efficiently than any govt funded program, if only by sheer virtue of there being less participants and less bureaucracy.
> 
> you talk about "studies" showing that public schools are producing better than private schools. do you know how smart you sound when you say things like this?
> 
> if public schools were so much better then how come so many politicians and wealthy elites send their kids to private school? if they're so confident in the system then why not just enroll them in public school?
> 
> kind of interesting, no?


I appreciate the apology, not everyone will admit a mistake, so I'm not allowed to prefer our public health system to the US private system because?

I literally supplied a link to show why in 'some' situations people might prefer a public option according to certain metrics. I did not say a study showed public was better than private. Because the stats don't lie, private schools outperform public schools, however studies do show that is MOSTLY down to the fact that people who can afford private school have already had a far better chance in life.

The reason its a gotcha question is because 'If money was no issue tell me one...' etc. Money is always an issue.

So BB, you're born in to poverty, bad luck, but if you had no money would you prefer to go bankrupt and lose everything or would you prefer the socialists paid for your treatment? Not a gotcha question.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> I appreciate the apology, not everyone will admit a mistake, so I'm not allowed to prefer our public health system to the US private system because?
> 
> I literally supplied a link to show why in 'some' situations people might prefer a public option according to certain metrics. I did not say a study showed public was better than private. Because the stats don't lie, private schools outperform public schools, however studies do show that is MOSTLY down to the fact that people who can afford private school have already had a far better chance in life.
> 
> The reason its a gotcha question is because 'If money was no issue tell me one...' etc. Money is always an issue.
> 
> So BB, you're born in to poverty, bad luck, but if you had no money would you prefer to go bankrupt and lose everything or would you prefer the socialists paid for your treatment? Not a gotcha question.


if i am already poor why would i care about going bankrupt? also in this hypothetical scenario am i a contributing member of society? do i work and pay my taxes or am i some worthless bum?

i am all in favor of a system that services everyone so long as :

- everyone is contributing 
- it is not the only option


----------



## michael_3165

Trump will be re-elected in 2020 - I'm calling it. 
The democrats have to be much more aggressive if they want to beat him. Biden won't inspire anyone to vote, he has no life and Trump will go after that supposed weakness. Republicans play dirty to get into power, democrats must brutalise Trump, attack attack attack. Nice politics (liberal) won't wash with the electorate sadly.


----------



## skypod

Not really sure why medicine needs to be in this conversation at all. Medicine either works or it doesn't.

Supermarket brand paracetamol costs 28p per pack, and a brand pack costs £1.65. I'm not sure what benefit society is getting from the latter. It's the exact same active ingredient. Letting the market decide ensures these scummy brands ran by scum of the earth will stay in business because they know people are fooled by fancy packaging.


----------



## virus21

> Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the whistleblower who sounded the alarm on President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine and triggered an impeachment inquiry, tells ABC News that he is now representing a second whistleblower who has spoken with the inspector general.
> 
> Interested in Impeachment Inquiry?
> Add Impeachment Inquiry as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Impeachment Inquiry news, video, and analysis from ABC News.
> Impeachment InquiryAdd Interest
> Zaid tells ABC News' Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos that the second person -- also described as an intelligence official -- has first-hand knowledge of some of the allegations outlined in the original complaint and has been interviewed by the head of the intelligence community's internal watchdog office, Michael Atkinson.
> 
> PHOTO: National security lawyer Mark Zaid is photographed at his home in the Washington, D.C. area, July 20, 2016.The Washington Post via Getty Images, FILE
> National security lawyer Mark Zaid is photographed at his home in the Washington, D.C. area, July 20, 2016.
> The existence of a second whistleblower -- particularly one who can speak directly about events involving the president related to conversations involving Ukraine -- could undercut Trump's repeated insistence that the original complaint, released on Sept. 26, was "totally inaccurate."
> 
> 
> This Week
> ✔
> @ThisWeekABC
> [email protected] EXCLUSIVE: Attorney representing whistleblower who sounded the alarm on Pres. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine tells @ABC News he is now representing a second whistleblower who has first-hand knowledge of [email protected] reports: http://abcn.ws/30PZ4BF
> 
> Embedded video
> 258
> 8:06 AM - Oct 6, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 238 people are talking about this
> (MORE: White House subpoenaed by House Dems for documents in impeachment investigation)
> That original seven-page complaint alleged that Trump pushed a foreign power to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and Biden's son, Hunter, and that unnamed senior White House officials then tried to "lock down" all records of the phone call.
> 
> "This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call," the first whistleblower stated, in a complaint filed Aug. 12.
> 
> Zaid says both officials have full protection of the law intended to protect whistleblowers from being fired in retaliation. While this second official has spoken with the IG -- the internal watchdog office created to handle complaints -- this person has not communicated yet with the congressional committees conducting the investigation.
> 
> The New York Times on Friday cited anonymous sources in reporting that a second intelligence official was weighing whether to file his own formal complaint and testify to Congress. Zaid says he does not know if the second whistleblower he represents is the person identified in the Times report.
> 
> Zaid’s co-counsel, Andrew Bakaj, confirmed in a tweet Sunday that the firm is representing "multiple whistleblowers." Zaid later confirmed in a tweet that two are being represented by their legal team.
> 
> According to the first whistleblower, more than a half a dozen U.S. officials have information relevant to the investigation -- suggesting the probe could widen even further.
> 
> (MORE: Biden fires back at Trump on Ukraine: 'He is the definition of corruption')
> A transcript released by the White House of Trump's July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy showed Trump asking a "favor" of the foreign leader and pushing him to launch an investigation into the Biden family. Hunter Biden was on the board of a Ukraine energy company while his father Vice President Biden led policy on Ukraine during the Obama administration, leading some to question whether there was a conflict of interest or impropriety.
> 
> "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son," Trump told Zelenskiy at one point, offering the assistance of his attorney general. He later adds "a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great."
> 
> The White House cautioned that the transcript was not verbatim.
> 
> Text messages later obtained by Congress showed top U.S. diplomats dangling the possibility of a summit of the two leaders in Washington on the condition that Ukraine agrees to announce an investigation. The Ukraine government never did. The text messages were provided in congressional testimony last week by one of the diplomats, Kurt Volker, who has since resigned.
> 
> (MORE: 5 things to know about those encrypted texts US diplomats exchanged on Ukraine)
> It is illegal for anyone to receive something of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election, according to the Federal Election Commission. While it is not immediately clear whether Trump or other U.S. officials broke the law in its handling of Ukraine, that might not matter. The Constitution allows for Congress to decide what constitutes an impeachable offense.
> 
> Trump has denied any wrongdoing, calling the phone call "perfect."
> 
> "Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called "Whistleblower," represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way," Trump tweeted Sept. 29.
> 
> The White House had no comment.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396&cid=social_twitter_tw


----------



## Draykorinee

> "If I decide to run for office, I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely and I would love to do that."
> - Donald J. Trump


Also Trump



> A judge has ordered US President Donald Trump to hand over eight years of his tax returns to a New York state criminal investigation.
> 
> The judge rejected arguments by the president's lawyers that total immunity protects him while in office.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

michael_3165 said:


> Trump will be re-elected in 2020 - I'm calling it.
> The democrats have to be much more aggressive if they want to beat him. Biden won't inspire anyone to vote, he has no life and Trump will go after that supposed weakness. Republicans play dirty to get into power, democrats must brutalise Trump, attack attack attack. Nice politics (liberal) won't wash with the electorate sadly.


you mean calling him a racist every single day and insinuating that he is the devil incarnate isn't enough? they need to go further?


----------



## Nothing Finer

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181232249821388801
Complete fucking idiot. Anyone who voted for him ought to be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Draykorinee

> that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom,


:heston

I mean, he's pro level trolling. That's not a good thing, but he's doing it.


----------



## Crasp

Nothing Finer said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181232249821388801
> Complete fucking idiot. Anyone who voted for him ought to be ashamed of themselves.


And he says he doesn't touch alcohol. But with tweets like that, you have to wonder.


----------



## SayWhatAgain!

Nothing Finer said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181232249821388801
> Complete fucking idiot. Anyone who voted for him ought to be ashamed of themselves.


The guy is literally cutting a promo on Turkey :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

Trump basically threw everybody that worked with him under the bus with shit like this. No responsibility at all. Not like withdrawing of troops is a unilateral decision.


----------



## ShiningStar

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you mean calling him a racist every single day and insinuating that he is the devil incarnate isn't enough? they need to go further?


Remind me the part where fearmongering,charecter assasination and conspiracy theories against Obama and Hilary backfired against the GOP in the 2014 Midterms and 2016 ? It seem's DNC establishment learned they won't pay for stupid Russiagate conspiracies(see 2018 midterm results) just like the GOP never payed for stupid Benghazi shit. If Trump is in a scandal or twitter drama every day the average voter isn't gonna "both sides" the situation. They are just gonna take their frustration out on him as Prez since he is the most visible person and he proactively like's to engage in those Online Clickbait Culture War shit the left and right fight over that the average person doesn't like.


----------



## Miss Sally

I'm wondering if some Euro leaders put trump up to this, Turkey has been trying to bully their way into the EU and basically hold Europe over a barrel on certain issues. Wondering if this is to distract the crazy Turkish leadership into focusing on the US over Europe.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Miss Sally said:


> I'm wondering if some Euro leaders put trump up to this, Turkey has been trying to bully their way into the EU and basically hold Europe over a barrel on certain issues. Wondering if this is to distract the crazy Turkish leadership into focusing on the US over Europe.


I guarantee you that no European leader told Trump to threaten to destroy and obliterate the economy of Turkey (He's done before!) if they do something that he, in his unmatched wisdom, considers to be off limits. Europe's not happy about the US disengaging and doesn't want Turkey to attack the Kurds, but there's no way in the world they'd be in support of threats like this.

Turkey will never focus on the US over Europe. Europe is relevant to its interests in a way that the US can never be because Europe is right on its doorstep. It will never be allowed to join the EU either for a number of reasons. The biggest hurdle is that the EU requires unanimity to admit a new member state, Greece will never consent while Turkey holds Northern Cyprus. 
There are also a number of countries which aren't too friendly to Islam in the European Union, especially since the eastern expansion, and the EU has standards for democracy which the Erdogan regime cannot meet.

What this is is Trump responding to domestic pressure. In withdrawing he's seen as throwing the Kurds under the bus which has been widely criticised. By making a high profile tweet like this he can say he's not throwing them under the bus, he's ensured their security by telling Turkey that if they do anything unacceptable he'll ruin them.


----------



## Tater

Fucking liberals, I swear. Trump wants to get the fuck out of Syria, a place we illegally invaded and occupied in the first place, and he gets attacked relentlessly. Mind you, he has been getting heat from right wing neocons over this as well but it is the liberals that really irk me in this situation. Why the fuck do these "resistance" jackasses keep putting me in a position where I have to defend the great orange buffoon? Getting out of Syria is the correct call! We never should have fucking been there in the first place.

The problem as I see it with this entire scenario is the USA playing an active role in preventing the Kurds from allying with Assad. The Kurds live in Syria. Assad is the legitimate leader of Syria. Ya don't want Turkey invading Syria and killing Kurds? Stop fucking trying to take out Assad. Let that region deal with that region's problems.

Jesus tap dancing Christ. Everything the USA touches with it's foreign policy turns to shit and Trump gets blasted on the rare occasion he accidentally stumbles into the correct decision. People need to stop being partisan hacks and actually care more about policy than the person implementing it.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> the public sector doesn't do a single thing better or more efficiently than the private sector. this is why you cannot come up with an example.


Should the fire department be a private entity? If your house is on fire, should you only get firefighters putting the fire out if you have enough money to pay a monthly bill to the fire department? 

Or... should we just let poor neighborhoods burn because they cannot afford to pay for fire fighters?



CamillePunk said:


> The current US healthcare system isn't a good example of a private service being better than a public service as it's little more than a corporatist scheme designed to enrich insurance companies and inflate the costs of healthcare through the force of government. Medicare For All being cheaper and more efficient isn't really a high bar compared to what we have. What would be even more superior is a totally free market healthcare system where insurance companies aren't protected from competition or the consequences of their own terrible business practices by the strong arm of government.
> 
> *But yes, any private service where the government doesn't interfere at all will of course be better than a public service. Private companies have to offer you something more valuable than your money, and go out of business if they don't meet your needs. The government has no such incentives.*


Regarding public vs private and who offers the better services.

Let's start by taking everything else out of the equation but cost.

If a service costs 30k a year, that is it's operating cost. A public service will cost 30k a year to provide this service because there is no profit motive. A private service, on the other hand, will cost 40k or 50k or more because a profit is required in this scenario. Based purely on cost, public services will always cost less than private services.

Concerning costs, there is no debate. Public services will always cost less because there is no profit motive involved.

Then comes the debate about quality of service. A right winger like yourself will argue that the competition in a free market will give better services because the cream rises to the top, so to speak. Competition forces businesses to provide better services than their competition and so on and so forth. That is the theory, at least.

Here is the problem with that theory. Monopolies. You correctly point out that the mega corps buy the government to write the laws in their favor and maintain their monopolies on the market. However, without any laws such as antitrust laws (which we are not enforcing, which is part of the problem), natural monopolies would form with or without the government being involved in the market. Mega corps use the government as a tool to protect themselves because that is safer than operating without government help but that does not mean monopolies would not form with said government help.

Monopolies mean the end of competition. By your own rules, competition is what is supposed to give us better quality services. 

What it all boils down to is corruption. You can't have a totally free market without antitrust laws without monopolies forming. We have seen how that turns out. Yet, we cannot have government owned by corporations to protect their monopolies. That is what put us in the clusterfuck we are now in.

The only solution is to end government corruption and actually enforce laws that keep the market free from monopolies, so we can have the competition you claim will bring us better services. 

You can't have it both ways. Either we have antitrust laws that are enforced to ensure competition or we have monopolies who offer shitty services because they have no incentive to do better.


----------



## Draykorinee

Yeah, I couldn't believe when I read people attacking Trump for doing the one thing he should do, and what he should have done with his wife. Pulled out.


----------



## Draykorinee

Turkey didn't waste any time. Better send back the world police.



> Turkish troops have begun an offensive in northern Syria, which could bring them into direct conflict with Kurdish-led forces allied to the United States.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

I would like to think the majority of Americans dont give a fuck about syria or turkey and cant point them on a map. The fake news can cry all they want most people dont want their troops dead or paying for countries wars across the ocean.

Anyone pretending to care about what happens to the people over there can go click a like status.


----------



## BruiserKC

Miss Sally said:


> I'm wondering if some Euro leaders put trump up to this, Turkey has been trying to bully their way into the EU and basically hold Europe over a barrel on certain issues. Wondering if this is to distract the crazy Turkish leadership into focusing on the US over Europe.





Nothing Finer said:


> I guarantee you that no European leader told Trump to threaten to destroy and obliterate the economy of Turkey (He's done before!) if they do something that he, in his unmatched wisdom, considers to be off limits. Europe's not happy about the US disengaging and doesn't want Turkey to attack the Kurds, but there's no way in the world they'd be in support of threats like this.
> 
> Turkey will never focus on the US over Europe. Europe is relevant to its interests in a way that the US can never be because Europe is right on its doorstep. It will never be allowed to join the EU either for a number of reasons. The biggest hurdle is that the EU requires unanimity to admit a new member state, Greece will never consent while Turkey holds Northern Cyprus.
> There are also a number of countries which aren't too friendly to Islam in the European Union, especially since the eastern expansion, and the EU has standards for democracy which the Erdogan regime cannot meet.
> 
> What this is is Trump responding to domestic pressure. In withdrawing he's seen as throwing the Kurds under the bus which has been widely criticised. By making a high profile tweet like this he can say he's not throwing them under the bus, he's ensured their security by telling Turkey that if they do anything unacceptable he'll ruin them.





Tater said:


> Fucking liberals, I swear. Trump wants to get the fuck out of Syria, a place we illegally invaded and occupied in the first place, and he gets attacked relentlessly. Mind you, he has been getting heat from right wing neocons over this as well but it is the liberals that really irk me in this situation. Why the fuck do these "resistance" jackasses keep putting me in a position where I have to defend the great orange buffoon? Getting out of Syria is the correct call! We never should have fucking been there in the first place.
> 
> The problem as I see it with this entire scenario is the USA playing an active role in preventing the Kurds from allying with Assad. The Kurds live in Syria. Assad is the legitimate leader of Syria. Ya don't want Turkey invading Syria and killing Kurds? Stop fucking trying to take out Assad. Let that region deal with that region's problems.
> 
> Jesus tap dancing Christ. Everything the USA touches with it's foreign policy turns to shit and Trump gets blasted on the rare occasion he accidentally stumbles into the correct decision. People need to stop being partisan hacks and actually care more about policy than the person implementing it.


As entertaining as Trump’s promo might have been on Turkey, he isn’t going to do anything to destroy Turkey unless it’s on whole wheat bread with lettuce, tomato and ketchup. Throughout his administration all of his tough talk has been just that, talk. Remember “Rocket Man”? Now North Korea launches rockets and nothing is done. 

He is doing this for one reason only, and it’s been his MO throughout his presidency. Anytime he has negative press he throws out red meat to his base. A substantial number of his supporters want no war no matter what. He campaigned on bringing the troops home. Pulling troops out of Syria is a promise kept in his eyes. I guarantee you it will come up in his Thursday night rally in Minneapolis. He will say that the Democrats don’t want the troops home and wants endless wars, etc. But he feels it will garner him support from his base. 

So, make no mistake...Trump might be doing the right thing but for all the wrong reasons. And as much as it’s easy to say let them hash it out over there, it’s not that simple. At the very least, you see a Turkish massacre of the Kurds and yet another abandonment of an ally in the region. 

However, rumblings through NATO, Saudi Arabia, and even Israel are feeling like the United States can’t be trusted as an ally. They especially point to the Iranian attack on the Saudi oilfield this summer as an example. The United States doing nothing which makes us look weak. There is a fine line between prudence and cowardice and our allies feel we are at the latter. Why does it matter? I’ll explain in a moment.

Now, worse case scenario is the region boils into a full blown war. You have ISIS who could find a way to escape the prisons the Kurds are guarding. No one else is going to step up to help. With no one else caring, it would be a matter of time before the Islamic State sets up shop again. This time it might expand beyond Syria and reach Europe, Asia, and maybe the States. It would be Trump’s “Mission Accomplished” moment. 

Now, one could look at Iran stepping in to move closer to Israel to commit hostilities. Israel may also intervene if conflict gets close to their borders which may further exacerbate matters. The region could explode into a larger conflict which would threaten the whole Middle East. Eventually, it reaches a point where we might have to go back. The next time we won’t have support from our allies. 

All of the rest is what-if. But the Turks slaughtering the Kurds is a reality. Trump tossed a people that worked with us under the bus. And he only did it for himself and not for the greater good. So, he did the right thing but for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## GothicBohemian

BruiserKC said:


> ...
> 
> All of the rest is what-if. But the Turks slaughtering the Kurds is a reality. *Trump tossed a people that worked with us under the bus.* And he only did it for himself and not for the greater good. So, *he did the right thing but for all the wrong reasons*.


I'm confused. Tossing allies "under the bus" is doing the right thing? Why should anyone trust the US if that's considered "the right thing" or, at least, acceptable trade-off for what benefits the US in some form? 

I've always respected, if not agreed, with you opinions but unless I'm reading your post incorrectly - which I hope is the case - I can't respect this.


----------



## Draykorinee

If the Kurds are getting attacked then NATO need to deal with it. The US are not the world police.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Draykorinee said:


> If the Kurds are getting attacked then NATO need to deal with it. The US are not the world police.


What do you mean by "deal with it", attack Turkey? And why is it NATO's business any moreso than the US? NATO is a mutual defence alliance, it's not the world police either.


----------



## BruiserKC

GothicBohemian said:


> I'm confused. Tossing allies "under the bus" is doing the right thing? Why should anyone trust the US if that's considered "the right thing" or, at least, acceptable trade-off for what benefits the US in some form?
> 
> I've always respected, if not agreed, with you opinions but unless I'm reading your post incorrectly - which I hope is the case - I can't respect this.


The right thing refers to withdrawing the troops from Syria in the first place. Trump is doing it for his own selfish benefit...bonus points with his cult but at the expense of throwing the Kurds to the wolves. So, hope that clears things up. 

There is nothing acceptable about abandoning an ally unless you have a good reason. This ain’t it. 



Draykorinee said:


> If the Kurds are getting attacked then NATO need to deal with it. The US are not the world police.


Then the US will still have to deal with it, considering both us and Turkey are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


----------



## Draykorinee

Nothing Finer said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Kurds are getting attacked then NATO need to deal with it. The US are not the world police.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "deal with it", attack Turkey? And why is it NATO's business any moreso than the US? NATO is a mutual defence alliance, it's not the world police either.
Click to expand...

No, of course not. I dunno tbh, my first thought was suspending them from NATO, but suspending them seems like an impossible task, I guess the UN would have to put in sanctions if they attacked the Kurds.


----------



## Varenka

The time really sure flew. It's surreal hoe quickly time goes by these days.

I've been trying to not pay any attention to him since he was elected, and to be honest, I haven't really felt the effects of his tenure.


----------



## Draykorinee

Varenka said:


> The time really sure flew. It's surreal hoe quickly time goes by these days.
> 
> I've been trying to not pay any attention to him since he was elected, and to be honest, I haven't really felt the effects of his tenure.


Most people except the rich won't, that's kinda the problem, he's maintained the status quo with the neocon and the establishment. If ever there was a false populist it's trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Regarding public vs private and who offers the better services.
> 
> Let's start by taking everything else out of the equation but cost.
> 
> If a service costs 30k a year, that is it's operating cost. A public service will cost 30k a year to provide this service because there is no profit motive. A private service, on the other hand, will cost 40k or 50k or more because a profit is required in this scenario. Based purely on cost, public services will always cost less than private services.
> 
> Concerning costs, there is no debate. Public services will always cost less because there is no profit motive involved.


Government programs never cost what they're supposed to cost. :lol You're holding up an ideal form of a public service that doesn't exist for your argument. It's far too naive. 



> Then comes the debate about quality of service. A right winger like yourself will argue that the competition in a free market will give better services because the cream rises to the top, so to speak. Competition forces businesses to provide better services than their competition and so on and so forth. That is the theory, at least.
> 
> Here is the problem with that theory. Monopolies. You correctly point out that the mega corps buy the government to write the laws in their favor and maintain their monopolies on the market. However, without any laws such as antitrust laws (which we are not enforcing, which is part of the problem), natural monopolies would form with or without the government being involved in the market. Mega corps use the government as a tool to protect themselves because that is safer than operating without government help but that does not mean monopolies would not form with said government help.
> 
> Monopolies mean the end of competition. By your own rules, competition is what is supposed to give us better quality services.


Monopolies actually aren't very common or as permanent as you are implying here without government intervention.


----------



## deepelemblues

Wait

Tater is seriously arguing that government costs less to provide services than private enterprise

:heston

That must be why government in nearly every country on earth is drowning in debt that would have put a private enterprise out of business before it amassed even 10% of the debt governments have

Name a business that could survive spending a trillion dollars more than it brings in every year

Or even 100 billion 

Or, for all but a couple dozen mega corporations, 10 billion a year

:draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

The kurds are an "ally" because they're fighting against a common enemy _for their homeland._ The fact that we are fighting the same enemy does not obligate us to protect their homeland forever from any and all enemies in the future. This is just another talking point for the warmongers that is completely disingenuous. Not surprised to see Bruiser taking it up since he is as pro-war as the MIC and their corporate media partners. 



GothicBohemian said:


> I'm confused. Tossing allies "under the bus" is doing the right thing? Why should anyone trust the US if that's considered "the right thing" or, at least, acceptable trade-off for what benefits the US in some form?
> 
> I've always respected, if not agreed, with you opinions but unless I'm reading your post incorrectly - which I hope is the case - I can't respect this.


Hey.  Your beloved prime minister there has had quite a few scandals lately. Any thoughts?


----------



## deepelemblues

Make up your minds you want Team America to be World Police or not?

If you do, then fucking pay us

Otherwise, fucking pay to have militaries of your own that arent dogshit. Be like Poland. They pay to have a decent military of their own. Western Europe? :eyeroll not since the Berlin Wall fell

We've subsidized the security of like 80 countries for thirty to eighty years, depending

Pay up

One way or the other

Or someone else will make you pay up. In ways and with coin you really will not like at all


----------



## Dave Santos

Draykorinee said:


> Most people except the rich won't, that's kinda the problem, he's maintained the status quo with the neocon and the establishment. *If ever there was a false populist it's trump.*



Isnt that a good thing? I remember listening to the news and they were saying he would be rounding up Muslims, start ww3 with a press of a suitcase button and he was compared to Hitler. All this was talked about on mainstream news. My friend on instagram still does posts about Trump and Hitler so I guess that's still the narrative. Yet Mussolini would be a better comparison since they atleast have very similar facial expressions, have jewish people in their government positions, use the exact same term "drain the swamp" . Most people dont know who that is so it isn't used. And even there I wouldn't compare Trump to Mussolini.


----------



## CamillePunk

Rounding up Muslims is literally what China is doing right now but not a lot of talk going on about that from our corporate crusaders of justice. Wonder why. :hmmm


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> The kurds are an "ally" because they're fighting against a common enemy _for their homeland._ The fact that we are fighting the same enemy does not obligate us to protect their homeland forever from any and all enemies in the future. This is just another talking point for the warmongers that is completely disingenuous. Not surprised to see Bruiser taking it up since he is as pro-war as the MIC.


The world becomes a more dangerous place if we put our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine. Trump’s boisterous pandering and empty threats have done nothing because the world has now figured out they are empty threats. Iran shot down a drone of ours, then blew up a Saudi oilfield. All evidence points to Iran, but we have done nothing. By abandoning the Kurds now, if we end up in the future having to return we might not count on them (and if things escalated to the point a full conflict engulfs the ME our next President might not have a choice. Israel might not be willing to go forward with us, same with Saudi Arabia. 

People who see what is going on aren’t warmongers, we understand what the world is like and ignoring it is not peace. But of course you will ignore that because you support a President who won’t fight if it came down to it. I am ashamed that our President won’t fight our enemies but will hold Twitter fights with washed up TV actresses. 

That is the truth.


----------



## CamillePunk

There's nothing courageous about sending other men to die.


----------



## Nothing Finer

CamillePunk said:


> Rounding up Muslims is literally what China is doing right now but not a lot of talk going on about that from our corporate crusaders of justice. Wonder why. :hmmm


Neither the United States, nor any other country, is in a position to do anything about that. It's an economic superpower and what they're doing, while terrible, is in no way the west's responsibility. A little country like Turkey, which is only taking action between the US withdrew, is a completely different story.

Where western countries are somewhat responsible for things that are happening in China, such as the UK with respect to Hong Kong, it's a much bigger issue.


----------



## BruiserKC

But there is something very cowardly about abandoning an ally for your own purely selfish reasons, such as to look for love from your cultist followers without thinking of the ramifications of what will happen. ISIS supporters could really kick it up a notch by escaping from prisons because the Kurds are trying to avoid getting slaughtered. Trump’s nearsighted, boneheaded move could lead to escalation of conflict...one that could eventually lead to us returning again. It might not be our choice.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Government programs never cost what they're supposed to cost. :lol You're holding up an ideal form of a public service that doesn't exist for your argument. It's far too naive.


Nothing naive about it. The reason government programs go over budget is because the government is populated by the shittiest most corrupt people possible. They don't run efficient programs because they are there to not run efficient programs. They're there to run it as shitty as possible so rubes can be suckered into believing for profit entities offer better services.

And it's working.

You still can't argue against the math though. If you take the exact same highly qualified people to run a program the only difference in costs is going to be the program which requires a profit.



> Monopolies actually aren't very common or as permanent as you are implying here without government intervention.


unk2

Now you are just arguing with history. Concentrations of power have existed through all of civilization, long before big government capitalism came along. If we ever want a society that benefits everyone instead of just those very few who control that power, we have to break up the concentrations of power. 

That is the only solution to this problem. People cannot abuse power they do not have.


----------



## Reaper

Pearl clutching whores on the neoliberal side over the Trump video. 
Pearl clutching whores on the conservative side when kathy griffen chopped off the head of his effigy. 

Moral of the story? The only thing constant here is that a lot of people are just pearl clutching whores.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> The world becomes a more dangerous place if we put our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine. Trump’s boisterous pandering and empty threats have done nothing because the world has now figured out they are empty threats. Iran shot down a drone of ours, then blew up a Saudi oilfield. All evidence points to Iran, but we have done nothing. By abandoning the Kurds now, if we end up in the future having to return we might not count on them (and if things escalated to the point a full conflict engulfs the ME our next President might not have a choice. Israel might not be willing to go forward with us, same with Saudi Arabia.
> 
> People who see what is going on aren’t warmongers, we understand what the world is like and ignoring it is not peace. But of course you will ignore that because you support a President who won’t fight if it came down to it. I am ashamed that our President won’t fight our enemies but will hold Twitter fights with washed up TV actresses.
> 
> That is the truth.


The world is a more dangerous place because of American involvement, not because of American apathy. Millions of people have suffered and 100k+ died needlessly at the hands of American "saviorism" (not excluding the millions that continue to suffer and die at home or abroad in those wars) therefore it's probably better that since America causes mass suffering and mass murder (no matter how anyone tries to spin it as anything else) that it really shouldn't get involved at all. 

There are 100's of stories of 100's of thousands of innocent civilians killed by Americans. They are either intentional (which makes it malevolent), unintentional (which makes it incompetent) or acceptable collateral damage (which makes it BOTH malevolent and incompetent). 

Enough is enough. 

Yeah, those people are probably going to die anyways or maybe they might be able to defend/protect themselves/move on and find a home elsewhere. But it's not like America is actually out there saving anyone and not killing mercilessly either. It's not helping. It's not. Stop trying to convince yourself that it is. When will you realize that these wars are NOTHING but an excuse to cull its own population of men ... There is a huge link between the drafts that were put in place and sending off young men to die in particular that happened right around the same time as labor/worker rights' movements in this country to ignore at this point.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Reaper said:


> Pearl clutching whores on the neoliberal side over the Trump video.
> Pearl clutching whores on the conservative side when kathy griffen chopped off the head of his effigy.
> 
> Moral of the story? The only thing constant here is that a lot of people are just pearl clutching whores.


I would say the difference between the two is Kathy Griffin was responsible for the head cutting image. Trump did not make that video.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> Nothing naive about it. The reason government programs go over budget is because the government is populated by the shittiest most corrupt people possible. They don't run efficient programs because they are there to not run efficient programs. They're there to run it as shitty as possible so rubes can be suckered into believing for profit entities offer better services.


the government is corrupt and not beholden to anyone, which is exactly why we cannot entrust them with that kind of power and responsibility. a private business is beholden to it's paying customers.

lets say some kid from your neighborhood offers to shovel the snow from around your property. do you think he'll do a better job if you pay him before or after he's completed the job? obviously after right? after all he won't be paid until you're satisfied with the results.

that's the problem with government running things. whether you are satisfied or not, you still have to pay them. and there's no competitor you can turn to.


----------



## Draykorinee

Are we still living in a fantasy land where the US health insurance system isn't broken and doesn't give two shits about its customers? Because that's the reality.

So the idea that they're beholden to their customers is objectively untrue.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Berzerker's Beard said:


> the government is corrupt and not beholden to anyone, which is exactly why we cannot entrust them with that kind of power and responsibility. a private business is beholden to it's paying customers.
> 
> lets say some kid from your neighborhood offers to shovel the snow from around your property. do you think he'll do a better job if you pay him before or after he's completed the job? obviously after right? after all he won't be paid until you're satisfied with the results.
> 
> that's the problem with government running things. whether you are satisfied or not, you still have to pay them. and there's no competitor you can turn to.


The government is beholden to voters.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Nothing Finer said:


> The government is beholden to voters.


if you don't pay your taxes they will arrest you...


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> The world is a more dangerous place because of American involvement, not because of American apathy. Millions of people have suffered and 100k+ died needlessly at the hands of American "saviorism" (not excluding the millions that continue to suffer and die at home or abroad in those wars) therefore it's probably better that since America causes mass suffering and mass murder (no matter how anyone tries to spin it as anything else) that it really shouldn't get involved at all.
> 
> There are 100's of stories of 100's of thousands of innocent civilians killed by Americans. They are either intentional (which makes it malevolent), unintentional (which makes it incompetent) or acceptable collateral damage (which makes it BOTH malevolent and incompetent).
> 
> Enough is enough.
> 
> Yeah, those people are probably going to die anyways or maybe they might be able to defend/protect themselves/move on and find a home elsewhere. But it's not like America is actually out there saving anyone and not killing mercilessly either. It's not helping. It's not. Stop trying to convince yourself that it is. When will you realize that these wars are NOTHING but an excuse to cull its own population of men ... There is a huge link between the drafts that were put in place and sending off young men to die in particular that happened right around the same time as labor/worker rights' movements in this country to ignore at this point.


Well, the world will get their wish if that’s the case. We are leaving the area altogether but not before making things a lot worse. This is the equivalent of being told to leave a party. You oblige, but not before breaking the couch, banging the hostess and leaving your love juice all over the bed sheets, and letting the bathtub overflow. 

Maybe that’s the intention, so they don’t beg us to return. The world is very bipolar in that way. They don’t want us around, then they beg for our help. America also bounces from isolationism to reactive intervention and back.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185013665000546311
Fucking legend. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ian-asset-groomed-to-ensure-trump-re-election



> "They are also going to do third party again," Clinton said. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.
> 
> "She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.
> 
> "They know they can't win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it's going to be, but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it."


:wow 

Someone finished off her 3 daily bottles of pino greej before noon


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Will there be more Russian interference talk when Trump wins again next year? Or will people get over it finally?


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ian-asset-groomed-to-ensure-trump-re-election
> 
> 
> 
> :wow
> 
> Someone finished off her 3 daily bottles of pino greej before noon


Dementia is no laughing matter


----------



## skypod

Clinton being a conniving cunt is nothing new, and criticising Gabbard does absolutely nothing to harm her. There's not a person on earth that likes both Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton. They're polar opposites.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Ah, the ever honest and truthful Hillary Clinton. It's hilarious to watch people on twitter just shit all over Gabbard now and even people who would be willing to vote for Clinton all over again.

Like you're just admitting you're a fucking moron then.


----------



## Gh0stFace

As much as I hate Trump, Mike Pence is a bigger devil.


----------



## Reaper

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> Ah, the ever honest and truthful Hillary Clinton. It's hilarious to watch people on twitter just shit all over Gabbard now and even people who would be willing to vote for Clinton all over again.
> 
> Like you're just admitting you're a fucking moron then.


It's only the paid fot blue checks defending Hillary. 

Quite literally proving Tuls right to the millennials.

We need to give up on winning anything till the boomers and most of the worst Gen X becomes incapable of holding the majority before fixing this country. Most people now are speaking to the millennials.

Don't forget that Obabababa burned the millennials with being a corporate shill warmongering neocon himself ... So imho the future of the DNC is fewer corporate shills, not more. Once business starts losing support, it will bend over.


----------



## Reaper

Gh0stFace said:


> As much as I hate Trump, Mike Pence is a bigger devil.


If Pence was in power, there would have been at least 3 new wars and bombing campaigns by now. Even with Trump, we've already got the masses screaming for the blood of foreigners. Like you can see them begging for quenching their blood thirst. 

Trump is the only thing standing in the way of that. 

At least we will be able to say that we were able to keep the blood thirst of american masses at bay for a few years... Somewhat...


----------



## DesolationRow

Thank you for the kind words in the Politics thread, @Tater; and for the kind mention for your fine historical post concerning World War II, @DOPA;. 

"When will you stop serving as a Russian asset?" has become the neoliberal left's variation of, "When will you stop beating your wife?" 

Oppose U.S. soldiers serving as perpetual guardians of the Kurds/the vanguard of Saudi-U.A.E. interests/Israeli Offense Force troops? You must be working for none other than the Ernst Stavro Blofeld of the 2019, Vladimir Putin. This is like the 1930s National Socialist who squeals about one obviously being a furtive Jew if one opposes the Fuhrer, or a 1960s "the Beltway's Best and Brightest Brigade" member contending that opposition to the Vietnam War demands sympathy for the cause of Ho Chi Minh. 

The fact of the matter is, the U.S. is, fortunately, moving U.S. soldiers out of that hellish, escalating mess chiefly because the situation is simply untenable. Make no mistakes: the U.S. is effectively a global empire, and it tends to vacate areas and surrender them to the influence of others only when all other practical/politically viable options have been exhausted.

Hillary Clinton and a wide-ranging assortment of neoliberals and neoconservatives are wailing because Syria is purportedly falling into Putin's lap thanks to Donald Trump's withdrawal. 

Not only is Putin a superior statesman when compared to his U.S. counterparts for at least a generation now, fully capable of being cordial and friendly with characters as varied as Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran while also providing open lines of communication with the nation to which the U.S. is tethered primarily due to circumstances pertaining to the international petrodollar game, but Russia is in the more advantageous spot when it comes to this particular melodrama. This, insofar as the Russians are neither compromised by an Islamic world-wide compromising relationship as the U.S. has with Israel nor are they, de facto, allied militarily with Turkey through a generations-spanning NATO/missiles location deal chiefly intended to put Russia and her orbit on notice. 

Syria's 2010s civil war is placing the future of the Middle East into hands that do not belong to American arms. The Kurds had to come to terms with Bashar al-Assad as a pragmatic matter of survival, something which was predictable the instant it became clear in the summer of 2013 that the U.S.'s population was almost wholly unwilling to see U.S. soldiers in large numbers fight against the Assad regime, rendering president Barack Obama's bluster regarding a "red line" worthy only of a taunter on a schoolyard. 

Putin's position between the Israelis and Syrians is almost stunningly positive, and he does not overplay the Russian bear's paw so greatly that the Saudis, for instance, do not fear his meddling to the extent that Washington, D.C. does. Probably because Riyadh is run by ruthless pragmatists who recognize how delicate (at best) the matter is today between Ankara and Damascus. 
Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants to ensure that the Kurds of Syria are unable to form an all-too-natural bond with their Turkish brethren that spells terrorist attacks or uprisings against his regime. Erdogan's concerns are not some fantastical scenario due to paranoia regarding the Kurds, for their quickly-reached pact with Assad's government signposts how much a mutual enemy can bring respective parties together. Erdogan seeks a major swath of borderland with Syria, at least 20 miles, as a buffer to block the Syrian Kurds from their natural allies, PKK forces. Assad is as jealous of that nation's viability as any head of state today, having fundamentally emerged triumphant (mostly) in the war thanks to Russian and to a much lesser extent Iranian assistance. Erdogan's wishes to have Turkish soldiers inhabit so much land which should be under Assad's governance in concert with Syrian Kurds are not being received well in Damascus. 

The U.S.'s standing with Assad remains chilly, and it is only sensible of Assad to find Washington, D.C. a particularly meddlesome and irritating player in this game. Putin has the much better credentials to assist Erdogan and Assad in simply getting along without a full-scale war roiling the region just when the wasteful and horrific Syrian civil war is lurching toward its bitter end. Erdogan's demands of a corridor that would cast its shadow for almost 300 miles between Manbij and the borderland of Iraq are making the U.S.'s direct involvement unrealistic going forward unless the Beltway establishment which still detests Trump and the people who voted for him along with their corporate media spokespeople convince a sufficiently large number of U.S. voters to place U.S. arms and troops in the middle of a possible conflagration between two opposing dictatorial regimes. The _Wall Street Journal_ and the _Washington Post_ are predictably unleashing scathing tirades against the Trump administration for backing out of this standoff, but this move is chiefly being performed because Erdogan was being proactive and deemed it almost suicidal in terms of Ankara's interests to see a united front of Kurds with the Assad regime potentially backing them. NATO obligations, as well as Erdogan's possessing of teeming throngs of migrants from the Syrian civil war as well as elsewhere in the Islamic world, with Turkish authorities reporting a massive jump of migrants endeavoring to escape into European territories over the past six months, have put the U.S. as well as other NATO nations in a spot which requires a calculated reappraisal and withdrawal.


----------



## CamillePunk

Clinton absolutely unhinged there. :lol Yikes.


----------



## dele

Nothing Finer said:


> The government is beholden to voters.


unk2 The Electoral College begs to disagree.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

I've never been more proud of the $5 I donated to Tulsi than today. I don't agree with her on everything, but she's relatively the best within the box of the Democratic Primaries. I'm starting to come around on Yang, even though I'm not sold on UBI, too. 

The funny thing is, it's the more they talk, the more they win me over. Which is exactly what the DNC doesn't want.


----------



## DesolationRow

A great many have attacked Greta Thunberg, and while it is true that a fair amount of what is being produced revolving around her by media appears inauthentic and histrionic, this poster has found her to be a somewhat compelling voice given the contexts of what may be crudely labeled "international environmental politics" in 2019. She is not especially _impressive_, exactly--though she is only a child--but she herself seems adamantly sincere. The melange of anger and despondency with which she speaks possesses a particular piquancy and seems to be readily reproduced by tens of millions across the west in her age group. 

Having said this, the _Washington Post_'s incessant screeching over Thunberg not winning the Nobel Peace Prize has been embarrassing to read. This, too, from _Newsweek_, has been remarkable in what many would call "tone-deafness":



> GRETA THUNGBERG, SNUBBED FOR NOBEL PEACE PRIZE BY COMMITTEE RUN BY NORWAY, ONE OF THE WORLD'S BIGGEST OIL AND NATURAL GAS EXPORTERS
> 
> BY ROSIE MCCALL ON 10/11/19 AT 5:59 AM EDT
> 
> The Nobel Committee has surprised oddsmakers by not picking 16-year-old Greta Thungberg to win the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.
> 
> The five-member Norwegian panel instead announced on Friday that Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed had won the award, "for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and for in particular his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea," a statement said.


The Nobel Peace Prize has only so much "value," but any it does seems to have been wholly earned by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Following Ethiopian politics for many years (and authoring at least one or two threads which went nowhere concerning same), it should be noted that Ethiopia has largely been positively impacted by Abiy's rule. The war Abiy inherited had raged for 20 years and myriad large-scale tank battles occurred. As Ethiopia and Eritrea are perhaps best understood as perpetually straddling the respective world regions of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, a war between two African powers which boast greater degrees of agency and potency from their regimes downward tends to have the worst characteristics of a Middle Eastern conflagration not unlike, say, the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, and a sub-Saharan conflict such as the present Kamwina Nsapu ethnically-driven rebellion in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The scale of the Ethiopian-Eritrean battles dotting the desert of the Horn of Africa featured the majorly destructive exchanging of shelling from tanks and weaponry that had almost entirely been sold to these nations by the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Abiy is a fascinating figure, and he has freed a bevy of genuine political prisoners while endeavoring to forge peace for his homeland. The name Abiyot in English means "revolution"--a large number of children were given this name following the 1974 Derg Revolution which culminated with the communist Marxist-Leninist military junta presiding over Ethiopia from that point to 1987--and it was what he was known as when he was a child. He is the 13th child sired by his polygamous Muslim father and sixth and youngest of his Christian Orthodox mother. When he served in the Ethiopian Defense Forces he met his future wife, Zinash Tayachew, who was also serving. His wife is an Amhara lady and native of Gondar. While his father was Muslim Abiy is an Evangelical Pentecostal Christian. The three primary ethnic groups' tongues are Afaan Oromo, Amharic and Tigrinya; Abiy speaks all three, and he also speaks English, giving him an "edge" in sitting down with the various parties for which he is responsible. 

As an aside, Ethiopian languages are not of the almost "generically" African Bantu tree, but Amharic and Oromo in particular are Afroasiatic, gifting present scholars and linguists with the delightful opportunity to examine how those branches sprang from the same tree as Arabic and Hebrew. The matter of tongues is at least parenthetically linked to the way Amhara look, too, for those who have had the pleasure to interact with them as this poster has a few times. One can sadly see why the ethnic, religious and linguistic differences lead to roiling, incessant conflict in the region. 

Large pockets of U.S. "establishment media" or whatever one wishes to call them would seem to be "barking up the wrong tree" with their conspiracy-theorizing over why Greta Thunberg did not win the Nobel. Moreover, speculatively, did not nominations for the prize close early in the year? Perhaps she was known by others following her exploits better than this poster, but she seemed unknown only a few short months ago.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-usa/all-u-s-troops-withdrawing-from-syria-expected-to-go-to-iraq-pentagon-chief-idUSKBN1WZ01S



> *All U.S. troops withdrawing from Syria expected to go to western Iraq: Pentagon chief*
> 
> ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Saturday that all of the nearly 1,000 troops withdrawing from northern Syria are expected to move to western Iraq to continue the campaign against Islamic State militants and “to help defend Iraq.”
> 
> On Thursday, Turkey agreed in talks with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence to a five-day pause in an offensive into northeastern Syria to allow time for the Kurdish fighters to withdraw from a “safe zone” Ankara aims to establish near the Turkish border with Syria.
> 
> The truce also aimed to ease a crisis triggered by President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision earlier this month to withdraw all 1,000 U.S. troops from northern Syria, a move criticized in Washington and elsewhere as a betrayal of loyal Kurdish allies who had fought for years alongside U.S. troops against Islamic State.
> 
> “The U.S. withdrawal continues apace from northeastern Syria... we’re talking weeks not days,” Esper told reporters en route to the Middle East, adding that it was being carried out through aircraft and ground convoys.
> 
> “The current game plan is for those forces to re-position into western Iraq,” Esper said, adding that they would number about one thousand.
> 
> He said the mission for those troops would be to “help defend Iraq” and carry out a counter-Islamic State mission.
> 
> A senior U.S. defense official clarified that the situation was still fluid and plans could change.
> 
> Any decision to send additional U.S. troops to Iraq is likely to be heavily scrutinized in a country where Iran has been steadily amassing influence.
> 
> “That is the current game plan, things can change between now and whenever we complete the withdrawal but that is the game plan right now,” the senior official added.
> 
> It is unclear whether the U.S. troops will use Iraq as a base to launch ground raids into Syria and carry out airstrikes against Islamic State militants.
> 
> The additional U.S. troops would add to the more than 5,000 American troops already based in the country, training Iraqi forces and helping to ensure that Islamic State militants do not resurge.
> 
> While Esper said he had spoken with his Iraqi counterpart and will continue to have conversations in the future, the move will likely be viewed with skepticism by some in Iraq.
> 
> Iraq is in the midst of a political crisis, as mass protests have led to more than 100 deaths and 6,000 injuries during the week starting Oct. 1.
> 
> Iran’s role in responding to the demonstrations has been another reminder of Tehran’s reach in Iraq, where a sizable number of former militia commanders are now members of parliament and support the Iranian agenda.
> 
> *SYRIA CEASEFIRE “GENERALLY” HOLDING
> *
> President Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday that Turkey would press on with its offensive into northeastern Syria and “crush the heads of terrorists” if a deal with Washington on the withdrawal of Kurdish fighters from the area was not fully implemented.
> 
> On Saturday the fragile truce was holding along the border, with a few Turkish military vehicles crossing the border, Reuters journalists at the scene said. In the last 36 hours, there have been 14 “provocative attacks” from Syria, Turkey’s defense ministry said.
> 
> Esper said that the ceasefire in northeastern Syria was generally holding.
> 
> “I think overall the ceasefire generally seems to be holding, we see a stabilization of the lines, if you will, on the ground, and we do get reports of intermittent fires, this and that, that doesn’t surprise me necessarily,” he added.
> 
> There has been concern that the Turkish incursion into northeastern Syria would allow Islamic State militants to make gains and see militants escaping prisons guarded by Kurdish fighters.
> 
> Esper said that the United States was still in contact with the Kurdish fighters, known as the YPG, and they appeared to continue to defend the prisons in areas they still controlled.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> A great many have attacked Greta Thunberg, and while it is true that a fair amount of what is being produced revolving around her by media appears inauthentic and histrionic, this poster has found her to be a somewhat compelling voice given the contexts of what may be crudely labeled "international environmental politics" in 2019. She is not especially _impressive_, exactly--though she is only a child--but she herself seems adamantly sincere. The melange of anger and despondency with which she speaks possesses a particular piquancy and seems to be readily reproduced by tens of millions across the west in her age group.
> 
> Having said this, the _Washington Post_'s incessant screeching over Thunberg not winning the Nobel Peace Prize has been embarrassing to read. This, too, from _Newsweek_, has been remarkable in what many would call "tone-deafness":
> 
> 
> 
> The Nobel Peace Prize has only so much "value," but any it does seems to have been wholly earned by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Following Ethiopian politics for many years (and authoring at least one or two threads which went nowhere concerning same), it should be noted that Ethiopia has largely been positively impacted by Abiy's rule. The war Abiy inherited had raged for 20 years and myriad large-scale tank battles occurred. As Ethiopia and Eritrea are perhaps best understood as perpetually straddling the respective world regions of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, a war between two African powers which boast greater degrees of agency and potency from their regimes downward tends to have the worst characteristics of a Middle Eastern conflagration not unlike, say, the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, and a sub-Saharan conflict such as the present Kamwina Nsapu ethnically-driven rebellion in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The scale of the Ethiopian-Eritrean battles dotting the desert of the Horn of Africa featured the majorly destructive exchanging of shelling from tanks and weaponry that had almost entirely been sold to these nations by the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s.
> 
> Abiy is a fascinating figure, and he has freed a bevy of genuine political prisoners while endeavoring to forge peace for his homeland. The name Abiyot in English means "revolution"--a large number of children were given this name following the 1974 Derg Revolution which culminated with the communist Marxist-Leninist military junta presiding over Ethiopia from that point to 1987--and it was what he was known as when he was a child. He is the 13th child sired by his polygamous Muslim father and sixth and youngest of his Christian Orthodox mother. When he served in the Ethiopian Defense Forces he met his future wife, Zinash Tayachew, who was also serving. His wife is an Amhara lady and native of Gondar. While his father was Muslim Abiy is an Evangelical Pentecostal Christian. The three primary ethnic groups' tongues are Afaan Oromo, Amharic and Tigrinya; Abiy speaks all three, and he also speaks English, giving him an "edge" in sitting down with the various parties for which he is responsible.
> 
> As an aside, Ethiopian languages are not of the almost "generically" African Bantu tree, but Amharic and Oromo in particular are Afroasiatic, gifting present scholars and linguists with the delightful opportunity to examine how those branches sprang from the same tree as Arabic and Hebrew. The matter of tongues is at least parenthetically linked to the way Amhara look, too, for those who have had the pleasure to interact with them as this poster has a few times. One can sadly see why the ethnic, religious and linguistic differences lead to roiling, incessant conflict in the region.
> 
> Large pockets of U.S. "establishment media" or whatever one wishes to call them would seem to be "barking up the wrong tree" with their conspiracy-theorizing over why Greta Thunberg did not win the Nobel. Moreover, speculatively, did not nominations for the prize close early in the year? Perhaps she was known by others following her exploits better than this poster, but she seemed unknown only a few short months ago.


Thunberg speaks with passion but that's pretty typical for any teen that's caught up in activism. Cultists are always the most fiery. There were Gretas before Greta and there will be more after. She's nothing more than a puppet who comes from a well off family who was picked because she looks a bit "autistic" so it would pull at heart strings. 

In the words of many non-white climate change activists, why her? She's nothing special. Yet her followers would have us believe she's climate change Jesus. :laugh:

Besides the Peace Prize is worthless, didn't a certain President get it despite the fact he left several Nations in ruins and increased drone strikes? All Greta needs to do is kill a few thousand people and she'll get it. :x


----------



## Draykorinee

Greta is great, her name is even an anagram of great. So what I believe about her is true. Checkmate.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...izabeth-warren-joe-biden-top-poll/4025797002/



> Poll: Iowa caucuses are 'up for grabs' as Pete Buttigieg surges into top tier
> 
> Susan Page, USA TODAY Published 4:00 a.m. ET Oct. 21, 2019 | Updated 12:31 p.m. ET Oct. 21, 2019
> 
> It's a new three-way race in Iowa.
> 
> Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who was initially seen as a long-shot presidential contender, has surged within striking distance of former vice president Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, a Suffolk University/USA TODAY Poll finds.
> 
> Biden, long viewed as the Democratic frontrunner, is faltering in the wake of a debate performance last week that those surveyed saw as disappointing.
> 
> The poll, taken Wednesday through Friday, put Biden at 18%, Warren at 17% and Buttigieg at 13% among 500 likely Democratic caucusgoers.
> 
> Those standings reflect significant changes since the Suffolk/USA TODAY poll taken in Iowa at the end of June, when Biden led Warren by double digits and Buttigieg trailed at a distant 6%. California Sen. Kamala Harris, who was then in second place after a strong showing in the first Democratic debate, has plummeted 13 percentage points and is now in a three-way tie for sixth. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders earned 9% support, the same number as in the June poll.
> 
> The 2020 election is nearing and with that, comes the caucuses and primary elections. But what’s the difference? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
> 
> "Iowa is unquestionably up for grabs," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk Political Research Center. Buttigieg "has found a lane and is accelerating toward the front of the pack, surpassing Bernie Sanders. All of this is happening while the number of undecided voters continues to grow as Democratic caucusgoers pause to reevaluate the changing field."


----------



## haouax252525

this is the 100th thread about trump snaptube


----------



## DesolationRow

So much speculation concerning John Bolton's testimony relating to the inquiry over Donald Trump probing of the business networking of Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in late July. At this point it is unknown whether or not Trump pushed Bolton to play a critical part in the White House's withdrawing of the previous recommendation to bring restoration of a fair number of Ukraine's trade privileges. Trump was withholding $391 million in military as well as security funds from Ukraine this summer. 

Meanwhile, Trump's argument that the previous U.S. executive branch's administration utilized the power of the federal government's vast array of surveillance capabilities to spy on his campaign in 2016 in his talks with Doug Wead (author of the book soon being released, "Inside Trump's White House: The Real Story of His Presidency." 

What they did was treasonous, OK? It was treasonous," Trump stated. 

“The interesting thing out of all of this is that we caught them spying on the election. They were spying on my campaign. So you know? What is that all about?” said Trump.

“I have never ever said this, but truth is, they got caught spying. They were spying,” said Trump who then added, “Obama.”

Trump, continued: "It turned out I was right..." referring to his 2017 tweets charging that the Obama administration spied on Trump's campaign, including the infamous "wires tapped" tweet. "In fact, what I said was peanuts compared to what they did. They were spying on my campaign. They got caught and said, 'Oh we were not spying. It was actually an investigation.' Can you imagine an administration investigating its political opponents?" 

Trump states that with the heat of the "Obama" spying and entire "Russiagate" saga, no one else would have been able to withstand the firestorm. 

"Anybody else would be unable to function under the kind of pressure and distraction I had. They couldn't get anything done. No other president should ever have to go through this. But understand, there was no collusion. They would have had to make something up."


----------



## MontyCora

Draykorinee said:


> Greta is great, her name is even an anagram of great. So what I believe about her is true. Checkmate.


I admire any teenager who can grab the worlds attention by the balls for what they feel is a good cause and not by shooting up a school. Good for Greta!


----------



## DesoloutionRow

Can't wait to see who will win the next election. Will it be Goldman Sachs Blue or Goldman Sachs Red? :woo


----------



## DesolationRow

Donald Trump, possessing many flaws and his presidency's initial outbursts of domestic agenda-related activity rather clearly misdirected by a Paul Ryan-penned agenda ringing abut the state of what is typically called "Obamacare"--though a large number of healthcare-related devices are now much cheaper to purchase thanks to Trump's plethora of de-regulations such as standard hearing aids for senior citizens--has been reasonable in the face of a changing international order. When analysts mistake Trump's fairly well-calculated maneuver to withdraw U.S. troops from the escalating crisis between the Kurds and Turkish regime in the wake of the Russo-Syrian-Iranian alliance prevailing over Washington, D.C.-backed jihadists for cowardice they should keep in mind how Europe as a power on its own is reacting to pressure from the U.S. to choose natural gas which must cost them anywhere between twice as much and ten times as much than the natural gas from Russia. 

The 2010s decade has been a tumultuous one for Russia, but it is concluding on a grand note for the nation which today has a Gross Domestic Product roughly equivalent with Italy's. Gazprom, the Russian energy behemoth, is stepping up with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which will purportedly deliver "further diversification of energy routes to Europe" according to the announcement. 

Vladimir Putin holds the superior hand at the table versus Trump here. Trump has thundered over this, but the Europeans display myriad signs of having grown disenchanted with U.S. demands tethered to security commitments and military aid, et. al. An optimistic reading of the situation is that Trump is aware that in this game he cannot win, but that may be the point. The Europeans are almost calling the Americans' bluff by being so thoroughly pragmatic in this matter. Trump invoking security concerns and being so utterly stiff-armed by the center of European economic might. 

The response to Trump's meddling, which echoes that of John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, is being treated differently than previous presidents', and not because Trump is some brash figure. Those presidents were unsuccessful in blocking Russian pipelines into Europe, but the language with which Europeans speak hinges on how much the "unipolar moment" that the late neoconservative writer Charles Krauthammer spoke of is now far back in the past. As head of the USA-Transatlantic relations program at Deutsche Gessellschaft fur Auswartige Politik, Josef Braml, said, "It is about European sovereignty an that is not understood in Washington." 

The pipeline will snake its way from the Leningrad region of Russia against the floor of the Baltic Sea to Lubmin, Germany, and consequently double Germany's imports of Russian natural gas.

To Putin's credit, over the past five years he has ostensibly reshaped the entire geopolitical reality in the 2010s "cold war redux" from Germany to Ukraine to Syria and beyond; and, yet, as with so much in life, timing is everything. John McCain-style declarations of wanting to get into an international donnybrook every couple of weeks seem limited to only the pages of irrelevant magazines like _National Review_ or Lindsey Graham. The U.S.'s "War on Terror" has been a remarkable shell game of sorts; at least Russia, when she entered the fray and changed the nature of the conflagration in irrevocable fashion to preserve the Bashar al-Assad, comparatively quickly annihilated whole swaths of ISIS and al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists, some of whom were trained and funded by the U.S. As more Russian military personnel and security forces flood into Syria chiefly to enforce the shaky pact with Turkey, looking back at this for a moment, back when Russia intervened Putin might as well have quoted _Terror of Mechagodzilla_and said to the Obama administration, "Now sit back and watch how war should be waged."


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

So, Trump's killed the leader of ISIS. I have to believe that will play well in the election. But beyond that is a service to humanity, whatever you think of Trump as a person. This was a good thing. al Baghdadi murdered and displaced thousands of innocent people, and America did right to take him out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

ForYourOwnGood said:


> So, Trump's killed the leader of ISIS. I have to believe that will play well in the election. But beyond that is a service to humanity, whatever you think of Trump as a person. This was a good thing. al Baghdadi murdered and displaced thousands of innocent people, and America did right to take him out.


Oh this guy is killed again LOL Isn't this like the 7th time he has been said to be dead. And Trump didn't kill him, he killed himself. Trump had nothing to do with his killing. Remember that Trump tweet where he said Obama didn't kill Bin Laden but the Navy Seals did. So guess Trump shouldn't take cred right? Also funny how Trump thanked Russia first lol

This will have zero effect on the election.

I still see what a shit show this thread is lol

Carry on.


----------



## Stephen90

Trump got booed at the world series last night tell me how he's winning?


----------



## CamillePunk

"The Allies didn't kill Hitler, Hitler killed himself!"


----------



## Gillbergs Sparkler

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh this guy is killed again LOL Isn't this like the 7th time he has been said to be dead. And Trump didn't kill him, he killed himself. Trump had nothing to do with his killing. Remember that Trump tweet where he said Obama didn't kill Bin Laden but the Navy Seals did. So guess Trump shouldn't take cred right? Also funny how Trump thanked Russia first lol
> 
> This will have zero effect on the election.
> 
> I still see what a shit show this thread is lol
> 
> Carry on.


It's amazing, people genuinely act like real life is an action hero film.

Kill the big bad guy and it's a happy ending. Only it isn't. He is dead, fantastic. Islamic terror isn't defeated, it wasn't defeated when Bin Laden got the bullet either. When the West is hell bent on getting stuck in to more wars that create these parasites and provide all the recruitment propaganda they need it means nothing.

These are cheap PR exercises, it was the same with Obama as well. Boost his approval ratings then go right back to drone striking children and creating the next generation of extremists.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Stephen90 said:


> Trump got booed at the world series last night tell me how he's winning?


I wonder why DC would boo Trump?

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/district-of-columbia

Oh yeah, that's why.


----------



## Stephen90

Undertaker23RKO said:


> I wonder why DC would boo Trump?
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/district-of-columbia
> 
> Oh yeah, that's why.


Not everyone there is necessarily from Washington DC some of them live in the suburbs which are Maryland and Virginia.


----------



## Draykorinee

His face was priceless.


----------



## MrMister

Stephen90 said:


> Not everyone there is necessarily from Washington DC some of them live in the suburbs which are Maryland and Virginia.


I think you're spot on here and I'd guess most of the crowd doesn't really live in DC.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Gillbergs Sparkler said:


> It's amazing, people genuinely act like real life is an action hero film.
> 
> Kill the big bad guy and it's a happy ending. Only it isn't. He is dead, fantastic. Islamic terror isn't defeated, it wasn't defeated when Bin Laden got the bullet either. When the West is hell bent on getting stuck in to more wars that create these parasites and provide all the recruitment propaganda they need it means nothing.
> 
> These are cheap PR exercises, it was the same with Obama as well. Boost his approval ratings then go right back to drone striking children and creating the next generation of extremists.


----------



## yeahbaby!

What is wrong with this man. 'President fakes dog medal photo'

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/donald-...OhaLH9KEUztwO3Am48IvAbAtiR58mnxXpmDipPEJpqn2A


----------



## Draykorinee

First vote to impeach passed. It'll fail eventually, Trump and his Trumptons will be emboldened and the Dems 'strategy' will backfire.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> First vote to impeach passed. It'll fail eventually, Trump and his Trumptons will be emboldened and the Dems 'strategy' will backfire.


So the president should be able to break teh law over and over again? So I guess they never should have went after Nixon using yoru logic too and jsut let him get away with everything.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> First vote to impeach passed. It'll fail eventually, Trump and his Trumptons will be emboldened and the Dems 'strategy' will backfire.
> 
> 
> 
> So the president should be able to break teh law over and over again? So I guess they never should have went after Nixon using yoru logic too and jsut let him get away with everything.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether you want to win an election.

Obama did it routinely.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

yeahbaby! said:


> What is wrong with this man. 'President fakes dog medal photo'
> 
> https://www.sbs.com.au/news/donald-...OhaLH9KEUztwO3Am48IvAbAtiR58mnxXpmDipPEJpqn2A


The fact that you expected it to be real in the first place says a lot. It's a picture of a dog getting a medal.


----------



## Draykorinee

Undertaker23RKO said:


> yeahbaby! said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with this man. 'President fakes dog medal photo'
> 
> https://www.sbs.com.au/news/donald-...OhaLH9KEUztwO3Am48IvAbAtiR58mnxXpmDipPEJpqn2A
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you expected it to be real in the first place says a lot. It's a picture of a dog getting a metal.
Click to expand...

Dogs get given medals all the time, I don't get your point?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Draykorinee said:


> Dogs get given medals all the time, I don't get your point?


You don't understand that people freaking out over a clearly photo-shopped picture is ridiculous? You (the general version, not you personally) have to be literally retarded to not realize it's fake the second you see it. He was clearly not acting as though it was legitimate.


----------



## Draykorinee

Undertaker23RKO said:


> You don't understand that people freaking out over a clearly photo-shopped picture is ridiculous? You (the general version, not you personally) have to be literally retarded to not realize it's fake the second you see it. He was clearly not acting as though it was legitimate.


Its definitely a non story, its a weird photoshop, I don't know why he'd tweet it, but I also know there are more important things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> You don't understand that people freaking out over a clearly photo-shopped picture is ridiculous? You (the general version, not you personally) have to be literally retarded to not realize it's fake the second you see it. He was clearly not acting as though it was legitimate.


Trump is the POTUS, he is rewtweeing fake pics on his offical president account. You dont see a problem with that?

I still see this thread is a joke and people are defending a mentally ill president


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is the POTUS, he is rewtweeing fake pics on his offical president account. You dont see a problem with that?
> 
> I still see this thread is a joke and people are defending a mentally ill president


No, I don't. If I didn't care about it in 2016 I don't know why I would care about it in 2019.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> No, I don't. If I didn't care about it in 2016 I don't know why I would care about it in 2019.


It says a lot about you, that you dont care the POTUS is one of twitters biggest trolls.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> It says a lot about you, that you dont care the POTUS is one of twitters biggest trolls.


I'm sure it does. If anything I like it. It's hilarious what people get riled up over.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Undertaker23RKO said:


> The fact that you expected it to be real in the first place says a lot. It's a picture of a dog getting a medal.


How could I or anyone expect it to be real for the obvious reason you mentioned? Every story about it says 'Trump blah blah photoshopped dog pic'.

The point is it's the Prez actually bothering to fake a photo of a dog getting a medal. Doesn't he have actual work to do? You're defending that kind of idiocy?

It's just another example of a completely unhinged person making a mockery of the highest office in the land, that's all.


----------



## MontyCora

Does golfing count as work?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

yeahbaby! said:


> How could I or anyone expect it to be real for the obvious reason you mentioned? Every story about it says 'Trump blah blah photoshopped dog pic'.
> 
> The point is it's the Prez actually bothering to fake a photo of a dog getting a medal. Doesn't he have actual work to do? You're defending that kind of idiocy?
> 
> It's just another example of a completely unhinged person making a mockery of the highest office in the land, that's all.


You honestly believe he made that? Dude, your hatred must know no bounds.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> How could I or anyone expect it to be real for the obvious reason you mentioned? Every story about it says 'Trump blah blah photoshopped dog pic'.
> 
> The point is it's the Prez actually bothering to fake a photo of a dog getting a medal. Doesn't he have actual work to do? You're defending that kind of idiocy?
> 
> It's just another example of a completely unhinged person making a mockery of the highest office in the land, that's all.


At least someone talks sense in this thread. So glad I just peak in every now and again lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

Undertaker23RKO said:


> You honestly believe he made that? Dude, your hatred must know no bounds.


No hatred here, I don't have time for that in my life. Classic 101 projection on your part.

I don't care if he made it or not, you keep missing the point. Normal grown men in high level positions don't tweet shit so stupid because they don't have the mentality of narcissistic 15 year olds.

It's no big deal for Trump at this point considering his history, but this is his thread and it's a further example of his idiocy.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

yeahbaby! said:


> No hatred here, I don't have time for that in my life. Classic 101 projection on your part.
> 
> I don't care if he made it or not, you keep missing the point. Normal grown men in high level positions don't tweet shit so stupid because they don't have the mentality of narcissistic 15 year olds.
> 
> It's no big deal for Trump at this point considering his history, but this is his thread and it's a further example of his idiocy.


Well you clearly care seeing as how you brought it up. You should practice what you preach and stop wasting your time caring about such insignificant stuff.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> At least someone talks sense in this thread. So glad I just peak in every now and again lol


The title of this thread is what it is because of you being wrong though :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Well you clearly care seeing as how you brought it up. You should practice what you preach and stop wasting your time caring about such insignificant stuff.


Well didn't take too long to find another example of Trump being a buffoon, figured why the hell not. Was wondering if any apologists might show and looks like I caught one.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> The title of this thread is what it is because of you being wrong though :lol


Please stop embarrasing yourself by lying once again. We have already been over this a number of times. I said Trump wont get re-electioned and he would be lucky to make it through, what ever year it was, and he should have been impeached by now but hte dems are too much of a pussies to do it.

Its bad enough you still defend Trump, but to keep[ lying about what i said, when you have been proven wrong twice already, why are you trying to go for the hat trick?

You truly are one of the worst posters on this forum.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> Please stop embarrasing yourself by lying once again. We have already been over this a number of times. I said Trump wont get re-electioned and he would be lucky to make it through, what ever year it was, and he should have been impeached by now but hte dems are too much of a pussies to do it.
> 
> Its bad enough you still defend Trump, but to keep[ lying about what i said, when you have been proven wrong twice already, why are you trying to go for the hat trick?
> 
> You truly are one of the worst posters on this forum.


Why am I not surprised you can't admit to it? What a shame :lol No worries though, we'll just wait another year for you to be wrong again.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

yeahbaby! said:


> Well didn't take too long to find another example of Trump being a buffoon, figured why the hell not. Was wondering if any apologists might show and looks like I caught one.


Well I didn't vote for him so that seems to be projecting on your end. But hey I'm not the one whining about a photoshopped dog pic meant to praise a great dog so what I do know.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Why am I not surprised you can't admit to it? What a shame :lol No worries though, we'll just wait another year for you to be wrong again.


You alerady lost this 2 times LOL last time the quotes were even pulled out and they said exactly what I said they did and not what you claim. Seriously dude, you are embarrassing youurself at this point.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> You alerady lost this 2 times LOL last time the quotes were even pulled out and they said exactly what I said they did and not what you claim. Seriously dude, you are embarrassing youurself at this point.


That's weird, I don't feel embarrassed. 2020 wrong prediction here we come!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> That's weird, I don't feel embarrassed. 2020 wrong prediction here we come!


Trump is not geting re-elected lol

And you are embrrassing yourself, espeically by still defending Trump.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is not geting re-elected lol
> 
> And you are embrrassing yourself, espeically by still defending Trump.


I'll take that bet!


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/beto-orourke-drops-out.html

Americans didn't comply with Robert O'Rourke's fantasy law that he was going to become president

More to the point Democrats didn't comply :lmao


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump will get reelected unless the economy folds or the Democrats choose Sanders or possibly Warren.

Otherwise, they have no chance to beat him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> Trump will get reelected unless the economy folds or the Democrats choose Sanders or possibly Warren.
> 
> Otherwise, they have no chance to beat him.


Sanders or Warren will get the nomination. Biden is done and no one else is close.

Trump has zero chance against either of them. If Biden some how steals the nomination, then sure Trump has a shot.


----------



## virus21

> Donald Trump has threatened to cut off emergency funding to California as wildfires rage across the state, telling governor Gavin Newsom to “get his act together”.
> 
> In his latest attack on the state he returned to old complaints of forest management, including recommending better cleaning of the forest floors, as he first did in 2018.
> 
> However California's governor was quick to highlight the role of the environmental crisis in spreading the fires. In response to the president, Mr Newsom tweeted: "You don’t believe in climate change. You are excused from this conversation."
> 
> More than 198,000 acres of land has been destroyed across the region this year, with fires forcing people to flee their homes as 115 structures are razed to the ground in the last ten days alone.
> 
> And at least three people are reported to have died since the most recent spell of fires began in October.
> 
> The President tweeted: “The Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, has done a terrible job of forest management. I told him from the first day we met that he must ‘clean’ his forest floors regardless of what his bosses, the environmentalists, DEMAND of him. Must also do burns and cut fire stoppers.
> 
> California fires: State-wide emergency in photos
> Show all 23
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Every year, as the fire’s rage & California burns, it is the same thing-and then he comes to the Federal Government for $$$ help. No more. Get your act together Governor. You don’t see close to the level of burn in other states... But our teams are working well together in putting these massive, and many, fires out. Great firefighters!
> 
> “Also, open up the ridiculously closed water lanes coming down from the North. Don’t pour it out into the Pacific Ocean. Should be done immediately. California desperately needs water, and you can have it now!”
> 
> It follows on from a threat last made by the president in January, when he claimed to have “ordered FEMA to send no more money” – however it was later revealed he had made no such request of Federal Emergency Management Agency.
> 
> It is unclear if the president will be taking any action in relation to the tweets.
> 
> Independent news email
> Only the best news in your inbox
> 
> Enter your email address
> Continue
> Register with your social account or click here to log in
> 
> 
> I would like to receive morning headlines
> Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts by email
> California is uniquely effected by the hot, dry Santa Ana winds, which can fan flames quickly across the state, while climate change has also had a hand in exacerbating conditions, according to scientists.
> 
> Watch more
> 
> Climate change ‘driving ‘horror and the terror’ of California wildfire
> In recent years foresters have attempted to increase the number of controlled burns and logging operations to thin out woodland at risk of burning, however shrubland plants like the highly flammable chaparral vegetation found in the state continue to be a problem.
> 
> California, the state of high-profile democratic senators Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein, has come under increasing fire from the Trump administration over environmental policy in attacks spurred on by comments from the president.
> 
> In September the EPA warned California over water and air pollution – and threatened to withdraw California’s federal road funding unless changes were made.
> 
> Referencing the Ukraine scandal that has led to impeachment proceedings being launched against Mr Trump, a spokesman for Mr Newsom told The Washington Post at the time: ““There’s a common theme in the news coming out of this White House this week. The president is abusing the powers of the presidency and weaponising government to attack his political opponents,”
> 
> “This is not about clean air, clean water or helping our state with homelessness. This is political retribution against California, plain and simple.”
> 
> Meanwhile in August the president’s re-election campaign said it would be suing the state over a law requiring political candidates to release their tax returns before running in the California primary.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-california-wildfires-twitter-gavin-newsom-federal-aid-latest-a9183216.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_source=reddit.com#Echobox=1572790788


----------



## MrMister

birthday_massacre said:


> Sanders or Warren will get the nomination. Biden is done and no one else is close.
> 
> Trump has zero chance against either of them. If Biden some how steals the nomination, then sure Trump has a shot.


Thoughts on Mayor Pete? I like the idea of gay military irl Christian vs old Boomer bully that also happens to be hilarious. Seems very current year.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Imagine threatening to cut off funds to your own country to fight out of control fires.

It would be a good look for him to do so, he could photoshop his head on a fireman putting out a fire.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> Thoughts on Mayor Pete? I like the idea of gay military irl Christian vs old Boomer bully that also happens to be hilarious. Seems very current year.


Bootygig is actually a Clintonite. Another fake progressive who's been put up there to divide the vote by fooling the people who don't do the research into someone's background. 

Bootygeigmaster is a corporate muppet.


----------



## MrMister

lol they're all that Reaper.

We're talking optics here. We're talking entertainment. Government in 2019 :heston


why is US Government on that list :lmao


----------



## DOPA

Hasn't Mayor Pete been shooting down every progressive proposal in the debates along with Amy Kloubouchar or whatever her name is? I never got the impression that he was trying to fake being a progressive but perhaps I'm wrong. I haven't been following the primaries super closely.

The only person who realistically can be nominated that I think can beat Trump is Bernie. Biden has no shot that is obvious but I am not convinced by Warren. Her lying about her native american heritage, her support for the war machine and the fact she is much more easily bendable to her populist policies aside from on tax and wall street I think will be her downfall. Traditionally speaking, incumbent presidents normally get re-elected as long as the economy is ticking along nicely and they don't have any huge scandals or fuck ups. Trump has had the latter but it has seemingly no effect on him, not to mention the Democrats have been so bad at opposing him, taking the wrong angle every step of the way.

I don't think Warren will be convincing enough for swing voters to switch away from Trump and perhaps even some Democrats who abstained or went 3rd party last time to actually turn up for the Democrats. Which is bad for them because I'm predicting most likely it'll be Warren who will get the nomination. But I guess we'll see because nobody thought Trump would win last time :lol.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Bootygig is actually a Clintonite. Another fake progressive who's been put up there to divide the vote by fooling the people who don't do the research into someone's background.
> 
> Bootygeigmaster is a corporate muppet.


They all are, there's no real progressives in this game or anyone with any fortitude. Warren is a moronic warhawk who lied about her ethnicity for points and I can see people here drooling at her being elected as if it would be a good thing. :laugh:

Then again, a "Liberal" man who lives in a "progressive, current year" country still got votes when there's solid proof he's a fucking racist. :shrug

Either people are that dumb or they simply don't care as long as their "side" gets into office, no matter the cost or the questionable morality of the people who get elected.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Either people are that dumb or they simply don't care as long as their "side" gets into office, no matter the cost or the questionable morality of the people who get elected.


Thats it right here. It reminds me of Babylon 5. In that show, there were two races, one promoted order, one promoted chaos. It was so the less advanced races could evolve. By the time the show started, both races stopped caring about the younger beings evolving and and became "My way is better" and were willing to destroy entire planets to hammer the point.

The heroes in the end called them out on it and the rest of the galaxy was willing to die fighting than rather follow either of them. It worked and the two elder races left the galaxy.

Yes, I just used a 90s sci-fi show as an analogy for modern US politics. I am that big of a geek.


----------



## L.I.O.

This is the weakest the Dems have been. No one has a shot against Trump lmao.

The economy has been significantly better with Trump in office, market has been high, and unemployment has been down while the labor participation has been up. I don't see anything that Warren, Bernie, or Biden can offer that can do better than Trump's plan. 

Bernie gets elected and we all enjoy short term success, but then afterwards we're looking for food in the garbage. 

Warren wants to use trillions of dollars to pay for her plan (as if we didn't spend enough when Obama was in office).

Biden honestly looks like he's in the beginning stages of dementia. His constant gaffes are a little concerning.

Say what you want about Trump. He puts his foot in his mouth a lot, but he gets the job done. Honestly haven't seen the economy thrive this much. I've learned that the national debt probably isn't going to go away, but Obama set it through the roof. Trump has contributed to it as well, but it hasn't been as drastic as what one of these Dems would do should they be elected.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Is that you Don Jr?


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> Sanders or Warren will get the nomination. Biden is done and no one else is close.
> 
> Trump has zero chance against either of them. If Biden some how steals the nomination, then sure Trump has a shot.


Knowing corporate dems they're screw over Bernie for Pete Buttigieg. Then they'll try to tell us if you don't like Buttigieg you're an homophobe.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> Knowing corporate dems they're screw over Bernie for Pete Buttigieg. Then they'll try to tell us if you don't like Buttigieg you're an homophobe.


They tried the black woman card with Kamala and it backfired. 

It's going to backfire again. 

But that won't stop them from trying.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

109th Market High since he won the election. Nice.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> Thoughts on Mayor Pete? I like the idea of gay military irl Christian vs old Boomer bully that also happens to be hilarious. Seems very current year.


The more I see and hear about Mayor Pete, the more I dislike him



Undertaker23RKO said:


> 109th Market High since he won the election. Nice.


How hight is the deficit? Is that nice too?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> The more I see and hear about Mayor Pete, the more I dislike him
> 
> 
> 
> How hight is the deficit? Is that nice too?


Why is an objectively good thing for the US triggering you?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Why is an objectively good thing for the US triggering you?


You mean the stock market going up because of stock buy backs lol

The market will crash again in a few weeks like it has done over and over again. The marketing going up and down this much is not objectivly good. Tell me how the market being this unstable is a good thing?


----------



## L.I.O.

yeahbaby! said:


> Is that you Don Jr?


Yes. Did you like my appearance on The View today?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> You mean the stock market going up because of stock buy backs lol
> 
> The market will crash again in a few weeks like he has done over and over again.


I don't know what this nonsense has to do with anything. I stated a positive fact. Now you are bitching for some reason.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> I don't know what this nonsense has to do with anything. I stated a positive fact. Now you are bitching for some reason.


Because it going up is just temporary and its being artificially inflated.

Please try and keep up


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> Because it going up is just temporary and its being artificially inflated.
> 
> Please try and keep up


I'll base the merits of that by how my investments perform, not your opinion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> I'll base the merits of that by how my investments perform, not your opinion.


I know you don't like facts. Then when Trump says or does something stupid again, and the market crashes AGAIN you will be silent like you were two weeks ago when it dropped 250 points.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> I know you don't like facts. Then when Trump says or does something stupid again, and the market crashes AGAIN you will be silent like you were two weeks ago when it dropped 250 points.


You haven't stated a fact. The market always ebbs and flows. If you think it's going to go up every single day you're naive. 2017 and 2019 (thus far) have been undeniably great years for the market and investing. 2018 sucked.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> You haven't stated a fact. The market always ebbs and flows. If you think it's going to go up every single day you're naive. 2017 and 2019 (thus far) have been undeniably great years for the market and investing. 2018 sucked.


I stated all facts but you cant accept the facts, so we are done


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> I stated all facts but you cant accept the facts, so we are done


I don't care what you say, I care what happens. This has been a great market year and I'm loving the real life results I've seen from it. You can bitch all you want. I have factually benefited in real life. That's the only fact here that matters.


----------



## yeahbaby!

L.I.O. said:


> Yes. Did you like my appearance on The View today?


IMO you need to pump the brakes on the hair oil a bit. But you're a handsome man no doubt.


----------



## virus21

> NEW YORK — A New York judge ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit alleging he misused his charitable foundation to further his political and business interests.
> 
> Judge Saliann Scarpulla also signed off on an agreement Thursday to close the Trump Foundation and distribute about $1.7 million in remaining funds to other nonprofit groups.
> 
> A request for comment was emailed to Trump’s lawyer.
> 
> New York’s attorney general filed a lawsuit last year alleging Trump and his family illegally operated the foundation as an extension of his businesses and his presidential campaign.
> 
> Attorney General Letitia James had been seeking about $2.8 million in restitution from the president. Scarpulla cut that amount to $2 million.
> 
> Foundation lawyers have previously said the lawsuit is politically motivated.
> 
> Left: U.S. President Donald Trump delivers keynote remarks at the Shale Insight 2019 Conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 23, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis
> 
> Related
> Trump denies he wanted Attorney General William Barr to publicly clear him
> By Associated Press
> 
> Go Deeper
> donald trump
> By — Associated Press
> NewsMatch
> Educate your inbox
> Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
> 
> Email Address
> Email Address
> Full Episode


[URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-new-york-tech-firm-suspected-selling-chinese-equipment-n1078191?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR33xa80ypSU9AJl0NVbDd0EDxta1M1VEIRuxR54j18iAvoYK8gfvgoyC_A"]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-new-york-tech-firm-suspected-selling-chinese-equipment-n1078191?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR33xa80ypSU9AJl0NVbDd0EDxta1M1VEIRuxR54j18iAvoYK8gfvgoyC_A[/URL]


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> I don't care what you say, I care what happens. This has been a great market year and I'm loving the real life results I've seen from it. You can bitch all you want. I have factually benefited in real life. That's the only fact here that matters.


Right, so you dont care about facts, got it. But I am not surprised since you support Trump, who never cares about the facts. So you fit right in.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> Right, so you dont care about facts, got it. But I am not surprised since you support Trump, who never cares about the facts. So you fit right in.


Like I said, I care about the fact that is relevant to me. For some reason you don't get that. I don't care about your speculation.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Undertaker23RKO said:


> *Like I said, I care about the fact that is relevant to me.* For some reason you don't get that. I don't care about your speculation.


Now THAT'S a trump line.

:heston


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

yeahbaby! said:


> Now THAT'S a trump line.
> 
> :heston


You would care about speculation and not real world impact.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Calm down champ


----------



## MontyCora

Hahahahahahaha Trump LITERALLY committed charity fraud. For fucks sake. What's next? Candy from babies?


----------



## virus21

MontyCora said:


> Hahahahahahaha Trump LITERALLY committed charity fraud. For fucks sake. What's next? Candy from babies?


----------



## Stephen90

Writes a book called triggered gets triggered and runs away.


----------



## BulletClubFangirl

Similar criticism should be aimed at Shapiro and Kirk who go after far left sjw's for wanting safe spaces and not taking part in civil discourse only to shoo away people further to the right than them who ask questions that make them uncomfortable or make them look bad. I'd wager the one pushing to cancel the q&a was Kirk as well since one of his events was already "taken over" by the groypers.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Love all the crickets from the Trump supporters the last two days lol


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/70-americans-are-struggling-financially/



> 70% of Americans say they are struggling financially
> BY AIMEE PICCHI
> 
> UPDATED ON: NOVEMBER 14, 2019 / 2:25 PM / MONEYWATCH
> 
> 7 in 10 Americans struggle with at least one aspect of financial stability, a new survey finds.
> About 1 in 5 middle-class workers are spending more than they earn.
> About 20% of women say they are stressed by money, compared with 13% of men.
> 
> Many Americans remain in precarious financial shape even as the economy continues to grow, with 7 of 10 saying they struggling with at least one aspect of financial stability, such as paying bills or saving money.
> 
> 
> The findings come from a survey of more than 5,400 Americans from the Financial Health Network, a nonprofit financial services consultancy. The project, which started a year ago, is aimed at assessing people's financial health by asking about debt, savings, bills and wages, among other issues.
> 
> Despite solid U.S. economic growth this year, the share of Americans who are struggling financially remains statistically unchanged from a year ago, said Rob Levy, vice president of research and measurement with Financial Health Network.
> 
> The study adds to a body of research indicating that millions of American families have trouble making ends meet even a decade after the Great Recession and as unemployment has sunk to its lowest level in decades.
> 
> For instance, centrist think tank the Urban Institute has found that 4 in 10 Americans struggle to pay for basic needs such as groceries or housing. And a Zillow report released Thursday found that roughly a quarter of renters say that affording their payments is difficult or very difficult.
> 
> Not only the poor face financial pressure, the new study suggests. Almost 20% of people earning between $30,000 and $100,000 said they spent more than they earned — an increase of more than 4 percentage points from last year.
> 
> "That suggests there is a real squeeze being put on the middle class," Levy said. "Income is not keeping pace with expenses."
> 
> Women are also feeling the strain more than men, the study found. About 20% of women said their finances cause significant stress, compared with roughly 13% of men who said so.
> 
> Financial factors
> 
> Overall, about 3 in 10 Americans are considered financially healthy, the findings show. That means they aren't struggling on any of the objectives measured by the Financial Health Network, which are spending, saving, borrowing and financial planning.
> 
> "It's not just about income," Levy noted. "You can be low income and be financially healthy."
> 
> About 17% are considered financially vulnerable, which means they are struggling to meet all aspects of their financial lives, the study found. About 54% are "coping," which means they are failing to manage at least one of the financial factors.
> 
> Changes in fortune
> 
> Americans are also reporting big swings in their financial fortunes — both positive and negative, the study found. Because the researchers surveyed about 4,300 of the respondents who participated in last year's study, they were able to track how their financial stability changed, Levy said.
> 
> The nonprofit based the assessment on a 100-point score of financial health. More than half of the longitudinal sample experienced a median swing of 7.5 points, they found. That could reflect a positive change, like a raise, or a negative one, like losing a job.
> 
> "We didn't think people's lives would change that much," he said. "It's like a game of 'Chutes and Ladders,' which has implications for stress."


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/14/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-let-him-keep-his-tax-returns-secret.html

Still waiting for those tax returns. Why is the president fighting so hard to not reveal them after promising to be transparent about it since his campaigning for presidency at least 4 years ago? :confused


----------



## DesolationRow

http://apnews.com/ecad2990a83b4d84af821ba6cbdb7d91



> Democrats hold on to Louisiana governor’s seat despite Trump
> By MELINDA DESLATTE
> 24 minutes ago
> 
> BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards has stunned Republicans again, narrowly winning a second term Saturday as the Deep South’s only Democratic governor and handing Donald Trump another gubernatorial loss this year.
> 
> In the heart of Trump country, the moderate Edwards cobbled together enough cross-party support with his focus on bipartisan, state-specific issues to defeat Republican businessman Eddie Rispone.
> 
> Coming after a defeat in the Kentucky governor’s race and sizable losses in Virginia’s legislative races, the Louisiana result seems certain to rattle Republicans as they head into the 2020 presidential election. Trump fought to return the seat to the GOP, making three trips to Louisiana to rally against Edwards.
> 
> The president’s intense attention motivated not only conservative Republicans, but also powered a surge in anti-Trump and black voter turnout that helped Edwards.
> 
> Democrats who argue that nominating a moderate presidential candidate is the best approach to beat Trump are certain to point to Louisiana’s race as bolstering their case. Edwards, a West Point graduate, opposes gun restrictions, signed one of the nation’s strictest abortion bans and dismissed the impeachment effort as a distraction.
> 
> Still, while Rispone’s loss raises questions about the strength of Trump’s coattails, its relevance to his reelection chances are less clear. Louisiana is expected to easily back Trump next year, and Edwards’ views in many ways are out of step with his own party.
> 
> In the final days as polls showed Edwards with momentum, national Republicans beefed up assistance for Rispone. That wasn’t enough to boost the GOP contender, who wasn’t among the top-tier candidates Republican leaders hoped would challenge Edwards as they sought to prove that the Democrat’s longshot victory in 2015 was a fluke.
> 
> Rispone is a longtime political donor who was little-known when he launched his campaign, had ties to unpopular former Gov. Bobby Jindal and offered few details about his agenda. Edwards also proved to be a formidable candidate, with a record of achievements.
> 
> Working with the majority-Republican Legislature, Edwards stabilized state finances with a package of tax increases, ending the deficit-riddled years of Jindal. New money paid for investments in public colleges and the first statewide teacher raise in a decade.
> 
> Edwards expanded Louisiana’s Medicaid program, lowering the state’s uninsured rate below the national average. A bipartisan criminal sentencing law rewrite he championed ended Louisiana’s tenure as the nation’s top jailer.
> 
> Rispone, the 70-year-old owner of a Baton Rouge industrial contracting company, hitched his entire candidacy to Trump, introducing himself to voters in ads that focused on support for the president in a state Trump won by 20 percentage points.
> 
> But the 53-year-old Edwards, a former state lawmaker and former Army Ranger from rural Tangipahoa Parish, reminded voters that he’s a Louisiana Democrat, with political views that sometimes don’t match his party’s leaders.
> 
> “They talk about I’m some sort of a radical liberal. The people of Louisiana know better than that. I am squarely in the middle of the political spectrum,” Edwards said. “That hasn’t changed, and that’s the way we’ve been governing.”
> 
> Rispone framed himself in the mold of Trump, describing himself as a “conservative outsider” whose business acumen would help solve the state’s problems.
> 
> “We want Louisiana to be No. 1 in the South when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We have to do something different,” Rispone said. “We can do for Louisiana what President Trump has done for the nation.”
> 
> Rispone poured more than $12 million of his own money into the race. But he had trouble drawing some of the primary vote that went to Republican U.S. Rep. Ralph Abraham, after harshly attacking Abraham in ads as he sought to reach the runoff.
> 
> Rispone also avoided many traditional public events attended by Louisiana gubernatorial candidates and sidestepped questions about his plans when taking office. He promised tax cuts, without saying where he’d shrink spending, and he pledged a constitutional convention, without detailing what he wanted to rewrite.
> 
> Both parties spent millions on attack ads and get-out-the-vote work, on top of at least $36 million spent by candidates.
> 
> ___
> 
> AP reporter Chevel Johnson contributed to this report from New Orleans.
> 
> ___
> 
> Follow Melinda Deslatte on Twitter at http://twitter.com/melindadeslatte


----------



## Lady Eastwood

FriedTofu said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/14/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-let-him-keep-his-tax-returns-secret.html
> 
> Still waiting for those tax returns. Why is the president fighting so hard to not reveal them after promising to be transparent about it since his campaigning for presidency at least 4 years ago? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/34ojsSm.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Confused" class="inlineimg" />


I think even after he got elected, he still said over the course of maybe the first year or so that he’d share them.

I feel like if they suddenly got revealed near election time, they’d be fake ass documents. If he did what he’s supposed to, no need to hide it for this long and just hope everyone forgets about it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump campaigned on a lot of things that he subsequently forgot about. Playing golf, sharing taxes, draining the swamp.

He's a con artist.


----------



## Pratchett

Draykorinee said:


> He's a con artist.


Correction, he's a Politician.

I use that term intermittently with "grifter". They both mean the same thing to me.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196080086686011398
Too damn funny. :lol

People want Trump's tax returns purely so the media can take advantage of the general public's lack of knowledge to convince them that there is some nefarious activity going on there. This is easily refuted by the simple fact that the IRS already has his tax returns. If there were something we needed to know about it would've come out a long time ago. Total non-issue that only simple, easily controlled people think could possibly be important. Personally I hope he paid as little in taxes as possible. That's what I try to do as well. The government can't spend even a single dollar to help people better than I can.


----------



## Draykorinee

:jet5 Fuck me, imagine trusting the IRS after how much they colluded with Obama and his government. 

Most people aren't stupid enough to put complete trust in a government run agency when investigating the current government. 

To me its more just a great opportunity to see what he's worth, where his money/gone has come from etc, I don't think anyone genuinely believes this is going to be a massive smoking gun that will show massive tax fraud, he's already been convicted of that before.


----------



## MrMister

Catalanotto said:


> I think even after he got elected, he still said over the course of maybe the first year or so that he’d share them.
> 
> I feel like if they suddenly got revealed near election time, they’d be fake ass documents. If he did what he’s supposed to, no need to hide it for this long and just hope everyone forgets about it.


He withholds them to troll so it remains a story. Trump is all about self promotion and having this story drag out forever benefits him in that regard. It doesn't matter if what is said about him is bad as long as people are talking about it. On top of this he wants his enemies to remain flustered so they keep making mistakes.

Like CP said, if he did illegal shit then IRS would know about it and they'd have been up his ass a long time ago. Whatever he did, the IRS didn't care, so it's likely his taxes aren't illegal. If he's a rich guy that paid little then he's like every other rich guy in the history of the world pretty much. There are exceptions, but most rich guys pay as little as possible. 

So if he releases them, then people say oh look another rich guy that doesn't pay taxes. It's a non-story. Trump gets nothing out of this. If Trump holds this story over the media that hates him, then he has something. He gets talked about and he loves being talked about.


----------



## FriedTofu

Catalanotto said:


> I think even after he got elected, he still said over the course of maybe the first year or so that he’d share them.
> 
> I feel like if they suddenly got revealed near election time, they’d be fake ass documents. If he did what he’s supposed to, no need to hide it for this long and just hope everyone forgets about it.


If there is nothing to hide, he would have released it by now. It doesn't have to be illegal for it to be politically damaging. Mental hoops these Trump supporters have to jump through to defend dear leader is hilarious.


----------



## MrMister

Donald Trump said:


> I’m clean, and when I release my financial statement (my decision) sometime prior to election, it will only show one thing - *that I am much richer than people even thought* - And that is a good thing


:heston :heston :heston


----------



## njcam

I've never understood why there are so many candidates for the Democratic Party nominee.

Each of them ask for money..... the cost of each of them to travel.... employ staff - it should be pooled into 4 or 5 candidates.

There should only be 4 or 5 candidates, like...

Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren
Pete Buttigieg
Bernie Sanders

These 5 need to leave the race.
Andrew Yang
Michael Bloomberg
Tulsi Gabbard
Amy Klobuchar
Kamala Harris

Alot of money is being wastered.


----------



## MontyCora

Keep Yang and Gabbard and give Buttigieg the boot plz.


----------



## njcam

MontyCora said:


> Keep Yang and Gabbard and give Buttigieg the boot plz.


I respect Gabbard's service to USA, but she comes with too much baggage.


----------



## MontyCora

njcam said:


> I respect Gabbard's service to USA, but she comes with too much baggage.


Wait what is it that I don't know about Gabbard? Cause right now she's the smoking hot former jet pilot who doesn't take any shit from establishment goons. 

DON'T RUIN MY FANTASY!


----------



## BruiserKC

LMAO @ Judge Pirro for calling Ambassador Sondland a Deep State Bureaucrat. :lol

She apparently was giving instructions to the jury (made up of folks like Jack Daniels, Johnnie Walker and Tom Collins) and ignored that Sondland got his ambassadorship by being a bigly donor to Trump. 

Dear God, some of his cultists become more stupid by the day.


----------



## Stephen90

njcam said:


> I've never understood why there are so many candidates for the Democratic Party nominee.
> 
> Each of them ask for money..... the cost of each of them to travel.... employ staff - it should be pooled into 4 or 5 candidates.
> 
> There should only be 4 or 5 candidates, like...
> 
> Joe Biden
> Elizabeth Warren
> *Pete Buttigieg*
> Bernie Sanders
> 
> These 5 need to leave the race.
> Andrew Yang
> Michael Bloomberg
> Tulsi Gabbard
> Amy Klobuchar
> Kamala Harris
> 
> Alot of money is being wastered.


Buttigieg would get destroyed by Trump and I am far from a Trump supporter. We don't need a gay male Hillary.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/news/farm-bankruptcies-jump-24-as-trump-trade-war-tariffs-bite-2019-10-1028649836



> *Farm bankruptcies jump to highest level since 2011 as Trump’s tariffs bite*
> 
> A tit-for-tat tariff dispute between the Trump administration and China has piled on pressure in an already strained Farm Belt, leaving an increasing number of growers unable to stay afloat.
> 
> Farmers filed 580 Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings between January and September, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest farm advocacy group in the country. That was a 24% increase from the previous year and the highest level since 2011, when there were 676 filings.
> 
> China placed steep tariffs on US farm products last year to retaliate against punitive moves by the Trump administration, adding to challenges for farmers already faced with harsh weather conditions and low commodity prices. Those have sent exports sharply lower and made it difficult for growers to plan the next harvest.
> 
> "Farmers and ranchers struggle with a prolonged downturn in the farm economy that's been made worse by unfair retaliatory tariffs on US agriculture as well as two consecutive years of adverse planting, growing and harvesting conditions," said John Newton, the chief economist at the federation.
> 
> Ahead of the 2020 elections, the president has increasingly attempted to placate farmers who helped elect him in 2016. The Trump administration has announced nearly $30 billion in bailout programs designed to mitigate losses from the trade dispute.
> 
> But the unprecedented amount of government aid has raised concerns about misuse of funds and drawn backlash from agricultural groups and bipartisan lawmakers. Roughly 40% of farm income is expected to come from government aid, according to Department of Agriculture data analyzed by the federation.
> 
> "The trend is a concern," Newton said. "The support provided to farmers in 2018 and 2019 is expected to alleviate some of the financial stress; however, not all farmers will benefit from trade assistance, farm bill programs, crop insurance or disaster aid."
> 
> Farm bankruptcies rose to or above decade-highs this year in Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Wisconsin and West Virginia, according to the federation.
> 
> The president often acknowledges that farmers have been hurt by retaliatory tariffs but asserts that protectionism will help win fairer agricultural policies in the long run.
> 
> "Our farmers have been great. They never wavered," Trump said in a Cabinet meeting last week. "And I think, in many ways, the farmer maybe is going to be the biggest beneficiary of what we're doing — certainly one of them."


----------



## birthday_massacre

BruiserKC said:


> LMAO @ Judge Pirro for calling Ambassador Sondland a Deep State Bureaucrat. :lol
> 
> She apparently was giving instructions to the jury (made up of folks like Jack Daniels, Johnnie Walker and Tom Collins) and ignored that Sondland got his ambassadorship by being a bigly donor to Trump.
> 
> Dear God, some of his cultists become more stupid by the day.


At least Napolitano is the voice of reason on fox news when it comes to legal analyst. It's always funny seeing him call out Trumps and Foxs news BS of defending him, and the Fox hosts are always like WHHAATT. I am suprised Fox still has him on since he does not defend Trump like Pirro and all the hosts.


----------



## BruiserKC

birthday_massacre said:


> At least Napolitano is the voice of reason on fox news when it comes to legal analyst. It's always funny seeing him call out Trumps and Foxs news BS of defending him, and the Fox hosts are always like WHHAATT. I am suprised Fox still has him on since he does not defend Trump like Pirro and all the hosts.


Neil Cavuto also. I have always enjoyed his financial shows and he is not afraid to point out how Trump’s business policies aren’t helping things.


----------



## DOPA

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/news/farm-bankruptcies-jump-24-as-trump-trade-war-tariffs-bite-2019-10-1028649836


Reason #689 why protectionism is stupid.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Trump posted a picture of himself as Rocky. No one knows what to make of it
*
The president’s bizarre tweet prompted jokes about Russia, white insecurity and less-than-inspiring leadership

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/27/donald-trump-rocky-picture-twitter










Are we seeing a complete mental breakdown coming?


----------



## virus21

> President Donald Trump has signed two bills supporting the Hong Kong protesters into law on Wednesday, despite Beijing’s repeated objections.
> 
> “I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong. They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity for all,” Trump said in a statement released by the White House.
> 
> Trump signed the bills as he tries to reach a “phase one” trade deal with Beijing, which has repeatedly condemned the legislation as meddling in its domestic affairs. Hours later, China issued statements slamming the bills, saying they highlight the “sinister intentions and hegemonic nature of the United States,” according to a CNBC translation.
> 
> On Thursday morning local time, the Hong Kong government “expressed strong opposition” to the bills becoming law and said it “extremely regrets the U.S. repeatedly ignoring Hong Kong’s concern regarding the two bills,” according to a CNBC translation.
> 
> “These two bills are an obvious intervention of Hong Kong’s internal affairs, they are unnecessary and without grounds, they will also harm the relationship and interests between Hong Kong and the U.S.,” the government said in a statement.
> 
> A government spokesman also said the bills will send the “wrong message” to protesters, “providing no help to ease Hong Kong’s situation.”
> 
> Congress sent the bills to the president’s desk last week, after both chambers passed the legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support.
> 
> WATCH NOW
> VIDEO03:36
> China decries House bill, calls it the ‘Support Violence in Hong Kong Act’
> The first bill would require the State Department to certify once a year that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to retain its special U.S. trading consideration — a status that helps its economy. Under that designation, the city is not subject to the tariffs that have been levied on China. The bill also sets up the potential for sanctions on people responsible for human rights abuse in Hong Kong.
> 
> The second measure would bar the sale of munitions such as tear gas and rubber bullets to Hong Kong police.
> 
> Hong Kong, a former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997, has been engulfed in months of anti-government protests. Initially sparked by a bill that would have enabled extradition to mainland China, the protests have morphed into broader anti-government demonstrations, including a wider range of demands such as greater democracy and universal suffrage.
> 
> As the protests more frequently lapsed into violence, U.S. lawmakers increasingly criticized China’s response to the protests.
> 
> Trump’s Wednesday statement echoes his earlier comments that China should handle the situation itself. Though he has also warned that harsh treatment of the people in Hong Kong could derail trade negotiations.
> 
> WATCH NOW
> VIDEO01:54
> Hong Kong markets jump following pro-democracy candidates’ landslide victory
> Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, one of the sponsors of the Hong Kong rights bill, said he applauds Trump “for signing this critical legislation into law.”
> 
> “The U.S. now has new and meaningful tools to deter further influence and interference from Beijing into Hong Kong’s internal affairs. Following last weekend’s historic elections in Hong Kong that included record turnout, this new law could not be more timely in showing strong U.S. support for Hong Kongers’ long-cherished freedoms,” Rubio said in a statement.
> 
> Over the weekend, Hong Kong democrats swept district council elections as 2.94 million cast their ballots, a record turnout of about 71.2%. While those seats largely focus on local issues like bus routes, some district councilors will also join the Election Committee which nominates and votes on candidates for the city’s leader.
> 
> Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said the legislation is an “important step forward in holding the Chinese Communist Party accountable for its erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and its repression of fundamental human rights.”


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/trump-signs-bill-backing-hong-kong-protesters-into-law-in-spite-of-beijings-objections.html


----------



## Deathstroke

yeahbaby! said:


> *Trump posted a picture of himself as Rocky. No one knows what to make of it
> *
> The president’s bizarre tweet prompted jokes about Russia, white insecurity and less-than-inspiring leadership
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/27/donald-trump-rocky-picture-twitter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we seeing a complete mental breakdown coming?




He’s always done stuff like this. The funniest is when he retweeted that Kingsman scene killing all the reporters and shit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> *Trump posted a picture of himself as Rocky. No one knows what to make of it
> *
> The president’s bizarre tweet prompted jokes about Russia, white insecurity and less-than-inspiring leadership
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/27/donald-trump-rocky-picture-twitter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we seeing a complete mental breakdown coming?


He has already been having it, like I have been saying for over a year now.


----------



## CamillePunk

nah fam it's just a meme


----------



## yeahbaby!

^ you mean it's not real?????


----------



## virus21

A construction company owned by a Republican donor has been given a $400m (£308.5m) contract to build sections of Donald Trump’s border wall.
The Department of Defence has announced Fisher Sand and Gravel Co, from North Dakota, will build new barriers in Arizona following reports that Mr Trump repeatedly pushed for the company to be given the contract, despite concerns from engineering officials.
Mr Trump had urged officials from the Army Corps of Engineers to pick the company, according to _Washington Post_ reports, and is a fan of the company’s CEO, Tommy Fisher, who has appeared on Fox News to promote the firm.

However, he was apparently told that Fisher Sand and Gravel’s bid did not meet the standards required for the project.
The company has also been supported by senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota, who was given $10,000 by the Fisher family for his Senate campaign in 2018.
*Trump prototypes for Mexico border wall demolished in California*
Show all 20
































Mr Cramer said he was “glad to see more progress being made” on the border wall and “grateful” that Fisher Sand and Gravel had been awarded the contract.
“I know they will do very well, performing high quality work at a good bargain, all for the security of the people of the United States,” he said in a statement.
The Republican senator took Mr Fisher as his guest to the 2018 State of the Union address but said he has not pushed Mr Trump to pick the firm, even though he welcomed the idea of a North Dakota company winning the contract.
*Read more*


Smugglers are sawing through new sections of Trump’s border wall
Mr Cramer said in May that the president “always brings [the company] up” in conversations and Mr Trump likes Mr Fisher because he has seen him advocating for his firm’s plan on TV.
Fisher Sand and Gravel has claimed it can build the wall faster and cheaper than other companies.
*Independent news email*
Only the best news in your inbox
Continue
Register with your social account or click here to log in
I *would* like to receive morning headlinesMonday - Friday plus breaking news alerts by email
It also has a record of more than $1m in fines for environmental and tax violations, according to CNN, and its former co-owner pleaded guilty to tax fraud and was sentenced to 37 months in prison in 2009.
When asked by CNN about these violations and legal problems, the company said the issues were “resolved years ago” and had “nothing to do with the excellent product and work that Fisher is proposing with regard to protecting America’s southern border”.
In April, Mr Trump mentioned Mr Fisher on Fox News after the company offered to build 234 miles of the border wall for $1.4bn – a fraction of the $8bn cost projected for the project.
When Fox News host Sean Hannity asked about the bid, the president replied that his administration was “dealing with him [Mr Fisher]” and said the company was “recommended strongly by a great new senator, Kevin Cramer”.
Fisher Sand and Gravel has worked with a number of Trump allies, including former adviser Steve Bannon, to build border fences on private land using donations.
Mr Trump has pledged to build 450 to 500 miles of new border barriers by the end of 2020 but so far his administration has only built about 85 miles of new fencing, which has mostly replaced smaller old structures that existed before he took office in 2017.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...onor-fisher-sand-gravel-arizona-a9230346.html


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump will be impeached in the house shortly, told you all LOL

You can all admit you were wrong now but I know the ususual suspends wont lol

Will the sentate confirm, is still up in the air, but he is guility as hell, like I have been saying all along, lets see if the GOP wil actally do the right thing.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump will be impeached in the house shortly, told you all LOL
> 
> You can all admit you were wrong now but I know the ususual suspends wont lol
> 
> Will the sentate confirm, is still up in the air, but he is guility as hell, like I have been saying all along, lets see if the GOP wil actally do the right thing.


Define shortly.


----------



## The real Axel

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump will be impeached in the house shortly, told you all LOL
> 
> You can all admit you were wrong now but I know the ususual suspends wont lol
> 
> Will the sentate confirm, is still up in the air, but he is guility as hell, like I have been saying all along, lets see if the GOP wil actally do the right thing.


----------



## CamillePunk

Is BM moving the goalposts from "will be removed from office before the end of last year" to "impeached in the House but not removed by the Senate"?


----------



## MrMister

Impeachment always seemed inevitable to me. I just didn't know when they would do it. He's not getting removed from office almost certainly, so the impeachment doesn't really matter, like everything the Dems do.


----------



## Pratchett

It's all political theater. The impeachment hearings are being done to ensure Trump stays in office.

And even more importantly, it ensures a continually divided American populace, which is the actual goal.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Is BM moving the goalposts from "will be removed from office before the end of last year" to "impeached in the House but not removed by the Senate"?


Will be picked last in dodge-impeachment ball.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Thoroughly enjoyed the Trump Thanos commercial and Don Lemonhead's meltdown over it. :^)

Also wound up finding this gem:


----------



## deadcool

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Thoroughly enjoyed the Trump Thanos commercial and Don Lemonhead's meltdown over it. :^)
> 
> Also wound up finding this gem:


Besmirching one of the greatest movies in cinematic history...sheesh..


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

deadcool said:


> Besmirching one of the greatest movies in cinematic history...sheesh..


Duly noted. Henceforth, this thread shall have one unbreakable rule:


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

*President Trump impeached in historic vote by sharply divided House*


> Donald Trump became the third sitting president in U.S. history to be impeached, as the House of Representatives approved on Wednesday the two articles of impeachment against him: that he abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election on his behalf, and that he obstructed Congress in its inquiry.
> The House approved the first article of impeachment, on abuse of power, by a vote of 230 to 197 at 8:34 p.m. after a daylong debate. Of the 233 Democrats, 228 voted in favor, along with the House’s one Independent. Two Democrats opposed the measure. No Republicans voted in favor.
> Eighteen minutes later, the second article, charging obstruction of Congress, passed by a vote of 229 to 198 with three Democrats voting no, and again no Republicans in favor.
> Trump came to the stage for a rally in Battle Creek, Mich., just as the vote was being called and told the crowd, “It doesn’t really feel like we’re being impeached. The country is doing better than ever before. We did nothing wrong. And we have tremendous support in the Republican Party.”
> Moments after the second article was approved, Trump called his impeachment “illegal, unconstitutional and partisan.” Democrats, he said, “are declaring their deep hatred and disdain for the American voter.”
> Democrats “have branded themselves with an eternal mark of shame," he said.
> Eight hours earlier, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laid out the Democratic case: “The president violated the Constitution. It is a matter of fact that the president is an ongoing threat to our national security and the integrity of our elections: the basis of our democracy.”
> Pelosi said that Trump “used the power of his public office to obtain an improper personal, political benefit at the expense of America's national security.”
> The only other two presidents to be impeached in American history are Andrew Johnson, in 1868, and Bill Clinton, in 1998. Both survived their Senate trials and served out their terms. The House began impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon in 1973, but Nixon resigned before he was impeached.
> Trump held a rally in Battle Creek, Mich., and was scheduled to speak around the same time that the House held its final vote on impeachment.
> He was awaited by supporters — most of whom stood in line for hours in temperatures that did not rise above the teens — inside the 9,800-seat Kellogg Arena.
> During the day, Trump railed against the impeachment on Twitter in the same vein as the six-page, angry letter he sent to Pelosi on Tuesday. In one early morning tweet, he wrote, “I DID NOTHING WRONG!” In a midday tweet, he called his impeachment “AN ASSAULT ON AMERICA, AND AN ASSAULT ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!”
> 
> President Trump arriving in Battle Creek, Mich., Dec. 18, 2019. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski AFP via Getty Images)
> The proceedings on Capitol Hill were historic, but lacked suspense and drama for much of the day. The outcome unfolded just as most had expected since the day Pelosi announced the opening of an official impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24.
> After a prayer by the House chaplain for “wisdom and discernment,” and an hour or so of procedural delay by Republicans, the House chamber was filled all day with short speeches — typically just one minute — by hundreds of representatives, alternating between the two parties.
> The chamber was mostly empty for most of the day’s six hours of scheduled debate — which ran to more than eight hours — making what should be the most high-profile moment of the impeachment process the least substantive. It was a striking contrast to the last several weeks of in-depth hearings in which fact witnesses laid out a detailed storyline of the president’s actions.
> Democrats kept to a disciplined set of talking points, reiterating that they were reluctant to impeach the president, but his abuse of the power of the presidency left them no choice.
> “I want you to know that it does not feel good,” said Rep. Joe Kennedy III, addressing his 60-second floor speech to his two young children. But, he said, the president “broke our laws” and “abused the highest, most sacred office in our land.”
> As the debate moved toward a conclusion, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority whip, put his personal stamp on the case for impeachment. “Never in all my years of serving in this great institution that I love,” he said, speaking more deliberately than most of those who went before, “… did I ever expect to encounter such an obvious wrongdoing by a president of the United States. Nor did I expect to witness such a craven rationalization of presidential actions."
> His remarks lowered the tension in the chamber after Republican Whip Steve Scalise accused Democrats of hating the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump, prompting boos from the other side of the aisle.
> While Democrats projected a tone of sadness, the mood among Republicans was one of outrage, at times veering toward the apocalyptic.
> “This country’s end is now in sight. I hope I don’t live to see it,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.
> Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., described a scene more similar to Dante’s “Inferno” than that of a legislative body. “I have descended into the belly of the beast. I have witnessed the terror within. And I rise committed to oppose the insidious forces which threaten our republic,” said Higgins, a former police officer whose colorful past includes filming a video from the Auschwitz death camp to promote U.S. homeland security.
> And Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., compared Trump’s impeachment to the trial of Jesus Christ.
> “When Jesus was falsely accused of treason, Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than the Democrats have afforded this president and this process,” Loudermilk said.
> 
> Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga. (Photo: House Television via AP)
> Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said that “all we keep hearing from the other side are attacks on the process and questions of our motives.”
> “They cannot articulate a real defense of the president’s actions,” Nadler said.
> Impeachment is an act of censure by the House, a recommendation that the president be removed from office. But the Senate decides in a trial whether to actually do so, and Republicans in the Senate — who hold a 53-to-47 majority — are not expected to defect from the president. He will therefore almost certainly remain in office, even if the stain of impeachment lingers.
> "Donald J. Trump is president of the United States. He is president today. He’ll be president tomorrow, and he will be president when this impeachment is over,” House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy told the chamber.
> The impeachment vote was the culmination of a process that began in early August when a whistleblower filed a complaint to the inspector general of the intelligence community, alleging that Trump pressured Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to open an investigation into a political rival. The report became public in mid-September.
> The House Intelligence Committee conducted an investigation, calling over a dozen witnesses to testify in closed-door depositions, and then moving on to a series of public hearings with a majority of those witnesses. The White House refused to cooperate and blocked another dozen witnesses from speaking with Congress.
> That stonewalling gave Democrats the grounds to charge the president with obstructing an investigation by Congress, a co-equal branch of the federal government.
> The witnesses who did testify said that Trump pressured Ukraine to announce an investigation into Democrat Joe Biden, a rival for the presidency, using a White House meeting the the new Ukrainian president wanted, and also withholding nearly $400 million in military assistance to the country.
> 
> President Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in New York City, Sept. 25, 2019. (Photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
> Ukraine, a former Soviet state that became independent in 1991, has increasingly sought to align itself with the West since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, a peninsula in southern Ukraine, and began supporting a separatist conflict in the east of the country. Russian and Ukrainian forces are still engaged in an active military conflict.
> Republicans on the Intelligence Committee mounted a series of often-changing defenses to explain why the president withheld assistance, but settled around a few explanations. They pointed to actions by individual Ukrainians critical of Trump to argue that president had a justified bias against the nation.
> And Republicans said Trump was concerned about giving aid to a country that had problems with corruption. Yet the new Ukrainian government had met benchmarks set by the U.S. government to qualify for the funding, even before Trump decided to freeze the congressionally authorized aid.
> Republicans also said, despite evidence to the contrary from Pentagon officials, that Ukraine didn’t know the aid had been withheld when Trump spoke to Zelensky by phone on July 25 and asked him to investigate Biden.
> In an angry six-page letter to Pelosi sent Tuesday afternoon, Trump also lodged a series of criticisms, starting with the fact that there are “no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses” in the two articles of impeachment.
> Trump, in his letter, also insisted that Biden “used his office and $1 billion of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars.”
> This is a reference to Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, and to Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company with a history of corruption. Burisma added Hunter Biden to its board in April 2014, not long after the British government had frozen $23 million in assets belonging to Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, on suspicion of money laundering.
> 
> Hunter Biden, left, and Joe Biden. (Photo: Teresa Kroeger/Getty Images for World Food Program USA)
> In December 2015, Joe Biden — then vice president under President Obama and responsible for running U.S. policy in Eastern Europe — told the Ukrainian government that $1 billion in aid would be withheld if the nation’s top prosecutor was not fired. Biden related this conversation in a 2018 think tank appearance.
> The Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was fired three months later.
> But Biden’s demand that Shokin be fired actually increased the likelihood that Burisma would be investigated for corruption, according to the most authoritative reporting on the subject, because the prosecutor had failed to pursue corruption cases.
> Nonetheless, Hunter Biden’s presence on the board of Burisma, which paid a significant amount of money to him, has created a massive political headache for his father and the Democratic Party. Hunter Biden has admitted he exercised “poor judgment” but maintains he did nothing illegal or unethical.
> Like Trump’s attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016 about her speaking fees and her private email server, the criticisms of Biden and Burisma is becoming a mantra for the president that he will likely repeat over and over as long as the former vice president is the leading Democratic candidate for president.


Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/presiden...-vote-by-sharply-divided-house-013514099.html


----------



## birthday_massacre

Told you Trump would be impeached, you can all admit you were wrong now but I know you wont.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

All of this for him to stay in office. What a waste of time. There possibly goes 2020 for the Dems, as well.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Told you Trump would be impeached, you can all admit you were wrong now but I know you wont.


Lmao you said he'd be kicked out of office not meaninglessly impeached why are you lying. You also said it was supposed to happen last year.

Also literally who said Trump wouldn't be impeached? Who are you talking to?


----------



## Lady Eastwood

It’s embarrassing how many people don’t know what impeachment is.

The senate is mostly republicans, Trump isn’t going anywhere.


----------



## Miss Sally

Catalanotto said:


> It’s embarrassing how many people don’t know what impeachment is.
> 
> The senate is mostly republicans, Trump isn’t going anywhere.


Y-You're wrong Cat! He was IMPEACHED!!!! I t-t-old you and he'll be gone.. any day.. now.. JUST U WA8!


----------



## FriedTofu

Republicans saying this is a waste of time is being disingenuous. As if GOP senate would negotiate in good faith with this Democratic house even if impeachment wasn't on the table. The party that wasted years and money on Benghazi hearings and blocked a supreme court nomination for almost a year has shown they do not even care about optics. They freaking couldn't get things passed besides paying off their rich donors in tax cuts when they held both the senate and the house.

Democrats saying this will oust Trump is just wishful thinking. GOP senate would just vote no to kicking Trump out of office. The voters don't care that Trump abused power or is corrupt as long as he was corrupt for their team. Being a corrupt asshole is a feature, not a bug to his voters. The senators are not going to go against these voters.


----------



## Hangman

Has an impeached president ever been re elected before?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> Told you Trump would be impeached, you can all admit you were wrong now but I know you wont.


I have no issue saying I was wrong about him being impeached. I'm surprised. Won't matter, he's still winning next year. For your peace of mind BM, I was wrong.


----------



## virus21

It doesn't matter. This whole thing will hurt the Democrats far more than it will hurt Trump. The DNC apparently have never heard of letting someone fall on their own sword.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

Hangman said:


> Has an impeached president ever been re elected before?


Well only three presidents have been impeached.... Both Clinton and Nixon got impeached during their second terms. Trump is the first to have it in his first term.


----------



## Jay Devito

If GWB can win re-election, Trump will be a layup.


----------



## virus21

Pencil Neck Freak said:


> Well only three presidents have been impeached.... Both Clinton and Nixon got impeached during their second terms. Trump is the first to have it in his first term.


Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned before the impeachment happened. Andrew Johnson was impeached though


----------



## Lady Eastwood

Pencil Neck Freak said:


> Well only three presidents have been impeached.... Both Clinton and Nixon got impeached during their second terms. Trump is the first to have it in his first term.


Nixon wasn’t impeached, he knew it was coming and resigned before impeachment even happened. Johnson was the other president impeached. Everyone thinks it was Nixon.

EDIT: didn’t see above post, fail.


----------



## MrMister

Pencil Neck Freak said:


> Well only three presidents have been impeached.... Both Clinton and Nixon got impeached during their second terms. Trump is the first to have it in his first term.


I didn't look this up, but Andrew Johnson was in his first term almost certainly, ie he inherited that job after Lincoln was assassinated. Johnson wasn't even the Democratic candidate in the next election though lol.


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> It doesn't matter. This whole thing will hurt the Democrats far more than it will hurt Trump. The DNC apparently have never heard of letting someone fall on their own sword.


Except the sword is really one of those prop swords where the blade goes in on itself. DEAL WITH THAT METAPHOR WF!!!


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Sometimes it sucks to be on the team of the good guys, Dems are wasting a shit ton of political capital and will almost certainly lose the house and get Trump reelected "doing the right thing". 

Trump is a scumbag and a criminal and the more you point that out the more people love him. Doing their constitutional duty is actually going to destroy our country-- instead of Trump having to run in the Midwest on his horrible trade war that's killing farmers, i.e. the people who are going to decide this election, now he gets to run "they tried a coup and failed" and those white people in the Midwest are going to forget about their pending bankruptcies, and driven by pure indignation will double down on Trump.

And with the House, Senate and SCOTUS, Trump's really going to get to run wild in his second term.


----------



## Reaper

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Sometimes it sucks to be on the team of the good guys, Dems are wasting a shit ton of political capital and will almost certainly lose the house and get Trump reelected "doing the right thing".
> 
> Trump is a scumbag and a criminal and the more you point that out the more people love him. Doing their constitutional duty is actually going to destroy our country-- instead of Trump having to run in the Midwest on his horrible trade war that's killing farmers, i.e. the people who are going to decide this election, now he gets to run "they tried a coup and failed" and those white people in the Midwest are going to forget about their pending bankruptcies, and driven by pure indignation will double down on Trump.
> 
> And with the House, Senate and SCOTUS, Trump's really going to get to run wild in his second term.


Once you realize that The Dems and The Repubs are 85% the same party and 15% different in optics only, I think you'll see why nothing ever changes in this country.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Reaper said:


> Once you realize that The Dems and The Repubs are 85% the same party and 15% different in optics only, I think you'll see why nothing ever changes in this country.


Yea that's why we need a real progressive in the White House, Bernie said he'd run primaries against all these DINOs, getting rid of Nancy Pelosi is almost as important as getting rid of Moscow Mitch.


----------



## Reaper

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Yea that's why we need a real progressive in the White House, Bernie said he'd run primaries against all these DINOs, *getting rid of Nancy Pelosi is almost as important as getting rid of Moscow Mitch.*


The Democrats are ALL DINOs. The 738 billion dollar Space Force Bill was passed with a crazy 377-48 vote.These are the same CUNTS that say "BUT HOW WE WILL PAY FOR IT" when asked to fund medicare for all.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Another outstanding market year. 2017 and 2019 have been about as safely good as it can get.


----------



## CamillePunk

Lmao Trump isn't even impeached  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1208148614540775425


----------



## virus21

Smoke and mirrors


----------



## Reaper

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Another outstanding market year. 2017 and 2019 have been about as safely good as it can get.
> View attachment 81524


Stock Market gains don't feed, clothe and provide healthcare to the poor. This is one of the most useless metrics of determining the living standard of a nation ever devised by the politicians to distract people from what really ails them.

I really don't understand why the middle class thinks that the rich playing around with money is something that they need to care about. You're not getting anything from that giant pie they play around in.

It's like watching a bunch of kids steal everyone's toys and then sitting there applauding them while you have no toys of your own.

There are only 2 metrics you should care about as a person of low wealth: HDI and Standard of Living. The rest - especially economy related metris - are complete and utter bollocks. Even when you're looking at Standard of Living, with the States you have to look at specific states where the worst standards of living exists in states that tend to vote republican.

Lowest Standard of living states in the US:

Georgia, New Mexico, Lousiana, SC, OK, TN, WV, Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi.









10 U.S. States with the Worst Standard of Living - Wonderslist


A list of 10 U.S. states with the worst standard of living. The United States is considered one of the world’s most happening places, and people from around the globe want to be here. It has a prosperous economy. But, even with a GDP higher than any other country in the world, the US has not...




www.wonderslist.com





Their politicians are sucking their constituents and everyone else dry while those people live in some of the worst conditions in the world - and not just north America.


----------



## njcam




----------



## Jay Devito

Reaper said:


> Stock Market gains don't feed, clothe and provide healthcare to the poor. This is one of the most useless metrics of determining the living standard of a nation ever devised by the politicians to distract people from what really ails them.
> 
> I really don't understand why the middle class thinks that the rich playing around with money is something that they need to care about. You're not getting anything from that giant pie they play around in


Middle class people invest in stocks...


----------



## CamillePunk

njcam said:


> View attachment 81566


Why is a debunked Facebook meme from 2015 making an appearance in the current year of our Lord Donald J Trump?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Reaper said:


> Stock Market gains don't feed, clothe and provide healthcare to the poor. This is one of the most useless metrics of determining the living standard of a nation ever devised by the politicians to distract people from what really ails them.
> 
> I really don't understand why the middle class thinks that the rich playing around with money is something that they need to care about. You're not getting anything from that giant pie they play around in.
> 
> It's like watching a bunch of kids steal everyone's toys and then sitting there applauding them while you have no toys of your own.
> 
> There are only 2 metrics you should care about as a person of low wealth: HDI and Standard of Living. The rest - especially economy related metris - are complete and utter bollocks. Even when you're looking at Standard of Living, with the States you have to look at specific states where the worst standards of living exists in states that tend to vote republican.
> 
> Lowest Standard of living states in the US:
> 
> Georgia, New Mexico, Lousiana, SC, OK, TN, WV, Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 U.S. States with the Worst Standard of Living - Wonderslist
> 
> 
> A list of 10 U.S. states with the worst standard of living. The United States is considered one of the world’s most happening places, and people from around the globe want to be here. It has a prosperous economy. But, even with a GDP higher than any other country in the world, the US has not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wonderslist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their politicians are sucking their constituents and everyone else dry while those people live in some of the worst conditions in the world - and not just north America.


I think you are inferring a lot here. I never said anything about standard of living. I said it was a great market year. As someone who invested a lot this year I'm happy about that.


----------



## njcam




----------



## CamillePunk

@MrMister Donald J Trump has not been impeached. Change the title back please (idk/c if you were the one who changed it or not) as it is currently nonfactual.


----------



## DesolationRow

Was once one of the most powerful "lawmen" in the U.S.

Speaks volumes about the society in which this would ever be the case.


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> @MrMister Donald J Trump has not been impeached. Change the title back please (idk/c if you were the one who changed it or not) as it is currently nonfactual.


I haven't paid attention. How was he not impeached?


----------



## CamillePunk

MrMister said:


> I haven't paid attention. How was he not impeached?


https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats



> *Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate*
> According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote.
> By
> Noah Feldman
> December 19, 2019, 1:35 PM PST
> 
> Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment? Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?
> 
> The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.
> 
> But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.
> 
> If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.
> 
> That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.
> 
> As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement. So far, the House has voted _to impeach _(future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message.
> 
> Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented. Failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would deviate from the Constitution’s clear expectation.
> 
> For the House to vote “to impeach” without ever sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial would also deviate from the constitutional protocol. It would mean that the president had not genuinely been impeached under the Constitution; and it would also deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides.
> 
> The relevant constitutional provisions are brief. Article I gives the House “the sole power of impeachment.” And it gives the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article II says that the president “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
> 
> Putting these three different provisions together yields the conclusion that the only way to remove the president while he is in office is if the House impeaches him and the Senate tries and convicts him.
> 
> The provisions say nothing about timing. Taken literally, they don’t directly say that articles of impeachment passed by the House must be sent to the Senate. But the framers’ definition of impeachment assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote.
> 
> The framers drafted the constitutional provisions against the backdrop of impeachment as it had been practiced in England, where the House of Commons impeached and the House of Lords tried the impeachments. The whole _point_ of impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought against the accused in the House of Lords.
> 
> Strictly speaking, “impeachment” occurred – and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.
> 
> What would make that trial fair is a separate question, one that deserves its own discussion. But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means.
> 
> If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment.
> 
> A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to defend himself before the Senate. That’s built into the constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.
> 
> To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there can be no trial there. That’s what the “sole power to impeach” means.
> 
> But if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong justification that he was never actually impeached. And that’s probably not the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send.


Noah Feldman's legal expertise has already been validated by the Democrats as they used him as a witness in the impeachment hearings.


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats
> 
> Noah Feldman's legal expertise has already been validated by the Democrats as they used him as a witness in the impeachment hearings.


hahaha

Dems cannot do anything right. Or maybe they intentionally do everything wrong because that's their brand.


----------



## virus21

MrMister said:


> hahaha
> 
> Dems cannot do anything right. Or maybe they intentionally do everything wrong because that's their brand.


Didn't Trump say, "Put me on the stand"? Maybe the Dems are afraid that he might say something that might undermind them.


----------



## deepelemblues

The president isn't impeached until he's double super impeached, apparently

Meanwhile, Cocaine Mitch is slangin more lifetime federal district and circuit court judges than he is keys of yayo


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Didn't Trump say, "Put me on the stand"? Maybe the Dems are afraid that he might say something that might undermind them.


Lol. As if you need Trump to destroy that shitty party that they're not capable of doing to themselves


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Lol. As if you need Trump to destroy that shitty party that they're not capable of doing to themselves


Fair enough, but after all the talk they've been doing for 3 years, they seemed to be dragging their asses on it. Granted, that fact that this is just smoke and mirrors might be another reason


----------



## njcam




----------



## virus21

U.S. President Donald Trump signed a measure that extends federal grant programs aimed at preserving Indigenous languages and expands eligibility so more tribes can participate.
The president's signature came Friday, after the measure cleared the U.S. House with bipartisan support. Senate approval came earlier this year.
The legislation was named after Esther Martinez, a traditional storyteller and Tewa language advocate from New Mexico's Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo. She died in 2006.
Her family, tribal leaders and members of New Mexico's congressional delegation say re-authorization of the programs through 2024 marks a commitment by the federal government to keep Alaska Native and American Indigenous languages alive.

United Nations declares International Decade of Indigenous Languages
Trump order creates task force on missing and murdered Native Americans
Dozens of tribes and other groups from Alaska to Hawaii, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana and Massachusetts have benefited from the programs over the years. Currently, there are over 40 active grants totalling more than $11 million U.S., that are being used for language preservation and immersion efforts.
Martinez's own Pueblo was awarded a grant earlier this year after seeing a decline in fluent Tewa speakers and the increase of English as the primary language in the homes of tribal members.









This Aug. 1990, file photo shows Esther Martinez at age 78 in San Juan Pueblo, now Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, New Mexico. (Dean Hanson/The Albuquerque Journal via The Associated Press)
U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland, a New Mexico Democrat and Laguna Pueblo member who co-chairs the Congressional Native American Caucus, said programs that support language preservation are often underfunded.
"Now that our bill honouring the legacy of Pueblo storyteller and self-taught linguist Esther Martinez is signed into law, we will move forward on important work to revitalize our languages and traditions," Haaland said.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/trump-measure-protect-indigenous-languages-1.5407509


----------



## Reaper

njcam said:


> View attachment 81611


Here's another one for your friends. 

I'm sure they'll like this too.


----------



## Reaper

Didn't like that one? 

How about this one?


----------



## Reaper

Let's keep this thread going with some views from Trump supporters.


----------



## Mr.Monkey

The democratic plantation is real yall imagine not voting for who you want because the other candidate is the best shot to beat Trump.


----------



## Reaper

"Communist Bitches".

Sounds like CP or Deep. Lol.


----------



## Jay Devito

@Reaper 

Stupid people come in many shapes and sizes, especially on social media. It's not something that's exclusive to Trump voters.

I've yet to see you make any rational arguments of any kind. Almost every post of yours is seeded in hatred for the other side.


----------



## Reaper

One of those was retweeted by Trump. So yah, I guess you're right. Stupid people come in all shapes and sizes.










Here are some more highlights from Trump Supporters



















This is the Trump thread. And this is the real content that it deserves.










This guy is a known Trump Supporter. Oh and I've seen people on this site try to post stuff like this, but just fall short of actually saying this. The hate that Omar gets on here is pretty much the same as the above trash.










Man, the Cultism is fucking real.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Miss Sally

I'd say that picture of Democrats holding up the mexican flag is accurate, they care more about illegals than they do our own citizens.

Got to make money off slave labor and have an influx of new voters who will tow the party line. 

Anyone not aware of this is just purposefully obtuse.

Though Trump has done less than Obama when it comes to dealing with illegals and the cartels.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1212867003213635596

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1212806944378896384
Yikes. Really hoping the "letting people die" part isn't true. This is why you don't go around casually labeling people fascists and Nazis. Gives crazy people license to do evil and think they're doing good.


----------



## FriedTofu

Did this guy just try to start a war with Iran to try to win reelection?


----------



## CamillePunk

There's not going to be a war with Iran. The attack was a justified response and deters further aggression. Too many people being hyperbolic as fuck today. Same crowd who thought Trump's Fire and Fury tweets would lead to nuclear war with North Korea.


----------



## FriedTofu

Pretty sure you would be singing a different tune if another President did what he just did. But because your cult leader did it you have to claim it is a justified cause of action.


----------



## CamillePunk

Nah I celebrated Obama killing Bin Laden as well. This is nothing more egregious than that. Foreign terrorist plots attack against US soil, we kill him. Completely justified. Non-interventionism isn't pacifism.

Meanwhile at the New York Times!~:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1212996980051529728
Trump Derangement Syndrome makes Democrats praise yet another enemy of the US and all peace-loving people.


----------



## FriedTofu

Equating ordering the attack on the top military officer of another country to ordering a strike on a fugitive. How freaking disingenuous can you get to show support to the cult leader? By this logic every country wronged by the American military is justified to carry out attacks on American military leaders too.


----------



## Jaxx

Thread by @yashar: 1. There are unconfirmed reports that Qasem Soleimani commander of Qods Force (Iran's external security agency) has been killed in drone str…


----------



## Reaper

Jaxx said:


> Thread by @yashar: 1. There are unconfirmed reports that Qasem Soleimani commander of Qods Force (Iran's external security agency) has been killed in drone str…


Watch his approval rating rise over the next few weeks because this is how scummy the majority of Americans are. They want these war mongerers in office.

The DNC has already poured in their full support behind him. Their idiot supporters will follow. Republitards and Demorats are both wormongering PoSs. I'd say 80-85% of Americans will be supporting this war by the end of the month. 

Election year. Trump said that Obama will use an escalation with Iran to get himself re-elected. He's doing the same.


----------



## Irish Jet

CamillePunk said:


> Nah I celebrated Obama killing Bin Laden as well. This is nothing more egregious than that. Foreign terrorist plots attack against US soil, we kill him. Completely justified. Non-interventionism isn't pacifism.


You have serious issues my man.


----------



## BruiserKC

Irish Jet said:


> You have serious issues my man.


I agree with that portion of it. Soleimani was someone who was responsible for the death of hundreds of American soldiers and I absolutely shed no tears for his passing. Besides, many saw Trump as a paper tiger after not doing anything following our drone being shot down or the oilfields in Saudi Arabia going up in flames. 

That being said, there is no turning back now. Trump and the government better have a plan and an endgame. Ideally it would be nice if Iran whimpers away but that isn’t happening. There will be retaliation, not a question. We need to be ready.

I think the United States really needs to re-evaluate how they handle international matters. We wildly fluctuate between total isolationism and reactive intervention. Bush 43 originally intended to be a somewhat isolationist President where we wouldn’t get involved everywhere. 9/11 changed things. Ideally we should have left Iraq alone and Afghanistan should have been just long enough to get Bin Laden and topple the Taliban. But some response was warranted.

Trump better be ready.


----------



## Reaper

Why do I even bother. /out


----------



## Stinger Fan

FriedTofu said:


> Pretty sure you would be singing a different tune if another President did what he just did. But because your cult leader did it you have to claim it is a justified cause of action.


So would Democrats had Obama done the same thing. We see them completely ignored everything Obama did when it came to killing people. Pointing out hypocrisy in voters will be a giant waste of time.


----------



## GothicBohemian

Well, this new Iran crisis is right mess that was totally avoidable. I suppose Republicans hope to use whatever happens to change the news narrative, and I suspect they're right that it will. 

American politics never change much; the only difference now is the current administration openly encourages and reflects all the worst aspects of said society whereas such previously stayed discouraged or, at least, buried under the good bits. That's not a change for the better, but it was inevitable. 

I feel like I have a front row seat for the fall of an empire - it's like living all those history courses I loved only this isn't fun. Not at all.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Seeing how much the USA has armed and funded terrorists over the years, perhaps Trump should turn the drone strikes on himself.

Soleimani was not some rinky-dink terrorist leader holed up in a cave somewhere. He was the equivalent of the Secretary of Defense, State, CIA Director, and VP rolled into one. There's a reason why he wasn't assassinated years ago. His assassination could lead to thousands or tens of thousands of deaths in the Middle East.

Funny how "anti-interventionists" on the right are throwing out their supposed beliefs in support of their dear leader as he commits one of the highest escalations of conflict in the Middle East in years. But, but, but... Soleimani's a terrorist! But, but, but... Saddam Hussein has WMD's! Ya'll motherfuckers are falling for the same bullshit that has kept us in the Middle East for decades. Acting like this won't lead to another drawn out conflict costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives is naive as fuck.

I'm sure the oil barons and weapon's manufacturers are having a field day with this news.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1213063708043366400


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1212867003213635596
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1212806944378896384
> Yikes. Really hoping the "letting people die" part isn't true. This is why you don't go around casually labeling people fascists and Nazis. Gives crazy people license to do evil and think they're doing good.


Evil deeds in the name of justice is as old as time.

The sad part is that these fools think they're different from the people they hate, when in more likelihood they're as evil if not more.

The feeling of self-righteousness is all they need to pass judgement. 

These people actually think they're good, that's what makes them incredibly dangerous.



GothicBohemian said:


> Well, this new Iran crisis is right mess that was totally avoidable. I suppose Republicans hope to use whatever happens to change the news narrative, and I suspect they're right that it will.
> 
> American politics never change much; the only difference now is the current administration openly encourages and reflects all the worst aspects of said society whereas such previously stayed discouraged or, at least, buried under the good bits. That's not a change for the better, but it was inevitable.
> 
> I feel like I have a front row seat for the fall of an empire - it's like living all those history courses I loved only this isn't fun. Not at all.


Did you forget about Libya? Because that's all on the previous Administration, as well as increased ISIS problems and the start of Syria. Before that was the Iraq/Afghan wars. Obama okayed a covert attack on foreign soil to get Osama and increased drone strikes and support on attacking Yemen.

I mean seriously, how are these things forgotten?


----------



## Stephen90

Great another pointless war. Trump proving to be another corporate cuck.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> Great another pointless war. Trump proving to be another corporate cuck.


It's like a Presidential tradition to start a new war. 

The MSM spin will actually be in favor of an Iran war because it benefits Israel OuR GreAtEsT aLLy


----------



## Reaper

The blood thirst is real. 

Seeing it all over now. 

The useful idiots who never heard the name Suleimani are already brainwashed to believe that he's someone Americans should have always feared. No one even knew this man existed till today except the US war mongerers. 

It's like listening to people claim that Chemotherapy is Cancer. Like Vaccines cause Autism. Like the earth is flat. 

Only more dangerous.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> The blood thirst is real.
> 
> Seeing it all over now.
> 
> The useful idiots who never heard the name Suleimani are already brainwashed to believe that he's someone Americans should have always feared. No one even knew this man existed till today except the US war mongerers.
> 
> It's like listening to people claim that Chemotherapy is Cancer. Like Vaccines cause Autism. Like the earth is flat.
> 
> Only more dangerous.


At a partners relatives house and they had fox on, they had some talking head who literally actually said this was the person on earth with the most blood on his hands. This person no one has heard of, who was responsible for an embassy bombing 4 decades ago.....

I loled and got a filthy look.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

I don't know anything about this. However, I'd love to hear everyone try to describe it and the stories vary vastly based on which side of the aisle you lean.


----------



## 2 Ton 21




----------



## FriedTofu

Undertaker23RKO said:


> I don't know anything about this. However, I'd love to hear everyone try to describe it and the stories vary vastly based on which side of the aisle you lean.


Sycophants everywhere.


----------



## CamillePunk

So the official position of the woke left on here is that Soleiman wasn't a terrorist? Good luck with that! I've thrown out none of my beliefs. Responding to a direct attack on your country isn't an intervention or the initiation of a war. Then again, at this very moment Iran is readying plans to...send a strongly worded letter to the UN, so maybe I'm wrong and y'all are right. This would be a change on here, but anything is possible!

More likely we'll be speaking no more of Iran a few months from now than we were up until this last week. I doubt many of you will be circling back to cringe at all the "omg this is world war 3" talk that is spurring on your hot takes, but don't worry, I'll be sure to do it for you!


----------



## deepelemblues

More drone strikes on Iranian puppet terrorist army leaders in Iraq today

Yesterday:

- Second most powerful man in Iran, biggest terrorist in the world Qassem Soleimani: dead

- Deputy leader of PMF/PMU Popular Mobilization Forces/Popular Mobilization Units (Iranian puppet terrorist armies' in Iraq umbrella group), also leader of Kataib al Hezbollah terrorist army, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis: dead

- PMF/PMU's "head of protocol" Mohammad Reda al-Jabri: dead

- Number 2 of Lebanese Hezbollah Naem Qasm: dead

- Rumors that Qais al-Khazali and Hadi al-Ameri, head of 2 more of the biggest PMF/PMU Iranian puppet terrorist armies were arrested

Today

- 6 dead, 3 injured in drone strike near Camp Taji targeting more PMF/PMU leaders, including Shbl al-Zaidi, commander of Kataib Imam Ali terrorist army

- Reports of a drone strike in Nineveh province as well, no details

People objecting are ignorant as fuck these are all blood-soaked pieces of shit who are responsible for the deliberate murder of hundreds of thousands of people, pieces of shit who would either participate or watch and smile as gays, Jews, and each and any of all us were tortured to death. These are the pieces of shit who sent out the death squads that killed dozens of Sunnis every night in Baghdad and across Iraq a decade ago. These are the pieces of shit who raped Mosul and most of northern Iraq when it was retaken from ISIS. These are the pieces of shit who have sent weapons, money, other supplies and men to help Assad's side commit thousands of war crimes in Syria. These are the pieces of shit who killed hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq

Donald going Michael Corleone taking out the heads of the other Families at once goddamn. Fuck em all the world is a much better place with em blown to bits and hopefully more coming


----------



## Art Vandaley

deepelemblues said:


> If the United States goes to war, it should be with the aim of decimating its foes with such force that the trembling, brutalized remnants submit for fear of the alternative being total annihilation. Total war or no war. This half-assed shit that's been sucking blood and treasure for the better part of 3 generations with results few and far between can fuck right off :Out


Nail on head Deep.

Wait....

Sorry just realised this was a post from before your dear leader did the very thing you were against not after!



> biggest terrorist in the world Qassem Soleiman


Was he really?

The biggest?

Bigger than the leaders of Hamas? Jemiah Islamiah?









Who is Qassim Soleimani, the shadowy leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds force?


The elusive Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force, was reportedly killed in a U.S. led airstrike at Baghdad International Airport Friday.




www.foxnews.com





Even the fox article justifying it can only really point to him being a middle manager re other terrorist groups and being responsible for 608 american soldier deaths in Iraq.

Not a good dude, but hardly the worlds biggest terrorist.


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> Nail on head Deep.


That's what's happening right now








> Was he really?
> 
> The biggest?
> 
> Bigger than the leaders of Hamas? Jemiah Islamiah?


Of course the man in charge of supplying most of the weapons and money to Hamas is bigger than Hamas

He did the same thing for Lebanese Hezbollah and all the Iraqi Shiite terrorist armies, and for the Houthis, and for Assad...

Jemiaah Islamiyah is nothing compared to this man



> Even the fox article justifying it can only really point to him being a middle manager re other terrorist groups and being responsible for 608 american soldier deaths in Iraq.
> 
> Not a good dude, but hardly the worlds biggest terrorist.


rofl









The Shadow Commander


Dexter Filkins’s 2013 Profile of Qassem Suleimani, whom a former C.I.A. officer called “the single most powerful operative in the Middle East.”




www.newyorker.com







> Sorry just realised this was a post from before your dear leader did the very thing you were against not after!


The United States hasn't killed this many big terrorists in such a short amount of time since the first year after 9/11

First al-Baghdadi and a bunch of his best Sunni ISIS bros in 2019

Now literally 5-6 of the 20 biggest Shiite terrorists in the world have been blown the fuck up in the last 24 hours

That meets my standard of not half-assing it

The real reason for all this butthurt is we all just got a serious reminder of what the United States is capable of


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1213241155661565953



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1213196940411908098
World War 3! Dangerous escalation! The neocons have won! 

If Trump wasn't president we'd either be at war with Russia (Hillary's stated policy was going to be shooting down Russian planes, this isn't debatable) OR be in the midst of invading Iran (standard neocon policy). Instead we're bombing high level terrorist leaders. Which we've been doing for at least 20 years, but now because one of them works for the Iranian government and people will criticize Trump for literally anything they can think of it's suddenly a huge escalation in US foreign policy and the beginning of the apocalypse. Give me a fucking break, Trump remains the best option we had in 2016.

Hopefully the next president will withdraw from the region altogether and adopt a staunch non-interventionist foreign policy, but given that the military-industrial complex has more power than any one person or branch of government, I doubt it very much!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1213274215433945088


----------



## Art Vandaley

The guy was a high ranking military official in the Iranian Army, not a fly by night terrorist holed up in a cave.

While I think talk of WW3 is a bit silly, its more likely to escalate and become a drawn out low level conflict (as opposed to open war) than not.

Iran will retaliate, simply because of internal political pressures they can't not.

The question is what will they do to retaliate. And what the US does to "counter retaliate". This could easily become a tit for tat conflict that'll cost the US taxpayers a stupid amount and prob a fair few lives too.

The US can't really invade as the country is really big, it'd make Iraq and Afganistan look like Korea, and so I don't see it happening and so no WW3.

And Deep vis a vis Iran as a State this is exactly the sort of piecemeal nonsense you've been so critical of. I admire your attempt to spin it as having been against Shiite Islam, but come on, he was a general in a State's professional armed forces, that is an act of war against that State.

Imagine if someone assassinated Petreaus when he was still serving (assuming he's retired) do you think there'd be Americans saying it wasn't an attack against the US but against Christians (assuming he is one)?


----------



## Reaper

This is the IQ and views of your average American so.










like I said yesterday about 80-85% support of this assassination will be manufactured by the end of the month. I was wrong. It took less than a day.

Funny how useful idiots call him the biggest terrorist in the world today after never ever mentioning him before his assassination yesterday. JFC the sheer level of state propaganda cocksuckery is off the charts. ?










For everyone that thinks this is anything more than a means of getting his blood thirsty war mongering base to re-elect him.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> View attachment 81865
> 
> 
> For everyone that thinks this is anything more than a means of getting his blood thirsty war mongering base to re-elect him.


Eh, a lot od people voted for him because they didn't want anymore wars or another Iraq/Libya. He didn't really run a pro-war platform.

If we're talking about bloodthirsty people, perhaps we should talk about the Biden supporters and the Warren ones since they're war hawks.

The only one with any balls to not start wars is Tulsi.

To Trump's credit, before this fiasco, he was trying to pull out of Syria and everyone in Congress was against him anytime he did anything that would stop further US intervention.

If anything his recent actions are favors to the neo-cons/libs and Israel. 

Our Politicians and "Allies" are more blood thirsty than any political base, it's just the American people buy into the terrorist propaganda.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Eh, a lot od people voted for him because they didn't want anymore wars or another Iraq/Libya. He didn't really run a pro-war platform.
> 
> If we're talking about bloodthirsty people, perhaps we should talk about the Biden supporters and the Warren ones since they're war hawks.
> 
> The only one with any balls to not start wars is Tulsi.
> 
> To Trump's credit, before this fiasco, he was trying to pull out of Syria and everyone in Congress was against him anytime he did anything that would stop further US intervention.
> 
> If anything his recent actions are favors to the neo-cons/libs and Israel.
> 
> Our Politicians and "Allies" are more blood thirsty than any political base, it's just the American people buy into the terrorist propaganda.


His republican base (which is his real majority base) is built in with regards to being pro-war. They will support him whether he's pro or against.

The real anti-war base (that's always pacifist) is largely unknown. But a lot of stats consistently show about 45-48% that oppose military action, and about 52 odd that either favor or can favor. If you can create a big enough enemy however (like they did with Osama), this number jumps to 70-80%.










These polls here show that if the media creates a monster, somehow 70+% of Americans believe that that monster is a direct threat to American lives.










From this, you can easily realize that when it comes to active support of "targeted" strikes (which are not really targeted especially considering the number of war crime atrocities are committed once these strikes are ok'd), the majority of US citizens will sit back and watch them happen and do nothing about it to prevent it from happening.

Why do I bring up ISIS here? Because if you can sell an enemy as vicious enough (which is what they're attempting with Iran right now - painting them with the same broad brushes as they painted Taliban and ISIS), this is what happens:










The approval numbers jump to 78%. So it's only a matter of time and how hard and successfully the government can sell a new enemy - which in the case of Iran is working at the moment. This is eerily the same number that approved of both the Afghan and Iraq wars. These are the numbers they are attempting to get with rhetoric like "The greatest terrorist in the world", "Iran is a terrorist regime". Once you label someone a terrorist, the American public sucks it up like a whore sucks the last drop of semen of a dirty cock.

Numbers don't lie. They may be fluid (changing) and while a lot of Americans claim that they're anti-war, the truly pacifist is a minority because at least 70%-85% of the people can be provoked into supporting some form of foreign fuckery by the the military machine.


----------



## Stormbringer

I wish I could find the thread but a guy on twitter made a long chain post about what was gonna happen in the coming days, weeks and months. He simply recited step by step for those who werent around for 9/11 how the media was gonna keep the machine running and show numbers like soldiers lost (thousands) and not Iranian civilians killed (HUNDREDS of thousands) but it'll be ok because....America and patriotism. I'll try to find it later.


----------



## Reaper

Iran is not Iraq with regards to military might. Iran can defend itself. Which is why this is a hit and run to try to provoke Iran and then sell Iran as the monsters when they defend themselves. It will rile up the Americans even more since how dare someone defend themselves and why won't they just lie down and accept the new masters.

America's military is war weary after getting their butts whooped around the world for decades. Iran's military is fresh and ready. In a direct conflict, without Nukes the US will not be able to drone Iran with impunity like they have other smaller and weaker countries. Once the Iranian government decides enough is enough, they will shoot down US planes and drones pretty easily.

Of course, Americans will just sell that as 'iranian terrorism" instead of what it really is. A country protecting and defending its borders from an invading force.


----------



## Stormbringer

For my sake, how does the draft work if you dont want to participate. I know they'll put you in prison, but for how long? And after that, do I lose my right to vote, own a gun and equal employment opportunities?


----------



## Reaper




----------



## CamillePunk

Stormbringer said:


> I wish I could find the thread but a guy on twitter made a long chain post about what was gonna happen in the coming days, weeks and months. He simply recited step by step for those who werent around for 9/11 how the media was gonna keep the machine running and show numbers like soldiers lost (thousands) and not Iranian civilians killed (HUNDREDS of thousands) but it'll be ok because....America and patriotism. I'll try to find it later.


Let's revisit in a week or two and see how accurate it proves to be!


----------



## AlternateDemise

Stormbringer said:


> For my sake, how does the draft work if you dont want to participate. I know they'll put you in prison, but for how long? And after that, do I lose my right to vote, own a gun and equal employment opportunities?


Are you 26 years old or older? If so, you don't have to worry about it.


----------



## Stormbringer

@Reaper; The guy's name is Mike Jollett. Look him up on Twitter, I dont have the ability to copy and paste it all but what he said is really on point. Especially in the history repeats itself sense.

The tweets were posted Jan. 3 2020 at 9:49 am.


----------



## Reaper

Mikel Jollet?


Stormbringer said:


> @Reaper; The guy's name is Mike Jollett. Look him up on Twitter, I dont have the ability to copy and paste it all but what he said is really on point. Especially in the history repeats itself sense.
> 
> The tweets were posted Jan. 3 2020 at 9:49 am.


Mikel Jollet. I'm following him now. Will search for those tweets later, but I have pretty much mostly anti-war leftists on my twitter now. I purged the stink of far right tools a while ago.

I'm also glad that AOC came out strong against the war machine. I was worried that she might become a potential war-hawk (at least the dems tried with her).

The more news you read, the more you'll learn that it's the same pieces of shit that took Americans to war with Iraq. Until this generation is wiped out in its entirety (i'm not advocating violence, but simply suggesting that they all die naturally over the coarse of their natural lives), things won't change.

Of course, we have to fight the remaining gen x and millennial pieces of shit that keep voting war-hawks, and that's where the real fight is now.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Mikel Jollet?
> 
> Mikel Jollet. I'm following him now. Will search for those tweets later, but I have pretty much mostly anti-war leftists on my twitter now. I purged the stink of far right tools a while ago.
> 
> I'm also glad that AOC came out strong against the war machine. I was worried that she might become a potential war-hawk (at least the dems tried with her).
> 
> The more news you read, the more you'll learn that it's the same pieces of shit that took Americans to war with Iraq. Until this generation is wiped out in its entirety (i'm not advocating violence, but simply suggesting that they all die naturally over the coarse of their natural lives), things won't change.
> 
> Of course, we have to fight the remaining gen x and millennial pieces of shit that keep voting war-hawks, and that's where the real fight is now.


Considering how many are Warren supporters and completely oblivious to the tricks of fake progressives and neo-libs.. I'd say that number is high.

I'd also not buy into AOC being anti-war. Anti-War like Tulsi is counter culture, AOC hasn't been the center of attention for a while and she's done and said so many things to grand stand and get her name out there that I'd not trust anything she says. 

Time and again politicians show their true colors, show they're cowards or show they're all talk and show. I'm not sure why people keep falling for political magicians.


----------



## Reaper

They don't even try to hide it anymore.


----------



## BruiserKC

Well, well, well.

Trump has now threatened to strike 52 Iranian sites (some of cultural importance and it could be considered a war crime to deliberately target non-military targets) if Iran continues to carry out future attacks.

An additional 3500 troops from the 82nd Airborne headed for the Middle East.

Rocket attacks in Baghdad and a US military base in Kenya under attack by Iranian-backed terror units.

Trump is now a wartime President. Apparently he and his cult only like foreign adventures when they initiate them.

Unfortunately, while war is a fact of life and I shed no tears in Soleimani being killed (he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of soldiers and civilians), Trump is going to war for the selfish reason of distraction from the impeachment here at home. It’s a wag the dog situation. This is extremely disturbing and I really don’t think he understands what he has unleashed. Not to mention he might not get help from allies who no longer trust us.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## FSL

Trump is not even being original with this shit when Clinton was about to be impeached we attacked the middle east as well.

Trump recipe to win the 2020 election is very simple actually: attack middle east to create a diversion from the impeachment, post on Tweeter showing he has a huge dick and claim he is going to build another wall to keep the Cucarachas out. 
Gets a round of applause from half the American and then he has it in the bag. Being a con man has never been so easy.


----------



## Art Vandaley




----------



## Miss Sally

Yes I'm so sure that officials were taken aback by this attack. Just like I'm sure they were when Obama drone striked constantly, got Osama and destroyed Libya. I'm also sure many were appalled by the Iraq invasion.

Can we stop pretending that these officials aren't in on the whole thing? It's annoying.

Seems like people voted to ensure Hillary wouldn't cause any wars but this isn't looking so good.


----------



## Reaper

They're not even trying to hide it anymore.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## DaRealNugget

Miss Sally said:


> Yes I'm so sure that officials were taken aback by this attack. Just like I'm sure they were when Obama drone striked constantly, got Osama and destroyed Libya. I'm also sure many were appalled by the Iraq invasion.
> 
> Can we stop pretending that these officials aren't in on the whole thing? It's annoying.
> 
> Seems like people voted to ensure Hillary wouldn't cause any wars but this isn't looking so good.


Those warhawks were only flabbergasted because they can't believe they finally found someone dumb enough to fulfill their lifelong dreams of a war with Iran. They probably feel like kids on Christmas morning right about now.



FSL said:


> Trump is not even being original with this shit when Clinton was about to be impeached we attacked the middle east as well.
> 
> Trump recipe to win the 2020 election is very simple actually: attack middle east to create a diversion from the impeachment, post on Tweeter showing he has a huge dick and claim he is going to build another wall to keep the Cucarachas out.
> Gets a round of applause from half the American and then he has it in the bag. Being a con man has never been so easy.


I don't mean to underestimate American stupidity, but I'm not so sure if another war in the Middle East will help his election chances this time around. Bush had 9/11. Americans were bloodthirsty and bought the lie of WMD's hook, line, and sinker. No US president would have lost reelection after that. Soleimani's assassination came largely out of left field and unprovoked. And we've been involved in the Middle East for decades now.

One of the big appeals of Trump last time around was his supposed commitment to ending the endless wars and bringing troops home. Will his rabid base leave him for being a fraud? No. But independents and principled libertarians might. He's already lost ground among independents before this fiasco. So long as Democrats nominate someone who can expose him for the liar and fraud he is, and provide a meaningful contrast between their policies and record, I think this conflict with Iran could end up backfiring on him. Sadly, only one of the top 4 contenders can feasibly do that. Not so sadly, Sanders is leading in New Hampshire and tied for first in Iowa, so there's a good chance he rides the momentum from the first 2-3 states to win the nomination.

But again, this comes with the big caveat of underestimating American stupidity.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

President Trump gave a response to the Iraqi Parliament's non binding resolution to expel U.S. troops from Iraq.

Trump doubles down on striking cultural sites in Iran



> ...Trump cast his response to Parliament’s decision in monetary terms, saying the U.S. expected to be paid for its military investments in Iraq before leaving the country and threatening economic sanctions if the U.S. is not treated properly.
> 
> “We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time.
> 
> We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it,” he told reporters.
> 
> “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame,” he said. “If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq.”
> 
> He added: “We’re not leaving until they pay us back for it.”


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> Yes I'm so sure that officials were taken aback by this attack. Just like I'm sure they were when Obama drone striked constantly, got Osama and destroyed Libya. I'm also sure many were appalled by the Iraq invasion.
> 
> Can we stop pretending that these officials aren't in on the whole thing? It's annoying.
> 
> Seems like people voted to ensure Hillary wouldn't cause any wars but this isn't looking so good.


Lol at people voting to ensure Hillary wouldn't start any wars. They voted to own the libs or the establishment. The preventing war line is just a lie to make themselves feel better or just virtue signalling.


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> Lol at people voting to ensure Hillary wouldn't start any wars. They voted to own the libs or the establishment. The preventing war line is just a lie to make themselves feel better or just virtue signalling.


And many of them ignore the fact that Trump is her good friend and donor.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Lol at people voting to ensure Hillary wouldn't start any wars. They voted to own the libs or the establishment. The preventing war line is just a lie to make themselves feel better or just virtue signalling.


Dunno, I just know that there was bragging about how Hillary got more votes, like 2 million or so. So 2 million more warmongers voted for the Queen warmonger than Trump. That says a lot considering those people think themselves on the right side of history.

It's quite funny when you think about it.

I don't believe there will be a war. All the people in the thread excited for American deaths are going to be sorely disappointed.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> And many of them ignore the fact that Trump is her good friend and donor.


Really not an issue with me. Contrary to popular sentiments online, I don't think Hilary is the devil. You see the cultist memeing trump derangement syndrome, with no sense of irony of what was said about Obama or Hilary over the decade. Trump being friends with Hilary isn't an issue. The issue is these people now have no problem with Trump behaving as what they accused Obama of being and what they project Hilary would have been. So the anti-war vote is just virtue signalling. They just wanted to say FU to the libs and the establishment with Trump.



Miss Sally said:


> Dunno, I just know that there was bragging about how Hillary got more votes, like 2 million or so. So 2 million more warmongers voted for the Queen warmonger than Trump. That says a lot considering those people think themselves on the right side of history.
> 
> It's quite funny when you think about it.
> 
> I don't believe there will be a war. All the people in the thread excited for American deaths are going to be sorely disappointed.


What has Hilary getting more votes got to do with what motivated Trump voters to vote Trump? Why are they warmongers?

Why do cultist believe advocating a no-fly zone = striking down Russian planes = war? But the President literally threatening attacks on another country =/= war? If Hilary said she would retaliate against 52 targets of any country would you be saying haha no war? How much of the kool-aid have you drunk over these past few years?

Why are you parroting meme talking points from the alt right now about people excited about American deaths or everyone else being warmongers? A few years ago you would be ridiculing these dumb shit. It's quite funny and scary when you think about it.


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> Really not an issue with me. Contrary to popular sentiments online, I don't think Hilary is the devil. You see the cultist memeing trump derangement syndrome, with no sense of irony of what was said about Obama or Hilary over the decade. Trump being friends with Hilary isn't an issue. The issue is these people now have no problem with Trump behaving as what they accused Obama of being and what they project Hilary would have been. So the anti-war vote is just virtue signalling. They just wanted to say FU to the libs and the establishment with Trump.


I am no fan of the Clintons, they have proven to be corrupt beyond belief. But I find hilarious that the Trump cultists talk about the friendship between the Bushes and the Obamas in very detrimental terms. Yet they ignore the relationship between the Trump and Clinton families. They attended the wedding of Donald and Melania while Trump sang Mrs. Clinton’s praises for many years as a Senator and as SOS.

No question that Trump being elected was to shake Washington up and send a giant middle finger to the establishment. Well, it looks to be a rather stupid move now as conservatives like me are marginalized. Those Trump didn’t convert he ran out into the political wilderness. The precedents he has set will be used by the next Democratic President. When Republicans howl in protest it will fall on deaf ears because they set the bar.


----------



## BruiserKC

Miss Sally said:


> Dunno, I just know that there was bragging about how Hillary got more votes, like 2 million or so. So 2 million more warmongers voted for the Queen warmonger than Trump. That says a lot considering those people think themselves on the right side of history.
> 
> It's quite funny when you think about it.
> 
> I don't believe there will be a war. All the people in the thread excited for American deaths are going to be sorely disappointed.


Looks like Trump is the warmonger you thought Hillary would be. Threatening non-military installations, demanding repayment from Iraq if they kick our troops out...flailing about like a fish out of water. And you voted for this. We may avoid all out war still but if not we are going it alone. None of our allies will lift a finger to help us, and Iran is aligning with China and Russia.

The funny thing about this is Trump suddenly decided to change tune as the impeachment process hit critical mass and unredacted emails came out that really point to Trump’s threatening Ukraine if they didn’t dig up dirt on Biden (apparently Trump didn’t care until Biden entered the race).

Can’t spin this...Trump is now a wartime President. I will have no excitement if Americans come home from the Middle East on flag-draped coffins. But I will blame him and all his cultist supporters.


----------



## Reaper

Don't think anyone in this thread has defended Hitlery or Obababa for the whataboutisms to start pouring in.

Anyone that's got even half a brain in this world knows that republicans are put into power because they are the monsters who can start wars openly while the democrats are installed into power because they are better at fighting wars secretly hidden from public view as liberals can then feel good about themselves while still soaking in the blood of their brothers and sisters. 

Like is this even debateable at this point? Is there anyone with even a modicum of awareness that doesn't know this?


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> What has Hilary getting more votes got to do with what motivated Trump voters to vote Trump? Why are they warmongers?
> 
> Why do cultist believe advocating a no-fly zone = striking down Russian planes = war? But the President literally threatening attacks on another country =/= war? If Hilary said she would retaliate against 52 targets of any country would you be saying haha no war? How much of the kool-aid have you drunk over these past few years?
> 
> Why are you parroting meme talking points from the alt right now about people excited about American deaths or everyone else being warmongers? A few years ago you would be ridiculing these dumb shit. It's quite funny and scary when you think about it.


Huh? I was pointing out earlier in the thread that many had voted against Hillary because they thought she was going to start a war. (This was likely due to her being a warhawk). Reaper had pointed out that Trump supporters were supporting Trump's aggression and potential warmongering to which I replied that the American people are duped into America's constant aggression because they're fed propaganda. We have no business in the mid east, we shouldn't be fighting Israel's wars. The MSM is shifting because the majority of US Politicians are pro-war.

Why it's important to point out the Hillary votes is because Americans as a whole keep voting for war starting jerks while claiming to be on the right side of history or some such nonsense. That's the entire issue with this fiasco. I don't think the majority of Americans want war, the issue is that they're getting their information from the corrupt MSM as well as Politicians who only say they're anti-war to get their news clip. Americans need to be more informed.

As for my mentioning of American deaths, well it does appear some are eager for it. It's a bit comical. I did have a laugh at your "alt-right" buzzword nonsense. You must not be following the conversation here. Bigger picture. Look for it.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> Looks like Trump is the warmonger you thought Hillary would be. Threatening non-military installations, demanding repayment from Iraq if they kick our troops out...flailing about like a fish out of water. And you voted for this. We may avoid all out war still but if not we are going it alone. None of our allies will lift a finger to help us, and Iran is aligning with China and Russia.
> 
> The funny thing about this is Trump suddenly decided to change tune as the impeachment process hit critical mass and unredacted emails came out that really point to Trump’s threatening Ukraine if they didn’t dig up dirt on Biden (apparently Trump didn’t care until Biden entered the race).
> 
> Can’t spin this...Trump is now a wartime President. I will have no excitement if Americans come home from the Middle East on flag-draped coffins. But I will blame him and all his cultist supporters.


Yup. Americans are screw no matter what side aisle they vote on. Seems to be the American tradition. 

His voters should call him out for starting shit, not supporting it. He said he wouldn't be an interventionist and he got flack for it, yet he gave in and became just like the other previous Presidents. So there's no difference between him and Hillary despite maybe different time tables of aggression. 

Americans need to start voting for what's good for them, not the Politicians.


----------



## Reaper

The American government just responded with saying that Iraq will be hit with sanctions if it doesn't pay for America's illegal occupation in Iraq.

I shit you not. That's literally what they said. So, Americans invade this country, kill thousands, build illegal bases and when asked to leave, demand money for the illegal occupation.

There is no precedent for how horrifying sickening this empire is.

The only reason why the world doesn't stop this country is because they know that Americans are the only people in the world genuinely crazy enough to nuke everyone and destroy the world rather than admit to wrong-doing themselves.


----------



## Jay Devito

Reaper said:


> The American government just responded with saying that Iraq will be hit with sanctions if it doesn't pay for America's illegal occupation in Iraq.
> 
> I shit you not. That's literally what they said. So, Americans invade this country, kill thousands, build illegal bases and when asked to leave, demand money for the illegal occupation.
> 
> There is no precedent for how horrifying sickening this empire is.
> 
> The only reason why the world doesn't stop this country is because they know that* Americans are the only people in the world genuinely crazy enough to nuke everyone and destroy the world *rather than admit to wrong-doing themselves.


The _only_ ones?


----------



## Reaper

List of Countries that have used Nukes to kill innocent people:

1. USA.

Yes. Americans are the only ones. It was the use of the Atom bomb by the US that ignited the nuclear arms race, that ignited the cold war, that ignited American's consistently never-ending propaganda that everyone else wants to use the nukes while being the only ones who actually have a history of having used one on innocent people.


----------



## Alexander_G

FSL said:


> Trump is not even being original with this shit when Clinton was about to be impeached we attacked the middle east as well.
> 
> Trump recipe to win the 2020 election is very simple actually: attack middle east to create a diversion from the impeachment, post on Tweeter showing he has a huge dick and claim he is going to build another wall to keep the Cucarachas out.
> Gets a round of applause from half the American and then he has it in the bag. Being a con man has never been so easy.


I would just like to chime in and say, that when a politician aspiring to become a leader of a nation and people claims that they want to "make their nation great again", the voter should always meditate very carefully what that individual means by "great".

If by "great", the individual means that he desires to bring his nation and people (by also leading by example) back to a productive and innovative state of hard working, moral and honest civilization, that is I would say, quite worthy of being called "great".

But I really shake my head when I always see the signs of a powerful nation calling itself great but doing things quite to the contrary. It is almost like I have seen it many times before, but I realize that's just my particular empathy as an Austrian.

My nation, ladies and gentlemen, as you may know, has a long history of men who claim to have conducted matters of the Germanic volk in order to make its place in Europe something "great", or perhaps, more exactly, _vainglorious_ again, and these buffoons bungled it every time because they could not help but put their unrealistic ideologies at the forefront of practical leadership.

There is a reason why the Kaisserreich had given up on _realpolitik _in 1890, because our once great empire and the family that was leading it at the time could not stomach that they didn't look "great" enough when compared to the rest of the Western continent (even as empires in Western Europe were tanking into debt through their own stupid colonial policies), and even though Bismarck's decades of careful running the ship had spared the Kaiserreich of falling apart much earlier than it could have.

Point being, there is a strong similarity when it is compared to American neoconservative populism. Especially on the right-wing, but also on the left-wing as well. The problem with American liberals today, is that they are actually _*not liberal*_. No, not at all. They long ago (100 years ago, give or take) sacrificed classical liberalism for ideology. Both of the US's Left and Right wings, are just different intensities of ideologically subversive neoconservatism. Controlled by money, corporate interests, and strong religious beliefs.

It's not unreasonable for the rest of the world to have a morose feeling in the pit of the stomach, when you realize that certain leaders today with such strong ideologies have control of thousands of weapons of mass destruction, that can be used by a single order and the push of a button or the hand against a control board. And the more you see how far these leaders are willing to go, the more their pathologies are truly exposed.

I am glad however, that the American people have much more of something that a lot of us in Europe don't, and that's the ability to pick up a rifle and take back their country from unstable administrators. I always wonder when the day is going to come when they actually get up and do it.


----------



## Hangman

Reaper said:


> View attachment 81920
> 
> 
> List of Countries that have used Nukes to kill innocent people:
> 
> 1. USA.
> 
> Yes. Americans are the only ones. It was the use of the Atom bomb by the US that ignited the nuclear arms race, that ignited the cold war, that ignited American's consistently never-ending propaganda that everyone else wants to use the nukes while being the only ones who actually have a history of having used one on innocent people.


Whilst I agree with everything you said Reaper I disagree with the last sentence. The bomb wasn't used on innocent people. They were at war.


----------



## Alexander_G

Hangman said:


> Whilst I agree with everything you said Reaper I disagree with the last sentence. The bomb wasn't used on innocent people. They were at war.


Japan was going to surrender, MacArthur stated this himself, but D.C. went along with nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyway.


----------



## Reaper

Hangman said:


> Whilst I agree with everything you said Reaper I disagree with the last sentence. The bomb wasn't used on innocent people. They were at war.


Being at war doesn't strip away the innocence of people who had nothing to do with any of it. If Germans killing innocents was rightfully viewed as war crimes, then why did the allied forces give themselves the right to murder innocents en masse and then get to call it a "winning strategy". Where was the moral higher ground? It wasn't. And there still isn't. 

Isn't that the greatest paranoid fear of Americans? To have innocent civilians murdered by barbaric outsiders.

But then at the same time, when was the last time Americans held their own government to this standard of not butchering innocents in other countries and brainwashing everyone else to consider them sub-human, or simply "collateral damage".


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Alkomesh2 said:


> View attachment 81892


Yeah, NYT has the scoop. LOL


----------



## Reaper

Claiming we're at war and justifying the murder of Innocents is something I constantly heard from Taliban. Constantly. And at this point Trump has openly outed the US as the Terrorist State -- though him making these claims doesn't change the decades of war mongering and murdering of innocents around the world. It simply allows the fucking liberals to hide behind a Republican president for the time being. Soon as they come back in power, it'll be business as usual with their secret wars like Carter, Clinton and Obama.


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> I am no fan of the Clintons, they have proven to be corrupt beyond belief. But I find hilarious that the Trump cultists talk about the friendship between the Bushes and the Obamas in very detrimental terms. Yet they ignore the relationship between the Trump and Clinton families. They attended the wedding of Donald and Melania while Trump sang Mrs. Clinton’s praises for many years as a Senator and as SOS.
> 
> No question that Trump being elected was to shake Washington up and send a giant middle finger to the establishment. Well, it looks to be a rather stupid move now as conservatives like me are marginalized. Those Trump didn’t convert he ran out into the political wilderness. The precedents he has set will be used by the next Democratic President. When Republicans howl in protest it will fall on deaf ears because they set the bar.


They can be friends but still have differences in opinions or values. The thing I hated about him was he totally threw her and her family under the bus to score political points.

Conservatives like you help voted him in. No love lost over here from someone not in America. Conservative voters drove more and more of the more rational people out of office since Bush Jr years. Trump is not the start, he was the result of decades of 'conservative' voters preference.




Miss Sally said:


> Huh? I was pointing out earlier in the thread that many had voted against Hillary because they thought she was going to start a war. (This was likely due to her being a warhawk). Reaper had pointed out that Trump supporters were supporting Trump's aggression and potential warmongering to which I replied that the American people are duped into America's constant aggression because they're fed propaganda. We have no business in the mid east, we shouldn't be fighting Israel's wars. The MSM is shifting because the majority of US Politicians are pro-war.
> 
> Why it's important to point out the Hillary votes is because Americans as a whole keep voting for war starting jerks while claiming to be on the right side of history or some such nonsense. That's the entire issue with this fiasco. I don't think the majority of Americans want war, the issue is that they're getting their information from the corrupt MSM as well as Politicians who only say they're anti-war to get their news clip. Americans need to be more informed.
> 
> As for my mentioning of American deaths, well it does appear some are eager for it. It's a bit comical. I did have a laugh at your "alt-right" buzzword nonsense. You must not be following the conversation here. Bigger picture. Look for it.


Projecting Hilary as a warhawk butTrump being a chickenhawk raised no red flags during the elections for these people? Oh boo hoo they were duped because they were fed propaganda. They knew what they voted for. Leave the playing the victim act elsewhere.

You in fact do have business in the mid east. Billions, even trillions worth of business. Who is going to buy weapons from your manufacturers if you don't threaten a war?

Blaming the position of the cult members on MSM is disingenuous. They are just as two-faced when saying they are anti-war as the politicians you claim are saying it to get news clip. Do they not quote internet clickbaits 'journalists' as a source too? How many of your alt-right media sources are supporting aggression towards Iran but still hide behind retaining their 'values' of anti-war because it wouldn't lead to a war.

Cannot believe you just tried to pin Trump being a chickenhawk on Hilary. And trying to tell me to look at the bigger picture.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Projecting Hilary as a warhawk butTrump being a chickenhawk raised no red flags during the elections for these people? Oh boo hoo they were duped because they were fed propaganda. They knew what they voted for. Leave the playing the victim act elsewhere.
> 
> You in fact do have business in the mid east. Billions, even trillions worth of business. Who is going to buy weapons from your manufacturers if you don't threaten a war?
> 
> Blaming the position of the cult members on MSM is disingenuous. They are just as two-faced when saying they are anti-war as the politicians you claim are saying it to get news clip. Do they not quote internet clickbaits 'journalists' as a source too? How many of your alt-right media sources are supporting aggression towards Iran but still hide behind retaining their 'values' of anti-war because it wouldn't lead to a war.
> 
> Cannot believe you just tried to pin Trump being a chickenhawk on Hilary. And trying to tell me to look at the bigger picture.


You're not American, you're not fully aware of how the Political system works nor the propaganda machine, before 2016 CNN was considered trustworthy which they were not. 

Trump tweeted and spoke out against Obama's military aggression, people took that as a sign he would be less likely to keep up the US war machine going in the mid east and ease tensions with Russia and in the Mid East. People were duped, just like people who believed in Obama were duped into thinking hope and change would come. We have to remember that for both Trump and Obama there was no real track record that anything would change, it was just a perceived change because both were a bit different from the norm. Obama being a younger black politician and Trump being a businessman. They were supposed to be different from the average politician.

The MSM controls all, it's just how it is. People go along with whatever the narrative is being spouted because that's how people are. It's why both sides of the isle have voted for warhawks. There are just too many people influencing your average voter and conning them into thinking we need to do all this. It's why I said people need to vote for what's good for them, not the politicians. 

I never blamed Hillary for what Trump's doing, only showed that no matter who was voted in, that the same warmongering would continue and that people who voted Hillary, thinking they were on the right side of history etc would have been duped. It's two sides to the same coin. 

I'm not alt right so I don't know why you keep bringing up this stuff. You need to calm down because you're coming off not so great. The bigger picture is there, people just tend not to look and see the game is stacked in favor of the elitist warmongers that have their hands in everything.


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> They can be friends but still have differences in opinions or values. The thing I hated about him was he totally threw her and her family under the bus to score political points.
> 
> Conservatives like you help voted him in. No love lost over here from someone not in America. Conservative voters drove more and more of the more rational people out of office since Bush Jr years. Trump is not the start, he was the result of decades of 'conservative' voters preference.


I didn’t vote for him. I knew who he was from the beginning. There are quite a number of conservatives who weren’t fooled. Those that were are part of why I left the Republican Party after the Dubya years. They will disavow Trump eventually, denying him like Peter denied Jesus before the cock crowed. I will make sure to remind them though. 
Trump cultists are not conservative, just like Trump himself is not a conservative. At best he is a populist which is incompatible with conservatism. The Republican Party is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility, small government or family values. 

I do hope the GOP dies and can be replaced by a real Conservative party that will not be fooled by a NYC con man.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> You're not American, you're not fully aware of how the Political system works nor the propaganda machine, before 2016 CNN was considered trustworthy which they were not.
> 
> Trump tweeted and spoke out against Obama's military aggression, people took that as a sign he would be less likely to keep up the US war machine going in the mid east and ease tensions with Russia and in the Mid East. People were duped, just like people who believed in Obama were duped into thinking hope and change would come. We have to remember that for both Trump and Obama there was no real track record that anything would change, it was just a perceived change because both were a bit different from the norm. Obama being a younger black politician and Trump being a businessman. They were supposed to be different from the average politician.
> 
> The MSM controls all, it's just how it is. People go along with whatever the narrative is being spouted because that's how people are. It's why both sides of the isle have voted for warhawks. There are just too many people influencing your average voter and conning them into thinking we need to do all this. It's why I said people need to vote for what's good for them, not the politicians.
> 
> I never blamed Hillary for what Trump's doing, only showed that no matter who was voted in, that the same warmongering would continue and that people who voted Hillary, thinking they were on the right side of history etc would have been duped. It's two sides to the same coin.
> 
> I'm not alt right so I don't know why you keep bringing up this stuff. You need to calm down because you're coming off not so great. The bigger picture is there, people just tend not to look and see the game is stacked in favor of the elitist warmongers that have their hands in everything.


Judging by your posts, you don't even believe Americans are aware of how the political system work over there.  

The President also spoke out a lot about Obama not being American by birth. The President also tweeted Obama would start a war with Iran if his poll numbers drop. Are you cherry-picking what he said in the past to support a narrative? The President's opinions on wars and retribution was clear for all to see from the beginning of the 2016 elections. It is his voters that choose to interpret it as being anti-war to stick it to the establishment.

Blaming most of the ills on MSM is just attempting to absolving blame on any actions. You literally tried to deflect the blame on the current fiasco from the President by bringing up Hilary again. Like if Democrats ran someone else, we wouldn't be having this tension stroking administration.

Where do you get your non-MSM news from? Because the points you are using are very similar to the ones alt-right media consumers love to use. Claiming to not be alt-right but still using many of their talking points seems like a big cop-out.






BruiserKC said:


> I didn’t vote for him. I knew who he was from the beginning. There are quite a number of conservatives who weren’t fooled. Those that were are part of why I left the Republican Party after the Dubya years. They will disavow Trump eventually, denying him like Peter denied Jesus before the cock crowed. I will make sure to remind them though.
> Trump cultists are not conservative, just like Trump himself is not a conservative. At best he is a populist which is incompatible with conservatism. The Republican Party is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility, small government or family values.
> 
> I do hope the GOP dies and can be replaced by a real Conservative party that will not be fooled by a NYC con man.


Did you not vote for him because he was a vile human being or you did not support his positions? Because I read a lot during that time many conservatives just hated the messenger but actually preferred his positions.

Too bad the internet retains everything and everyone is using it now compared to just merely two decades ago. We have receipts on who supported this President and his actions. Funny thing about fiscal responsibility under the current administration. Not a squeak about ballooning of deficits after huge tax cuts just to prop up GDP figures while constant harping on Obama's that was partly due to recession. I suspect when the results of the even higher leveraging of the future from those tax cuts come to roost, the same talking heads will blame it on the other party all over again.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Judging by your posts, you don't even believe Americans are aware of how the political system work over there.
> 
> The President also spoke out a lot about Obama not being American by birth. The President also tweeted Obama would start a war with Iran if his poll numbers drop. Are you cherry-picking what he said in the past to support a narrative? The President's opinions on wars and retribution was clear for all to see from the beginning of the 2016 elections. It is his voters that choose to interpret it as being anti-war to stick it to the establishment.
> 
> Blaming most of the ills on MSM is just attempting to absolving blame on any actions. You literally tried to deflect the blame on the current fiasco from the President by bringing up Hilary again. Like if Democrats ran someone else, we wouldn't be having this tension stroking administration.
> 
> Where do you get your non-MSM news from? Because the points you are using are very similar to the ones alt-right media consumers love to use. Claiming to not be alt-right but still using many of their talking points seems like a big cop-out.


He made the tweets, it was talked about before he ran. He made several random tweets, many contradicting himself. People figured he'd be the lesser of two evils and as a businessman would be less inclined to start hostilities with Russia and in the Mid East. Many people vote for various reasons, complete generalizations are moronic. As for most Americans, they believe the rhetoric spewed by Politicians. Even in this thread with people who've seen how bad our one party Nation is, they still buy into the words of Politicians despite being burned. 

I'm not absolving cultists or warmongers by any means, I just think most people are duped into believing that US aggression is good, drone strikes are needed and that meddling with the Mid East is for the greater good. If people weren't duped, we'd not have such Politicians running things, belief in Religion or people talking about places where they don't live with any authority. 

My bringing up Hillary was in response to some posts coming off as if war mongering is strictly a "Republican" problem, when Hillary/Obama are responsible for a lot of bloodshed and destruction. The point is that everyone feels they're voting for the right person/cause and that they're on the right side of history. When in reality they're propping up a corrupt system which will never bring about any real change. In my response to Bruiser I mention the like of this. There's no deflection, just pointing out that all paths seem to lead to what we're at now.

I consume information from everywhere, I just check it with many sources and remain skeptical. If everyone is reporting the same stuff, it's usually fairly accurate and more will emerge later. I've made no "alt-right" points, (Again, useless buzzword with no meaning.) Just for you I decided to check Richard Spencer's FB and what do we know, he's against any Iran war. Wow! I guess being anti-war is an "Alt-right" stance now. I guess making observations is "Alt-Right". Reaper was right, what a stupid and utterly pointless label. Everything is labeled "Alt-Right" now, what disingenuous covfefe.


----------



## Yoshimitsu

Donald Trump isn't more or less evil than the rest of the US presidents in history, the only difference is he is honest at being war and blood thirsty. How many years in the last 70 years wasn't involved in a war? How many presidents didn't start the war? How many times was an American found guilty for war crimes or terrorism? You can have The Rock, Kanye West or anybody of you guys as the next presidents and wars will still hapen because it's in your blood. Whenever somebody attacks USA, even if it's revenge or self-defence it's terrorism, whenever USA atracks somebody it's " a good thing for freedom and humanity". Maybe it's a good thing that a lunatic is a president because he is crazy enough to do something in 5 years what other US presidents would do in 20 years so the USA will sooner find their master no matter if it's someone from Iran, China, Russia or North Korea. I'm not that old so I can live the next 40-50 years to see all crashing down. btw they can take Saudi Arabia and Israel to hell with them. Three most evil countries


----------



## Miss Sally

Yoshimitsu said:


> Donald Trump isn't more or less evil than the rest of the US presidents in history, the only difference is he is honest at being war and blood thirsty. How many years in the last 70 years wasn't involved in a war? How many presidents didn't start the war? How many times was an American found guilty for war crimes or terrorism? You can have The Rock, Kanye West or anybody of you guys as the next presidents and wars will still hapen because it's in your blood. Whenever somebody attacks USA, even if it's revenge or self-defence it's terrorism, whenever USA atracks somebody it's " a good thing for freedom and humanity". Maybe it's a good thing that a lunatic is a president because he is crazy enough to do something in 5 years what other US presidents would do in 20 years so the USA will sooner find their master no matter if it's someone from Iran, China, Russia or North Korea. I'm not that old so I can live the next 40-50 years to see all crashing down. btw they can take Saudi Arabia and Israel to hell with them. Three most evil countries



The Iran aggression benefits Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Iran is their biggest foe, so both are wanting the US to be aggressive with them. 

It was only a matter of time before Iran was a target and if not Iran, would be Yemen if they were an actual threat to anyone. 

The US might as well be a vassal state to Israel and Saudi Arabia at this point.


----------



## Yoshimitsu

Miss Sally said:


> The Iran aggression benefits Israel and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Iran is their biggest foe, so both are wanting the US to be aggressive with them.
> 
> It was only a matter of time before Iran was a target and if not Iran, would be Yemen if they were an actual threat to anyone.
> 
> The US might as well be a vassal state to Israel and Saudi Arabia at this point.


USA became Israel's bitch a long time ago. Ironically the biggest supporters in USA are the ones who repeat all the time "God bless America" and are conservative religous people, Christians but still don't get it that they are supporting the zionist politics who are mocking their religion and their God, best example is the zionist media and their mockery of Christianity.
Saudi Arabia is a greedy MoFo like many other countries from that area. Three things are very important and obviously true
1. USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia is the triangle of evil
2. Like you said, it benefits SA and Israel like every other USA/Israel/SA attack in the middle east
3. Iran is the biggest player of all countries from that area, if the triangle of evil can crack that it would be their biggest win


----------



## Jay Devito

If only the radical islamists had all the nukes. The world would be a much safer place then. Gumdrops and rainbows probably.


----------



## DesolationRow

Incoming ineluctable Iranian retaliation as reportedly tens of missiles have been fired at the Al Asad U.S. military base. 

Difficult to see how either side draws down from here with any great alacrity, like turning a mighty ship around on the ocean.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> He made the tweets, it was talked about before he ran. He made several random tweets, many contradicting himself. People figured he'd be the lesser of two evils and as a businessman would be less inclined to start hostilities with Russia and in the Mid East. Many people vote for various reasons, complete generalizations are moronic. As for most Americans, they believe the rhetoric spewed by Politicians. Even in this thread with people who've seen how bad our one party Nation is, they still buy into the words of Politicians despite being burned.
> 
> I'm not absolving cultists or warmongers by any means, I just think most people are duped into believing that US aggression is good, drone strikes are needed and that meddling with the Mid East is for the greater good. If people weren't duped, we'd not have such Politicians running things, belief in Religion or people talking about places where they don't live with any authority.
> 
> My bringing up Hillary was in response to some posts coming off as if war mongering is strictly a "Republican" problem, when Hillary/Obama are responsible for a lot of bloodshed and destruction. The point is that everyone feels they're voting for the right person/cause and that they're on the right side of history. When in reality they're propping up a corrupt system which will never bring about any real change. In my response to Bruiser I mention the like of this. There's no deflection, just pointing out that all paths seem to lead to what we're at now.
> 
> I consume information from everywhere, I just check it with many sources and remain skeptical. If everyone is reporting the same stuff, it's usually fairly accurate and more will emerge later. I've made no "alt-right" points, (Again, useless buzzword with no meaning.) Just for you I decided to check Richard Spencer's FB and what do we know, he's against any Iran war. Wow! I guess being anti-war is an "Alt-right" stance now. I guess making observations is "Alt-Right". Reaper was right, what a stupid and utterly pointless label. Everything is labeled "Alt-Right" now, what disingenuous covfefe.


Why would a businessman be less inclined to start hostilities when starting hostilities is the way to make money? Ironic you are pointing the fingers at most Americans buying rhetoric spewed yet you can't see how you are doing the same thing. Lesser of two evils was and still is the rhetoric to make themselves feel better about the choice about why they picked him.

The alt-right freaking talking point is that the President isn't to be blamed for doing anything because everyone else is misleading him. The current Iran situation is just the latest situation they had to find excuses for him. They tried justifying the attack by pinning every buzzword of terrorist activities to the guy they killed. Then they tried deflecting by saying everyone else is the warmonger. The next step would be you being brainwashed into thinking the President had no choice. Did you buy into the last bit yet or does the kool-aid need time to chill being being consumed?


----------



## DesolationRow

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has taken full credit for the attack of rockets on the Al-Asad Airbase where U.S. troops are stationed. Qasem Soleimani was the chief of the Foreign Operations Wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. Doubtless a considerable degree of emotion involved here for the Iranian military. 

Iraqi security forces are based at the Al-Asad Airbase, too.

The Iranian government is claiming that more attacks on U.S. military targets may be forthcoming.


----------



## BruiserKC

ABC and CNN reporting ballistic missiles are striking Ain Assad Base in western Iraq. 



FriedTofu said:


> Did you not vote for him because he was a vile human being or you did not support his positions? Because I read a lot during that time many conservatives just hated the messenger but actually preferred his positions.
> 
> Too bad the internet retains everything and everyone is using it now compared to just merely two decades ago. We have receipts on who supported this President and his actions. Funny thing about fiscal responsibility under the current administration. Not a squeak about ballooning of deficits after huge tax cuts just to prop up GDP figures while constant harping on Obama's that was partly due to recession. I suspect when the results of the even higher leveraging of the future from those tax cuts come to roost, the same talking heads will blame it on the other party all over again.


I knew he didn’t believe in the concept of small government and fiscal responsibility but I was willing to give him a chance. However when he signed the first two budgets that did nothing to reduce spending (the second one he ran across the aisle to cut a deal with Schumer and Pelosi undercutting the Republican leadership) I knew that it would be the same old story. While they have been pushing judges (even though a substantial number of them are not qualified), the majority of his promises have been broken. No new wall, Obamacare still around, troops still in the Middle East, etc. He had two years to get things done when the Republicans ran everything and pissed it away. He has also attacked the 1st and 2nd Amendments with SESTA/FOSTA and the bump stock ban respectively.

As for Iran, the Soleimani exercise was the right thing to do for the wrong reasons. Trump has backed himself into a corner. Backing off now makes him look weak and I think Iran knows this. There is a chunk of his base that aren’t happy with the potential war but many of them will support him. And the US runs a serious risk of going it alone.

There is blame to go around. The Democrats screamed for impeachment from day one before he even did anything. The Republicans are now hell bent on backing him as they won’t admit they made a mistake. The media gave Obama a pass for eight years and made mountains out of every molehill Trump did. It reached the point to now that he has done something that violates the Constitution a lot of people shrug their shoulders. This isn’t good people on both sides...both sides totally suck.


----------



## BruiserKC

DesolationRow said:


> Incoming ineluctable Iranian retaliation as reportedly tens of missiles have been fired at the Al Asad U.S. military base.
> 
> Difficult to see how either side draws down from here with any great alacrity, like turning a mighty ship around on the ocean.


The USAF has deployed 6 B-52 bombers to Diego Garcia Island which is 2300 miles south of Iran’s southernmost tip. They can carry a huge cache of bombs and cruise missiles.


----------



## DesolationRow

BruiserKC said:


> The USAF has deployed 6 B-52 bombers to Diego Garcia Island which is 2300 miles south of Iran’s southernmost tip. They can carry a huge cache of bombs and cruise missiles.


Indeed. 

Meanwhile, a strong expose from the New Yorker on the insidious force that is Jared Kushner in his father-in-law's White House: Who Is Jared Kushner?



> *Who Is Jared Kushner?*
> *The Kushner family history—from lying on immigration forms to becoming major Democratic donors—often seems at odds with the initiatives Jared supports in his father-in-law’s Administration.*
> By Andrea Bernstein
> January 6, 2020





> Trump hired Chris Christie, who scrutinized applicants for Administration positions... A few weeks later, Jared saw to it that Christie was fired. The thirty binders were tossed into the dumpsters ...


Remarkable. Not altogether shocking but nevertheless remarkable.


----------



## DesolationRow

Looking at the latest reports this looks similar to the U.S.'s strike on the Syrian airbase, more an act of symbolism, and a warning against further provocations. With evidently zero U.S. casualties Donald Trump has the ability to let the dust literally settle without further direct action. 

Unfortunately, the multiple players and their interests make it difficult for the U.S. to simply wholly disengage. The predictable result of the Iraq War was perhaps chiefly that Iran would become tremendously influential throughout Iraq an find a host of followers within Iraq to provide Tehran with considerable support. The religious and ethnic consanguinity superseded less potent considerations, and the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime ensured the flourishing of a Shiite superstate emanating from hawzahs most particularly out of Najaf and ringing outward. Neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Arab Gulf states can abide any further strengthening of the Iranian regime. So while Trump may have a reasonably clear path by which to reduce immediate tensions the entire overarching struggle seems to possess a great degree of peril.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Why would a businessman be less inclined to start hostilities when starting hostilities is the way to make money? Ironic you are pointing the fingers at most Americans buying rhetoric spewed yet you can't see how you are doing the same thing. Lesser of two evils was and still is the rhetoric to make themselves feel better about the choice about why they picked him.
> 
> The alt-right freaking talking point is that the President isn't to be blamed for doing anything because everyone else is misleading him. The current Iran situation is just the latest situation they had to find excuses for him. They tried justifying the attack by pinning every buzzword of terrorist activities to the guy they killed. Then they tried deflecting by saying everyone else is the warmonger. The next step would be you being brainwashed into thinking the President had no choice. Did you buy into the last bit yet or does the kool-aid need time to chill being being consumed?


War is good for business but peace is better especially if it meant good relations with Russia. Besides there is always the notion he wasn't a Politician and so thus he maybe less inclined to war. This was the thought process for a lot of people including warhawks who were anti-Trump. That is until his cabinet was full of warhawks lol.

I never said any of that, in my response to Bruiser I said that Trump should be held accountable. He made himself seem anti-war before elected and firing Bolton was a good move but the Iran fiasco is breaking those promises and he should be called out by his followers, not celebrated. As I said Richard Spencer, the "Alt-Right" leader or father or whatever is against the Iran war. So it's not an "Alt-Right" thing. The only people who are saying it's good are cultists and pro-Israel shills like ben shapiro and they're not "Alt-Right".

I also never deflected, I pointed out that the American people keep being bamboozled by politicians into situations like this. That they need to vote for what's best for them, not the Politicians. Pointing out the whole system is fucked, so people break from the thinking that voting for another Democrat/Republican will fix things, isn't deflecting at all. All it shows is that no matter who gets elected they'll push American aggression. That needs to change.

Trump had a choice, he could have been different from the other Presidents, he's rich, he's well known, there was little anything the Political Elite could do to him that he couldn't expose since he was already well insulated. Unlike fledgling politicians who have to curry favors because their war chests aren't big. Yet Trump decided to placate to the Political Elite, chose to turn his back on his promises and chose to be a puppet to our War Machine. This is all on him. It was an incredibly bad move, notice how the MSM and "opposition" has softened on him? There's a reason for that.

If you read my posts and understood the back and forth I was having with Reaper and read my other other posts regarding Trump, you'd know I'm not a kool-aid drinker when it comes to him. I just don't think he's the worst thing ever, he's really no different from Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.


----------



## Rugrat

Trump killing an Iranian in election year is a very wise move to appeal to a large part of his base. It will appeal to warhawks, white trash and the pro-Israel types.


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> ABC and CNN reporting ballistic missiles are striking Ain Assad Base in western Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew he didn’t believe in the concept of small government and fiscal responsibility but I was willing to give him a chance. However when he signed the first two budgets that did nothing to reduce spending (the second one he ran across the aisle to cut a deal with Schumer and Pelosi undercutting the Republican leadership) I knew that it would be the same old story. While they have been pushing judges (even though a substantial number of them are not qualified), the majority of his promises have been broken. No new wall, Obamacare still around, troops still in the Middle East, etc. He had two years to get things done when the Republicans ran everything and pissed it away. He has also attacked the 1st and 2nd Amendments with SESTA/FOSTA and the bump stock ban respectively.
> 
> As for Iran, the Soleimani exercise was the right thing to do for the wrong reasons. Trump has backed himself into a corner. Backing off now makes him look weak and I think Iran knows this. There is a chunk of his base that aren’t happy with the potential war but many of them will support him. And the US runs a serious risk of going it alone.
> 
> There is blame to go around. The Democrats screamed for impeachment from day one before he even did anything. The Republicans are now hell bent on backing him as they won’t admit they made a mistake. The media gave Obama a pass for eight years and made mountains out of every molehill Trump did. It reached the point to now that he has done something that violates the Constitution a lot of people shrug their shoulders. This isn’t good people on both sides...both sides totally suck.


This is just it. "Conservatives' didn't hate his ideas. They just hated his character. But they don't seem to realize that those ideas and positions are so hurtful to so many others that nobody else was willing to do so before him. It seems you are trying to have your cake and eat it too by holding the position that conservatives were push out of the party by him yet supported the stuff he based his campaign on 4 years ago. 

Can you blame the Democrats after the obstructionism by the GOP for the past decade? And said obstructionism stole a supreme court seat AND handed them the majority in the senate and the house AND the presidency? Why wouldn't they copy the winning strategy after Obama's bi-partisan way was rejected?



Miss Sally said:


> War is good for business but peace is better especially if it meant good relations with Russia. Besides there is always the notion he wasn't a Politician and so thus he maybe less inclined to war. This was the thought process for a lot of people including warhawks who were anti-Trump. That is until his cabinet was full of warhawks lol.
> 
> I never said any of that, in my response to Bruiser I said that Trump should be held accountable. He made himself seem anti-war before elected and firing Bolton was a good move but the Iran fiasco is breaking those promises and he should be called out by his followers, not celebrated. As I said Richard Spencer, the "Alt-Right" leader or father or whatever is against the Iran war. So it's not an "Alt-Right" thing. The only people who are saying it's good are cultists and pro-Israel shills like ben shapiro and they're not "Alt-Right".
> 
> I also never deflected, I pointed out that the American people keep being bamboozled by politicians into situations like this. That they need to vote for what's best for them, not the Politicians. Pointing out the whole system is fucked, so people break from the thinking that voting for another Democrat/Republican will fix things, isn't deflecting at all. All it shows is that no matter who gets elected they'll push American aggression. That needs to change.
> 
> Trump had a choice, he could have been different from the other Presidents, he's rich, he's well known, there was little anything the Political Elite could do to him that he couldn't expose since he was already well insulated. Unlike fledgling politicians who have to curry favors because their war chests aren't big. Yet Trump decided to placate to the Political Elite, chose to turn his back on his promises and chose to be a puppet to our War Machine. This is all on him. It was an incredibly bad move, notice how the MSM and "opposition" has softened on him? There's a reason for that.
> 
> If you read my posts and understood the back and forth I was having with Reaper and read my other other posts regarding Trump, you'd know I'm not a kool-aid drinker when it comes to him. I just don't think he's the worst thing ever, he's really no different from Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.


Why would peace with Russia be better for business compared to selling of arms and getting involved in wars and pillaging and rebuilding? His cabinet is full of religious nutjobs that believe in the 2nd coming is a big war in the middle east. That somehow didn't raise any red flags.

He made himself anti-war but supported the Iraq war. Only candidate that year that can be deem anti-war is Bernie. But brained-washed folks believe what they want to believe.

Would a cult member realize she is part of a cult until she wants out? Sorry but your parroting of alt-right points are just too glaring at this point. You are still using their talking points in defense of the President's actions in this very post.


----------



## Rugrat

Jay Devito said:


> The _only_ ones?


Yes, he's sincere. Apparently Americans are literally the only heavily nationalistic people in the world. Let's forget all the populism occurring though


----------



## CamillePunk

Perfectly played by Trump. We kill Iran's most powerful and revered military leader, they kill zero Americans in their purely face-saving retaliation. The Pro-Iran Left will try to spin this any way they can think of to make Iran look good and Trump look bad, but the facts remain. Let's see if we're still even talking about this in a couple of weeks. That'll show what all of this really meant.

However, and most unfortunately, Iran _did_ kill Iraqis today. Again the people of Iraq find themselves as sacrificial pawns in the geopolitical schemes of more powerful nations. I wonder if the Pro-Iran Left will acknowledge that. Somehow I doubt it.

Also, Iran has threatened to "unleash Hezbollah" upon Israel if the US respond to tonight with more strikes (which there's no reason to do, and I doubt Trump will). So yeah, lefties, they literally admit to being the ones giving marching orders to terrorist groups. Probably time to dial back the love and crocodile tears for your favorite Islamic theocracy and terrorist state and remember which country you live in.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1214736614217469953
Iran blinked. They were never going to do anything else because they aren't suicidal. Like I've been saying, there won't be war over this. Time to calm down folks.


----------



## Yoshimitsu

Jay Devito said:


> If only the radical islamists had all the nukes. The world would be a much safer place then. Gumdrops and rainbows probably.


Last time I checked there was only one country that dropped a bomb, also destroying numerous countries for oil and other resources with the excuse "the people of those countries deserve freedom, democracy, gumdrop and rainbows". You are from a country that has the white christian version of radical islamist so you should be the last one who points the finger at the evil.


----------



## CamillePunk

Looks like there are conflicting reports on whether or not there were any Iraqi casualties. Hoping to see it turn out that there were none after all.


----------



## Rugrat

CamillePunk said:


> Looks like there are conflicting reports on whether or not there were any Iraqi casualties. Hoping to see it turn out that there were none after all.


I’m not American and I get why some Americans may be anti-war with Iran, but I don’t follow why people are glorifying Iran and the war leader who killed hundreds of Americans. Seems odd.


----------



## CamillePunk

Rugrat said:


> I’m not American and I get why some Americans may be anti-war with Iran, but I don’t follow why people are glorifying Iran and the war leader who killed hundreds of Americans. Seems odd.


Hundreds of Americans, thousands of Iraqis, and has indirectly caused the deaths of many more.

It's a mix of being automatically anti-Trump and tremendously naive about Iran while making knee-jerk criticisms of US foreign policy. While it's true that the US shouldn't be in Iraq, the idea that we shouldn't respond to attacks against Americans is pacifistic nonsense that makes our country look weak. Tonight wasi the best outcome we could've hoped for. Iranian's military leader is dead, no Americans (and perhaps nobody at all) died in Iran's impotent response, and now Iran is asking for no more escalation. Which also happens to be what Trump and most Americans want.

Idiots on TV and Youtube meanwhile think Iran has triumphed and Trump has been out-played by the mighty Islamic theocracy which is begging for no more action a day after chanting "Death to America". Remarkable!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1214708822318686208


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> This is just it. "Conservatives' didn't hate his ideas. They just hated his character. But they don't seem to realize that those ideas and positions are so hurtful to so many others that nobody else was willing to do so before him. It seems you are trying to have your cake and eat it too by holding the position that conservatives were push out of the party by him yet supported the stuff he based his campaign on 4 years ago.
> 
> Can you blame the Democrats after the obstructionism by the GOP for the past decade? And said obstructionism stole a supreme court seat AND handed them the majority in the senate and the house AND the presidency? Why wouldn't they copy the winning strategy after Obama's bi-partisan way was rejected?


The platform he ran on he really doesn’t believe in and he hasn’t done anything towards it. For all his anti-immigration rhetoric nothing has been done regarding our immigration system. We were supposed to have Obamacare replaced with something else and it hasn’t happened. He talked about cutting government spending and the debt continues to skyrocket. And he talks about respect for the Constitution and the Presidency yet he has pushed the boundaries and brought us to a crisis mode. And now, the anti-war President is now prepared to engage in war to distract from the failures and licenses he has taken. 

When you cut through the rhetoric and the hot air, what he said he would do and what is actually happening are two different things. And at least you have the “conservative” part right as Trump is still not a conservative nor is the cult that follows him.


----------



## Reaper

They just downed a Ukrainian plane inside Iran. 

Definitely not a false flag or anything. 

Give it two days and the US will name a new "terrorist" group inside Iran. 

This is what they always do. Create a disaster that may or may not have happened. Then blame some group no one has ever heard of. Then send in their military. 

It's the same racket over and over and over again.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Why would peace with Russia be better for business compared to selling of arms and getting involved in wars and pillaging and rebuilding? His cabinet is full of religious nutjobs that believe in the 2nd coming is a big war in the middle east. That somehow didn't raise any red flags.
> 
> He made himself anti-war but supported the Iraq war. Only candidate that year that can be deem anti-war is Bernie. But brained-washed folks believe what they want to believe.
> 
> Would a cult member realize she is part of a cult until she wants out? Sorry but your parroting of alt-right points are just too glaring at this point. You are still using their talking points in defense of the President's actions in this very post.


Having trade with Russia as well as a piecemeal of the mid east would be more profitable. Imagine if competitors worked together and split up sales and product value by district and could price gouge the customer. This is essentially what a Russian/US tie could bring, less conflict, more profit and divvying up of political gains. It would be silly not to see the massive gain from this instead of posturing that benefits nobody. Cooperation with only the facade of "hostility" is far more profit.

Bernie can claim to be anti-war, he's not President so it's early to say what he'd do in this situation. Sticking to his guns isn't really his strong suit and as I said Trump contradicted himself several times in his Tweets. Many people were just hoping he'd ensure less US meddling around the world and focus more on trade and infrastructure building.

I've not defended Trump in the least and you have no idea what the "Alt-Right" even is. The only thing I've pointed out is that the people need to remember the entire American political system is fucked. I defended people from both sides of the isle from mass generalizations. It's really not their fault they're duped because they really believe in the system. Trump should be held accountable for hostilities with Iran, broken promises and perpetuating a broken Governmental system. Saying he's no different from Obama, Clinton and Bush isn't a defense of him, those clowns were/are terrible. Your real question should be, is repeating the same dispelled talking points that you lack understanding of, the definition of insanity or not? Frankly I don't think you're insane, just ignorant about American Politics and the "Alt-Right".


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> They just downed a Ukrainian plane inside Iran.
> 
> Definitely not a false flag or anything.
> 
> Give it two days and the US will name a new "terrorist" group inside Iran.
> 
> This is what they always do. Create a disaster that may or may not have happened. Then blame some group no one has ever heard of. Then send in their military.
> 
> It's the same racket over and over and over again.


The Iranian Super Friends did this!

Or maybe the Iranian "Alt-Right", I mean why wouldn't they not be responsible for this?

I bet that this is the same group that did those "Syrian Gas Attacks" and the hit on that former Russian guy with incredibly easy to trade chemicals back to Russia.

I bet this group also started to Aussie fires too!

This EVIL needs to be stopped!


----------



## Irish Jet

This “war” is being so incompetently fought on both sides.

The US needlessly escalate to extreme levels, with the familiar bullshit excuse and the familiar lack of evidence. An extrajudicial murder of the most popular figure in the country. 

The Iranians then issue a token gesture response clearly drawn up to minimise casualties which better have been done with the US in the loop, because their president isn’t exactly one to give up the last word.

Now in the process someone has shot down a fucking passenger jet. Innocent lives gone, hundreds of lives ruined because of this farce. Almost certainly the Iranians, who between this and the funeral crush are showing more ability to murder their own than any of their enemies. 

Lunatics running this fucking world I swear.


----------



## Irish Jet

CamillePunk said:


> Perfectly played by Trump. We kill Iran's most powerful and revered military leader, they kill zero Americans in their purely face-saving retaliation. The Pro-Iran Left will try to spin this any way they can think of to make Iran look good and Trump look bad, but the facts remain. Let's see if we're still even talking about this in a couple of weeks. That'll show what all of this really meant.
> 
> However, and most unfortunately, Iran _did_ kill Iraqis today. Again the people of Iraq find themselves as sacrificial pawns in the geopolitical schemes of more powerful nations. I wonder if the Pro-Iran Left will acknowledge that. Somehow I doubt it.
> 
> Also, Iran has threatened to "unleash Hezbollah" upon Israel if the US respond to tonight with more strikes (which there's no reason to do, and I doubt Trump will). So yeah, lefties, they literally admit to being the ones giving marching orders to terrorist groups. Probably time to dial back the love and crocodile tears for your favorite Islamic theocracy and terrorist state and remember which country you live in.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1214736614217469953
> Iran blinked. They were never going to do anything else because they aren't suicidal. Like I've been saying, there won't be war over this. Time to calm down folks.





CamillePunk said:


> Hundreds of Americans, thousands of Iraqis, and has indirectly caused the deaths of many more.
> 
> It's a mix of being automatically anti-Trump and tremendously naive about Iran while making knee-jerk criticisms of US foreign policy. While it's true that the US shouldn't be in Iraq, the idea that we shouldn't respond to attacks against Americans is pacifistic nonsense that makes our country look weak. Tonight wasi the best outcome we could've hoped for. Iranian's military leader is dead, no Americans (and perhaps nobody at all) died in Iran's impotent response, and now Iran is asking for no more escalation. Which also happens to be what Trump and most Americans want.
> 
> Idiots on TV and Youtube meanwhile think Iran has triumphed and Trump has been out-played by the mighty Islamic theocracy which is begging for no more action a day after chanting "Death to America". Remarkable!
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1214708822318686208


This is childish nonsense.

He’s a general serving his country. Laying those deaths at his door is beyond ludicrous. These are wars and people die. He’s not the instigating these conflicts or executing people in cold blood. The portrayal of him in the US media is cartoonish, as it always is when it comes to their enemies. He’s no different from any US general as Gen. Stanley McChrystal pointed out last year – The label of terrorist is laughably hypocritical and is quite clearly a result of who he’s serving rather than what he’s doing – As evidenced by the high regard he was held in when actually serving alongside the US in Afghanistan. An Israeli or Saudi general with the same record would be lauded and you know it, although it would be a bit too clean for an Israeli one. 

Also that Jacksonian excuse is about as pathetic as the idea that Iran were plotting an imminent attack. What happened the deep state? Thought they couldn’t be trusted? The intelligence agencies are trustworthy all of a sudden. 

You Trump supporters would jump through hoops straight of a fucking cliff to defend your hero. He’s a fucking psychopathic moron who couldn’t find Iran on a map of Iran. He’s making this shit up as he goes along and betraying every promise he made in the process. Nasrallah and Khamenei have seemed humanitarian in comparison. Warning against the targeting of US civilians while Trump threatens war crimes. An Authoritarian Islamic Theocracy being made to seem that good guy in the face of further aggression from a rogue state. That’s Trump’s accomplishment.


----------



## Reaper

Trump Supporters: "Drain the swamp"
Trump becomes the swamp
Trump Supporters: "WE ARE THE SWAMP!"

Fucking losers.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Trump Supporters: "Drain the swamp"
> Trump becomes the swamp
> Trump Supporters: "WE ARE THE SWAMP!"
> 
> Fucking losers.


Yup, was supposed to drain the swamp and light a fire under the career politicians butts.

Instead became just like them.

Goes to show you with this two party system you're fucked no matter what.

I really wish more Americans could get behind Independents but there is too much of this team mentality and wanting to win.

If people broadened their political horizons we could get some change.


----------



## Jay Devito

Yoshimitsu said:


> Last time I checked there was only one country that dropped a bomb, also destroying numerous countries for oil and other resources with the excuse "the people of those countries deserve freedom, democracy, gumdrop and rainbows". You are from a country that has the white christian version of radical islamist so you should be the last one who points the finger at the evil.


I already told you I think the world would be a much better, safer place if countries like Iran had possession of all the nukes. Surely they are the most tolerant and understanding people on Earth... and they would never wield their power in aggression towards those they deemed as infidels. 

They're the best, most peaceful people in the world actually. I would totally entrust Iran with the safety and stability of the entire world.


----------



## Irish Jet

Jay Devito said:


> I already told you I think the world would be a much better, safer place if countries like Iran had possession of all the nukes. Surely they are the most tolerant and understanding people on Earth... and they would never wield their power in aggression towards those they deemed as infidels.
> 
> They're the best, most peaceful people in the world actually. I would totally entrust Iran with the safety and stability of the entire world.


Just a phenomenal understanding of Islam you're demonstrating here.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1214713249641439235


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1214713249641439235


Oh dear, this does not look good.

I don't think there will be an all out war but could see Iran ramping up covert attacks and funding small terrorist groups. 

At this point I'm expect Israel or Saudi Arabia to try something and pull the US into a conflict with Iran while remaining on the outside.


----------



## BruiserKC

Miss Sally said:


> Oh dear, this does not look good.
> 
> I don't think there will be an all out war but could see Iran ramping up covert attacks and funding small terrorist groups.
> 
> At this point I'm expect Israel or Saudi Arabia to try something and pull the US into a conflict with Iran while remaining on the outside.


Saudi Arabia won’t do anything. Israel will obviously retaliate if Iran or their proxies attack but the only way I see them taking preemptive action is if they believe Iran is close to developing a nuclear weapon.

This is not over yet. We may not see further action immediately but more is coming.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> Saudi Arabia won’t do anything. Israel will obviously retaliate if Iran or their proxies attack but the only way I see them taking preemptive action is if they believe Iran is close to developing a nuclear weapon.
> 
> This is not over yet. We may not see further action immediately but more is coming.


I don't see them doing anything out in the open but both Israel and Saudi Arabia have a keen interest in seeing Iran turn into the next Libya.


----------



## Reaper

Defending yourself from an agressive invading force is not terrorism no matter how much the American Nazis want you to believe it is.


----------



## DesolationRow

Reports of nearly 400,000 "anchor babies," as they are frequently called, born in 2019, dramatically more than were born in the vast majority of U.S. states. The average for the past several years at least has been roughly 300,000, but now almost 400,000, and doubtless the upticks will continue.

Donald Trump spoke liberally about ending birthright citizenship in 2018 but the window for that has almost surely closed following the midterms of that same year. Will be intriguing to see if this ever becomes a campaign issue again over the next ten months.


----------



## Stormbringer

I dont know what ills may come from fixing the anchor baby situation but something needs to be done about it.

I doubt anything will though since illegals are always looked at as cheap labor and axing one of their loopholes would mess with the bottom line of a lot of corporate big wigs.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## yeahbaby!

Rugrat said:


> I’m not American and I get why some Americans may be anti-war with Iran, but* I don’t follow why people are glorifying Iran and the war leader who killed hundreds of Americans. Seems odd.*


'Scuse my ignorance but I don't have time to follow everything about this. Who exactly are glorifying Iran and a war leader in all of this?


----------



## njcam

*Iran Briefing*

Republican Senator Mike Lee is going on a public tirade about how awful the briefing was.

Mike Lee referred to the Trump regime’s Senate briefing as “the worst briefing I’ve had on a military issue” – which set off shockwaves considering Lee is a Republican who is typically aligned with Trump these days.

Then a reporter stopped Nancy Pelosi in the halls of Congress and asked her what she thought of the briefing.

The reporter said, *“Some people are calling it the worst briefing they’ve ever gotten.”*

Nancy Pelosi replied: *“There’s stiff competition for that from this administration.”*


----------



## ShiningStar

Apparently the A in Maga always came with a tiny*asterik A means *"Allies in Israel , Saudi Arabia and the Defense Industry" not America


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> View attachment 81963


It happens when you're the President of a country that constantly starts shit everywhere they go.


----------



## Jay Devito

Irish Jet said:


> Just a phenomenal understanding of Islam you're demonstrating here.


What are you trying to say


----------



## Hangman

Reaper said:


> View attachment 81963


I would take any poll from Germany seriously. 

The country is literally crawling with migrants who aren't integrating but rather mugging and raping German citizens with impunity.


----------



## BruiserKC

Stormbringer said:


> I dont know what ills may come from fixing the anchor baby situation but something needs to be done about it.
> 
> I doubt anything will though since illegals are always looked at as cheap labor and axing one of their loopholes would mess with the bottom line of a lot of corporate big wigs.


I see Trump making an issue of it but he would have to face the blowback of not doing anything about it. He had two years to get stuff done regarding immigration including the wall when he had both chambers of Congress under GOP control. He didn’t even start worrying about the wall until he lost the House.


----------



## Rugrat

yeahbaby! said:


> 'Scuse my ignorance but I don't have time to follow everything about this. Who exactly are glorifying Iran and a war leader in all of this?


I don’t know how to embed links but there was a lot on twitter about this in the aftermath


----------



## Rugrat

Reaper said:


> View attachment 81963


You often laugh at how naive people are an all sides, so I’m not sure the relevance of this poll.


----------



## Reaper

And yes, I'd say about 75-85% of Americans are still retarded enough to fall for the same bullshit.


----------



## Rugrat

Reaper said:


> View attachment 81979
> 
> 
> View attachment 81980
> 
> 
> And yes, I'd say about 75-85% of Americans are still retarded enough to fall for the same bullshit.


You were just citing a poll using it somehow as evidence Trump was a threat. Now your saying that Americans are retarded. 

Unless of course your point is that Germans are smarter than Americans or that Germans would never buy into populism.


----------



## Reaper

This guy epitomizes the ignorance of his followers. Just suck each off please. Thank you very much.


----------



## Rugrat

@Reaper ; your link doesn’t work


----------



## Reaper

76-85%. That's the number and it doesn't take long for Americans to manufacture consent to start wars. This is the number that has always made it possible for the military industrial complex to consistently lie themselves into more and more wars, over and over again.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Rugrat said:


> I don’t know how to embed links but there was a lot on twitter about this in the aftermath


Hmmmmm, sorry I don't put much stock in 'there was a lot on twitter'. I'm sure there was from some people, but if it's the regular joe or jane on the street really who cares? That's no representation of greater social sentiment.



Reaper said:


> View attachment 81985
> 
> 
> This guy epitomizes the ignorance of his followers. Just suck each off please. Thank you very much.


Oh good grief. 

"Less school children chewing gum in class! More great news!!!"


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> View attachment 81979
> 
> 
> View attachment 81980
> 
> 
> And yes, I'd say about 75-85% of Americans are still retarded enough to fall for the same bullshit.


Makes no sense why they would shoot down a random plane.

Then again made no sense for people to believe the Syrian gas attacks either.

People need to start questioning how these actions make any lick of sense because this stuff is Saturday morning cartoon villain stuff.


----------



## DOPA

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't the Pentagon come out and say that the civilian plane shot down was most likely an accident? You don't frame an attack on civilians to push for escalation and at the same time say that it was a case of mistaken identity. The reports make it sound like Iran thought that it was a US plane or drone crossing sovereign soil.

The Iran crisis as it's dubbed in of itself is complex and whilst I may do a longer post about it, I doubt it'll do the situation justice. All I'll say is that the last thing we need is another war in the middle east and another attempted regime change in the area. The last three times didn't exactly go as planned, we don't need a repeat.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DOPA said:


> Maybe I'm wrong but didn't the Pentagon come out and say that the civilian plane shot down was most likely an accident?


I did not ******!










Sorry couldn't help it


----------



## CamillePunk

One has to wonder if the lives lost on that Ukrainian passenger jet would still be alive if Iran had not escalated things with the US (before "deloping" upon our response).


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1215486240893603840
Very true!


----------



## Goku

surprised people are still doing this, but not really.


----------



## JasonLives

Havent read much about Iran shooting down a commercial airliner on purpose, most seem to talk about it like they shot it down on accident. Someone thought it was something else. Which is the likely scenario. At this point Canada seems to be the ones who have been the most sure about it, atleast spoken out about it.

lol at actually seeing some people blaming Trump for it. Some people really are deranged when it comes to blaming Trump for everything. Might aswell blame the Wright brothers for inventing planes.


----------



## Reaper

*And all of this was started by a lie by a few people about how they were 100% sure that Saddam has WMDs which eventually turned out to be a huge lie, but this time for sure no one is lying and will never lie to anyone ever again therefore just buy what the same people who told the first lie are saying again because they never lie even though they lied the first time.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

JasonLives said:


> Havent read much about Iran shooting down a commercial airliner on purpose, most seem to talk about it like they shot it down on accident. Someone thought it was something else. Which is the likely scenario. At this point Canada seems to be the ones who have been the most sure about it, atleast spoken out about it.
> 
> lol at actually seeing some people blaming Trump for it. Some people really are deranged when it comes to blaming Trump for everything. Might aswell blame the Wright brothers for inventing planes.


It's a shame. Trump could accidentally stumble upon a cure for cancer and he would still get crucified for it.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Jay Devito

Reaper said:


> View attachment 82001


Ah yes the "civilized" country that executes you if you have a dissenting opinion, if you're gay... or if you're a woman who's been raped.

There hasn't been world peace at any time during human history, let alone in the middle fucking east. But I'm sure you already knew that.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1215647086986825728

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1215499536757612544
Poor naive Kyle Kulinski; he should read Nietzsche... However mad Nietzsche was he had his strengths in relevant political examination. Kulinski is sounding like Kay Adams in _The Godfather_. There is a reason those films are indelible political allegories, haha.

Ah well. Back to the proverbial drawing board.


----------



## Reaper

Nazis also called themselves the good guys and the Germans saw everyone as as uncivilized and/or sub-human just like at least 40-50% of Americans and american war-mongers today. It's easier to kill Muslims if your population believes that Muslims are sub-humans who commit atrocities just like Hitler and the Nazis said about Jews.










WMD's was a lie. 
Incubator babies was a lie.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Nazis also called themselves the good guys and the Germans saw everyone as as uncivilized and/or sub-human just like at least 40-50% of Americans and american war-mongers today. It's easier to kill Muslims if your population believes that Muslims are sub-humans who commit atrocities just like Hitler and the Nazis said about Jews.
> 
> View attachment 82004
> 
> 
> WMD's was a lie.
> Incubator babies was a lie.
> 
> View attachment 82005
> 
> 
> View attachment 82006


This would apply to nearly EVERY invasion throughout history.

The Roman expansion was to bring Civilization to the Barbarians

The Islamic/Arab expansion was to bring Islam to a world full of infidels 

Ottoman Empire expansion was justified in nearly the same way as the Arab expansion

Colonialism/Crusades/ South American Indian tribal expansion etc.

People view each other as subhuman all the time to justify whatever. Look at the people who hate others based on Religion/lack there of, sexuality, voting habits, education, wealth, etc. There are ethnic cleansings in Africa and around the world by people who look exactly like each other. Yet because they were born a few miles away, they're bad. 

This line of thought is as old as time. The Nazis didn't invent it and it's still used as a justification. I mean aren't a bunch of sunnis and shiites killing each other over who's religion is more accurate right now? What about the attacks on Yemn, the Kurds etc?


----------



## TheDraw

Undertaker23RKO said:


> It's a shame. Trump could accidentally stumble upon a cure for cancer and he would still get crucified for it.


Nobody does this anymore but I feel it's necessary after reading this thread to say LOLTrumpsupporters.


----------



## Reaper

Trump and his supporters are now openly defiant of a democratic state that demanded that they leave.

It's an illegal occupation and the ENTIRE NATO, its allies and everyone that supports this is equally complicit in the occupation.










Yes, you are the monsters, and the bad guys now and have been since the 90s when the process of this endless illegal occupation began.

Live with this shame, or ignore it, but monsters rarely acknowledge that they are such.


----------



## FriedTofu

JasonLives said:


> Havent read much about Iran shooting down a commercial airliner on purpose, most seem to talk about it like they shot it down on accident. Someone thought it was something else. Which is the likely scenario. At this point Canada seems to be the ones who have been the most sure about it, atleast spoken out about it.
> 
> lol at actually seeing some people blaming Trump for it. Some people really are deranged when it comes to blaming Trump for everything. Might aswell blame the Wright brothers for inventing planes.


It was a huge fuck up by whoever was in charge in Iran. Reminds me of the Malaysian plane that got shot down a few years back over Ukraine because both sides were on edge.

I could see why people would place some blame on Trump for it. The assassination heightened tension and gave trigger happy folks a reason to shoot anything that freaked them out. But the bulk of the blame has to be on Iran on this. Anyone trying to pin most of the blame on Trump is too partisan or biased.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Watching some of his supporters (not in this thread or on this site) getting whiplash over the last week from going back and forth on Iraq has been interesting.

Before the past week.

"We need to leave Iraq. Trump said he would end the war."

Iraq Parliament votes to expel the U.S. with a non binding resolution.

"Ungrateful. We don't have to listen to them"

Trump says we'll leave if they pay us back for what has been spent on Iraq.

"Fuck yeah. We freed them from a dictator, spent billions, and had our troops die for their freedom. We don't leave until they pay us back"

U.S. sends letter to Iraq saying they're leaving without being paid back. Later claim was a draft letter.

"Maybe this all was Trump's way of getting us out of the Iraq finally. He's a a genius."

U.S. says they're not leaving Iraq after all.

"Damn right. Who knows what could happen if we left. The power vacuum it could create. We need to be there and the ungrateful Iraqis need to accept it"


----------



## Miss Sally

2 Ton 21 said:


> Watching some of his supporters (not in this thread or on this site) getting whiplash over the last week from going back and forth on Iraq has been interesting.
> 
> Before the past week.
> 
> "We need to leave Iraq. Trump said he would end the war."
> 
> Iraq Parliament votes to expel the U.S. with a non binding resolution.
> 
> "Ungrateful. We don't have to listen to them"
> 
> Trump says we'll leave if they pay us back for what has been spent on Iraq.
> 
> "Fuck yeah. We freed them from a dictator, spent billions, and had our troops die for their freedom. We don't leave until they pay us back"
> 
> U.S. sends letter to Iraq saying they're leaving without being paid back. Later claim was a draft letter.
> 
> "Maybe this all was Trump's way of getting us out of the Iraq finally. He's a a genius."
> 
> U.S. says they're not leaving Iraq after all.
> 
> "Damn right. Who knows what could happen if we left. The power vacuum it could create. We need to be there and the ungrateful Iraqis need to accept it"
> 
> View attachment 82032


I don't get it, nothing wrong with calling out the person you voted for if they go against their word.

Politicians should be held accountable for their actions. 

Going back and forth is why our system sucks, because their is no accountability. We're accountable for paying taxes, following the law etc. Politicians shouldn't be exempt from following the basic wants/needs of it's people. A Government should put it's Citizens first and a Politician should heed the word of their voters.


----------



## FriedTofu

As long as he owns the establishment, liberals or democrats or anyone they disagree with for whatever reason, the President is doing exactly what they voted him in for. The whole GOP base is basically be contrarian to whoever triggers them for decades now. That is what they hold these politicians accountable for and so far they have been giving them reasons to be fake outrage over anything. Remember the migrant caravan invasion funded by George Soros? They are giving these people exactly what they want.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216054398138376192


----------



## Miss Sally

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216054398138376192


I said like a year or more back the US Military is a bunch of sell swords. I hate it.

Every President has used them as such since around the Korean War- Vietnam.


----------



## Reaper

Pimps sells hos in uniform to Arab Sheikhs for Oily orgy

Sounds less like a political strategy and more like bad gay porn.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Pimps sells hos in uniform to Arab Sheikhs for Oily orgy
> 
> Sounds less like a political strategy and more like bad gay porn.


I kind of feel bad for the Saudi's they have to pay, Israel gets them for free.


----------



## Stephen90

CNN getting roasted on Twitter is the most hilarious thing ever.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> CNN getting roasted on Twitter is the most hilarious thing ever.


Warren was always a lying PoS cunt. That's why Hitlery liberals loved her and out their full support behind her. 2 months ago Warren was seen in talks with Hitlery. Yesterday she pulled Hitlery's tactics. Been saying she's an establishment puppet for months now.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Reaper said:


> Warren was always a lying PoS cunt. That's why Hitlery liberals loved her and out their full support behind her. 2 months ago Warren was seen in talks with Hitlery. Yesterday she pulled Hitlery's tactics. Been saying she's an establishment puppet for months now.


A year ago I really liked Warren, she stood for something, she wanted to take down Wall Street, she pledged not to take any corporate money, she was for Medicare for all, even through all the Pocahontas nonsense she felt like one of the few honest politicians.

Then she not only voted for Trump's ridiculous budget but gave him an extra $40M and I was confused until I found out that Raytheon is headquartered in her state, then she went soft on Medicare for all because she didn't want to say that it was going to raise middle class taxes, then she told people she would take corporate money in the general election, and now she's resorted to flat out lying on Bernie.

How is she going to say Bernie said he doesn't think a woman could win the presidency when he tried to get her to run and he threw his support behind Hilary?

All these politicians are so dishonest and stand for nothing, if Bernie doesn't win the nomination Trump is going to get reelected.


----------



## Miss Sally

How's anyone been surprised by CNN or Warren?

I called these things out more than a year ago.

We all knew CNN is propaganda and that it's against Bernie.

Warren always came off as phony, especially since she's a warhawk. 

The cannons turned on Bernie by Warren and CNN are going to be interesting, Warren has more support than Hillary. I want to see if Bernie folds.


----------



## Stormbringer

Miss Sally said:


> I don't get it, nothing wrong with calling out the person you voted for if they go against their word.












And admit I was wrong about politics!?!?!

Embarrass the Team!?!!


----------



## Reaper

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> A year ago I really liked Warren, she stood for something, she wanted to take down Wall Street, she pledged not to take any corporate money, she was for Medicare for all, even through all the Pocahontas nonsense she felt like one of the few honest politicians.
> 
> Then she not only voted for Trump's ridiculous budget but gave him an extra $40M and I was confused until I found out that Raytheon is headquartered in her state, then she went soft on Medicare for all because she didn't want to say that it was going to raise middle class taxes, then she told people she would take corporate money in the general election, and now she's resorted to flat out lying on Bernie.
> 
> How is she going to say Bernie said he doesn't think a woman could win the presidency when he tried to get her to run and he threw his support behind Hilary?
> 
> All these politicians are so dishonest and stand for nothing, if Bernie doesn't win the nomination Trump is going to get reelected.


The republitards stand for fascism and racism. The demorats pretend they don't. They all stand for the same thing: Fucking the American people as much and as hard as possible.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> The republitards stand for fascism and racism. The demorats pretend they don't. They all stand for the same thing: Fucking the American people as much and as hard as possible.


Two sides, same coin. I remember when we were called silly for saying this.



Stormbringer said:


> And admit I was wrong about politics!?!?!
> 
> Embarrass the Team!?!!


That's why we have political plantations and this huge mess. 

The people could fix it.. but they don't. It's frustrating. 

People should care about winning in life, not some team that doesn't give a rat's ass about them.


----------



## dolphin1989

Miss Sally said:


> Two sides, same coin. I remember when we were called silly for saying this.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we have political plantations and this huge mess.
> 
> The people could fix it.. but they don't. It's frustrating.
> 
> People should care about winning in life, not some team that doesn't give a rat's ass about them.


The true rulers of this country run both parties and no matter what you do it really doesn't matter, whoever they want to become President become President , they could have a mallard duck become the next President if they wanted to.


----------



## Jay Devito

dolphin1989 said:


> The true rulers of this country run both parties and no matter what you do it really doesn't matter, whoever they want to become President become President , they could have a mallard duck become the next President if they wanted to.


I don't think they "run" both parties but they definitely have influence. Trump was definitely not part of someone's gameplan, that much is clear. 

Even if the country really is being manipulated by a group of billionaires, they wouldn't all be on the same page. Their interests collide too. So while both parties have definitely been compromised, I don't fully believe they are all on the same team.


----------



## DesolationRow

Stormbringer said:


> And admit I was wrong about politics!?!?!
> 
> Embarrass the Team!?!!


This is apt, for U.S. political theater is effectively "sports ball" for the overwhelming majority of its consumers.


----------



## DesolationRow

Black Americans deeply pessimistic about country under president who more than 8 in 10 describe as ‘a racist,’ Post-Ipsos poll finds


Nearly two-thirds say it is a “bad time” to be a black person in America.




www.inquirer.com





Here comes Candace Owens's #blexit. :lmao :heston

As an aside, for all of the talk of Donald Trump's marshaling of the white vote, he ended up with a smaller share of it than Mitt Romney four years earlier. The reason Bernie Sanders represents a threat to Trump is that he would potentially strike at the same sort of largely under-the-radar white voter in a state such as Michigan, for instance, who had become alienated and ostensibly removed from the U.S.'s political picture for a generation or more. It is unlikely any other Democrat can reach those voters. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218255416032923649
Countless car keys are going missing all over the U.S. due to Vladimir Putin's interference, too!


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218258965911539712
God tier troll


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

It was funny seeing the Senate take oaths knowing they were planning to break them, they all swore to God too, if there was a God it should've made like 20 senators instantly have heart attacks. That would've made the rest of them reconsider lying on God's name.


----------



## DesolationRow

Fears over race relations affected probe into child sex grooming gang, report says


Investigation identified 57 potential victims and 97 suspects in Manchester – but almost no action taken amid fears of inciting racial hatred




www.independent.co.uk





PDF for the report, which mirrors the Rotherham Report and other cities: http://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/media/2569/operation_augusta_january_2020_digital_final.pdf 

As horrible as the crimes in Rotherham were the city has become something of an epithet but its chief distinguishing characteristic is that unlike other U.K. cities it came out with the truth of what had happened, however belatedly and hopelessly. Otherwise it does not stick out much at all. Manchester officially joins the ranks, all too sadly and predictably.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218335200964464650


----------



## TerraRising

People apply race topics wrong here. The reality is that Trump is the last gasp of Protestant/Anglocentric America's desperate tactic to remain as the tyrannical majority of the population, especially the elderly and boomers. With them gone, we'll have a sizeable brown/Mestizo population overtaking the endangered WASP demograph, Spanish becomes the second "first" language, and the nation elects another Kennedy as President, and the first one to not die in office. All that can happen if Trump doesn't decide to nuke the US for letting Congress impeach him


----------



## skypod

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218258965911539712
> God tier troll



Big respect for the teenage presidency. Everything he does is an angry young male outcry for attention. Really makes you look serious on the world stage 

These things further prove that the whole "Trumps personality is wacky but it won't affect policy" was bullshit all along. He's still a scummy cunt and it IS affecting policy.


----------



## Nothing Finer

TerraRising said:


> People apply race topics wrong here. The reality is that Trump is the last gasp of Protestant/Anglocentric America's desperate tactic to remain as the tyrannical majority of the population, especially the elderly and boomers. With them gone, we'll have a sizeable brown/Mestizo population overtaking the endangered WASP demograph, Spanish becomes the second "first" language, and the nation elects another Kennedy as President, and the first one to not die in office. All that can happen if Trump doesn't decide to nuke the US for letting Congress impeach him


The big problem the US will have over the next century or so is that the Electoral College, Senate, Supreme Court and Constitutional amendment process give hugely disproportionate power to low population states. You might well end up in a situation where the population changes as you say, but the way the country is run doesn't because most of the states stay white.

Policy aside, the minority ruling over the majority is in itself a deeply unhealthy state for a country to be in. There's already a President half the country despises and the court system is being filled with his picks and can't be removed. It's only going to get worse over the years.


----------



## Miss Sally

Nothing Finer said:


> The big problem the US will have over the next century or so is that the Electoral College, Senate, Supreme Court and Constitutional amendment process give hugely disproportionate power to low population states. You might well end up in a situation where the population changes as you say, but the way the country is run doesn't because most of the states stay white.
> 
> Policy aside, the minority ruling over the majority is in itself a deeply unhealthy state for a country to be in. There's already a President half the country despises and the court system is being filled with his picks and can't be removed. It's only going to get worse over the years.


Yet allowing a popularity contest determine the winner and only having 3 states decide every Presidential election is moronic. Especially since just about every major first world nation has voter ID etc, including places like Canada, yet we do not. Our voting system is beyond stupid. We're not going to have a President that most of the population likes, see Trump/Obama/Bush. Most people don't even vote.

Why should a place Like Cali which struggles to run itself have a huge say simply because "MoAR PeOpLe"? There needs to be a revamp of everything but at this point balkanization will happen, especially as the population changes and that incoming population wants things done their own way which benefits them. History repeats itself and change for better (unlikely) and for worse (very likely) is going to happen. It's going to be a free for all power grab in the next century.



DesolationRow said:


> Fears over race relations affected probe into child sex grooming gang, report says
> 
> 
> Investigation identified 57 potential victims and 97 suspects in Manchester – but almost no action taken amid fears of inciting racial hatred
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PDF for the report, which mirrors the Rotherham Report and other cities: http://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/media/2569/operation_augusta_january_2020_digital_final.pdf
> 
> As horrible as the crimes in Rotherham were the city has become something of an epithet but its chief distinguishing characteristic is that unlike other U.K. cities it came out with the truth of what had happened, however belatedly and hopelessly. Otherwise it does not stick out much at all. Manchester officially joins the ranks, all too sadly and predictably.


It's only going to get worse and the Government and Police will ignore it and hide it. Heck there was a counter protest to a protest against sexual abuse of young girls, quite frankly the vocal loonies would happily allow rape, grooming of children and violence against them happen as long as their illusion of a "multicultural utopia" isn't threatened from being dispelled. Well as long as it happens to poor people and not their kids, oh who am I kidding, these jerks don't have kids so they don't care.

Where are the Feminists and people who say we need to hold everyone accountable? No where. They're all hiding because they're afraid they'll be called names and that standing up against these crimes will somehow mean they no longer are tolerant and inclusive. 

I've never seen such a lollygagging group of cowards, shouting and raising up hell about issues but never acting on them.


----------



## Jay Devito

Nothing Finer said:


> The big problem the US will have over the next century or so is that the Electoral College, Senate, Supreme Court and Constitutional amendment process give hugely disproportionate power to low population states. You might well end up in a situation where the population changes as you say, but the way the country is run doesn't because most of the states stay white.
> 
> Policy aside, the minority ruling over the majority is in itself a deeply unhealthy state for a country to be in. *There's already a President half the country despises* and the court system is being filled with his picks and can't be removed. It's only going to get worse over the years.


Wouldn't be the first time.

The fact is all states need to have their say. We cannot just have large population centers along the coasts dictate life for everyone else in the country, especially knowing that these regions are importing boatloads of illegals and encouraging them to vote.

Those "low population states" are still incredibly important to the economy and well being of the country, namely manufacturing and agriculture. You can't just dismiss them because they aren't attractive destination spots. The fact is NY and California couldn't survive without them.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Miss Sally said:


> Yet allowing a popularity contest determine the winner and only having 3 states decide every Presidential election is moronic. Especially since just about every major first world nation has voter ID etc, including places like Canada, yet we do not. Our voting system is beyond stupid. We're not going to have a President that most of the population likes, see Trump/Obama/Bush. Most people don't even vote.
> 
> Why should a place Like Cali which struggles to run itself have a huge say simply because "MoAR PeOpLe"? There needs to be a revamp of everything but at this point balkanization will happen, especially as the population changes and that incoming population wants things done their own way which benefits them. History repeats itself and change for better (unlikely) and for worse (very likely) is going to happen. It's going to be a free for all power grab in the next century.


Having more people is a perfectly valid reason for a place to have more say. If you had a popular vote the states wouldn't decide the President at all, if would be the people. A chance to the voting system away from FPTP would certainly help in electing a more unifying figure.

Many country don't have voted ID and they get along perfectly fine. 



Jay Devito said:


> Wouldn't be the first time.
> 
> The fact is all states need to have their say. We cannot just have large population centers along the coasts dictate life for everyone else in the country, especially knowing that these regions are importing boatloads of illegals and encouraging them to vote.
> 
> Those "low population states" are still incredibly important to the economy and well being of the country, namely manufacturing and agriculture. You can't just dismiss them because they aren't attractive destination spots. The fact is NY and California couldn't survive without them.


They shouldn't dictate life for the rest of the country, although I'd suggest that reflects a different problem of the federal government being way, way too powerful. The Constitution clearly envisions a federal government which is involved as little as possible, which leaves as much as possible to the states themselves. You've seen generations of power creep from people who want to make nationwide changes but don't or can't convince all the state legislatures to make them, so they read the Constitution creatively. 

If the federal government were weak, if it only handled foreign affairs and regulates commerce as originally intended it wouldn't really matter that much if the federal government were unrepresentative. Instead it defines what people's rights are, who one can marry, how people get healthcare, whether or not you can get an abortion, what drugs you can take etc. These things are none of the federal government's business in the Constitution as it is written. If you want a government like that the Constitution needs rewriting totally for it to work effectively.

They could survive perfectly well, New York and California have tremendously large economies, they would simply purchase what they needed from elsewhere.


----------



## Miss Sally

Nothing Finer said:


> Having more people is a perfectly valid reason for a place to have more say. If you had a popular vote the states wouldn't decide the President at all, if would be the people. A chance to the voting system away from FPTP would certainly help in electing a more unifying figure.
> 
> Many country don't have voted ID and they get along perfectly fine.
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't dictate life for the rest of the country, although I'd suggest that reflects a different problem of the federal government being way, way too powerful. The Constitution clearly envisions a federal government which is involved as little as possible, which leaves as much as possible to the states themselves. You've seen generations of power creep from people who want to make nationwide changes but don't or can't convince all the state legislatures to make them, so they read the Constitution creatively.
> 
> If the federal government were weak, if it only handled foreign affairs and regulates commerce as originally intended it wouldn't really matter that much if the federal government were unrepresentative. Instead it defines what people's rights are, who one can marry, how people get healthcare, whether or not you can get an abortion, what drugs you can take etc. These things are none of the federal government's business in the Constitution as it is written. If you want a government like that the Constitution needs rewriting totally for it to work effectively.
> 
> They could survive perfectly well, New York and California have tremendously large economies, they would simply purchase what they needed from elsewhere.



It's setup now so that there's more to it than just getting people to vote. We'd have to fix the people not voting problem, more people don't vote than vote if I recall correctly. 3 states deciding everything is stupid no matter how you cut it. I'm sure a better system can be put in place. Though think balkanization maybe the best thing long run as there won't be a solution anyone likes fully.

Yet many if not most first world places use voter ID. Pretty sure if you're going to go with a popular vote, you'd want to ensure the voting process. Considering the shady voting issues before.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Miss Sally said:


> It's setup now so that there's more to it than just getting people to vote. We'd have to fix the people not voting problem, more people don't vote than vote if I recall correctly. 3 states deciding everything is stupid no matter how you cut it. I'm sure a better system can be put in place. Though think balkanization maybe the best thing long run as there won't be a solution anyone likes fully.
> 
> Yet many if not most first world places use voter ID. Pretty sure if you're going to go with a popular vote, you'd want to ensure the voting process. Considering the shady voting issues before.


It wouldn't be the states, it would be the people. You would ask the American people who they want to President and go with who the majority want to be President. Everyone's vote would count equally.

As I mentioned in my response to Jay Devito, I think the US was always originally envisioned as being kind of balkanized. If you read the Constitution from an academic point of view what the United States is envisioned to be is much closer to what the European Union is today, with a military, than what it's actually become. The federal government should only rule on issues where the vast majority of the country agrees, the controversial issues should be left to the states. I sometimes think people forget that the tenth amendment exists.


----------



## Miss Sally

Nothing Finer said:


> It wouldn't be the states, it would be the people. You would ask the American people who they want to President and go with who the majority want to be President. Everyone's vote would count equally.
> 
> As I mentioned in my response to Jay Devito, I think the US was always originally envisioned as being kind of balkanized. If you read the Constitution from an academic point of view what the United States is envisioned to be is much closer to what the European Union is today, with a military, than what it's actually become. The federal government should only rule on issues where the vast majority of the country agrees, the controversial issues should be left to the states. I sometimes think people forget that the tenth amendment exists.


Except it would still be a few overpopulated states deciding everything.. Since when is mob rule a good thing? People seem to forget this. There's probably a better solution than the current EC and popular vote. Even more so with many questionable voting practices and population stacking. 

I'm talking full balkanization, sure the states have some autonomy but the situation is rather complex.


----------



## FriedTofu

Why would it be a few overpopulated states deciding everything if the presidency becomes a majority vote? You still have how congress is voted in to prevent these states from deciding everything.

Seems like a talking point brought up by the states that have outsized power currently that wants to avoid a contest to their existing unfair advantages.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Jay Devito

Nothing Finer said:


> Having more people is a perfectly valid reason for a place to have more say. If you had a popular vote the states wouldn't decide the President at all, if would be the people. A chance to the voting system away from FPTP would certainly help in electing a more unifying figure.
> 
> Many country don't have voted ID and they get along perfectly fine.


Those same countries likely don't have illegals coming in by the millions.



Nothing Finer said:


> They shouldn't dictate life for the rest of the country, although I'd suggest that reflects a different problem of the federal government being way, way too powerful. The Constitution clearly envisions a federal government which is involved as little as possible, which leaves as much as possible to the states themselves. You've seen generations of power creep from people who want to make nationwide changes but don't or can't convince all the state legislatures to make them, so they read the Constitution creatively.
> 
> If the federal government were weak, if it only handled foreign affairs and regulates commerce as originally intended it wouldn't really matter that much if the federal government were unrepresentative. Instead it defines what people's rights are, who one can marry, how people get healthcare, whether or not you can get an abortion, what drugs you can take etc. These things are none of the federal government's business in the Constitution as it is written. If you want a government like that the Constitution needs rewriting totally for it to work effectively.
> 
> They could survive perfectly well, New York and California have tremendously large economies, they would simply purchase what they needed from elsewhere.


I agree that the federal government should have less authority, not more.

I doubt NY and California could get by without the rest of the country. For one whether they like it or not they apart of the same ecosystem. Second, if they imported goods globally wouldn't that require them to bypass certain federal trade laws?


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Why would it be a few overpopulated states deciding everything if the presidency becomes a majority vote? You still have how congress is voted in to prevent these states from deciding everything.
> 
> Seems like a talking point brought up by the states that have outsized power currently that wants to avoid a contest to their existing unfair advantages.


They already have a bigger advantage in the EC due to population, the solution would be to fix how the EC is done. Most of the smaller states don't really matter much when it comes to the EC, the whole point is to grab a few key states. So already votes are ignored.Going to a purely popular vote would be idiotic.

Besides, everyone is all excited for popular votes until something like Brexit happens and then suddenly, no we want a do over. There's a better way than just a popular vote.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> They already have a bigger advantage in the EC due to population, the solution would be to fix how the EC is done. Most of the smaller states don't really matter much when it comes to the EC, the whole point is to grab a few key states. So already votes are ignored.Going to a purely popular vote would be idiotic.
> 
> Besides, everyone is all excited for popular votes until something like Brexit happens and then suddenly, no we want a do over. There's a better way than just a popular vote.


If there is no EC, every vote have equal voting power. People wouldn't feel their votes don't matter in 'safe' states and you might get a result that better reflects the voters. What bigger advantages do these states have when the EC are allocated due to population, i.e to attempt to provide as fair a representation of the popular vote? All states are guaranteed 3 EC vote. So it is actually the mid-sized states that are losing voting power to the underpopulated states in the current system.

The EC has failed to represent the votes of the majority twice in recent decades. There has been no do-over over Brexit. Not sure what you are getting at.


----------



## Nothing Finer

Miss Sally said:


> Except it would still be a few overpopulated states deciding everything.. Since when is mob rule a good thing? People seem to forget this. There's probably a better solution than the current EC and popular vote. Even more so with many questionable voting practices and population stacking.
> 
> I'm talking full balkanization, sure the states have some autonomy but the situation is rather complex.


It wouldn't *be* the state, it would be the people. Where those people live is not relevant.

In Presidential elections one city in Alaska gets about 40% of the votes. Add to that the second and third largest cities and they have >50% of the vote. Is that somehow unfair? Is that mob rule that these 3 cities decide who the electoral college votes go to?

They elect their state governor in the same way, are these 3 cities enacting mob rule?



Jay Devito said:


> Those same countries likely don't have illegals coming in by the millions.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the federal government should have less authority, not more.
> 
> I doubt NY and California could get by without the rest of the country. For one whether they like it or not they apart of the same ecosystem. Second, if they imported goods globally wouldn't that require them to bypass certain federal trade laws?


What do you think they're going to do, obey federal trade laws and starve to death or feed their people? If these smaller states ceased to exist or seceded or whatever they'd find a way of getting by, absolutely no question about that. The big question is how would these other states do without the economic powerhouses of the United States purchasing their goods. Not so well I'm guessing.


----------



## Miss Sally

Nothing Finer said:


> It wouldn't *be* the state, it would be the people. Where those people live is not relevant.
> 
> In Presidential elections one city in Alaska gets about 40% of the votes. Add to that the second and third largest cities and they have >50% of the vote. Is that somehow unfair? Is that mob rule that these 3 cities decide who the electoral college votes go to?
> 
> They elect their state governor in the same way, are these 3 cities enacting mob rule?


It is relevant. Different states have differing opinions, cultures and populations. So they all vote for different things depending on this. The reason why a popular vote is flawed or why people consider it shady is because of the way our Political parties enact voting distracts and count votes. There's a reason why certain states that are Democrat team strongholds encourage sanctuary cities, anti-voter ID propaganda and encourage population migration to their states as well as exporting them. There's already been complaints of other states fed up with Cali voters going to their states and bringing their voting habits with them. So yes, population and location is a pretty key factor. The entire system needs an overhaul because both the EC and popular vote are being gamed by shady politicians.




FriedTofu said:


> If there is no EC, every vote have equal voting power. People wouldn't feel their votes don't matter in 'safe' states and you might get a result that better reflects the voters. What bigger advantages do these states have when the EC are allocated due to population, i.e to attempt to provide as fair a representation of the popular vote? All states are guaranteed 3 EC vote. So it is actually the mid-sized states that are losing voting power to the underpopulated states in the current system.
> 
> The EC has failed to represent the votes of the majority twice in recent decades. There has been no do-over over Brexit. Not sure what you are getting at.


The actual majority doesn't vote. Turning it all into a popular vote without any safeguards is asking for trouble. Neither the EC nor popular vote is reliable, therefore a new voting system should be implemented. It's pretty simple. I never said there was a do over for Brexit, pay attention. I said people love popular voting until something like Brexit happens and then people call for do-overs. Before Gay Marriage was made legal by the supreme court it was voted down several times in California (Then the most "Liberal" state at the time or so called) of all places. So pure popular votes aren't exactly a good thing.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

The popular vote has always been a stupid idea and always will. Thank god a few people realized that 200+ years ago when so many today can't.


----------



## MrMister

i love that Space Force has uniforms and they're forest camo.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> The actual majority doesn't vote. Turning it all into a popular vote without any safeguards is asking for trouble. Neither the EC nor popular vote is reliable, therefore a new voting system should be implemented. It's pretty simple. I never said there was a do over for Brexit, pay attention. I said people love popular voting until something like Brexit happens and then people call for do-overs. Before Gay Marriage was made legal by the supreme court it was voted down several times in California (Then the most "Liberal" state at the time or so called) of all places. So pure popular votes aren't exactly a good thing.


Would forcing everybody to vote solve your doubts then?

People upset the results of a vote isn't what they voted for. How is that an indictment on a mere popular vote over a EC voting? Again, one system failed to provide results the majority voted for, that is the important point here. The slow pace of Brexit is more of authoritarianism leadership versus democratic leadership. Voting isn't reliable, therefore we should not be voting at all and let the elites decide. Is that what you are suggesting?

Yeah gay marriage, what about weed legalization? What is the alternative you seem to think is much better? Something not being the optimum solution to everything doesn't mean it is a bad thing. 

You seem to be using arguments against first past the post voting in this discussion of the merits of popular votes versus electoral votes in deciding the presidency. While there is a discussion to be had against first past the post voting, it isn't what we are doing over here.


----------



## yeahbaby!

MrMister said:


> i love that Space Force has uniforms and they're forest camo.


Another victory for The Trump Administration.


----------



## njcam

Let me get this right......

July 25 2019 - Trump phone call to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky
January 21 2020 - Day 1 of President Trump's Impeachment Trial

There are people in jail that did not commit the crime they are in jail for, and they have to wait 3-4+ years to have their (1st) appeal heard.

Rules For Some... Rules For Others.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Would forcing everybody to vote solve your doubts then?
> 
> People upset the results of a vote isn't what they voted for. How is that an indictment on a mere popular vote over a EC voting? Again, one system failed to provide results the majority voted for, that is the important point here. The slow pace of Brexit is more of authoritarianism leadership versus democratic leadership. Voting isn't reliable, therefore we should not be voting at all and let the elites decide. Is that what you are suggesting?
> 
> Yeah gay marriage, what about weed legalization? What is the alternative you seem to think is much better? Something not being the optimum solution to everything doesn't mean it is a bad thing.
> 
> You seem to be using arguments against first past the post voting in this discussion of the merits of popular votes versus electoral votes in deciding the presidency. While there is a discussion to be had against first past the post voting, it isn't what we are doing over here.


A mandatory vote would solve a lot. Though an option to opt out could be included. I feel the pain of people who don't vote as they feel it's not worth it or they do not care. Hard to blame them when we're essentially a one party state. Back in the late 1800s- early 1900s, people would get into riots over voting and having the right to vote. Now it's a struggle to get a 49% voter turn out. 

Brexit still happened because people voted for it, Gay Marriage failed because people voted against it. Relying on a popular vote is simply not a good method of ruling when it comes down to it, for every positive example, there are more examples of it failing miserably. People cannot even handle Social Media voting responsibly. People are still falling for political memes and untruths. I think people in the most part have the best interest at heart but are politically ignorant, easily manipulated and thus we have the current state of affairs we do. 

I believe a voting system overhaul is needed, it's been knocked around by Americans for years. You'll never have a perfect voting system but a combination of the EC along with popular votes would be better. Lot's better than a pure populism voting contest. The "Majority" is fickle and as I said, people all love popular votes until it turns against them, which it always will eventually. There's a solution to the election problem and the popular vote isn't it.



MrMister said:


> i love that Space Force has uniforms and they're forest camo.


How else will the Space Force fight the Ewoks on Edor to secure that space oil?


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> A mandatory vote would solve a lot. Though an option to opt out could be included. I feel the pain of people who don't vote as they feel it's not worth it or they do not care. Hard to blame them when we're essentially a one party state. Back in the late 1800s- early 1900s, people would get into riots over voting and having the right to vote. Now it's a struggle to get a 49% voter turn out.
> 
> Brexit still happened because people voted for it, Gay Marriage failed because people voted against it. Relying on a popular vote is simply not a good method of ruling when it comes down to it, for every positive example, there are more examples of it failing miserably. People cannot even handle Social Media voting responsibly. People are still falling for political memes and untruths. I think people in the most part have the best interest at heart but are politically ignorant, easily manipulated and thus we have the current state of affairs we do.
> 
> I believe a voting system overhaul is needed, it's been knocked around by Americans for years. You'll never have a perfect voting system but a combination of the EC along with popular votes would be better. Lot's better than a pure populism voting contest. The "Majority" is fickle and as I said, people all love popular votes until it turns against them, which it always will eventually. There's a solution to the election problem and the popular vote isn't it.


Would supporting a mandatory vote mean you are against the excessive voter purges too? Don't see the passion against this compared to your positions on immigration around here. Making the presidency a popular vote instead of a popular vote within an individual state would in theory drive up voter turn out since every vote matter instead of every vote matter in one state. So why are you so dead set against that?

In other words, you prefer elites making decisions over the people deciding.

What is this combination of EC along with popular votes are you talking about? Your entire position seems to be against trying to change the system that failed twice in recent decades to reflect the majority's choice of president. Yeah people would turn against decisions that turn against them. This isn't something groundbreaking but again has nothing to do with popular vote against EC in deciding the presidency.

You sound more in favor of an authoritarian decision making mechanism because 'the others' can't be trusted to make decisions with each new post.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218661962537717761
Donald Trump completely vindicated regarding the whole Puerto Rico incident. Democrats withheld needed aid from people in order to hurt him politically, in coordination with their media partners. Pretty sick. Puerto Ricans are demanding the governor resign.

Meanwhile Hillary has come out and said "nobody likes" Bernie Sanders and that nobody will work with him. She's since backtracked but it really does make one wonder exactly what the hell Bernie Sanders got out of stumping for her in 2016. Poor judgement and utterly deficient strength of character. Difficult to imagine him actually accomplishing any of his hugely ambitious policy goals.

Demographic change and fraudulent voting seem to be the Democrats' best hopes in 2020 as they continue to adamantly oppose any border control or voter ID laws.


----------



## DesolationRow

One of the more humorous subplots to Armageddon 2020 is Barack Obama sitting on the sidelines and attempting to, as the English idiomatic proverb originally put it, simultaneously retain and devour his cake. He evidently finds Bernie Sanders to be a poisonous figure within the Democrats' surfeit of candidates, but at the same time cannot be troubled to support Joe Biden, his vice president, with myriad reports indicating that Obama deems Biden to having failed in establishing a connection between voters and himself. 

The _USA TODAY_ poll run with Suffolk Poll in the autumn in conjunction with several other polls noted that only Obama represents a potential "game-changer" in terms of influence for primary voters eyeing their options. Two-thirds of Democratic primary voters contended that Obama throwing his political weight behind a particular candidate would be meaningful. Hillary Clinton--who apparently believes nobody likes Bernie Sanders--fails to move the metaphorical needle when her name is bandied about in similar fashion. 

Obama and Donald Trump are proving to be far more alike than supporters of either would like to admit. Outside of appointing a bevy of judges, Trump has not been successful in providing the sort of political tumult, especially in the way of consequences for the "swamp" of which he has spoken. Obama, for all of his bold rhetoric when running for the presidency, proved to be, not ironically, a most conservative "establishmentarian" merely preserving the post-Bretton Woods, post-1960s political order both internationally and domestically as well as the post-1980 economic dependency on consumer debt.

Commercial banks issuing repos are playing one of the most crucial roles in maintaining and maximizing the risk prices. A stunning number of hedge fund operators are employing the method of purchasing U.S. Treasuries and wedding said purchases with the selling of equivalent derivatives contracts. An example would be interest rate futures, for instance. Several months ago the repo market was in sudden peril, which would have compelled enormous quantities of leverage being drained out of the market. The primary consequence would have been an almost-overnight colossal tremor in the form of mass liquidation within the sphere of the hedge fund market. All of that leveraging would have finally come at a breathtaking price. 

Instead, the Federal Reserve has been clandestinely propping the hedge fund market with sustained and massive injections of liquidity. The liquidity shortfall at the top of the financial world was initiated by JP Morgan draining $100 billion in repo market liquidity. The Federal Reserve acted in predictable fashion, which must have been foreseen by market movers-and-shakers, and JP Morgan happily experienced its most profitable year ever. This spectacular maneuver was recognized by Elizabeth Warren, who feigned horror and wrath, but, declaring herself a capitalist, never went further with her little show. The September 2019 repo implosion was put through financial "physical therapy" by the Fed, which pumped well over $400 billion in liquidity to replenish bank reserve markers,through repo means as well as the "T-Bill POMO" or the Federal Reserve's Permanent Open Market Operation. 

Speaking of the always-trustworthy Warren, who would never lie about anything, it was good to see Hillary Clinton backing her. Bernie "Nobody Likes Him" Sanders has been unsurprisingly tossed into Hillary's "basket of deplorables." And Sanders continues to refuse to fight back. It is hilarious to consider what would have happened if the Republican superdelegates had thrown their support to, say, Ted Cruz rather than Donald Trump as occurred in New Hampshire when Sanders, who delivered an entirely-metaphorical-not-at-all-truly-so-because-that-needs-to-be-clarified-when-discussing-an-obvious-misogynist-such-as-Sanders-whose-misogyny-is-palpably-evident-seeing-as-he-dared-challenge-Hillary-Clinton tombstone piledriver of an electoral victory through the primary election but six of New Hampshire's Democratic superdelegates ignored the vote and backed Hillary Clinton anyway. Trump would probably still be tweeting about it every day and cursing those superdelegates with each tweet. Sanders weakly rolls over. Good to see those superdelegates standing up to democratic misogyny on behalf of a woman who did it all on her own in Hillary Clinton as a strong, tough, independent woman. It's all so tiresome.


----------



## skypod

If they really wanted to kill Sanders campaign, they'd gather a group of 100 anti-Sanders, diverse *working class* people and put them on TV and let them run through the reasons they don't want him in and why it would damage them personally.

But the system is so rigged against working people, and God forbird we let anyone on less than six-figures a year speak on television about politics, that they're stuck in their own way by having millionaires like Clinton and Obama speak out on him.


----------



## njcam

These are the 9 people who should be "Jurors" in Trump's Impeachment trial, not the Senators.


----------



## FriedTofu

The whole impeachment trial is a farce. Everybody know it is a political game and not to punish any wrongdoing. Both the party bases support the continuing of this charade. Everybody else left wondering wtf do you elect these senators as a check to executive overreach in the first place if they can't even impeach a president that is guilty as fk. I just love all the receipt from cultist that bayed for blood with Hilary 5 years ago, now giving a free pass to their cult leader for doing much worse than Hilary.

And all this was because someone wanted dirt on Biden who isn't even the leading candidate this elections among his party's base. Stupid watergate indeed.


----------



## DesolationRow

Good to see that Jeffrey Epstein's guards found employment on behalf of the Democrats' wholly transparent and just exercise in democracy.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224564112174219265

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224588845146103808

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224731240793767936


----------



## Hangman

From what I've just read he's all clear? 

What happens next?


----------



## FriedTofu

It was all a show by both parties in the first place to energize their base and distract them from real issues at hand. Both sides got what they wanted from it. Next is Trump getting re-elected because the Democrat establishment fear Bernie's anti-corporate positions more than they fear an ignorant Trump pushing a GOP agenda nobody, not even the GOP, really wants to put in place.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225287145121878017


----------



## DaRealNugget

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225287145121878017


SDE's are a shitty metric that were only relevant in previous years because of the lack of popular vote releases(and there's still a good chance we overtake Pete in those as well). We're leading by 6000 on first alignment, 2500 on second. We won the popular vote easy, though we'll probably be tied with pete when it comes to national delegates.

Bernie raised 25 million in the month of January alone, more than any of the other candidates did in the previous QUARTERS of 2019. And fivethirtyeight has us as the favorite to win the nomination. Bernie's got this.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225491024711225349


----------



## DesolationRow

Sanders is definitely in the lead almost everywhere but South Carolina and Alabama. 









Women of color bolt Warren’s Nevada campaign in frustration


“Complaints, comments, advice, and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords, but not much else."




www.politico.com





Today at lunch a large group of "woke" Elizabeth Warren supporters in San Francisco were complaining one table over that Bernie Sanders's airing of grievances on behalf of Iowans was misplaced because "Iowa is at least ninety percent white." Sounded like CNN and MSNBC broadcasters had invaded the restaurant.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Hard right Pro Trump media triggered and sent in to attack mode towards Mitt Romney who dared to exercise his freedom in the Senate.









The Pro-Trump Media Basically Just Kicked Mitt Romney Out of the GOP


The entire weight of the pro-Trump media machine crashed down on the Utah senator.




www.vice.com





Laura Ingram from Fox: "Mitt, you made your stand. Now should you should resign. You committed a fraud on the people of Utah, on the Republican Party, on the Constitution, and a thoroughly embarrassed yourself," Ingraham said. *"If I have to move there to run against him in four and a half years, I will." lol

It's almost as if the right only like freedom when it's on their own terms.*


----------



## BlueEyedDevil




----------



## DesolationRow

Fascinating findings from a new report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform:



http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/Low-Immigration-States_web_0.pdf



Not surprisingly wages stalled and even lowered by this phenomenon favors big businesses most especially, and the impact on educational standards is frequently overlooked.


----------



## greasykid1

yeahbaby! said:


> Hard right Pro Trump media triggered and sent in to attack mode towards Mitt Romney who dared to exercise his freedom in the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pro-Trump Media Basically Just Kicked Mitt Romney Out of the GOP
> 
> 
> The entire weight of the pro-Trump media machine crashed down on the Utah senator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vice.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laura Ingram from Fox: "Mitt, you made your stand. Now should you should resign. You committed a fraud on the people of Utah, on the Republican Party, on the Constitution, and a thoroughly embarrassed yourself," Ingraham said. *"If I have to move there to run against him in four and a half years, I will." lol
> 
> It's almost as if the right only like freedom when it's on their own terms.*


More than anything, I find it shocking that only one Republican had the balls to stand against Trump. Just goes to show how much these people actually care about making America great. Right now, America is a worldwide disgrace and Trump is so far beyond laughing stock. The situation stopped being funny a long, long time ago. Now, everyone outside of America looks on, unable to believe that the majority of Americans think that this racist, criminal asshole is doing anything but dragging their country down.

Trump's propaganda officers keep posting literal lies about the economy doing better than ever, and more jobs being created than ever, and the people lap it up, despite the fact that you can easily see the truth with a simple google search.

But, as has been the case in many autocratic states in the past, the truth is secondary. He has the country bent over and begging for another 4 years of buttfucking. His November win is a formality at this point.


----------



## Miss Sally

greasykid1 said:


> More than anything, I find it shocking that only one Republican had the balls to stand against Trump. Just goes to show how much these people actually care about making America great. Right now, America is a worldwide disgrace and Trump is so far beyond laughing stock. The situation stopped being funny a long, long time ago. Now, everyone outside of America looks on, unable to believe that the majority of Americans think that this racist, criminal asshole is doing anything but dragging their country down.
> 
> Trump's propaganda officers keep posting literal lies about the economy doing better than ever, and more jobs being created than ever, and the people lap it up, despite the fact that you can easily see the truth with a simple google search.
> 
> But, as has been the case in many autocratic states in the past, the truth is secondary. He has the country bent over and begging for another 4 years of buttfucking. His November win is a formality at this point.
> [/QUOTE


You said "Google" and "Truth" in the same sentence, that made me giggle. 




DesolationRow said:


> Sanders is definitely in the lead almost everywhere but South Carolina and Alabama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women of color bolt Warren’s Nevada campaign in frustration
> 
> 
> “Complaints, comments, advice, and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords, but not much else."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today at lunch a large group of "woke" Elizabeth Warren supporters in San Francisco were complaining one table over that Bernie Sanders's airing of grievances on behalf of Iowans was misplaced because "Iowa is at least ninety percent white." Sounded like CNN and MSNBC broadcasters had invaded the restaurant.


Not surprising. This is going to play up more, Bernie's skin color/gender will be a big factor against him. If they were smart they'd attack the fact Vermont is overwhelmingly white and fairly wealthy. It really wouldn't be hard to attack him. All you need is Hilary/Warren shills to attack him, women and non-whites and to question him, point out his cowardly behavior in the past and he'll look shaky. His white voting base can be brow beaten into submission. Just have to be clever about it.


----------



## DaRealNugget

omg its happening


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226945319130353666


Miss Sally said:


> Not surprising. This is going to play up more, Bernie's skin color/gender will be a big factor against him. If they were smart they'd attack the fact Vermont is overwhelmingly white and fairly wealthy. It really wouldn't be hard to attack him. All you need is Hilary/Warren shills to attack him, women and non-whites and to question him, point out his cowardly behavior in the past and he'll look shaky. His white voting base can be brow beaten into submission. Just have to be clever about it.


lol no. if there's one consistent thing about this primary, it's those who attack bernie take a hit in the polls afterwards. that's what happens when you're the most trustworthy candidate with a 40 year record of consistency backing you up.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Go Bernie!


----------



## skypod

Buttigieg getting murdered in debates and killed off too early in Southern states is worrying. We need a false sense of strength from him to split the votes with Biden til the last minute. Bernie's advantage is that he's not splitting progressive vote with anyone, Warren and Yangs campaigns aren't going anywhere. 

Imagine the nightmare fucking scenario of Hilary Clinton running as someones VP. Though I doubt her ego would allow it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

greasykid1 said:


> More than anything, I find it shocking that only one Republican had the balls to stand against Trump. Just goes to show how much these people actually care about making America great. Right now, America is a worldwide disgrace and Trump is so far beyond laughing stock. The situation stopped being funny a long, long time ago. Now, everyone outside of America looks on, unable to believe that the majority of Americans think that this racist, criminal asshole is doing anything but dragging their country down.
> 
> Trump's propaganda officers keep posting literal lies about the economy doing better than ever, and more jobs being created than ever, and the people lap it up, despite the fact that you can easily see the truth with a simple google search.
> 
> But, as has been the case in many autocratic states in the past, the truth is secondary. He has the country bent over and begging for another 4 years of buttfucking. His November win is a formality at this point.


Calm down a bit, its not that bad


----------



## DaRealNugget

skypod said:


> Buttigieg getting murdered in debates and killed off too early in Southern states is worrying. We need a false sense of strength from him to split the votes with Biden til the last minute. Bernie's advantage is that he's not splitting progressive vote with anyone, Warren and Yangs campaigns aren't going anywhere.


Nah. Biden's whole shtick is "electability", and now that he's come fourth in Iowa and likely to come fourth or fifth in NH, his support is beginning to plummet. Buttigieg was never going to compete in Nevada & SC with next to zero minority support, no matter how strong of a performance he made in the first two states.

The moderate lane will still be split with Bloomberg buying votes. Combined with Biden falling and Warren going nowhere, Bernie is best positioned to win it all. Unless Mayo Pete pulls off an upset today, Sanders will keep surging.


----------



## greasykid1

Miss Sally said:


> You said "Google" and "Truth" in the same sentence, that made me giggle.


I don't really understand your point. I understand people's claims about Wikipedia not being the undisputed truth, as it's an open source encyclopedia that is largely unregulated. But Google is just a search engine, and will return only what you search for. It is not designed to deliver truth or lies. You search for something, read the results given, and make the judgement based on your own intelligence.

This is the problem. People are way too willing to be told what is true. If anyone with half a brain applied their own reasoning to the propaganda that Trump has The White House spreading, they'd see through the lies in seconds.

But people like to be ignorant. It's way less effort, and they can claim no responsibility when the shit goes down.


----------



## DesolationRow

Outstanding article from _Jacobin_, which details how post-1965 immigration primarily pushed by business-owning capitalists in the U.S. will have the ineluctable consequence of dramatically helping the very person these capitalists are most concerned about seeing ascend to the presidency in Bernie Sanders: Bernie Sanders’s Multiracial, Working-Class Base Was On Display In Iowa









WSJ News Exclusive | White House to Reduce Budget Request for Border Wall


The Trump administration plans to request $2 billion in new funding for border-wall construction, significantly less than the amount it sought last year, in the budget proposal set for release Monday, according to White House officials familiar with the planning.




www.wsj.com






__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226906496170102795

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226895680259678208
Donald Trump has quite simply thoroughly failed on this, the single most critical issue on which he ran in 2016. If Bernie Sanders retained his pre-Great Awokening position (roughly, _"Open borders?! That's a Koch Brothers proposal!"_) on the same issue the 2020 election would be quite the spectacle to witness, should the Democrats ever permit Sanders to wrest away the nomination. Pete Buttigieg seems like the antagonist in a conspiratorial science-fiction movie, fresh off of the underground human-alien clone assembly line to hold the Democrats' place for 2020.


----------



## Strike Force

skypod said:


> Imagine the nightmare fucking scenario of Hilary Clinton running as someones VP. Though I doubt her ego would allow it.


None of these candidates would ever consider her even for a moment. She's beyond damaged goods and would be a net negative even for a dark horse candidate like Yang.


----------



## DaRealNugget

omfg its happening


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227262598636240896
Bernie now leads the RCP and 538 national average.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Trump displays further idiocy


----------



## 304418

skypod said:


> Imagine the nightmare fucking scenario of Hilary Clinton running as someones VP. Though I doubt her ego would allow it.


Her window to be someone’s VP was in ‘08 & again in ’16. For whatever reason, neither happened nor was even strongly considered, even though she might have been better positioned to become President if she had. It’s not happening now. Losing to Trump hurt whatever popularity she had.


----------



## CamillePunk

Yeah the DNC's best hope is to siphon enough Bernie votes to a few different neoliberal candidates so they can have a contested convention and try to screw him there. 

Trump's been saying a lot of good things about Bernie lately. Some have surmised that he's trying to help Bernie win because he thinks he can beat him, much like how the Clintons encouraged Trump to run in 2016 because they thought they could beat him. I don't think that's the case though. Trump knows that many Democrats have a kneejerk reaction to take the opposite position of anything he says, and guilt by association has been one of their core principles during the TDS era. I think he expects his comments about Bernie to actually hurt Bernie among Democrats, and that he really doesn't want to run against the most popular politician in the country.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227790466789314560
*

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227791483408994305*


----------



## Lorromire

Bernie is a weird one for me. He has some good policies but at the same time some iffy/bad ones that make me think it'll end poorly. Can't be worse than Trump or Bush, though.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Sanders leads 10 points nationally in the first poll after his NH win.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228011634586783745
If we win Nevada, I'm not sure if there's anybody left who can stop us. Contested convention is the best bet for the establishment, but if Bernie wins the majority of the votes and they ratfuck him, the party will implode and Trump will be guaranteed a second term.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227987333561159680

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227980618849492994


----------



## CamillePunk

It's true. Despite the mainstream narrative of Trump being some sort of fascistic dictator, he's actually been a very weak executive. He should've cleaned house a long time ago, and should not have made so many concessions to never-Trump deep state bureaucrats.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Go Bernie!


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228114149923868673
Will enough people want to rock the boat?


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

So Gallup only polled the top 10%? Where did they conduct this poll, in one of Pete Booty judge's wine caves?


----------



## 304418

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah the DNC's best hope is to siphon enough Bernie votes to a few different neoliberal candidates so they can have a contested convention and try to screw him there.


If that happens, and I’ll guess they’ll pick Biden to be the nominee instead despite his current standing Trump’s guaranteed to win again. Of course, I believe Trump will win again regardless as to who the Democrat nominee is, including my fave Tulsi. It’s only with Bernie that Trump winning drops to a maybe.


----------



## 7x0v

Trump administration to deploy specialized Border Patrol agents to sanctuary cities

SWAT-Like Immigration Officers Are In Boston, Ready To Cooperate With ICE Arrests

The Trump administration is redirecting agents from a specially trained Border Patrol unit to help ramp up arrests and removals of undocumented immigrants in "sanctuary cities," multiple law enforcement officials confirmed Friday.

Members of the U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Unit, a rapid-response security force, are deploying to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Chicago and New York. Other agents from several ports of entry and field stations along the border are expected to be sent to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, Detroit and Newark, New Jersey, a senior Customs and Border Protection official confirmed.


----------



## njcam

Roger Stone's prison experience.....


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1230632090573688833


----------



## Jay Devito

CamillePunk said:


> It's true. Despite the mainstream narrative of Trump being some sort of fascistic dictator, he's actually been a very weak executive. He should've cleaned house a long time ago, and should not have made so many concessions to never-Trump deep state bureaucrats.


Sam Rothstein didn't want that yokel working in his casino but he had to keep him employed in order to keep certain people happy and off his back. And when he fired him it opened up a huge can of worms.


----------



## DesolationRow

The incubation period makes this one nasty virus. The worst is yet to come.



Italy’s coronavirus lockdown shows how the outbreak is testing democracies


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232130384395194368
The U.S. is such a spectacularly silly place, one in which the replacement religion of World War II mythologizing is strictly and constantly enforced. Chris Matthews is a dullard but leave it to the finger-wagging hordes to request his being canceled because he made a harmless and amusing point based on an historical quote. Events such as this coupled with the hysteria over "Russian interference" as pushed by the U.S.'s "deep state" nexus emanating from the bureaucratic inner-workings of the U.S. intelligence and national-security hubs and media auxiliaries for same regarding any candidate who stands a chance while being at least nominally positioned as apart from the status quo (first Donald Trump, now Bernie Sanders) only throw fuel to the proverbial fire of hostility tens of millions of people instinctively have for the U.S.'s ruling class.

In this instance, at least, someone almost humorously unsympathetic in Matthews was compelled to bend the knee. Now he can go back to reminiscing about the Cold War in _some _peace, the poor man.


----------



## DesolationRow

Michael Bloomberg saying that he "bought" the Democratic Congressional candidates whose victories flipped the House of Representatives in 2018 is one of the funniest "Freudian slips" in many a moon.


----------



## Jay Devito

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232130384395194368
> The U.S. is such a spectacularly silly place, one in which the replacement religion of World War II mythologizing is strictly and constantly enforced. Chris Matthews is a dullard but leave it to the finger-wagging hordes to request his being canceled because he made a harmless and amusing point based on an historical quote. Events such as this coupled with the hysteria over "Russian interference" as pushed by the U.S.'s "deep state" nexus emanating from the bureaucratic inner-workings of the U.S. intelligence and national-security hubs and media auxiliaries for same regarding any candidate who stands a chance while being at least nominally positioned as apart from the status quo (first Donald Trump, now Bernie Sanders) only throw fuel to the proverbial fire of hostility tens of millions of people instinctively have for the U.S.'s ruling class.
> 
> In this instance, at least, someone almost humorously unsympathetic in Matthews was compelled to bend the knee. Now he can go back to reminiscing about the Cold War in _some _peace, the poor man.


I honestly don't know how people like Matthews and people on the left continue to put up with this. How is this any way to live? Wouldn't you imagine it is extremely stressful and extremely uncomfortable knowing that at any given moment you could be cast away and shunned for being a heretic and not appearing woke enough?

Isn't that a telltale sign you're on the wrong side... or at least not on the right one?


----------



## skypod

Jay Devito said:


> I honestly don't know how people like Matthews and people on the left continue to put up with this. How is this any way to live? Wouldn't you imagine it is extremely stressful and extremely uncomfortable knowing that at any given moment you could be cast away and shunned for being a heretic and not appearing woke enough?
> 
> Isn't that a telltale sign you're on the wrong side... or at least not on the right one?


a) Matthews isn't on the left. No-one on American television who speaks about politics is on the left. He's a rich corporate centrist who doesn't give a shit about working class people
b) this wasn't about being woke. This was a concentrated effort by people to say they're not putting up with this hysterical cold war fear people are instilling about Bernie. Getting Matthews to apologise was a success. If this had went unchecked, more and more Democrats would be swayed to thinking Sanders is some Russian villain.


----------



## Jay Devito

skypod said:


> a) Matthews isn't on the left. No-one on American television who speaks about politics is on the left. He's a rich corporate centrist who doesn't give a shit about working class people
> b) this wasn't about being woke. This was a concentrated effort by people to say they're not putting up with this hysterical cold war fear people are instilling about Bernie. Getting Matthews to apologise was a success. If this had went unchecked, more and more Democrats would be swayed to thinking Sanders is some Russian villain.


Sorry but no, it was about being woke. He was only pressured to apologize because he Bernie is jewish.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232196978345496576
As the kids say, "Bruh..."



DesolationRow said:


> Pete Buttigieg seems like the antagonist in a conspiratorial science-fiction movie, fresh off of the underground human-alien clone assembly line to hold the Democrats' place for 2020.


----------



## Not Lying

del


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah the DNC's best hope is to siphon enough Bernie votes to a few different neoliberal candidates so they can have a contested convention and try to screw him there.
> 
> Trump's been saying a lot of good things about Bernie lately. Some have surmised that he's trying to help Bernie win because he thinks he can beat him, much like how the Clintons encouraged Trump to run in 2016 because they thought they could beat him. I don't think that's the case though. Trump knows that many Democrats have a kneejerk reaction to take the opposite position of anything he says, and guilt by association has been one of their core principles during the TDS era. I think he expects his comments about Bernie to actually hurt Bernie among Democrats, and that he really doesn't want to run against the most popular politician in the country.


Several local RNCs on the state level (where they aren’t running local events as the incumbent President usually has no competition) have been encouraging GOP voters to cross over and vote for Sanders. He really feels he has the best chance to beat Bernie in the general election. He has pushed the “Democrats are socialist” card so often that why not run against a socialist to show the country what happens if he loses. 

He could care less about getting Democrats to vote and he won’t get the Bernie Bros that voted for him last time or sit at home if Sanders is his opponent. Trump is pushing for the independents, as well as Republicans and conservatives who refused to vote for him last time but will do so this time rather then vote for Bernie.


----------



## DesolationRow

Have to give "Mayor Pete" credit. He is the proverbial "good soldier."

The pressure must have been immense from "above" within the Democratic Party's superstructure to compel him to drop out now before "Super Tuesday." 

If the anti-Bernie Sanders forces are serious they should implore Michael Bloomberg to drop out now, too, and throw everything he has behind Joe Biden. 

Not to suggest that Biden is some insuperable giant, but this poster was reminding others here in the first half of 2019 that it is typically baby boomers who decide elections, and in Democratic politics older black voters are likewise extremely critical. No one has tapped into those voting blocs to the extent "Sleepy Joe" Biden has. He needed a colossal win in South Carolina and thanks in large part to the Jim Clyburn endorsement in South Carolina he secured hypothetical colossal win in reality. 

Sanders still holds the "high ground" in massive states such as California and Texas, largely due to the demographic makeup of those states, where "Socialism" is favored over capitalism by Democratic voters: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234144835319353346
(As an aside, Republicans who insist that Texas is not yet a swing state are in for a rude awakening. It most certainly is now in play in presidential elections going forward, and will ineluctably "go blue" before the 2020s decade is over.) 

If the polling of Pete Buttigieg supporters is to be believed, a slight majority stated in recent surveys that they would vote for Sanders over the other candidates in the race, however, so South Carolina results notwithstanding it may still be too little, too late for the anti-Sanders coalition.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234669334632390656

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234579299652554753
The Big Klo now supports Old Joe!


----------



## yeahbaby!

So.... Joe believes in a indescribable Lizard King/Dragon/Flying Dog creator known only as the Thing?


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234693446419570689
James Carville was squealing over the weekend that the super delegates needed to throw all of their weight behind Joe Biden immediately before Super Tuesday. Seems like the message rang out loud and clear throughout the party.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234993943999217664

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234994036173201415
Demographics. They matter.

A year ago this poster noted that Joe Biden's inculcated base of baby boomers gave him a sizable advantage. Older people vote robustly. And even if Biden does not know what day it is the idea of the Medicare scheme being altered dramatically from how it is today is terrifying to many of them in the abstract. (There is also what we may call the "Chris Matthews factor": Cold War era youths in the U.S. still tend to recoil when they hear the word "socialism" and see images of Stalinist military parades, et. al.)

Conversely, U.S. states which possess dramatically higher shares of immigrants and their offspring have a markedly more favorable view of "socialism":


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234989270298808320


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1235010818049290240
Yesterday at approximately 1:30pm there was a large number (probably about 60) black and Hispanic youths wearing "Michael Bloomberg 2020" t-shirts walking northbound at the intersection of Divisadero and Turk in San Francisco. They were in a rather jovial mood from appearances, showing off their t-shirts fairly enthusiastically.


----------



## WeHateWrasslin

Can't wait to vote Trump this election.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1235010818049290240
> Yesterday at approximately 1:30pm there was a large number (probably about 60) black and Hispanic youths wearing "Michael Bloomberg 2020" t-shirts walking northbound at the intersection of Divisadero and Turk in San Francisco. They were in a rather jovial mood from appearances, showing off their t-shirts fairly enthusiastically.


LMAO I'd be in a jovial mood too. I'm sure Bloomberg gave them a nice pay day.


----------



## DesolationRow

Looking at the polling data all of this poster's suspicions for the past year were proven accurate, mainly that Democratic voters would chiefly concern themselves with picking the candidate they believed to be best-situated to defeat Donald Trump and set all other considerations aside. Joe Biden was always generically this pick even if he excites almost no one. In fact the only voters excited about Biden now are, out of the exceedingly critical Jim Clyburn endorsement, older black voters. Biden won every single state where the black vote accounts for more than 10% of said state's population. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, in a field with far more candidates than in 2016 which was effectively a binary choice between he and Hillary Clinton, has won two-thirds of the states in which blacks make up under 10% of the population. Biden already enjoyed great support from blacks but Clyburn's endorsement and the disseminating of a pro-Biden message throughout black Southern Christian churches subsequent to that endorsement turned it "up to eleven" to quote _This Is Spinal Tap_. 

Bernie Bros. seem to be arguing that this is all Elizabeth Warren's fault. Bizarre reasoning. Michael Bloomberg quite clearly harmed Biden much more than Warren directly drained from Sanders's support. If a Democrat is voting for Bloomberg in a Democratic primary, almost surely Biden would be their secondary choice. Warren became such a political non-entity, twisting in the wind ideologically and becoming an island unto herself (Chris Christie was not wrong when he pegged her falling numbers corresponding with the point that she had lost great degrees of support among "progressives" while being no-longer-tenable for the "moderates" at the same time, neither fish nor fowl as the old saying goes). Sure, Warren being around did not help Sanders but the typical Warren voter seemed to be a professional suburban woman, many of whom find Sanders too scabrous to support (in truth it seems like their vote would be splintered in myriad directions with no Warren around). 

Another grievous area for Sanders? His support among rural whites plummeted between 2016 and 2020. This was particularly costly in a bunch of Super Tuesday states, where if his support had simply remained the same among rural whites it would have mitigated the black voter tidal wave on behalf of Biden. Sanders's altered stance on immigration, which only a few years ago was still quite "restrictionist" in nature, bemoaning the "Koch Brothers" policy of "open borders, probably played a significant role among others in this dramatic waning of support from rural whites.


----------



## DesolationRow

This cannot be overstated at this juncture: markets are dropping to degrees unheard of since the Great Depression; at this moment, 10-year bonds have never been this low since the U.S. government began selling them in the 1880s. 

The CME limits have been hit. The market day commencing in Asia for Monday has been stupefying and an ominous signpost of sorts. A large number of the globe's most popular equity contracts have been silenced as the declines hit the 5% mark. E-mini futures for the S&P 500 Index collapsed 5%. 

Major stock market corrections seemed baked in the cake for a long, long time, but everything has accelerated and deepened simultaneously due to the present pandemic of COVID-19. 

The _30-year Treasury yield also hit a record low of 0.974%_ which means it breached the 1% threshold for the first time ever. 

Another major economic event is Saudi Arabia's choice to slash official crude selling prices for next month (April). The Dow Jones Industrial Average is set to open more than 1,000 points lower after the crashing of stock futures in the realm of overnight trading. 

The White House is indicating that cases of virus-infected Americans will double over the next 24 hours, news which will doubtless only continue to deepen fears on Wall Street as Monday's trading ensues.


----------



## DesolationRow

Angry Joe Biden Tells Detroit Worker 'You're Full Of Sh**' [VIDEO]


Angry Joe Biden Tells Detroit Worker 'You're Full Of Sh**'




wwjnewsradio.radio.com





Joe Biden peaked one week ago tonight as a force against Donald Trump, and about twenty seconds later put his hand on Beto O'Rourke's shoulder and bellowed that O'Rourke was going to help him with the gun issue. 

And Democrats insist that they are in good faith running against Trump in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania. 

It is like they are seeking Trump's reelection, all while Trump foolishly behaved as though he were Gollum with the stock market rallies of his presidency being his "precious." Hahaha.


----------



## DesolationRow

All of the gnashing of teeth over Elizabeth Warren, over media manipulations, over other Democrats including an obviously-still-irate Hillary Clinton holding a grudge, but perhaps Bernie Sanders supporters need to admit that Sanders himself is helping to torpedo his own populist movement. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1237148822624763904
How this fellow went from being a principled voice concerned with working class U.S. workers in the face of unending immigration from the third world to sounding like the very "Koch brothers" he once enjoyed trashing on the campaign trail in 2019 and 2020 when discussing this remains inexplicable. 

Much like Warren, but in a far different and more dramatic way, Sanders has "woked" himself to death.


----------



## TerraRising

The Dems lost once Beto dropped out.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> All of the gnashing of teeth over Elizabeth Warren, over media manipulations, over other Democrats including an obviously-still-irate Hillary Clinton holding a grudge, but perhaps Bernie Sanders supporters need to admit that Sanders himself is helping to torpedo his own populist movement.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1237148822624763904
> How this fellow went from being a principled voice concerned with working class U.S. workers in the face of unending immigration from the third world to sounding like the very "Koch brothers" he once enjoyed trashing on the campaign trail in 2019 and 2020 when discussing this remains inexplicable.
> 
> Much like Warren, but in a far different and more dramatic way, Sanders has "woked" himself to death.


That tweet completely ignoring any context or the other advice Bernie had which was very constructive, whether you agree or not. Simply closing off the borders isn't going to stop the virus spreading, people will still get through. It's not that simple. 

I have no idea who this Chris Martin person is, but one look at his profile shows he's all about trashing anything Biden or Bernie. He's no better than people slamming Trump with no substance behind their claims.


----------



## BruiserKC

In times of crisis, we look to the President for calm and the fact we have a leader who is paying attention. The speech he gave last night shows we don’t have that leader. And it seems like only now is he serious about this situation because it is taking a wrecking ball to his beautiful economy and his chances for re-election.

He already had to walk back his statement on the travel ban does not include cargo from Europe. The Dow Futures down 1200 points as well as sharp drops in other global markets show investors are shitting their pants. The CBOE VIX (measures market volatility) at its highest level since 2008.

This is not good, folks.


----------



## FriedTofu

Worse part is he didn't even explain why UK was exempted from the ban. Had to read from MSM explaining it is likely due to the Schengen Agreement regarding freedom of movement of people for countries that signed up for it and UK is one of the few that did not. His speech is a joke and just shows once again his administration of clowns is still treating this like a game by using talking points like bashing the EU and red tape to appease his cult members. He can't even read the prepared speech correctly by rambling towards cargo and 'anything being banned only to have to correct himself afterwards. _smh_


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1238195499104178176


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> All of the gnashing of teeth over Elizabeth Warren, over media manipulations, over other Democrats including an obviously-still-irate Hillary Clinton holding a grudge, but perhaps Bernie Sanders supporters need to admit that Sanders himself is helping to torpedo his own populist movement.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1237148822624763904
> How this fellow went from being a principled voice concerned with working class U.S. workers in the face of unending immigration from the third world to sounding like the very "Koch brothers" he once enjoyed trashing on the campaign trail in 2019 and 2020 when discussing this remains inexplicable.
> 
> Much like Warren, but in a far different and more dramatic way, Sanders has "woked" himself to death.


Bernie says the dumbest stuff. People say Trump says dumb stuff, Bernie says the absolutely dumbest crap that derails himself. He's losing support among white rural voters because he flat out told them they don't know what real poverty is. He flip flops on nearly everything and he's too scared to defend half his positions. He just tows the democratic party line but says a few things to make him seem like an "outsider". It astounds me that anyone with a brain or who is brown would vote for this guy.



yeahbaby! said:


> That tweet completely ignoring any context or the other advice Bernie had which was very constructive, whether you agree or not. Simply closing off the borders isn't going to stop the virus spreading, people will still get through. It's not that simple.
> 
> I have no idea who this Chris Martin person is, but one look at his profile shows he's all about trashing anything Biden or Bernie. He's no better than people slamming Trump with no substance behind their claims.


Context is important but no considering shutting down the border is idiotic. Nothing is 100% full proof and in the medical field all you can do is try to minimize the issue, it can be 5% to 100%, it doesn't matter. It won't stop everyone from getting through but it would stop enough to make a difference, which could be a huge difference with how the virus spreads.


----------



## DaRealNugget

dow below 20,000 lmao. so much for running on his "strong economy". trump is so incompetent, he's actually going to lose to dementia joe in the general.

o7 to bernie sanders. you were far too kind of a person to do what was necessary to win the primary. that is your greatest strength, yet your greatest weakness. though you will not lead the revolution, you have inspired a generation to continue working for a more just, equitable society. not me, us.


----------



## FriedTofu

Those 401k memes from his cult members are coming back to bite their ass.


----------



## Jay Devito

DaRealNugget said:


> dow below 20,000 lmao. so much for running on his "strong economy". trump is so incompetent, he's actually going to lose to dementia joe in the general.
> 
> o7 to bernie sanders. you were far too kind of a person to do what was necessary to win the primary. that is your greatest strength, yet your greatest weakness. though you will not lead the revolution, you have inspired a generation to continue working for a more just, equitable society. not me, us.





FriedTofu said:


> Those 401k memes from his cult members are coming back to bite their ass.


I don't understand, you do both understand that this was a foreign element correct? That all the markets around the world are taking a dive in unison? That the world economy is going to bounce back just like it has after every crisis?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Funny any foreign element is lost in the woods when it's Trump taking credit for the economy on the up


----------



## Rankles75

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1241041500936568838
Seems a perfectly reasoned response from Trump... 🙄😆


----------



## FriedTofu

And his cult members already have an excuse ready made. This reporter was 'spreading' fear with that softball question. Fk this timeline. He is proving his own words right. He really could shoot somebody in 5th avenue and not lose any voters. He is 'shooting someone' on a bigger scale with his incompetence during this crisis and his cult members are still in denial.


----------



## Jay Devito

yeahbaby! said:


> Funny any foreign element is lost in the woods when it's Trump taking credit for the economy on the up


I think rational people on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that this was something completely beyond anyone's control, and that _all_ of the world's economies have been effected for the time being... not just America.

But hey if you feel it's a sound strategy for the democrats to pin this on Trump as we head into the general election.... go right ahead. I'm sure it will go over like gang busters with the voting populace.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Meh Trump dug his own grave by failing to act earlier, those public statements he made early on will be killer campaign ads come the general.

But honestly the political impacts of this are nothing compared to the social impacts that will come from the number of people who die.


----------



## FriedTofu

Alkomesh2 said:


> Meh Trump dug his own grave by failing to act earlier, those public statements he made early on will be killer campaign ads come the general.
> 
> But honestly the political impacts of this are nothing compared to the social impacts that will come from the number of people who die.


What grave? His cult members will still vote for him by rationalizing that it wasn't his fault.

To be honest, this pandemic would have resulted in chaos no matter who is in charge so we can't even tell how many more lives will be lost due to his recklessness and lack of urgency. Even the best prepared countries had to make some sacrifice to their daily lives. If a democratic president asked for some sacrifice during a successful containment, let alone a lockdown on cities, those lying POS in conservative media would kick a fuss out of it and made things bad either way.


----------



## Jay Devito

Only a matter of time before liberals start calling it the 'trump virus'. I suppose all of those deaths will be pinned on him too.

"Truth to power" and all that.


----------



## yeahbaby!

This week on 'Absurd Projection!'.


----------



## FriedTofu

yeahbaby! said:


> This week on 'Absurd Projection!'.


This is what happen when someone only consume news from paid propagandists or ideologues that are useful idiots to the elites.


----------



## The Body

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Braun is a Republican they don't believe in empathy, they believe in social Darwinism-- if you can't afford to live you should die.


Republicans give more to charity (and here), are happier and more honest (see here, here, here, and here), and are greatly outnumbered by democrats in prisons (there's a reason democrats fight for voting rights for felons, and its not out of compassion). Oh, Republicans also adopt far more children in need of families.

But let's not let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of your hateful ignorance. Please, continue on spreading your nonsense. Let the whole world know what an imbecile you are.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

The Body said:


> Republicans give more to charity (and here), are happier and more honest (see here, here, here, and here), and are greatly outnumbered by democrats in prisons (there's a reason democrats fight for voting rights for felons, and its not out of compassion). Oh, Republicans also adopt far more children in need of families.
> 
> But let's not let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of your hateful ignorance. Please, continue on spreading your nonsense. Let the whole world know what an imbecile you are.


If Republicans adopt more children show the data, nothing else you said was relevant to my point except for the charity thing, which is misnomer-- Republican contributions to charity include their tithes to their Church which isn't charity, it's a religious obligation. 

It's Republicans that support cutting food stamps to poor people, that don't support single payer health care because they don't want to pay for other people's health care, that support cutting social security to the elderly and disabled.

You can throw whatever graphs and charts out you want but the Republican ethos and value system is on full display through the politicians you vote for and the rhetoric of the talking heads you patronize.


----------



## RainmakerV2

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Braun is a Republican they don't believe in empathy, they believe in social Darwinism-- if you can't afford to live you should die.



Is that why Democrats just killed the stimulus bill to keep people alive just to spite Trump? Lol.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit

RainmakerV2 said:


> Is that why Democrats just killed the stimulus bill to keep people alive just to spite Trump? Lol.


No, the dems did that because it was full policies that line corporate pockets opposed to helping actual people.

But by all means keep drinking your cool-aid.


----------



## RainmakerV2

DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> No, the dems did that because it was full policies that line corporate pockets opposed to helping actual people.
> 
> But by all means keep drinking your cool-aid.


Read the bill buddy. Democrats are trying to put stuff like airlines offsetting carbon emissions, the gender pay gap, bailing out the US Postal Service, requiring early voting in all 50 states, into a bill designed to get money to suffering people.


Get over yourself on corporations. Both sides work for them, both sides are owned by them. The people in power will always put bills forward to help them. It just so happens president has an R next to his name right now. Why the fuck do you think the Democratic party railroads Bernie every 4 years for the corporate elitest candidate LOL.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit

RainmakerV2 said:


> Read the bill buddy. Democrats are trying to put stuff like airlines offsetting carbon emissions, the gender pay gap, bailing out the US Postal Service, requiring early voting in all 50 states, into a bill designed to get money to suffering people.
> 
> 
> Get over yourself on corporations. Both sides work for them, both sides are owned by them. The people in power will always put bills forward to help them. It just so happens president has an R next to his name right now. Why the fuck do you think the Democratic party railroads Bernie every 4 years for the corporate elitest candidate LfOL.


Oh I agree the dems are fucked, but acting like the Rcons are being prevented from helping people by dems is as asinine as acting like the McMahons care about wrestling fans.

Also all the things you listed favor people over corporations, oppose to the R contributions that just line the pockets of the already wealthy, so what exactly is your point?


----------



## RainmakerV2

DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> Oh I agree the dems are fucked, but acting like the Rcons are being prevented from helping people by dems is as asinine as acting like the McMahons care about wrestling fans.


Doesnt matter what the facts are. Its the messaging. The common man at home that just lost his job is going to wonder "why are they stopping me from getting my checks?". Thats it. They dont care about what money goes to what corporation. 

Democrats are idiots. Always have been. In 2016 they served Trump on a silver platter to the Democrats and instead of running Bernie who would have beat Trump, they run the most negative candidate in presidential history with Hillary.

Now in an election year they're given a deadly virus that would be a huge hurdle for an incombant to overcome, but they're gonna pick THIS hill to die on, and they railroaded Bernie AGAIN to nominate an 80 year old that is showing obvious signs of dementia. Its hilarious. Seems like they want Trump to be president to me.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit

RainmakerV2 said:


> Doesnt matter what the facts are. Its the messaging. The common man at home that just lost his job is going to wonder "why are they stopping me from getting my checks?". Thats it. They dont care about what money goes to what corporation.
> 
> Democrats are idiots. Always have been. In 2016 they served Trump on a silver platter to the Democrats and instead of running Bernie who would have beat Trump, they run the most negative candidate in presidential history with Hillary.
> 
> Now in an election year they're given a deadly virus that would be a huge hurdle for an incombant to overcome, but they're gonna pick THIS hill to die on, and they railroaded Bernie AGAIN to nominate an 80 year old that is showing obvious signs of dementia. Its hilarious. Seems like they want Trump to be president to me.


I actually agree with everything you said... It does seem like democrats want to lose.


----------



## BRITLAND

RainmakerV2 said:


> Doesnt matter what the facts are. Its the messaging. The common man at home that just lost his job is going to wonder "why are they stopping me from getting my checks?". Thats it. They dont care about what money goes to what corporation.
> 
> Democrats are idiots. Always have been. In 2016 they served Trump on a silver platter to the Democrats and instead of running Bernie who would have beat Trump, they run the most negative candidate in presidential history with Hillary.
> 
> Now in an election year they're given a deadly virus that would be a huge hurdle for an incombant to overcome, but they're gonna pick THIS hill to die on, and they railroaded Bernie AGAIN to nominate an 80 year old that is showing obvious signs of dementia. Its hilarious. Seems like they want Trump to be president to me.


Some Democrats would prefer a second term of Trump than have Bernie win the Presidency, reminds me of this, skip to 1:50:


----------



## RainmakerV2

BRITLAND said:


> Some Democrats would prefer a second term of Trump than have Bernie win the Presidency, reminds me of this, skip to 1:50:



Freudian slip there when he said "company ". Corporations know Bernie would be a disaster for them, which is why just like in 2016 the media completely dismembered him when he started picking up steam. Trump may call them "fake news" but they know he will at least play ball when it comes to money, and thats all that matters.


----------



## RiverFenix

RainmakerV2 said:


> Is that why Democrats just killed the stimulus bill to keep people alive just to spite Trump? Lol.


Stimulus bill you mean the Trump $500 BILLION slush fund with zero oversight or accountability attached? Giving Billion dollar bailouts to cruise lines who are not even flagged to America to avoid paying US taxes now get a US taxpayer bailout according to Trump and Mnuchin? The bill did little for the common man and was a bonanza for big business and corporations. House Dems will pass a bill focused on mainstreet, not Wall Street today or early tomorrow. Feel free to compare the two bills and see for yourself which one "keeps people alive".


----------



## Hephaesteus

RainmakerV2 said:


> Doesnt matter what the facts are. Its the messaging. The common man at home that just lost his job is going to wonder "why are they stopping me from getting my checks?". Thats it. They dont care about what money goes to what corporation.
> 
> Democrats are idiots. Always have been. In 2016 they served Trump on a silver platter to the Democrats and instead of running Bernie who would have beat Trump, they run the most negative candidate in presidential history with Hillary.
> 
> Now in an election year they're given a deadly virus that would be a huge hurdle for an incombant to overcome, but they're gonna pick THIS hill to die on, and they railroaded Bernie AGAIN to nominate an 80 year old that is showing obvious signs of dementia. Its hilarious. Seems like they want Trump to be president to me.


How was Bernie railroaded this time? If the dude cant motivate his own fan base to come to the polls how is that anybody's fault but bernies?

And you think that Bernie who would clearly fight to have even more stringent environmental measures in this bill is the answer? Good luck with that.

As for Braun, do they not have spokespeople who tell these stars to stfu. Here's a hint, guy: STOP TALKING ABOUT MONEY, no good will ever come of it.


----------



## RainmakerV2

DetroitRiverPhx said:


> Stimulus bill you mean the Trump $500 BILLION slush fund with zero oversight or accountability attached? Giving Billion dollar bailouts to cruise lines who are not even flagged to America to avoid paying US taxes now get a US taxpayer bailout according to Trump and Mnuchin? The bill did little for the common man and was a bonanza for big business and corporations. House Dems will pass a bill focused on mainstreet, not Wall Street today or early tomorrow. Feel free to compare the two bills and see for yourself which one "keeps people alive".











Nancy Pelosi Proposes 1,400-Page Coronavirus Bill Stuffed with Pork


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi debuted a 1,120 page coronavirus rescue bill, after Democrats tanked the Senate proposal on Sunday night.




www.breitbart.com






Yeah thats some stuff mainstreet is dying for right there buddy


----------



## RiverFenix

RainmakerV2 said:


> Nancy Pelosi Proposes 1,400-Page Coronavirus Bill Stuffed with Pork
> 
> 
> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi debuted a 1,120 page coronavirus rescue bill, after Democrats tanked the Senate proposal on Sunday night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thats some stuff mainstreet is dying for right there buddy


Still better than $500 Billion no-strings cash to Trump to play favorites and bribe with -

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242239785999241217
Would make the extortion of Ukraine seem like child's play.

Do I agree with all the Dem Bill positions. Nope. But the election money is completely legit in response to Covid as it safeguards the election in November versus Trump having to cancel it because of safety of voters. Planned Parenthood is where a fair amount of mostly poor women get their healthcare. I know it's a RW boogeyman because it provides abortion services but IIRC it's like 8% of what they do there. I am 100% against any student loan forgiveness. I lived frugally to pay my loans off - would piss me off to see folks who didn't make the personal sacrifices get money off. Immigration stuff is necessary to take the people out of the shadows - they can be spreaders and infected as well and if they're scared to go to doctors because they'd then get arrested and deported they just keep spreading vs getting help. Unions are main street. Solar and wind companies are in competition with oil companies - what is big oil getting? Don't want post offices to get money - what is FedEx and UPS getting?

Would you have given Obama $500B with no oversite to spend as he wished? TARP/Stimulus money had an inspector general to answer to and two oversight committees in Congress.

Oh yeah - Brietbart, where Trump's campaign manager was editor and I believe a main financial backer of Trump still owns. Hey, maybe I can link Daily Kos articles.

And while we're here - how long did the GOP drag out the 2008 Stimulus bill negotiations with Obama Admin? 6-7 MONTHS. And Obama had 58 Senate seats at the time and GOP wouldn't provide two for cloture without MONTHS of negotiations. Arlen Spector had to leave the party and cross the aisle when he finally voted for cloture as a Republican.

Now it's expected that Democrats just sign whatever Mnuchin/McConnel decide - explicitly freezing out Dem House which is interesting since House controls the purse strings and the bill should come from there and given it's a divided government with a Dem House and GOP Senate there would need to be a bipartisan bill. McConnell wanted to play politics - write the bill himself and try to force Dems to swallow it or it would be bad optics for them.


----------



## RainmakerV2

DetroitRiverPhx said:


> Still better than $500 Billion no-strings cash to Trump to play favorites and bribe with -
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242239785999241217
> Would make the extortion of Ukraine seem like child's play.
> 
> Do I agree with all the Dem Bill positions. Nope. But the election money is completely legit in response to Covid as it safeguards the election in November versus Trump having to cancel it because of safety of voters. Planned Parenthood is where a fair amount of mostly poor women get their healthcare. I know it's a RW boogeyman because it provides abortion services but IIRC it's like 8% of what they do there. I am 100% against any student loan forgiveness. I lived frugally to pay my loans off - would piss me off to see folks who didn't make the personal sacrifices get money off. Immigration stuff is necessary to take the people out of the shadows - they can be spreaders and infected as well and if they're scared to go to doctors because they'd then get arrested and deported they just keep spreading vs getting help. Unions are main street. Solar and wind companies are in competition with oil companies - what is big oil getting? Don't want post offices to get money - what is FedEx and UPS getting?
> 
> Would you have given Obama $500B with no oversite to spend as he wished? TARP/Stimulus money had an inspector general to answer to and two oversight committees in Congress.
> 
> Oh yeah - Brietbart, where Trump's campaign manager was editor and I believe a main financial backer of Trump still owns. Hey, maybe I can link Daily Kos articles.
> 
> And while we're here - how long did the GOP drag out the 2008 Stimulus bill negotiations with Obama Admin? 6-7 MONTHS. And Obama had 58 Senate seats at the time and GOP wouldn't provide two for cloture without MONTHS of negotiations. Arlen Spector had to leave the party and cross the aisle when he finally voted for cloture as a Republican.
> 
> Now it's expected that Democrats just sign whatever Mnuchin/McConnel decide - explicitly freezing out Dem House which is interesting since House controls the purse strings and the bill should come from there and given it's a divided government with a Dem House and GOP Senate there would need to be a bipartisan bill. McConnell wanted to play politics - write the bill himself and try to force Dems to swallow it or it would be bad optics for them.



If you can honestly look in the mirror and say abortion is 8 percent of Planned Parenthood you're either stupid or you work for them.


----------



## MontyCora

RainmakerV2 said:


> Is that why Democrats just killed the stimulus bill to keep people alive just to spite Trump? Lol.


Bit of misrepresentation here. They want some basic safeguards and transparency to make sure funds are not misused. The White House and Republicans are asking for a 500 billion dollar dark money slush fund with basically zero meaningful guard rails on how that money gets distributed, or any visibility to who benefits from it.

The legislation voted on Sunday, for example, says any companies that Mnuchin finds "eligible" for that 500 billion should maintain the same employment levels that they had March 13th "to the extent practicable." But it doesn't define what practicable even means. This strongly suggests an airline or a cruise company or hotel could accept taxpayer funds, send the money to shareholders, and STILL lay off tons of workers. 

If you think is some sort of paranoid libtard excuse to justify casual cruelty to innocent people, then you're willfully ignoring the galling abuses of power from the current administration. The doling out favors to cronies, attempting to weaponize other authorities against perceived enemies (antitrust, government procurement, transportation security administration-screening) It's not paranoid asshole nonsense to worry that Mar-a-Lago members might be unusually big beneficiaries, while other states (Like Illinois) get short shrift.

The new democrat bill is MASSIVELY geared towards protecting the American worker during this emergency, exactly the group you're outraged on behalf of. It includes strict conditions on corporations that accept bailout funds and beefs up paid sick leave and direct cash payments to Americans among a bunch of other shit. 

It's a shame that American politics is so insanely vindictive and petty that what's best for your citizens has turned into "Pelosi hates Americans and wants them to suffer" or "Mitch hates Americans and wants them to suffer."


----------



## RainmakerV2

MontyCora said:


> Bit of misrepresentation here. They want some basic safeguards and transparency to make sure funds are not misused. The White House and Republicans are asking for a 500 billion dollar dark money slush fund with basically zero meaningful guard rails on how that money gets distributed, or any visibility to who benefits from it.
> 
> The legislation voted on Sunday, for example, says any companies that Mnuchin finds "eligible" for that 500 billion should maintain the same employment levels that they had March 13th "to the extent practicable." But it doesn't define what practicable even means. This strongly suggests an airline or a cruise company or hotel could accept taxpayer funds, send the money to shareholders, and STILL lay off tons of workers.
> 
> If you think is some sort of paranoid libtard excuse to justify casual cruelty to innocent people, then you're willfully ignoring the galling abuses of power from the current administration. The doling out favors to cronies, attempting to weaponize other authorities against perceived enemies (antitrust, government procurement, transportation security administration-screening) It's not paranoid asshole nonsense to worry that Mar-a-Lago members might be unusually big beneficiaries, while other states (Like Illinois) get short shrift.
> 
> The new democrat bill is MASSIVELY geared towards protecting the American worker during this emergency, exactly the group you're outraged on behalf of. It includes strict conditions on corporations that accept bailout funds and beefs up paid sick leave and direct cash payments to Americans among a bunch of other shit.
> 
> It's a shame that American politics is so insanely vindictive and petty that what's best for your citizens has turned into "Pelosi hates Americans and wants them to suffer" or "Mitch hates Americans and wants them to suffer."



Dude. Im not saying you're wrong. Im saying politcially this is the wrong hill to die on to try to make some stand. All of what you said may be true, but average Joe Schmo doesnt care, they want their check and they wanna know why it aint coming and Trumps gonna play it up to the tenth degree and get moral high ground in the eyes of the people. 

This is mostly Democrats own fault because they've turned the dial up to 11 on fake outrage over every single Trump tweet and quote, that many will just see this as them trying to spite Trump at the cost of the American people, and you better believe the RNC is going to spin that shit like a motherfucker. This is why you dont cry wolf for 4 years, no one cares when there actually is a real issue and your quest may be an honorable one. ( it aint btw, look at the God damn bill.) Like Jeff Daniels character said in the Newsroom.."If liberals are so smart how come they lose so god damn always?" Do you wanna be right or do you wanna win? They've been handed the white house two straight elections and they're gonna get clobbered both times by Donald freaking Trump. Its so stupid all you can do is laugh.


----------



## MontyCora

RainmakerV2 said:


> Dude. Im not saying you're wrong. Im saying politcially this is the wrong hill to die on to try to make some stand. All of what you said may be true, but average Joe Schmo doesnt care, they want their check and they wanna know why it aint coming and Trumps gonna play it up to the tenth degree and get moral high ground in the eyes of the people.
> 
> This is mostly Democrats own fault because they've turned the dial up to 11 on fake outrage over every single Trump tweet and quote, that many will just see this as them trying to spite Trump at the cost of the American people, and you better believe the RNC is going to spin that shit like a motherfucker. This is why you dont cry wolf for 4 years, no one cares when there actually is a real issue and your quest may be an honorable one. ( it aint btw, look at the God damn bill.) Like Jeff Daniels character said in the Newsroom.."If liberals are so smart how come they lose so god damn always?" Do you wanna be right or do you wanna win? They've been handed the white house two straight elections and they're gonna get clobbered both times by Donald freaking Trump. Its so stupid all you can do is laugh.


I mean... I'm Canadian, so I don't give a fuck about who saves face and who looks good and who looks bad in American politics, ultimately at the end of the day what I want to see is the best possible help for the most possible people who desperately need it. So we're in agreement there.


----------



## RainmakerV2

MontyCora said:


> I mean... I'm Canadian, so I don't give a fuck about who saves face and who looks good and who looks bad in American politics, ultimately at the end of the day what I want to see is the best possible help for the most possible people who desperately need it. So we're in agreement there.



We do agree. I wont even fight you that the Democrats have a better bill. Might be true, surely is to some. But when you spend 4 years getting fake outraged over every single thing the president does, eventually people just tune out to it. They dug this hole themselves.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Meh Trump dug his own grave by failing to act earlier, those public statements he made early on will be killer campaign ads come the general.
> 
> But honestly the political impacts of this are nothing compared to the social impacts that will come from the number of people who die.


Well, I just came here to tell you in particular since we used to have a few run ins over this that America is being operated like Nazi Germany (maybe even worse). 

The weak are indeed expected to die for the economy. 

And they haven't even minced words this time.


----------



## Reaper

'It's a two-way street': Trump suggests federal coronavirus aid will be given to governors who 'treat us well'


"It's a two-way street," President Donald Trump said about his discussions with governors about providing their states with federal aid.




www.businessinsider.com





This man is really not much better than a fucking terrorist at this point.

Anyone who supports him is equally reprehensible.


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> View attachment 84304
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'It's a two-way street': Trump suggests federal coronavirus aid will be given to governors who 'treat us well'
> 
> 
> "It's a two-way street," President Donald Trump said about his discussions with governors about providing their states with federal aid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This man is really not much better than a fucking terrorist at this point.
> 
> Anyone who supports him is equally reprehensible.


Not to mention blasting a Republican for simply asking (per the rules of Congress) for a roll call vote, on the record, so that everyone would know who voted for this absolute monstrosity of a porkulus Bill. This bill was thrown together in the panic of needing to do something. Not to mention all the extra shit in it so both parties get a taste of the pork. This should have been a clean bill only designed to address the need to help people missing paychecks or small businesses hoping to be able to reopen their doors when shutdowns are eventually lifted. 

Of course, if Trump had actually done what was needed at the beginning of all this and took this threat seriously, we wouldn’t have to be going through this. I warned people here how much of a joke this man was going to be as a president and I was mocked and teased for it. Well I will make sure to have this around each and every neck of those that voted for him. I will make sure they never forget.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

This Pork Bill is going to be the next 94 Crime Act, Patriot Act, War in Iraq, 08 Bailout be vote, I'd say it's going to sink some political careers but it's going to take a few years for us to fully realize how monstrous and deleterious this bill is and by then everybody who voted on it will be dead anyway.

If a politician under 60 has aspirations of becoming president one day and they voted for this, they should be prepared to get hit over the head with this every campaign for the next 30 years.


----------



## Reaper

Watch Netflix Dirty Money Season 2 Episode 3.

They're all one big club and you're not in it.

2020 Bill is essentially going to hold another 2-3 generations of Americans hostage.

We need to end corporations. Plain and simple. Every single corporation needs to be broken apart.


----------



## Reaper

You know what ... You know this stimulus package is complete and UTTER trash when CHARLIE "I FUCK MYSELF WITH A TRUMP DILDO" KIRK starts sounding like a leftist.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Reaper said:


> You know what ... You know this stimulus package is complete and UTTER trash when CHARLIE "I FUCK MYSELF WITH A TRUMP DILDO" KIRK starts sounding like a leftist.
> 
> View attachment 84369


Isn't it funny how 2 weeks ago socialism was evil and Bernie was a communist who wanted to execute reporters in Central Park, now all of a sudden everybody's a socialist, you got Republicans talking about UBI and universal health coverage for Covid-19, Trump is nationalizing private businesses and all those people against the social safety net calling it "a handout" have their hands out for that government check.

It just goes to show that liberal values are stronger than conservative "values".


----------



## BruiserKC

Reaper said:


> You know what ... You know this stimulus package is complete and UTTER trash when CHARLIE "I FUCK MYSELF WITH A TRUMP DILDO" KIRK starts sounding like a leftist.
> 
> View attachment 84369


Perhaps Kirk should think about the fact that maybe United Airlines can’t afford to keep a lot of these people on the payroll when pretty much most international flights and some domestic flights aren’t going right now. Not to mention people aren’t flying right now. My wife had a friend come back from London where seven passengers were on the plane. Seven! Not exactly cost effective.



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> This Pork Bill is going to be the next 94 Crime Act, Patriot Act, War in Iraq, 08 Bailout be vote, I'd say it's going to sink some political careers but it's going to take a few years for us to fully realize how monstrous and deleterious this bill is and by then everybody who voted on it will be dead anyway.
> 
> If a politician under 60 has aspirations of becoming president one day and they voted for this, they should be prepared to get hit over the head with this every campaign for the next 30 years.


The difference between this and the’08 bailouts and TARP is this time the governments on federal, state, and local levels all forced a lot of these businesses to close. In 2008 I was more then happy to let those businesses that were in the red to fail.

I live with the fact they were going to vote for this and we are going to put this in place. My question is now, is this going to do what it needs to do anyway? Will it revive our economy or at least keep these companies and businesses afloat until things reopen? Will some close anyway as it’s not enough? Or will we be going through this again in a month or two and needing more money?


----------



## FriedTofu

This jackass is on twitter attacking the media again, attempting to shift the narrative from his absolutely horrible handling of the crisis. I guess saying old people are willing to sacrifice their lives for the economy didn't sell well enough. Can't go back to the well of racist attacks because America still need supplies from China. So back to bashing the media to distract the cultists from the rising hospitalization count in their counties and states.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Perhaps Kirk should think about the fact that maybe United Airlines can’t afford to keep a lot of these people on the payroll when pretty much most international flights and some domestic flights aren’t going right now. Not to mention people aren’t flying right now. My wife had a friend come back from London where seven passengers were on the plane. Seven! Not exactly cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between this and the’08 bailouts and TARP is this time the governments on federal, state, and local levels all forced a lot of these businesses to close. In 2008 I was more then happy to let those businesses that were in the red to fail.
> 
> I live with the fact they were going to vote for this and we are going to put this in place. My question is now, is this going to do what it needs to do anyway? Will it revive our economy or at least keep these companies and businesses afloat until things reopen? Will some close anyway as it’s not enough? Or will we be going through this again in a month or two and needing more money?


Maybe they should try to go to college and get a better job.
Shouldn't have gotten that Netflix subscription.
Why did they not save for an emergency!

Where's all the fiscal conservatism when it comes to blasting fucking corporations for their horrible soul sucking business practices?

Every country in the world has an economy.
Every country in the world has corporations
Every country in the world has employees
Every country is in lockdown.

You know what's happening everywhere else? Government programs, employers biting the bullet and still paying employees including covering t heir healthcare cost.

Only American corporations are firing en masse. We don't have an economy. We have monsters sucking the lifeblood of Americans like you while you defend them. It's abused hostage syndrome. The bastards have a gun pointed to your head and you're saying "Yah, I guess you _have_ to shoot me because there's no other alternative".


----------



## FriedTofu

To be fair, the aviation industry is almost non-existent right now with almost every major hubs with huge travel restrictions and the situation remain bleak for the near future. Guess it was either layoffs, huge paycuts or an enforced no pay leave for an unknown period of time. Layoffs might be the best of the 3 options for both parties until the situation clears up. Just hope some of the stimulus was helpful in giving the workers a fair severance deal and not back into the shareholders pockets again.


----------



## Miss Sally

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Isn't it funny how 2 weeks ago socialism was evil and Bernie was a communist who wanted to execute reporters in Central Park, now all of a sudden everybody's a socialist, you got Republicans talking about UBI and universal health coverage for Covid-19, Trump is nationalizing private businesses and all those people against the social safety net calling it "a handout" have their hands out for that government check.
> 
> It just goes to show that liberal values are stronger than conservative "values".


Didn't Bernie vote for this bill too?


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

BruiserKC said:


> Perhaps Kirk should think about the fact that maybe United Airlines can’t afford to keep a lot of these people on the payroll when pretty much most international flights and some domestic flights aren’t going right now. Not to mention people aren’t flying right now. My wife had a friend come back from London where seven passengers were on the plane. Seven! Not exactly cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between this and the’08 bailouts and TARP is this time the governments on federal, state, and local levels all forced a lot of these businesses to close. In 2008 I was more then happy to let those businesses that were in the red to fail.
> 
> I live with the fact they were going to vote for this and we are going to put this in place. My question is now, is this going to do what it needs to do anyway? Will it revive our economy or at least keep these companies and businesses afloat until things reopen? Will some close anyway as it’s not enough? Or will we be going through this again in a month or two and needing more money?


It's going to fail because they didn't put in any protections against abuse, the idea is to give these companies money so they don't lay off workers but they didn't put in any mechanisms to enforce this, so theoretically companies can lay off a bunch of workers and use the bailout money for stock buybacks and CEO bonuses, which they absolutely WILL DO like they did in 08. 

The worst part is that Steve Mnuchin and Trump get to decide which companies get the money so of course they're going to take care of their friends and donors and anybody willing to kiss the ring


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> To be fair, the aviation industry is almost non-existent right now with almost every major hubs with huge travel restrictions and the situation remain bleak for the near future. Guess it was either layoffs, huge paycuts or an enforced no pay leave for an unknown period of time. Layoffs might be the best of the 3 options for both parties until the situation clears up. Just hope some of the stimulus was helpful in giving the workers a fair severance deal and not back into the shareholders pockets again.


And layoffs won’t be permanent. They have expanded unemployment so they will at least see some money coming in. When things reopen then they can return to work.

Mark Cuban in an interview said this was a black swan event. Businesses try to prepare for the unexpected. This was one I don’t think anyone saw coming. 



Reaper said:


> Maybe they should try to go to college and get a better job.
> Shouldn't have gotten that Netflix subscription.
> Why did they not save for an emergency!
> 
> Where's all the fiscal conservatism when it comes to blasting fucking corporations for their horrible soul sucking business practices?
> 
> Every country in the world has an economy.
> Every country in the world has corporations
> Every country in the world has employees
> Every country is in lockdown.
> 
> You know what's happening everywhere else? Government programs, employers biting the bullet and still paying employees including covering t heir healthcare cost.
> 
> Only American corporations are firing en masse. We don't have an economy. We have monsters sucking the lifeblood of Americans like you while you defend them. It's abused hostage syndrome. The bastards have a gun pointed to your head and you're saying "Yah, I guess you _have_ to shoot me because there's no other alternative".


I’m not defending anyone, I am stating the fact remains that a company’s number one goal is to make a profit in order to keep open. That is true for the multinational corporations as well as the family owned hardware store in the inner city. No money, no business. Unfortunately that doesn’t change. Some businesses are going to be Ok for a little while. Kohl’s can be fine for five months with their doors closed. On the other hand, Cheesecake Factory has stated they can’t pay rent on their stores for the month of April. Food businesses and restaurants tend to have lower overhead.

For now, people are going to get their wages taken care of worldwide. If this keeps going though, that will change. Every nation will face the prospect of businesses that will close permanently. Business owners will have hard decisions to make then.

Not all businesses are cold-hearted. My employer is finding work for my department. We will be taken care of if it comes down to it.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Miss Sally said:


> Didn't Bernie vote for this bill too?


He did, it's not a good vote just because a good guy voted for it.


----------



## BruiserKC

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> It's going to fail because they didn't put in any protections against abuse, the idea is to give these companies money so they don't lay off workers but they didn't put in any mechanisms to enforce this, so theoretically companies can lay off a bunch of workers and use the bailout money for stock buybacks and CEO bonuses, which they absolutely WILL DO like they did in 08.
> 
> The worst part is that Steve Mnuchin and Trump get to decide which companies get the money so of course they're going to take care of their friends and donors and anybody willing to kiss the ring


He basically eliminated the idea of an oversight committee watching where the money goes to the moment he signed it.


----------



## Reaper

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> He did, it's not a good vote just because a good guy voted for it.


Bernie is a centrist. His followers are much more to the left of him than he is. Which is why a lot of his actual centrist and moderate moves seem out of left field... Because they are.


----------



## FriedTofu

President is using the coronavirus briefings as a substitute for his rallies to get people to praise him and for him to talk shit about people he dislike. What a timeline.


----------



## TerraRising

FriedTofu said:


> President is using the coronavirus briefings as a substitute for his rallies to get people to praise him and for him to talk shit about people he dislike. What a timeline.


Part of me wishes he kept on insisting the virus was a hoax so he can make public appearances as a spreading agent. Cruel to his elderly supporters, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.


----------



## FriedTofu

TerraRising said:


> Part of me wishes he kept on insisting the virus was a hoax so he can make public appearances as a spreading agent. Cruel to his elderly supporters, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.


He might already be in contact with the virus.The virus was spreading in CPAC 2020 way back in late February where all the conservative leaders attended.


----------



## greasykid1

Well, Trump has gone FULL retard in the COVID19 mess. And yet, he still has followers. I honestly can't fathom the decision so many are taking, to continue advocating for this abject failure of a President.

I get that there's a point where, if you've been putting your neck on the line for so long, sticking up for him that, backing down makes you look foolish, but Jesus, amid all of his COVID19 gaffes, poor decisions and consciously damaging decrees, those that continue to back him just look like absolute idiots too.


----------



## Reaper

greasykid1 said:


> Well, Trump has gone FULL retard in the COVID19 mess. And yet, he still has followers. I honestly can't fathom the decision so many are taking, to continue advocating for this abject failure of a President.


He's got the following that will drink poison if he told them too.

Read up on the Jonestown Massacre.

Trump and his cultists are in that category. They've already openly claimed that even if he shoots an innocent child they'll support him. They're still supporting him as he claims that 2 million deaths from Corona would be a job well done. This man is a monster and his followers are death cultists. 

Americans are routinely cultist for their presidents. This is why even despite all of them being global war criminals over an entire century, they are still beloved.

Though, the kind of cultist sheep Trump has is beyond death cult levels at this point.


----------



## DesolationRow

Trump shares tweet from supporter calling for Fauci to be fired







thehill.com


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

DesolationRow said:


> Trump shares tweet from supporter calling for Fauci to be fired
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com


Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Fire the man who is working a billion hours a week trying to save this shit hole of a country because the truth makes Trump look bad? Dr. Fauci is a gotdamned American hero and instead of putting him on our currency we want to sacrifice him to the altar of Trump's re-election campaign? 

Where is the asteroid when you need one, I'm tired of living in the darkest timeline.


----------



## Reaper

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Fire the man who is working a billion hours a week trying to save this shit hole of a country because the truth makes Trump look bad? Dr. Fauci is a gotdamned American hero and instead of putting him on our currency we want to sacrifice him to the altar of Trump's re-election campaign?
> 
> Where is the asteroid when you need one, I'm tired of living in the darkest timeline.


The preliminary racial death rates are showing (not unexpectedly) a HUGE disparity along both class and race lines. This is in States that are overwhelmingly going to vote for Biden btw and think that Cuomo is now some sort of working class hero even though the blame for the entire state is on the democrats for not shutting it down when they run the state. Same with other blue states that have huge black ghettos - where they've been herding blacks for centuries.

Corona is the US fascist's Typhus.

They're arresting and harrassing blacks for wearing masks, while Miami police just arrested a black doctor for trying to help the homeless.

Shithole is too nice for this country. It's an insult to shitholes to call America a shithole tbh. The only justification americans have now for the complete and utter disaster of Covid compared to everyone else is that everyone else must be lying ... This is how Americans think. Despite being by far the worst in the world for everything related to the pandemic, they still need to have religious cultist faith in their "American Exceptionalism" myth.

Even if you take the "they lied" argument, the rest of the world operated with the same information and still everyone else managed to come up with their own pandemic response and managed it better - using the same information - because they're not run by idiots .. they're run by people who can still make good decisions from the same bad information because that's how intelligent people operate.


----------



## MrMister

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly but wasn't Trump a states rights guy earlier? But now he's the King of the USA in regards to governors. If there wasn't a serious outbreak of a dangerous virus I'd laugh.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> Maybe I'm not remembering correctly but wasn't Trump a states rights guy earlier? But now he's the King of the USA in regards to governors. If there wasn't a serious outbreak of a dangerous virus I'd laugh.


Uh no. You're just not getting it.

It's 8D chess.

Cuz now the democrats are arguing FOR state rights

He's a genius. 

Obviously.


----------



## Strike Force

"When somebody is president of the United States, your authority is total." -Donald Trump

I want you all to imagine the reaction if ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY, particularly Clinton or Obama, had uttered that sentence. It would be one of the biggest stories of the last 50 years of American history, but instead there will be no repercussions. It's an absolutely shocking statement if you know anything whatsoever about history.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> The preliminary racial death rates are showing (not unexpectedly) a HUGE disparity along both class and race lines. This is in States that are overwhelmingly going to vote for Biden btw and think that Cuomo is now some sort of working class hero even though the blame for the entire state is on the democrats for not shutting it down when they run the state. Same with other blue states that have huge black ghettos - where they've been herding blacks for centuries.
> 
> Corona is the US fascist's Typhus.
> 
> They're arresting and harrassing blacks for wearing masks, while Miami police just arrested a black doctor for trying to help the homeless.
> 
> Shithole is too nice for this country. It's an insult to shitholes to call America a shithole tbh. The only justification americans have now for the complete and utter disaster of Covid compared to everyone else is that everyone else must be lying ... This is how Americans think. Despite being by far the worst in the world for everything related to the pandemic, they still need to have religious cultist faith in their "American Exceptionalism" myth.
> 
> Even if you take the "they lied" argument, the rest of the world operated with the same information and still everyone else managed to come up with their own pandemic response and managed it better - using the same information - because they're not run by idiots .. they're run by people who can still make good decisions from the same bad information because that's how intelligent people operate.


I'd say Spain and Italy can be up there with the States. Mexico is at least realizing what a threat the US is when it comes to spreading the virus.

The virus is a god send to our political overloads, how else can they cull people without a draft?




Strike Force said:


> "When somebody is president of the United States, your authority is total." -Donald Trump
> 
> I want you all to imagine the reaction if ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY, particularly Clinton or Obama, had uttered that sentence. It would be one of the biggest stories of the last 50 years of American history, but instead there will be no repercussions. It's an absolutely shocking statement if you know anything whatsoever about history.


Obama used Government agencies for his own dirty work and spied on people. The thing is that Obama never spoke about such things, it's known he did such things and it's not a story. I doubt it would ever be a story because we know he did and people still say he's a hero president. As for Trump he is just telling us things we should have already known and stuff that's been going on for decades.

If Obama is flying around making millions off wallstreet and from shady deals while president, Bush who illegally invaded a country and helped jump start the degrading of American rights of privacy and Clinton who was making shady deals are all galavanting about with no consequences... Why would you expect anything for Trump? Do people honestly think Trump is the first to do this shit? He's simply the first to admit he can and the American people just let our politicians do it.


----------



## Strike Force

Miss Sally said:


> I'd say Spain and Italy can be up there with the States. Mexico is at least realizing what a threat the US is when it comes to spreading the virus.
> 
> The virus is a god send to our political overloads, how else can they cull people without a draft?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama used Government agencies for his own dirty work and spied on people. The thing is that Obama never spoke about such things, it's known he did such things and it's not a story. I doubt it would ever be a story because we know he did and people still say he's a hero president. As for Trump he is just telling us things we should have already known and stuff that's been going on for decades.
> 
> If Obama is flying around making millions off wallstreet and from shady deals while president, Bush who illegally invaded a country and helped jump start the degrading of American rights of privacy and Clinton who was making shady deals are all galavanting about with no consequences... Why would you expect anything for Trump? Do people honestly think Trump is the first to do this shit? He's simply the first to admit he can and the American people just let our politicians do it.


This is one of the saddest, most desperate, most ill-informed examples of moral equivocation I’ve ever seen. Most people aren’t like me and haven’t taught history and political science, so I keep my expectations low, but good golly. Not even close to correct.


----------



## Miss Sally

Strike Force said:


> This is one of the saddest, most desperate, most ill-informed examples of moral equivocation I’ve ever seen. Most people aren’t like me and haven’t taught history and political science, so I keep my expectations low, but good golly. Not even close to correct.


The fact you think this shows how ill informed you really are. If you honestly think Trump isn't continuing the long line of Government misuse of power and the general degradation of American rights then there's nothing more to discuss. You'll only point and scream at what's before you. The misuse of power and the march to this point has been going on before I was born and has been creeping about since the Civil War.

Trump can say and do as he pleases because we as a society accept that our politicians do as such. Politics is a magic act, half the people believe it's real, half believe it's an illusion, Trump is the magician who tells you it's a trick, laughs about it because people are still mesmerized by it. The fact people are bamboozled by past presidents is the sad part, along with the acceptance of current political ineptitude and ever evolving fascism.


----------



## Strike Force

Miss Sally said:


> The fact you think this shows how ill informed you really are. If you honestly think Trump isn't continuing the long line of Government misuse of power and the general degradation of American rights then there's nothing more to discuss. You'll only point and scream at what's before you. The misuse of power and the march to this point has been going on before I was born and has been creeping about since the Civil War.
> 
> Trump can say and do as he pleases because we as a society accept that our politicians do as such. Politics is a magic act, half the people believe it's real, half believe it's an illusion, Trump is the magician who tells you it's a trick, laughs about it because people are still mesmerized by it. The fact people are bamboozled by past presidents is the sad part, along with the acceptance of current political ineptitude and ever evolving fascism.


The point has evaded you. You ignored the part about "moral equivocation," so your entire post is completely irrelevant, even if you actually managed to get parts of it right. I'm just going to pat you on the head, ask you to return to your seat, and move on, since ALL presidents abuse power but not all abuses of power are created equal. Thanks for playing, though.


----------



## Miss Sally

Strike Force said:


> The point has evaded you. You ignored the part about "moral equivocation," so your entire post is completely irrelevant, even if you actually managed to get parts of it right. I'm just going to pat you on the head, ask you to return to your seat, and move on, since ALL presidents abuse power but not all abuses of power are created equal. Thanks for playing, though.


Eh, no. Because the response to your post wasn't one that anyone from the past 50 years is as bad as Trump or vise versa. The point was that you think it would be a big story if Obama said it is mistaken. I don't think it would be a big story because skeletons from his presidential closet has come out yet, where's the story? Who's reporting on it? Nobody.

What news agencies would report on it? FOX? That would be about it and even then I question that because Obama did spy on people yet it's not a current talking point. In fact about a year or two ago this discussion took place as to why it wasn't a story. So the statement that had Obama said things like Trump it would be the biggest thing ever simply doesn't seem like it would be because the stuff he has done isn't even a story. 

Like hardcore Trump followers, Obama's followers wouldn't believe it. So where are the repercussions for the stuff we know he did? Well? What about Bush? What about Clinton? What about Bush Sr? How many people really talk about the Iran/Contra controversy? What about the US baiting a Japanese attack to start the Pacific War? It's all footnotes. It's not made a lasting impact at all.

The point is with all that's happened in the past, why would anything Trump says have repercussions when past evil deeds, let alone statements have gone without them? Besides Trump is known for saying over the top bullshit, Obama is not so again, it's hard to compare such statements because neither men have that boastful say whatever you want too trait in common. 

The fact people are only NOW paying attention simply because Trump talks big and ignoring what's been going with the country for the past 100 years only further convinces me that people are completely oblivious.


----------



## Reaper

Obama is a war criminal, refused to do anything about black and brown incarceration, increased American war crimes, increased the incarceration and rate of deportation of illegals, expanded private control over healthcare, refused to do anything substantial about climate change (becoming the oil hero of the modern world by increasing US production and destroying 5 oil producing countries
). A newcon war hawk that destroyed several countries during his corrupt regime. Including butchering thousands of my countrymen alone all the while getting absolutely no blowback for any of it.

Yes, there are valid reasons to attack his detractors who use his race, but at the same time Obama did absolutely nothing to emancipate and push the cause of minorities forward all the while rates of incarceration of blacks and browns continued to increase exponentially across federal prisons.

Anyone who defends him in any way shape or form as some sort of moral hero is just a propagandist. I'm with Sally in the above. The intellectual dishonesty and ignorance when it comes to Obama bootlickers is just pathetic. There are many, many similarities here. So many infact that to try to create a difference is incredibly difficult.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Obama is a war criminal, refused to do anything about black and brown incarceration, increased American war crimes, increased the incarceration and rate of deportation of illegals, expanded private control over healthcare, refused to do anything substantial about climate change (becoming the oil hero of the modern world by increasing US production and destroying 5 oil producing countries
> ). A newcon war hawk that destroyed several countries during his corrupt regime. Including butchering thousands of my countrymen alone all the while getting absolutely no blowback for any of it.
> 
> Yes, there are valid reasons to attack his detractors who use his race, but at the same time Obama did absolutely nothing to emancipate and push the cause of minorities forward all the while rates of incarceration of blacks and browns continued to increase exponentially across federal prisons.
> 
> Anyone who defends him in any way shape or form as some sort of moral hero is just a propagandist. I'm with Sally in the above. The intellectual dishonesty and ignorance when it comes to Obama bootlickers is just pathetic. There are many, many similarities here. So many infact that to try to create a difference is incredibly difficult.


Indeedy doo! He also was against gay marriage until the tides were turning in favor of it. Helped the oil cartel by destroying Libya which turned the area from a functional society into a hell hole that now has slavery going on. Think about that, he helped spear head destroying a country because they dared threaten the petro dollar. Which created a new society that has actual slavery. He gave weapons and cash to terrorists, him and Bush seen most of the Mid East region turn into the hellscape it is now.

Oh did I mention he won the Peace Prize? Can anyone tell me how or why he won the Peace Prize? He also had a catchy slogan didn't he? What was it, "Hope and Change"? 

Here's something interesting, I don't believe Obama would ever say anything like Trump, they have different styles of speaking. Though Obama did caught on a hot mic talking about how flexible he'd be as president to the russians. Did Obama Suggest 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After the 2012 Election?

*As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” — until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.

“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.

The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.*

This in itself is pretty spicy given the whole Russian hooplah. How long was this talked about? A few months at most? It wasn't brought up again until 2016 when Russian xenophobia exploded onto the scene as if it was the 80's all over again. Yet I'm to be convinced Obama would be this pariah over something said when his actions aren't even questioned is rather laughable. He's a beloved icon and media darling, a few words wouldn't bring him down.


----------



## Reaper

Obama and Democrats were 100% homophobic in 2012 (while just using gay rights as virtue signaling) when he needed to win the re-election. They also did not push for gay rights, it was a supreme court ruling that had nothing to do with Obama but then he gladly took credit for it despite being pro-DOMA. Even during the time before he announced his support, his stance was "let us win this election and then we'll support you" .. But a change came about in public perception and he being the smart pollster he is (like Trump) knew that gay marriage was actually the positive pivot he needed.

He's always there just like Trump to swoop in and take credit for everything even when he had literally no hand in, or claiming that something's better even though he actually made it worse. There is no difference in morality between the two whatsoever as you can see by the sameness in their policy positions, but there's a difference in the kind of sweet talking salesman they are. Trump sweet talks one half of the nation, while Obama sweet talks the other. It's like good cop bad cop, but where there are no actually moral cops.

There's a lot I can say about Obama's direct policy making that destroyed the American middle class, including all of his corporate bailouts, military budgets etc etc. But his biggest scam upon the American people will always been Obamacare where he used penalties to create the insurance monopoly that exists today where no federal oversight has meant increasing premiums as well as less and less coverage for people paying for insurance.

Imagine being such a fucking monster that he punished poor people for being too poor to afford insurance by forcing them to pay penalties for something they couldn't' afford in the first place all the while constantly handing corporations social welfare benefits. Obama continued to push for social security cuts, but the media left him alone. That's the thing about Obama. Since he was a democrat, the media left him the fuck alone while he continued to run the country and the rest of the world into the ground. There is a legit reason to call him the Drone President and Pakistanis in particular are well aware of the kind of butcher he was where repeatedly his military butchered innocent towns and villages in Pakistan (I won't even speak about other countries) and the media sucked his dick just like Trumkins suck Trump's dick. Obama had his fair share of cocksucking bootlickers. 

I don't know. I don't think anything could be as damaging to any man's reputation than that of being a war hawk whose administration and leadership is responsible for taking thousands of innocent lives ... but here we are. We have such a low bar for US presidents that we judge them on minutia and nuance and ignore their biggest crimes and that are war crimes against humanity because those crimes are so abhorrent that we have to pretend that they don't even exist so that we can move on to trying to create shades of grey when being a war criminal should be the end of the discussion around "differences". 

I'm not surprised that someone who claims to be a history teacher would be so incompetent though. There's a reason why people remain ignorant and it's because of the teachers and professors they get. You can't learn anything if the person teaching you is biased and doesn't know anything either. Most professor/teacher types are neoliberals/liberals themselves and we all know that liberalism is a cancerous political ideology.


----------



## Reaper

So, where are all the 2 Amendment hoes at? We all knew it was just a bunch of fake posturing, but thanks for proving that you're all a bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## The Body

It was a brilliant 4D chess move on Trump's part. He's essentially forced the radical leftist media to admit that governors are the ultimate authority over their states, and therefor hold the most responsibility for handling the coronavirus. Translation: New York's failures lie with closeted homosexual Andrew Cuomo, not Mr. President.

Of course, it's all irrelevant, since Trump will be reelected in a landslide. The economic damage the China virus and the democratic hoax has brought America actually favors him. Think about it . . . people are going to want an economy-focused president to lead us out of Chin'sa and the Democrat's mess, and it just so happens that Donald J. Trump is the single greatest economics president in U.S. history.

Like he said . . .


----------



## Reaper

A provision in the CARES act gives away 1.7 million dollars to 43k government friendly "tax payers". 









How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7 Million


While wealthy Americans are not eligible for the $1,200 stimulus checks being disbursed to many Americans, they are on pace to do even better. 43,000 taxpayers, who earn more than $1 million annually, are each set to receive a $1.7 million windfall on average thanks to a provision in the CARES Act.




www.forbes.com





The American government is a mafia.


----------



## BruiserKC

The Body said:


> It was a brilliant 4D chess move on Trump's part. He's essentially forced the radical leftist media to admit that governors are the ultimate authority over their states, and therefor hold the most responsibility for handling the coronavirus. Translation: New York's failures lie with closeted homosexual Andrew Cuomo, not Mr. President.
> 
> Of course, it's all irrelevant, since Trump will be reelected in a landslide. The economic damage the China virus and the democratic hoax has brought America actually favors him. Think about it . . . people are going to want an economy-focused president to lead us out of Chin'sa and the Democrat's mess, and it just so happens that Donald J. Trump is the single greatest economics president in U.S. history.
> 
> Like he said . . .


Dude. Talk about the most obnoxious drivel I have ever witnessed here. First of all, the failure to tackle the pandemic falls on Trump. From his half-ass travel ban that wasn’t a travel ban to downplaying this until the market started tanking and March Madness was cancelled, that failure falls on Trump. If he had acted sooner, we wouldn’t have to go to the lengths we are now. Then Trump wouldn’t have to talk about shredding the Constitution by saying he is the authority or sending Congress to bed without dinner.

China lied about the virus and is our enemy. Trump botched the response and is an idiot. Both statements can be true at the same time.

As for the economy, you have about 2/3 of the country right now that are not safe with reopening everything. That is the key here. We have nowhere near the testing we would need for a May 1 reopen. We certainly don’t have the level of consumer confidence needed for a reopen. Some states might be winding down, others are ramping up and haven’t peaked yet. New York might be flattening the curve, but Houston and New Orleans could become new hot spots.

If Trump reopens too early, then a lot of businesses will lose money because people are not comfortable with going out to spend. When people are nervous about a trip to the grocery store, you aren’t getting them to buy a new purse. You might gain a few bucks for restaurants and some small businesses, but in the long run it will do more damage if done too early. Why?

A second outbreak will bring everything to a crashing halt. We will go back to quarantine and it will be longer the next time. It can be worse especially if the virus makes its way through the office parks and high rises of the bigger corporations. I know people here rail on those evil companies but they are the ones that drive our economy. A second lockdown not only potentially bankrupts a lot of smaller businesses but could start doing damage to the larger ones when they start laying people off or close their doors. Then the economy will collapse and you will see Depression-like unemployment numbers. Trump will be toast if he isn’t already. 

The economy isn’t starting up until people feel safe about being out. No one will fly, see a movie, go to the strip club, etc...if they feel like the venture could put them in the hospital or on a ventilator. We would need to knock out the virus once and for all. My guess, from what I have read and seen, would be a reopening in June or July.

It would suck but beats the alternative.


----------



## Jay Devito

BruiserKC said:


> China lied about the virus and is our enemy. Trump botched the response and is an idiot. Both statements can be true at the same time.


Our own experts, the same ones advising the president, told us we didn't need to worry.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246060637748330496
Here is the health commissioner of NYC telling people to go about their lives, totally downplaying the risk and threat level of the coronavirus.






Sounds to me like they all fumbled this. If the experts couldn't get in front of it then I don't see how Trump could have. He didn't treat it like a cod red emergency because none of our experts were telling us this was going to be code red emergency.

I think we've handled the response about as well as we could have, given how unprepared we were. We're locked down and every resource is going towards managing this thing. I will say I am sick of Trump's antics and narcissistic displays even during this time of crisis, but I am still more sick of the media and the way they are trying to pin this on him. It's not like we're the only country going through this. If Trump is to blame then that means the leaders in other countries and also the local governerors here are to blame too.

If you are going to blame anybody, then the blame has to go to China. And if anybody is more mad at Trump over this than China then they are bias and delusional or a fucking troll shitbag.


----------



## FriedTofu

Oh please, other than Bolsonaro, your idiot in chief of America is the other leader that is actively sabotaging his own country's response to the pandemic. Almost every government and leaders fumbled in the response in some ways because of how wide in scale the responses required, but one can see the reasons behind many of the decisions, whether they were good or bad in hindsight. Even when they flip flop on the bad decisions, most are assured it was due to following science to reduce the damage from the pandemic.

On the other hand, your idiot in chief used his pulpit to doublespeak and taking opposing positions on the same issue, sometimes on the same day, so he can have a soundbite of saying the right thing, knowing the wrong soundbites will be conveniently ignored his cult as 'he doesn't mean what he said'. He already claimed no responsibility, but wants to get the credit when things get better. GOP senate has blood on their hands for not impeaching this fool when they had the chance.


----------



## BruiserKC

Jay Devito said:


> Our own experts, the same ones advising the president, told us we didn't need to worry.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246060637748330496
> Here is the health commissioner of NYC telling people to go about their lives, totally downplaying the risk and threat level of the coronavirus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like they all fumbled this. If the experts couldn't get in front of it then I don't see how Trump could have. He didn't treat it like a cod red emergency because none of our experts were telling us this was going to be code red emergency.
> 
> I think we've handled the response about as well as we could have, given how unprepared we were. We're locked down and every resource is going towards managing this thing. I will say I am sick of Trump's antics and narcissistic displays even during this time of crisis, but I am still more sick of the media and the way they are trying to pin this on him. It's not like we're the only country going through this. If Trump is to blame then that means the leaders in other countries and also the local governerors here are to blame too.
> 
> If you are going to blame anybody, then the blame has to go to China. And if anybody is more mad at Trump over this than China then they are bias and delusional or a fucking troll shitbag.


There is no question China’s role in this. They lied about this and cracked down on those who says anything about this including one of the doctors that originally saw this.

However, it is the responsibility of the President to be aware of this. On January 18, HHS Secretary Azar warned Trump about what was coming. For two months Trump downplayed the coronavirus threat. tried to shape it as a plot to derail his election. His travel ban to China was not a ban as air traffic continued. It wasn’t until the NBA postponed their season, March Madness was cancelled, and the market started cratering that he jumped on this. We’ve been playing catch-up ever since.

Meanwhile the State Department decided to send nearly 18 tons of medical equipment to China that we needed here. We are sending medical equipment to Russia when it’s needed here. I don’t have an issue with helping other nations but we need to take care of ourselves first.

I understand you are one of those who think Trump should bear no blame. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt. He failed to do his job, and I will not give him a pass.


----------



## JasonLives

BruiserKC said:


> There is no question China’s role in this. They lied about this and cracked down on those who says anything about this including one of the doctors that originally saw this.
> 
> However, it is the responsibility of the President to be aware of this. On January 18, HHS Secretary Azar warned Trump about what was coming. For two months Trump downplayed the coronavirus threat. tried to shape it as a plot to derail his election. His travel ban to China was not a ban as air traffic continued. It wasn’t until the NBA postponed their season, March Madness was cancelled, and the market started cratering that he jumped on this. We’ve been playing catch-up ever since.
> 
> Meanwhile the State Department decided to send nearly 18 tons of medical equipment to China that we needed here. We are sending medical equipment to Russia when it’s needed here. I don’t have an issue with helping other nations but we need to take care of ourselves first.
> 
> I understand you are one of those who think Trump should bear no blame. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt. He failed to do his job, and I will not give him a pass.


There was never a warning in January about what WAS coming, it was what COULD happen in a worst case scenario.
Remember that it wasent until late February Italy started to get over 100 confirmed cases, and didnt lockdown until march 9th.

Did Trump act late? Absolutly.
But so did every western country. By march it was already too late.
Had Trump taken measures to start a lockdown in February he would have been seen as a idiot(people would have yelled for another impeachment). To destroy the economy based on what could happen.
In hindsight it would have been the right call and a great call.
But considering no one actually acted until Italy went down the shitter in the start of march I completely understand the lack of reaction in February from the western countries.

But Trump was late to the party even in march. No doubt, but far from the only one.


----------



## BruiserKC

JasonLives said:


> There was never a warning in January about what WAS coming, it was what COULD happen in a worst case scenario.
> Remember that it wasent until late February Italy started to get over 100 confirmed cases, and didnt lockdown until march 9th.
> 
> Did Trump act late? Absolutly.
> But so did every western country. By march it was already too late.
> Had Trump taken measures to start a lockdown in February he would have been seen as a idiot(people would have yelled for another impeachment). To destroy the economy based on what could happen.
> In hindsight it would have been the right call and a great call.
> But considering no one actually acted until Italy went down the shitter in the start of march I completely understand the lack of reaction in February from the western countries.
> 
> But Trump was late to the party even in march. No doubt, but far from the only one.


We wouldn’t have needed a full lockdown had we acted accordingly. There might have been a couple of areas that needed quarantined off, and we might have had some deaths from this. But we would have been a lot better shape and we could have had business as usual for the most part.

For those who weren’t fans of the President, this could have been his defining moment where he changed minds. When faced with a threat like this, the American people want their leader to step up to the plate. People are scared to go to the grocery store now. We need to know that the Commander in Chief is on top of it.

Instead, he has abandoned everything to the states where it is the responsibility of the federal government to help coordinate response in times of disaster. He has taken no responsibility for his failure. I have stopped watching his press conferences as they have become one constant pity party. And now he wants to rush back open everything while some areas haven’t peaked yet. If this comes roaring back in the fall we have to go through this again the lockdown will be even longer. We will be at square one again. And the economy will then fully collapse with the possible demise of larger businesses.

He had one job...lead the country. He couldn’t even do that. Truth hurts but it needs to be said.


----------



## MontyCora

BruiserKC said:


> Dude. Talk about the most obnoxious drivel I have ever witnessed here. First of all, the failure to tackle the pandemic falls on Trump. From his half-ass travel ban that wasn’t a travel ban to downplaying this until the market started tanking and March Madness was cancelled, that failure falls on Trump. If he had acted sooner, we wouldn’t have to go to the lengths we are now. Then Trump wouldn’t have to talk about shredding the Constitution by saying he is the authority or sending Congress to bed without dinner.
> 
> China lied about the virus and is our enemy. Trump botched the response and is an idiot. Both statements can be true at the same time.
> 
> As for the economy, you have about 2/3 of the country right now that are not safe with reopening everything. That is the key here. We have nowhere near the testing we would need for a May 1 reopen. We certainly don’t have the level of consumer confidence needed for a reopen. Some states might be winding down, others are ramping up and haven’t peaked yet. New York might be flattening the curve, but Houston and New Orleans could become new hot spots.
> 
> If Trump reopens too early, then a lot of businesses will lose money because people are not comfortable with going out to spend. When people are nervous about a trip to the grocery store, you aren’t getting them to buy a new purse. You might gain a few bucks for restaurants and some small businesses, but in the long run it will do more damage if done too early. Why?
> 
> A second outbreak will bring everything to a crashing halt. We will go back to quarantine and it will be longer the next time. It can be worse especially if the virus makes its way through the office parks and high rises of the bigger corporations. I know people here rail on those evil companies but they are the ones that drive our economy. A second lockdown not only potentially bankrupts a lot of smaller businesses but could start doing damage to the larger ones when they start laying people off or close their doors. Then the economy will collapse and you will see Depression-like unemployment numbers. Trump will be toast if he isn’t already.
> 
> The economy isn’t starting up until people feel safe about being out. No one will fly, see a movie, go to the strip club, etc...if they feel like the venture could put them in the hospital or on a ventilator. We would need to knock out the virus once and for all. My guess, from what I have read and seen, would be a reopening in June or July.
> 
> It would suck but beats the alternative.


Don't feed the trolls and the obvious gimmick posters the attention.


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> We wouldn’t have needed a full lockdown had we acted accordingly. There might have been a couple of areas that needed quarantined off, and we might have had some deaths from this. But we would have been a lot better shape and we could have had business as usual for the most part.
> 
> For those who weren’t fans of the President, this could have been his defining moment where he changed minds. When faced with a threat like this, the American people want their leader to step up to the plate. People are scared to go to the grocery store now. We need to know that the Commander in Chief is on top of it.
> 
> Instead, he has abandoned everything to the states where it is the responsibility of the federal government to help coordinate response in times of disaster. He has taken no responsibility for his failure. I have stopped watching his press conferences as they have become one constant pity party. And now he wants to rush back open everything while some areas haven’t peaked yet. If this comes roaring back in the fall we have to go through this again the lockdown will be even longer. We will be at square one again. And the economy will then fully collapse with the possible demise of larger businesses.
> 
> He had one job...lead the country. He couldn’t even do that. Truth hurts but it needs to be said.


Will have to disagree with you on the US avoiding a full lockdown if the White House acted accordingly. The whole world is having some sort of lockdown at the moment, even the best prepared countries have to make adjustments to their way of life. No way the US can avoid a lockdown even if the number of local cases are low give how much travel across states daily.

The difference would have been relief efforts being handled better and trillions of dollars not being thrown at big corporations with no oversight. Also the presidency wouldn't be looked at as a joke with all the shenanigans at the pandemic briefings because the man-child need his rally type speeches for his own mental health stability. Probably less lives would be put under unnecessary risks as states wouldn't have to bid against each other for supplies under a competent president.

But honestly, I don't think there would be much different in the big picture besides your President not being look at as a joke as the GOP would have obstructed any measures to gain political points anyways. The GOP only shared value is to trigger the democrats at this point.

Of course things might be very different under a different American president where China isn't having a trade war with the US so they might be more pro-active in accepting international help. Or the WHO leadership would not have been manipulated by the Chinese government to elect a lapdog as the head after the US ceded global leadership under the current president. An American department that prepares against a global pandemic might also not be defunded to spite the previous president too. But that is a much different timeline where we the biggest concern is about some emails from a different president.


----------



## Jay Devito

BruiserKC said:


> There is no question China’s role in this. They lied about this and cracked down on those who says anything about this including one of the doctors that originally saw this.
> 
> *However, it is the responsibility of the President to be aware of this. On January 18, HHS Secretary Azar warned Trump about what was coming. *For two months Trump downplayed the coronavirus threat. tried to shape it as a plot to derail his election. His travel ban to China was not a ban as air traffic continued. It wasn’t until the NBA postponed their season, March Madness was cancelled, and the market started cratering that he jumped on this. We’ve been playing catch-up ever since.
> 
> Meanwhile the State Department decided to send nearly 18 tons of medical equipment to China that we needed here. We are sending medical equipment to Russia when it’s needed here. I don’t have an issue with helping other nations but we need to take care of ourselves first.
> 
> I understand you are one of those who think Trump should bear no blame. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt. He failed to do his job, and I will not give him a pass.


And then two days later Dr. Fauci said there was nothing to worry about. And then the NYC health commissioner said there was nothing to worry about. As was parroted by the 'experts'.

I'm curious, what action do you wish Trump would have taken? Keep in mind that in Jan/Feb there were no known cases and no deaths. Please be specific.


----------



## FriedTofu

Did Fauci Say There Was 'Nothing to Worry About' in Regards to COVID-19?


Accusations that Dr. Anthony Fauci said it was "safe" to go to the movies and gym in late February 2020 ignored key facts about the coronavirus outbreak at that time.




www.snopes.com





Fauci was attempting to calm the country but still be prepared for things to change if the situation got worse.

The idiot in the White House could have not trivialize the virus and turning the existence of the virus into a partisan issue in the eyes of members of his cult so more people would take the virus seriously.


----------



## Jay Devito

FriedTofu said:


> Did Fauci Say There Was 'Nothing to Worry About' in Regards to COVID-19?
> 
> 
> Accusations that Dr. Anthony Fauci said it was "safe" to go to the movies and gym in late February 2020 ignored key facts about the coronavirus outbreak at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.snopes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fauci was attempting to calm the country but still be prepared for things to change if the situation got worse.*
> 
> The idiot in the White House could have not trivialize the virus and turning the existence of the virus into a partisan issue in the eyes of members of his cult so more people would take the virus seriously.


I provided the video clip of him downplaying the threat. I don't know what more you want.

If someone's prediction includes a "but hey you never know" qualifier, then it's not much of a prediction now is it.


"This virus could be really bad, but hey you never know. I'd rather err on the side of caution."
"This virus probably isn't anything to worry about, but hey you never know. We should be prepared just in case".
^ Both of these predictions are saying the same thing and are equally pointless. "Yes but no...No but yes"

You cannot have it both ways. If Trump was wrong, then so was Fauci.


----------



## FriedTofu

Jay Devito said:


> I provided the video clip of him downplaying the threat. I don't know what more you want.
> 
> If someone's prediction includes a "but hey you never know" qualifier, then it's not much of a prediction now is it.
> 
> 
> "This virus could be really bad, but hey you never know. I'd rather err on the side of caution."
> "This virus probably isn't anything to worry about, but hey you never know. We should be prepared just in case".
> ^ Both of these predictions are saying the same thing and are equally pointless. "Yes but no...No but yes"
> 
> You cannot have it both ways. If Trump was wrong, then so was Fauci.


How the hell did you get Fauci downplaying the threat from the video you provided? Are you seriously that stupid or just cling desperately to anything to praise dear leader?

You are asking Fauci to be a fortune teller instead of a an expert in infectious diseases. How you get attempts to get people to not panic but be prepared when things get worse is the same as the idiot using the excuse that nobody really knows how it will develop as an excuse for his inaction as both being wrong is beyond me.

Why are you repeating paid propagandists talking point to absolve blame from the idiot in the White House so desperately? Is your whole worldview dependent on the idiot not being a fault for worsening the crisis? Other countries followed similar timelines, but many didn't suffer the high death rates as the US. That's on the piss poor leadership at the top, not on Fauci.


----------



## Jay Devito

FriedTofu said:


> How the hell did you get Fauci downplaying the threat from the video you provided? Are you seriously that stupid or just cling desperately to anything to praise dear leader?
> 
> You are asking Fauci to be a fortune teller instead of a an expert in infectious diseases. How you get attempts to get people to not panic but be prepared when things get worse is the same as the idiot using the excuse that nobody really knows how it will develop as an excuse for his inaction as both being wrong is beyond me.
> 
> Why are you repeating paid propagandists talking point to absolve blame from the idiot in the White House so desperately? Is your whole worldview dependent on the idiot not being a fault for worsening the crisis? Other countries followed similar timelines, but many didn't suffer the high death rates as the US. That's on the piss poor leadership at the top, not on Fauci.


And those countries don't have anywhere near the population that we do, nor they have as many people traveling from different countries. New York might as well be the central hub of the entire fucking world.

You can miss me with the 'dear leader' nonsense. Trump could eat a big fat dick. I owe him nothing. He is a bullshitter of the highest order and total narcissist. There are days where I watch him speak and I am embarrassed by him, and he has let me down on several occasions.

And yet at the same time, I don't think we would have been any more prepared had another person been in his shoes. But that's the narrative you want to push. That IF ONLY a democrat had been in office, IF ONLY we had someone who wasn't Trump... we could have avoided this. Someone who is competent and smart and who is a democrat, not someone dopey and stupid like Trump. Someone like Andrew Cuomo maybe.

But show me this logic:


U.S. has higher death count compared to other countries = Trump is to blame.
NY has higher death count compared to other states = Trump still to blame, Cuomo NOT to blame?
How does that work?

Sorry you are not going to make this about our country's failure. This is not our failure. This is *China's* failure.


----------



## BruiserKC

Jay Devito said:


> And then two days later Dr. Fauci said there was nothing to worry about. And then the NYC health commissioner said there was nothing to worry about. As was parroted by the 'experts'.
> 
> I'm curious, what action do you wish Trump would have taken? Keep in mind that in Jan/Feb there were no known cases and no deaths. Please be specific.


The first case arrived in the United States on January 20. On January 23 thé Chinese government quarantined the city of Wuhan. At that moment President BruiserKC would have ordered a full travel ban on ALL air travel to and from China. I would work with the Chinese government and our embassy to get Americans out of there and back to the states. I would have prepared military bases to quarantine and if necessary treat people returning. If people call me racist for it, I don’t give a shit. My responsibility is to the Americans and not the feels of foreign governments.

I’m setting up testing locations in airports for the possibility of other cases. I prepare the Americans for the possibility of this coming here. I’m working with Congress, businesses, governors, medical experts, EVERYONE that knows what they are doing to prepare a response. This cuts down on panic for people trying to get home and those here.

You are fairly new, @FriedTofu will vouch for me that I am not a liberal. I warned people 4 years ago of the dangers of voting for Trump. People like you didn’t listen and now look at the results. Trump mismanaged the response bigly and continues to do so. This is on him and each and every one of you for voting for a clown, a charlatan and a limousine liberal NYC con man. You don’t get out of this and neither does he.


FriedTofu said:


> Will have to disagree with you on the US avoiding a full lockdown if the White House acted accordingly. The whole world is having some sort of lockdown at the moment, even the best prepared countries have to make adjustments to their way of life. No way the US can avoid a lockdown even if the number of local cases are low give how much travel across states daily.
> 
> The difference would have been relief efforts being handled better and trillions of dollars not being thrown at big corporations with no oversight. Also the presidency wouldn't be looked at as a joke with all the shenanigans at the pandemic briefings because the man-child need his rally type speeches for his own mental health stability. Probably less lives would be put under unnecessary risks as states wouldn't have to bid against each other for supplies under a competent president.
> 
> But honestly, I don't think there would be much different in the big picture besides your President not being look at as a joke as the GOP would have obstructed any measures to gain political points anyways. The GOP only shared value is to trigger the democrats at this point.
> 
> Of course things might be very different under a different American president where China isn't having a trade war with the US so they might be more pro-active in accepting international help. Or the WHO leadership would not have been manipulated by the Chinese government to elect a lapdog as the head after the US ceded global leadership under the current president. An American department that prepares against a global pandemic might also not be defunded to spite the previous president too. But that is a much different timeline where we the biggest concern is about some emails from a different president.


An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Maybe some things would have changed but I would like to think we would be in a lot better shape. This thing is a complete embarrassment. For the first time ever I have no respect for the president currently in the White House. I disagreed with Obama on everything but I would have sat down with him for a beer.

I almost feel like apologizing to the world for this shitshow.


----------



## Jay Devito

BruiserKC said:


> The first case arrived in the United States on January 20. On January 23 thé Chinese government quarantined the city of Wuhan. At that moment President BruiserKC would have ordered a full travel ban on ALL air travel to and from China. I would work with the Chinese government and our embassy to get Americans out of there and back to the states. I would have prepared military bases to quarantine and if necessary treat people returning. If people call me racist for it, I don’t give a shit. My responsibility is to the Americans and not the feels of foreign governments.
> 
> I’m setting up testing locations in airports for the possibility of other cases. I prepare the Americans for the possibility of this coming here. I’m working with Congress, businesses, governors, medical experts, EVERYONE that knows what they are doing to prepare a response. This cuts down on panic for people trying to get home and those here.
> 
> You are fairly new, @FriedTofu will vouch for me that I am not a liberal. I warned people 4 years ago of the dangers of voting for Trump. People like you didn’t listen and now look at the results. Trump mismanaged the response bigly and continues to do so. This is on him and each and every one of you for voting for a clown, a charlatan and a limousine liberal NYC con man. You don’t get out of this and neither does he.


See I was willing to entertain your arguments and your solutions until that last paragraph, which reveals your true intention. So now you are pinning deaths on Trump and his voters, and not the country responsible for the virus? If that isn't fucking unbelievable I don't know what is. What about Cuomo? Does he get a pass? Looks like he was pretty unprepared as well.

Had Trump taken those precautionary measures you suggested there still would have been an outbreak, there still would have been death... and he still would have been criticized. 



BruiserKC said:


> An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Maybe some things would have changed but I would like to think we would be in a lot better shape.


Right now we are at 40k deaths and people like you are ready to call it the Trump virus, so I doubt you would have reacted any differently had it only been 20k or 25k. Please.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> The first case arrived in the United States on January 20. On January 23 thé Chinese government quarantined the city of Wuhan. At that moment President BruiserKC would have ordered a full travel ban on ALL air travel to and from China. I would work with the Chinese government and our embassy to get Americans out of there and back to the states. I would have prepared military bases to quarantine and if necessary treat people returning.


I said something similar about Hawai'i back when this all first started going down. We live on an island for fuck's sake. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to prevent any kind of outbreak of the virus here. They let people arrive and depart through the airport for months after we first knew that a pandemic was going to hit. Governor Tater would have shut down all regular travel coming into the islands (I suppose leaving would have been fine) and the only people showing up here would be the ones shipping goods and no one setting foot on this island would have done so without getting tested. If you live here, you stay here and everything is great. If you want to leave, that would be fine too. You're just not coming back. We would have taken a hit to the economy but that was going to happen anyways.

You take all those steps and we wouldn't even have to put the citizens here on lockdown. We could go about our daily lives in peace knowing not anyone from a hot zone has any chance of showing up here. Just don't plan on getting back if you decide to leave. You're here for the duration or you're gone for the duration. Either way, the people who are here would not have to be experiencing any kind of lockdowns.


----------



## BruiserKC

Jay Devito said:


> See I was willing to entertain your arguments and your solutions until that last paragraph, which reveals your true intention. So now you are pinning deaths on Trump and his voters, and not the country responsible for the virus? If that isn't fucking unbelievable I don't know what is. What about Cuomo? Does he get a pass? Looks like he was pretty unprepared as well.
> 
> Had Trump taken those precautionary measures you suggested there still would have been an outbreak, there still would have been death... and he still would have been criticized.
> 
> 
> 
> Right now we are at 40k deaths and people like you are ready to call it the Trump virus, so I doubt you would have reacted any differently had it only been 20k or 25k. Please.


Reading comprehension clearly is not a strong point of yours. So, let’s make it simple.

China is to blame for lying about and deceiving the world about the nature and nastiness of COVID-19. It doesn’t surprise me they would lie about it because it’s in their nature. There needs to be accountability there. Make sure you read carefully before the next part.

The President was notified in January about the virus. At the time, his advisors told the American people it wasn’t a threat at the moment but we needed to be prepared if that changed. And it did change. For two months, Trump golfed and held rallies. Normally that’s not a big deal except he underplayed how serious this was. The fact it came on us like it did and how we are dealing with it now shows he wasn’t prepared and he dropped the ball. Bigly. Had he done everything possible from the outset and we still had this, I could have lived with it. But that is clearly not the case.

Your nose would have been out of joint no matter what. You just want everyone else to be blamed but Trump. There is plenty of blame to go around, and Trump gets two big scoops of it. No Orwellian twist from your Dear Leader’s Ministry of Truth changes that fact.


----------



## TerraRising

The USA could've prevented the contagion as soon as the reports leaked out of Wuhan (leaked, because China's a police state.) But Chairman Trump didn't want cheap imports to suddenly cease and hurt his donors' businesses, so he completely no-sold the then-potentially severe pandemic we're now suffering under. All for a quick buck.


----------



## Tater

TerraRising said:


> The USA could've prevented the contagion as soon as the reports leaked out of Wuhan (leaked, because China's a police state.) But Chairman Trump didn't want cheap imports to suddenly cease and hurt his donors' businesses, so he completely no-sold the then-potentially severe pandemic we're now suffering under. All for a quick buck.


Hawai'i could've prevented the contagion as soon as the reports leaked out of Wuhan (leaked, because China's a police state.) But Chairman Ige didn't want tourist money to suddenly cease and hurt his donors' businesses, so he completely no-sold the then-potentially severe pandemic we're now suffering under. All for a quick buck.


----------



## TerraRising

Tater said:


> Hawai'i could've prevented the contagion as soon as the reports leaked out of Wuhan (leaked, because China's a police state.) But Chairman Ige didn't want tourist money to suddenly cease and hurt his donors' businesses, so he completely no-sold the then-potentially severe pandemic we're now suffering under. All for a quick buck.


I was wrong thinking you're the black sheep of your family then.

Also, didn't Trump promote Ige as head of Council of Governors? His incompetence must've flattered Donny boy.


----------



## Tater

TerraRising said:


> I was wrong thinking you're the black sheep of your family then.
> 
> Also, didn't Trump promote Ige as head of Council of Governors? His incompetence must've flattered Donny boy.


It's nothing I've ever heard of. Trump elevating Democrat governors doesn't sound like something he would do though. 

The point of my sarcastic reply was to point out that Trump's delayed response because he is more concerned with the economy than he is human lives is not uniquely a Trump/Republican trait. Shitty Democrats initially responded in much the same way.

And I'm proudly the black sheep of my family. Better than being a bah bah Republican voting Alabama living jackass.


----------



## FriedTofu

Jay Devito said:


> And those countries don't have anywhere near the population that we do, nor they have as many people traveling from different countries. New York might as well be the central hub of the entire fucking world.
> 
> You can miss me with the 'dear leader' nonsense. Trump could eat a big fat dick. I owe him nothing. He is a bullshitter of the highest order and total narcissist. There are days where I watch him speak and I am embarrassed by him, and he has let me down on several occasions.
> 
> And yet at the same time, I don't think we would have been any more prepared had another person been in his shoes. But that's the narrative you want to push. That IF ONLY a democrat had been in office, IF ONLY we had someone who wasn't Trump... we could have avoided this. Someone who is competent and smart and who is a democrat, not someone dopey and stupid like Trump. Someone like Andrew Cuomo maybe.
> 
> But show me this logic:
> 
> 
> U.S. has higher death count compared to other countries = Trump is to blame.
> NY has higher death count compared to other states = Trump still to blame, Cuomo NOT to blame?
> How does that work?
> 
> Sorry you are not going to make this about our country's failure. This is not our failure. This is *China's* failure.


Are you being paid per post to absolve blame from dear leader and his failed leadership? Do the US have a 50cent army like China? lol You should thank us for keep engaging with you so you get paid more in this time of economic uncertainty. 



BruiserKC said:


> The first case arrived in the United States on January 20. On January 23 thé Chinese government quarantined the city of Wuhan. At that moment President BruiserKC would have ordered a full travel ban on ALL air travel to and from China. I would work with the Chinese government and our embassy to get Americans out of there and back to the states. I would have prepared military bases to quarantine and if necessary treat people returning. If people call me racist for it, I don’t give a shit. My responsibility is to the Americans and not the feels of foreign governments.
> 
> I’m setting up testing locations in airports for the possibility of other cases. I prepare the Americans for the possibility of this coming here. I’m working with Congress, businesses, governors, medical experts, EVERYONE that knows what they are doing to prepare a response. This cuts down on panic for people trying to get home and those here.
> 
> You are fairly new, @FriedTofu will vouch for me that I am not a liberal. I warned people 4 years ago of the dangers of voting for Trump. People like you didn’t listen and now look at the results. Trump mismanaged the response bigly and continues to do so. This is on him and each and every one of you for voting for a clown, a charlatan and a limousine liberal NYC con man. You don’t get out of this and neither does he.
> 
> 
> An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Maybe some things would have changed but I would like to think we would be in a lot better shape. This thing is a complete embarrassment. For the first time ever I have no respect for the president currently in the White House. I disagreed with Obama on everything but I would have sat down with him for a beer.
> 
> I almost feel like apologizing to the world for this shitshow.


Travel ban from China wouldn't have worked. By that time the virus was everywhere and it takes guts to ban all overseas travel before things get serious locally. That's why it was a shock when America banned travel from Europe. So a ban on travel from China could have slowed down the spread as it would also be a signal to the majority that this thing is serious. A ban without testing is useless, that is where America got it so wrong. You guys did the easy step A to buy time, and thought that was job done without a more comprehensive follow up. However the only fool proof method is forcing ANYONE returning overseas to stay under quarantine for 14 days. That just isn't feasibly except under China's authoritarian regime.



Tater said:


> It's nothing I've ever heard of. Trump elevating Democrat governors doesn't sound like something he would do though.
> 
> The point of my sarcastic reply was to point out that Trump's delayed response because he is more concerned with the economy than he is human lives is not uniquely a Trump/Republican trait. Shitty Democrats initially responded in much the same way.
> 
> And I'm proudly the black sheep of my family. Better than being a bah bah Republican voting Alabama living jackass.


It isn't even an American trait. Almost all leaders were valuing GDP over tougher measures when decisions had to be made. Not easy to go full lockdown before trouble reached you. That' why I am so impressed by Jacinda Ardern from NZ. She had the balls to take extreme tough measures while being able to explain the reasons clearly why those needed to be done to her people. The difference I would say is the messaging from other leaders once it became obvious GDP would be fked anyway. In America on the other hand, your leader wanted to reopen the economy by Easter and pushing the narrative that old people are happy to be put at risk for the sake of the economy.


----------



## Tater

FriedTofu said:


> Travel ban from China wouldn't have worked. By that time the virus was everywhere


I think I had it back in late January. I had all the symptoms including the cough. It was treated by me like any other cold or flu I've ever caught as an adult. NyQuil for sleepy time, Sudafed for wakey time, plenty of rest and lots of drugs to ease my pain and suffering. The cough took a few weeks to go away but like every other time I get sick, my mighty army of vicious white cell warriors vanquished my foe and I came through healthy on the other side. I've never gotten a flu shot in my entire adult life. There's a reason we have an immune system and it needs a workout every once in awhile so it is prepared for a fight if/when something new comes along. This would be a good time to remind people that being a germaphobe is not a good thing.

Being the news junkie that I am, I was seeing the first reports about covid at the time but didn't think much of it beyond that. Now I think that's what I had. It makes sense though considering my job and my location. I'm interacting with people from all over the world here to visit Waikiki. If I didn't have it back in January, I might have had it more recent than that, just without most of the symptoms. About 3-4 weeks ago I came down with a fever that lasted 4-5 days but this time I didn't have any of the lungs/throat/nose symptoms. And just like every other time I get sick, my immune system kicked into gear and fucked that virus up too.

Trump absolutely deserves some blame for being slow to react to the pandemic (just like a whole host of governors and other politicians deserve blame too) but due to the long incubation period of this particular virus, it was always going to hit us in some capacity. We live in a global society. People travel worldwide on the regular. When you've got a virus that can incubate for up to two weeks, that's a whole lot of spreading going on before you start seeing sick people, not to mention the people who can have it and spread it around without actually getting sick themselves. Had the people running the country reacted quicker, we could have done a lot better job of minimizing it's effect but it would have been impossible to completely keep it out of the USA. Nothing Trump has done, good or bad, would have kept it out entirely.

ETA, added for relevance:


----------



## El Grappleador

I know if the following commentary aport something this thread. Well, after accepting My American Dream is unreal, I still admitting MR. President has defects, and he has a virtue, though: He has mighty willpower. Thank you MR. President for having understood that lesson. It was hard to assimilate, but it worthed it.


----------



## TerraRising

El Grappleador said:


> I know if the following commentary aport something this thread. Well, after accepting My American Dream is unreal, I still admitting MR. President has defects, and he has a virtue, though: He has mighty willpower. Thank you MR. President for having understood that lesson. It was hard to assimilate, but it worthed it.


No entiendo ni madres.

¿De veras eres mexicano?


----------



## El Grappleador

[


TerraRising said:


> No entiendo ni madres.
> 
> ¿De veras eres mexicano?


Have you ever watched last Peanuts' Movie? Well, I remembered reason why Little redhead girl chose Charlie Brown as Summer Penfriend. To be frank, I was comparing me with him and other celebrities and there is a certain poem who praises: "Si te comparas con los demás serán vano y amargado" If you compare with everyone else will be vain and embittered." It is a bad habit. The way to break it down is by checking virtues on person you compare.


----------



## TerraRising

El Grappleador said:


> Have you ever watched last Peanuts' Movie? Well, I remembered reason why Little redhead girl chose Charlie Brown as Summer Penfriend. To be frank, I was comparing me with him and other celebrities and there is a certain poem who praises: "Si te comparas con los demás serán vano y amargado" If you compare with everyone else will be vain and embittered." It is a bad habit. The way to break it down is by checking virtues on person you compare.


Los unicos "Peanuts" que conozco son las bolsitas de cacahuate estilo japones.


----------



## njcam




----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255108950434947072
Called Joe Biden-Stacey Abrams as the ticket roughly a year ago. We shall see!


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255108950434947072
> Called Joe Biden-Stacey Abrams as the ticket roughly a year ago. We shall see!


There is zero chance I would vote for a Biden-Abrams ticket.

This though... this would get my vote.






Run Jesse run!


----------



## FriedTofu

Personally I would prefer Amy Klobuchar if the democrats really want to play gender politics and pick a female VP. But she is probably too establishment and centrist to reassure the leftists of the party they have a say on the ticket. Abrams is center-left too but she's black so they have 2 identity politics position to play by choosing her. Not sure anyone Biden pick other than Bernie himself can appeal to Bernie stans though.


----------



## Tater

FriedTofu said:


> Personally I would prefer Amy Klobuchar if the democrats really want to play gender politics and pick a female VP. But she is probably too establishment and centrist to reassure the leftists of the party they have a say on the ticket. *Abrams is center-left* too but she's black so they have 2 identity politics position to play by choosing her. Not sure anyone Biden pick other than Bernie himself can appeal to Bernie stans though.


Center-left, my ass. Abrams is a right wing neoliberal corporatist just like every other establishment Dem. She'd be de facto running the country if elected with Biden because Biden has dementia. Policy-wise, it'd be like electing Hillary. Hard pass.


----------



## FriedTofu

Tater said:


> Center-left, my ass. Abrams is a right wing neoliberal corporatist just like every other establishment Dem. She'd be de facto running the country if elected with Biden because Biden has dementia. Policy-wise, it'd be like electing Hillary. Hard pass.


In the American context she is considered center-left. If she's not, who is center left and who is a leftist and who is far-left in America politics?


----------



## Tater

FriedTofu said:


> In the American context she is considered center-left. If she's not, who is center left and who is a leftist and who is far-left in America politics?


That she is considered center-left only goes to show how ignorant Americans are of the political spectrum. There is no left in American politics. Bernie is as far left as they go and he is a centrist at best. He's also the establishment's little bitch boy, so that should tell you the power the left has in America.


----------



## FriedTofu

Tater said:


> That she is considered center-left only goes to show how ignorant Americans are of the political spectrum. There is no left in American politics. Bernie is as far left as they go and he is a centrist at best. He's also the establishment's little bitch boy, so that should tell you the power the left has in America.


She is consider center-left in the American context, meaning America is more right wing than other countries they are often compared to. It isn't ignorance but the general beliefs and values of America.

If there is no left in American politics, then who is leftist globally?


----------



## BruiserKC

Justin Amash is considering a run as the Libertarian Party candidate and has formed an exploratory committee. I’m torn on this. I definitely align politically with Amash a lot more than Trump or Biden. But would his entry in the race siphon enough votes away to get Trump re-elected?


----------



## DesolationRow

Israel mentioned in newly released FBI documents regarding Stone and Trump's 2016 campaign


***




www.haaretz.com


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Justin Amash is considering a run as the Libertarian Party candidate and has formed an exploratory committee. I’m torn on this. I definitely align politically with Amash a lot more than Trump or Biden. But would his entry in the race siphon enough votes away to get Trump re-elected?


Well I'm sure you can find a principled way to rationalize voting for Biden.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Well I'm sure you can find a principled way to rationalize voting for Biden.


A principled way to rationalize voting for Biden is an oxymoron.


----------



## MontyCora

CamillePunk said:


> Well I'm sure you can find a principled way to rationalize voting for Biden.


As opposed to the major alternative?


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Well I'm sure you can find a principled way to rationalize voting for Biden.





Tater said:


> A principled way to rationalize voting for Biden is an oxymoron.





MontyCora said:


> As opposed to the major alternative?


How about the house is on fire? That considering what has happened another four years of Trump would be an absolute disaster? I’m not crazy about Biden but if it came down to it I might consider holding my nose.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> How about the house is on fire? That considering what has happened another four years of Trump would be an absolute disaster? I’m not crazy about Biden but if it came down to it I might consider holding my nose.


So instead of getting a far right wing war mongering lunatic for 4 more years... the preferable alternative is 4 years of a far right wing war mongering lunatic... who is going senile? 

Cause I don't get that logic, at, all.


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> So instead of getting a far right wing war mongering lunatic for 4 more years... the preferable alternative is 4 years of a far right wing war mongering lunatic... who is going senile?
> 
> Cause I don't get that logic, at, all.


Considering what is going on right now in this country with a president who is absolutely fucking clueless, we have far bigger problems at the moment. A nurse is calling him out during his press conference about not having enough medical equipment for this pandemic, yet he is sending it all over the world. While most of the world are taking the first steps in getting back to normal because they have flattened the curve, Trump is pretty much giving up at this point. If he was a WWII president, we would be surrendering before D-Day. His policies were already pushing us towards recession as is. His failed response to the pandemic and the after effects have us on the brink of depression. To reward him with another four years would be like rewarding my kids for fixing my window when they broke it in the first place.

As for Biden, I take the senility talk with a grain of salt. In ‘16 Trump’s campaign pushed the notion Hillary had Parkinson’s and videos can be manipulated. Normally the idea of voting Democrat would make me feel dirty, but if he is the best alternative to another 4 years of Trump, I will do it.
The house is on fire. We can put the fire out first and argue later about how to rebuild. 

And once again, Trump is not far right/conservative. Nowhere close.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> Considering what is going on right now in this country with a president who is absolutely fucking clueless, we have far bigger problems at the moment. A nurse is calling him out during his press conference about not having enough medical equipment for this pandemic, yet he is sending it all over the world. While most of the world are taking the first steps in getting back to normal because they have flattened the curve, Trump is pretty much giving up at this point. If he was a WWII president, we would be surrendering before D-Day. His policies were already pushing us towards recession as is. His failed response to the pandemic and the after effects have us on the brink of depression. To reward him with another four years would be like rewarding my kids for fixing my window when they broke it in the first place.
> 
> As for Biden, I take the senility talk with a grain of salt. In ‘16 Trump’s campaign pushed the notion Hillary had Parkinson’s and videos can be manipulated. Normally the idea of voting Democrat would make me feel dirty, but if he is the best alternative to another 4 years of Trump, I will do it.
> The house is on fire. We can put the fire out first and argue later about how to rebuild.
> 
> And once again, Trump is not far right/conservative. Nowhere close.


Trump is not a leftist. The only other alternative is a rightist. You probably hate him because he is authoritarian right and you are more libertarian right but that does not make him any less right wing. Hey, I get it, I'm a leftist and I hate communists, who are authoritarian leftists.

Biden has dementia. He can barely form a complete sentence at times. You can't doctor live videos. He senility is not some evil GOP scheme. The dude is old and losing his mind. Sorry but I'm not voting for that. If the Democrats want to replace him at the convention with someone else, fine, I'll then judge that candidate on their merits. As bad as Trump is, I am not voting to give someone the nuclear codes when they already have a long history of war mongering and is losing his mind on top of it. Do I need to remind you that Biden was one of the leading Democrats who helped Dubya drum up enough support to invade Iraq?

The house was already on fire when Trump got elected. Obama and Biden had 8 years. Those are 8 long years they could have been building ventilators and stocking up on masks. Biden is already on record telling the ruling class that nothing is gonna change. You think a Democrat would have handled this pandemic any better? New York has been hit harder than any other place in the world and it has Democrat Cuomo running the show there.

And since you wanna bring up WWII, answer me this... how many new wars has Trump started? Cause Obama with Biden took Dubya's 2 wars and expanded them to 7 or 8 and really we don't know exactly how many are going on because of the shadow wars in Africa. Trump's no dove. Drone strikes have increased. He has illegally bombed Syria based on a false flag. He's trying to starve Venezuela to death to steal their oil. So yeah, he is now a war criminal too who should be in the Hague. What he has not done is destroy Iraq (Dubya) or destroy Libya (Obama/Biden/Hillary). His foreign policy has killed fewer people than those who came before him and who you want to replace him with.

Trump would have never been elected in the first place if Hillary wasn't such a piece of shit and everybody was happy with Obama's 8 years. People want change. Obama promised change and didn't give it to us. So we put Trump in office because he was promising change. He, of course, is governing like a standard Republican politician, so people are still wanting the change they haven't gotten yet and you want to elect the person who promised no change.

Stop and think about how insane it is what you are suggesting. You hate Trump sooooooooo much that you want to replace him with the same shit that got him elected in the first place? I mean, Jesus tap dancing Christ. The USA was so disgusted with Obama and Biden that they gave control of Congress to the GOP and put Trump in the WH. Now you want to recreate those conditions? The USA needs to learn from their mistakes. Doing the same shit over and over again and expecting different results is a definition of insanity. Electing Biden is not only insanity, the man himself is insane. That we are even having this discussion is insane.

Mark my words, if the USA puts Biden into office, the next Trump will be even worse.


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> Trump is not a leftist. The only other alternative is a rightist. You probably hate him because he is authoritarian right and you are more libertarian right but that does not make him any less right wing. Hey, I get it, I'm a leftist and I hate communists, who are authoritarian leftists.
> 
> Biden has dementia. He can barely form a complete sentence at times. You can't doctor live videos. He senility is not some evil GOP scheme. The dude is old and losing his mind. Sorry but I'm not voting for that. If the Democrats want to replace him at the convention with someone else, fine, I'll then judge that candidate on their merits. As bad as Trump is, I am not voting to give someone the nuclear codes when they already have a long history of war mongering and is losing his mind on top of it. Do I need to remind you that Biden was one of the leading Democrats who helped Dubya drum up enough support to invade Iraq?
> 
> The house was already on fire when Trump got elected. Obama and Biden had 8 years. Those are 8 long years they could have been building ventilators and stocking up on masks. Biden is already on record telling the ruling class that nothing is gonna change. You think a Democrat would have handled this pandemic any better? New York has been hit harder than any other place in the world and it has Democrat Cuomo running the show there.
> 
> And since you wanna bring up WWII, answer me this... how many new wars has Trump started? Cause Obama with Biden took Dubya's 2 wars and expanded them to 7 or 8 and really we don't know exactly how many are going on because of the shadow wars in Africa. Trump's no dove. Drone strikes have increased. He has illegally bombed Syria based on a false flag. He's trying to starve Venezuela to death to steal their oil. So yeah, he is now a war criminal too who should be in the Hague. What he has not done is destroy Iraq (Dubya) or destroy Libya (Obama/Biden/Hillary). His foreign policy has killed fewer people than those who came before him and who you want to replace him with.
> 
> Trump would have never been elected in the first place if Hillary wasn't such a piece of shit and everybody was happy with Obama's 8 years. People want change. Obama promised change and didn't give it to us. So we put Trump in office because he was promising change. He, of course, is governing like a standard Republican politician, so people are still wanting the change they haven't gotten yet and you want to elect the person who promised no change.
> 
> Stop and think about how insane it is what you are suggesting. You hate Trump sooooooooo much that you want to replace him with the same shit that got him elected in the first place? I mean, Jesus tap dancing Christ. The USA was so disgusted with Obama and Biden that they gave control of Congress to the GOP and put Trump in the WH. Now you want to recreate those conditions? The USA needs to learn from their mistakes. Doing the same shit over and over again and expecting different results is a definition of insanity. Electing Biden is not only insanity, the man himself is insane. That we are even having this discussion is insane.
> 
> Mark my words, if the USA puts Biden into office, the next Trump will be even worse.







The numbers are higher now. Nearly 75,000 dead. Over 33 million people unemployed. Trump is throwing open the doors even though we are not past our peak. He ignored the warnings and downplayed the pandemic. I would have settled for him being halfway competent about this but he failed to do even that.

Obama had two pandemics during his administration and I don’t remember the country having to be shut down. Trump had three years to replenish the stocks that supposedly Obama emptied. Why didn’t he? Not to mention in February he sent equipment to China we needed here.

I agree Trump came to power because people were not happy with Obama and Hillary was an evil human being. But considering what is happening now, Trump does not deserve another four years. He changed things, but certainly not for the better. Maybe Biden isn’t much better, but think about this...The fact I am seriously considering voting for Biden (or Amash if I think his running would not help Trump) tells you how deep I think we are in this.

Our position on the world stage and our foreign policy is going to have to wait. We need to get our house in order first. That would be the main concern.


----------



## BruiserKC

Forgive the double post. 

The idea is to have Trump not just defeated but it to be a landslide. If he is annihilated on Election Day, hopefully it would be enough to send him and his minions scurrying. Hopefully we see the end of the Republican Party with this and a new Conservative party rises from the ashes. And then make sure the poison of populism and nationalism is never allowed near politics again.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> Forgive the double post.
> 
> The idea is to have Trump not just defeated but it to be a landslide. If he is annihilated on Election Day, hopefully it would be enough to send him and his minions scurrying. Hopefully we see the end of the Republican Party with this and a new Conservative party rises from the ashes. And then make sure the poison of populism and nationalism is never allowed near politics again.


I understand your argument. And you're right, Trump doesn't deserve another 4 years. But... a landslide victory by Clinton/Obama/Biden brand of Democrats will not improve matters. You want to see the death of this Republican party just as much as I want to see the death of this Democrat party. Sadly for all us, there simply are no good options. One's a jackass and the other one has dementia. We are fucked either way.


----------



## DesolationRow

23% of Republicans Think GOP Should Nominate Someone Other Than Trump


Republicans overwhelmingly expect President Trump to be their nominee this fall, but nearly one-in-four GOP voters would prefer someone else.




www.rasmussenreports.com


----------



## yeahbaby!

I don't think I can see any other result apart from a Trump win. He and his team will create a common enemy with his cult in China, and base the campaign around getting back at them or something to distract from any real issues. He'll make some promise even more outlandish than The Wall (what happened to that again?) wrap himself in the flag and bust out the simple yet brilliant 'Keep America Great' slogan for the win.


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> I don't think I can see any other result apart from a Trump win. He and his team will create a common enemy with his cult in China, and base the campaign around getting back at them or something to distract from any real issues. He'll make some promise even more outlandish than The Wall (what happened to that again?) wrap himself in the flag and bust out the simple yet brilliant 'Keep America Great' slogan for the win.


And the DNCs new slogan is "He didn't rape as many women as Trump and he has a black best friend, so he's not that bad."

Fuck this country and 85% of its idiot, xenophibc neoliberal/neocon population..


----------



## FriedTofu

yeahbaby! said:


> I don't think I can see any other result apart from a Trump win. He and his team will create a common enemy with his cult in China, and base the campaign around getting back at them or something to distract from any real issues. He'll make some promise even more outlandish than The Wall (what happened to that again?) wrap himself in the flag and bust out the simple yet brilliant 'Keep America Great' slogan for the win.


Feels very much like Bush vs Kerry all over again. Bush was weak in everything but carried home with terrorism paranoia. 45 is going to carry the election by simply playing into the paranoia the pandemic has created by stating Biden is going to do worse than he did because reasons.


----------



## DesolationRow

Poll: Biden holds 11-point lead over Trump


Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Trump by double digits in the race for the White House, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday. The poll shows Bide…




thehill.com






__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263168456465276929


----------



## DesolationRow

You can watch the whole interview with this thread, more or less, perhaps, as well as in other places... Riveting.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263923196652253184


----------



## Reaper

Yo ... be a black and vote for Biden. If you don't, then you ain't black.

When white people control the majority of votes, they will put 2 guys who hate minorities in power and ask you to choose and then claim that you're not a good minority if you don't do what the white majority wants.


----------



## BruiserKC

Trump once again proves his shortsightedness with his Executive Order calling for the overhaul of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. He claims that it is needed to address bias towards conservatives on social media and promote free speech. 

it simply boils down to this...if you take away the liability protection of platforms and sites and potentially make them open to lawsuits, these platforms will be more likely to censor. It suppresses free speech, not promotes it.

Another example of Trump not thinking things through.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Trump once again proves his shortsightedness with his Executive Order calling for the overhaul of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. He claims that it is needed to address bias towards conservatives on social media and promote free speech.
> 
> it simply boils down to this...if you take away the liability protection of platforms and sites and potentially make them open to lawsuits, these platforms will be more likely to censor. It suppresses free speech, not promotes it.
> 
> Another example of Trump not thinking things through.


He's a fucking narcissistic bully and bitchboy who literally created regulation because he got butthurt. It has nothing to do with "thinking things through". He's a school yard pussy and so are his followers who use whatever power they have to try to tilt things in their favor. It's classic NPD.


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> Trump once again proves his shortsightedness with his Executive Order calling for the overhaul of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. He claims that it is needed to address bias towards conservatives on social media and promote free speech.
> 
> it simply boils down to this...if you take away the liability protection of platforms and sites and potentially make them open to lawsuits, these platforms will be more likely to censor. It suppresses free speech, not promotes it.
> 
> Another example of Trump not thinking things through.


His feeling got hurt after Twitter flagged his tweet, that's all there is to this. I just want Twitter to suspend his personal account just to see how he would react.


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> His feeling got hurt after Twitter flagged his tweet, that's all there is to this. I just want Twitter to suspend his personal account just to see how he would react.





Reaper said:


> He's a fucking narcissistic bully and bitchboy who literally created regulation because he got butthurt. It has nothing to do with "thinking things through". He's a school yard pussy and so are his followers who use whatever power they have to try to tilt things in their favor. It's classic NPD.


And his tweet after Twitter hid the second half of his “shoot looters” one was “REVOKE 230!” Someone might want to tell him that it will further squash what he is trying to do but it would be pointless.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> And his tweet after Twitter hid the second half of his “shoot looters” one was “REVOKE 230!” Someone might want to tell him that it will further squash what he is trying to do but it would be pointless.


He's either overestimating how many racists exist in Amerikkka, or we're underestimating ...

His looter shooter tweet is taken directly from Walter Headley.

He knows what he's doing.

I just wanna know how many antiracist actually exist in Amerikkka now.


----------



## FriedTofu

It isn't only white people that are racists. Black racists took over blacklivesmatter movement for their own agenda. He's not wrong to bet on racists doing it again from this current riots too.


----------



## Clique

All further political talk may continue in the politics thread. Thank you.









Let's Talk Politics! Round 2: Election Year


The GOP is just using their own playbook against them. Unfortunately the dems really don't have a leg to stand on after Kavanaugh. The one thing Joe could take solice in is that he totally has about 75-80% of the media on his side. You would think that news networks would be kicking doors down...




www.wrestlingforum.com


----------

