INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on September 25, 2016, 06:01:36 AM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2n_-jwPUHQ
-
No relation to me! :M
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2n_-jwPUHQ
WAS TRUMP!!!!
:asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing:
-
Fuck me, I'm speechless. I didn't think it would happen. A Trump victory in the USA...
-
I didn't think it would happen either. I'm stunned. I really thought Clinton would win. What kind of people voted for Trump?
-
On the upside, comedians everywhere will have a wealth of bizarro behavior to lampoon. :-\
-
I did not need this at all. I did not want this. The right wing takeover of the West continues to march on without much resistance.
-
I didn't think it would happen either. I'm stunned. I really thought Clinton would win. What kind of people voted for Trump?
Well that is where the whole issue is. We KNOW that part of the problem was that they talked up a narrative of Trump supporters all being poor uneducated white males. THAT is not a huge enough demographic to win.
They did not mention that the black vote was 200-300% higher than previous Republicans (around 15%) or that the Hispanic vote was in the 40%'s. THAT was against the narrative. Trump supporters crossed all boundaries and were diverse.
Now as to motivations to vote Trump were diverse too. But again this talk to pigeon hole them into being racists and bigots was inaccurate and misrepresentations.
In characterising the Trump supporters they deliberately cast them ion a way that marginalised them and dismissed them as a real threat. Hillary had the numbers because only a small number of dumb rednecks vote for Trump....but then how could she lose IF that narrative was correct. Unless of course it never was right.
-
I didn't think it would happen either. I'm stunned. I really thought Clinton would win. What kind of people voted for Trump?
Well that is where the whole issue is. We KNOW that part of the problem was that they talked up a narrative of Trump supporters all being poor uneducated white males. THAT is not a huge enough demographic to win.
They did not mention that the black vote was 200-300% higher than previous Republicans (around 15%) or that the Hispanic vote was in the 40%'s. THAT was against the narrative. Trump supporters crossed all boundaries and were diverse.
Now as to motivations to vote Trump were diverse too. But again this talk to pigeon hole them into being racists and bigots was inaccurate and misrepresentations.
In characterising the Trump supporters they deliberately cast them ion a way that marginalised them and dismissed them as a real threat. Hillary had the numbers because only a small number of dumb rednecks vote for Trump....but then how could she lose IF that narrative was correct. Unless of course it never was right.
The media's condescending racism on that was disgusting. No more smugness now I hope. No one likes Clinton, that was the main problem. She is the poster girl for corrupt politicians.
-
Hilary Clinton got pretty much half of the popular vote, but nobody likes Hilary Clinton, apparently. Okay, sure. Whatever you say. :wanker:
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
-
I didn't think it would happen either. I'm stunned. I really thought Clinton would win. What kind of people voted for Trump?
I just couldn't berlieve the freaking newsthis morning. My condolences to you Americans .
Well that is where the whole issue is. We KNOW that part of the problem was that they talked up a narrative of Trump supporters all being poor uneducated white males. THAT is not a huge enough demographic to win.
They did not mention that the black vote was 200-300% higher than previous Republicans (around 15%) or that the Hispanic vote was in the 40%'s. THAT was against the narrative. Trump supporters crossed all boundaries and were diverse.
Now as to motivations to vote Trump were diverse too. But again this talk to pigeon hole them into being racists and bigots was inaccurate and misrepresentations.
In characterising the Trump supporters they deliberately cast them ion a way that marginalised them and dismissed them as a real threat. Hillary had the numbers because only a small number of dumb rednecks vote for Trump....but then how could she lose IF that narrative was correct. Unless of course it never was right.
Yeah, they did pretty much the same thing about Brexiters. The weird thing is, since Brexit won, people are still calling the Brexiters racist, and citing the Brexit vote as evidennce that racism in Britain is rife. Fed up of reading "I'm ashamed of my country" etc, since Brexit
Actually, I've been ashamed of my country for decades, and depressed by the toxic, increasingly right-wing political agenda. which has increasingly widenened the gap between rich and poor, irrespective of which party wins the elections. Brexit was , overwhelmingly, a working-class movement from people who felt similar to myself. We'd had enough of economic arguments which equate to"Jam tomorrow" for most of us, but always turn out to mean "More jam today" for the rich and powerful, and increased austerity for the rest of us. Much of that economic punishment was driven by/supported by the EU, which has been credibly painted as a "bosses club"
I suspect that the Trump supporters were similarly motivated. but -hang on- doesn't he represent your right-wing party? At least , we Brits weren't voting for any particular political party. The right wing somehow managed to dominate the debate on both sides of the argument, so they could effectively take credit for whichever result; but that result certainly didn't empower the right wing; rather, it's prompted a general shift to the left. Which is what most of us really want. in actuality
Congratulations! You now have a bigoted , filthy rich, right wing buffoon as head of state. Is that what Americans really want? I doubt it. But I guess he looked like the least of two evils. And I guess that a lot of poor Americans have reached the same point that many of we Brits reached: anything that purports to be a major challenge to the status quuo has to be worth a shot.
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Can we lock him in the bathroom?
-
I didn't think it would happen either. I'm stunned. I really thought Clinton would win. What kind of people voted for Trump?
I just couldn't berlieve the freaking newsthis morning. My condolences to you Americans .
Well that is where the whole issue is. We KNOW that part of the problem was that they talked up a narrative of Trump supporters all being poor uneducated white males. THAT is not a huge enough demographic to win.
They did not mention that the black vote was 200-300% higher than previous Republicans (around 15%) or that the Hispanic vote was in the 40%'s. THAT was against the narrative. Trump supporters crossed all boundaries and were diverse.
Now as to motivations to vote Trump were diverse too. But again this talk to pigeon hole them into being racists and bigots was inaccurate and misrepresentations.
In characterising the Trump supporters they deliberately cast them ion a way that marginalised them and dismissed them as a real threat. Hillary had the numbers because only a small number of dumb rednecks vote for Trump....but then how could she lose IF that narrative was correct. Unless of course it never was right.
Yeah, they did pretty much the same thing about Brexiters. The weird thing is, since Brexit won, people are still calling the Brexiters racist, and citing the Brexit vote as evidennce that racism in Britain is rife. Fed up of reading "I'm ashamed of my country" etc, since Brexit
Actually, I've been ashamed of my country for decades, and depressed by the toxic, increasingly right-wing political agenda. which has increasingly widenened the gap between rich and poor, irrespective of which party wins the elections. Brexit was , overwhelmingly, a working-class movement from people who felt similar to myself. We'd had enough of economic arguments which equate to"Jam tomorrow" for most of us, but always turn out to mean "More jam today" for the rich and powerful, and increased austerity for the rest of us. Much of that economic punishment was driven by/supported by the EU, which has been credibly painted as a "bosses club"
I suspect that the Trump supporters were similarly motivated. but -hang on- doesn't he represent your right-wing party? At least , we Brits weren't voting for any particular political party. The right wing somehow managed to dominate the debate on both sides of the argument, so they could effectively take credit for whichever result; but that result certainly didn't empower the right wing; rather, it's prompted a general shift to the left. Which is what most of us really want. in actuality
Congratulations! You now have a bigoted , filthy rich, right wing buffoon as head of state. Is that what Americans really want? I doubt it. But I guess he looked like the least of two evils. And I guess that a lot of poor Americans have reached the same point that many of we Brits reached: anything that purports to be a major challenge to the status quuo has to be worth a shot.
When you say "your" who are you talking to? Me or Renaeden? We are both Aussies.
I dunno about him being a racist. He may or may not be. I have seen people alluding to him being racist but no one has adequately should me him being a racist. or a bigot. He IS filthy rich but at $150 million, Hillary is not exactly poor. He is far from stupid too.
I dunno. I think he is better than Hillary but it was a pretty poor choice. Like when we had Gillard and Abbott. I held my nose and went Gillard and I really disliked her, but Abbott was worse.
-
I am disgusted and scared shitless. However, it is what it is. The news guys are saying that this is a movement, not a campaign. There was talk that Trump ran as a Republican to ensure that Clinton was elected.
That this whole thing went wrong.
Being autistic, I don't always read faces correctly. But it did seem that he was more subdued, more aware of the awful blow Fate handed him. And that is what it is. He joins an elite club of men who can change the world. In the end whatever happens to us, it will fall on him. The good, the bad, the ugly. He will have to take responsibility for America, his life and his legacy.
I just want this bitterness and hatred between the parties to end. Find SOME common ground. Democrats and Republicans an Independents and everyone else will have to work together or we will perish. "United we stand, divided we fall."
Stay Calm and Have Faith. That's all we've got.
-
When you say "your" who are you talking to? Me or Renaeden? We are both Aussies.
I was addressing the Americans, at that juncture,
I figure that a post here doesn't need to be personal, especially not on an issue like this, which intersts everybody, and effects everybody to some degree. Just because my observations followed on from yours and Ren's doesn't mean I have to restrict myself to talking to you and Ren, does it? The Americans will probably read it too.
-
I dunno. I think he is better than Hillary but it was a pretty poor choice. Like when we had Gillard and Abbott. I held my nose and went Gillard and I really disliked her, but Abbott was worse.
Agreed about the poor choice. Tha';s one thing that most of us can agree on!
Oh! I just recalled this really funny quote from Douglas Adams (So Long and Thanks for All the Fish)
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
This.
-
When you say "your" who are you talking to? Me or Renaeden? We are both Aussies.
I was addressing the Americans, at that juncture,
I figure that a post here doesn't need to be personal, especially not on an issue like this, which intersts everybody, and effects everybody to some degree. Just because my observations followed on from yours and Ren's doesn't mean I have to restrict myself to talking to you and Ren, does it? The Americans will probably read it too.
That's okay. I just saw we were both quoted and it did not seem to fit both of us together or singularly.
-
I am disgusted and scared shitless. However, it is what it is. The news guys are saying that this is a movement, not a campaign. There was talk that Trump ran as a Republican to ensure that Clinton was elected.
That this whole thing went wrong.
Being autistic, I don't always read faces correctly. But it did seem that he was more subdued, more aware of the awful blow Fate handed him. And that is what it is. He joins an elite club of men who can change the world. In the end whatever happens to us, it will fall on him. The good, the bad, the ugly. He will have to take responsibility for America, his life and his legacy.
I just want this bitterness and hatred between the parties to end. Find SOME common ground. Democrats and Republicans an Independents and everyone else will have to work together or we will perish. "United we stand, divided we fall."
Stay Calm and Have Faith. That's all we've got.
I think part of his appeal as an outlier and outsider was his promise to drain the swamp. I think that an active push to purge the ranks of the most corrupt establishment types may be best. Not JUST in one party or the other. The we will see just how good his much talked up negotiation skills are, because I feel he will have a lot of bridges to mend and a lot of negotiating to do.
First big hurdle will be Russia.
-
Hilary Clinton got pretty much half of the popular vote, but nobody likes Hilary Clinton, apparently. Okay, sure. Whatever you say. :wanker:
I'd say most of the people would vote Democrat whoever was in charge. It shows how hated and untrustworthy she is that she got smashed by Donald Trump. A lot of people were voting against Trump too rather than for Clinton.
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
-
Walkie- I think you get confused by left and right. Trump is right wing, socially and economically. Some of the people here you talk about being on the right are just right wing economically but are neomulticulturalists and demand mass immigration.
-
Walkie- I think you get confused by left and right. Trump is right wing, socially and economically. Some of the people here you talk about being on the right are just right wing economically but are neomulticulturalists and demand mass immigration.
Yeah, i know that Trump is right wing, because
A) he's a Republican (that's their right-wing party, right? Like the Tory party here), and
B) It's written all over him.
I don't know where I suggested otherwise?
As for neomulticulturists, well, I see no contradiction whatsoever in right-wing "multiculturism". Free movement of labour is very good for industry (in terms of reducing wages etc) and also supplies a ready source of scapegoats, if required. Also, anyone who sees through that scam and grumbles about it can be easily dismissed as racist...just so long as they're white (and if all you get to see is the bare statistics, then it's easy-as-pie to assume they're all white).
But then you live in the South, right? So you don't get to mingle with so many of Brirtain's poor folk as i do, because the South belongs to the relatively sucessful, by-and-large. Well, believe you me, we come in all colours, and most of the recent immigrants are as alarmed and depressed by the situation they find themselves in as the natives are; and nobody wants more and more people pouring into London, only to be shunted up North when they can't pay their rent. People are losing their homes because they can't pay their rent up here, too. There are quite simply not enough homes, not enough work, not enough resources, not enough of anything to go round.
And i'm not just talking theoretically, out-of my arse. I've worked alongside immigrants of all races and watched most of them go from bright-eyed-and-bushy-tailed, cos they've come to the "Land of Opprtunity" to anxious and depressed within a matter of weeks, as they figure out that it takes something more than a willingness to work hard to make it in this country; and that whatever it takes they haven't got it. I've also come within a hair's breadth of being out on the street myself. Twice. Once whilst working, then once again after having my benefits stopped.
You think immigrants are grateful to share in our "privileged lifestyle"? No, they're not, aside from the minority who manage to become hammers rather than nails. They are human beings just like the rest of us, and they usually do figure out that they've been had. And they usually do very much n notice that they are being treated like dirt by the bosses... not because they're immigrants, I hasten to add, but just because most bosses can and do treat unskilled workers like dirt (There always plenty more queing up to take their place, if they don't like it). And they do find the prospect of dying of cold on the streets every bit as as discomforting as you or I would.
I've had African and Middle Eastern people tell me -in shocked tones- "This is slavery" . They might have had it really hard , in various ways, back home, but at least they got treated with respect. It's really interesting to get an outside perspective on that kind of thing. We native Brits have serfdom in our blood, and are more accepting of exploitation and mistreatment than most of those immigrants are.
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
Read some more posts of IQ, before assuming she is a big fan of Clinton.
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
I did ed-u-ma-cate myself regarding Clinton :tard:...and the thing is 85% of our politicians are lying psychopaths.
I didn't want either one actually.
...and as for a war with Russia, now they have no need for conflict of any sorts...don't you think the one of the easiest ways to control a country is to endorse an idiot to run it?
All hail our new leaders leader.
(http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Trump-putin-image.jpg)
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
So if you didn't want Clinton you had another 280 million people to choose from. And Trump was the best you could come up with?
You don't mind the racism?
You don't mind the misogyny?
Just what is it about his personality that you so much admire?
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
I did ed-u-ma-cate myself regarding Clinton :tard:...
Oh come off it IQ. it's a well-known fact that anyone who disagrees with Benji must be under-educated. :autism:
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
I did ed-u-ma-cate myself regarding Clinton :tard:...
Oh come off it IQ. it's a well-known fact that anyone who disagrees with Benji must be under-educated. :autism:
:LOL:
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
Benji, the village idiot of the aspie elite, has spoken.
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
So if you didn't want Clinton you had another 280 million people to choose from. And Trump was the best you could come up with?
You don't mind the racism?
You don't mind the misogyny?
Just what is it about his personality that you so much admire?
I disagree. I think for many reasons he was likely the ONLY person who could have beaten Hillary on the Republican side. Before you scoff, come up with a name....any name.
I do not like Trump as much as I dislike Hillary and I am glad she is out. But Trump is not just NOT Hillary. He has a little bit more going for him. He has some half-way decent ideas. He has a dislike of the right people and right things.
Now does THAT in itself translate to him being Presidential or being able to achieve anything? No. Not necessarily. I do think that if he surrounds himself with the right people and being a little more measured, he can get some decent outcomes. I think Pence is more of a concern. For example, Trump is live and let live with Gay people, Pence would prefer they had conversion therapy. Stuff like that.
I do not feel nearly as worried about him in the White House as I did with Hillary Clinton. I am a little relieved.
As to him being portrayed as a monster in some places and a saint in others and a racist and a misogynist in some and a Saint in the others, I think he is not so easy to pigeon hole. I have heard atrocious reports and wonderful reports. Some showing him to be a decent, kind and gentle man with man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm8n9qVIK_8
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3514893/Donald-Trump-shares-emotional-moment-dying-ex-Miss-Wisconsin-rally-GOP-runner-wrote-hospice-home-care.html
http://www.jta.org/1988/07/20/archive/orthodox-child-with-rare-ailment-is-rescued-aboard-tycoons-jet
http://conservativetribune.com/what-trump-did-to-jews-blacks/
Yet it is easy enough to find things to play up bad things about him.
They all seem to contradict each other and people WANT a cardboard cutout to tear down or flesh out. The real man is likely to be somewhere between a Saint and a monster, and probably closer to the middle than most would credit.
And no I am not trying to appeal to your reason Four Ace because I do not think you are equipped with such faculties. But I think it is worth saying to others here.
-
Before you scoff, come up with a name....any name.
Get your local phone book out. Flick through the pages. Stop! Now run your thumb down the page. Stop! Give them a ring.
I offer you my original analysis. When you have the choice between eating a shit sandwich and eating a shit salad you should change the restaurant.
-
Before you scoff, come up with a name....any name.
Get your local phone book out. Flick through the pages. Stop! Now run your thumb down the page. Stop! Give them a ring.
I offer you my original analysis. When you have the choice between eating a shit sandwich and eating a shit salad you should change the restaurant.
There we go. You think Hillary was easy to beat. Anyone could have beaten her. She with the DNC, the POTUS, Media, Hollywood, Establishment GOP, and about 60% of the country on side BEFORE the election even got started....and you believe ANYONE in the phone book could have beaten her.
To make this concept even more ridiculous, anyone in any phone book I may have is based in Australia and thus ineligible to run for President BUT were they not, for reasons already stated they would have lost.
No he was the only person that ticked all the boxes. Not an ideal choice BUT the only one that could have won....and America desperately needed her to lose.
"No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"
-
Before you scoff, come up with a name....any name.
Get your local phone book out. Flick through the pages. Stop! Now run your thumb down the page. Stop! Give them a ring.
I offer you my original analysis. When you have the choice between eating a shit sandwich and eating a shit salad you should change the restaurant.
There we go. You think Hillary was easy to beat. Anyone could have beaten her. She with the DNC, the POTUS, Media, Hollywood, Establishment GOP, and about 60% of the country on side BEFORE the election even got started....and you believe ANYONE in the phone book could have beaten her.
To make this concept even more ridiculous, anyone in any phone book I may have is based in Australia and thus ineligible to run for President BUT were they not, for reasons already stated they would have lost.
No he was the only person that ticked all the boxes. Not an ideal choice BUT the only one that could have won....and America desperately needed her to lose.
"No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"
This was all about the Brexit effect and the mass rejection of the condecending liberal elite message from the media. OK. Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing. Enough people were so sick of the status quo they would have voted for any alternative with a pulse.
It's best explained by Jonathon Pie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs)
-
Before you scoff, come up with a name....any name.
Get your local phone book out. Flick through the pages. Stop! Now run your thumb down the page. Stop! Give them a ring.
I offer you my original analysis. When you have the choice between eating a shit sandwich and eating a shit salad you should change the restaurant.
There we go. You think Hillary was easy to beat. Anyone could have beaten her. She with the DNC, the POTUS, Media, Hollywood, Establishment GOP, and about 60% of the country on side BEFORE the election even got started....and you believe ANYONE in the phone book could have beaten her.
To make this concept even more ridiculous, anyone in any phone book I may have is based in Australia and thus ineligible to run for President BUT were they not, for reasons already stated they would have lost.
No he was the only person that ticked all the boxes. Not an ideal choice BUT the only one that could have won....and America desperately needed her to lose.
"No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"
This was all about the Brexit effect and the mass rejection of the condecending liberal elite message from the media. OK. Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing. Enough people were so sick of the status quo they would have voted for any alternative with a pulse.
It's best explained by Jonathon Pie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs)
Yes...like the $100 000 000 backed Jeb Bush?
-
Walkie- I think you get confused by left and right. Trump is right wing, socially and economically. Some of the people here you talk about being on the right are just right wing economically but are neomulticulturalists and demand mass immigration.
Yeah, i know that Trump is right wing, because
A) he's a Republican (that's their right-wing party, right? Like the Tory party here), and
B) It's written all over him.
I don't know where I suggested otherwise?
As for neomulticulturists, well, I see no contradiction whatsoever in right-wing "multiculturism". Free movement of labour is very good for industry (in terms of reducing wages etc) and also supplies a ready source of scapegoats, if required. Also, anyone who sees through that scam and grumbles about it can be easily dismissed as racist...just so long as they're white (and if all you get to see is the bare statistics, then it's easy-as-pie to assume they're all white).
But then you live in the South, right? So you don't get to mingle with so many of Brirtain's poor folk as i do, because the South belongs to the relatively sucessful, by-and-large. Well, believe you me, we come in all colours, and most of the recent immigrants are as alarmed and depressed by the situation they find themselves in as the natives are; and nobody wants more and more people pouring into London, only to be shunted up North when they can't pay their rent. People are losing their homes because they can't pay their rent up here, too. There are quite simply not enough homes, not enough work, not enough resources, not enough of anything to go round.
And i'm not just talking theoretically, out-of my arse. I've worked alongside immigrants of all races and watched most of them go from bright-eyed-and-bushy-tailed, cos they've come to the "Land of Opprtunity" to anxious and depressed within a matter of weeks, as they figure out that it takes something more than a willingness to work hard to make it in this country; and that whatever it takes they haven't got it. I've also come within a hair's breadth of being out on the street myself. Twice. Once whilst working, then once again after having my benefits stopped.
You think immigrants are grateful to share in our "privileged lifestyle"? No, they're not, aside from the minority who manage to become hammers rather than nails. They are human beings just like the rest of us, and they usually do figure out that they've been had. And they usually do very much n notice that they are being treated like dirt by the bosses... not because they're immigrants, I hasten to add, but just because most bosses can and do treat unskilled workers like dirt (There always plenty more queing up to take their place, if they don't like it). And they do find the prospect of dying of cold on the streets every bit as as discomforting as you or I would.
I've had African and Middle Eastern people tell me -in shocked tones- "This is slavery" . They might have had it really hard , in various ways, back home, but at least they got treated with respect. It's really interesting to get an outside perspective on that kind of thing. We native Brits have serfdom in our blood, and are more accepting of exploitation and mistreatment than most of those immigrants are.
So you prove my point. The socially minded right are completely against mass immigration and multiculturalism. Though yes, even lots of them blame the immigrants rather than immigration.
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
I did ed-u-ma-cate myself regarding Clinton :tard:...and the thing is 85% of our politicians are lying psychopaths.
I didn't want either one actually.
...and as for a war with Russia, now they have no need for conflict of any sorts...don't you think the one of the easiest ways to control a country is to endorse an idiot to run it?
All hail our new leaders leader.
(http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Trump-putin-image.jpg)
Then you would know that Clinton is a million times worse and the media were hell bent on getting elected and completely ignored the fact that she called for a wall to be built to stop Mexicans 10 years, was against gay marriage until recently and then lied about it, supported every war from Kosovo to Yemen, helped to put sanctions on Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of children, laughed and bragged about getting a child rapist's sentence reduced, laughed about destroying Libya, laughed about the prospect of going to war with Iran, takes millions from the Saudis that punish rape victims and don't let women drive, admitted in private that she puts on a different face in public and robbed the candidacy from Bernie Sanders? Just checking.
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
So if you didn't want Clinton you had another 280 million people to choose from. And Trump was the best you could come up with?
You don't mind the racism?
You don't mind the misogyny?
Just what is it about his personality that you so much admire?
Trump got there cause he could fund his own campaign, if it wasn't him it'd have been Jeb Bush. The system wouldn't allow someone who takes the system on unless they can fund themselves.
Fuck this identity politics shit.
I admire him having the guts to say stuff that takes balls of steel to say. Fuck that fake cunt Hillary who says one thing in public and pretends to be for 'equalityyyy" but holds different views in private. Anyone who voted for her thinking she was against racism etc is a fucking moron.
I would have voted for Trump purely on his stance in Syria, fighting with Assad and Putin rather than against them.
-
An asshole for president. Yippee. :facepalm2:
Try and educate yourself a bit regarding Clinton, then you won't be as upset. She's a lying psychopath and could have led you to war with Russia.
I did ed-u-ma-cate myself regarding Clinton :tard:...
Oh come off it IQ. it's a well-known fact that anyone who disagrees with Benji must be under-educated. :autism:
I didn't mean that, I'm talking about specific issue. I'll repeat, if anyone voted for Hillary because they think she stands for all the 'liberal' tripe she spewed out, then yes they are a fucking imbecile.
-
Before you scoff, come up with a name....any name.
Get your local phone book out. Flick through the pages. Stop! Now run your thumb down the page. Stop! Give them a ring.
I offer you my original analysis. When you have the choice between eating a shit sandwich and eating a shit salad you should change the restaurant.
There we go. You think Hillary was easy to beat. Anyone could have beaten her. She with the DNC, the POTUS, Media, Hollywood, Establishment GOP, and about 60% of the country on side BEFORE the election even got started....and you believe ANYONE in the phone book could have beaten her.
To make this concept even more ridiculous, anyone in any phone book I may have is based in Australia and thus ineligible to run for President BUT were they not, for reasons already stated they would have lost.
No he was the only person that ticked all the boxes. Not an ideal choice BUT the only one that could have won....and America desperately needed her to lose.
"No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"
This was all about the Brexit effect and the mass rejection of the condecending liberal elite message from the media. OK. Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing. Enough people were so sick of the status quo they would have voted for any alternative with a pulse.
It's best explained by Jonathon Pie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs)
I love Pie, but he's wrong about Sanders. Ryan Dawson explains it better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXU66909YZY
-
Yes...like the $100 000 000 backed Jeb Bush?
I need medical proof that Jeb Bush has a pulse. But I get your arguement. Jeb Bush. He's a fucking enigma. I think his family give him the money to run just to get him out of the house for a while.
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
Hell No. Trump dissected all of them with relative ease but in Hillary it was a back and forth arm wrestle. Hillary would have eviscerated them.
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
Hell No. Trump dissected all of them with relative ease but in Hillary it was a back and forth arm wrestle. Hillary would have eviscerated them.
That's entirely possible. Though I still think it's a valid consideration she might have lost to most anyone because she's female.
-
The corporate machine probably wanted Trump to be the candidate, as they are that smug and out of touch, they thought that they could get Trump with all the ists and isms and their champion murderer Clinton would shine through. But instead, she was so smug and arrogant that she had a celebration party planned weeks before, didn't have a concession speech and spent the next day after losing crying inconsolably in her hotel room :hahaha:
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
Hell No. Trump dissected all of them with relative ease but in Hillary it was a back and forth arm wrestle. Hillary would have eviscerated them.
That's entirely possible. Though I still think it's a valid consideration she might have lost to most anyone because she's female.
What did being female have to do with anything? The very things that bought her down were NOT related to gender so.....?
-
Completely outrageous Jack. If Jill Stein had billions in endorsements and all the support of Hollywood and the media, she would have beaten Trump. Instead, the media completely ignored her.
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
Hell No. Trump dissected all of them with relative ease but in Hillary it was a back and forth arm wrestle. Hillary would have eviscerated them.
That's entirely possible. Though I still think it's a valid consideration she might have lost to most anyone because she's female.
What did being female have to do with anything? The very things that bought her down were NOT related to gender so.....?
It's only a supposition. Could be way off base, but there's no denying Clinton had the support of top feminist activist. Steinem and Albright both pushed it to the point of having to make public apologies for making insulting comments toward women who were not Clinton supporters. One of the things that brought her down could also have been some people standing up to the rise of a feminist agenda.
-
Completely outrageous Jack. If Jill Stein had billions in endorsements and all the support of Hollywood and the media, she would have beaten Trump. Instead, the media completely ignored her.
The media ignored her because the media always ignores independent parties. Fully agree the green party deserves a better shake, but that does not negate the fact that a vote for the green party is the same as not voting at all. Stein had support, but not the support she needed because it wasn't in anyone's interest to support her.
-
Completely outrageous Jack. If Jill Stein had billions in endorsements and all the support of Hollywood and the media, she would have beaten Trump. Instead, the media completely ignored her.
Actually I think that she was a better candidate than Bernie but it became such a polarised election that she could not get any traction. Better than Trump? Policy wise....I dunno. By I really like her. Smart and tough. Yeah, if I was a voter and had her or Trump as a viable option I would look through her issues and policies under a microscope to see whether I could allow myself to get onboard with her because she is a much more "Presidential" candidate and with the right policies could be the kind of person to make good changes.
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
Hell No. Trump dissected all of them with relative ease but in Hillary it was a back and forth arm wrestle. Hillary would have eviscerated them.
That's entirely possible. Though I still think it's a valid consideration she might have lost to most anyone because she's female.
What did being female have to do with anything? The very things that bought her down were NOT related to gender so.....?
It's only a supposition. Could be way off base, but there's no denying Clinton had the support of top feminist activist. Steinem and Albright both pushed it to the point of having to make public apologies for making insulting comments toward women who were not Clinton supporters. One of the things that brought her down could also have been some people standing up to the rise of a feminist agenda.
Yeah those Feminists did her no favours but I think that this is counterweighted enough with the "First woman President" contingent. I think the things that really rocked her was the hammering away about emails, illness (weakness) and Clinton Foundation/Clinton Cash. Oh and that whole DNC fiasco.
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
Hell No. Trump dissected all of them with relative ease but in Hillary it was a back and forth arm wrestle. Hillary would have eviscerated them.
That's entirely possible. Though I still think it's a valid consideration she might have lost to most anyone because she's female.
What did being female have to do with anything? The very things that bought her down were NOT related to gender so.....?
It's only a supposition. Could be way off base, but there's no denying Clinton had the support of top feminist activist. Steinem and Albright both pushed it to the point of having to make public apologies for making insulting comments toward women who were not Clinton supporters. One of the things that brought her down could also have been some people standing up to the rise of a feminist agenda.
Yeah those Feminists did her no favours but I think that this is counterweighted enough with the "First woman President" contingent. I think the things that really rocked her was the hammering away about emails, illness (weakness) and Clinton Foundation/Clinton Cash. Oh and that whole DNC fiasco.
Never really got the impression the public was floored about the emails. The health issues, yes maybe, especially for older voters. Frankly was surprised either Clinton or Trump had much of a chance because of their age. The country was taken aback by the speculations about Regan, but that was a long time ago so younger voters may not consider it as much.
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
Hell No. Trump dissected all of them with relative ease but in Hillary it was a back and forth arm wrestle. Hillary would have eviscerated them.
That's entirely possible. Though I still think it's a valid consideration she might have lost to most anyone because she's female.
What did being female have to do with anything? The very things that bought her down were NOT related to gender so.....?
It's only a supposition. Could be way off base, but there's no denying Clinton had the support of top feminist activist. Steinem and Albright both pushed it to the point of having to make public apologies for making insulting comments toward women who were not Clinton supporters. One of the things that brought her down could also have been some people standing up to the rise of a feminist agenda.
Yeah those Feminists did her no favours but I think that this is counterweighted enough with the "First woman President" contingent. I think the things that really rocked her was the hammering away about emails, illness (weakness) and Clinton Foundation/Clinton Cash. Oh and that whole DNC fiasco.
Never really got the impression the public was floored about the emails. The health issues, yes maybe, especially for older voters. Frankly was surprised either Clinton or Trump had much of a chance because of their age. The country was taken aback by the speculations about Regan, but that was a long time ago so younger voters may not consider it as much.
True. Trump at 70 seems pretty fit and healthy but I wonder what he will be like at 73 or 74, towards the end of next term. Even more so at 77 or 78 if he is elected for a second term.
-
Life expectancy in the US when Reagan was elected would have had him die by the end of his first term. Today, I think Trump is expected to die by the end of a possible second term.
And that's just waaaaay too late. :zoinks:
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
Clinton was always the candidate put forward by the machine of big business and the people knew it. I can see why people didn't want her. In this case the machine judged the people incorrectly. But with Trump? Despite having travelled and worked in the US I was still amazed at how many people could overlook his racist and misogynist attitudes, which over here in Europe would be show stoppers. I really do feel that your acceptance of hate speech to minorities and talk of sexual violence does not reflect well on your international reputation.
I always said that I thought Trump was a stalking horse set to take out Clinton and pave the way for someone else. When he won the vote I thought I must be wrong... but now he's starting to backtrack on some fairly main points he stood on. Did the game stop with the election result or is it still being played out?
This soap opera may not yet be over.
-
Completely outrageous Jack. If Jill Stein had billions in endorsements and all the support of Hollywood and the media, she would have beaten Trump. Instead, the media completely ignored her.
Not completely outrageous.
SO owns a bar, 80% of the guys that come in voiced that they wouldn't vote for her for that very main reason.
...and I quote. "the last thing we need is some goddamn woman
in the White House."
It is what it is...believe it or not.
Jill Stein didn't have a flying chance, everyone knew that. Half of the people I know didn't even know who the hell she was.
-
Completely outrageous Jack. If Jill Stein had billions in endorsements and all the support of Hollywood and the media, she would have beaten Trump. Instead, the media completely ignored her.
Not completely outrageous.
SO owns a bar, 80% of the guys that come in voiced that they wouldn't vote for her for that very main reason.
...and I quote. "the last thing we need is some goddamn woman
in the White House."
It is what it is...believe it or not.
Jill Stein didn't have a flying chance, everyone knew that. Half of the people I know didn't even know who the hell she was.
Source?
No one knew who she was because the media completely ignored her and naive Sanders supporters either gave up or magically transformed into Clinton supporters overnight.
To make out she didn't win because she's a woman is definitely outrageous. If that parasite had been replaced with Stein and got the same coverage and support from retarded celebrities, she would have done better, probably won.
-
So you prove my point. The socially minded right are completely against mass immigration and multiculturalism.
So far as I can tell, this statement bears absolutely no relationship whatseoever to either your point or mine.
Of course, I can't speak for you, but before you waste time explaining it to me, I'd liike to suggest that you just shrug and put me down as an idiot. I'll be in decent enough company , and that will save me from having my brain turned to jelly.
Thanks .
-
Completely outrageous Jack. If Jill Stein had billions in endorsements and all the support of Hollywood and the media, she would have beaten Trump. Instead, the media completely ignored her.
Not completely outrageous.
SO owns a bar, 80% of the guys that come in voiced that they wouldn't vote for her for that very main reason.
...and I quote. "the last thing we need is some goddamn woman
in the White House."
It is what it is...believe it or not.
Jill Stein didn't have a flying chance, everyone knew that. Half of the people I know didn't even know who the hell she was.
Source?
Source...over half the fucking patrons in the bar.
...and I was referring to why Hillary didn't get the vote.
I already stated that half the people here didn't even know who Jill Stein even was.
We need a foreign exchange program so that everyone can spend a year living in rural redneck America.
Then you can feel free to call bullshit...and tell me I'm making this shit up. :zoinks:
-
We need a foreign exchange program so that everyone can spend a year living in rural redneck America.
Then you can feel free to call bullshit...and tell me I'm making this shit up. :zoinks:
Sounds like a great idea, IQ. Can we have one for for North and (Urban) Midlands of England too? (the villages don't count. They pretty much all turned into dormerville for wealthy commuters long ago). Then people might begin to grasp the real reasons why we voted for Brexit.
-
This soap opera may not yet be over.
This is America. The soap opera will never be over. :laugh:
-
Maybe not some random, but any talking head could have beaten Hilary with decent backing.
Do agree than any other republican candidate could have stood a better chance at winning than trump. That's probably why many people have believed all along he was never intended to win. It may very well speak to the notion the US simply isn't ready for a female president, if a seasoned politician can't beat someone with no political experience at all. Then again, have said before, not being a politician may have been the main thing Trump had working in his favor.
Clinton was always the candidate put forward by the machine of big business and the people knew it. I can see why people didn't want her. In this case the machine judged the people incorrectly. But with Trump? Despite having travelled and worked in the US I was still amazed at how many people could overlook his racist and misogynist attitudes, which over here in Europe would be show stoppers. I really do feel that your acceptance of hate speech to minorities and talk of sexual violence does not reflect well on your international reputation.
I always said that I thought Trump was a stalking horse set to take out Clinton and pave the way for someone else. When he won the vote I thought I must be wrong... but now he's starting to backtrack on some fairly main points he stood on. Did the game stop with the election result or is it still being played out?
This soap opera may not yet be over.
What has he backtracked on?
-
Obamacare is the most obvious one.
-
Obamacare is the most obvious one.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/11/obmacare-obama-no-donald-trump-not-abandon-promise-repeal-obamacare/
Most obvious or most incorrect?
http://i.imgur.com/Jg0gWBo.gifv
-
I don't really consider it backtracking...he's squirming.
He knows he can't abolish Obamacare totally because people will be up in arms even more...and rightfully so. It has it's flaws, but it has helped a lot of people also...and he really doesn't have a concrete plan to implement for replacement.
He can't throw Clinton in jail, because she's been proven innocent.
He's not saying anything more about mass deportations and mouthing off on Twitter because his advisors are trying to calm shit down and prevent him from getting shot before he even takes office.
The wall...probably won't happen, financially and geographically going to be pretty damn hard if not impossible. Maybe he'll wall of sections, that's about it.
Basically time will tell. He has a bigger team of advisors and people working with him now to help reign in some of the stupid, so now we wait. :popcorn:
-
I don't really consider it backtracking...he's squirming.
He knows he can't abolish Obamacare totally because people will be up in arms even more...and rightfully so. It has it's flaws, but it has helped a lot of people also...and he really doesn't have a concrete plan to implement for replacement.
He can't throw Clinton in jail, because she's been proven innocent.
He's not saying anything more about mass deportations and mouthing off on Twitter because his advisors are trying to calm shit down and prevent him from getting shot before he even takes office.
The wall...probably won't happen, financially and geographically going to be pretty damn hard if not impossible. Maybe he'll wall of sections, that's about it.
Basically time will tell. He has a bigger team of advisors and people working with him now to help reign in some of the stupid, so now we wait. :popcorn:
People are already up in arms. He should abolish it, as it was one of his main promises that got him elected. People will be up in arms if he doesn't. It's time to stop pandering to 'minorities' and enforce what the majority have called for.
"He can't throw Clinton in jail, because she's been proven innocent."
:facepalm2:
Are you fucking serious? She got let off. There was enough evidence to lock her up even after what she deleted. She's on the same payroll as ISIS, knowingly supported ISIS even though she knew they were funded by the Saudis and Qatar, the same people who fund her. She's guilty of multiple war crimes and incited violence at Trump rallies. She got away with it because the establishment needs to send out the message that these kind of things are acceptable for a corrupt politician.
-
Those "minorities" include a lot of children.
...and as for Clinton. She had her trial, and was cleared, that's the way it works here, no one is going to back him and follow through if he seeks to pursue it further...and doing so probably isn't in his best interests. He's not winning any popularity contests right now.
She did win the popular vote...or did you have your head too far up Trumps ass to notice?
-
Those "minorities" include a lot of children.
...and as for Clinton. She had her trial, and was cleared, that's the way it works here, no one is going to back him and follow through if he seeks to pursue it further...and doing so probably isn't in his best interests. He's not winning any popularity contests right now.
She did win the popular vote...or did you have your head too far up Trumps ass to notice?
She hasn't had a proper trial, Comey is a crook. The evidence is clear and she still got away with it. There needs to be a proper trial and she needs to be punished accordingly. Trump was also elected by saying that he'd get a special investigator for her. Let's hope he does and locks her and her husband up for life. Loads of people would love to see her locked up.
Have you not noticed that she lost the election and didn't have a concession speech ready because she was so certain she'd win and then spent the night crying inconsolably in her room? :hahaha:
I didn't hear you moaning about the electoral system before Trump won.
-
I didn't realise children got to vote either. So people are crying about Clinton losing cause they care about children, and wanted a mass child murderer to win instead of Trump?
-
I did not once moan about the electoral system, I am simply stating a fact.
...another fact is that the electoral votes are not officially cast until December 19th. Not that it will change, and I do not expect it to.
I'm done hashing with you benji, you don't even make sense, and your fighting about something that doesn't even effect you. :wanker: It's just a waste of my time.
-
Right, who the US elects doesn't affect the UK at all :facepalm2:
-
Right, who the US elects doesn't affect the UK at all :facepalm2:
Does UK membership not affect other countries of the EU?
Haha, just stay out of our politics you cunt. Go and sort your own country out.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
Those are actually the two biggest issues I have with him, 3rd being his history of how he treats others...sometimes regardless of their race or sex, when he either wants something and is denied, or doesn't like what they have to say.
To me, how you treat others is a big part of who you are and what people can expect from you. That to me speaks volumes.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
There are no policies based on colour of skin and saying this is an outright lie and you know this. You are a liar FourAceDeal.
Tell me the sexual violence against women (not that he has been accused of - lots of people are wrongly accused) that he has been proven to have been a part of.
You ARE going to do that right? You are not going to talk of facts you do not have at your disposal and simply throw around false allegations.
Sexual violence. Take the stage with your proof (beyond allegations).
No?
As for religion? Yes he has no way of disassociating Muslims from Muslim radical extremists. Not all Muslims are Muslim radical Extremists BUT all Muslim radical Extremists are Muslims. He wants to stop Muslim radical extremists. Difficult position as many people from that area of the world, due to failed states and infrastructure failing, are not able to be vetted.
At least THAT was not a lie. That is something
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
Not a supporter of Trump or Clinton, but sure. At worst probably only a sexist pig, but frankly don't care. Would assume a large percentage of independently wealthy men walk around with the knowledge they can have any gold digging slut they want. It's true they can, and some have probably encountered enough gold digging sluts to affect their views of women in general. Trump has probably met more than his fair share, so wouldn't feel out of place in partially blaming women for Trump's attitudes toward women. He plans to repeal the executive order of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act. That act was a huge mistake and sent a message the US has opened its arms to Central American children. This message has caused an alarming influx of unescorted children crossing the boarders, as well as created a market in child trafficking to get them here. It's a crisis and should be addressed. A giant wall seems a bit extreme, but if there is a wall then the labor should offered to illegal immigrants, who can then be in the country legally and stay because they have employment and can get a work visa. It's not like it's some insurmountable task to be in the US legally, and not as if the US doesn't already deport people are here illegally. Proposing to be more active in deporting illegals probably doesn't slap a lot of people in the face. The topic of accepting refugees is a matter of the United Nations, and anyone who realizes that knows that's probably not going to change. However proposing to create a safe zone in Syria to help prevent migration at the source may appeal to citizens of more countries than only the US. There's not overwhelming numbers coming in the US anyway, but he also proposed to create a register of them because there isn't one. Everyone legally living in the US is in a government database and it seems odd the US doesn't have an official list of refugees in the country, so if that's true then maybe there should be one.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
There are no policies based on colour of skin and saying this is an outright lie and you know this. You are a liar FourAceDeal.
Tell me the sexual violence against women (not that he has been accused of - lots of people are wrongly accused) that he has been proven to have been a part of.
You ARE going to do that right? You are not going to talk of facts you do not have at your disposal and simply throw around false allegations.
Sexual violence. Take the stage with your proof (beyond allegations).
No?
As for religion? Yes he has no way of disassociating Muslims from Muslim radical extremists. Not all Muslims are Muslim radical Extremists BUT all Muslim radical Extremists are Muslims. He wants to stop Muslim radical extremists. Difficult position as many people from that area of the world, due to failed states and infrastructure failing, are not able to be vetted.
At least THAT was not a lie. That is something
Breath of fresh air here. Thanks, Al.
I'd be seriously stunned to find that Trump isn't a racist , etc, but the kind of drums his detractors are banging on to"prove" their point are only unconvincing me, TBH.
The kind of view you stated above really needs to be stated explicitly. To suppress a whole side of that argument would only have the effect of inflaming prejudice , not putting it to bed. And leaving everybody feeling uneasy. So, kudos to Trump for having the balls to state it, and kudos to America for letting him.
I find Trump bloody scarey, nonetheless. He talks one heckova lot of crap, but in some areas, he's also cutting through the crap. Heck , we (the world , that is) might even end up having an intelligent discussion re. Islam, not the usual, absurdly polarised, childish slanging match .
-
oh! P.S. since i really do believe in openly admitting to one's prejudices(where relevant) . i ought to admit that I'm prejucced against the wealthy, especially the self-made wealthy. For one thing, I find it very hard to believe that anyone can accumulate so much wealth by being nice :LOL:
I really don't think Trump would have cut much ice with your average Brexiter, never mind how much he sucks up to us. He's failed to understand that it's people like himself we were rebelling against primarily, given that "wealth" and "establishment" are almost synonymous here. :LOL:
-
He plans to repeal the executive order of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act. That act was a huge mistake and sent a message the US has opened its arms to Central American children. This message has caused an alarming influx of unescorted children crossing the boarders, as well as created a market in child trafficking to get them here. It's a crisis and should be addressed.
Disagree. I looked up the act and it applies only to those who were already in the USA on June 15, 2012. It says nothing about how children who arrive after that date will be treated. If extending some mercy to illegal children has come before an increase in child trafficking, I don't think the answer is to deal more harshly with children who are already there. They are still individuals who mostly have no choice in their situation and shouldn't be punished for the crimes of other adult criminals.
-
He plans to repeal the executive order of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act. That act was a huge mistake and sent a message the US has opened its arms to Central American children. This message has caused an alarming influx of unescorted children crossing the boarders, as well as created a market in child trafficking to get them here. It's a crisis and should be addressed.
Disagree. I looked up the act and it applies only to those who were already in the USA on June 15, 2012. It says nothing about how children who arrive after that date will be treated. If extending some mercy to illegal children has come before an increase in child trafficking, I don't think the answer is to deal more harshly with children who are already there. They are still individuals who mostly have no choice in their situation and shouldn't be punished for the crimes of other adult criminals.
What the act says and how it's been interpreted by Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are two different things. Two months ago the state department approved to give mexico 75 million dollars to strengthen their southern border.
-
Definitely they're two different things. That doesn't mean the act was a mistake.
Not sure what the state department helping Mexico fund their southern border has to do with it either.
-
Definitely they're two different things. That doesn't mean the act was a mistake.
Not sure what the state department helping Mexico fund their southern border has to do with it either.
When actions create bigger problems than they solve, then they're mistakes. The state department is throwing money at the Mexican border to try to stop them there.
-
I know that under the law, non-citizens are considered non-people, undeserving of basic human rights, but from an ethical standpoint I think that's heinous. Especially when innocents are involved.
Throwing money at the Mexican border may be a mistake, because it seems likely to get lost in corruption. But the original act was not. Providing a legal path for undocumented immigrant children to work prevents them from becoming criminals within the USA borders. Who's to say that it caused more criminal activity than it prevented if that's taken into consideration? Besides, if there is going to be criminal activity, better that it happens outside the border than inside.
-
I know that under the law, non-citizens are considered non-people, undeserving of basic human rights, but from an ethical standpoint I think that's heinous. Especially when innocents are involved.
Throwing money at the Mexican border may be a mistake, because it seems likely to get lost in corruption. But the original act was not. Providing a legal path for undocumented immigrant children to work prevents them from becoming criminals within the USA borders. Who's to say that it caused more criminal activity than it prevented if that's taken into consideration? Besides, if there is going to be criminal activity, better that it happens outside the border than inside.
That's a valid point, though doesn't negate all the children now in US government care, so the problem isn't only trafficking crime. Though okay, will discuss the act without pointing to the resulting problems. Will talk about crime. All of the potential recipients are of adult age, and the ones who qualified have already reaped the benefit of receiving renewable work visas. If the act were appealed, what they would lose is the exemption from deportation. In past research of crime stats, have found legal non-citizens to be a very low crime demographic because they want to stay, and if they do commit a crime deportation laws make them much less likely to be revolving door criminals in the US penal system than US citizens. The risk of deportation is a deterrent for crime.
-
I know that under the law, non-citizens are considered non-people, undeserving of basic human rights, but from an ethical standpoint I think that's heinous. Especially when innocents are involved.
Wasn't really sure how to respond to this. Understand legal non-citizens have the same protections of basic human rights under the law as citizens, but wasn't sure how that extended to illegal immigrants. In 1985 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was extended to include non-citizens including undocumented non-citizens. Though the US has stepped on UN toes in finding a human rights loophole in regard to people under US jurisdiction outside of US territories, and there are no doubt instances of individual failures within the system. Still, within the confines of the US, that ethical standpoint is safe. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/studyguides/noncitizens.html
-
Right, who the US elects doesn't affect the UK at all :facepalm2:
Does UK membership not affect other countries of the EU?
Haha, just stay out of our politics you cunt. Go and sort your own country out.
I thought he only meant Odeon. :zoinks:
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
They'll deny everything. They always do. It's how people like Trump get elected in the first place.
-
They'll deny everything. They always do. It's how people like Trump get elected in the first place.
Who are you talking about? :zoinks:
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
They'll deny everything. They always do. It's how people like Trump get elected in the first place.
They can't quite bring themselves to openly admit that they agree with the racism/sexism/misogyny and that's why Trump's OK for them. So they make excuses for it.
It's like stepping back into the 1960s.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
They'll deny everything. They always do. It's how people like Trump get elected in the first place.
They can't quite bring themselves to openly admit that they agree with the racism/sexism/misogyny and that's why Trump's OK for them. So they make excuses for it.
It's like stepping back into the 1960s.
Its awesome that you know the mind of complete strangers better than they know them, themselves.
Its almost like you are completely full of shit.
Almost like this is just you using your faux moral / intellectual superiority as a lubricant for your ego stroking. Its a form of masturbation and purely for your own satisfaction.
The truth is the things you disagree with or dislike dont become bigotry just because you are opposed to it. Same with calling people bigots.
Its stupid and morally challenged....ironically
-
So Trump saying that he gropes women isn't proof enough that he is a misogynist? Being rich is not an excuse. That acceptance of sexual violence to women only happens in your town, not mine. Our jails are full of rich people who thought they could get away with it. Why do you defend it?
So Trump saying that all Mexicans are rapists and all Syrians are Terrorists isn't racism? Do you know what the word "racist" means? How can you interpret that kind of speach in any other way?
-
They'll deny everything. They always do. It's how people like Trump get elected in the first place.
Who are you talking about? :zoinks:
:laugh:
-
Trump just picked Steve Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor. :zombiefuck:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-reince-priebus-white-house-chief-of-staff/index.html
-
Right, who the US elects doesn't affect the UK at all :facepalm2:
Does UK membership not affect other countries of the EU?
Haha, just stay out of our politics you cunt. Go and sort your own country out.
Yes, but the EU controls us. America controls us.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
Why? Because mass murder and treason is more serious than what he said on a bus 11 years ago. You have no evidence that what he said on the bus was true.
Anything you accuse Trump of with your identity politics horse shit, Clinton is guilty of the same and far worse.
Probably would have, we prefer to put people up who just blow up people on color in their thousands or millions or starve people of color in their millions.
-
So Trump saying that he gropes women isn't proof enough that he is a misogynist? Being rich is not an excuse. That acceptance of sexual violence to women only happens in your town, not mine. Our jails are full of rich people who thought they could get away with it. Why do you defend it?
So Trump saying that all Mexicans are rapists and all Syrians are Terrorists isn't racism? Do you know what the word "racist" means? How can you interpret that kind of speach in any other way?
Look moron. Stop spreading lies. Trump didn't say all Mexicans are rapists and didn't say all Syrians are terrorists. He said when you're letting "illegal" immigrants in from Mexico, some are rapists. And with Syria, he said when the US has no idea who they are letting in, some could be terrorists. Nothing wrong with wanting to stop illegal immigrants and unchecked 'refugees' who Clinton helped to create.
Also with Mexican immigrants. The Clintons enforced NAFTA, which has destroyed Mexico and lead to the flood of immigrants. Please focus on causes and reality before you spew out your identity crap.
-
So Trump saying that he gropes women isn't proof enough that he is a misogynist? Being rich is not an excuse. That acceptance of sexual violence to women only happens in your town, not mine. Our jails are full of rich people who thought they could get away with it. Why do you defend it?
So Trump saying that all Mexicans are rapists and all Syrians are Terrorists isn't racism? Do you know what the word "racist" means? How can you interpret that kind of speach in any other way?
Let's start with Mexicans.
Trump speaks elliptically. Now you can also say he speaks like a moron, and that perhaps would be almost as fair and accurate.
So did he say that all Mexicans are rapists. Only a moron would say he did (Hint, you said he did, moron).
"They're bringing drugs, They're bringing crime, They're are rapists and some I assume are good people"
Are rapists good people? No. Rapists are never good people. So obviously he is not saying all Mexicans nor even all illegal immigrants are bad people nor rapists.
So who ARE these people coming over the border that ARE rapists and not good people?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_tree
Now we have the "Who are the criminals that he is talking about?" covered, who are the people sending these people over to rape and traffic gun, drugs and human beings? Who is the "they"? Mexican cartels.
So IS Trump saying all Mexicans are terrorists? No. Is it hard to figure that out? No. Are you a moron? Yes.
The thing is that Trump may or may not be racist. He has many examples on both sides of the ledger in which confirmation bias may enforce someone with biased views to think of him as very bigoted or completely not. That above effort of yours though is terrible. Your chance to show that and this example is the best example? It is almost as bad as Odeon's example of Trump supporters being horrible humans by robbing a Muslim girl only to be completely denounced by the proof she lied.
All the above example is proof of is that he speaks like an idiot sometimes and needs to stick with a teleprompter.
"So Trump saying that he gropes women isn't proof enough that he is a misogynist? "
No, it is not enough. This is locker room talk. If we were to have all our diaries or words we have said in confidence to our friends recorded and exposed to our relatives and the public at large, we would ALL be mortified and humiliated. Because time to time in confidence we will say really really dumb shit.
Acting like we are somehow above this is pathetic. Yes he was crass. No, I do not think he goes up and grabs women on the pussy. Even on a surface level he is saying that he can get away with this because he is a celebrity and famous. He is talking about the culture of fame and what famous people can get away with. Horny star struck women who are so besotted by famous men that they will let this objects of their affection do anything including grabbing them on the pussy.
Now "They let you do anything. Grab them on the pussy" does not magically translate to "They let you do anything. They let me do anything and this includes me grabbing them on the pussy. I grab as many women on the pussy as I can. My tally for this week is 19 but I am thinking I can top that by the end of the week."
So on a surface reading, as crass as he was, no foul. Celebrity culture is pretty known. The same could be said for rock stars and groupies. You think women throwing knickers on stage are hoping the rockstars are going to do their laundry....c'mon, get real.
I find the deeper reading much more interesting. Donald Trump is clearly richer, more famous, taller, and more powerful than the young Billy Bush. So what does he try to grandstand on? His sexual viability and attractiveness with women. THAT should tell you something. It probably will not because you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. It should tell you that he is threatened by Billy Bush in this one aspect of his character. He has nothing to prove in the other areas so he tries selling himself up. I do not think he believes anything he said, nor did Billy Bush. It was all shit talking of a 59 year old trying to tell this young man who was better looking and younger and more virile that he was a huge stud.
No it was not misogynistic nor outrageous. It was pure unadulterated cringe. It was embarrassing in the same way that someone wetting themselves after getting too drunk may be embarrassing to observers. It was middle life crisis exposed.
Jails are full of rich people that thought they could get away with saying dumb shit are there? Is this truth or lie? I may not question you too much more closely as you seem happy enough with your delusions.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
There are no policies based on colour of skin and saying this is an outright lie and you know this. You are a liar FourAceDeal.
Tell me the sexual violence against women (not that he has been accused of - lots of people are wrongly accused) that he has been proven to have been a part of.
You ARE going to do that right? You are not going to talk of facts you do not have at your disposal and simply throw around false allegations.
Sexual violence. Take the stage with your proof (beyond allegations).
No?
As for religion? Yes he has no way of disassociating Muslims from Muslim radical extremists. Not all Muslims are Muslim radical Extremists BUT all Muslim radical Extremists are Muslims. He wants to stop Muslim radical extremists. Difficult position as many people from that area of the world, due to failed states and infrastructure failing, are not able to be vetted.
At least THAT was not a lie. That is something
Breath of fresh air here. Thanks, Al.
I'd be seriously stunned to find that Trump isn't a racist , etc, but the kind of drums his detractors are banging on to"prove" their point are only unconvincing me, TBH.
The kind of view you stated above really needs to be stated explicitly. To suppress a whole side of that argument would only have the effect of inflaming prejudice , not putting it to bed. And leaving everybody feeling uneasy. So, kudos to Trump for having the balls to state it, and kudos to America for letting him.
I find Trump bloody scarey, nonetheless. He talks one heckova lot of crap, but in some areas, he's also cutting through the crap. Heck , we (the world , that is) might even end up having an intelligent discussion re. Islam, not the usual, absurdly polarised, childish slanging match .
The problem is two fold Liberals are keen to make base assumptions. If it is against Muslims it is xenophobic, islamophobic, racist and whatever. THAT is the narrative. They are not up for listening as we have seen with Odeon. Nothing I said was ever bigoted but he threw that label my way.
When zealous ideology hits facts, facts do not stand a chance.
See I can and have proven exactly what I wrote there and without saying for one moment that I dislike Muslims or that I would not like Muslim people who are NOT Muslim radical extremists to find a place to make their home and grow up to lead good lives. Of course I want that BUT like the Australian solution to unvetted people coming to our shores
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/boat-people-banned-from-australia-for-life/news-story/6b38998db0fed43e6d4fcecba3b166c4
Unvetted is dangerous and it is a national security and border security issue.
If we take refugees it has to be on our terms knowing who they are, where they are from, and how many to take. You do not just rock up and say "Now take me". That is not safe for Australia.
Same applies to America.
Liberals like Odeon and likely this Four Square guy cannot compute this concept without seeing racism/islamophobia, xenophobia and the like. It just does not compute for them.
-
"So Trump saying that he gropes women isn't proof enough that he is a misogynist? "
No, it is not enough. This is locker room talk.
Now we get to the point I've made at least three times here already. Try and keep up. I'll not use any long words to make it easy for you...
Your society seems to be tolerant of talk of sexual violence. A lot more tolerant than European culture. Over here this is not locker room talk. Talking about groping and grabbing women is by it's very nature misogynistic. Look at it's definition in the dictionary.
As we both speak the same language I can only assume that it is our attitudes that are different. I am intollerant of people glorifying sexual violence towards women, you must be tolerant of it.
So if you think it's OK to physically assualt women then just say so. Stand by your convictions.
Personally I think it's wrong. But that's just fucking me, ain't it?
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
Why? Because mass murder and treason is more serious than what he said on a bus 11 years ago. You have no evidence that what he said on the bus was true.
Anything you accuse Trump of with your identity politics horse shit, Clinton is guilty of the same and far worse.
Probably would have, we prefer to put people up who just blow up people on color in their thousands or millions or starve people of color in their millions.
Benji...
Not once one this forum have I said I prefer Clinton. i've said it often enough that I thought the problem was that you being fed two equally distasteful things to vote for. If you think I support Clinton then this is something that has occured in your own head with no help from me.
I appear to have been enrtolled into an arguement with the Breitbart "intelligencia". And to be honest, it's like being savaged by a Cocker Spaniel.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
Why? Because mass murder and treason is more serious than what he said on a bus 11 years ago. You have no evidence that what he said on the bus was true.
Anything you accuse Trump of with your identity politics horse shit, Clinton is guilty of the same and far worse.
Probably would have, we prefer to put people up who just blow up people on color in their thousands or millions or starve people of color in their millions.
Benji...
Not once one this forum have I said I prefer Clinton. i've said it often enough that I thought the problem was that you being fed two equally distasteful things to vote for. If you think I support Clinton then this is something that has occured in your own head with no help from me.
I appear to have been enrtolled into an arguement with the Breitbart "intelligencia". And to be honest, it's like being savaged by a Cocker Spaniel.
I've only seen you attack Trump, and with lies and distortions pushed out by the Clinton team and the media.
Like I've said to others, educate yourself on the subject and it might help you put things in perspective.
-
Jails are full of rich people that thought they could get away with saying dumb shit are there? Is this truth or lie? I may not question you too much more closely as you seem happy enough with your delusions.
Al. You've obviously not followed UK news too closely over the last 4 years. There's been several massive investigations into sexual assaults by the rich and famous. I am not exagerating. Rich? On TV? Like to grab women? Get the fuck inside for 5 years. That's how it rolls over here. Ask any of the UK poster here or look up Operation Yew Tree (one of several investigations) and see where it leads you.
People do not talk like Trump in our society. I shit you not. In this country that is only banter if the locker room is inside a jail for sex offenders.
The fact that you are so dismissive of it speaks volumes about how you live compared to the UK.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
Why? Because mass murder and treason is more serious than what he said on a bus 11 years ago. You have no evidence that what he said on the bus was true.
Anything you accuse Trump of with your identity politics horse shit, Clinton is guilty of the same and far worse.
Probably would have, we prefer to put people up who just blow up people on color in their thousands or millions or starve people of color in their millions.
Benji...
Not once one this forum have I said I prefer Clinton. i've said it often enough that I thought the problem was that you being fed two equally distasteful things to vote for. If you think I support Clinton then this is something that has occured in your own head with no help from me.
I appear to have been enrtolled into an arguement with the Breitbart "intelligencia". And to be honest, it's like being savaged by a Cocker Spaniel.
I've only seen you attack Trump, and with lies and distortions pushed out by the Clinton team and the media.
Like I've said to others, educate yourself on the subject and it might help you put things in perspective.
You see what you want to see. I don't think you like to be challenged too much.
-
Right, who the US elects doesn't affect the UK at all :facepalm2:
Does UK membership not affect other countries of the EU?
Haha, just stay out of our politics you cunt. Go and sort your own country out.
Yes, but the EU controls us. America controls us.
There's a lot of symbiosis in the world which can be misrepresented as control, and this isn't the first time thinking the UK's powerful voice as a world leader and policy maker is being downplayed.
-
"So Trump saying that he gropes women isn't proof enough that he is a misogynist? "
No, it is not enough. This is locker room talk.
Now we get to the point I've made at least three times here already. Try and keep up. I'll not use any long words to make it easy for you...
Your society seems to be tolerant of talk of sexual violence. A lot more tolerant than European culture. Over here this is not locker room talk. Talking about groping and grabbing women is by it's very nature misogynistic. Look at it's definition in the dictionary.
As we both speak the same language I can only assume that it is our attitudes that are different. I am intollerant of people glorifying sexual violence towards women, you must be tolerant of it.
So if you think it's OK to physically assualt women then just say so. Stand by your convictions.
Personally I think it's wrong. But that's just fucking me, ain't it?
When you make love to your wife that is rape, when you engage in foreplay that is sexual violence.
You think this is an abhorrent and disingenuous thing to say? Me too. Here is why. Both of these two instances, there is consent. You let each other engage in sexual activities with each other.
Are you with me so far? I am writing English and I hope I am breaking it down enough for you to follow.
Now if Trump says "they will let you do anything....grab them by the pussy." If you grab your wife by the pussy, this would not be sexual violence because she let's you. I feel terrible having to spell this out for you. If THEY let him and SHE lets you, its NOT sexual violence for exactly the same reason and only a fool cannot grasp this. One does NOT have to agree with violence towards women to not read sexual violence into what Trump said.
Furthermore as I have posted elsewhere, it was a bullshit narrative anyhow. It was a case of a middle aged man being a little threatened by a younger man and trying to stroke his ego and overcompensate for very obvious insecurities.
So now YOU back your claims as "So if you think it's OK to physically assault women then just say so. Stand by your convictions." And I expect no being slimy or trying to wheedle out of hard the claims. No, What I said was NOT hard to interpret.
As to whether I am personally offended by what Trump said or that he may say the word pussy to another man in confidence and in private is a big NO. I think it is cringeworthy. Misogynistic, no. Crass? Sure.
-
How come every time someone mentions Trumps talk of sexual violence to women or his overtly racist policies his supporters just want to talk about Clinton.
Let's talk about Donald. Is using his power to get away with what is sexual assualt OK with you guys?
Do you not mind that his policies are against people based on the colour of their skin or their religion?
Let's hear your opinions on these two points, which in any other western naiton would have barred him from being on the ticket to begin with.
Why? Because mass murder and treason is more serious than what he said on a bus 11 years ago. You have no evidence that what he said on the bus was true.
Anything you accuse Trump of with your identity politics horse shit, Clinton is guilty of the same and far worse.
Probably would have, we prefer to put people up who just blow up people on color in their thousands or millions or starve people of color in their millions.
Benji...
Not once one this forum have I said I prefer Clinton. i've said it often enough that I thought the problem was that you being fed two equally distasteful things to vote for. If you think I support Clinton then this is something that has occured in your own head with no help from me.
I appear to have been enrtolled into an arguement with the Breitbart "intelligencia". And to be honest, it's like being savaged by a Cocker Spaniel.
I've only seen you attack Trump, and with lies and distortions pushed out by the Clinton team and the media.
Like I've said to others, educate yourself on the subject and it might help you put things in perspective.
You see what you want to see. I don't think you like to be challenged too much.
No I don't, show me where you've attacked Clinton? And going by a scale of who's worse, you should have hundreds and hundreds of posts aimed at Clinton. You've shown that you see what you want to see by repeating outright lies and distortions. I love being challenged :autism:
-
Right, who the US elects doesn't affect the UK at all :facepalm2:
Does UK membership not affect other countries of the EU?
Haha, just stay out of our politics you cunt. Go and sort your own country out.
Yes, but the EU controls us. America controls us.
There's a lot of symbiosis in the world which can be misrepresented as control, and this isn't the first time thinking the UK's powerful voice as a world leader and policy maker is being downplayed.
Whenever the US wants a war, you'll see our Prime Minister foaming at the mouth for one too. The UK has been losing its power since we allegedly won WWII. That looks to be the main reason we were dragged into WWII, so we would destroy any power we had left. It's phantom power we have now, and any power we do have is probably with the Jooish community.
-
Jails are full of rich people that thought they could get away with saying dumb shit are there? Is this truth or lie? I may not question you too much more closely as you seem happy enough with your delusions.
Al. You've obviously not followed UK news too closely over the last 4 years. There's been several massive investigations into sexual assaults by the rich and famous. I am not exagerating. Rich? On TV? Like to grab women? Get the fuck inside for 5 years. That's how it rolls over here. Ask any of the UK poster here or look up Operation Yew Tree (one of several investigations) and see where it leads you.
People do not talk like Trump in our society. I shit you not. In this country that is only banter if the locker room is inside a jail for sex offenders.
The fact that you are so dismissive of it speaks volumes about how you live compared to the UK.
I've noticed at least two American women on this forum, who've been prepared to overlook the allegations of misogyny against Trump. If you want to cross examine someone about it, I figure we'd all wind up a little bit better informed if you cross-examined those American women. But you don't. What the Aussie guy says is more easily put down, perhaps?
Also, Operation Yew Tree was not the smartest example to throw in here. It was about tracking down actual sex offenders for things that they actually did. It was not about locker-room bluster. Plus, it wound up making some ghastly mistakes and dragging innocent names through the mud, didn't it? .
I'm a Brit myself. And a woman. And I would sooner have the slag-off-the- aussies thread somewhere else on this board, honestl;y calling itself what it is, not masquerading as the Donald Trump thread . Sorry, FAD, but I really do think you're being over-influenced by your personal prejudices here, and that Al is therfore thrashing you in terms of reasonened argument . It's an interesting question , IMO, and I'd like to see a better quality of discussion , if that's possible.
-
They can't quite bring themselves to openly admit that they agree with the racism/sexism/misogyny and that's why Trump's OK for them. So they make excuses for it.
I blame my misogyny on global warming. :zoinks:
-
Right, who the US elects doesn't affect the UK at all :facepalm2:
Does UK membership not affect other countries of the EU?
Haha, just stay out of our politics you cunt. Go and sort your own country out.
Yes, but the EU controls us. America controls us.
There's a lot of symbiosis in the world which can be misrepresented as control, and this isn't the first time thinking the UK's powerful voice as a world leader and policy maker is being downplayed.
Whenever the US wants a war, you'll see our Prime Minister foaming at the mouth for one too. The UK has been losing its power since we allegedly won WWII. That looks to be the main reason we were dragged into WWII, so we would destroy any power we had left. It's phantom power we have now, and any power we do have is probably with the Jooish community.
Our Prime Ministers are right there with you. I find it nauseating too.
-
They can't quite bring themselves to openly admit that they agree with the racism/sexism/misogyny and that's why Trump's OK for them. So they make excuses for it.
I blame my misogyny on global warming. :zoinks:
:lol1:
-
They can't quite bring themselves to openly admit that they agree with the racism/sexism/misogyny and that's why Trump's OK for them. So they make excuses for it.
I blame my misogyny on global warming. :zoinks:
You'll have to go green. :M
-
They can't quite bring themselves to openly admit that they agree with the racism/sexism/misogyny and that's why Trump's OK for them. So they make excuses for it.
I blame my misogyny on global warming. :zoinks:
Let's ask your bitches about that. :hahaha: :trollface:
-
While I'm at it, what about Trumps claim that global warming isn't real and was invented by the Chinese.
Did that happen in your reality or did I make that up too?
-
While I'm at it, what about Trumps claim that global warming isn't real and was invented by the Chinese.
Did that happen in your reality or did I make that up too?
No he definitely said that. It was pretty stupid. Is Climate change real? Absolutely. Is it caused from humans? I think that is not as conclusive but its likely our impact on the world is substantial. The coral in the Great Barrier Reef for example.
-
There's a theory that American climate-change denial occurs because of all the raving Christian fundamentalists in America, who prefer to interpret the symptoms as signs that from God that the Last Days are upon us, and soon they will all have the last laugh on the rest of we sinners.
Also , that same people prefer to perpetuate Middle Eastern wars (because they also fit in the Biblical prophesies) and to be sure to be on the side of God's Chosen People , of course, because it's a rather silly time to risk upsetting God, isn't it?
I was taking some comfort from Trump's exceedingly vague and lukewarm religiosty, and thinking "Ha! that theory's dead wrong in this case. They're just quai-harmless idiots" Then i checked out Pence. :zombiefuck:
-
There's a theory that American climate-change denial occurs because of all the raving Christian fundamentalists in America, who prefer to interpret the symptoms as signs that from God that the Last Days are upon us, and soon they will all have the last laugh on the rest of we sinners.
Also , that same people prefer to perpetuate Middle Eastern wars (because they also fit in the Biblical prophesies) and to be sure to be on the side of God's Chosen People , of course, because it's a rather silly time to risk upsetting God, isn't it?
I was taking some comfort from Trump's exceedingly vague and lukewarm religiosty, and thinking "Ha! that theory's dead wrong in this case. They're just quai-harmless idiots" Then i checked out Pence. :zombiefuck:
Actually you are not wrong about the Fundamental religious, whether they be Fundamental Orthodox Jews, Fundamental Christians or Fundamental Muslims, the "End of Days/Appocalypse/Rapture" or whatever is always seemingly just around the corner and the need to preserve and protect our future from danger seems constantly fighting a battle against the glorify of salvation and Judgement and the like.
So I can hear what you are saying. Pence? Yeah he is a big time God Botherer.
I do not like to read too much into things.
-
....Then i checked out Pence. :zombiefuck:
Yep, he's scary. :lol1:
-
So...the Last Days thing could become the self-fulfillng-prophesy to end all self -fulfilling prophesies? Literally.
-
So...the Last Days thing could become the self-fulfillng-prophesy to end all self -fulfilling prophesies? Literally.
Yeah, we've lived with that possibility for years, and it sucks. :hide:
-
So...the Last Days thing could become the self-fulfillng-prophesy to end all self -fulfilling prophesies? Literally.
Yes. The irony
-
....Then i checked out Pence. :zombiefuck:
Yep, he's scary. :lol1:
He is an angel when compared to Donald.
-
How so? Trump is a scumbag con artist but at least he's not after gays and women with the same moral furor.
-
How so? Trump is a scumbag con artist but at least he's not after gays and women with the same moral furor.
It is my impression that Trump picks a group because of no actual conviction but because it suits his purposes. It's debatable if that's worse than doing it because of some misguided moral conviction, but I think so. It means that nobody is safe.
Both are deplorable human beings.
-
How so? Trump is a scumbag con artist but at least he's not after gays and women with the same moral furor.
It is my impression that Trump picks a group because of no actual conviction but because it suits his purposes. It's debatable if that's worse than doing it because of some misguided moral conviction, but I think so. It means that nobody is safe.
Both are deplorable human beings.
Ahh, I totally get you now.
:plus: to Pyraxis for asking the right question.
This would also explain why you keep defending Islam , I think. You buy the "moral conviction" side of it.
But what if the moral fervour is all about ego-defence , at basis? For most people, most of the time , that's sadly true, I believe. That's how come you can get savage ironies like pro-life campaigners gunning people down. The irony doesn't even occur to a moral crusader.
I picked an extreme example, but if you keep your eyes open , you can see people hurting other people with their moral stances all the time,; and also underminuing the causes they purportly support. If the object of the game is to demonstrate one's moral superiority, then there's zero incentive to think things through, or to develop any actual empathy.
Personally, I don't think anybody's safe from a moral crusader. At least the average self-motivated cynic is more honest, not only with the rest of us, but -importantly- himself.
Not that Trump is an average anything. I'm not defending Trump here, just shooting you down...I hope.
-
I think Odeon is right when he says implies that Trump is serious and convicted about the Presidency.
I do not think it is a con or a scam or mere ego stroking.
What that does not say is how well he will do. I am optimistic but I truly have no idea. I think that he is someone who now has a lot of power to make change. He has some quite reasonable concerns and some good ideas. BUT does he have the goods to formulate these things into any coherent plan, can he execute them properly and in areas requiring an amount of political maneuvering and delicacy, is he going to have the good (regardless of whether his intent is good or bad).
I honestly think that Pence is certainly more hardline. IF Trump were to be assassinated or to die mid term, then I would be a little more concerned with America.
-
I think Odeon is right when he says implies that Trump is serious and convicted about the Presidency.
I do not think it is a con or a scam or mere ego stroking.
just to be clarify (This has got so convoluted, I'm not sure who failed to follow whom) I read Odeon as saying that Pence's moral convvictions make Pence a bertter (or at least less danfgerous) man than Trump.
In any case, that's what I was disagreeing with. The harder people bang on "moral" drums, the less inclined I am to trust them in positions of power, , never mind how sincere they might believe themselves to be. It might be big of Odeon to resist discriminating against Pence on the basis that it's the wrong moral drum (from Odeon's own POV) , but that doesn't make Odeon right.
To rephrase my own point: there's a huge, very swampy grey area between moral conviction and egotism ; and all too easy for people to get sucked down into that area and lose sight of every perspective except for their own covicttion that they are persionally "doing the right thing". They can harm even their their own cause, because it comes to be all about Cause, not effect. That's what makes the moralists (such as Pence) dangerous.
Trump wouldn;'t be dangerous in that exact same way as Pence, because , inasmuch as Trump is serving his ego: well, Trump's ego is big enough and in-you-face enough that not even Trump can avoid noticing the thing. I wouldn't necessarily conclude that Trump's less dangerous though, Just aruguing with Odeon's logic (or what I think to be Odeon's logic )
-
Pence's twisted morals do not make him a better person, they make him a bit more predictable one. I'm very much against what he stands for.
Trump, on the other hand, lacks that moral compass, however twisted, and is merely guided by populism and ignorance, making him a lot more dangerous.
And Walkie--I defend Islam because few others seem to. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe they have the same right to believe in whatever they want as do the rest of us. I believe the idea that blaming millions of people for the crimes of a group of fanatics is preposterous. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, be it Christianity, Islam or something else, but I would blame the Muslims for ISIS as little as I would blame the medieval peasants for the Crusaders.
As for believing, I don't. I think this is it, it's what we get. When we are gone, we are gone for good.
/steps down from the soapbox
-
Pence, even though twisted as fuck, still knows there are rules and limits, and how to conduct himself in "polite society".
Trump is a narcissist and doesn't give a damn...it's all about him.
-
I think Odeon is right when he says implies that Trump is serious and convicted about the Presidency.
I do not think it is a con or a scam or mere ego stroking.
just to be clarify (This has got so convoluted, I'm not sure who failed to follow whom) I read Odeon as saying that Pence's moral convvictions make Pence a bertter (or at least less danfgerous) man than Trump.
In any case, that's what I was disagreeing with. The harder people bang on "moral" drums, the less inclined I am to trust them in positions of power, , never mind how sincere they might believe themselves to be. It might be big of Odeon to resist discriminating against Pence on the basis that it's the wrong moral drum (from Odeon's own POV) , but that doesn't make Odeon right.
To rephrase my own point: there's a huge, very swampy grey area between moral conviction and egotism ; and all too easy for people to get sucked down into that area and lose sight of every perspective except for their own covicttion that they are persionally "doing the right thing". They can harm even their their own cause, because it comes to be all about Cause, not effect. That's what makes the moralists (such as Pence) dangerous.
Trump wouldn;'t be dangerous in that exact same way as Pence, because , inasmuch as Trump is serving his ego: well, Trump's ego is big enough and in-you-face enough that not even Trump can avoid noticing the thing. I wouldn't necessarily conclude that Trump's less dangerous though, Just aruguing with Odeon's logic (or what I think to be Odeon's logic )
Yes my main reason for agreeing with Odeon on something is because it has been the only agreeable thought I have seen him post in about a year, and I wanted to give credit where it was due.
The three questions around this are:
What are the things that Trump/Pence wants?
Iff he tries to get that policy through, What will that policy's end form look like in practical terms?
Wil it be good, bad or indifferent?
-
And Walkie--I defend Islam because few others seem to. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe they have the same right to believe in whatever they want as do the rest of us. I believe the idea that blaming millions of people for the crimes of a group of fanatics is preposterous. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, be it Christianity, Islam or something else, but I would blame the Muslims for ISIS as little as I would blame the medieval peasants for the Crusaders.
/steps down from the soapbox
coul;dn't resist re-inflaming the old debate. but it's walkie-be-good-day, so i've started a new thread for that :angel:
-
And Walkie--I defend Islam because few others seem to. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe they have the same right to believe in whatever they want as do the rest of us. I believe the idea that blaming millions of people for the crimes of a group of fanatics is preposterous. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, be it Christianity, Islam or something else, but I would blame the Muslims for ISIS as little as I would blame the medieval peasants for the Crusaders.
/steps down from the soapbox
coul;dn't resist re-inflaming the old debate. but it's walkie-be-good-day, so i've started a new thread for that :angel:
Oh I see the news thread
-
What are the things that Trump/Pence wants?
Iff he tries to get that policy through, What will that policy's end form look like in practical terms?
Wil it be good, bad or indifferent?
IMO, Trump wants deregulation of the financial industry because it will allow him to become richer faster. He's not young and he's probably been chafing against regulations for decades. Now he's in a position to change that, and anyone who thinks it's going to benefit the working class are dreaming.
-
And Walkie--I defend Islam because few others seem to. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe they have the same right to believe in whatever they want as do the rest of us. I believe the idea that blaming millions of people for the crimes of a group of fanatics is preposterous. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, be it Christianity, Islam or something else, but I would blame the Muslims for ISIS as little as I would blame the medieval peasants for the Crusaders.
/steps down from the soapbox
coul;dn't resist re-inflaming the old debate. but it's walkie-be-good-day, so i've started a new thread for that :angel:
I noticed. Don't worry, we'll derail this one with something else. :zoinks:
-
What are the things that Trump/Pence wants?
Iff he tries to get that policy through, What will that policy's end form look like in practical terms?
Wil it be good, bad or indifferent?
IMO, Trump wants deregulation of the financial industry because it will allow him to become richer faster. He's not young and he's probably been chafing against regulations for decades. Now he's in a position to change that, and anyone who thinks it's going to benefit the working class are dreaming.
Nope. He is taking a $1/year salary and his business will go to hos kids.. Many people are looking for secret agendas that do not exist.
Once you cut away those things and adhere to the understanding that what he is doing is not for his benefit nor for a Clintonesque graft, it will frame things better.
Wont mean end results will be necessarily better mind you. The road to Hell is paved.....
-
Your naivety is endearing. :P
-
What are the things that Trump/Pence wants?
Iff he tries to get that policy through, What will that policy's end form look like in practical terms?
Wil it be good, bad or indifferent?
IMO, Trump wants deregulation of the financial industry because it will allow him to become richer faster. He's not young and he's probably been chafing against regulations for decades. Now he's in a position to change that, and anyone who thinks it's going to benefit the working class are dreaming.
Yep, Our British right wing have been wrapping things up in a "we're on the side of the working class" rhetoric for decades. Regardless of what they claim to be their intentions, theitr policies invariably result in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Are they incompetent fools? Or are they disingenuous? I should think that the evidence for disingenuity is overwhelming by now.
How different is Trump? Lets see...he represents a declaredly right-wing party (one up for honesty. Half of ours masquerade as left wing) ; he's wealthy; his rhetoric appeals to the working class; he believes that the State exerts too much control over all sorts of things, and he's gonna make everybody happier by fixing that.
Well, well, if we Brits can swallow that sort of thing, I'm sure anybody can, unfortunately.
Then again,, since the British right-wing took over the only other party that stood a real chance of opposing them , we didn't exactly have a choice. The Americans ..ummm...ah.. :apondering: .had some sort of choice, supposedly
-
Your naivety is endearing. :P
Your confirmation bias and ideologically blindness is sad. :-[
-
Your naivety is endearing. :P
Your confirmation bias and ideologically blindness is sad. :-[
/pecks Al on the cheek
You're just so nice. Fucked-up grammar but still...
-
Trump's :viking:
Trump's smart enough to put Pence as his Vice for some kind of insurance. It's like 'if you kill me, you get him'.
-
Trump's :viking:
Trump's smart enough to put Pence as his Vice for some kind of insurance. It's like 'if you kill me, you get him'.
The really stupid seldom pick anyone smarter.
-
Trump's :viking:
Trump's smart enough to put Pence as his Vice for some kind of insurance. It's like 'if you kill me, you get him'.
:laugh:
-
Trump's :viking:
Trump's smart enough to put Pence as his Vice for some kind of insurance. It's like 'if you kill me, you get him'.
The really stupid seldom pick anyone smarter.
You really are thick. Why would he pick a Vice that's smarter than him?
-
Trump's :viking:
Trump's smart enough to put Pence as his Vice for some kind of insurance. It's like 'if you kill me, you get him'.
The really stupid seldom pick anyone smarter.
You really are thick. Why would he pick a Vice that's smarter than him?
Wow, you caught on immediately. That razor-sharp brain of yours.
-
:rofl:
-
Trump's :viking:
Trump's smart enough to put Pence as his Vice for some kind of insurance. It's like 'if you kill me, you get him'.
I saw this article and thought of you and you love of Trump
Why Donald Trump Could Be the Most Pro-Israel President in a Generation
here is still plenty of uncertainty surrounding what exactly a Trump administration will look like, but one thing is not up for debate: Donald Trump could be the most pro-Israel commander in chief in modern history.
Jewish state has long held a “special relationship” with the United States, however that relationship has been put under immense strain by the Obama administration's controversial policies toward Israel. The outgoing administration has regularly clashed with the leaders of the Jewish State, demanding territorial concessions to the Hamas-led Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, bluntly snubbing Netanyahu in the White House, brokering the deeply unpopular Iran Nuclear Deal and refusing to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, a huge victory for the Palestinian State which lays claim to the Holy City.
Link (http://ijr.com/2016/11/737617-why-donald-trump-will-be-the-most-pro-israel-president-in-a-generation/)
-
What are the things that Trump/Pence wants?
Iff he tries to get that policy through, What will that policy's end form look like in practical terms?
Wil it be good, bad or indifferent?
IMO, Trump wants deregulation of the financial industry because it will allow him to become richer faster. He's not young and he's probably been chafing against regulations for decades. Now he's in a position to change that, and anyone who thinks it's going to benefit the working class are dreaming.
Nope. He is taking a $1/year salary and his business will go to hos kids.. Many people are looking for secret agendas that do not exist.
Once you cut away those things and adhere to the understanding that what he is doing is not for his benefit nor for a Clintonesque graft, it will frame things better.
Wont mean end results will be necessarily better mind you. The road to Hell is paved.....
How he wants to change policies has nothing to do with whether he takes a salary as president. Any salary they could give him is peanuts against his investments. And of course his business will go to his kids, he can't take it with him when he dies. But why would he suddenly stop trying to earn money when it's been the theme of his life so far?
-
What are the things that Trump/Pence wants?
Iff he tries to get that policy through, What will that policy's end form look like in practical terms?
Wil it be good, bad or indifferent?
IMO, Trump wants deregulation of the financial industry because it will allow him to become richer faster. He's not young and he's probably been chafing against regulations for decades. Now he's in a position to change that, and anyone who thinks it's going to benefit the working class are dreaming.
Nope. He is taking a $1/year salary and his business will go to hos kids.. Many people are looking for secret agendas that do not exist.
Once you cut away those things and adhere to the understanding that what he is doing is not for his benefit nor for a Clintonesque graft, it will frame things better.
Wont mean end results will be necessarily better mind you. The road to Hell is paved.....
How he wants to change policies has nothing to do with whether he takes a salary as president. Any salary they could give him is peanuts against his investments. And of course his business will go to his kids, he can't take it with him when he dies. But why would he suddenly stop trying to earn money when it's been the theme of his life so far?
Because another unreported on theme, is that for the last 20 years, he has stated that he thinks America is failing and making bad choices. He has said that he wants someone else to come in and fix it , but if it got too bad, he would. He also contrasted this with saying he did not want to be President as he considered it a mean life and he enjoyed what he did.
He is doing this for others and not himself or his business or Brand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuiW_Jagl4U
The thing is people are doubting his sincerity. I think this is a mistake. I think once people can get past this, then there is the real question:
"If he IS genuine (and let's assume for the sake of things that he is), then he has just been given a Hell of a lot of power to fulfill these ideas, then will his ideas when fleshed out and given form and effect, be scary or good?"
Honestly it could be either really great or really terrible. We simply don't know. The best we CAN assume is that the his best intentions will translate to good ends because IF they don't he will do bad things with both impunity and with moral conviction.
THAT could be a horrific. But we simply do not know how it will play out. Even ideas that seem reasonable prior to being fleshed out and run through the mill and then compromised and altered to pass into policy and with many people with their fingers in it and their little alterations.....and what was a simple and good idea may devolve into something abhorrent.
I still am not alarmist over it, I simply don't know. I literally cannot judge it. I just do not think the secret agenda theories hold any water.
-
Your naivety is endearing. :P
Your confirmation bias and ideologically blindness is sad. :-[
/pecks Al on the cheek
You're just so nice. Fucked-up grammar but still...
....but still making more sense than you. I know I make more sense than you, Odeon. You are fighting to defend Muslims and no one on here is fighting that battle against you. You are just too stupid to see what we are fighting and not fighting.
Which of us here is attacking Muslims? Which of us here are attacking Muslim radical extremists? Which of us say that ALL Muslims are bad because of the actions of a few?
You are defending against positions that we do not hold, and thinking you are morally superior for doing so, you fucking moron.
If you are having a hard time processing this, that is on you. You are not more moral. You are just more stupid.
-
:poo:
:yawn:
-
I know I make more sense than you, Odeon.
:rofl:
Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.
-
Trump's :viking:
Trump's smart enough to put Pence as his Vice for some kind of insurance. It's like 'if you kill me, you get him'.
I saw this article and thought of you and you love of Trump
Why Donald Trump Could Be the Most Pro-Israel President in a Generation
here is still plenty of uncertainty surrounding what exactly a Trump administration will look like, but one thing is not up for debate: Donald Trump could be the most pro-Israel commander in chief in modern history.
Jewish state has long held a “special relationship” with the United States, however that relationship has been put under immense strain by the Obama administration's controversial policies toward Israel. The outgoing administration has regularly clashed with the leaders of the Jewish State, demanding territorial concessions to the Hamas-led Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, bluntly snubbing Netanyahu in the White House, brokering the deeply unpopular Iran Nuclear Deal and refusing to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, a huge victory for the Palestinian State which lays claim to the Holy City.
Link (http://ijr.com/2016/11/737617-why-donald-trump-will-be-the-most-pro-israel-president-in-a-generation/)
Touched that you're thinking of me :eyelash:
I don't love Trump. He was the better choice by a mile and actually represented some kind of change. His stance on Russia and Syria was more than enough to want him elected. I know he's an Israel dick sucker, but that's just what it takes for any US politician to get near power. I wonder if he'll change his mind if he comes across the FBI file regarding the Israelis arrested on 9/11 though.
I'm not sure what Obama did wrong exactly. His influence is very overplayed. It seems that not doing everything Israel demands is seen as anti-Israel. The US was under pressure from Europe to form that Iran deal. Israel isn't a Jewish state and yes, Hamas agreed to form a unity government with the PA which meant they agreed to the US and the EU's terms to settle the conflict. This was just Obama wanting to score points and get some credit for settling the conflict, same as Clinton.
"a huge victory for the Palestinian State which lays claim to the Holy City."
It lays claim to East Jerusalem, which would be its capital if Palestine became a state. But Israel won't allow that to happen.
-
In other words, you love him.
-
I know I make more sense than you, Odeon.
:rofl:
Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.
I do not "feel like I have to" post anything. What a completely vacuous thing to say. I ACTUALLY post out of no sense of obligation nor sense of duty. I post what i post because that is what I think at the time and I have no problem sharing it.
See THAT above? That is called reasoning and sense. Being that what I said is sensible and reasonable, why does it run so counter to what you post? Follow the most reasonable logical conclusion.
-
If you say so.
-
If you say so.
I do. Reasonable smart people could follow that reasoning. I think it is beyond you.
-
It's "reasonably".
-
It's "reasonably".
Or its "reasonable, smart people"
But you are not falling to trying to contest a point by picking on grammar or spelling are you Odeon? Because that would be the height of weakness.
-
What point would that be?
-
What point would that be?
By virtue of what force or obligation do I "feel like I HAVE to respond" to anything here? Because the truth is I don't. I may choose to or not and there is no force or obligation compelling me to.
"Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this."
So you get to rationalise and explain it now. Your stage. Your opportunity to prove your reasonableness and critical thinking.
-
You posted it. Fact. Me, I don't think you had a point to begin with. You so rarely do.
-
You posted it. Fact. Me, I don't think you had a point to begin with. You so rarely do.
Posting it does not mean one is "compelled", "had to" or "needed to".
Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.
I post....unsurprisingly....not from a sense of "need" "compulsion", or "obligation". To suggest this would be beyond stupid. But trying to say that the Fact that I had posted something was proof there was such a compulsion is even stupider.
Why are you posting really stupid things and why do you get progressively more stupid when backing your claims?
-
Al, you were the one to post it, not me. Why you choose to post something is for you to explain and defend. Dimwit.
-
Al, you were the one to post it, not me. Why you choose to post something is for you to explain and defend. Dimwit.
I posted that I make more sense than you. (I do too).
Your claim (not mine...let's not get confused) is:
Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.
Now DID I "feel I HAD" to post it? Was there any compulsion/obligation/duty/requirement/necessity? No there wasn't and only a moron would say there was. One can (and presumably would USUALLY) post without such forces coming into play. So in most cases
Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.
this would be wrong. Not just here and now but in most cases. In fact not only does this make your claim redundant but really really moronic.
Why are you posting moronic retorts?
-
You do know that your argument doesn't magically improve if you copy and paste quotes, right? Idiot.
-
You do know that your argument doesn't magically improve if you copy and paste quotes, right? Idiot.
It sure doesn't, moron. It does however help someone who is failing in comprehension follow the breadcrumbs better.....sometimes. Without posting those quotes, you should have realised your failings, doubly so, me posting the quotes with my explanations.
You remain impenetrable to reason or logic, because you are a dumbass.
-
This tree looks like a butt. :zoinks:
(http://dragondreamerslair.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ButtTree.png)
-
You do know that your argument doesn't magically improve if you copy and paste quotes, right? Idiot.
It sure doesn't, moron. It does however help someone who is failing in comprehension follow the breadcrumbs better.....sometimes. Without posting those quotes, you should have realised your failings, doubly so, me posting the quotes with my explanations.
You remain impenetrable to reason or logic, because you are a dumbass.
:blah:
Idiot.
-
You do know that your argument doesn't magically improve if you copy and paste quotes, right? Idiot.
It sure doesn't, moron. It does however help someone who is failing in comprehension follow the breadcrumbs better.....sometimes. Without posting those quotes, you should have realised your failings, doubly so, me posting the quotes with my explanations.
You remain impenetrable to reason or logic, because you are a dumbass.
:blah:
Idiot.
Dumbass :shitfan:
-
This tree looks like a butt. :zoinks:
(http://dragondreamerslair.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ButtTree.png)
This is possibly the most intellectual thing posted in this thread since the election.
-
Can we start listing all of Donny's U turns yet? Or should we have a new thread for that?
-
It's OK either way.
We should also focus on his war against a Broadway musical.
-
It's OK either way.
We should also focus on his war against a Broadway musical.
I do not think people are ACTUALLY too stupid to not see what is happening.
Trump is playing with these people. These are the very type of people (Liberals) that have been carrying on and saying “Not My President” when they were defeated and having play dough, kittens and colouring books in “safe spaces”.
They are so petulant when things are against them and they are disagreed with.
Now it is shoe on the other foot and so Trump responds in a like fashion.
Of course it is not all fake in that I am sure he does not like Pence getting booed BUT….why did Pence go in the first place and then Bannon? Answer, for a reaction. Why did he want a reaction? To deflect attention from the lawsuit being settled for Trump University. It worked and he is going to make whatever mileage on it that he can.
Furthermore as a way of a rebuke to the elitists who supported Hillary
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/22ef1e27a12128fc3e584a5b61a39b7cbbe564f4/c=0-0-5310-3000&r=x329&c=580x326/local/-/media/2016/07/03/USATODAY/USATODAY/636031594100158624-GTY-544305800.jpg)
it could not have been does better considering the punishment to their tax breaks that he can put in Senator’s minds (Now that Republicans - who all seem to really like Pence - control the senate and will not forget this) Nice Timing: https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55867
Some people are ACTUALLY stupid enough to believe that he was mortally offended and that he actually believes in the merit of safe spaces/places.
This Liberal gets the impact of what Trump did. So many don’t
(http://i.imgur.com/1hC6AKO.jpg)
5D Chess!
-
It's OK either way.
We should also focus on his war against a Broadway musical.
I do not think people are ACTUALLY too stupid to not see what is happening.
Trump is playing with these people. These are the very type of people (Liberals) that have been carrying on and saying “Not My President” when they were defeated and having play dough, kittens and colouring books in “safe spaces”.
They are so petulant when things are against them and they are disagreed with.
Now it is shoe on the other foot and so Trump responds in a like fashion.
Of course it is not all fake in that I am sure he does not like Pence getting booed BUT….why did Pence go in the first place and then Bannon? Answer, for a reaction. Why did he want a reaction? To deflect attention from the lawsuit being settled for Trump University. It worked and he is going to make whatever mileage on it that he can.
Furthermore as a way of a rebuke to the elitists who supported Hillary
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/22ef1e27a12128fc3e584a5b61a39b7cbbe564f4/c=0-0-5310-3000&r=x329&c=580x326/local/-/media/2016/07/03/USATODAY/USATODAY/636031594100158624-GTY-544305800.jpg)
it could not have been does better considering the punishment to their tax breaks that he can put in Senator’s minds (Now that Republicans - who all seem to really like Pence - control the senate and will not forget this) Nice Timing: https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55867
Some people are ACTUALLY stupid enough to believe that he was mortally offended and that he actually believes in the merit of safe spaces/places.
This Liberal gets the impact of what Trump did. So many don’t
(http://i.imgur.com/1hC6AKO.jpg)
5D Chess!
:rofl:
You've got to be the most gullible Aussie Trump fanboy EVER.
-
It's OK either way.
We should also focus on his war against a Broadway musical.
I do not think people are ACTUALLY too stupid to not see what is happening.
Trump is playing with these people. These are the very type of people (Liberals) that have been carrying on and saying “Not My President” when they were defeated and having play dough, kittens and colouring books in “safe spaces”.
They are so petulant when things are against them and they are disagreed with.
Now it is shoe on the other foot and so Trump responds in a like fashion.
Of course it is not all fake in that I am sure he does not like Pence getting booed BUT….why did Pence go in the first place and then Bannon? Answer, for a reaction. Why did he want a reaction? To deflect attention from the lawsuit being settled for Trump University. It worked and he is going to make whatever mileage on it that he can.
Furthermore as a way of a rebuke to the elitists who supported Hillary
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/22ef1e27a12128fc3e584a5b61a39b7cbbe564f4/c=0-0-5310-3000&r=x329&c=580x326/local/-/media/2016/07/03/USATODAY/USATODAY/636031594100158624-GTY-544305800.jpg)
it could not have been does better considering the punishment to their tax breaks that he can put in Senator’s minds (Now that Republicans - who all seem to really like Pence - control the senate and will not forget this) Nice Timing: https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55867
Some people are ACTUALLY stupid enough to believe that he was mortally offended and that he actually believes in the merit of safe spaces/places.
This Liberal gets the impact of what Trump did. So many don’t
(http://i.imgur.com/1hC6AKO.jpg)
5D Chess!
:rofl:
You've got to be the most gullible Aussie Trump fanboy EVER.
No, I think this election has reaped a lot of fun. Do YOU think Hamilton will get its funding? Did you see #TrumpUniversitysettlement or any associated hashtags trending on the day he settled? I saw plenty of Trending hashtags do do with the BoycottHamilton . Why is that? Think about it. I will give you a hint, nothing to do with what I think about Trump.
Do you think Hamilton will get that Tax break this year? Has Trump poisoned the well? Hint, Republicans hold the majority vote on it and unlike Trump, most Republicans actually like Pence. Think about it....
He trolled them Odeon. If you cannot see that you are an idiot. Now confess, can you see it or are you an idiot?
-
This tree looks like a butt. :zoinks:
(http://dragondreamerslair.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ButtTree.png)
This is possibly the most intellectual thing posted in this thread since the election.
*cyber e-dryhumps FourAceDeal's leg* :zoinks:
-
I disagree. Trump has always acted like a spoiled child.
I grew up in upstate NY, I remember him and his drama making headlines back in the 80's. He has always acted like this, maybe the rest of the world never saw it. :dunno:
New York is his home state FFS, and he lost it by a mile in the election...and neighboring New Jersey. Look at how much the NY Times adores him.
When your own home state isn't even in your corner??
He has some bridges to mend...or he may burn and fall with them, only time will tell.
-
I disagree. Trump has always acted like a spoiled child.
I grew up in upstate NY, I remember him and his drama making headlines back in the 80's. He has always acted like this, maybe the rest of the world never saw it. :dunno:
New York is his home state FFS, and he lost it by a mile in the election...and neighboring New Jersey. Look at how much the NY Times adores him.
When your own home state isn't even in your corner??
He has some bridges to mend...or he may burn and fall with them, only time will tell.
It will be interesting to see whether people will come around to him or end up voting him out in a landslide in 4 years. Either is possible. Very early days yet though. I think he needs a year to have any real measure and 100 days in office to get a decent hint of where he is going.
For me, the laughs will die down soon enough and it will all become uninteresting again.
-
I have to look at it like this...if I want to know more about you I'll ask a neighbor.
If the neighbor doesn't like you, he might be the asshole, you might be fine.
If three of the neighbor's don't like you 2 might be assholes that are related, and the other is never home and going along with the rest so that they don't let their dogs shit in his yard.
If the whole town doesn't like you...well...you might be the asshole.
His scorecard isn't good, but like you said, I think we'll see in a year.
-
I have to look at it like this...if I want to know more about you I'll ask a neighbor.
If the neighbor doesn't like you, he might be the asshole, you might be fine.
If three of the neighbor's don't like you 2 might be assholes that are related, and the other is never home and going along with the rest so that they don't let their dogs shit in his yard.
If the whole town doesn't like you...well...you might be the asshole.
His scorecard isn't good, but like you said, I think we'll see in a year.
Yes you told me about your neighbours. Apparently they are all mad Trump supporters and subjected you to countless tirades about Trump. In addition you were saying your town was Trump territory with signs everywhere
If the neighbor doesn't like you, he might be the asshole, you might be fine.
If three of the neighbor's don't like you 2 might be assholes that are related, and the other is never home and going along with the rest so that they don't let their dogs shit in his yard.
If the whole town doesn't like you...well...you might be the asshole.
Anyhow With that all in context....I like you anyhow". To be honest I cannot see him being a two termer. He is simply too old.
-
I wasn't referring to "my" neighbors...I was referring to his.
Oh well. :yawn:
Time for my shower.
-
I heard the meme guy won.
-
One representative is pledging not to cast his electoral college vote for Trump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html
The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.
Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief. During the campaign more than 50 Republican former national security officials and foreign policy experts co-signed a letter opposing him. In their words, “he would be a dangerous president.” During the campaign Mr. Trump even said Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. This encouragement of an illegal act has troubled many members of Congress and troubles me.
Hamilton also reminded us that a president cannot be a demagogue. Mr. Trump urged violence against protesters at his rallies during the campaign. He speaks of retribution against his critics. He has surrounded himself with advisers such as Stephen K. Bannon, who claims to be a Leninist and lauds villains and their thirst for power, including Darth Vader. “Rogue One,” the latest “Star Wars” installment, arrives later this month. I am not taking my children to see it to celebrate evil, but to show them that light can overcome it.
Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s pick for national security adviser, has his own checkered past about rules. He installed a secret internet connection in his Pentagon office despite rules to the contrary. Sound familiar?
Finally, Mr. Trump does not understand that the Constitution expressly forbids a president to receive payments or gifts from foreign governments. We have reports that Mr. Trump’s organization has business dealings in Argentina, Bahrain, Taiwan and elsewhere. Mr. Trump could be impeached in his first year given his dismissive responses to financial conflicts of interest. He has played fast and loose with the law for years. He may have violated the Cuban embargo, and there are reports of improprieties involving his foundation and actions he took against minority tenants in New York. Mr. Trump still seems to think that pattern of behavior can continue.
The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience. I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be.
Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.
-
So how many more need to do this?
-
So how many more need to do this?
38 total...I believe, although they are saying 36 in other reports.
Won't happen, although I wish it would.
I don't feel he's going to last long in office anyways...he hasn't even started and he's already managed to piss off China. :LOL:
-
So how many more need to do this?
38 total...I believe, although they are saying 36 in other reports.
Won't happen, although I wish it would.
I don't feel he's going to last long in office anyways...he hasn't even started and he's already managed to piss off China. :LOL:
Yes, agreed, he is not going to last. The tragedy is that he was put there to begin, though.
-
It's proof that the bullshit theory still works.
"If you can't blind them with brilliance...baffle them with bullshit" :P
-
You two idiots still haven't grasped it have you? People like you who want to overturn democratic results are the problem. You still haven't bothered to educate yourself on Clinton and how she would have been a million times worse than Trump. When that guy is talking about Trump not being experienced enough with foreign policy, what he really means is that Trump is a serious problems for the arms industry.
-
overturn democratic results
Agreed. Screw this guy's conscience. He's an attention whore shouting for everyone to look at him, making a stand for nothing. Nevermind his oath to the people to vote for his party's nominee, nevermind that he's known for five months who that nominee is, nevermind that his personal vote is apparently more important than all of the people who his vote is supposed to represent.
-
Texas Republican Elector Art Sisneros resigned from the Electoral College last week, because his conscience dictated he could not cast a vote for Trump. He will be replaced from the pool of electors and the people he represented will get their vote. The duty of electors is not to vote their conscience, it's to represent the vote of the people. Christopher Suprun should shut up and do his job, or go home.
-
You two idiots still haven't grasped it have you? People like you who want to overturn democratic results are the problem. You still haven't bothered to educate yourself on Clinton and how she would have been a million times worse than Trump. When that guy is talking about Trump not being experienced enough with foreign policy, what he really means is that Trump is a serious problems for the arms industry.
Go fuck yourself Benji.
...and your definitely not qualified to call me an idiot. :laugh:
Not your country.
Not your president.
Not your life.
Not you listening to his dumb ass for 4 years.
I never said I wanted to overthrow anything, just stated what I read, and that it might be nice.
The process was put there for a reason at the time and a valid one, however fucked up it may be to me right now that I feel we have an idiot running the country, he's there for 4 years, or until his stupid ass gets impeached because he can't keep his big, fat mouth shut and follow proper political protocol.
What's he going to tweet about next? The fucking nuke codes? So you're the fucking president...fine...just start fucking acting like one.
Like I said before, 4 years isn't long, and I can change the channel. :spitscreen:
-
Two weeks after Trump was officially announced as the republican party nominee, Georgia elector Baoky Vu also resigned his position. If Suprun abstains from voting or votes for anyone other than Trump, the only thing his conscience will accomplish is to make a name for himself in American history.
-
Washington Democratic Elector Robert Satiacum has stated he will not vote for Clinton. Satiacum should also shut up and do his job.
-
Washington Democratic elector Peter Chiafalo has stated that he is not sure if he will vote for Clinton. Chiafalo is still considering being a "conscientious elector" and ignoring the result of his state's popular vote. Peter Chiafalo should shut up and do his job.
-
Colorado democratic elector Polly Baca says she still hasn't decided if she will honor her pledge to vote for Clinton. Polly Baca should shut up and do her job or go home.
-
Colorado democratic electors Robert Nemanich has said he will not vote for Clinton. He has joined with democratic representative Polly Bacca to file a lawsuit in federal court against the governor because Colorado is one of the states with laws binding electors to vote according to the oath pledged to their party. Robert Nemanich should shut up and do his job or go home.
-
Also from Colorado, democratic elector Jerad Sutton has stated he will not vote for Clinton. Jerad Sutton should shut up and do his job or go home.
-
It will be a drama-fest until the ballots are cast. This whole election was a drama-fest and people are looking to cash in on it and get their 15 minutes of fame.
Yes, I supported Clinton. Not because I though she was the "better" choice, but because she was the only other "viable" choice. I did not like Trump, nor his choice of a running mate and thought personally he did not have the experience or the self-control needed to run a country, and he still hasn't shown me anything to make me think any differently.
The other candidates did not have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected after the media narrowed it down to those two, and anyone else will tell you the same.
My neighbors voted for Trump, I don't call them idiots, we still have coffee, I don't agree with their views, and I don't expect them to agree with mine.
The world still turns, and time marches on.
-
I think the opposite. I think given the two choices, Trump was the better. I think Hillary would have warred with Russia.
I think Trump is flawed. They both are. I also think because of their individual dynamics "better" candidates could not have won against these two.
Someone like Kasuch, Rubio or Cruz may have been a "better choice" than Trump, but would have been murdered by Hillary. Same with Bernie and Trump. Even though once in, these people may be better Presidential material. It was a funny one though and plenty entertaining.
I do think Trunp is smart and wants what is best for America. I have not the slightest doubt he believes himself the best one to lead.
But cone Jan 20, he will get his shot. I dont know if he does well or not. Nobody does. The same is said for any President elect. I hope he does.
Edit: This bullshit morally abstaining from voting, recounts and protest (and there seems to be a bit coming from both camps) should stop.
That bullshit from the California State assembly doubly so
-
You two idiots still haven't grasped it have you? People like you who want to overturn democratic results are the problem. You still haven't bothered to educate yourself on Clinton and how she would have been a million times worse than Trump. When that guy is talking about Trump not being experienced enough with foreign policy, what he really means is that Trump is a serious problems for the arms industry.
Trump is a serious problem for his country and for the entire globe. Watch Alec Baldwin's latest take on Trump's tweeting. It's scary how accurate he is.
-
:zoinks:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/665903/republican-support-electoral-college-rises-sharply-after-donald-trumps-election
-
You two idiots still haven't grasped it have you? People like you who want to overturn democratic results are the problem. You still haven't bothered to educate yourself on Clinton and how she would have been a million times worse than Trump. When that guy is talking about Trump not being experienced enough with foreign policy, what he really means is that Trump is a serious problems for the arms industry.
Go fuck yourself Benji.
...and your definitely not qualified to call me an idiot. :laugh:
Not your country.
Not your president.
Not your life.
Not you listening to his dumb ass for 4 years.
I never said I wanted to overthrow anything, just stated what I read, and that it might be nice.
The process was put there for a reason at the time and a valid one, however fucked up it may be to me right now that I feel we have an idiot running the country, he's there for 4 years, or until his stupid ass gets impeached because he can't keep his big, fat mouth shut and follow proper political protocol.
What's he going to tweet about next? The fucking nuke codes? So you're the fucking president...fine...just start fucking acting like one.
Like I said before, 4 years isn't long, and I can change the channel. :spitscreen:
:vibrator:
*you're*
Who the US elects is very important to us actually and the rest of the world, as the US wants to control it.
Like to say I'm not sure why you've not said a word about Obama and Clinton heading towards wars with Pakistan, China and Russia, but then I am sure. The media didn't tell you :hahaha:
-
It will be a drama-fest until the ballots are cast. This whole election was a drama-fest and people are looking to cash in on it and get their 15 minutes of fame.
Yes, I supported Clinton. Not because I though she was the "better" choice, but because she was the only other "viable" choice. I did not like Trump, nor his choice of a running mate and thought personally he did not have the experience or the self-control needed to run a country, and he still hasn't shown me anything to make me think any differently.
The other candidates did not have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected after the media narrowed it down to those two, and anyone else will tell you the same.
My neighbors voted for Trump, I don't call them idiots, we still have coffee, I don't agree with their views, and I don't expect them to agree with mine.
The world still turns, and time marches on.
I didn't call you an idiot for voting for Clinton.
-
You two idiots still haven't grasped it have you? People like you who want to overturn democratic results are the problem. You still haven't bothered to educate yourself on Clinton and how she would have been a million times worse than Trump. When that guy is talking about Trump not being experienced enough with foreign policy, what he really means is that Trump is a serious problems for the arms industry.
Trump is a serious problem for his country and for the entire globe. Watch Alec Baldwin's latest take on Trump's tweeting. It's scary how accurate he is.
He's a serious problem for globalisation, the globalist machine in his country and Hollywood. He's good for the people of the globe and that's all that matters, not Hollywood stars, corporate parasites, bankers, whore politicians and the corporate/mainstream media.
-
:yawn:
-
I heard someone refer to his as
TRUMPLETHINSKIN.
-
:laugh:
Who knows? He could be the first world leader to start a war because of butthurt over a tweet.
-
:laugh:
Who knows? He could be the first world leader to start a war because of butthurt over a tweet.
:trump: You better shut up! Don't make me bomb Sweden!
#respectme #killmoomins #grabembythepussy #buildingthewall #iamabadass
-
People keep trotting out the narrative of Donald Trump being so thin-skinned and likely to start a nuclear war and quite honestly, ALL these people are fucking stupid.
True story.
Hillary Clinton was the warhawk. Prior to her getting bailed out of the US Presidential Race, she was needling Putin. He was preparing his citizens for what to do in case of a war. (War with America there is only one thing you need to do - put your head between your balls goodbye) You DO NOT needle Putin. He does not play. He will look to one up.
Trump? He wants to negotiate with everyone but ISIS. ISIS has posed enough of a threat to US internationally to warrant him wanting to eliminate them. Hezoballah? Al Queda? Nope, He will not work with them but will not focus on them at the same time he takes out ISIS. What about Bashar al-Assad and Russia? They are not US friendly, so will he work with them short term for mutual gain, in wiping out ISIS? Yes. What about nearby foreign Muslim countries like Egypt? Won't they rise up against the supposed Islamophobe? No. Actually Abdel Fattah el-Sisi likes Trump and will happily support his efforts.
Trump will get far more support and focus than what someone like Hillary or Obama could manage.
That too would be around about his only war. For the most part he sees himself as a Negotiator of unparalleled brilliance and will negotiate with all foreign leaders to make all parties happy. Whilst he may (MAY?) be over-judging his brilliance, he is looking not to war as a solution but rather to negotiate. That is not warring.
How well his efforts do is up to history to show us BUT we have ACTUAL evidence of what happens to foreign leaders who proposed a peace deal but backed Obama against Hillary. This leader was taken out at Hillary's order and pleasure. Libya fell and the invasion of Europe started. The cork taken out can not be replaced. That was Hillary the warhawk. Unnecessary and vindictive.
"We came. We saw. He died"
People say Trump is a possible danger. Hillary was an actual danger. The difference ought not be seen as comparable.
-
Trump is full of hot air.
Anyone that's followed him in the news the last 30+ years knows how full of hot air he is and what a narcissistic fuck he can be.
"Look at me, look at me, look how wonderful,
powerful, .and brilliant I am...look at all the great things I've done so far. Let me twitter about them.
Don't you dare disagree with me, or I will troll you."
:roar:
If it wasn't so sad and creating so much division among everyone, it would actually be fun to watch.
It sort of reminds me of how Nixon used to drunk dial people.
-
Actually Trump is that thin-skinned, Al. If you don't believe it you just haven't been paying attention or have basic comprehension issues. Or both--the two frequently go together, now that I think about it.
It's kind of sweet that you seem to completely ignore anything that goes against your beliefs--which is pretty much everything--but hey, we all have our heroes and thus our blind spots.
:laugh:
-
They come even in his absence, leaning against the metal barriers that line Fifth Avenue, posing for selfies and group photos or just gazing up at the soaring black tower that is home to Donald J. Trump, the president-elect of the United States.
On a recent evening, with Mr. Trump out of town for a victory lap in Indiana and Ohio, a stream of tourists from around the world paused to take in the Midtown Manhattan building emblazoned with his name. A man hawking political buttons exclaimed, “It’s a feeding frenzy!” Sarah Britcher, a teacher from West Virginia, said she and her friends had been shopping in the area and made a point of stopping by Trump Tower.
“It seems like a more important building than it was before,” Ms. Britcher, 29, said. “We just wanted to make sure we could pass by and see it.” Another passer-by fumed to her companion, “I wish I could throw something at it.”
Mr. Trump has long been an intermittent source of irritation for New Yorkers, from his days as a tabloid exhibitionist to the long months of the 2016 campaign. But that clash has reached a new and potentially explosive phase since Nov. 8, as he has transformed his signature building — home to his penthouse apartment and business headquarters, and previously his campaign office — into a base of operations for his frenzied presidential transition.
New York has never before given the nation a president so disliked by its own voters. The last New York native to have won the presidency, Franklin D. Roosevelt, earned a festive serenade from throngs of his neighbors in Hyde Park in 1940 to celebrate his historic re-election to a third term. In contrast, Mr. Trump’s victory touched off days of angry protests in Midtown, where demonstrators chanted, “New York hates Trump.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/nyregion/donald-trump-new-york-protests.html?_r=0
-
Actually Trump is that thin-skinned, Al. If you don't believe it you just haven't been paying attention or have basic comprehension issues. Or both--the two frequently go together, now that I think about it.
It's kind of sweet that you seem to completely ignore anything that goes against your beliefs--which is pretty much everything--but hey, we all have our heroes and thus our blind spots.
:laugh:
It is you that has not been paying attention and who's comprehension is lacking. The reason is because of your ideology. That same ideology that has you falling all over yourself to "defend Muslims" from people who are discussing the effect of radical Islamic extremism. That is YOU. You and your blind spots.
But here is where confirmation bias comes in. I EXPECT Trump will fuck up. Not with everything but along the way in the next 4 years. I do not think he is a "nice" guy. I would not probably like him as a friend or relative. But unlike you, I am prepared to look at him an Clinton and acknowledge from a couple of bad options, he was the best. I am also not that much of a slave to confirmation bias as you are, that I will spend the next 4 years looking for every opportunity to shoot him down in flames.
That is you too. If your blind spots were any larger you would need the help of cane, white dog to and radio propaganda from Lord Haw Haw about how wonderful Granny Satan is and how nasty Trump is.
-
:laugh:
Who knows? He could be the first world leader to start a war because of butthurt over a tweet.
The only person butthurt is Clinton, who was crying hysterically in her hotel room and drunkenly trying to attack people :hahaha:
-
Trump is full of hot air.
Anyone that's followed him in the news the last 30+ years knows how full of hot air he is and what a narcissistic fuck he can be.
"Look at me, look at me, look how wonderful,
powerful, .and brilliant I am...look at all the great things I've done so far. Let me twitter about them.
Don't you dare disagree with me, or I will troll you."
:roar:
If it wasn't so sad and creating so much division among everyone, it would actually be fun to watch.
It sort of reminds me of how Nixon used to drunk dial people.
Mass murdering, pathological lying psychopath- narcissistic troll.
-
Actually Trump is that thin-skinned, Al. If you don't believe it you just haven't been paying attention or have basic comprehension issues. Or both--the two frequently go together, now that I think about it.
It's kind of sweet that you seem to completely ignore anything that goes against your beliefs--which is pretty much everything--but hey, we all have our heroes and thus our blind spots.
:laugh:
It is you that has not been paying attention and who's comprehension is lacking. The reason is because of your ideology. That same ideology that has you falling all over yourself to "defend Muslims" from people who are discussing the effect of radical Islamic extremism. That is YOU. You and your blind spots.
But here is where confirmation bias comes in. I EXPECT Trump will fuck up. Not with everything but along the way in the next 4 years. I do not think he is a "nice" guy. I would not probably like him as a friend or relative. But unlike you, I am prepared to look at him an Clinton and acknowledge from a couple of bad options, he was the best. I am also not that much of a slave to confirmation bias as you are, that I will spend the next 4 years looking for every opportunity to shoot him down in flames.
That is you too. If your blind spots were any larger you would need the help of cane, white dog to and radio propaganda from Lord Haw Haw about how wonderful Granny Satan is and how nasty Trump is.
/shrugs
I didn't expect you to admit your issues. Luckily what you think (or rather don't) is of very little consequence to anyone.
-
Actually Trump is that thin-skinned, Al. If you don't believe it you just haven't been paying attention or have basic comprehension issues. Or both--the two frequently go together, now that I think about it.
It's kind of sweet that you seem to completely ignore anything that goes against your beliefs--which is pretty much everything--but hey, we all have our heroes and thus our blind spots.
:laugh:
It is you that has not been paying attention and who's comprehension is lacking. The reason is because of your ideology. That same ideology that has you falling all over yourself to "defend Muslims" from people who are discussing the effect of radical Islamic extremism. That is YOU. You and your blind spots.
But here is where confirmation bias comes in. I EXPECT Trump will fuck up. Not with everything but along the way in the next 4 years. I do not think he is a "nice" guy. I would not probably like him as a friend or relative. But unlike you, I am prepared to look at him an Clinton and acknowledge from a couple of bad options, he was the best. I am also not that much of a slave to confirmation bias as you are, that I will spend the next 4 years looking for every opportunity to shoot him down in flames.
That is you too. If your blind spots were any larger you would need the help of cane, white dog to and radio propaganda from Lord Haw Haw about how wonderful Granny Satan is and how nasty Trump is.
/shrugs
I didn't expect you to admit your issues. Luckily what you think (or rather don't) is of very little consequence to anyone.
It sounds to me like a bad case of projection but then I don't expect you to admit your shortcomings.
Here is the difference though, I do not know if Trump is going to be good, bad or indifferent. I am open to either possibility. I know he talks a big game and I expect a lot of it is hot air. I know him to be a flawed human. I am also open to the fact that he may do good too.
You are not. One of us may have issues, but I hardly think that is me.
-
Someone like Kasuch, Rubio or Cruz may have been a "better choice" than Trump, but would have been murdered by Hillary.
Actually, the polls showed that any of those 3, Kasich especially, would've easily beaten Clinton because of her high negatives.
-
Someone like Kasuch, Rubio or Cruz may have been a "better choice" than Trump, but would have been murdered by Hillary.
Actually, the polls showed that any of those 3, Kasich especially, would've easily beaten Clinton because of her high negatives.
At this stage you arent saying that you trust the polls, right?
Trump easily handle each of those three. She would have too. With the media and the establishment on side, even smooth clean Marco Rubio would have been fitted up. Poor old Ted would have been stitched up worst of all.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/09/technology/trump-russia-hackers-cia/index.html
-
Trump is full of hot air.
Anyone that's followed him in the news the last 30+ years knows how full of hot air he is and what a narcissistic fuck he can be.
"Look at me, look at me, look how wonderful,
powerful, .and brilliant I am...look at all the great things I've done so far. Let me twitter about them.
Don't you dare disagree with me, or I will troll you."
:roar:
If it wasn't so sad and creating so much division among everyone, it would actually be fun to watch.
It sort of reminds me of how Nixon used to drunk dial people.
Nixon drunk-dialed? How funny! I wonder if Trump is a drunk tweeter. :laugh:
-
Trump is full of hot air.
Anyone that's followed him in the news the last 30+ years knows how full of hot air he is and what a narcissistic fuck he can be.
"Look at me, look at me, look how wonderful,
powerful, .and brilliant I am...look at all the great things I've done so far. Let me twitter about them.
Don't you dare disagree with me, or I will troll you."
:roar:
If it wasn't so sad and creating so much division among everyone, it would actually be fun to watch.
It sort of reminds me of how Nixon used to drunk dial people.
Nixon drunk-dialed? How funny! I wonder if Trump is a drunk tweeter. :laugh:
No he does not drink or do drugs. His older brother died of alcoholism very young and he swore off both.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/09/technology/trump-russia-hackers-cia/index.html
"Hey did you hear the one about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. They are there, perhaps we should invade them because of it. Whoops. lol"
What about the video that resulted in Benghazi?
I think at the moment what we KNOW is that there was hacking. That COULD have definitely have come from Russian sources. DID it absolutely? No one knows. It is best guess. If it did come from Russia or a Russian, was it done with knowledge of Vladimir Putin or the Russian Government? No idea.
Would it be the height of dishonest calling this fact and retaliating against Putin based on this as suggested in the Clinton New Network's article? Of course.
-
Trump is full of hot air.
Anyone that's followed him in the news the last 30+ years knows how full of hot air he is and what a narcissistic fuck he can be.
"Look at me, look at me, look how wonderful,
powerful, .and brilliant I am...look at all the great things I've done so far. Let me twitter about them.
Don't you dare disagree with me, or I will troll you."
:roar:
If it wasn't so sad and creating so much division among everyone, it would actually be fun to watch.
It sort of reminds me of how Nixon used to drunk dial people.
Nixon drunk-dialed? How funny! I wonder if Trump is a drunk tweeter. :laugh:
Al is right, he doesn't drink.
Which makes it even more scary. :laugh:
The jury is out on the drugs, coke always flowed freely at his parties as it did with most, but if he does it (and I really have to agree with Carrie Fisher on this one though)...he's smart enough to do it behind closed doors so no one can see.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/09/technology/trump-russia-hackers-cia/index.html
Something to keep watching. I think it's only just begun.
I just can't understand what took them so long.
-
Someone like Kasuch, Rubio or Cruz may have been a "better choice" than Trump, but would have been murdered by Hillary.
Actually, the polls showed that any of those 3, Kasich especially, would've easily beaten Clinton because of her high negatives.
At this stage you arent saying that you trust the polls, right?
The polls became tilted in Killary's favor. Even taking into account bias for her, they predicted that many democrats would vote for Kasich or Rubio.
Trump easily handle each of those three. She would have too. With the media and the establishment on side, even smooth clean Marco Rubio would have been fitted up. Poor old Ted would have been stitched up worst of all.
There's a big difference between Republican primaries and the general election, it's a totally different dynamic.
In primaries, you have to appeal to the party base. Trump did this better than anyone else. In general elections, you have to appeal to the moderates, centrists and independents. Both candidates sucked at doing this, Trump was seen as a loose cannon and Hillary as corrupt. 3rd parties got more votes this cycle than in any election since Ross Perot in '92.
Both Trump and Hillary had big negatives and most people who voted for them were simply voting against the candidate they hated the most. You introduce a candidate without big negatives and they get all the independent votes plus many who will cross party lines. Kasich would've wiped the floor with Hillary in a general election.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/09/technology/trump-russia-hackers-cia/index.html
"Hey did you hear the one about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. They are there, perhaps we should invade them because of it. Whoops. lol"
What about the video that resulted in Benghazi?
I think at the moment what we KNOW is that there was hacking. That COULD have definitely have come from Russian sources. DID it absolutely? No one knows. It is best guess. If it did come from Russia or a Russian, was it done with knowledge of Vladimir Putin or the Russian Government? No idea.
Would it be the height of dishonest calling this fact and retaliating against Putin based on this as suggested in the Clinton New Network's article? Of course.
I'm sorry, do you have an actual point?
I guess not.
-
I predict he's going to quiet down on Twitter for a bit...the replies are totally insane right now due to the new info released involving Russia.
Just a few:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/CzVmLboUcAAUatJ_zpsgwmmugfc.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/CzVnHSTVEAAug6K_zpsijliadrk.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/CzVqbu8UUAA1BXw_zpsu1hoq5su.jpg)
I think shit is about to get real.
-
How many people change their votes over the email hack? Probably not many.
-
How many people change their votes over the email hack? Probably not many.
It's not just the email hack.
-
I doubt he knows how to shut up on Twitter. SNL is spot on.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/09/technology/trump-russia-hackers-cia/index.html
"Hey did you hear the one about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. They are there, perhaps we should invade them because of it. Whoops. lol"
What about the video that resulted in Benghazi?
I think at the moment what we KNOW is that there was hacking. That COULD have definitely have come from Russian sources. DID it absolutely? No one knows. It is best guess. If it did come from Russia or a Russian, was it done with knowledge of Vladimir Putin or the Russian Government? No idea.
Would it be the height of dishonest calling this fact and retaliating against Putin based on this as suggested in the Clinton New Network's article? Of course.
I'm sorry, do you have an actual point?
I guess not.
Of course I do. You just are not smart enough to see it. Happy to break it down for you though.
Whilst we know that the email leaks were proof of hacking, no one knows who did it. Many intelligence experts are SAYING Russia. They THINK it is Russia. They do not know even this much. To go from "The FACT is Putin is interfering with the US Election and US should retaliate against Russia" is beyond stupid and anyone pushing that narrative without actual facts, is an idiot.
We saw exactly the outcome of similar jumping to erroneous conclusions such as the Weapons of Mass Destruction fiasco.
Best guesses sometimes are not the basis to build a conclusion on.
-
Ah, you're giving us your take on it. Who fucking cares? You're an idiot, an absolute imbecile when it comes to anything having to do with computing (I was going to say "anything" but then I thought I should probably be nice), and what you think or don't (which is usually the case) is mostly a laughing matter.
I guess some feel pity, though.
-
How many people change their votes over the email hack? Probably not many.
It's not just the email hack.
What else, then?
-
Ah, you're giving us your take on it. Who fucking cares? You're an idiot, an absolute imbecile when it comes to anything having to do with computing (I was going to say "anything" but then I thought I should probably be nice), and what you think or don't (which is usually the case) is mostly a laughing matter.
I guess some feel pity, though.
Your opinion is simply that. You speak on behalf of no one but yourself and I have seen again and again how redundant that opinion is. You can call me an idiot all you like, or an imbecile, or a dimwit. It matters nothing to me because it is you saying it. Like being call stupid by a sheep, I simply do not think you are in a position to make such an assessment.
Please let him start the next reply with "Sheep can't talk". LOL
-
How many people change their votes over the email hack? Probably not many.
It's not just the email hack.
What else, then?
Yes, I am looking forward to the conspiracy theories.
-
Lol. It's just amazing to watch some of the morons on here. All the email links showing that Clinton is being influenced by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but no reaction from the morons here. Even when enough pressure is put on that the corrupted pig in charge of the FBI even had to reopen the case into Clinton, but then the same type of morons cry and complain about the FBI trying to influence the election etc. But now the corrupted CIA just say Russia posted some ancient alien rag and these same morons hit the roof. Still no evidence, but these kind of morons don't need it.
-
Someone like Kasuch, Rubio or Cruz may have been a "better choice" than Trump, but would have been murdered by Hillary.
Actually, the polls showed that any of those 3, Kasich especially, would've easily beaten Clinton because of her high negatives.
At this stage you arent saying that you trust the polls, right?
The polls became tilted in Killary's favor. Even taking into account bias for her, they predicted that many democrats would vote for Kasich or Rubio.
Trump easily handle each of those three. She would have too. With the media and the establishment on side, even smooth clean Marco Rubio would have been fitted up. Poor old Ted would have been stitched up worst of all.
There's a big difference between Republican primaries and the general election, it's a totally different dynamic.
In primaries, you have to appeal to the party base. Trump did this better than anyone else. In general elections, you have to appeal to the moderates, centrists and independents. Both candidates sucked at doing this, Trump was seen as a loose cannon and Hillary as corrupt. 3rd parties got more votes this cycle than in any election since Ross Perot in '92.
Both Trump and Hillary had big negatives and most people who voted for them were simply voting against the candidate they hated the most. You introduce a candidate without big negatives and they get all the independent votes plus many who will cross party lines. Kasich would've wiped the floor with Hillary in a general election.
Don't be so fucking stupid. Kasich is just another puppet cunt like Clinton
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYOI4sLPeL8
-
It goes without saying that they're all puppets, but they don't all have the same puppet masters.
Kasich wasn't as corrupted by Wall Street as Killary was.
-
He's just the same. He supported NAFTA and spewed the same kind of tripe she did.
-
I support Icequeen and Putin Trump man love images. :2thumbsup:
(http://democraticreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Trump-Putin-love-600x400.jpg)
-
:laugh:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/trump-putin-gay_zpsylxeyter.jpg)
-
He's just the same. He supported NAFTA and spewed the same kind of tripe she did.
Excellent point.
-
Ah, you're giving us your take on it. Who fucking cares? You're an idiot, an absolute imbecile when it comes to anything having to do with computing (I was going to say "anything" but then I thought I should probably be nice), and what you think or don't (which is usually the case) is mostly a laughing matter.
I guess some feel pity, though.
Your opinion is simply that. You speak on behalf of no one but yourself and I have seen again and again how redundant that opinion is. You can call me an idiot all you like, or an imbecile, or a dimwit. It matters nothing to me because it is you saying it. Like being call stupid by a sheep, I simply do not think you are in a position to make such an assessment.
Please let him start the next reply with "Sheep can't talk". LOL
I guess what Walkie said a while back still hurts, eh?
-
Lol. It's just amazing to watch some of the morons on here. All the email links showing that Clinton is being influenced by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but no reaction from the morons here. Even when enough pressure is put on that the corrupted pig in charge of the FBI even had to reopen the case into Clinton, but then the same type of morons cry and complain about the FBI trying to influence the election etc. But now the corrupted CIA just say Russia posted some ancient alien rag and these same morons hit the roof. Still no evidence, but these kind of morons don't need it.
Ah, the brainy one couldn't stay away. :zoinks:
-
I support Icequeen and Putin Trump man love images. :2thumbsup:
(http://democraticreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Trump-Putin-love-600x400.jpg)
They look so sweet together. :)
-
He's just the same. He supported NAFTA and spewed the same kind of tripe she did.
He supported NAFTA with some qualifiers.
What "tripe" did he spew that Hillary did too??
-
They look so sweet together. :)
I know, right? :zoinks:
(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/127000/Donald-Trump-Kissing-Vladimir-Putin-127247.jpg)
-
Ah, you're giving us your take on it. Who fucking cares? You're an idiot, an absolute imbecile when it comes to anything having to do with computing (I was going to say "anything" but then I thought I should probably be nice), and what you think or don't (which is usually the case) is mostly a laughing matter.
I guess some feel pity, though.
Your opinion is simply that. You speak on behalf of no one but yourself and I have seen again and again how redundant that opinion is. You can call me an idiot all you like, or an imbecile, or a dimwit. It matters nothing to me because it is you saying it. Like being call stupid by a sheep, I simply do not think you are in a position to make such an assessment.
Please let him start the next reply with "Sheep can't talk". LOL
I guess what Walkie said a while back still hurts, eh?
I have no idea what you are on about and I would not put money on the odds of you having an idea of what you were talking about either. (And I am not completely above long odds. I bet on Trump winning and he was $4.50 odds).
If I were to hazard a guess and not have money riding on it, I would say that you were trying to indicate that from a fellow Dyslexic to another, that THIS would somehow aggrieve me?
Oh! Al, you really don't make a lot of sense, on occasion. But, then I've noticed that those times when you're not making sense are the same times when your struggle with dyslexia is most evident (And not only in the finished product. I've noticed you tidy up your posts after posting, sometimes. I do the same! ) So you get extra Brownie points from me for fighting against some kind of handicap (presumably) even when you're coming through crystal clear. I should think it costs you extra effort (as compared with some other members) to completely overcome it, as you often do. And I just shrug off the senseless bits.
I hope you're not offended by my saying so? I'm dyslexic as well, after all. And I know I sometimes say senseless things, too , when my brain starts misfiring (I do hope that's mostly confined to whilst I'm talking myself :LOL: Yeah, i do a lot of that, cos I need to rehearse things in my head before I commit them to the page or soundwaves. I'd talk a load of half-baked gibberish, or just deliver a big perplexed silence , otherwise)
It doesn't, and I think only a complete jackass would think there was offence to be found in that quote, but then you could very well be that jackass.
Apart from that? No idea. What has Walkie said that has somehow "hurt" me? Find something brutal. No? I see. This was not a bad case of projection was it?
It's because you project opinions onto me, based purely on the point-of-the-moment, disregarding any context i've already supplied elsewhere. And...but this isn't an exercise in Odeon -bashing, it really isn't'
I note that you agreed that the freedom to mock is important , Odeon. But the freedom to ask if this religion might be dangerous (or some Muslim sects might be dangerous. And oppressive) is taking that freedom too far? And why? Because you already reached a conclusion? And you believe that every other notion is stupid. People will only feel oppressed, or marginalised if you tell them what to think, won't they ?
But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
By the way Walkie ABSOLUTELY nailed you on the whole "you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here?"
That's you to a tee. Jackass. :thumbup:
-
They look so sweet together. :)
I know, right? :zoinks:
(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/127000/Donald-Trump-Kissing-Vladimir-Putin-127247.jpg)
Less effort in finding Joe Biden being creepy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy07yHAgM4E
-
Biden totally should have ran. :lol1:
:zoinks:
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/obama-wave-at-the-people-joe-biden-imma-point-atem-3155276.png)
-
Biden totally should have ran. :lol1:
Agreed. :thumbup:
(http://samuel-warde.com/samuel-warde.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/15027866_1020884801370225_8241299927102530912_n.jpg)
-
(http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/creativecontent/images/cms/1606642_1280x720.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/91/11/25/9111250d74e2ee31d18a3b2a4ec1f372.jpg)
-
He's just the same. He supported NAFTA and spewed the same kind of tripe she did.
He supported NAFTA with some qualifiers.
What "tripe" did he spew that Hillary did too??
Any supporter of it is a corporate whore.
Just the usual 'divisive' tripe. The guy was awful, he was way below Cruz and even Bush.
-
He's just the same. He supported NAFTA and spewed the same kind of tripe she did.
He supported NAFTA with some qualifiers.
What "tripe" did he spew that Hillary did too??
Any supporter of it is a corporate whore.
Just the usual 'divisive' tripe. The guy was awful, he was way below Cruz and even Bush.
It's obvious you don't know anything about Kasich, this is generic crap that anyone could say. I wanted something specific.
-
This thread is now about funny Biden memes. :zoinks:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f8/13/3a/f8133a093a0ffbe8c4f5a08e5d0a9bec.jpg)
(http://www.kappit.com/img/pics/201508_0004_idfef.png)
(http://imjustsaying.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Twitter-I-want-someone-to-look-at-667555204489850880.png)
-
Ah, you're giving us your take on it. Who fucking cares? You're an idiot, an absolute imbecile when it comes to anything having to do with computing (I was going to say "anything" but then I thought I should probably be nice), and what you think or don't (which is usually the case) is mostly a laughing matter.
I guess some feel pity, though.
Your opinion is simply that. You speak on behalf of no one but yourself and I have seen again and again how redundant that opinion is. You can call me an idiot all you like, or an imbecile, or a dimwit. It matters nothing to me because it is you saying it. Like being call stupid by a sheep, I simply do not think you are in a position to make such an assessment.
Please let him start the next reply with "Sheep can't talk". LOL
I guess what Walkie said a while back still hurts, eh?
I have no idea what you are on about and I would not put money on the odds of you having an idea of what you were talking about either. (And I am not completely above long odds. I bet on Trump winning and he was $4.50 odds).
If I were to hazard a guess and not have money riding on it, I would say that you were trying to indicate that from a fellow Dyslexic to another, that THIS would somehow aggrieve me?
Oh! Al, you really don't make a lot of sense, on occasion. But, then I've noticed that those times when you're not making sense are the same times when your struggle with dyslexia is most evident (And not only in the finished product. I've noticed you tidy up your posts after posting, sometimes. I do the same! ) So you get extra Brownie points from me for fighting against some kind of handicap (presumably) even when you're coming through crystal clear. I should think it costs you extra effort (as compared with some other members) to completely overcome it, as you often do. And I just shrug off the senseless bits.
I hope you're not offended by my saying so? I'm dyslexic as well, after all. And I know I sometimes say senseless things, too , when my brain starts misfiring (I do hope that's mostly confined to whilst I'm talking myself :LOL: Yeah, i do a lot of that, cos I need to rehearse things in my head before I commit them to the page or soundwaves. I'd talk a load of half-baked gibberish, or just deliver a big perplexed silence , otherwise)
It doesn't, and I think only a complete jackass would think there was offence to be found in that quote, but then you could very well be that jackass.
Apart from that? No idea. What has Walkie said that has somehow "hurt" me? Find something brutal. No? I see. This was not a bad case of projection was it?
It's because you project opinions onto me, based purely on the point-of-the-moment, disregarding any context i've already supplied elsewhere. And...but this isn't an exercise in Odeon -bashing, it really isn't'
I note that you agreed that the freedom to mock is important , Odeon. But the freedom to ask if this religion might be dangerous (or some Muslim sects might be dangerous. And oppressive) is taking that freedom too far? And why? Because you already reached a conclusion? And you believe that every other notion is stupid. People will only feel oppressed, or marginalised if you tell them what to think, won't they ?
But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
By the way Walkie ABSOLUTELY nailed you on the whole "you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here?"
That's you to a tee. Jackass. :thumbup:
I love it how your cluelessness caused you to produce another wall of text and yet still miss the point. Idiot.
-
Ah, you're giving us your take on it. Who fucking cares? You're an idiot, an absolute imbecile when it comes to anything having to do with computing (I was going to say "anything" but then I thought I should probably be nice), and what you think or don't (which is usually the case) is mostly a laughing matter.
I guess some feel pity, though.
Your opinion is simply that. You speak on behalf of no one but yourself and I have seen again and again how redundant that opinion is. You can call me an idiot all you like, or an imbecile, or a dimwit. It matters nothing to me because it is you saying it. Like being call stupid by a sheep, I simply do not think you are in a position to make such an assessment.
Please let him start the next reply with "Sheep can't talk". LOL
I guess what Walkie said a while back still hurts, eh?
I have no idea what you are on about and I would not put money on the odds of you having an idea of what you were talking about either. (And I am not completely above long odds. I bet on Trump winning and he was $4.50 odds).
If I were to hazard a guess and not have money riding on it, I would say that you were trying to indicate that from a fellow Dyslexic to another, that THIS would somehow aggrieve me?
Oh! Al, you really don't make a lot of sense, on occasion. But, then I've noticed that those times when you're not making sense are the same times when your struggle with dyslexia is most evident (And not only in the finished product. I've noticed you tidy up your posts after posting, sometimes. I do the same! ) So you get extra Brownie points from me for fighting against some kind of handicap (presumably) even when you're coming through crystal clear. I should think it costs you extra effort (as compared with some other members) to completely overcome it, as you often do. And I just shrug off the senseless bits.
I hope you're not offended by my saying so? I'm dyslexic as well, after all. And I know I sometimes say senseless things, too , when my brain starts misfiring (I do hope that's mostly confined to whilst I'm talking myself :LOL: Yeah, i do a lot of that, cos I need to rehearse things in my head before I commit them to the page or soundwaves. I'd talk a load of half-baked gibberish, or just deliver a big perplexed silence , otherwise)
It doesn't, and I think only a complete jackass would think there was offence to be found in that quote, but then you could very well be that jackass.
Apart from that? No idea. What has Walkie said that has somehow "hurt" me? Find something brutal. No? I see. This was not a bad case of projection was it?
It's because you project opinions onto me, based purely on the point-of-the-moment, disregarding any context i've already supplied elsewhere. And...but this isn't an exercise in Odeon -bashing, it really isn't'
I note that you agreed that the freedom to mock is important , Odeon. But the freedom to ask if this religion might be dangerous (or some Muslim sects might be dangerous. And oppressive) is taking that freedom too far? And why? Because you already reached a conclusion? And you believe that every other notion is stupid. People will only feel oppressed, or marginalised if you tell them what to think, won't they ?
But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
By the way Walkie ABSOLUTELY nailed you on the whole "you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here?"
That's you to a tee. Jackass. :thumbup:
I love it how your cluelessness caused you to produce another wall of text and yet still miss the point. Idiot.
"Mr Blind Spot" is preaching about what exactly?
Weren't you going to show me what Walkie wrote that "hurt" me? Or were you really just full of crap?
-
:hahaha:
-
:hahaha:
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
:hahaha: :hahaha:
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Well after a comment like that, I can only assume you went in for brain surgery
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
I think I accidentally trolled it by posting an article about one of the electoral college guys changing his vote. :LOL:
-
Oh, and hope you're doing better now.
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Well after a comment like that, I can only assume you went in for brain surgery
Mommy. Make the bad man stop.
-
:hahaha:
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
:hahaha: :hahaha:
I can understand why you like Trump. He is a soulmate. You are both so easily riled up and butthurt. Do you feel the same about women as he does?
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Well after a comment like that, I can only assume you went in for brain surgery
:LMAO:
-
:hahaha:
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
:hahaha: :hahaha:
I can understand why you like Trump. He is a soulmate. You are both so easily riled up and butthurt. Do you feel the same about women as he does?
You state I am riled up. I would be interested to see how you came to that assessment. I would be interested to know this because only an idiot or someone trying their most desperate to be dishonest would not see clearly from the context of the discourse that I an having fun.
Here is how it works. You make a ridiculous claim at me. I mock it, rationalise why the claim was ridiculous and then show that it would actually be more true of you.
You deflect and double down, I highlight what said before.
Your ego recoils back on itself and you imagine I am butthurt and riled. Even now I would reckon that you are telling yourself that you are right, have a point, are riling me up, enjoying yourself and to coin a Charlie Sheen phrase, "winning". More power to you, jackass, whatever gets you through the day.
Trump is my soulmate? Your sense of proportion and your credibility is not needing to be pointed at and laughed at is it? Are you going to say you were not joking and have us all dismiss you from the table, or tell us you were joking then have us dismiss you from the table when you try to explain why you were?
Lastly I have no idea what Trump feels about women because I am not Trump. I hear glowing reports and shitty reports.
As to how I feel about women? Maybe you should ask Hyke and CBC who are the two women I am closest to here, as to what I am like with them and extrapolate from there. No?
Odeon, are you a joke? Yes or no?
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
I think I accidentally trolled it by posting an article about one of the electoral college guys changing his vote. :LOL:
Jack completely crapped her pants over that one. :hahaha:
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Who are you talking about? :zoinks:
-
He's just the same. He supported NAFTA and spewed the same kind of tripe she did.
He supported NAFTA with some qualifiers.
What "tripe" did he spew that Hillary did too??
Any supporter of it is a corporate whore.
Just the usual 'divisive' tripe. The guy was awful, he was way below Cruz and even Bush.
It's obvious you don't know anything about Kasich, this is generic crap that anyone could say. I wanted something specific.
I have no interest in learning more about the Bill/Hillary Clinton of the Republican party. I dunno, get my interest. Tell me a few differences between Kasich and the Clintons when it comes to foreign policy?
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Who are you talking about? :zoinks:
The guy is moron. I doubt he can articulate what he means
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Well after a comment like that, I can only assume you went in for brain surgery
:LMAO:
Well I've been open on here about my brain injuries, surgeries and the resulting brain damage left behind. I didn't think it would ever be thrown back at me in a dumb arguement about politics.
But I guess you guys just found your level.
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Well after a comment like that, I can only assume you went in for brain surgery
:LMAO:
Well I've been open on here about my brain injuries, surgeries and the resulting brain damage left behind. I didn't think it would ever be thrown back at me in a dumb arguement about politics.
But I guess you guys just found your level.
Have you talked about that? Never saw that but certainly it does explain your inability to comprehend some of what you seem to rail against.
-
I blame my brain damage on GMOs. :zoinks:
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Well after a comment like that, I can only assume you went in for brain surgery
:LMAO:
Well I've been open on here about my brain injuries, surgeries and the resulting brain damage left behind. I didn't think it would ever be thrown back at me in a dumb arguement about politics.
But I guess you guys just found your level.
I'm with Al, I don't recall you saying anything about brain injury or operations, etc. Had we known, the comment above may very well not have happened.
-
:hahaha:
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
:hahaha: :hahaha:
I can understand why you like Trump. He is a soulmate. You are both so easily riled up and butthurt. Do you feel the same about women as he does?
You state I am riled up. I would be interested to see how you came to that assessment. I would be interested to know this because only an idiot or someone trying their most desperate to be dishonest would not see clearly from the context of the discourse that I an having fun.
Here is how it works. You make a ridiculous claim at me. I mock it, rationalise why the claim was ridiculous and then show that it would actually be more true of you.
You deflect and double down, I highlight what said before.
Your ego recoils back on itself and you imagine I am butthurt and riled. Even now I would reckon that you are telling yourself that you are right, have a point, are riling me up, enjoying yourself and to coin a Charlie Sheen phrase, "winning". More power to you, jackass, whatever gets you through the day.
Trump is my soulmate? Your sense of proportion and your credibility is not needing to be pointed at and laughed at is it? Are you going to say you were not joking and have us all dismiss you from the table, or tell us you were joking then have us dismiss you from the table when you try to explain why you were?
Lastly I have no idea what Trump feels about women because I am not Trump. I hear glowing reports and shitty reports.
As to how I feel about women? Maybe you should ask Hyke and CBC who are the two women I am closest to here, as to what I am like with them and extrapolate from there. No?
Odeon, are you a joke? Yes or no?
Another wall of text. God you're easy. :yawn:
-
I'm with Al, I don't recall you saying anything about brain injury or operations, etc. Had we known, the comment above may very well not have happened.
Yep, they're right, you haven't mentioned it. Now, to correct the awkwardness, you'll have to make light of the situation and make a joke about your own brain damage. Here, I'll make another joke about mine too. :green:
I've read drinking and drug use can cause brain damage and memory loss. Even worse, they can cause brain damage and memory loss. :zoinks:
-
Hey, lookie look. :zoinks:
Witzelsucht (from the German witzeln, meaning to joke or wisecrack, and sucht, meaning addiction or yearning) is a set of rare neurological symptoms characterized by a tendency to make puns, or tell inappropriate jokes or pointless stories in socially inappropriate situations. A less common symptom is hypersexuality, the tendency to make sexual comments at inappropriate times or situations. Patients do not understand that their behavior is abnormal, therefore are nonresponsive to others' reactions. This disorder is most commonly seen in patients with frontal lobe damage, particularly left frontal lobe tumors or trauma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witzelsucht
-
I never knew making puns was a symptom.
-
I'm with Al, I don't recall you saying anything about brain injury or operations, etc. Had we known, the comment above may very well not have happened.
Yep, they're right, you haven't mentioned it. Now, to correct the awkwardness, you'll have to make light of the situation and make a joke about your own brain damage. Here, I'll make another joke about mine too. :green:
I've read drinking and drug use can cause brain damage and memory loss. Even worse, they can cause brain damage and memory loss. :zoinks:
I think that FourSquare was trying to play for victimhood and trying to guilt me out. Wrong forum, and it's the wrong tactic against me. I am not one to say shit I can't stand behind or be guilted out by. Mind you now that it is exposed and looks like shitty but ultimately ineffectual game-playing, he looks like the horse's arse, that I have been implying he is, all this while.
Truth is, even if it were true, it would not have ultimately changed anyone's general assessment, good or bad about me, nor ultimately informed or changed my opinion or behaviour. This makes his tactics doubly stupid.
-
:hahaha:
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
:hahaha: :hahaha:
I can understand why you like Trump. He is a soulmate. You are both so easily riled up and butthurt. Do you feel the same about women as he does?
You state I am riled up. I would be interested to see how you came to that assessment. I would be interested to know this because only an idiot or someone trying their most desperate to be dishonest would not see clearly from the context of the discourse that I an having fun.
Here is how it works. You make a ridiculous claim at me. I mock it, rationalise why the claim was ridiculous and then show that it would actually be more true of you.
You deflect and double down, I highlight what said before.
Your ego recoils back on itself and you imagine I am butthurt and riled. Even now I would reckon that you are telling yourself that you are right, have a point, are riling me up, enjoying yourself and to coin a Charlie Sheen phrase, "winning". More power to you, jackass, whatever gets you through the day.
Trump is my soulmate? Your sense of proportion and your credibility is not needing to be pointed at and laughed at is it? Are you going to say you were not joking and have us all dismiss you from the table, or tell us you were joking then have us dismiss you from the table when you try to explain why you were?
Lastly I have no idea what Trump feels about women because I am not Trump. I hear glowing reports and shitty reports.
As to how I feel about women? Maybe you should ask Hyke and CBC who are the two women I am closest to here, as to what I am like with them and extrapolate from there. No?
Odeon, are you a joke? Yes or no?
Another wall of text. God you're easy. :yawn:
Odeon: "See how clever I am? See how I play with Al? I get to make him do abd say things he normally would not. Do or say on here. Al NEVER replies to things said about or to him. In nearly a decade on here, we NEVER see him do that. He is NEVER meanspirited or snarky or combative. 15000 posts and you will be lucky to find hin writing anything like that. But the biggest break from his normal standards is that I caused him to write a long wordy post.
See how I made him do that. I an Odeon and I am firmly based in reality"
Rest of I2: "???"
-
I never knew making puns was a symptom.
Look on the bright side, now you can blame your awful sense of humor on brain damage. :zoinks:
-
I think that FourSquare was trying to play for victimhood and trying to guilt me out.
I think it's possible he really thought you were poking fun at a known weakness, and Pappy was knowing laughing about that. He might have really thought he had discussed it here before, but was mistaken. Give him the benefit of the doubt it's only a misunderstanding, he does have brain damage after all. :zoinks:
-
:hahaha:
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
:hahaha: :hahaha:
I can understand why you like Trump. He is a soulmate. You are both so easily riled up and butthurt. Do you feel the same about women as he does?
You state I am riled up. I would be interested to see how you came to that assessment. I would be interested to know this because only an idiot or someone trying their most desperate to be dishonest would not see clearly from the context of the discourse that I an having fun.
Here is how it works. You make a ridiculous claim at me. I mock it, rationalise why the claim was ridiculous and then show that it would actually be more true of you.
You deflect and double down, I highlight what said before.
Your ego recoils back on itself and you imagine I am butthurt and riled. Even now I would reckon that you are telling yourself that you are right, have a point, are riling me up, enjoying yourself and to coin a Charlie Sheen phrase, "winning". More power to you, jackass, whatever gets you through the day.
Trump is my soulmate? Your sense of proportion and your credibility is not needing to be pointed at and laughed at is it? Are you going to say you were not joking and have us all dismiss you from the table, or tell us you were joking then have us dismiss you from the table when you try to explain why you were?
Lastly I have no idea what Trump feels about women because I am not Trump. I hear glowing reports and shitty reports.
As to how I feel about women? Maybe you should ask Hyke and CBC who are the two women I am closest to here, as to what I am like with them and extrapolate from there. No?
Odeon, are you a joke? Yes or no?
Another wall of text. God you're easy. :yawn:
Odeon: "See how clever I am? See how I play with Al? I get to make him do abd say things he normally would not. Do or say on here. Al NEVER replies to things said about or to him. In nearly a decade on here, we NEVER see him do that. He is NEVER meanspirited or snarky or combative. 15000 posts and you will be lucky to find hin writing anything like that. But the biggest break from his normal standards is that I caused him to write a long wordy post.
See how I made him do that. I an Odeon and I am firmly based in reality"
Rest of I2: "???"
Another wordy post. And for what?
-
I never knew making puns was a symptom.
Look on the bright side, now you can blame your awful sense of humor on brain damage. :zoinks:
:tard:
What's your excuse?
-
I never knew making puns was a symptom.
Look on the bright side, now you can blame your awful sense of humor on brain damage. :zoinks:
:tard:
What's your excuse?
Brain damage. Did you forget already? :zoinks:
-
I never knew making puns was a symptom.
Look on the bright side, now you can blame your awful sense of humor on brain damage. :zoinks:
:tard:
What's your excuse?
Brain damage. Did you forget already? :zoinks:
What's your excuse? :autism:
-
:lol1: :plus:
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Well after a comment like that, I can only assume you went in for brain surgery
:LMAO:
Well I've been open on here about my brain injuries, surgeries and the resulting brain damage left behind. I didn't think it would ever be thrown back at me in a dumb arguement about politics.
But I guess you guys just found your level.
Have you talked about that? Never saw that but certainly it does explain your inability to comprehend some of what you seem to rail against.
The only things I've ever railed against are racism and sexism. I'm not sure why that angered you so much. Why don't you explain it to me.
-
The only things I've ever railed against are racism and sexism.
And guns, you forgot about the guns. :zoinks:
-
The only things I've ever railed against are racism and sexism. I'm not sure why that angered you so much. Why don't you explain it to me.
Seriously though, I can see how it would be confusing to see why you made a statement like that. Since you last posted in this thread it evolved into Pappy and Benji talking about other politicians and political processes, Jack crapping her pants about electoral civic duty, Icequeen and me posting stupid memes, while Al and Odeon insult each as usual, this time I think they might be fighting about Russian conspiracy theories but I'm not completely sure. So, I can't help but wonder what exactly was said for you to sum all that up into racism, hatred, and implanted fear. Who are you even talking about? :dunno:
-
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
Well after a comment like that, I can only assume you went in for brain surgery
:LMAO:
Well I've been open on here about my brain injuries, surgeries and the resulting brain damage left behind. I didn't think it would ever be thrown back at me in a dumb arguement about politics.
But I guess you guys just found your level.
Have you talked about that? Never saw that but certainly it does explain your inability to comprehend some of what you seem to rail against.
The only things I've ever railed against are racism and sexism. I'm not sure why that angered you so much. Why don't you explain it to me.
It seems I have to explain it to you. Yes you have railed against racism and sexism. That unto itself is nothing particularly bad. I am sure most everyone here is against sexism and racism and so when someone "rails against" these things most people on here are going to be mostly on board. It is preaching to the converted.
So is that all you have done? No, it isn't. You have also ascribed racist and sexist intent or meaning behind things said on here when there was none. That I take some issue with. It looks like moral virtue signalling.
Before even going into things with you about how racist talk on or about Muslims or Muslim immigrants or radical Muslim extremists is or is not, I want to ask you which of these different and categorically different races is Muslim. (The hint here is that is they are all Muslim then attributing ANY talk about Muslims as "racist" is REALLY REALLY stupid):
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/75554000/jpg/_75554576_iraq_mosque_g624.jpg)
(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2012/08/Muslim-students.jpg)
(http://media.worldbulletin.net/250x190/2011/10/17/sancak.jpg)
(https://www.ncronline.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_slideshow/public/stories/images/20151130T1119-677-CNS-POPE-BANGUI-PEACE%20(700x475).jpg)
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2051123.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Jamaal-Uddin.jpg)
You ONLY get one pick as to which of the above photos represents a Muslim BECAUSE if you take offence anyone talking in a way you did not appreciate about either Muslims or Muslim immigrants or radical Muslim extremists then railing against those people for being racist makes FUCK ALL sense UNLESS being Muslim is a race and so you need to be able to look at those pictures of self-proclaimed Muslims and show which RACE is exclusive to being Muslim.
Once you have embarrassed yourself here, we can move on to specific examples that you designate as racist and further embarrass yourself there. I am all about the cringe factor. I like seeing snarky indignant no-nothings humiliate themselves.
I was very fortunate that you gheyed me a couple of times and were stupid enough to attribute the reason on one of these posts as "racism again. duh"
SO with context of what YOU said about
Wow. Not looked at this thread as I've been in hospital for a while, but it's turned into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear.
The only things I've ever railed against are racism and sexism. I'm not sure why that angered you so much. Why don't you explain it to me.
Remember: YOU asked for an explanation
I would not take it as a literal comment though.
Definitely not; it was just a funny thought, just like funny to think about the US and Mexican governments playing pingpong with criminals. Certainly there must be some nationalistic Mexicans though who might view those living in the US as some type of traitor, and fault the US for luring the capable. Similar to Americans who spout they're stealing our jobs, and thus Mexicans equally spouting they're stealing our workers. :laugh: Looked it up and they do indeed exist; good for them.
The larger point about how illegal immigration may adversely affect Mexico could be discussed. Of course an obvious counter would be that Enrique is unlikely to have sent money home to Mexico whereas Conseula and Ramon do and so do millions of other, to the tune of $28 billion a year.
28 billion is definitely a big number, but when considering it against the Mexican economy as a whole, it only amounts to about 2% of their GDP, so would assume Mexico would be fine without the US dollars sent home by immigrants. Also, when one takes that 28 billion and divides it by the number of Mexican immigrants in the US, it equates to about 2,300 per person each year. The average income of what is considered the Mexican middle class is about 20,000 USD per year, so the typical person sending money to Mexico is likely only helping to increase their family's standard of living by 10-20%. The Mexican economy has improved in the last decade, and that could partially be equated to the recession in the US. During the height of the recession from 07-09, more immigrants returned to Mexico than migrated to the US, and Mexico is no longer the top origin country among the most recent US immigrants. The Mexican unemployment rate is similar to the US, so it could be easily argued that US immigrants sending money to Mexico would be more beneficial to the Mexican economy if they were living and working in it.
Would certainly help Trump in his efforts to get rid of illegal immigrants by limiting their ability to send money hone, thereby reducing the amount of money leaving the US therefore Mexico "pays for the wall" and some illegal immigrants may decide in straw that broke the camel's back" fashion to go back to Mexico.
I think that would be great for his narrative, possibly less so for his agenda (I do think his concern is the criminal element in the illegal immigrant population). I do not know whether it would be an economic plus or minus.
There is another thing too. Illegal immigrants are not one collective homogeneous grouping.. Whilst the Democrats like to trot out the best case examples of illegal immigrants and their families as either victim or sensational successes and Trump points out the worst of them, I'd imagine most fall somewhere in between.
I think some will bludge and some will work their arses off, some will put into the economy and some take out and some will be criminals and some will be saints.
So what racist thing have I said here?
Here is where people like you and Odeon fall into an ideological stonewall. Looking at an issue from all sides rather than taking an approved ideological position is NOT bigoted. My points above in discussion with Jack are completely pedestrian. Nothing inflammatory or bigoted. However to someone like yourself or Odeon, you WOULD say it IS bigoted. Why? Because I have not simply thrown my lot behind one approved narrative and tried to close down conversation.
So what HAVE I ACTUALLY said:
1) I have said that there are ABSOLUTELY people that come to US illegally and drain US resources
2) I have said that there are ABSOLUTELY people that come to US illegally and work their arses off
3) I have said that there is ABSOLUTELY people that come to US and who send billions of dollars back to Mexico of their earnings.
4) I have ABSOLUTELY said that Trump MAY look at restricting the ability of people in the US illegally from sending money out of the US and back home to Mexico, as a way of forcing the Mexican government to pay for the wall OR to use the funds themselves to pay for the wall.
5) You MAY have noticed I made reference to Trump doing this (and that the straw that may break the camel's back for some illegal immigrants would be said restrictions, forcing them to return home to Mexico) is that it would be good for his narrative but I feel LESS good for his agenda. I outline my reasons for that.
6) My contention is that the unemployed gangbangers and assorted criminal elements that come to America illegally from Mexico are not as likely to be hardworking undocumented workers that would be more likely to send their funds back home. IF Trump is looking to punish or hurt the criminal element in this population then focusing on depriving the hardworking but law abiding illegal immigrant's ability to send their savings home is NOT punishing the group he is primarily against. So whilst it is good for Trump's narrative of making Mexico pay for the wall and such, it does not help his agenda because it is not targeting the group he has the biggest issue with. (ie It will look better to his supporters and make a better read than what it is in actuality)
7) The last point is that by looking at the illegal immigrants as one homogeneous group is something that both Trump and the Democrats do for political purposes and portraying all illegal immigrants as innocent victims who are victims of oppression is no more correct than Trump treating them as varying shades of bad and focusing almost exclusively on the bad elements in the group. Some ARE monsters and some are saints. Most are somewhere inbetween.
NONE of this is contentious and as I said, quite mundane. Where YOU freak out is I did not denounce Trump or any of his held positions and I did not support the Liberal positions. I simply presented both sides equally and THAT is your issue.
My position in truth is that a country ought to be able to control who enters. I also believe that it is a privilege rather than a right to go to another country. I also believe that the no-man's land between the South of US and Northern Mexico is the Wild West at the moment. It is an absolute shit show. 80% of illegal immigrant females are raped trying to cross and the Mexican cartels that run human trafficking, drug running and gun running are animals. The reason they do what they do around that area and with impunity, is that they are flaunting the fact that there is no wall.
Do I think that every illegal immigrant in US illegally is break the law? Yes. Should the laws of the US be enforced on them? Yes. Is it a travesty the law NOT getting enforced on them? No, not really. Ought criminals in that illegal immigrant community be deported when or if they do illegal things in US? Yes. I think they ought to (having come to the US illegally in the first place) keep their head down and not draw ANY attention to themselves. Here is an example of something similar. Lets say that I choose to move to Thailand and go on a 30 day visa, but after it runs out, I just do not do anything about it. Now within that time I may have already set up a Thai bank account and go a condo, and I may have my own source of income coming in regularly outside of Thailand. Chances are that at some point and for some reason I will be found out and then fined and/or jailed and then deported. I would not flaunt this and I would not draw attention to myself because my overstay is already illegal and punishable. I am giving no reason to draw unwanted attention to myself. In doing so, I may go years without detection, but all it takes is a slip up or even a random road stop or altercation and suddenly the Thai government will come down very hard on me and rightly so. In THAT situation the Thai government is certainly in their rights. I would have done the wrong thing. I SHOULD get punished but on the face of it, it is no huge travesty. I am simply getting away with something I shouldn't.
So there is nothing racist in ANY of this. Insinuating as you are want to do, that all the conversations about illegal immigrants or Muslims that are not pandering to Liberal talking points is not bigoted and only a complete idiot would think so.
-
The only things I've ever railed against are racism and sexism. I'm not sure why that angered you so much. Why don't you explain it to me.
Seriously though, I can see how it would be confusing to see why you made a statement like that. Since you last posted in this thread it evolved into Pappy and Benji talking about other politicians and political processes, Jack crapping her pants about electoral civic duty, Icequeen and me posting stupid memes, while Al and Odeon insult each as usual, this time I think they might be fighting about Russian conspiracy theories but I'm not completely sure. So, I can't help but wonder what exactly was said for you to sum all that up into racism, hatred, and implanted fear. Who are you even talking about? :dunno:
All that 4AD knows how to do is bleat "4 legs good, 2 legs bad". ::)
-
All that 4AD knows how to do is bleat "4 legs good, 2 legs bad". ::)
I agree. Four legs good!! :zoinks:
-
I'm not going to quote your big giant post, Al, because it's so freaking big and giant. :zoinks: But I get it now. When FourAceDeal said this thread, maybe he just forgot again :zoinks: and really meant some other thread, and maybe Jack's the one who has turned a thread into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear. :lol1:
Hey, FourAceDeal, ask Jack to step outside of all the stats for a minute and tell you what she really thinks about Mexicans. It's interesting good stuff, man, but you'll never find out by passively shouting at the walls around here. You'll have to address her directly. :hahaha:
-
Jack hates everyone, and has the numbers to prove it. :M
-
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.108955566.3010/flat,800x800,075,f.u6.jpg)
-
I'm not going to quote your big giant post, Al, because it's so freaking big and giant. :zoinks: But I get it now. When FourAceDeal said this thread, maybe he just forgot again :zoinks: and really meant some other thread, and maybe Jack's the one who has turned a thread into a study in racism, hatred and implanted fear. :lol1:
Hey, FourAceDeal, ask Jack to step outside of all the stats for a minute and tell you what she really thinks about Mexicans. It's interesting good stuff, man, but you'll never find out by passively shouting at the walls around here. You'll have to address her directly. :hahaha:
To be honest I get the ideology and the pull towards that. The want to festoon yourself with very fine threads of moral virtue signalling so that when fully clothed in your moral righteousness, others will see your very fine threads in the same light as you do and admire you. Unfortunately some of us have read the Emperor's New Clothes. We know its bullshit and will not out of good manners and political correctness pretend otherwise.
-
Another gigantic wall of text. Why do you still believe someone would ever wade through your ramblings? You're not particularly bright, you are a lousy debater and you are a bigot. And, these days, paranoid.
-
Another gigantic wall of text. Why do you still believe someone would ever wade through your ramblings? You're not particularly bright, you are a lousy debater and you are a bigot. And, these days, paranoid.
What was that, rapist?
Did you believe you wrote something worth considering?
-
You are demonstrably a bigot but I'm not a rapist. You're also a liar.
-
You are demonstrably a bigot but I'm not a rapist. You're also a liar.
I am not demonstrably a bigot and ironically you are hypocritical when you say this, rapist.
-
You are demonstrably a bigot but I'm not a rapist. You're also a liar.
I am not demonstrably a bigot and ironically you are hypocritical when you say this, rapist.
But you are, and I have shown you are. You are a lying, paranoid bigot.
-
You are demonstrably a bigot but I'm not a rapist. You're also a liar.
I am not demonstrably a bigot and ironically you are hypocritical when you say this, rapist.
But you are, and I have shown you are. You are a lying, paranoid bigot.
and you are a hypocritical lying rapist.
-
I DO want the current laws to be enforced.
Not only regarding illegal aliens, but ALL the laws that we seem to skirt for political correctness or some other ACLU concern. Law is law and the only way it works is if everyone holds up strong and supports ALL our laws against all law breakers.
This is not racist. I am not a racist nor a bigot, but using the actual text of The Constitution (admitting that some state laws need to be revisited) and appointing or electing judges who have the ballZ to do more than a passing tip of the hat or a social nod to The Constitution while making life changing decisions for generations yet to come would bring us all back on track, here.
There is no racism in our constitution (except for some of the voting and citenzenry regulations that were a part of of the original, which have been updated, these days. Humans are no longer fractionally human for instance), but it really saddens most of us that it took over one hundred twenty or more years to have most of the public begin to LIVE this freedom we claimed for all to be naturally entitled to enjoying.
-
You are demonstrably a bigot but I'm not a rapist. You're also a liar.
I am not demonstrably a bigot and ironically you are hypocritical when you say this, rapist.
Odeon has a point here. He's not a rapist, he's a serial adulterer. :police:
-
You are demonstrably a bigot but I'm not a rapist. You're also a liar.
I am not demonstrably a bigot and ironically you are hypocritical when you say this, rapist.
Odeon has a point here. He's not a rapist, he's a serial adulterer. :police:
Odeon and I have a special arrangement. If he is prepared to lie and call me a bigot. I am prepared to lie and call him a rapist. It is his choice and it seems he really doesn't mind, because he keeps calling me a bigot.
-
I think some people might want to see emails from Trump and friends. Let's see how honesty they really are.
-
I think some people might want to see emails from Trump and friends. Let's see how honesty they really are.
What emails?
-
All of you are a bunch of perverts. :yawn:
Now I need to be going...the Fedex man is here and I have to offer him some candy. ;)
-
Some people need to see racism everywhere, otherwise they cannot survive without it. They're probably racist themselves.
-
Some people need to see racism everywhere, otherwise they cannot survive without it. They're probably racist themselves.
:plus:
You just won this thread. :congrats:
:party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party:
-
You are demonstrably a bigot but I'm not a rapist. You're also a liar.
I am not demonstrably a bigot and ironically you are hypocritical when you say this, rapist.
But you are, and I have shown you are. You are a lying, paranoid bigot.
and you are a hypocritical lying rapist.
Except you have no case and I do. Pathetic little man.
-
You are demonstrably a bigot but I'm not a rapist. You're also a liar.
I am not demonstrably a bigot and ironically you are hypocritical when you say this, rapist.
Odeon has a point here. He's not a rapist, he's a serial adulterer. :police:
Feeling left out, Scrappy? Are you feeling safe enough to post again?
-
All of you are a bunch of perverts. :yawn:
:eyelash:
-
You are demonstrably a bigot but I'm not a rapist. You're also a liar.
I am not demonstrably a bigot and ironically you are hypocritical when you say this, rapist.
But you are, and I have shown you are. You are a lying, paranoid bigot.
and you are a hypocritical lying rapist.
Except you have no case and I do. Pathetic little man.
No you don't. What you do have is an ideology and worn narrative. Neither are of these are worth as much as a pinch of pigeon shit. I am not the only person on here noticing as much.
What's more, you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown, you have one heckova blind spot here? :dunno:
You used to say that "I" had a blind spot. It has been you this whole time. You are a hypocrite who projects his own faults onto others on occasion. You also have a massive ego and this prevents you from being able to really question your own positions. YOU think you are some moral arbiter and a better person for having the "right" opinions. You don't.
You can rail against us for speaking about Pea and make veiled non-specific threats, you can put the mod on me a third time, you can call me a bigot or anyone that is prepared to entertain positions that are different from yours, and you can lash out at anyone here when they dare have an opinion outside of your approve opinions worth having list. BUT that does not make you a more moral person. Makes you petty and pathetic.
-
This conversation just stopped. Enjoy the sinbin.
-
How "Intense"!!!
-
Not really, no. Nice and quiet, actually.
-
Thank the heavens. It was getting embarrassing to witness.
-
Thank god for censorship!!!
-
Thank god for censorship!!!
That was not an exercise in free speach. That was someone being obnoxious beyond belief.
When you sink down to base slander like that then you've abandoned any moral high ground.
-
Thank god for censorship!!!
That was not an exercise in free speach. That was someone being obnoxious beyond belief.
1) What is speach? 2) That's the same rationalization that SJW's make to suppress free speech that tells them they're wrong, they label it "hate speech".
When you sink down to base slander like that then you've abandoned any moral high ground.
They were just name calling each other, that's not slander.
-
/shrugs
I don't actually care. He had it coming.
-
If you didn't care you wouldn't've sinbinned him.
You care alright. Hate is just inverted love!! :heart: :heart: :heart:
-
Thank god for censorship!!!
That was not an exercise in free speach. That was someone being obnoxious beyond belief.
1) What is speach? 2) That's the same rationalization that SJW's make to suppress free speech that tells them they're wrong, they label it "hate speech".
When you sink down to base slander like that then you've abandoned any moral high ground.
They were just name calling each other, that's not slander.
Can you find a dictionary and look up "libel". I could tell you what it means but you don't seem to believe anything (european) people tell you.
-
He is a bit thick. His mum dropped him a lot when he was a kid.
-
Thank god for censorship!!!
That was not an exercise in free speach. That was someone being obnoxious beyond belief.
1) What is speach? 2) That's the same rationalization that SJW's make to suppress free speech that tells them they're wrong, they label it "hate speech".
When you sink down to base slander like that then you've abandoned any moral high ground.
They were just name calling each other, that's not slander.
Can you find a dictionary and look up "libel". I could tell you what it means but you don't seem to believe anything (european) people tell you.
England has some of the most draconian libel laws in the world. Here' in the US, where the server is based, that doesn't meet the definition, not even close.
-
It probably does; it's the pseudonym factor here that makes me wonder though. Would be interesting to have Huber's input.
-
Defamation. Libel because it was written, slander if spoken.
Defamation normally has to cause physical injury to your reputation I believe before it's considered.
Once upon a time I was highly interested in all that law stuff, but can't remember a lot of it anymore.
Where is the Esquire anyways?
Miss his posts.
-
Working with all that law stuff, I suppose. :P
I miss him too.
-
Defamation. Libel because it was written, slander if spoken.
Defamation normally has to cause physical injury to your reputation I believe before it's considered.
Once upon a time I was highly interested in all that law stuff, but can't remember a lot of it anymore.
Where is the Esquire anyways?
Miss his posts.
this.
This is the same reason that Michael Shermer never pursued legal charges against PZ Myers despite PZ reposting (fake) rape accusations against him. So few people read his shitty little blog, Pharangula, that Shermer couldn't prove his reputation had been damaged.
-
Defamation. Libel because it was written, slander if spoken.
Defamation normally has to cause physical injury to your reputation I believe before it's considered.
Once upon a time I was highly interested in all that law stuff, but can't remember a lot of it anymore.
Where is the Esquire anyways?
Miss his posts.
Probably still crying his eyes out about Clinton losing and he's not able to face the humiliation of being so wrong and gloating about Trump fans crying about losing. The guy has been a post whore on here when he's been in his 'lawyer job'. He probably is a cleaner or something at a lawyer firm.
-
The guy has been a post whore on here when he's been in his 'lawyer job'. He probably is a cleaner or something at a lawyer firm.
Not too long ago, was thinking of Hubert as a weekend warrior in the past, but now remembering that's wrong; it was the oposite. He didn't post evenings or weekends, but rather posted from work. That was before his new job.
-
Defamation. Libel because it was written, slander if spoken.
Defamation normally has to cause physical injury to your reputation I believe before it's considered.
Once upon a time I was highly interested in all that law stuff, but can't remember a lot of it anymore.
Where is the Esquire anyways?
Miss his posts.
Probably still crying his eyes out about Clinton losing and he's not able to face the humiliation of being so wrong and gloating about Trump fans crying about losing. The guy has been a post whore on here when he's been in his 'lawyer job'. He probably is a cleaner or something at a lawyer firm.
...and how far have you gotten in life?
:yawn:
-
He applied for the cleaning job but didn't get it.
-
I'll leave this here for the Trump fans.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trump
-
Rationalwiki was hijacked by the SJW's a long, long time ago... :thumbdn:
-
Defamation. Libel because it was written, slander if spoken.
Defamation normally has to cause physical injury to your reputation I believe before it's considered.
Once upon a time I was highly interested in all that law stuff, but can't remember a lot of it anymore.
Where is the Esquire anyways?
Miss his posts.
Probably still crying his eyes out about Clinton losing and he's not able to face the humiliation of being so wrong and gloating about Trump fans crying about losing. The guy has been a post whore on here when he's been in his 'lawyer job'. He probably is a cleaner or something at a lawyer firm.
...and how far have you gotten in life?
:yawn:
I'm doing well thanks. I don't feel the need to boast. Midwife has probably been feeling too unstable to go into a work, maybe he did a Hillary and locked himself in his room, crying uncontrollably :zoinks:
-
Yeah, sounds likely.
-
Sure. Much more likely that it's purely a coincidence that he ran away like a little girl because he suddenly became too busy with work just after the election went the wrong way for him.
-
Why do you keep disappearing? :zoinks:
-
I don't. The site is dead.
-
Can't be that you're a one-trick pony, incapable of talking about anything else than what hits your tinfoil hat, right?
Or would that be zero-trick, considering that you're not actually convincing anyone of anything beyond what we already know, namely what I just wrote?
-
Can't be that you're a one-trick pony, incapable of talking about anything else than what hits your tinfoil hat, right?
Or would that be zero-trick, considering that you're not actually convincing anyone of anything beyond what we already know, namely what I just wrote?
Hang on. I've started to notice an alarming pattern with you. Everyone that strongly disagrees with you has a mental illness. You can never just admit that you wrong about a certain situation, instead the other people are just mentally ill. Even if it's millions of people that voted the way you didn't or wouldn't have, they have some kind of problem.
Maybe it's time you look at yourself.
-
Benji just likes to stop by every now and then and stir the shit pot.
Nothing really substantial to add...he just likes to argue and call people stupid every once in awhile to prove that he possesses superior intellect...and is always right. :yawn:
There, there Benji...this retarded, mentally ill, little liberal redneck snowflake knows how brilliant you are...don't get your conservative little panties in a knot now. :zoinks:
-
Benji just likes to stop by every now and then and stir the shit pot.
Nothing really substantial to add...he just likes to argue and call people stupid every once in awhile to prove that he possesses superior intellect...and is always right. :yawn:
There, there Benji...this retarded, mentally ill, little liberal redneck snowflake knows how brilliant you are...don't get your conservative little panties in a knot now. :zoinks:
Don't worry, odeon agrees with you so you're sane.
I've been called conservative and liberal. You keep calling people names until you free yourself from your ignorance sweetie.
-
I don't. The site is dead.
I blame people who don't post. :zoinks:
-
Hang on. I've started to notice an alarming pattern with you. Everyone that strongly disagrees with you has a mental illness.
You're just now noticing this?? :zoinks:
You can never just admit that you wrong about a certain situation, instead the other people are just mentally ill. Even if it's millions of people that voted the way you didn't or wouldn't have, they have some kind of problem.
That's a pretty good description of how narcissists think. ;)
Maybe it's time you look at yourself.
Don't hold your breath. :laugh:
-
Say what you mean, Pappy, and mean what you say. You're being passive-aggressive. :zoinks:
-
Say what you mean, Pappy, and mean what you say. You're being passive-aggressive. :zoinks:
Yes, so you can censor/mod/sinbin him too, douchebag.
-
Say what you mean, Pappy, and mean what you say. You're being passive-aggressive. :zoinks:
Yes, so you can censor/mod/sinbin him too, douchebag.
Butthurt much?
-
Say what you mean, Pappy, and mean what you say. You're being passive-aggressive. :zoinks:
Yes, so you can censor/mod/sinbin him too, douchebag.
Butthurt much?
No. I am pointing out the obvious. If Scrap "over-extends" himself and says what he thinks (and is not abstract or vague) you will likely censor him.
You have recent form doing this and he is one that has pointed this out.
Now as for WHY YOU run to the Admin panel when you dont get your way.....butthurt much?
-
In other words, you're still butthurt and still an ass.
/shrugs
I didn't expect you to change. I also fully expected your sycophants to react. They all did.
-
In other words, you're still butthurt and still an ass.
/shrugs
I didn't expect you to change. I also fully expected your sycophants to react. They all did.
In other words I do not give a damn. I am simply pointing out what I have some time ago that moderation creep has set in. The bar for censorship is lowering and the possible infractions increasing and the rules more vague.
someone like Scrap will find it increasingly more difficult second guessing where the lines are drawn at any moment and how close he is skating to them.
infractions will be much easier to make as you censor more.No wonder he is being a little vague and obscure.
-
aka butthurt. ::)
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Avi0H5T7rrE
-
:LOL: No tears here, I'm waiting for the show to get good...then the only danger is I might cry and piss myself laughing.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C0W_1bWW8AAMNQq_zpsladkfotq.jpg)
-
(http://timtyson.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Snoopy-Grammar-Nazi.jpg)
-
aka butthurt. ::)
Yes you are and the Admin Panel is your lotion.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/b086624f4f711f6d866ab89b26544ee2_zpsnhd5tw5r.jpg)
-
^thats a good one
(http://i1.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/bdm5casey.jpg)
-
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161109173515-us-russia-trump-putin-relations-orig-00001404-exlarge-169.jpg)
-
A picture of Putin....
-
(http://euromaidanpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/putin_trump-620x4121.jpg)
-
Wow, you are posting pictures with 2 people now, there's no end to your talents...
-
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/north-korea-putin-and-the-kkk-support-you-cheers-trump-2636789.png)
-
Whoever said that the RationalWiki was taken over by the SJW's... how convenient. :wanker:
-
Whoever said that the RationalWiki was taken over by the SJW's... how convenient. :wanker:
Convenient for whom? Are you saying that it wasn't?
-
9 out of 10 of the world's leading arms dealers supported Clinton. Not something a brainwashed moron would know...
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C1M7vlLUAAAEHmC_zpsshvudnxg.jpg)
-
My eyes, my eyes. :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck:
-
My eyes, my eyes. :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck:
I'll spare you the nude one of him building his wall. :zombiefuck:
They keep getting more and more creative with each passing week right now.
Pro-pot activists to ‘light up’ 4,200 free joints during Trump inauguration speech
The DC Cannabis Coalition (DCMJ), founded in 2013 by people tired of “outdated” cannabis laws in the District of Columbia, says its members plan to hand out thousands of joints for free on January 20.
The event named ‘Trump 420’ – a reference to the global cannabis celebration date of April 20 – is being held to protest marijuana’s status as illegal on a federal level in the US.
“At 4 minutes and 20 seconds into President Trump’s speech we’ll light up! (Unless President Trump comes out now in support of full cannabis legalization in all 50 States and DC),” the group added.
https://www.rt.com/usa/372645-us-inauguration-marijuana-protest/
I hope Pence gets a contact high. Now that would make it definitely worth watching. :spitscreen:
-
My eyes, my eyes. :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck:
Maybe it will burn out the infection. :zoinks:
I'll spare you the nude one of him building his wall. :zombiefuck:
I think I'd like to see that. :orly:
-
I think I'd like to see that. :orly:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/eac4adf58f6761e71edb96a766ccc042_zpsaxfpijkz.jpg)
Such an evil gopher. >:D
-
This should help :D See how kind and thoughtful I am?
(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/LDU9Z4n-yVOspsgZUtK-NRlO3kI=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6959819/jbareham_160818_1191_0046.0.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/fa/1f/1f/fa1f1fd5d873184708da96ecf5734906.jpg)
-
:LOL:
Think I have both of those saved.
Best part of this whole election has been the memes and the art that was generated.
-
:lol1:
-
Those pictures are very funny :lol1:
-
My eyes, my eyes. :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck: :zombiefuck:
Maybe it will burn out the infection. :zoinks:
I'll spare you the nude one of him building his wall. :zombiefuck:
I think I'd like to see that. :orly:
Bad gopher. :P
-
(http://i.imgur.com/RfwyLkg.png)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/RfwyLkg.png)
(http://m.quickmeme.com/img/5e/5ea7bdca0e380defbb39fcebc5ebaf042c2bc987b4f78d1f73b77d33fbcd8646.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/RfwyLkg.png)
I didn't know Canada is so awesome there's absolutely nothing to protest there. :zoinks: I read that some of the people were holding signs that read: not my president. :lol1:
-
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/blogs/baldwin.hat_.trump_.jpg?itok=Z00iRbv0)
:lol1:
-
http://www.mediaite.com/online/oops-foxs-julie-roginsky-says-baldwins-russian-make-america-great-again-hat-is-mistranslated/
-
I want that hat. :LOL:
-
Baldwin completely owns Trump.
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
Did anyone ever say they did? :dunno:
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
Did anyone ever say they did? :dunno:
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/98ba838c5407c02225f3acc847095b8b/tumblr_oj88koI17v1qfsk2lo1_540.jpg)
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
The report is out there.
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
The report is out there.
From sources known for spreading disinformation.
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
The report is out there.
From sources known for spreading disinformation.
What report where?
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
The report is out there.
From sources known for spreading disinformation.
What report where?
This is the declassified version that was released to the media/public.
And this is the link to the report straight from the horse's mouth...the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1466-odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence-community-assessment-of-russian-activities-and-intentions-in-recent-u-s-elections
https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/155494946443/odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence
-
The process of repealing Obamacare starts in just a few days. So, Trumpsters, where's the replacement?!? Where is it?!?
Also, I've heard that against the wishes of the Democrats, the GOP are going to purposely fast-track Trump's terrible, TERRIBLE cabinet picks through the confirmation hearings, by having them all in the course of a few days. It means that the cabinet nominees will be allowed in without any of the financial or ethics paperwork which could prove just how slimey they are.
But lol Democrats are just mad cuz they lost the election, rite? :wanker:
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
The report is out there.
From sources known for spreading disinformation.
What report where?
This is the declassified version that was released to the media/public.
And this is the link to the report straight from the horse's mouth...the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1466-odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence-community-assessment-of-russian-activities-and-intentions-in-recent-u-s-elections
https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/155494946443/odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence
Thanks, Icequeen. Found it after posting that and just finished reading it. Actually very interesting, if anyone wants to discuss.
-
The process of repealing Obamacare starts in just a few days. So, Trumpsters, where's the replacement?!? Where is it?!?
Also, I've heard that against the wishes of the Democrats, the GOP are going to purposely fast-track Trump's terrible, TERRIBLE cabinet picks through the confirmation hearings, by having them all in the course of a few days. It means that the cabinet nominees will be allowed in without any of the financial or ethics paperwork which could prove just how slimey they are.
But lol Democrats are just mad cuz they lost the election, rite? :wanker:
Is there dialog exchange sought for these topics, or is this post only shouting at the walls?
-
I'm sure there are still a few people who would be happy to engage in shouting about the opposite opinion. :zoinks:
-
I'm sure there are still a few people who would be happy to engage in shouting about the opposite opinion. :zoinks:
:zoinks:
-
But lol Democrats are just mad cuz they lost the election, rite? :wanker:
Yeah I think that's right. :zoinks:
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
The report is out there.
From sources known for spreading disinformation.
What report where?
This is the declassified version that was released to the media/public.
And this is the link to the report straight from the horse's mouth...the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1466-odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence-community-assessment-of-russian-activities-and-intentions-in-recent-u-s-elections
https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/155494946443/odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence
Thanks, Icequeen. Found it after posting that and just finished reading it. Actually very interesting, if anyone wants to discuss.
They're "confident" of it. Who could doubt that?
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
The report is out there.
From sources known for spreading disinformation.
What report where?
This is the declassified version that was released to the media/public.
And this is the link to the report straight from the horse's mouth...the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1466-odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence-community-assessment-of-russian-activities-and-intentions-in-recent-u-s-elections
https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/155494946443/odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence
Yep, that's the source of disinformation I was talking about.
Government intelligence agencies have been lying to the American public for decades now.
-
(https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/meryl-streep-donald-trump-dres-sup-shakespeare-ftr.jpg)
:rofl:
-
Still waiting for the proof that Russia hacked the US election.
The report is out there.
From sources known for spreading disinformation.
What report where?
This is the declassified version that was released to the media/public.
And this is the link to the report straight from the horse's mouth...the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1466-odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence-community-assessment-of-russian-activities-and-intentions-in-recent-u-s-elections
https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/155494946443/odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence
Yep, that's the source of disinformation I was talking about.
Government intelligence agencies have been lying to the American public for decades now.
Everything the government tells you is a LIE! Cats and dogs are living together and fucking! Mass hysteria! :zombiefuck:
-
They're "confident" of it. Who could doubt that?
Say for the sake of argument it's correct. When people say, hacked the election, was taking that literally and thinking something other than the DNC email hack was implied. Seems it's only inflated buzzwording. Don't think the DNC hack had any affect on public opinion or swayed voters from their party; it wasn't even really anything scandalous. My take on the paper, Russia did what they do, have done, and will continue to do, not only with the US but also other countries; though it was concluded the effort was greater this time. The social media aspect was particularly interesting, and not something previously considered; that some of the smear campaign tactics witnessed weren't necessarily the work of the republican party or supporting voters. Social media campaigns certainly could have affected pubic opinion, though impossible to measure. Up until the actual vote, Clinton was pegged as the winner from every reliable source of prediction.
-
Personally I still think this is the tip of the iceberg, and it's going to be an interesting show. :popcorn:
-
...and now we have the "golden showers" document. :spitscreen:
Trump has already posted his response on Twitter of course:
"FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!"
Time to make more popcorn. :facepalm2:
-
...and now we have the "golden showers" document. :spitscreen:
Trump has already posted his response on Twitter of course:
"FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!"
Time to make more popcorn. :facepalm2:
I'd piss on him. :zoinks: Seriously though, he needs to get a sense of humor. Even if it's bull he should totally own it. :lol1:
-
Everything the government tells you is a LIE! Cats and dogs are living together and fucking! Mass hysteria! :zombiefuck:
Yeah I think that's right. :zoinks:
-
...and now we have the "golden showers" document. :spitscreen:
Trump has already posted his response on Twitter of course:
"FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!"
Time to make more popcorn. :facepalm2:
I'd piss on him. :zoinks: Seriously though, he needs to get a sense of humor. Even if it's bull he should totally own it. :lol1:
True. I think it could actually help him if he did.
It's fucking hilarious. :LOL:
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/12f1c9068ddf4bb0ec1c88495c393f0c/tumblr_ojlrb2rNKk1rvzwpho1_540.png)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/297126816b9e21672d9f5ea5747fe71a/tumblr_ojlrb2rNKk1rvzwpho2_540.png)
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/12f1c9068ddf4bb0ec1c88495c393f0c/tumblr_ojlrb2rNKk1rvzwpho1_540.png)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/297126816b9e21672d9f5ea5747fe71a/tumblr_ojlrb2rNKk1rvzwpho2_540.png)
:LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO:
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/12f1c9068ddf4bb0ec1c88495c393f0c/tumblr_ojlrb2rNKk1rvzwpho1_540.png)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/297126816b9e21672d9f5ea5747fe71a/tumblr_ojlrb2rNKk1rvzwpho2_540.png)
:rofl:
-
Personally I still think this is the tip of the iceberg, and it's going to be an interesting show. :popcorn:
It's hugely entertaining. And I thought George W was funny.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/LjdqI5L.jpg)
Let the meme's begin. :asthing:
-
Personally I still think this is the tip of the iceberg, and it's going to be an interesting show. :popcorn:
It's hugely entertaining. And I thought George W was funny.
People might have found Bush laughable, but I can't think of him as funny. Trump is funny, even though he probably doesn't intend to be. That's why I said he needs to get a sense of humor, he's going to need it. :lol1:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/LjdqI5L.jpg)
Let the meme's begin. :asthing:
It took me like a whole minute to get that. :lol1:
-
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lZDRI-1RNT8/VuYnmdpvSII/AAAAAAAAByE/t4-SspPtolUBkYgdQ61JOpUqcMmQuVg0A/s1600/sjw_bullhorns_trump_rgb_ben_garrison.jpg)
-
Let the meme's begin. :asthing:
It gives this cartoon a whole new meaning. :zoinks:
(http://www.customnames.com/images/trump1.jpg)
-
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2016/11/10/780/438/694940094001_5204951661001_Salute-1100.jpg)
:laugh:
-
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2016/11/10/780/438/694940094001_5204951661001_Salute-1100.jpg)
:laugh:
:trump: That's not funny! I'll have you deported!
-
Corporations and the wealthy get free stuff all of the time. It's only when the "peasants" want free stuff, too, when it becomes a problem, according to stupid right-wing political comics.
-
Personally I still think this is the tip of the iceberg, and it's going to be an interesting show. :popcorn:
It's hugely entertaining. And I thought George W was funny.
People might have found Bush laughable, but I can't think of him as funny. Trump is funny, even though he probably doesn't intend to be. That's why I said he needs to get a sense of humor, he's going to need it. :lol1:
Bush didn't intend to be funny either but some of his quotes were hilarious. And I think it's a bit late for Trump to acquire a sense of humour.
-
It was great the way Trump pissed over CNN.
-
(https://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/hillary_hog_ben_garrison.jpg?w=640&h=494)
-
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/trump-2016-putin.jpg)
-
Poor brainwashed Odeon.
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/06/04/3A1ABFBB00000578-0-image-a-27_1478407436324.jpg)
You can't stop our love.
-
CNN, NBC... Say no more.
-
Good ol' reliable CNN :zoinks:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8zWYxE6_Q
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C0M-W_WWQAASAJz_zpsyxiqozxa.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/269563-donald-trump-movie-posters_zpslphjuayl.jpg)
-
(https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xft1/t51.2885-15/e35/12338801_534652556711362_575569413_n.jpg)
-
:zoinks:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8fOT4-iYbY
-
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/S/d/W/6/trump-bush-think-again.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C15sy7RUcAQ3KcG_zpsv1dc66uc.jpg)
-
Why my Muslim family voted for Trump(self.The_Donald)
submitted6 hours ago*byBroDyel
Obviously one of the hot topics this election is to throw the label "Islamophobe" on every Trump voter. I just wanted to provide a few of my viewpoints on why my family and I chose to make America great again.
• First thing I want to point out is that no matter what race, religion or socioeconomic background you are, anyone who followed the election should have been able to realize the massive media bias that occurred and the narrative that was being constructed. We watched as so-called liberals and so-called democrats make Clinton out to be a hero. We watched as all those people bent over backwards and pretended that Clinton was one of the good guys because they felt us compelled to pick between the ‘lesser of two evils’.
• The result of this was huge amount of uninformed people who choose not to look at the issues and imagine themselves on a moral high ground. While I agree with Trump on many positions such as economy, trade, and infrastructure Ill focus on the Middle East and Terrorism. 1) Hillary bringing up Trump saying "I guess" once for invading Iraq multiple times when she VOTED for it was just hilarious.
2) As a previous Ron Paul supporter, Trump was the only proponent of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Anyone with an interest in finally bringing peace to the Middle East knows this has to be the final solution. Hillary had her hands in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and all the other disasters that have cost American taxpayers and soldiers dearly and allowed for the creation of a power vacuum where ISIS has flourished. Shes been a part of the exponential increase of drone strikes during Obamas tenure and was advocating increased involvement in Syria. Now the Syrian refugees are Americas duty when your funding of (unvetted) rebels with arms and cash blew the conflict to another level? How does the media gloss over this?
2) Any educated Muslim can tell you the role Saudi Arabia has played in fueling the spread of their oppressive, backwards form of Wahhabi Islam across the globe. This is the start of modern radical Islam and the evidence is there from Chechen rebels to bin laden- the Saudis have been there every step of the way. The fact that Clinton is in bed and profiting off this regime speaks VOLUMES. The complete pussyfooting of the Obama administration in addressing this conflict of interest is an issue that has left many Muslims disenchanted.
3) What many people fail to realize is Trump has actually been one of the few who has faced this issue head-on. Muslims dont need a pity party by the politically correct on the issue of radical Islam. Even his most "extreme" Muslim policies directly address terror-prone high risk areas. To blatantly twist that into Islamophobia helps no one. Muslims more than ever want to address the assault on the religion by radical Islam.
4)To completely ignore whats going on in France, Germany and many parts of Europe with refugee immigration is a disservice to our country and the many Americans who are rightly concerned. Just because you are Muslim does not blind you to the objective realization of the problems some of these refugees have had with assimilating, and its not something Americans should be shamed into wanting.
35 commentsshare
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161113215658/https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cqd42/why_my_muslim_family_voted_for_trump
-
::)
Aw, here you go Pappy. :zoinks:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxixmCyXAAAEaVa.jpg)
-
(http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/putin-holding-baby-donald-trump-photoshopped-painting.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C146r8IWgAQ4nL1_zpstr5iuhbu.jpg)
-
https://twitter.com/newsundayherald/status/820670333036490752
:LMAO:
-
https://twitter.com/newsundayherald/status/820670333036490752
:LMAO:
I just finished reading that. Awesome. :LOL:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/7e370f132acdb51f34780724b1f7cc1c_zpsehux4xvc.jpg)
-
^ Look at that fucking ridiculous apartment. :rofl:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2_7Jv6Gxq4
-
^ Look at that fucking ridiculous apartment. :rofl:
It's typical though. Mar-a-Lago is just as gaudy or worse IMO, and there are a lot of smaller homes gilded in gold and full of furniture you never sit on owned by others all around it.
The lifestyle is different...home to us is a haven and the place where we escape from the world to recharge. To the very rich it is a statement...some have huge houses and really live in maybe 4 rooms, or one wing that is hidden away from the eyes of guests...or they don't spend a lot of time at all there, hopping around from place to place.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2_7Jv6Gxq4
:LMAO:
I wonder how she feels about the botched translation.
-
:laugh:
-
Plain white walls are good enough for me. White makes places look bigger.
-
Joke's on you retards :lol1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJQf50jsFKU
-
(http://img.ifcdn.com/images/35332100b93bd3382c63d1441a429bef619e73c4bc41ad1b91b3b28ceadc1251_1.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/a8296e8233b571171e025706b8c62599_zpsxlw0slfx.jpg)
-
Plain white walls are good enough for me. White makes places look bigger.
Also prefer white walls.
-
Plain white walls are good enough for me. White makes places look bigger.
Yeah, the walls in my apartment are varying shades of cream. No problem. :nicegear:
-
home to us is a haven and the place where we escape from the world to recharge.
Exactly. I hide out in my apartment. I keep the blinds closed all the time so I never feel watched.
I can be as social as I am at work because I live alone in peace, freedom, and privacy. :nicegear:
-
Not me, I like bold colors and matching themes for interior design.
No gold plated walls though, thanks. :zombiefuck:
-
Not me, I like bold colors and matching themes for interior design.
No gold plated walls though, thanks. :zombiefuck:
How 'bout a solid gold toilet? So elegant. :toporly: :fos:
-
It would be too tempting to shit on the seat. :CanofWorms:
-
It would be too tempting to shit on the seat. :CanofWorms:
:trump: You better not disrespect my fine gold toilet! I'm almost President!
-
I'm in Canada, I'll disrespect you if I feel like it. :moon:
-
I'm in Canada, I'll disrespect you if I feel like it. :moon:
:trump: Watch it, missy! I'll bomb the shit outta you people!
-
Yes, because that went so well for your country in 1812.
-
Yes, because that went so well for your country in 1812.
:trump: My country didn't have ME in 1812! So watch your mouth!
-
It also didn't have golden toilets, what's your point?
-
It also didn't have golden toilets, what's your point?
:trump: My point is that between golden toilets and ME, America is greater than ever!
-
Not me, I like bold colors and matching themes for interior design.
Example?
-
(https://freshideen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/orange-inneneinrichtung-ideen-sofa-kissen-wand.jpg)
(http://www.decoradvisor.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/bold-burgundy-purple-color-living-room-decorating-idea.jpg)
(http://www.pandashouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/California-Monterey-Colonial-red-interior-design.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e4/42/ee/e442ee9c303e053dbfc1497ed2c47584.jpg)
-
I like that first pic a lot. And the one with the books. :)
-
Those are nice, though do make for very moody rooms.
-
I always like to look at the books they have in the photos in this case they have Botticelli and GOAT kinda an odd combo :laugh:
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W91VF0Dgtb0
Darwin Award
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/94dfe005e83a67317cead6f750cd5189_zpsbxk5hlof.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/5ea521b37f6c4d500746bd1fdde6eaa6_zpscebjh78h.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/0196eb2493874c0ecd56a1007d48f78a_zpsvz6il9yq.jpg)
-
:laugh:
-
I like that first pic a lot. And the one with the books. :)
Aside from my love of orange, the one with the books is my favourite. I like natural materials and textures as well. It's a lot easier to come by a can of red paint than a wood panelled ceiling or a natural brick wall though.
-
I like that first pic a lot. And the one with the books. :)
Aside from my love of orange, the one with the books is my favourite. I like natural materials and textures as well. It's a lot easier to come by a can of red paint than a wood panelled ceiling or a natural brick wall though.
Yeah, our bookshelves look ok but they're nothing compared to that room.
Do you have Smiggle where you are? Not so long ago here, they promoted orange products. I thought it made the shop look better, having orange in it. They aren't doing it any more and I have wondered if orange stuff can be ordered in.
-
All three of those rooms are nice...but too colorful for me. Too much stuff too. I like books and candles, but would have a problem with a whole shelf full of them to constantly line up, dust, and read the titles of constantly as I walk past them.
I think it's part OCD and sensory issues with me. Everything has to be muted earth tones or shades of white/black, natural light (I really HAVE to see outside), wood, soft, comfy...no fru-fru furniture, some plants, not a lot of things/clutter/decorations.
Think Tuscan/Mediterranean/Casual decor with a lot less shit on Valium. Soothing...and not a lot going on.
-
All three of those rooms are nice...but too colorful for me. Too much stuff too. I like books and candles, but would have a problem with a whole shelf full of them to constantly line up, dust, and read the titles of constantly as I walk past them.
I think it's part OCD and sensory issues with me. Everything has to be muted earth tones or shades of white/black, natural light (I really HAVE to see outside), wood, soft, comfy...no fru-fru furniture, some plants, not a lot of things/clutter/decorations.
Think Tuscan/Mediterranean/Casual decor with a lot less shit on Valium. Soothing...and not a lot going on.
I'm even more minimalist than you. I don't decorate. I barely furnish. :P
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLbqgz9-FDA
-
That was utterly sick, basically inciting killings. Trump has really gotten under CNN's skin!
-
Okay...looking at the photos from the inauguration...is it just me?
Kellyanne Conway
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/58821bce1700002e00fdfbcc_zps0qo23ltq.jpeg)
A Nutcracker
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/24-decorative-blue-king-wooden-christmas-nutcracker-with-scepter_zpsb0bezffa.jpg)
I did like the buttons though.
-
Do you have Smiggle where you are? Not so long ago here, they promoted orange products. I thought it made the shop look better, having orange in it. They aren't doing it any more and I have wondered if orange stuff can be ordered in.
Never heard of Smiggle. I vaguely remember there was a company in the UK called Orange but they just sold phones. A couple years ago there was a season where orange clothes were in style and I stocked up while I could. For some reason people treat it as a spring colour. Also around Halloween of course, that's when we picked up the orange lights which sometimes go on our Christmas tree.
-
Smiggle is a stationery and accessories shop. Their stuff comes in bright colours.
When I was in my early twenties, I remember summer fashion went through an orange and lime green phase. It looked awful together. Orange doesn't look good on me unfortunately.
-
A few years ago I used to wear these bright orange jeans and a pink, peach and orange top, with orange sunglasses. It sounds hideous but it looked pretty good.
^^^ I see the nutcracker in her too!
-
A few years ago I used to wear these bright orange jeans and a pink, peach and orange top, with orange sunglasses. It sounds hideous but it looked pretty good.
^^^ I see the nutcracker in her too!
Glad I'm not the only one. :LOL:
A lot of people can wear all orange, or mix hues like that and it looks really good...my neighbor is one of them.
I just look like an orange gone bad if it goes beyond a tank top. Pink is even worse. ;)
-
A few years ago I used to wear these bright orange jeans and a pink, peach and orange top, with orange sunglasses. It sounds hideous but it looked pretty good.
^^^ I see the nutcracker in her too!
Glad I'm not the only one. :LOL:
A lot of people can wear all orange, or mix hues like that and it looks really good...my neighbor is one of them.
I just look like an orange gone bad if it goes beyond a tank top. Pink is even worse. ;)
I have olive coloured skin, so dark and *some* bright colours are fine. But if I were to dye my hair blonde or wear pastels I'd look ridiculous. White looks good on me though, but yeh, not pastels, unless I subtley mix some in with white rather than having them as the main colour.
-
I have olive coloured skin,
Have you tried lime green? It's hard to go wrong with that.
-
I have a sort of lime green coat, but I hardly wear it cos it has an odd fit. It used to have shoulder pads in it but I asked my mum to take them out. I hate shoulder pads.
-
I have olive coloured skin,
Have you tried lime green? It's hard to go wrong with that.
Green is the worst color for olive colored skin, except for some shades of sage. It brings out the green undertones in the skin and makes the person look like they don't feel well, green around the gills or something like that.
-
Maybe Scrap is colour blind?
-
Makes sense Jack.
Navy brings out my eyes, because they're green.
-
Had a friend in school with blue eyes but green shirts always made them look green.
-
I have olive coloured skin,
Have you tried lime green? It's hard to go wrong with that.
Green is the worst color for olive colored skin, except for some shades of sage. It brings out the green undertones in the skin and makes the person look like they don't feel well, green around the gills or something like that.
Not if they have a decent tan, the lime green brings out their colors and they really look hawt!!
-
I have olive coloured skin,
Have you tried lime green? It's hard to go wrong with that.
Green is the worst color for olive colored skin, except for some shades of sage. It brings out the green undertones in the skin and makes the person look like they don't feel well, green around the gills or something like that.
Not if they have a decent tan, the lime green brings out their colors and they really look hawt!!
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7KNSRvWUUGc/hqdefault.jpg)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N1TBgF9gvA
-
I have olive coloured skin,
Have you tried lime green? It's hard to go wrong with that.
Green is the worst color for olive colored skin, except for some shades of sage. It brings out the green undertones in the skin and makes the person look like they don't feel well, green around the gills or something like that.
Not if they have a decent tan, the lime green brings out their colors and they really look hawt!!
Maybe if the tan is dark enough. Personally don't like that contrast pop, like when black people wear yellow, orange, or neons, it's like a bumblebee effect, and a bit too much except maybe for young people. Then again most of my wardrobe is suitable attire for funerals. :laugh:
-
I have olive coloured skin,
Not if they have a decent tan, the lime green brings out their colors and they really look hawt!!
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7KNSRvWUUGc/hqdefault.jpg)
Ooh I say!
-
:P Well...that just ruined any ideas of looking sexy in lime green. :LOL:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xr8yj9CKqg
-
Yeh, I think that was a bit selfish to do that in a library. My phone went off in the library once, cos I'd told my mum's partner specifically to text me, not call me. RING RING RING RING, and this bloke in the library gave me a, "Really?" kind of look. Doh.
-
Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBKQLX_9AQM
-
Hopefully she picked up her litter after her conniption fit.
-
:hahaha:
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2017/01/21/0121-obama-trump-inauguration-crowd-getty-reuters-4.jpg)
-
:hahaha:
http://ll-media.tmz.com/2017/01/21/0121-obama-trump-inauguration-crowd-getty-reuters-4.jpg
:hahaha:
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/d9f06cb4604a310e0d0af2b78d1f2e39/tumblr_ok5n1uwnRi1sd2p4no1_540.jpg)
-
^ /thread :M :laugh:
-
Fake.
Is this your alternative fact? :zoinks:
-
It's amazing how quickly he's rushing around to fuck everything up.
-
It's amazing how quickly he's rushing around to fuck everything up.
:trump: I'm all about efficiency, little lady! I'm on the clock, I'm not fucking around!
-
It's amazing how quickly he's rushing around to fuck everything up.
There you go. He's good at something. :zoinks:
-
It's amazing how quickly he's rushing around to fuck everything up.
There you go. He's good at something. :zoinks:
Like turning a drunken redneck loose in walmart. He doesn't know where to start first.
I'm betting he's got a good 4 to maybe 6 months to royally fuck shit up before his minions figure out he's an idiot and they even start blocking him.
-
It's amazing how quickly he's rushing around to fuck everything up.
There you go. He's good at something. :zoinks:
Like turning a drunken redneck loose in walmart. He doesn't know where to start first.
I'm betting he's got a good 4 to maybe 6 months to royally fuck shit up before his minions figure out he's an idiot and they even start blocking him.
Plenty of time for more alternative facts. :P
-
Fake.
Is this your alternative fact? :zoinks:
How do you know that the picture from the Trump one wasn't taken at an earlier time?
-
Fake.
Is this your alternative fact? :zoinks:
How do you know that the picture from the Trump one wasn't taken at an earlier time?
Maybe the Obama one was too. :trollface:
-
Probably. With all the corporate backing, retarded celebrities and the media acting like it was the second coming. Considering pretty much the whole media have been silent for 8 years about Obama's crimes and were silent about Clinton's during the election campaign it is a miracle that Trump won, let alone getting hundreds of thousands to attend the event. Despite all the hysterical propaganda and fake stories, Trump beat them all :viking:
-
Fake.
Is this your alternative fact? :zoinks:
How do you know that the picture from the Trump one wasn't taken at an earlier time?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence
-
Fake.
Is this your alternative fact? :zoinks:
How do you know that the picture from the Trump one wasn't taken at an earlier time?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence
The timelapse video stops while people are still getting in. Tens of thousands were said to be held up from getting in. All that aside, it isn't even an issue. The childish and shit stirring media have just made it into one to get people arguing over nothing.
-
It's an issue because Trump made it into one. Great strategy.
-
:asthing: :asthing: Free Melania!! :asthing: :asthing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZxsNexkTfU
Wow...can you feel the love there?
-
:laugh:
-
....and...Busted. :LOL:
Bill checking out Ivanka.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1F8FBszGG8&index=3&list=PLLsU1xeW9iQ8JlnmqtWKay3TyOq1Dw2Nz
-
....and...Busted. :LOL:
Bill checking out Ivanka.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1F8FBszGG8&index=3&list=PLLsU1xeW9iQ8JlnmqtWKay3TyOq1Dw2Nz
I love our dysfunctional government family. :rofl:
-
...and the best part of the inauguration.
George Bush and his rain poncho. :LOL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1j-YsKYCw
-
....and...Busted. :LOL:
Bill checking out Ivanka.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1F8FBszGG8&index=3&list=PLLsU1xeW9iQ8JlnmqtWKay3TyOq1Dw2Nz
I'm guessing Hillary wants a piece of Ivanka too.
-
I'm guessing Hillary wants a piece of Ivanka too.
Nope...she's used to it by now I'm sure.
I can just see the "and what do you think you would do with that anyways you stupid old goat?" look.
-
I'm guessing Hillary wants a piece of Ivanka too.
Nope...she's used to it by now I'm sure.
I can just see the "and what do you think you would do with that anyways you stupid old goat?" look.
That's not what I meant. Hillary likes girls.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5b/41/ce/5b41ce96cbf4b73f7d00d9628fc0c7e9.jpg)
-
I'm guessing Hillary wants a piece of Ivanka too.
Nope...she's used to it by now I'm sure.
I can just see the "and what do you think you would do with that anyways you stupid old goat?" look.
That's not what I meant. Hillary likes girls.
Maybe, but
Ivanka doesn't seem her type. Maybe with darker hair.
-
It's an issue because Trump made it into one. Great strategy.
It was the media who made an issue of it. It's true Obama's 2009 crowd was record breaking, so it does seem to show some level of personal bias to make a point of comparing Trump's crowd only to the record breaking crowd. To the point of the reality of the overhead photo, this link is an interactive CNN image during the time Trump was speaking in front of the crowd. While it's a different angle, the zoom function shows the sparsely filled areas do appear to agree with the overhead shot.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/
-
Actually, if Trump hadn't sent his boy to lie to the press, there wouldn't have been anything to discuss. The problem here is not the press, it is that Trump is a sensitive flower with a pathological need to lie.
-
It's amazing how quickly he's rushing around to fuck everything up.
:trump: I'm all about efficiency, little lady! I'm on the clock, I'm not fucking around!
I assume they're simultaneous for him. :autism:
-
Actually, if Trump hadn't sent his boy to lie to the press, there wouldn't have been anything to discuss. The problem here is not the press, it is that Trump is a sensitive flower with a pathological need to lie.
Exactly.
He is a special snowflake that needs constant reassurance in everything he's ever done. He is always the "winner" even when he loses...and can't handle criticism.
"Yes, you are ALWAYS right, dear."
"Yes, you are the greatest, successful mogul ever, sweetie."
"Yes baby, you definitely had the largest inauguration crowd."
"Yes, you have beautiful, wonderful, hair."
"Yes, oh my...your dick is totally HUUUUUGE."
"Yes, you are the best in bed."
#FreeMelania :LOL:
I can't even image how totally "wonderful" her life is. She's like a fucking well-trained parrot in a gilded cage...just watch her...she's a puppet in designer clothes.
I'm sure his wives could have told us a lot. But he's paid/required all of them to be silent as part of their divorce agreement/pre-nup. To me, that fact alone speaks volumes.
-
It's pretty much the last qualities you'd ever want in a leader of any kind, let alone the president of the United States. He is insecure, easily riled and not very bright.
If it had been just about any other country in the world, I would have shrugged and avoided reading about it in the news. You know, "OK, Portugal, good luck and see you in four years". The problem is that this particular idiot's many insecurities and dimwit ideas affect pretty much every country on the planet.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELD2AwFN9Nc
-
:rofl:
:plus:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELD2AwFN9Nc
:LMAO:
-
Actually, if Trump hadn't sent his boy to lie to the press, there wouldn't have been anything to discuss. The problem here is not the press, it is that Trump is a sensitive flower with a pathological need to lie.
It was already being discussed. Obama's second inaugural crowd was estimated to be slightly more than half the size of his first. Though will agree, Trump would/will be better off not reacting. It should be expected the US media will never do him any favors.
-
Not really worth trying to explain things to Odeon, he's not the sharpest tool in the box. Until his TV confirms it for him, it hasn't happened or isn't true. Trump shouldn't react to the propaganda machine, he's already beat them.
-
Not really worth trying to explain things to Odeon, he's not the sharpest tool in the box. Until his TV confirms it for him, it hasn't happened or isn't true. Trump shouldn't react to the propaganda machine, he's already beat them.
At least it's all of TV and not just Fox News. :hahaha:
-
Not really worth trying to explain things to Odeon, he's not the sharpest tool in the box. Until his TV confirms it for him, it hasn't happened or isn't true. Trump shouldn't react to the propaganda machine, he's already beat them.
Do you have some alternative facts you wish to share?
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/5819c1818da7a06057f9c43677351353/tumblr_okd1khr0jG1rfgn15o1_1280.png)
-
:2thumbsup:
-
:2thumbsup:
Seconded.
-
Not really worth trying to explain things to Odeon, he's not the sharpest tool in the box. Until his TV confirms it for him, it hasn't happened or isn't true. Trump shouldn't react to the propaganda machine, he's already beat them.
At least it's all of TV and not just Fox News. :hahaha:
See that's the trouble with imbeciles like yourself. You think that it's either CNN etc or Fox News. I take every news station with a pinch of salt, not follow the main ones blindly. :wanker:
-
Not really worth trying to explain things to Odeon, he's not the sharpest tool in the box. Until his TV confirms it for him, it hasn't happened or isn't true. Trump shouldn't react to the propaganda machine, he's already beat them.
Do you have some alternative facts you wish to share?
Same goes for you retard. Where did I mention anything about "alternative facts"? You really need a break from your TV.
-
Not really worth trying to explain things to Odeon, he's not the sharpest tool in the box. Until his TV confirms it for him, it hasn't happened or isn't true. Trump shouldn't react to the propaganda machine, he's already beat them.
Do you have some alternative facts you wish to share?
Same goes for you retard. Where did I mention anything about "alternative facts"? You really need a break from your TV.
It's a simple question. I understand the sarcasm went right over your head, though. :zoinks:
-
:2thumbsup:
Seconded.
Thirded.:P
-
Not really worth trying to explain things to Odeon, he's not the sharpest tool in the box. Until his TV confirms it for him, it hasn't happened or isn't true. Trump shouldn't react to the propaganda machine, he's already beat them.
Do you have some alternative facts you wish to share?
Same goes for you retard. Where did I mention anything about "alternative facts"? You really need a break from your TV.
It's a simple question. I understand the sarcasm went right over your head, though. :zoinks:
Yeah, you're way too complex for people to understand. I'm not denying that the guy using "alternative facts" was stupid.
-
Not really worth trying to explain things to Odeon, he's not the sharpest tool in the box. Until his TV confirms it for him, it hasn't happened or isn't true. Trump shouldn't react to the propaganda machine, he's already beat them.
Do you have some alternative facts you wish to share?
Same goes for you retard. Where did I mention anything about "alternative facts"? You really need a break from your TV.
It's a simple question. I understand the sarcasm went right over your head, though. :zoinks:
Yeah, you're way too complex for people to understand. I'm not denying that the guy using "alternative facts" was stupid.
Do you deny that Spicer and Conway both lied? That Trump did, and still does?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFx7VqYuGhc
-
Not really worth trying to explain things to Odeon, he's not the sharpest tool in the box. Until his TV confirms it for him, it hasn't happened or isn't true. Trump shouldn't react to the propaganda machine, he's already beat them.
Do you have some alternative facts you wish to share?
Same goes for you retard. Where did I mention anything about "alternative facts"? You really need a break from your TV.
It's a simple question. I understand the sarcasm went right over your head, though. :zoinks:
Yeah, you're way too complex for people to understand. I'm not denying that the guy using "alternative facts" was stupid.
Do you deny that Spicer and Conway both lied? That Trump did, and still does?
I haven't been following it much, I don't care. Your lying media has just made an issue out of it. Funny how you've suddenly started worrying about American leaders and co lying. I guess you weren't that interested over the last 8 years ::)
-
I haven't studied it enough to know who's lying but given CNN and co's track record it will most likely be them. I wouldn't just blindly follow the media on any subject.
-
Make the netherlands second, because they requested it. (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/america-first-make-netherlands-second-because-they-requested-it)
:woohoo: :rofl:
-
Make the netherlands second, because they requested it. (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/america-first-make-netherlands-second-because-they-requested-it)
:woohoo: :rofl:
:2thumbsup:
-
Make the netherlands second, because they requested it. (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/america-first-make-netherlands-second-because-they-requested-it)
:woohoo: :rofl:
Nobody puts the Netherlands in a corner. :dancers:
-
I haven't studied it enough to know who's lying but given CNN and co's track record it will most likely be them. I wouldn't just blindly follow the media on any subject.
Don't think CNN lied. However there were other news outlets which posted much more sparse photos than the one Odeon posted, and they also latched onto CNN's number of 250,000. Though the 250,000 number from CNN reports was for the ticketed area and that number is consistent for tickets given out for inaugurations. Ticket holders are for the bleachers and lawn area and every president fills that area.
-
The fact of the matter is that his crowd was a lot smaller than Obama's first. He should have accepted it and moved on.
-
Oh sure, he definitely should learn to deal with being mocked.
-
Oh sure, he definitely should learn to deal with being mocked.
Maybe if people trigger him enough he'll go and shoot up a nightclub or drive a truck through a crowd or something.
-
Oh sure, he definitely should learn to deal with being mocked.
Maybe if people trigger him enough he'll go and shoot up a nightclub or drive a truck through a crowd or something.
:lol1:
-
Oh sure, he definitely should learn to deal with being mocked.
Maybe if people trigger him enough he'll go and shoot up a nightclub or drive a truck through a crowd or something.
One can only hope. :LOL:
Nothing like watching a narcissist have a twitter melt down about stupid shit like the size of his fan crowd.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFx7VqYuGhc
Ledouche attacked his own.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSlk8OR090
-
They are doing a fine job of dividing themselves oops
-
Oh sure, he definitely should learn to deal with being mocked.
Maybe if people trigger him enough he'll go and shoot up a nightclub or drive a truck through a crowd or something.
:laugh:
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Nah, that wouldn't make much of a difference, either.
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
(http://i.imgur.com/JXqpe1e.png)
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Nah, that wouldn't make much of a difference, either.
You're right. He doesn't have a heart.
So how about what's between his legs? Stop him from reproducing, at least?
-
I dunno if this is predictable now but...nothing there either?
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Nah, that wouldn't make much of a difference, either.
You're right. He doesn't have a heart.
So how about what's between his legs? Stop him from reproducing, at least?
Too small of a target. :M
-
(http://img.wennermedia.com/480-width/naked-donald-trump-statues-butt-zoom-6fcce7d2-6cd8-423b-a5ae-a81e1ca4d523.jpg)
-
(http://img.wennermedia.com/480-width/naked-donald-trump-statues-butt-zoom-6fcce7d2-6cd8-423b-a5ae-a81e1ca4d523.jpg)
Uh, folks, who snapped my best side?
Seriously, at my age that could be me. He's only 3 years older.
-
Why is the butt all red? :aff:
-
Why is the butt all red? :aff:
Melania spanked him. >:D
-
And the ACLU just got a stay put on the deportation order, amidst protests at airports around the country. People are fighting.
-
And the ACLU just got a stay put on the deportation order, amidst protests at airports around the country. People are fighting.
Sadly, I think the fighting has just started. :P
Caught this on twitter...
To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) January 28, 2017
"Diversity is our strength"
...at least the whole world hasn't gone mad yet.
-
:headbang2: :viking:
-
And the ACLU just got a stay put on the deportation order, amidst protests at airports around the country. People are fighting.
Good for the ACLU. Executive orders are annoying; especially when a president has a party majority in both branches congress. If there is to be new legislation then the proper routes should be taken to implement it.
-
The fact of the matter is that his crowd was a lot smaller than Obama's first. He should have accepted it and moved on.
He probably would have if they'd not made such a deal of it and lied. CNN need to move on and accept Trump beat the woman they supported.
-
I haven't studied it enough to know who's lying but given CNN and co's track record it will most likely be them. I wouldn't just blindly follow the media on any subject.
Don't think CNN lied. However there were other news outlets which posted much more sparse photos than the one Odeon posted, and they also latched onto CNN's number of 250,000. Though the 250,000 number from CNN reports was for the ticketed area and that number is consistent for tickets given out for inaugurations. Ticket holders are for the bleachers and lawn area and every president fills that area.
I've seen videos where the crowd is actually going back to the monument.
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Calling for people to be murdered because you cannot deal with other people's views. Bigot.
-
I haven't studied it enough to know who's lying but given CNN and co's track record it will most likely be them. I wouldn't just blindly follow the media on any subject.
Don't think CNN lied. However there were other news outlets which posted much more sparse photos than the one Odeon posted, and they also latched onto CNN's number of 250,000. Though the 250,000 number from CNN reports was for the ticketed area and that number is consistent for tickets given out for inaugurations. Ticket holders are for the bleachers and lawn area and every president fills that area.
I've seen videos where the crowd is actually going back to the monument.
Example?
-
I haven't studied it enough to know who's lying but given CNN and co's track record it will most likely be them. I wouldn't just blindly follow the media on any subject.
Don't think CNN lied. However there were other news outlets which posted much more sparse photos than the one Odeon posted, and they also latched onto CNN's number of 250,000. Though the 250,000 number from CNN reports was for the ticketed area and that number is consistent for tickets given out for inaugurations. Ticket holders are for the bleachers and lawn area and every president fills that area.
I've seen videos where the crowd is actually going back to the monument.
Example?
It came up on Facebook. Sure you'll find it if you look.
-
It came up on Facebook. Sure you'll find it if you look.
Have looked and previously posted a link.
To the point of the reality of the overhead photo, this link is an interactive CNN image during the time Trump was speaking in front of the crowd. While it's a different angle, the zoom function shows the sparsely filled areas do appear to agree with the overhead shot.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/
-
The fact of the matter is that his crowd was a lot smaller than Obama's first. He should have accepted it and moved on.
He probably would have if they'd not made such a deal of it and lied. CNN need to move on and accept Trump beat the woman they supported.
Trump is butthurt too easily. He needs to accept that most people didn't vote for him instead of sending his errand boy to lie for him.
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Calling for people to be murdered because you cannot deal with other people's views. Bigot.
I guess you didn't get the joke either. Spazz. :zoinks:
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Calling for people to be murdered because you cannot deal with other people's views. Bigot.
I guess you didn't get the joke either. Spazz. :zoinks:
Jack also missed the joke. :M
-
The fact of the matter is that his crowd was a lot smaller than Obama's first. He should have accepted it and moved on.
He probably would have if they'd not made such a deal of it and lied. CNN need to move on and accept Trump beat the woman they supported.
Trump is butthurt too easily. He needs to accept that most people didn't vote for him instead of sending his errand boy to lie for him.
You don't need most people to vote for you to win the election, and no one complained about the system before Clinton got humiliated. Trump is just responding to the endless stream of butthurt coming from the others who cannot accept that they lost. I agree that he should ignore them and just enjoy the win for a while. :congrats:
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Calling for people to be murdered because you cannot deal with other people's views. Bigot.
I guess you didn't get the joke either. Spazz. :zoinks:
Jack also missed the joke. :M
You have a reading comprehension Jack :M He wasn't joking, but then when he got called out being a hypocrite, that means he was suddenly joking and everyone else just didn't get it and you have a reading comprehension or that you're just a bigot. Just a long as precious odeon isn't wrong, that's all that matters.
-
You have a reading comprehension Jack :M
Stop being distracted from our own conversation. :M
-
I don't care about how many people Obama had and how many people Trump had in their crowd. The issue is purely trying to divide people so why bother? It isn't even important.
-
If there's video evidence to support the image I linked portrays a lie, then would be interested in seeing it. Looked quite a bit, and that images is the best example found as it also shows Trump at the podium.
-
If there's video evidence to support the image I linked portrays a lie, then would be interested in seeing it. Looked quite a bit, and that images is the best example found as it also shows Trump at the podium.
There's actually something in that CNN image that bothers me.
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Calling for people to be murdered because you cannot deal with other people's views. Bigot.
I guess you didn't get the joke either. Spazz. :zoinks:
Jack also missed the joke. :M
You have a reading comprehension Jack :M He wasn't joking, but then when he got called out being a hypocrite, that means he was suddenly joking and everyone else just didn't get it and you have a reading comprehension or that you're just a bigot. Just a long as precious odeon isn't wrong, that's all that matters.
You're not terribly bright, are you? Something of a dimwit, a closet radical and easily butthurt.
Oh well. Carry on.
-
If there's video evidence to support the image I linked portrays a lie, then would be interested in seeing it. Looked quite a bit, and that images is the best example found as it also shows Trump at the podium.
There's actually something in that CNN image that bothers me.
What?
-
(http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/1738/7/original/304.jpg)
-
I hope someone puts a bullet through his heart. I was going to say brain but then realised it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Calling for people to be murdered because you cannot deal with other people's views. Bigot.
I guess you didn't get the joke either. Spazz. :zoinks:
Jack also missed the joke. :M
You have a reading comprehension Jack :M He wasn't joking, but then when he got called out being a hypocrite, that means he was suddenly joking and everyone else just didn't get it and you have a reading comprehension or that you're just a bigot. Just a long as precious odeon isn't wrong, that's all that matters.
You're not terribly bright, are you? Something of a dimwit, a closet radical and easily butthurt.
Oh well. Carry on.
"Closet radical" :tinfoil: :rofl: I love it how you're that retarded that you don't understand when I'm being sarcastic :hahaha:
-
(http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2015/01/Vagina-Costumes-0043699978608.jpg)
-
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story
DETROIT (WJBK) - A local business owner flies to Iraq to bring his mother back home to the US for medical treatment. But under President Trump's ban on immigration and travel from seven predominately Muslim nations, he was forced to leave his family behind.
His mother died just one day after being told she couldn't return to the United States.
This makes me sick. She'd been living in the USA legally since 1995 and she had a green card. It's way too close to home.
-
Fuck the administration and fuck the sociopath writing executive orders without thinking them through or giving a clear message about how to enforce them. Fuck all the panicking immigration workers and fuck everything that stopped this guy going straight to a liberal press and getting his story out there fast enough to get an exception granted.
Here's the full text of the damn thing (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html).
It has very specific language written into it for declaring exceptions on a case by case basis, putting the administration in a power-high position of judgement over the course of individuals' lives, according to whatever political or religious hot-buttons they care to enable. Already specifically to favour Christians.
Then there's this article (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump).
The clear path of data through Cambridge Analytics which is partially responsible for Trump's out-of-left-field win. Basically a researcher developed an algorithm that could predict big-5 personality traits based on a user's likes on Facebook. With 150 likes, the algorithm was more accurate in prediction than a person's parents. With 300 likes it was more accurate than a person's spouse.
The researcher was approached by Facebook with a lawsuit and a job offer in the same day. Which he turned down, because he has a conscience, unlike the folks at Cambridge Analytics and its convoluted parent corporate structure, who reproduced his method and hired it out to Trump's campaign as well as other significant elections around the world. They have a personality profile of just about every adult in the United States, broken down by address and phone number. It enabled, for example, the door-to-door campaigners to use an app to know the personality profiles of the adults who lived in a house before they walked up to the door, and they had instructions to tailor their message accordingly. It let them save time by targetting only still-undecided Republican voters. Facebook news feeds were also tailored with this data to target specific profiles of people with specific messages.
And because it was a rip of the researcher's method, not directly working with Facebook likes (which are now allowed to be private), it uses a lot of other bought data and people who don't have or use Facebook are not exempt. Facebook is just one example demonstration that such tactics work.
-
Then there's this article (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump).
Thanks. That's the most interesting thing read in a while.
-
:thumbup:
-
Now we know it wasn't the Russians, the Britts are to blame for Trumps victory. :zoinks:
-
Now we know it wasn't the Russians, the Britts are to blame for Trumps victory. :zoinks:
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/107/736/Hipster_Redcoat.jpg)
-
Very interesting link, Py. +
-
I think most of his supporters are still clueless on what they voted for and the chaos he will cause...but they will find out. Be glad you and Wolfie got out when you did Pyraxis, the hatred is growing.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/21/laura_ingraham_s_nazi_salute_examined/ingrahamsalute.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C17ceTpWQAESzij_zps0qxiyc9e.jpg)
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
-
(http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aZB9wn9_700b.jpg)
-
:laugh:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/WhzZNko.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2m02t8z.png)
-
Have the last two weeks seemed like an eternity to anyone else?
-
Make it the last two months.
-
Oh, I dunno. I think time is flying by at the moment.
-
Backwards.
-
I keep betting on who Trump will piss off next.
...and on another note...the local bookies are already taking bets for impeachment dates. :zoinks:
-
So who will he piss off next?
-
I think most of his supporters are still clueless on what they voted for and the chaos he will cause...but they will find out. Be glad you and Wolfie got out when you did Pyraxis, the hatred is growing.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/21/laura_ingraham_s_nazi_salute_examined/ingrahamsalute.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C17ceTpWQAESzij_zps0qxiyc9e.jpg)
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Every enemy of the establishment is branded the new Hitler. It's a real spit in the face to those who did suffer under the Nazis. It was a clear choice between him and Clinton and Clinton would have been far worse.
Funny that with all the talk of a Russian puppet and he's just acting like another Zio dick sucker, but none of you say a thing :wanker:
-
Another lonely night with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion again, Benji?
-
Another lonely night with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion again, Benji?
You need to educate yourself, retard. If you're too ignorant to understand who's lobbyists are pushing against and have been pushing against Iran for years, and how powerful those lobbyists are, then you're beyond help. Though that was already clear.
-
Every enemy of the establishment is branded the new Hitler.
I think it's funny. :orly:
Here's Obama doing the seig heil. :zoinks:
(http://www.illuminatirex.com/wp-content/uploads/illuminati-sign-obama-nazi.jpg)
And Clinton. :zoinks:
(http://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/hillary_salute.jpg)
I couldn't find one of Bill because he's a rockstar. :zoinks:
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/R-M5BgiD0yI/AAAAAAAAAi0/-HNgLDfszEk/s400/abill_clinton_el_diablo.jpg)
And here's Isreal's Prime Minister. :zoinks:
(http://www.jpattitude.com/IHTM/BenjaminNetanyahu_Heil.jpg)
-
Another lonely night with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion again, Benji?
You need to educate yourself, retard. If you're too ignorant to understand who's lobbyists are pushing against and have been pushing against Iran for years, and how powerful those lobbyists are, then you're beyond help. Though that was already clear.
Try to watch some TV before you go to bed. I think Thomas the Tank Engine might suit you. :zoinks:
-
Every enemy of the establishment is branded the new Hitler.
I think it's funny. :orly:
Here's Obama doing the seig heil. :zoinks:
(http://www.illuminatirex.com/wp-content/uploads/illuminati-sign-obama-nazi.jpg)
And Clinton. :zoinks:
(http://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/hillary_salute.jpg)
I couldn't find one of Bill because he's a rockstar. :zoinks:
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/R-M5BgiD0yI/AAAAAAAAAi0/-HNgLDfszEk/s400/abill_clinton_el_diablo.jpg)
And here's Isreal's Prime Minister. :zoinks:
(http://www.jpattitude.com/IHTM/BenjaminNetanyahu_Heil.jpg)
:laugh:
-
:hitler:
I love what he said about Frederick Douglass...."Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice."
Did no one brief him to let him know that Douglass has been dead since 1895?
....and Kellyanne and the "Bowling Green Massacre". :2thumbsup:
-
The Bowling Green Massacre is an alternative fact. :M
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/igor-25january1716552655-13_zpsoc5b9iff.jpg)
-
Yes, Kellyanne Conway did say "Alternative Facts" and it was a very silly thing to say BUT just not a bit deal....at all. It was clear she meant alternative information. This IS actually very true.
The Chairman of the (Bi-Partisan) Presidential Inauguration Committee, Thomas Barrack Junior was responsible for the Inauguration. The Parks and Recreation did not do an official count. The Liberal Left was giving Trump shit about the size of the crowd. The Trump team went to Thomas Barrack to see how big the size was and he told them it was the biggest and best and bigger and better than Obama's. Armed with that information (or alternative fact) they comment on the crowd size and the audience.
They were actually right about the viewing audience once livestreaming is taken into account. As to the crowd numbers? It seems like they got it wrong but NOT because they were lying but just the information from the right person, was the wrong information.
The "facts" they relied upon, were wrong. No reasonable person thinks that this is somehow meaning that everything they say THEREFORE is "an alternative fact". No reasonable person at all.
As for Liberal News...
The Liberals HATE trump. Not only do they hate him and his supporters and his ideas and the political party he represents, but they are literally prepared to do ANYTHING to strike out at him and anyone remotely associated to him. Truth and morality are not at all needed in their want to "defend" against Trump. Remember all the reports of hate crimes "by Trump supporters" The graffiti on the side of the church found to be by a parishioner, the Mosque that was burned down - ended up being a Muslim anti-Trump, The gay man who was supposedly beaten up and was covered in blood (that in the photos look suspiciously like raspberry jam) and who had to call police and go to hospital to get staples in his head - only to have the police confirm no call made and no hospitals admitted him and the infamous Trump supporters that attacked a Muslim girl and ripped off her hijab - only to find out later that she was lying and charged with making false reports.
They were all before the #pissgate dossier and such. FAKE NEWS. I am sure there is a bit on the right too. In times gone by they were the fake news factory and rightly mocked for it. But in the last few years this has been a feature of the Liberal media. They are propaganda merchants and they have a ready supply of lying Liberals to incriminate, humiliate and destroy themselves on the altar of Progressivism. They will EVEN use their recently dead mother to try to discredit Trump.
After ANY big Liberal news you HAVE to wait at least a week to see if truth overtakes it. They play their readers for mugs and see who the patsies are that will be outraged by their propaganda. You were that person.
It is not that no fake news ever happens on the Right, it does but they are just not as plentiful nor do they have the same audience. There is plenty of crazy on the right. Glenn Beck and Alex Jones have enough crazy to negate any Salon or Buzzfeed. Unfortunately, there is far more than just those two on the Left.
The Right USED to be the kooks and crazies. I think the Liberals of yesteryear were more like the Moderate right is today. The pendulum has swung as the Left has been more infused with crazy Progressives. It will swing back and I suspect after 8 years of Trump, they will be the intolerant, bible bashing, gun toting maniacs they were in the past. But the intolerant ones now are the ones screaming bigotry whilst rioting and burning down communities and assaulting people for not holding the same political ideals that they do.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/igor-25january1716552655-13_zpsoc5b9iff.jpg)
:lol1:
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/03/22/3CCF7C6100000578-4189342-image-a-3_1486161027243.jpg)
-
Another lonely night with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion again, Benji?
You need to educate yourself, retard. If you're too ignorant to understand who's lobbyists are pushing against and have been pushing against Iran for years, and how powerful those lobbyists are, then you're beyond help. Though that was already clear.
Try to watch some TV before you go to bed. I think Thomas the Tank Engine might suit you. :zoinks:
I used to love that.
-
There you go then.
-
My tastes have altered slightly in the last 25 years.
-
Something that sprung up... might prove to be entertaining.
The Official White House Resistance Operation
http://www.potusstaff.com/index.html
Their twitter page...
https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff
-
Something that sprung up... might prove to be entertaining.
The Official White House Resistance Operation
http://www.potusstaff.com/index.html
Their twitter page...
https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff
I am just wondering what they do when Trump, between tweeting snark at his detractors, pushes through with his agendas and ramrods through House, Senate, Congresd and the Supreme Court and with the numbers in the Republican party to do so?
I do not think that the Democrats are worried he will do badly. If so the Trump supporters will turn against him, his results will be poor and yhe Democrats will clean his clock in the Mid Terms (next year?).
I think tbey are worried that he will do well. That his agenda will work and be successful.
America can survive a bad President and that will only strengthen the Democratic Party. At the moment, who is the democratic Figurehead? Hillary? Pelosi? Schumer? Booker?, Ellison? Sanders? Apart from "Fuck with Trump" what have they got?
The Democrats cannot defeat Trump. Trump can defeat Trump.
If Tge democeats wanted to do sonething that may actually make thungs difficult, they should woo McCain, McConnell, Flake, Rubio, and Ryan. Work a the weak links in the RNC. Prep it for when or if Trump fails. Not if he lies, talks nonsense or does something silly or weird, but fails and looks vulnerable then press hard against something selective and important AND with some Republican backing.
That would have an effect. A big one. Thrashing around petulantly at everything and saying he is illegitimate is not working and only makes them look weak and ineffectual
-
I think the current Democratic leadership will have problems defeating Trump, mainly because there isn't one at the moment. Obama left a huge hole when he left, so yeah, you're right. God knows they need a leader.
-
I think the current Democratic leadership will have problems defeating Trump, mainly because there isn't one at the moment. Obama left a huge hole when he left, so yeah, you're right. God knows they need a leader.
I honestly think Booker should step up. He is younger than Sanders, Warren or Pelosi or even Schumer for that matter and not as radical as Ellison.
As to his policies or personality, hevis generally well liked in those circles and if he capitalises on this, who knows?
They are a bit of a trainwreck. They did not have any back up plan if Hillary lost.
McConnel, McCain, Flake, Ryan, Graham and Rubio all have their Liberal positions. All slightly different and a lot shared. They are anti-Trump and tolerate him at best. They need to get less mindlessly activist (without protesting everything) and getting smart. Research to find all the positions these guys disagree with Trump on and make sensible cases for themselves.See if they can slip a few Republicans on crucial issues and see if the collective Democrat bloc with this handful will knock out the House/Senate majority.
How do you think Trump would react, how would that weaken the Republican party and how would it rally the beleaguered Democrat Party.
Instead they whine, bitch, and protest and set fires and beat people and such. all this helps Trump.
-
Trump can defeat Trump.
That, exactly.
They don't have to defeat Trump, all they have to do is make it hard enough for him...and he will self destruct...some of his intentions may have been good, but he is way too in-experienced and unstable.
Not just the Democrats that will be working at it either...Pence is just standing in the background I think and licking his lips with a few others and stoking the fires.
-
Trump can defeat Trump.
That, exactly.
They don't have to defeat Trump, all they have to do is make it hard enough for him...and he will self destruct...some of his intentions may have been good, but he is way too in-experienced and unstable.
Not just the Democrats that will be working at it either...Pence is just standing in the background I think and licking his lips with a few others and stoking the fires.
I think there is still those half of dozen big establishment anti-Trump contingent but I think Pence is not against trump in any way. I think as meek and mild as he appears, he will be a MUCH hardliner than Trump AND will unite the Republican party better than Trump has (not necessarily better than he will). I think Trump's son in law and Bannon and Jason Miller are going to keep him from making huge errors. I am sure he will say some crap or get stuff wrong or be a douchebag or clown or whatever on occasion BUT nothing that will knock him. They will keep him on track.
But imagine if on one of his big promises that he is going to get voted through has 4 or 5 or 6 members of his own party vote against him. Republicans have the majority BUT 5 or 5 people being minused from trump and going to a united Democrat party? He would not handle that well. The spinmasters and the calmers and influencers that help him negotiate policy and such would be rocked and trump would go off the deep end. The claims of traitors and picking of sides and fractures in the Republican party would start. Public sentiment may well take a beating depending on how crazy Trump would go. They would also turn on the Republican party traitors.
But not now. The Democrats need a figurehead to rally behind. They need to stop being outraged and thrashing at everything and blowing everything out of proportion. They have to pick their battles and fight smarter. Being crazy and lashing out at everything disperses the focus and makes the Left look crazy. Which they mostly are.
Personally, where I stand on things is that I have always considered myself Liberal. A classical Liberal (Perhaps more Libertarian depending on your definition) BUT the space I occupy has not shifted and yet is shared now with some holdout Liberals, Libertarians and plenty of moderate and right of centre Conservatives. I think that the Progressives are a bane and that this Trump term will clean a lot of the Progressives and strip them of their Authoritarianism and Control of the Left. I think that is great.
I think too that this gives the Left to realise that the identity politicking and shaming tactics and PC culture and Progress stack are not any longer a powerful consideration and that the Progressivism is NOT Classical Liberalism. One is Authoritarian and the other is not. I think it is time for the Liberals to take stock and to marginalise and minimise the influence of sweet old crazy, Bernie and his lapdog Warren and the radical Ellison and the DNC race baiting cronies like Jackson and Sharpton and get smart. Get less radical and less disingenuous. Allow or freedom of ideas and make their side the reasoned and intellectual alternative. Don't get mad, get even.
The truth is that on average, Republicans and Conservatives are far more sane and persuasive than Liberals and Democrats. At the moment. A few years of eating humble pie, absorbing the loss and doing better and becoming stronger would be great. Thinning out the herd. Getting rid of dead wood.
I think it's important because these reasonable Conservatives winning continually as they are will not be reasonable forever. In 4,5 or 6 yearsof this, they will likely become powerful and become the excessively authoritarian polarised opposite of the Progressive Left and they will be the unreasonable basket cases. Liberals WILL come back.
-
Not sure...but this year especially will be interesting to watch.
Just the judge halting the travel ban for now was worthy of a 3-day twitter melt down. :zoinks:
-
I think the current Democratic leadership will have problems defeating Trump, mainly because there isn't one at the moment. Obama left a huge hole when he left, so yeah, you're right. God knows they need a leader.
Obama wouldn't have done much better than Clinton. Everyone was getting fed up with him. He was just a lame duck and a killer.
-
Everyone? :P
-
I think the current Democratic leadership will have problems defeating Trump, mainly because there isn't one at the moment. Obama left a huge hole when he left, so yeah, you're right. God knows they need a leader.
Obama wouldn't have done much better than Clinton. Everyone was getting fed up with him. He was just a lame duck and a killer.
I never used to read or watch much US Politics. Therefore Obama was an easy sell for me. George Bush was a cowboy and pretty dumb. Obama oozed Presidential. He was so well spoken and articulate. His humour, intellect and demenour sold him as the ideal President.
Then when we deviated from his personality and visuals abd concentrated on how much and how he got things done and what agenda and policies hw had. I was disappointed.
Trump will be almost his opposite I think but will deliver policy and change.Might even be good.
if you could Transplant Trumps work ethic, persuasiveness, and ruthlessness with Obama's articulation and demenour, you have either a brilliant or dangerous man. Mayvr both
-
Everyone? :P
Yeah, people on the left who bought his promises of change and end to wars. And people on the right because their fake stories didn't work. The military industrial complex will miss him because the US could blow up anyone or start proxy wars and pretty much no one would criticise Obama, because of his skin color.
-
https://twitter.com/RogueSNRadvisor/with_replies
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff Feb 6
@berkinstock Nobody knows how to turn on lights in Cabinet Room. Meetings are held in the dark.
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff Feb 6
@CAhernHodgson The sad part is that they're right next to the door. Would point this out, but this has been a rare point of amusement.
74 replies 259 retweets 1,473 likes
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor Feb 4
In FLA, Pres gorging on meatball subs & berating staff - WA judge has him flustered. Binge eats when anxious/mad. Prob 10,000 calories today
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor Feb 6
Pres had to have suits re-fitted after binge eating in FLA all wknd. SB bad timing - staff said "...onion dip flowing like wine", fam... 1/2
4 replies 40 retweets 101 likes
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor Feb 6
...concerned, consid enlisting Dr. Phil/Dr. Drew for emerg counseling; Pres not interested, threw taquito @ Eric Jr. 2/2
15 replies 36 retweets 121 likes
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor 1d1 day ago
Pres in full rage mode 2day; talking abt "public firings" for some subjects of nytimes story. Had electrician brief staff on light switches.
23 replies 144 retweets 300 likes
If 1/2 of this stuff is legit, we're in deep shit.
:spitscreen:
-
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor 2 hours ago
Pres plans 2 cut frmer FLOTUS "healthy lunch" plan - "...if everyone ate like me they'd all be President". Ate 20+ donut holes for lunch.
-
This insider sounds obsessed with food. :zoinks:
-
:laugh:
-
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor 17 minutes ago
OO drafts memo banning "...any clothing purchased at or w/in 100 yards of a Nordstrom from being worn inside WH." Bringing fash expert to ID
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 29 minutes ago
Rogue POTUS Staff Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Just to clarify, POTUS retweeted this personally. Even top aides are angry. Theory is that POTUS striking back @ attempts to manage him.
Rogue POTUS Staff added,
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!
202 replies 795 retweets 1,208 likes
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 24 minutes ago
@SJerzGirl He personally retweeted using official @potus account. Using government twitter to lobby for family business.
5 replies 62 retweets 89 likes
-
Fucking hell. Sorry to say this, guys, but some of you people elected him.
-
What's he distracting people from?
-
What's he distracting people from?
THAT is the right question.
-
What's he distracting people from?
THAT is the right question.
Trump has always been a shit stirrer. He attacks to set his gaming opponent on edge, then plays things the way that makes sense to him.
For instance, I believe that pissing off Pena Nieto is a ploy that will eventually re-open doors to Mexico during future negotiations, USA gaining a bit ...
... but Pena Nieto will be standing up to THE USA and thus become a machismo local/hometown hero. Once a "politico" like Peno Nieto has a history of standing up to "TeH Bully" it will be much more difficult for his socialist opponents to vote him out of office.
A few cartel punks aside, it is the socialists we do not want running Mexico.
Let us all give our new President a moment to find his "sea legs" before we make him walk the plank for spilling coffee in these harsh waters we kive in. please.
:viking:
-
I think the man is an absolute idiot. Yes, sure, he could be trying to hide something altogether more sinister but if he is doing that by making himself look like a fool then I'd say he is failing regardless.
He is an amateur, an uneducated fool, a bully somehow elected into an office that should never have to tolerate any of those things. Yes, we could disagree on politics but this is not what it is about.
-
I think the man is an absolute idiot.
An absolute idiot that acts like a whiny spoiled brat.
I can laugh and overlook the first part, and I even find it entertaining to some degree...he is way, waaaay out of his natural element and might be deserving of a little slack there ...but the incessant egotistical whining.
Nope. If anyone thinks I am sitting here in my Walmart Hello Kitty lounge pants and crying because Nordstrom's dumped poor little Ivanka's fashion line they've lost it.
Put a cork in it already...American's have zero fucks to give about that shit. Work on your healthcare plan.
-
Fucking hell. Sorry to say this, guys, but some of you people elected him.
:trump: Everyone elected me! That's because I'm the most Presidential!
-
:trump: That Nordstrom is getting deported to Sweden! Nobody makes my little girl cry! :blonde:
-
:trump: That Nordstrom is getting deported to Sweden! Nobody makes my little girl cry! :blonde:
But daddy, daddy....they were soooo mean to meeee!
You told me I was special...am I still special daddy? :bigcry:
Get them for me daddy...I know you're the bestest daddy eeevver.
-
He has been getting a lot of attention on the appointments of his cabinet. Its been holding him up. More the media feeds on that, the more it encourages the public to rail against them and the Democrats to be evermore emboldened in their defence. Sessions was held up for the longest time. Betty De Vos need Pence to cast the tiebreaker.
He wants to distract away from this...so...?
Media is now distracted. Who is next in line or upcoming for cabinet appointees? Anyone know? We knew all about Jeff Sessions and Betty de Vos. Anyone care about who is coming up?
Bannon not voted in yet
Edit Tom Price slipped through as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Anyone know who he is or what he used to be or what the objections to him are? I don't.
-
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMlPfKSWgAA1PZt.png)
-
I think the man is an absolute idiot. Yes, sure, he could be trying to hide something altogether more sinister but if he is doing that by making himself look like a fool then I'd say he is failing regardless.
He is an amateur, an uneducated fool, a bully somehow elected into an office that should never have to tolerate any of those things. Yes, we could disagree on politics but this is not what it is about.
An idiot couldn't have won the US election with pretty much the whole press etc against him. He's just playing people on Twitter, he knows idiots will focus on that because the media reports on every post he makes, so he's playing the media too.
Ha, where were you when Obama bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office.
-
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMlPfKSWgAA1PZt.png)
Yep, I'd sign my kids up for that, Bannon could dress up like a clown and ride with them.
That ought to be good for about 5 years of night terrors and some children's therapy bills. ::)
-
No one ever gives me free chopper rides. >:(
-
No one ever gives me free chopper rides. >:(
I was always too chicken shit. I remember sitting in them and getting to play with the controls a few times that was about it.
Nothing plushy like trump's ride though, they were the old green military ones used by the corps of engineers.
-
Edit Tom Price slipped through as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Anyone know who he is or what he used to be or what the objections to him are? I don't.
Apparently he's an orthopedist who got into politics in the southeast USA, and a former member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, per Wikipedia a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine." He's anti-abortion and very Christian, unsurprisingly.
-
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/free-helicopter-rides
:trollface:
-
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/free-helicopter-rides
:trollface:
You're evil.
:zoinks:
-
Edit Tom Price slipped through as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Anyone know who he is or what he used to be or what the objections to him are? I don't.
Apparently he's an orthopedist who got into politics in the southeast USA, and a former member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, per Wikipedia a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine." He's anti-abortion and very Christian, unsurprisingly.
Yup. and while the focus was on Ivanka. He slipped through without a peep from, anyone.
-
No one ever gives me free chopper rides. >:(
That's because they don't trust your evil little mitts anywhere near the controls. :gopher: :police:
-
No one ever gives me free chopper rides. >:(
That's because they don't trust your evil little mitts anywhere near the controls. :gopher: :police:
This is what happens when varmints take over a vehicle. :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLT1FdjbaWw
-
I think the man is an absolute idiot. Yes, sure, he could be trying to hide something altogether more sinister but if he is doing that by making himself look like a fool then I'd say he is failing regardless.
He is an amateur, an uneducated fool, a bully somehow elected into an office that should never have to tolerate any of those things. Yes, we could disagree on politics but this is not what it is about.
An idiot couldn't have won the US election with pretty much the whole press etc against him. He's just playing people on Twitter, he knows idiots will focus on that because the media reports on every post he makes, so he's playing the media too.
Ha, where were you when Obama bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office.
Actually, an idiot was elected, just like that. What are you trying to prove? I think the facts are rather obviously in my favour but believe what you want. "Hey, I'm distracting people by letting them think that I am an idiot." Yeah, right.
I was at home, probably. Why? Did you think I had something to do with Pakistan?
-
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/free-helicopter-rides
:trollface:
I still don't get the joke. :zoinks:
-
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor 5 hours ago
Pres has asked PM Abe now 3 separate times how Japan managed to defeat Godzilla w/o standing army. PM graceful, deflective, opetrified.
43 replies 128 retweets 315 likes
Sue Andrews @Ollie4300 5 hours ago
@RogueSNRadvisor a joke right? Maybe Trump kidding. Does not sound real.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor 5 hours ago
@Ollie4300 I can't stress this enough: this is all real.
That has to be a joke. No one can be that fucking stupid.
Can they? :zombiefuck:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiitQ-5_E_Y
"Get me the fuck out of here."
-
The fate of the free world depends on this man. :laugh:
-
The fate of the free world depends on this man. :laugh:
I disagree. I believe that the concept of a Free World is much larger than all of us put together. It will happen.
Trump is not a trump but more like a plain suit, possibly trumped by world events on a daily basis.
:autism:
-
I think the man is an absolute idiot. Yes, sure, he could be trying to hide something altogether more sinister but if he is doing that by making himself look like a fool then I'd say he is failing regardless.
He is an amateur, an uneducated fool, a bully somehow elected into an office that should never have to tolerate any of those things. Yes, we could disagree on politics but this is not what it is about.
An idiot couldn't have won the US election with pretty much the whole press etc against him. He's just playing people on Twitter, he knows idiots will focus on that because the media reports on every post he makes, so he's playing the media too.
Ha, where were you when Obama bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office.
Actually, an idiot was elected, just like that. What are you trying to prove? I think the facts are rather obviously in my favour but believe what you want. "Hey, I'm distracting people by letting them think that I am an idiot." Yeah, right.
I was at home, probably. Why? Did you think I had something to do with Pakistan?
That's your opinion. He's smarter than you, so not sure what that means you are. He's distracting people and he's smarter than he comes across. Just look at his comments about Syria and not fighting a war on two fronts. Which is what the moronic Obama was doing.
Haha good one. I meant I didn't see a reaction from you.
-
The fate of the free world depends on this man. :laugh:
"Free world" :facepalm2:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLTInBFHNfk
:jerry:
-
I think the man is an absolute idiot. Yes, sure, he could be trying to hide something altogether more sinister but if he is doing that by making himself look like a fool then I'd say he is failing regardless.
He is an amateur, an uneducated fool, a bully somehow elected into an office that should never have to tolerate any of those things. Yes, we could disagree on politics but this is not what it is about.
An idiot couldn't have won the US election with pretty much the whole press etc against him. He's just playing people on Twitter, he knows idiots will focus on that because the media reports on every post he makes, so he's playing the media too.
Ha, where were you when Obama bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office.
Actually, an idiot was elected, just like that. What are you trying to prove? I think the facts are rather obviously in my favour but believe what you want. "Hey, I'm distracting people by letting them think that I am an idiot." Yeah, right.
I was at home, probably. Why? Did you think I had something to do with Pakistan?
That's your opinion. He's smarter than you, so not sure what that means you are. He's distracting people and he's smarter than he comes across. Just look at his comments about Syria and not fighting a war on two fronts. Which is what the moronic Obama was doing.
Haha good one. I meant I didn't see a reaction from you.
:rofl:
Are you seriously holding on to the "I'm only pretending to be an idiot" defence? Do you know what it makes you (and pretty much everybody already knows what he is except you)?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/L2crA4W.png)
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/library-of-congress-store-removes-trump-poster-with-typo/amp/
-
Damn, I thought it was so much better with the typo.
I might have even bought one to remember this moment in history. :zoinks:
-
I think the man is an absolute idiot. Yes, sure, he could be trying to hide something altogether more sinister but if he is doing that by making himself look like a fool then I'd say he is failing regardless.
He is an amateur, an uneducated fool, a bully somehow elected into an office that should never have to tolerate any of those things. Yes, we could disagree on politics but this is not what it is about.
An idiot couldn't have won the US election with pretty much the whole press etc against him. He's just playing people on Twitter, he knows idiots will focus on that because the media reports on every post he makes, so he's playing the media too.
Ha, where were you when Obama bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office.
Actually, an idiot was elected, just like that. What are you trying to prove? I think the facts are rather obviously in my favour but believe what you want. "Hey, I'm distracting people by letting them think that I am an idiot." Yeah, right.
I was at home, probably. Why? Did you think I had something to do with Pakistan?
That's your opinion. He's smarter than you, so not sure what that means you are. He's distracting people and he's smarter than he comes across. Just look at his comments about Syria and not fighting a war on two fronts. Which is what the moronic Obama was doing.
Haha good one. I meant I didn't see a reaction from you.
:rofl:
Are you seriously holding on to the "I'm only pretending to be an idiot" defence? Do you know what it makes you (and pretty much everybody already knows what he is except you)?
I never said he was pretending to be an idiot. I said he's smarter than he seems and is distracting people with meaningless garbage because he knows idiotic retards like you will get hung up on it.
-
How, exactly, do you know that he is smarter than he seems? Wishful thinking? Or simply that since you support him, it would crush your self-image if he really is thick as a brick? After all, what would that say about you?
-
Cause of seeing the way he dismantled people like Jeb Bush and his comments on Syria. Also, he's a business man, he knows what sells. He also knows how the media works, he just has to tweet something and the news are all over it. He's definitely playing games I think. I suspect that too because of how he's all over the place with a lot of issues. I don't support him, I just support the destruction of the current system. He's good on some things, terrible on others. As I said, if he was an idiot he wouldn't have destroyed all the opposition he faced, with pretty much the whole media and the CIA against him. They all tried to make him out to be a joke, but were left in tears and filled with rage when he won. The main thing is, he was the better option out of the terrible two.
-
I do not really think at this point that it can be argued that he plays the media. One of the biggest reasons that he won the Primaries against a far more experienced field is that he starved them of media. No one who did not already know and like Scott Walker could have told you a thing about what he was wanting. Same with Carly Fiorina. In fact apart from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, no one knew anything about what these people wanted an dwhat little they knew, was not enough to base any real opinion on them. Love or hate him, everyone knew what motivated Trump and who he was and what he intended because he played the media. If you are running a political campaign and your opposite steals 95% of teh media headlines, you are dead in the water.
My favourite playing of the media, because it was hysterically funny was him making a pre-announcement that he would be making a statement about the Obama birther claim. Then he spent an hour being endorsed by army vets and such and got plenty of free press and finally almost as an after thought, said "Obama was born in the US". Then he dropped it with no follow up.
As I said, his methods may be disagreed with and his politics may be hated but I do not think it is up for debate that he plays the press and media (and will continue to do so).
-
I am wondering what little physiological games he has in store for Trudeau...Trudeau might be well-prepared though, there is more to that polite Canadian than meets the eye. I hope so.
I do not think Trump is a complete idiot for the record, definitely mentally unstable though.
-
Maybe they'll share a proper handshake? :zoinks:
-
Maybe they'll share a proper handshake? :zoinks:
Maybe Trudeau will put him down on the floor like Abe should have when he plays his little game.
One can only hope. :zoinks:
-
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 1 hour ago
"This guy is an idiot. He has no idea what he's doing." Overheard by Trudeau to Freeland.
332 replies 2,754 retweets 6,734 likes
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 60 minutes ago
Trudeau overheard expressing offense to his cabinet members @ POTUS handshake games. Finds is "disrespectful and tasteless."
151 replies 1,197 retweets 3,638 likes
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 57 minutes ago
PM Tru likens POTUS to "that one kid who never got beaten up only because everyone else thought he was too pathetic to be worth it. (cont)
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 57 minutes ago
"...And now he thinks it's because they all were scared of him. But the whole time they were just laughing at him."
Can we bribe Trudeau to stay? I like him. :LOL:
-
Maybe Trudeau will put him down on the floor like Abe should have when he plays his little game.
Didn't think it was a game. Seemed like a misunderstanding. Abe: Shall we shake hands? Trump: What are they saying? Abe: Please look at me. Trump: looks intently at Abe. Abe: points at the cameras. Trump: glances at the camera and then keeps looking at Abe. It was funny. Seems like something I would do. :laugh: Most mocking in the media is about the length of the handshake, but people shake hands for a long time at photos ops, so that didn't come across as weird.
-
Wasn't the length of the handshake...but the assertive tug of war Trump played while doing it.
Many times that is seen as a bid to assert dominance or control over someone. The "I'm stronger than you, or I'm running this show."
-
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 1 hour ago
"This guy is an idiot. He has no idea what he's doing." Overheard by Trudeau to Freeland.
332 replies 2,754 retweets 6,734 likes
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 60 minutes ago
Trudeau overheard expressing offense to his cabinet members @ POTUS handshake games. Finds is "disrespectful and tasteless."
151 replies 1,197 retweets 3,638 likes
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 57 minutes ago
PM Tru likens POTUS to "that one kid who never got beaten up only because everyone else thought he was too pathetic to be worth it. (cont)
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 57 minutes ago
"...And now he thinks it's because they all were scared of him. But the whole time they were just laughing at him."
Can we bribe Trudeau to stay? I like him. :LOL:
I think this/these guys overplayed their hands already with the Godzilla thing. I get the intent. I was a little skeptical but still open to persuasion. The light switch thing was funny. The food thing, was completely inconsequential, but they went too far ib trying to create something sensationalist that they said the unbelievable. I mean, even now, I could absolutely believe Trump ate what he was said to have eaten, had no idea where the light switches were and then had the Canadian PM thinking he was a horse's arae. All that is believable and unprovably plausible. The Godzilla thing....no.
-
Wasn't the length of the handshake...but the assertive tug of war Trump played while doing it.
Many times that is seen as a bid to assert dominance or control over someone. The "I'm stronger than you, or I'm running this show."
Yes, it definitely could be construed that way. In reading, found it's apparently well known Trump is a person who prefers to not shake hands, had been quoted as calling it barbaric, so before his campaign probably got away with not doing it. Some sources claim germaphobia, but regardless the reason, this isn't the first instance of this behavior. Saw an article with a few examples of his horrible handshake, pumping back and forth instead of up and down, jerking and twisting people arms into odd positions, and one would think someone would have discussed this with him some time ago because it's considered rude. It may be an awkward display of his own personal discomfort, or some weird power play he does on purpose. Either way, it seems it's a social skill he could use some guidance and training.
-
I think this/these guys overplayed their hands already with the Godzilla thing.
This is not the same one. There are about 3+ leaking some pretty credible stuff. This is a group, the other (and yet another) are solo.
Godzilla is not 100% completely discounted sadly. He's commended Harrison Ford in the past for his great job in sticking up for America (in "Air Force One".)
Ford reminded him "it was a movie Donald...a movie"
-
Let me just say this... Nobody leaked stories like this when Obama was in the office. Sure, some disagreed with what he did but that's about it. The fact is that this is how Trump is perceived and for a good reason. If it's all make-believe by him and his cronies to hide a more sinister truth, why not make up something that puts him in a better light?
-
Let me just say this... Nobody leaked stories like this when Obama was in the office. Sure, some disagreed with what he did but that's about it. The fact is that this is how Trump is perceived and for a good reason. If it's all make-believe by him and his cronies to hide a more sinister truth, why not make up something that puts him in a better light?
Word from the inside is Trump is a real joy to be around with his temper tantrums and episodes of throwing things...his daughter just as nasty...Kellyanne is a mega bitch that has reduced staff members to tears berating them...and Bannon is even worse.
Nothing worse than unhappy employees. Obama at least knew how to treat people like they were human. A good work environment does wonders for boosting morale.
-
Watch the news with Flynn and his ties to Russia...supposed to be more to come.
-
The only problem is that Flynn lied. Sure there'll be more propaganda to follow. That's the trouble. People watching the news channels that are just 24/7 propaganda channels.
-
William LeGate @williamlegate 1 hour ago
@realDonaldTrump
You, @WhiteHouse and @POTUS all just unfollowed Kellyanne Connway... got something you wanna tell us?!?
...annnd he's right. Kellyanne has been "un-friended" on twitter. :apondering:
-
Rogue POTUS Staff @RoguePOTUSStaff 1 hour ago
POTUS is annoyed with Kellyanne. Says she keeps "messing up." Upset that her spin clashes with the now official spin created by Pence.
495 replies 1,568 retweets 4,490 likes
...it's reported she will be following Flynn.
:popcorn:
-
Let me just say this... Nobody leaked stories like this when Obama was in the office. Sure, some disagreed with what he did but that's about it. The fact is that this is how Trump is perceived and for a good reason. If it's all make-believe by him and his cronies to hide a more sinister truth, why not make up something that puts him in a better light?
Word from the inside is Trump is a real joy to be around with his temper tantrums and episodes of throwing things...his daughter just as nasty...Kellyanne is a mega bitch that has reduced staff members to tears berating them...and Bannon is even worse.
Nothing worse than unhappy employees. Obama at least knew how to treat people like they were human. A good work environment does wonders for boosting morale.
And keeping rumours from being spread outside the workplace.
-
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor 3 hours ago
Bannon joking this AM about how they'd "...need a wood chipper" to get rid of all the docs/memos showing Rus. connex.
51 replies 611 retweets 595 likes
-
It's going to be an interesting four years. :zoinks:
-
It's going to be an interesting four years. :zoinks:
Definitely. This is better than a soap opera...I never could get into those.
:popcorn:
-
It's going to be an interesting four years. :zoinks:
I'm not sure this soap will last that long.
-
I am glad Hillary is not President. It would have been like having some horrible necrosis and a doctor coming in each day to inspect and remove some more of you until you die.
Trump? That shit is fun. New day and new scandal. It is a war and very difficult to see who is winning.
-
Fun for the rest of the world.
Only fun in a sort of sick way here.
You don't have a Russian spy ship lurking 30 miles off the coast...like we do now in Connecticut.
I wonder if Parts fired up that old shortwave radio. Maybe he's heard some Russian sailor jokes?
-
Fun for the rest of the world.
Only fun in a sort of sick way here.
You don't have a Russian spy ship lurking 30 miles off the coast...like we do now in Connecticut.
I wonder if Parts fired up that old shortwave radio. Maybe he's heard some Russian sailor jokes?
Parts is gonna save us all, using materials he already has at home! :fixin:
-
I really, really hope this one is a fucking joke.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C4zZBA7VcAAWjWH_zpsjbbdcluy.jpg)
-
^ I can't even tell whether that's a joke. It wouldn't be out of character for The Donald. :fp:
-
Looks totally legit. :zoinks:
-
Hillary would have been better. At least she has a basic grasp of how this presidency thing works. And if not, she can always check with the hubby.
-
Hillary would have been loathesome. The pestering and needling of Russia would have set of a cold war at least and I suspect would have resulted in open conflict.
I am sure another Middle East country other than Syria or Libya would have been a target of her insatiable war-mongering. Relationships with Israel would reach new lows. The immigration levels would rise.
The Clinton Foundation all but closed now she is out of office (because it was always about the charities NOT the political favour for cash vehicle) would have done a roaring business.
It would have been 4 years of corruption and graft.
Trump means well and is not leading an agenda that is not transparent. What he said he will do is precisely what he will TRY to do. Which leads to two important questions.
1) Is he able to in putting in practice what he wants to do in theory going to resemble the things that seemed to work in theory?
2) what will that look like and what downsides may come out of doing these things?
What many do is: waste time trying to imply he is stupid, and he isn't; he has ulterior motives, and he doesn't; he is bluffing, he is not; he will not be able to do what he says, and he will;it is coming from others, and it isn't (though its implementation and advise on how to do it, obviously is).
I think the questions above are more important and in fact will be the making or breaking of him.
-
Hillary would have been better. At least she has a basic grasp of how this presidency thing works. And if not, she can always check with the hubby.
Yes, she knows how to be obedient when it comes to the arms industry and the media. There's not a correct way to be President, anyone who is open minded can recognise that. Attacking the media takes balls of steel and a lot of open minded people will respect Trump for that, even if they don't support him. Yeah, cause Bill was so great...
-
Hillary would have been loathesome. The pestering and needling of Russia would have set of a cold war at least and I suspect would have resulted in open conflict.
I am sure another Middle East country other than Syria or Libya would have been a target of her insatiable war-mongering. Relationships with Israel would reach new lows. The immigration levels would rise.
The Clinton Foundation all but closed now she is out of office (because it was always about the charities NOT the political favour for cash vehicle) would have done a roaring business.
It would have been 4 years of corruption and graft.
Trump means well and is not leading an agenda that is not transparent. What he said he will do is precisely what he will TRY to do. Which leads to two important questions.
1) Is he able to in putting in practice what he wants to do in theory going to resemble the things that seemed to work in theory?
2) what will that look like and what downsides may come out of doing these things?
What many do is: waste time trying to imply he is stupid, and he isn't; he has ulterior motives, and he doesn't; he is bluffing, he is not; he will not be able to do what he says, and he will;it is coming from others, and it isn't (though its implementation and advise on how to do it, obviously is).
I think the questions above are more important and in fact will be the making or breaking of him.
Fuck Israel.
-
Actually, Hillary's dog would have been better than Trump. :zoinks:
-
Actually, Hillary's dog would have been better than Trump. :zoinks:
My cat who thinks he's a dog would have been better. :LOL:
He may have some mental issues but I still think Trump has him beat.
-
My cat thinks he's a dog. He's a sweet boy.
-
My cat thinks he's a dog. He's a sweet boy.
Wondering if he is the one that has the same name as mine too? :LOL:
Mine is George, I thought you had a fur baby named George too. :apondering:
-
My cat thinks he's a dog. He's a sweet boy.
Wondering if he is the one that has the same name as mine too? :LOL:
Mine is George, I thought you had a fur baby named George too. :apondering:
George is a cat cat. Farkus is the dog. Always whoring for attention like a needy puppy.
-
Farkus is a cool name. :thumbup:
-
Farkus is a cool name. :thumbup:
He's named after Scut Farkus because he looks like a cat version of him.
-
The nutcase-in-chief lied about Sweden in Florida yesterday. How many lies will it take before he is thrown out?
-
The nutcase-in-chief lied about Sweden in Florida yesterday. How many lies will it take before he is thrown out?
What did he say about Sweden? :orly:
-
The nutcase-in-chief lied about Sweden in Florida yesterday. How many lies will it take before he is thrown out?
What did he say about Sweden? :orly:
He came off and tried to imply that something horrible had happened last night in Sweden. Like some major tragedy.
“You look at what’s happening,” he told his supporters. “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?”
“Sweden,” he said. “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.”
Somewhere, someone in Sweden may have spilled coffee. That's probably about it.
Fucking nutjob and his lies. :wanker:
-
The nutcase-in-chief lied about Sweden in Florida yesterday. How many lies will it take before he is thrown out?
Oh fuck off you hypocritical moron. Every President in history has endlessly lied and I haven't seen you saying they should have been impeached. You're just a dumb parrot.
-
The nutcase-in-chief lied about Sweden in Florida yesterday. How many lies will it take before he is thrown out?
Oh fuck off you hypocritical moron. Every President in history has endlessly lied and I haven't seen you saying they should have been impeached. You're just a dumb parrot.
Are you blind, stupid, or both?
-
Somewhere, someone in Sweden may have spilled coffee. That's probably about it.
What happened at Bowling Green could happen in Sweden! :GA:
-
(http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah5/Poogodandprinceofdarkness/IMG_3351_zpsm2ipacbw.jpeg)
-
We are fucking doomed.
:spitscreen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-3IdNPr1Sg
-
My cat thinks he's a dog. He's a sweet boy.
I have a cat who plays catch with me (but only me - there are a lot of things that only she and I share). I generally use a small (smaller than a ping pong ball jingly cat toy, leather thingy) ball and she chases it down and rips at it for a bit, then brings it back for me to throw again.
Sometimes we use a rubber band. She gets bored with that game quickly, though. I think she is bored because she can't really beat the hell out of it when she grabs it. I brought home a huge rubber band from work about ten inches in diameter. She does beat on that a bit before she brings it back.
She also greets me at the door every time I come home, just like a faithful dog.
-
The nutcase-in-chief lied about Sweden in Florida yesterday. How many lies will it take before he is thrown out?
Oh fuck off you hypocritical moron. Every President in history has endlessly lied and I haven't seen you saying they should have been impeached. You're just a dumb parrot.
Are you blind, stupid, or both?
See you can't even respond. Too ignorant, too brainwashed, too thick.
-
We are fucking doomed.
:spitscreen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-3IdNPr1Sg
I hump on my cardboard trump. :zoinks:
-
Anyone else loves how Trump said that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people? That sounds exactly like something a dictator would say.
-
Anyone else loves how Trump said that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people? That sounds exactly like something a dictator would say.
Except for Fox News (the propaganda channel). :P
Yeah, I think it's sick.
-
The nutcase-in-chief lied about Sweden in Florida yesterday. How many lies will it take before he is thrown out?
Oh fuck off you hypocritical moron. Every President in history has endlessly lied and I haven't seen you saying they should have been impeached. You're just a dumb parrot.
Are you blind, stupid, or both?
See you can't even respond. Too ignorant, too brainwashed, too thick.
:laugh: It's interesting that you don't see the difference. Why is that, do you suppose?
-
Anyone else loves how Trump said that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people? That sounds exactly like something a dictator would say.
Except for Fox News (the propaganda channel). :P
Yeah, I think it's sick.
Answer this as truthfully as you can. :zoinks:
https://gop.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/
-
Anyone else loves how Trump said that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people? That sounds exactly like something a dictator would say.
Except for Fox News (the propaganda channel). :P
Yeah, I think it's sick.
Answer this as truthfully as you can. :zoinks:
https://gop.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/
That reminds of a time many years ago when I agreed to take an opinion poll over the telephone.
I think I was actually drunk at the time, but every question contained and lead to the answer that they expected to hear in your reply.
It was difficult to finish without "sniggering," snickering or even snorting out loud.
:lol1:
-
Fuck, it's long. I gave up halfway through.
-
One Jim Patel of Alaska filled out the survey. Apparently he is a die-hard liberal. :angel:
-
The nutcase-in-chief lied about Sweden in Florida yesterday. How many lies will it take before he is thrown out?
Oh fuck off you hypocritical moron. Every President in history has endlessly lied and I haven't seen you saying they should have been impeached. You're just a dumb parrot.
Are you blind, stupid, or both?
See you can't even respond. Too ignorant, too brainwashed, too thick.
:laugh: It's interesting that you don't see the difference. Why is that, do you suppose?
I see the difference, the media have suddenly started caring what the President does.
Also. Trump didn't lie about the Sweden thing and said nothing about terrorism there. He was referring to something he'd seen about rapey refugees the night before.
-
No technically maybe "he didn't lie".
He just "misled" how many people because he's a fucking drama queen.
-
"Foreign policy by Fox News"
-
What IS happening in Sweden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDSj8u_y0aY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2tC0WER7w
Are you and your family safe from this?
-
No technically maybe "he didn't lie".
He just "misled" how many people because he's a fucking drama queen.
In reality, the media lied about what he said and misled them. He was just being clumsy.
-
No technically maybe "he didn't lie".
He just "misled" how many people because he's a fucking drama queen.
In reality, the media lied about what he said and misled them. He was just being clumsy.
Too clumsy can be very tricky in politics.
-
Fuck, it's long. I gave up halfway through.
I gave up very early.
-
No technically maybe "he didn't lie".
He just "misled" how many people because he's a fucking drama queen.
In reality, the media lied about what he said and misled them. He was just being clumsy.
I watched the video.
Clumsy is tripping over your own feet. He and his cabinet are playing on people's fears and outright making shit up as they go along.
It's like watching someone shoot up with heroin and having them tell you "oh it's fine...they're diabetic". It is an outright insult to your intelligence and horrifying to watch.
Sure all politicians lie, Reagan lied, Clinton lied, Bush lied. But FFS at the rate they're going to surpass Nixon and it's been what... like a month???
People deserve better than this, in this nation and among our allied nations...they deserve to feel secure and feel like there is someone in control of the helm that actually knows a little about WTF they're doing. If he can't provide that, he should at least have the common sense when to STFU and not provoke fear and unrest.
-
He was just being clumsy.
Political leaders don't generally step in front of a microphone unprepared. There's probably a talented speech writer out there hanging his head and sighing while saying, just stick to the copy.
-
For those of you who like a vacation from reality.
http://www.hillarybeattrump.org
-
What IS happening in Sweden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDSj8u_y0aY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2tC0WER7w
Are you and your family safe from this?
There are a few Stockholm suburbs that tend to have this sort of thing every few years. Comes from the authorities neglecting the areas and the locals responding in stupid ways.
It's half a country away.
-
No technically maybe "he didn't lie".
He just "misled" how many people because he's a fucking drama queen.
In reality, the media lied about what he said and misled them. He was just being clumsy.
The media also lied about what happened. Fox did some creative editing and Trump, being the gullible fool he is, bought it.
And again, no, he isn't the first president to lie and he certainly won't be the last, but he seems to be going for the all time record in stupid and easily exposed lies.
-
What IS happening in Sweden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDSj8u_y0aY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2tC0WER7w
Are you and your family safe from this?
There are a few Stockholm suburbs that tend to have this sort of thing every few years. Comes from the authorities neglecting the areas and the locals responding in stupid ways.
It's half a country away.
Good to hear. It looks crazy
-
No technically maybe "he didn't lie".
He just "misled" how many people because he's a fucking drama queen.
In reality, the media lied about what he said and misled them. He was just being clumsy.
The media also lied about what happened. Fox did some creative editing and Trump, being the gullible fool he is, bought it.
And again, no, he isn't the first president to lie and he certainly won't be the last, but he seems to be going for the all time record in stupid and easily exposed lies.
Not sure why you're calling Trump gullible when you bought the lies from other news stations. You would never admit to the rapey 'refugee' problem anyway.
Well it wasn't really that easy, as you accused him of lying, based on you falling for media lies about what Trump said. The same media was silent for 8 years. Obama promised to stop wars in the Middle East, then bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office, had involvement in the 08/09 massacre in Gaza and escalated the ongoing wars as well as starting others. Far worse than Trump being clumsy when explains what he'd sewn on TV the night before.
-
I saw on Twitter the young lady who sang at Trump's inauguration is calling out Trump on transgender rights, in reaction to Trump reversing protections for transgender students.
So, my thing is... Trump had an underage girl sing the national anthem at his inauguration? :zoinks:
-
No technically maybe "he didn't lie".
He just "misled" how many people because he's a fucking drama queen.
In reality, the media lied about what he said and misled them. He was just being clumsy.
The media also lied about what happened. Fox did some creative editing and Trump, being the gullible fool he is, bought it.
And again, no, he isn't the first president to lie and he certainly won't be the last, but he seems to be going for the all time record in stupid and easily exposed lies.
Not sure why you're calling Trump gullible when you bought the lies from other news stations. You would never admit to the rapey 'refugee' problem anyway.
Well it wasn't really that easy, as you accused him of lying, based on you falling for media lies about what Trump said. The same media was silent for 8 years. Obama promised to stop wars in the Middle East, then bombed Pakistan after 3 days in office, had involvement in the 08/09 massacre in Gaza and escalated the ongoing wars as well as starting others. Far worse than Trump being clumsy when explains what he'd sewn on TV the night before.
"Clumsy"
-
I saw on Twitter the young lady who sang at Trump's inauguration is calling out Trump on transgender rights, in reaction to Trump reversing protections for transgender students.
So, my thing is... Trump had an underage girl sing the national anthem at his inauguration? :zoinks:
Not understanding the point you are making
-
(http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2017/2/19/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-19%20at%2012.29.29%20PM.png)
-
Sweden's in Trump's news again. Fucking sensationalist moron.
-
I saw on Twitter the young lady who sang at Trump's inauguration is calling out Trump on transgender rights, in reaction to Trump reversing protections for transgender students.
So, my thing is... Trump had an underage girl sing the national anthem at his inauguration? :zoinks:
Being that my life has mostly involved "TeH arts" growing up in music, gravitating later toward photography as career choices, I have met and gotten to know many transgender, bi- and homo- people. My wife, having gone to CCAD and pursuing a career in graphic design later focusing more on photography as a career choice (coincidentally how we met, BTW) has also met a great number of transgender, bi- and homo- people.
There is only one I have met in all these years that I would be truly hesitant to be allowed in a public restroom with either of my Teenaged kids.
On the other hand, in current news there was a recently released from prison, pedophile who was arrested for assaulting and molesting a nine year old girl in a "unisex/family restroom" inside a Kroger grocery store.
Some types are just waiting for common people to look away for a moment to ... do what they do.
What is the answer? How can WE allow gender freedoms AND (MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!) keep kids safe from those who sit in wait and will find a way when they can to do what they do.
-
Sweden's in Trump's news again. Fucking sensationalist moron.
...and now he is only letting select media coverage at the latest WH briefing. CNN, New York Times...and others that he doesn't "approve" of were blocked from attending.
He said that much of the press represents "the enemy of the people."
WTF will next week bring I wonder?
I bet therapists and liquor stores are doing a booming business lately. A year of this shit and the whole nation will be on meds or suffering from liver failure.
-
Like the media isn't full of sensationalism. I think it's great that he's taking on CNN and co, they aren't real media anyway.
-
Like the media isn't full of sensationalism. I think it's great that he's taking on CNN and co, they aren't real media anyway.
You really don't get it do you? ::)
-
What is the answer? How can WE allow gender freedoms AND (MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!) keep kids safe from those who sit in wait and will find a way when they can to do what they do.
In reading about the arguments for and against, it seems the real question might be, is it necessary to have federal laws governing the restrooms of public schools, or it that matter of the state. If it's important enough to be a federal law, then it should be brought before congress, rather than the nonsense of playing badminton with executive orders.
-
Like the media isn't full of sensationalism. I think it's great that he's taking on CNN and co, they aren't real media anyway.
You really don't get it do you? ::)
He never did.
Listening Trump deliver his latest on Sweden, I realise how fragile his delivery is, and yet how strong it can be when people choose to ignore facts. Fake news as he would call them. How easy it is to lie when you know that your audience won't ever challenge you.
-
What did he actually say about Sweden? Was it about the riots?
-
Yeah, what did he say about Sweeden this time? :orly:
-
Peter Springare
February 3 at 11:18pm · Örebro, Sweden ·
I'm so fucking tired. What I will write here below, is not politically correct. But I don't care. What I'm going to promote you all taxpayers is prohibited to peddle for us state employees. That tends to drive in a non-career and non-individual pay. Even though it's true. I don't care about all of this, will soon still retire after 47 years in this activity. I will now and every week to explain in detail what for employing me as investigators / investigator on coarse mcu police in örebro. It's not going to be good with the opinion or other leftist kriminologers perception in the general debate.
Our pensioners is on its knees, the school's a mess, healthcare is an inferno, the police have totalhavererat etc etc. We all know why but no one dare or wants to peddle the reason, due to the fact that Sweden always lived on the myth of prudes ultimate society who have osinnliga resources to be at the forefront when it comes to be the only politically correct option in a dysfunctional world that beats Knot on their own by destructive behavior in different name of.
Here we go; this I've handled Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, off of, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, Rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment.
Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christopher... what is it true. Yes a Swedish name snuck on the outskirts of a drug crime, Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.
Countries representing the weekly all crimes: Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown, unknown country, Sweden. Half of the suspects, we can't be sure because they don't have any valid papers. Which in itself usually means that they're lying about your nationality and identity.
Now we're talking just örebro municipality. And these crimes occupies our utredningsförmåga to 100 %.
So it looks here and has been like for the past 10-15 years.
Return next Friday with a statement for the past week
-
Like the media isn't full of sensationalism. I think it's great that he's taking on CNN and co, they aren't real media anyway.
You really don't get it do you? ::)
He never did.
Listening Trump deliver his latest on Sweden, I realise how fragile his delivery is, and yet how strong it can be when people choose to ignore facts. Fake news as he would call them. How easy it is to lie when you know that your audience won't ever challenge you.
Oh the irony. You dumb ignorant bitch.
-
Sweden's in Trump's news again. Fucking sensationalist moron.
...and now he is only letting select media coverage at the latest WH briefing. CNN, New York Times...and others that he doesn't "approve" of were blocked from attending.
He said that much of the press represents "the enemy of the people."
WTF will next week bring I wonder?
I bet therapists and liquor stores are doing a booming business lately. A year of this shit and the whole nation will be on meds or suffering from liver failure.
Those companies have made up fake stories about him, so not surprising from Trump.
I'd say more than much of the press represents the "enemy of the people". Most people don't even understand how and why they are being played.
-
I don't care what their sources are, I don't care if some of it is "fake" news...he's spewing it too.
The people have a right to decide that for themselves, they have a right to compare the facts and to listen to whatever channels they damn well fucking please...without suppression...without those channels being made to "play nice" or "go home"...because the grand cheeto is butthurt that someone said mean things about him.
It's called "freedom of the press"...and it's written in our constitution...and he's riding a fine line on violating that.
He is the first president in 40 yrs to not release his taxes, the first president to invite Russia to "hack" his opponent.
The interference from Russia is still under investigation, meanwhile he sings praises for them...then we have the messy business with Flynn...and every time one of his so-called "fake news" channels whispers "Russiagate"...the parrot squawks and tries to shut them up...even wants help from the FBI to do it.
"Methinks thou dost protest too much"
Let's give up the freedom we already have and start listening to the "Trump channel" government controlled media. It works for Russia. :autism:
-
What did he actually say about Sweden? Was it about the riots?
http://www.thelocal.se/20170224/trump-badmouths-sweden-germany-paris-in-one-go
-
Like the media isn't full of sensationalism. I think it's great that he's taking on CNN and co, they aren't real media anyway.
You really don't get it do you? ::)
He never did.
Listening Trump deliver his latest on Sweden, I realise how fragile his delivery is, and yet how strong it can be when people choose to ignore facts. Fake news as he would call them. How easy it is to lie when you know that your audience won't ever challenge you.
Oh the irony. You dumb ignorant bitch.
The irony is that he is not very good at this lying thing. He is easy to expose.
-
What did he actually say about Sweden? Was it about the riots?
http://www.thelocal.se/20170224/trump-badmouths-sweden-germany-paris-in-one-go
Sure, but I mean "What has he said?"
It's all very subjective and vague inference. What has he actually said. If he is lying, and he well may be, what is that lie?
I expected to see something substantial like "Swedish murder rate has jumped 300%"
That would be a lie and easily countered. It is a direct claim.
OR
He could say something juat outlandish like Swedish Mums ear babies more than any other country.
That is the kind of thing I was expecting for the accusations that he lied snd was outrageous that everyone has said.
What you showed me was vague inferences which seem abstract and subjective
-
That's the thing. He is being vague and avoiding any specifics.
HIs first comment was about what supposedly happened in Sweden "last night":
"You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible"
This confused many, including most Swedes, who were all wondering what actually happened in Sweden last night. It quickly became a joke on Twitter.
Trump later said that he was actually referring to something he saw on Fox News, a piece that was shown to be rather creatively edited in an effort to prove the film-maker's views on immigration.
Trump then gave a repeat performance at a conservative rally:
"Take a look at what’s happening in Europe. I took a lot of heat on Sweden. And then a day later I said ‘has anybody reported what’s going on?’ And it turned out not too many of them did. Take a look at what happened in Sweden. I love Sweden. Great country, great people, I love Sweden. But they understand I’m right. The people over there understand I’m right. "
Again, no specifics, just some vague hints, most likely to the Rinkeby riots, but proving nothing, saying nothing.
This is someone with an agenda, someone who lies by omission. There are hints but nothing explicit, nothing tangible. Because if there was, then yes, it would be easy to disprove him. It would be easy to show that he should probably stop worrying about terrorist immigrants and start looking at the violence in his own country.
If this had been some hack writing for a second-rate right-wing website, I would have shrugged because those do exist and produce exactly this kind of sensationalist junk, but this is the president of the most powerful nation on the planet, basically inventing fake news.
-
See, I do not see what you see. At least in this case I can see what you are saying, I simply do not see it the same way.
Trump talks in a way that is hyperbolic, generalised and sometimes exaggerated for effect but also elliptically. Is anything he said lies? I don't know. You don't either.
What he IS doing, is giving an impression about something. If you say that what he is or seems to be hinting at is that Sweden is having issues and the intake of refugees is at least part of the issue, that at least seems more than solid. But there is nothing concrete. Show me something concrete and we can dispel the lie.
It's like me saying "Well you know what those small African countries are like? There is stuff happening in the Congo at the moment you know"
What have I just said? Nothing really but it has given a persuasive impression that small African countries are somehow vaguely negative. It is in relation to unrest or war or some other nefarious thing. You would not know from this statement and so there is nothing to point to with an accusation of a lie. In fact, I may, after clarifying away from such a vague, generalised point, come up with a very solid issue. Maybe specific to the Congo or maybe small African countries generally or specifically or maybe it is to Congo specifically but is an issue that is generally shared by small African countries.
I tend to let stuff like this wash over unless there is something specific for me to question or whatever.
I would absolutely agree with you though that his way of speaking is often annoying and difficult to get a bead on. Like or hate Obama, he was extremely articulate. Trump often as not is not.
-
I'd say it's lying since it's about implying something that isn't true.
-
It would be easy to show that he should probably stop worrying about terrorist immigrants and start looking at the violence in his own country.
This seems to be the crux of the matter, not that anything false is being said, but rather the point of referencing other countries in a perceived negative context. Though it seems fairly accepted that the average American doesn't generally care about the sociological problems of other countries, so your point is still a good one. If political leaders wish to point to examples of Islamic extremist acts, then they need look no further than the US.
-
How easy it is to lie when you know that your audience won't ever challenge you.
The audience will certainly challenge every word he says.
-
I believe it's fear-mongering.
He has an agenda and if he plays on people's fears it will help speed it along.
Trump knows how many American's are stuffing their face while watching TV 24/7 behind closed blinds, locked doors and a security system.
All they know about Sweden or any other country for that matter amounts to what they hear at church, on TV, Facebook, or a package of Swedish fish they purchased at the gas station while they filled up their 20,000+ car with it's remote starter.
Some will challenge it, some will weigh the facts, but many won't...they believe everything someone tells them...they are the reason why we have warning labels on blenders not to stick your hand inside when it's running.
Want to control someone?
Find out what they're afraid of...or better yet...what they're afraid of losing.
-
I fear your analysis is correct, IQ.
Though this seems to trigger people to come in action. Wonder how our blond populist fearmonger with weird hair will do in less than three weeks.
-
Trump knows how many American's are stuffing their face while watching TV 24/7 behind closed blinds, locked doors and a security system.
Not meeee. No sir! :calodeon:
*checks the doors for the third time* :pizza: :tv: :dino2:
-
I believe it's fear-mongering.
Probably. Though personally more curious about what the other hand is doing. Most likely something more interesting.
*checks the doors for the third time*
:laugh: *checks security system*
-
I believe it's fear-mongering.
Probably. Though personally more curious about what the other hand is doing. Most likely something more interesting.
*checks the doors for the third time*
:laugh: *checks security system*
*cleans shotgun*
-
*checks the blender* :zoinks:
-
I'd say it's lying since it's about implying something that isn't true.
Not so sure and it is for precisely the reasons I have said. He has not tied himself down to anything. It may well be something specific that he is alluding to is an oblique way. Maybe it is the riots specifically and maybe more specific information as to why the riots here, in particular, are of special interest. You tell us it is a mundane seasonal thing. That is not something I care to question BUT what IF these riots, in particular, THIS time were fueled or organised by something other than they have in past years and it is indicative of a larger issue that he was aware of.
Something like that would make sense. But was it about the riots at all, even? That again is the problem. We could do a big back and forth and look at that premise from all sides and see whether he was right in what he said on the basis that the riots were his reasoning for saying what he said and at the end of it, it possibly was not even what he was alluding to.
I do not know what he was saying and so whether or not he was lying. Nor do you. Nor does anyone here. In fact none of even know what he was alluding to.
As for whether this is fear-mongering? I don't know. I do not think that vague assertions really stoke fear.
"Russians are getting pretty edgy and hinting at possible military action" or "Russians are going to drop a nuke on us if we do not pull troops back from the Russian border"
One would stoke concern and interest the other would stoke fear and panic and a demand for things to be done asap.
So fear mongering? Maybe? I don't know.
-
...probably all of you saw this, but maybe not.
Friday, Trump addressed the crowd at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference).
Some awesome "supporter" handed out close to 1,000 "Trump" flags at the door....
...Russian flags. :rofl:
(http://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cpacrussia-660x330.jpg)
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/donald-trump-cpac-russian-flag.jpg)
-
(http://ci.memecdn.com/9462061.jpg)
That picture of the guy with all the flags is someone confiscating them. :lol1: I can't believe people gave them up. I would have been all like, what flag? I don't know what you're talking about. :dunno:
-
^As you shove it in your jacket/down your shirt/down your pants, etc. :zoinks:
-
^As you shove it in your jacket/down your shirt/down your pants, etc. :zoinks:
It's my personal property so I'd have to tell them, I can see their lips moving but I can't hear a word they're saying. :zoinks:
-
...probably all of you saw this, but maybe not.
Friday, Trump addressed the crowd at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference).
Some awesome "supporter" handed out close to 1,000 "Trump" flags at the door....
...Russian flags. :rofl:
(http://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cpacrussia-660x330.jpg)
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/donald-trump-cpac-russian-flag.jpg)
But it was not a Trump supporter, ir was Ryan Clayton a contributor to Huffington Post.
So I do get that a Liberal Media writer wanted to manufacture a controversy and the liberal Media is making a lot of hay out of it but I do not see the issue
-
How easy it is to lie when you know that your audience won't ever challenge you.
The audience will certainly challenge every word he says.
Was referring to the rally audience.
-
I'd say it's lying since it's about implying something that isn't true.
Not so sure and it is for precisely the reasons I have said. He has not tied himself down to anything. It may well be something specific that he is alluding to is an oblique way. Maybe it is the riots specifically and maybe more specific information as to why the riots here, in particular, are of special interest. You tell us it is a mundane seasonal thing. That is not something I care to question BUT what IF these riots, in particular, THIS time were fueled or organised by something other than they have in past years and it is indicative of a larger issue that he was aware of.
Something like that would make sense. But was it about the riots at all, even? That again is the problem. We could do a big back and forth and look at that premise from all sides and see whether he was right in what he said on the basis that the riots were his reasoning for saying what he said and at the end of it, it possibly was not even what he was alluding to.
I do not know what he was saying and so whether or not he was lying. Nor do you. Nor does anyone here. In fact none of even know what he was alluding to.
As for whether this is fear-mongering? I don't know. I do not think that vague assertions really stoke fear.
"Russians are getting pretty edgy and hinting at possible military action" or "Russians are going to drop a nuke on us if we do not pull troops back from the Russian border"
One would stoke concern and interest the other would stoke fear and panic and a demand for things to be done asap.
So fear mongering? Maybe? I don't know.
IQ put it better than I did. This is a man with an agenda, and that agenda is fear.
-
...probably all of you saw this, but maybe not.
Friday, Trump addressed the crowd at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference).
Some awesome "supporter" handed out close to 1,000 "Trump" flags at the door....
...Russian flags. :rofl:
(http://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cpacrussia-660x330.jpg)
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/donald-trump-cpac-russian-flag.jpg)
Master troll. :rofl:
-
How easy it is to lie when you know that your audience won't ever challenge you.
The audience will certainly challenge every word he says.
Was referring to the rally audience.
Me too.
-
I don't care what their sources are, I don't care if some of it is "fake" news...he's spewing it too.
The people have a right to decide that for themselves, they have a right to compare the facts and to listen to whatever channels they damn well fucking please...without suppression...without those channels being made to "play nice" or "go home"...because the grand cheeto is butthurt that someone said mean things about him.
It's called "freedom of the press"...and it's written in our constitution...and he's riding a fine line on violating that.
He is the first president in 40 yrs to not release his taxes, the first president to invite Russia to "hack" his opponent.
The interference from Russia is still under investigation, meanwhile he sings praises for them...then we have the messy business with Flynn...and every time one of his so-called "fake news" channels whispers "Russiagate"...the parrot squawks and tries to shut them up...even wants help from the FBI to do it.
"Methinks thou dost protest too much"
Let's give up the freedom we already have and start listening to the "Trump channel" government controlled media. It works for Russia. :autism:
See you don't realise that your news channels are controlled by the same companies and corporations that control the government.
Making up fake stories about someone who's life is under threat is very wrong. There's plenty to critcise Trump about and the Zio snakes in his ear, but CNN and co have only just started to tell Americans what a settlement in occupied territories is.
The whole Russia things is a joke. Hillary Clinton was getting money from the same countries that fund ISIS. Media was silent. Obama was arming Al Qaeda in Syria. Media was silent. Israel is the country that basically controls US politics and the media is silent about that too. Your news channels need to be shut down as they will never change. As bad as Trump is, it's good to finally see someone take them on.
-
Like the media isn't full of sensationalism. I think it's great that he's taking on CNN and co, they aren't real media anyway.
You really don't get it do you? ::)
He never did.
Listening Trump deliver his latest on Sweden, I realise how fragile his delivery is, and yet how strong it can be when people choose to ignore facts. Fake news as he would call them. How easy it is to lie when you know that your audience won't ever challenge you.
Oh the irony. You dumb ignorant bitch.
The irony is that he is not very good at this lying thing. He is easy to expose.
Good. It's better to have a transparent President. Rather than a pathological liar like Clinton or Obama. You didn't say a word about Obama's crimes over the last 8 years, so you can't be taken seriously in the slightest.
-
...probably all of you saw this, but maybe not.
Friday, Trump addressed the crowd at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference).
Some awesome "supporter" handed out close to 1,000 "Trump" flags at the door....
...Russian flags. :rofl:
(http://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cpacrussia-660x330.jpg)
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/donald-trump-cpac-russian-flag.jpg)
But it was not a Trump supporter, ir was Ryan Clayton a contributor to Huffington Post.
So I do get that a Liberal Media writer wanted to manufacture a controversy and the liberal Media is making a lot of hay out of it but I do not see the issue
See that's the trouble with people like 'IQ' and Odeon, they will only question what they oppose or what the media tells them to.
-
Believe what you want to believe Benji.
Time will tell.
:popcorn:
-
It isn't me who's believing what they want to believe. Are you that naive and ignorant that you didn't realise that impeachment is being planned because Trump is a threat to the Military Industrial Complex?
http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/02/25/the-trump-effect-on-the-balance-of-power-in-the-middle-east/
-
...and maybe I think you're naive and ignorant for believing what you do.
Each of us can choose what we want to believe...and in the end it isn't going to matter anyways. You're some random aspie with no social life posting on a forum from another country...and I'm some random aspie with no social life doing the same...the only very tiny difference being that I vote in this country.
We aren't going to change a fucking thing...it's just interesting drama.
-
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1A75/production/_94737760_sweden5.jpg)
-
:spitscreen:
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C3yI-bLWEAEeRAT_zpspvyr4eqb.jpg)
-
...and maybe I think you're naive and ignorant for believing what you do.
Each of us can choose what we want to believe...and in the end it isn't going to matter anyways. You're some random aspie with no social life posting on a forum from another country...and I'm some random aspie with no social life doing the same...the only very tiny difference being that I vote in this country.
We aren't going to change a fucking thing...it's just interesting drama.
"So let's leave it alone/'Cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guy/There ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree." :autism:
-
...and maybe I think you're naive and ignorant for believing what you do.
Each of us can choose what we want to believe...and in the end it isn't going to matter anyways. You're some random aspie with no social life posting on a forum from another country...and I'm some random aspie with no social life doing the same...the only very tiny difference being that I vote in this country.
We aren't going to change a fucking thing...it's just interesting drama.
The difference being that I've made the most of my lack of a social life, learning about politics. Where as you've just continued to watch the same news and have learned nothing. I guess if you've not got the desire to question your beliefs and learn new things by now, you never will have.
-
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1A75/production/_94737760_sweden5.jpg)
You still can't admit that you parroted the media's lies and got it wrong can you?
-
...and maybe I think you're naive and ignorant for believing what you do.
Each of us can choose what we want to believe...and in the end it isn't going to matter anyways. You're some random aspie with no social life posting on a forum from another country...and I'm some random aspie with no social life doing the same...the only very tiny difference being that I vote in this country.
We aren't going to change a fucking thing...it's just interesting drama.
The difference being that I've made the most of my lack of a social life, learning about politics. Where as you've just continued to watch the same news and have learned nothing. I guess if you've not got the desire to question your beliefs and learn new things by now, you never will have.
...and I basically think you have learned nothing also. So we're even.
-
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1A75/production/_94737760_sweden5.jpg)
You still can't admit that you parroted the media's lies and got it wrong can you?
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/miss-me-yet-2009-nope-2010-nope-2011-nope-2012-11925077.png)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C5cdrqGUwAAev6k_zpsux9u4scz.jpg)
-
...and maybe I think you're naive and ignorant for believing what you do.
Each of us can choose what we want to believe...and in the end it isn't going to matter anyways. You're some random aspie with no social life posting on a forum from another country...and I'm some random aspie with no social life doing the same...the only very tiny difference being that I vote in this country.
We aren't going to change a fucking thing...it's just interesting drama.
The difference being that I've made the most of my lack of a social life, learning about politics. Where as you've just continued to watch the same news and have learned nothing. I guess if you've not got the desire to question your beliefs and learn new things by now, you never will have.
...and I basically think you have learned nothing also. So we're even.
Well your trouble is that you don't think.
-
Retarded and brainwashed Odeon showing he gets 'his' views from 'comedians' like Bill Maher. No one with multiple brain cells is missing W. The war industry is of course and Obama as well. They were both identical, Obama being slightly worse.
-
...and maybe I think you're naive and ignorant for believing what you do.
Each of us can choose what we want to believe...and in the end it isn't going to matter anyways. You're some random aspie with no social life posting on a forum from another country...and I'm some random aspie with no social life doing the same...the only very tiny difference being that I vote in this country.
We aren't going to change a fucking thing...it's just interesting drama.
The difference being that I've made the most of my lack of a social life, learning about politics. Where as you've just continued to watch the same news and have learned nothing. I guess if you've not got the desire to question your beliefs and learn new things by now, you never will have.
...and I basically think you have learned nothing also. So we're even.
Well your trouble is that you don't think.
:orly: Maybe I do and I just think you're not worth my time arguing with.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C5cdrqGUwAAev6k_zpsux9u4scz.jpg)
I hate when people do that. The scale is 1-10. >:(
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/17nq9f.jpg)
Trump isn't the only one to say something that never happened.
-
No one cares what Clinton says anymore, and that's the big difference. I also sometimes say things that never happened. :zoinks:
-
Trump is all about hyperbole, broad generalisations and exaggerations. When he says a hundred people did x you can take it for granted, it wasn't a hundred people, maybe two or three dozen.
What does the press do, to discredit him, either deny his claim whole cloth or show what he was referring to. In the first instance they get shouted dozen as people show through social media and Conservative outlets, the dozens of people and they get slammed fot being fake news, or they show it was just the dozen people and he gets exposure on whatever he was talking about.
Its clever and it plays the press like a violin.
I think it is not entirely honest of him but it is not the worse kind of dishonesty. No secret billions in the dead of night to Iran, I never had sexual relations with that woman, I handed over all the emails kind of lying
-
Retarded and brainwashed Odeon showing he gets 'his' views from 'comedians' like Bill Maher. No one with multiple brain cells is missing W. The war industry is of course and Obama as well. They were both identical, Obama being slightly worse.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Uj-8f7m4p5c/VnVCtEeImII/AAAAAAAAO-8/VxPf938bwGM/s1600/12345512_10153678251955280_3182381419713888446_n.jpg)
-
Trump is all about hyperbole, broad generalisations and exaggerations. When he says a hundred people did x you can take it for granted, it wasn't a hundred people, maybe two or three dozen.
What does the press do, to discredit him, either deny his claim whole cloth or show what he was referring to. In the first instance they get shouted dozen as people show through social media and Conservative outlets, the dozens of people and they get slammed fot being fake news, or they show it was just the dozen people and he gets exposure on whatever he was talking about.
Its clever and it plays the press like a violin.
I think it is not entirely honest of him but it is not the worse kind of dishonesty. No secret billions in the dead of night to Iran, I never had sexual relations with that woman, I handed over all the emails kind of lying
You're entitled to an opinion, of course. I'd rather have a competent president lying about an affair than an incompetent one lying about, well, everything.
It's not smart, it's stupid. Smart is to make people think you're telling them the truth.
-
Retarded and brainwashed Odeon showing he gets 'his' views from 'comedians' like Bill Maher. No one with multiple brain cells is missing W. The war industry is of course and Obama as well. They were both identical, Obama being slightly worse.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Uj-8f7m4p5c/VnVCtEeImII/AAAAAAAAO-8/VxPf938bwGM/s1600/12345512_10153678251955280_3182381419713888446_n.jpg)
:facepalm2:
http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/
-
I find what he actually did say more interesting:
Mr. TRUMP: I’d like to see major tax cuts.
PHILLIPS: Along the line, for what the Republicans are talking about eight hundred billion or so? Would you go that far?
Mr. TRUMP: Along the lines of that number, yes, approximately at that number, and could even be more.
PHILLIPS: Health care?
Mr. TRUMP: [I’m] liberal on health care, we have to take care of people that are sick.
PHILLIPS: Universal health coverage?
Mr. TRUMP: I like universal, we have to take care, there’s nothing else. What’s the country all about if we’re not going to take care of our sick?
PHILLIPS: Abortion?
Mr. TRUMP: I hate the concept of abortion. I hate anything about abortion, and yet, I’m totally for choice. I think you have no alternative.
PHILLIPS: Gun control? Where do you stand on that?
Mr. TRUMP: If you could tell me that the bad guys, the criminals, wouldn’t have guns, I’d be a hundred percent for gun control. But the fact is, if you have gun control, the only people that are going to obey the laws, are going to be the good guys. So the bad guys are going to have the guns, the good guys aren’t going to have the guns, and what good does that do us? So, I’m not in favor of it.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C4f_lojWAAAo6TN_zpsnxqnllrt.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C4f_lojWAAAo6TN_zpsnxqnllrt.jpg)
:bigcry: Shes already dead, why would he grab something that wasn't there anymore?
-
Retarded and brainwashed Odeon showing he gets 'his' views from 'comedians' like Bill Maher. No one with multiple brain cells is missing W. The war industry is of course and Obama as well. They were both identical, Obama being slightly worse.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Uj-8f7m4p5c/VnVCtEeImII/AAAAAAAAO-8/VxPf938bwGM/s1600/12345512_10153678251955280_3182381419713888446_n.jpg)
:facepalm2:
http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/
Fair enough. Didn't know that. +
-
*Stay tuned next week for another episode of "Russiagate".....
*Will Donald prove that Barack tapped his wires?
*Will Steve admit to his drinking problem?
*Will Kellyanne confess her love for Donald?
*Will Donald have yet another twitter meltdown?
*Where is Melania?
*What happened to all those Russian diplomats?
*Will Donald meet the same fate?
:popcorn:
-
(http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/trump-nude-troll-doll-chuck-williams-01.jpg)
-
^ :lol1: :plus: That troll doll needs the back story.
Not suitable for children. A naked troll doll made in the likeness of President Donald Trump has raised almost $300,000 via Kickstarter, more than seven times its original goal of $38,000 for manufacturing costs.
The campaign, which was launched by Wisconsin-based artist Chuck Williams earlier this month, received an overwhelming response, with the goal amount met on Sunday, February 19, with 24 more days to go in the campaign.
According to the New York Daily News, Williams was previously a senior staff sculptor for the Walt Disney Co. in the late '90s and now runs a studio with his wife. The artist first shared photos of a prototype for the doll to Facebook in mid-February.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/this-naked-trump-troll-doll-kickstarter-has-raised-almost-300000-w468865
Here's the kickstarter page, for a pledge of $25 plus $5 shipping gets supporters their own trump troll doll. It's reached over $400,000 now with 9 days remaining.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/560181280/trump-troll-doll-sculpture-by-chuck-williams
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah-NHa2dtRA
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
It was a good speech.
-
It really was and it did not detour away from the policies
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
It was a good speech.
Even I will admit it was a pretty decent speech...for him, at least.
...and then he had to go on twitter and fuck it up again. :facepalm2:
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
It was a good speech.
I beg to differ. It was perceived as good simply because for the first time since taking the oath, his foot wasn't firmly planted in his mouth.
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
It was a good speech.
Even I will admit it was a pretty decent speech...for him, at least.
...and then he had to go on twitter and fuck it up again. :facepalm2:
^This.
The man has no credibility, so when he does a speech with some degree of coherence, it's perceived as great when it actually only meets what should be the minimum requirements for the office he holds.
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
It was a good speech.
I beg to differ. It was perceived as good simply because for the first time since taking the oath, his foot wasn't firmly planted in his mouth.
Not at all. If that were the case, he would not have energised millions of people through his previously speeches and nor would he have got through the 3 debates with Clinton as well as he did. You may not like his style (and I find it annoying more often than not) BUT I am also aware that what I find annoying and frustrating is not what others do). By any objective measure, he can't have done horribly in every speech. If that IS the case, he was never elected because he did horribly at every speech and the American Public in their millions did not elect him.
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
It was a good speech.
I beg to differ. It was perceived as good simply because for the first time since taking the oath, his foot wasn't firmly planted in his mouth.
Didn't watch it, but rather read it, so it's possible his delivery wasn't good. The transcript was good.
-
What was the gist of it Jack?
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
It was a good speech.
I beg to differ. It was perceived as good simply because for the first time since taking the oath, his foot wasn't firmly planted in his mouth.
Not at all. If that were the case, he would not have energised millions of people through his previously speeches and nor would he have got through the 3 debates with Clinton as well as he did. You may not like his style (and I find it annoying more often than not) BUT I am also aware that what I find annoying and frustrating is not what others do). By any objective measure, he can't have done horribly in every speech. If that IS the case, he was never elected because he did horribly at every speech and the American Public in their millions did not elect him.
I didn't say "horribly", you did. But I'll say this: people are stupid and deserve what they get.
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
It was a good speech.
I beg to differ. It was perceived as good simply because for the first time since taking the oath, his foot wasn't firmly planted in his mouth.
Not at all. If that were the case, he would not have energised millions of people through his previously speeches and nor would he have got through the 3 debates with Clinton as well as he did. You may not like his style (and I find it annoying more often than not) BUT I am also aware that what I find annoying and frustrating is not what others do). By any objective measure, he can't have done horribly in every speech. If that IS the case, he was never elected because he did horribly at every speech and the American Public in their millions did not elect him.
I didn't say "horribly", you did. But I'll say this: people are stupid and deserve what they get.
You are stupid. You only believe people are stupid because your TV told you so.
-
I can't even count the number of twitter
Trumpkins that didn't even know that the "Affordable care act" and "Obamacare" was one in the same.
People had to explain it to them...in very "simple" terms...and boy the ranting when they finally figured out no one was lying to them.
It was sad and funny at the same time. Not saying everyone that voted for him is stupid, many aren't, some just have a different agenda that I don't happen to share.
But dammn, I will say....he did seem to attract a massive number of bible thumping pinheads who where about 3 beers short of a 6 pak.
-
What was the gist of it Jack?
Most of it was focused on his major campaign promises, and progress thus far made toward achieving those goals. One thing personally disliked was the anecdotal stories; don't think any one person or entity can represent a national problem, or show their problem even exists as a sociological problem, so just don't like the narrow picture painted by the personal stories of individuals although it probably touches the hearts of others. Also didn't care for him mentioning the problems of other countries again, even if briefly; the US has it's own problems to care. Several of Trump's goals are economic and that's what impresses me. Wasn't a trump supporter during the campaign, but he's the president now and genuinely hope his administration is economically successful. Here's the full transcript if interested: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/
-
I love it how people applauded his Tuesday speech, haling it as the second coming. Such a relief for his supporters to have him produce 140+ characters without making an utter fool of himself, just for once.
I bet that Tuesday is fondly remembered now. :zoinks:
It was a good speech.
I beg to differ. It was perceived as good simply because for the first time since taking the oath, his foot wasn't firmly planted in his mouth.
Not at all. If that were the case, he would not have energised millions of people through his previously speeches and nor would he have got through the 3 debates with Clinton as well as he did. You may not like his style (and I find it annoying more often than not) BUT I am also aware that what I find annoying and frustrating is not what others do). By any objective measure, he can't have done horribly in every speech. If that IS the case, he was never elected because he did horribly at every speech and the American Public in their millions did not elect him.
I didn't say "horribly", you did. But I'll say this: people are stupid and deserve what they get.
You are stupid. You only believe people are stupid because your TV told you so.
Thank you for proving my point.
-
You are stupid. You only believe people are stupid because your TV told you so.
But maybe your judgment of other people's stupidity is also questionable.
Maybe we're all compromised. Maybe we're all brainwashed. :borg: :borg: :borg:
-
I AM SO SICK OF THE CALCULATED, DISTRACTING SIDE SHOW THAT IS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
It's like a freaking magician is fooling us with bells and whistles, glitz and glamour, hurly-burly, and slight of word communications to hide some evil master plan.
I want to just divorce myself from the mess, but I believe that's what he wants all of us to do. Anyone who doesn't agree should just shut up and let the MANCHILD who knows what's best handle the world.
If this is an act then I pray for us. If this isn't an act then I pray harder for us.
-
It's a novel new strategy. "If I make myself look like a complete idiot, people will eventually stop caring and I can do what I want."
But if you are clever enough to pull it off, why not make yourself look good and then do what you want?
-
He is actually doing what he was elected into office to do. Many agree with it and as many don't. But it is hardly sneaky or secretive or even silly.
-
Any idiot can write a memo.
What he's not doing though is thinking out the details, and as a result could end up hurting a large number of people in the process.
-
But those people are poor and don't matter. Right? ::)
-
I've said before that I will not criticize any president's decisions because he/she has access to information and data I don't have. So, however distasteful it is to me, I do support(?) President Trump's decisions. But I'm beginning to draw a distinction between classified information (usually foreign related matters) and data used to make decisions on domestic matters, which I assume is not usually classified. If I don't agree with a domestic decision, I will write a brief letter saying why I would have preferred another decision.
What is wearing me down is President Trump's public persona, that of an angry and impetuous man. Intelligence and information without wisdom are useless. Intelligence and information without discipline are useless. I guess what I'm saying is that I may or may not respect his decisions because of his seeming spontaneity . I don't appreciate the side show and the atmosphere of chaos and what seems to be anger over anything that seems to conflict with his beliefs or actions.
To anyone thinking of debating me on my position/thoughts: I don't do dialogues, debates, spirited discussions, etc. I'm not that capable at "arguing." (In fact I'm piss poor at it.) So, ahead of time: I agree that your thoughts are right for you, just as mine are right for me.
-
I am just wondering, when the workd doesn't end, the country is verifiably better off under his leadership, and the allegations of corruption and such fizzle away to the nothing they were created from, are the ones who accused hin so vocally and emphatically going to have the strength of character to admit as vocally that it was not what he did or did not do, nor about him as a leader - they just did not like him as a person and were prepared to drag him down based solely on that dislike?
Bet they aren't prepared to do that.
-
I don't see it happening...and I'll admit, if he makes it to a full term...he would have to do a hell of a lot to impress me.
I see a 70 yr old man who is creating a lot of chaos because he can't think things through beyond their implementation...and acts like an out of control, vindictive 5 yr old that needs a time-out chair.
I understand he is inexperienced. But this isn't like fucking up at McDonald's during your first month on the job.
-
But those people are poor and don't matter. Right? ::)
Yeah, I think that's right. :zoinks:
-
I don't see it happening...and I'll admit, if he makes it to a full term...he would have to do a hell of a lot to impress me.
I see a 70 yr old man who is creating a lot of chaos because he can't think things through beyond their implementation...and acts like an out of control, vindictive 5 yr old that needs a time-out chair.
I understand he is inexperienced. But this isn't like fucking up at McDonald's during your first month on the job.
I guess that is what I am saying. the Democrats/Libersl/Press/Establishment Republicans are activelt combative and seeking to destroy him and he has the audacity to be that right back to them. (how dare hw).
But all of that aside, IF the effect of hid changes are better for the country, who cares?
-
That "IF" is a big "IF".
Right now he has created chaos through his words and actions both, and done nothing but fed the hatred that slept in the corners.
The changes he is purposing for healthcare might leave many doing without for the next 4 years because they won't be able to afford it...us maybe included. No, "Obamacare" isn't perfect, but this is looking far worse right now.
I will not be holding my breath waiting for him to "do something great".
Something great would be if he immigrated to Russia to kiss Putin's ass.
-
He is actually doing what he was elected into office to do. Many agree with it and as many don't. But it is hardly sneaky or secretive or even silly.
He was elected into office to tweet unfounded allegations?
-
I guess you're seeing something that most others don't, Al. :-\
-
Not at all. He was elected to "drain the swamp", repeal and replace Obamacare, bring back jobs, build the wall, put America first, enforcing the rules against illegal immigration and protecting America from the radical Muslim element, and so on.
He absolutely is working towards all of these things despite being able to also fit time in at 3am to fire off a few tweets (not that you were implying that was absolutely all he was doing in his tenure as President).
Now there are exactly two points of contention, one is that what he is trying to do he is wrong to do AND what he is doing he is doing poorly. I am not even going to be drawn into a subjective ill-educated guess as to how well or poorly he is doing these things after 60 days. It is WAY too premature to make such statements and trying to pass this off as truth.
I see a lot of Conservatives point to record stock market figures, the drop off in illegal immigration (which Jorge Ramos confirmed) and business sentiment and confidence increasing and jobs increasing. Now for EXACTLY the same reasons as above, I am not going to be silly enough to base anything off this because it, too, is too soon.
Let me see what he does after 3 years. Let's see how business confidence then is.
He IS absolutely sticking to his agenda and I am interested to see how he does. But to say he has done nothing is as silly as saying he has caused all of those benefits I mentioned.
-
I can only repeat what I said in my last post.
-
You could but I do not know who your "most others" that you are speaking on behalf of is, nor how you make the assessment that you are speaking for them or know exactly what they think. You COULD say it again, but I would probably advise against it
-
I guess you're seeing something that most others don't, Al.
-
I guess you're seeing something that most others don't, Al.
Sure.
-
Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping
:rofl:
-
It was the microwave...
Rogue WH Snr Advisor @RogueSNRadvisor 7h7 hours ago
Pres had all microwaves & small appliances removed from WH this weekend. Says Obama "bugged everything" - willing to risk it on TV's, though
If you’ve been feeling a little paranoid lately—like even your standing mixer may be spying on you—rest assured that Trump senior counselor Kellyanne Conway shares your struggle. On Sunday, apparently reacting to last week’s CIA WikiLeaks data dump, Conway told the Bergen Record that at this point, US citizens should consider all appliances compromised. Even their microwaves.
“There was an article this week that talked about how you can surveil someone through their phones, through their—certainly through their television sets, any number of different ways,” Conway said. “And microwaves that turn into cameras, et cetera. So we know that that is just a fact of modern life.”
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/kellyanne-conway-microwave-spying/
:rofl:
Sorry to disillusion anyone. In all the microwaves I've scrapped over the years I have yet to find any with provisions for a webcam.
I think they should check Kellyanne's vibrator for listening devices.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C60PSrBV0AA_MAe_zpsd0xgcqo7.jpg)
-
^ :laugh: Seriously though, if someone goes to that much trouble, then let them watch.
-
The Pee tape...in... "Claymation".
Viewer Discretion is Advised. :M
http://youtu.be/panWeojLJ_0
-
The thick pee is disturbing, they should have used water. :aff:
-
Appears he WAS actually wiretapped. There was surveillance on him.
-
Personally maybe he wasn't the main target, but I'm sure it picked him up.
At this point I think I would be more concerned if there was no surveillance being done at all.
-
Appears he WAS actually wiretapped. There was surveillance on him.
If there was, it was supposedly incidental, meaning that he or his cohorts were talking to someone who was under surveillance. Which begs the question, why would they be talking to someone who was?
Unless they were talking to the Russians, of course.
-
Don't forget, Trump's original accusation is that Trump Tower was being purposely wiretapped by the Obama Administration during the 2016 US Election.
-
He is, as always, being liberal with the truth.
-
He is, as always, being liberal with the truth.
"Liberal" being the operative word
-
Latest report I read was it was probably Pence incidentally surveilled when he was working with Paul Manafort on cabinet positions. If true it makes it very hard to distance themselves from Manafort going forward.
-
Or, the whole thing never even happened
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-backs-down-assertion-trump-was-monitored-n738151 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-backs-down-assertion-trump-was-monitored-n738151)
-
Appears he WAS actually wiretapped. There was surveillance on him.
If there was, it was supposedly incidental, meaning that he or his cohorts were talking to someone who was under surveillance. Which begs the question, why would they be talking to someone who was?
Unless they were talking to the Russians, of course.
:tinfoil:
-
Talking to Russians isn't a crime. Still no evidence provided that they hacked the election. This is simply the 'liberal' establishment not being able to deal with the fact that they lost the election and why they lost the election. They can't admit their mistakes so they just say "it was Russia" and they know so many retards are stupid enough to believe it.
-
Talking to Russians isn't a crime. Still no evidence provided that they hacked the election. This is simply the 'liberal' establishment not being able to deal with the fact that they lost the election and why they lost the election. They can't admit their mistakes so they just say "it was Russia" and they know so many retards are stupid enough to believe it.
As far as I can make it, Russians diplomats talked with members of both Parties as part of their official functions BUT when Liberal Senators talked with Russians...no issue. When Jeff Sessions talked to Russians, BIG Problem. It becomes improper all of a sudden.
I am still waiting for the issue. Clapper and Morrel and others have stated that there is no evidence. Essentially THSI seems to be the crux of everything:
Russians always try to influence elections and always try to hack things in the US, HOWEVER THIS TIME the fact that we believe that they hacked John Podesta's email (evidence of out of date malware protector and Russian IP - which are BOTH evidence that a top of the line Russian agency is involved - Because if you were top Russian government spy you would use out of date Malware protector and use your own Russian IP when hacking America...) and FAILED to hack the voting machines..apparently, means that:
1) Putin co-ordinated to influence the US election and succeeded in bring down Corrupt Hillary
2) Donald Trump was running against her and therefore he was colluding with this big scheme.
Only there is NO proof and no evidence.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6S_VuRNGk
Today, we people of the USA mourn the death of the American Healthcare Act, known as Trumpcare. Trumpcare died around 4-5 PM today, on March the 24th, 2017. The bill lived a very short, but very full life as politicians from both sides of the aisles fiercely debated about it. Opposition said that the bill would take away healthcare from 24 million people, and decrease the quality of healthcare while increasing its price for everyone else, those in favor said something about freedom. Whatever the case may be, the bill is now gone and has left behind its parents: Donald J. Trump and Paul H. Ryan.
On the tombstone, it shall be written: "Obamacare is the law of the land!" -Paul Ryan
:zoinks: :orly:
-
Fuck yes.
:party:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6S_VuRNGk
Today, we people of the USA mourn the death of the American Healthcare Act, known as Trumpcare. Trumpcare died around 4-5 PM today, on March the 24th, 2017. The bill lived a very short, but very full life as politicians from both sides of the aisles fiercely debated about it. Opposition said that the bill would take away healthcare from 24 million people, and decrease the quality of healthcare while increasing its price for everyone else, those in favor said something about freedom. Whatever the case may be, the bill is now gone and has left behind its parents: Donald J. Trump and Paul H. Ryan.
On the tombstone, it shall be written: "Obamacare is the law of the land!" -Paul Ryan
:zoinks: :orly:
:asthing: :asthing: :asthing:
...and as for "NO proof and no evidence"....that will remain to be seen I guess.
:popcorn:
-
The great deal maker proves again what an incompetent idiot he is. A few more months of this farce and his approval ratings will be in the single digits.
(http://www.secondtees.com/images/front/miss-me-yet.jpg)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6S_VuRNGk
Today, we people of the USA mourn the death of the American Healthcare Act, known as Trumpcare. Trumpcare died around 4-5 PM today, on March the 24th, 2017. The bill lived a very short, but very full life as politicians from both sides of the aisles fiercely debated about it. Opposition said that the bill would take away healthcare from 24 million people, and decrease the quality of healthcare while increasing its price for everyone else, those in favor said something about freedom. Whatever the case may be, the bill is now gone and has left behind its parents: Donald J. Trump and Paul H. Ryan.
On the tombstone, it shall be written: "Obamacare is the law of the land!" -Paul Ryan
:zoinks: :orly:
That was beautifully written. :green:
-
Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose ::) hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose ::)
-
Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose ::) hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose ::)
SO was one of those 24 million that didn't have healthcare and couldn't afford health care for close to 6 years until "Obamacare" finally came into the picture. He would have also been one that would have lost it if "Trumpcare" would have taken over.
You're a troll benji...one sitting in another country who isn't living the reality and is only seeing what they want to see. I wish I had the same pleasure of doing so.
-
I like how Benji said the same exact thing, twice. Including the ::) smiley.
Trumpcare was nothing more than a Trojan horse bill, giving around 1 trillion dollars in tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations. 1 trillion dollars. And it would've gave 24+ million people the "freedom" to go without healthcare or go bankrupt.
-
Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose ::) hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose ::)
Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.
Did I mention how pathetic you are?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6S_VuRNGk
Today, we people of the USA mourn the death of the American Healthcare Act, known as Trumpcare. Trumpcare died around 4-5 PM today, on March the 24th, 2017. The bill lived a very short, but very full life as politicians from both sides of the aisles fiercely debated about it. Opposition said that the bill would take away healthcare from 24 million people, and decrease the quality of healthcare while increasing its price for everyone else, those in favor said something about freedom. Whatever the case may be, the bill is now gone and has left behind its parents: Donald J. Trump and Paul H. Ryan.
On the tombstone, it shall be written: "Obamacare is the law of the land!" -Paul Ryan
:zoinks: :orly:
Ryancare
-
Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose ::) hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose ::)
Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.
Did I mention how pathetic you are?
It isn't 'healthcare' you fucking brain dead imbecile. It is compulsory insurance. Yes, in some cases it may have worked out better, but that depends on which state you are in. Quite obviously, obombercare is not the answer. Thanks to that clueless moron there was no cross state competition which would bring prices down. Trump addressed this in his debates but you were too busy and retarded focusing on 'racism'. You need help.
-
Benjamin and Icequeen are both correct. The affordable healthcare act filled an important gap for the lower middle class who were not offered insurance through an employer or offered crappy or overly expensive employer insurance plans that weren't worth paying into, and they now have health insurance option at prices comparable to if an employer were paying in. Insurance outside of an employer plan was an expensive option in the past because employers pay about half of insurance premium costs. Getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses was also very beneficial to people of all income levels, if they previously had insurance or not. It is in fact a compulsory health insurance law. Past numbers of uninsured people can be misleading, as there was a subset of the public who could afford insurance but made the personal choice not to pay in because they were healthy and the cost of regular doctor visits was less expensive than insurance deductibles and premiums. There was also a subset of people below the poverty line who couldn't afford insurance and also made the personal choice to not be a part of the social welfare system. It took the public a while to resign to the notion of car insurance being compulsory, and it will take a while for this too. The ACA isn't a perfect system and could probably use some improvements, but an entirely new system isn't required to do that.
-
Benjamin and Icequeen are both correct. The affordable healthcare act filled an important gap for the lower middle class who were not offered insurance through an employer or offered crappy or overly expensive employer insurance plans that weren't worth paying into, and they now have health insurance option at prices comparable to if an employer were paying in. Insurance outside of an employer plan was an expensive option in the past because employers pay about half of insurance premium costs. Getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses was also very beneficial to people of all income levels, if they previously had insurance or not. It is in fact a compulsory health insurance law. Past numbers of uninsured people can be misleading, as there was a subset of the public who could afford insurance but made the personal choice not to pay in because they were healthy and the cost of regular doctor visits was less expensive than insurance deductibles and premiums. There was also a subset of people below the poverty line who couldn't afford insurance and also made the personal choice to not be a part of the social welfare system. It took the public a while to resign to the notion of car insurance being compulsory, and it will take a while for this too. The ACA isn't a perfect system and could probably use some improvements, but an entirely new system isn't required to do that.
:CanofWorms:
-
Talking to Russians isn't a crime. Still no evidence provided that they hacked the election. This is simply the 'liberal' establishment not being able to deal with the fact that they lost the election and why they lost the election. They can't admit their mistakes so they just say "it was Russia" and they know so many retards are stupid enough to believe it.
As far as I can make it, Russians diplomats talked with members of both Parties as part of their official functions BUT when Liberal Senators talked with Russians...no issue. When Jeff Sessions talked to Russians, BIG Problem. It becomes improper all of a sudden.
I am still waiting for the issue. Clapper and Morrel and others have stated that there is no evidence. Essentially THSI seems to be the crux of everything:
Russians always try to influence elections and always try to hack things in the US, HOWEVER THIS TIME the fact that we believe that they hacked John Podesta's email (evidence of out of date malware protector and Russian IP - which are BOTH evidence that a top of the line Russian agency is involved - Because if you were top Russian government spy you would use out of date Malware protector and use your own Russian IP when hacking America...) and FAILED to hack the voting machines..apparently, means that:
1) Putin co-ordinated to influence the US election and succeeded in bring down Corrupt Hillary
2) Donald Trump was running against her and therefore he was colluding with this big scheme.
Only there is NO proof and no evidence.
There IS proof!
There was a massive conspiracy by the voters in those states indicated in red to vote FOR President Donald J. Trump.
What more proof do you need of collusion and conspiracy?
-
:CanofWorms:
Personally preferred the first response. It was an excellent point and would be willing to discuss if that point were made again.
-
They should just make health insurance illegal. Shit would be fucked for about 5 years and our old folk would be dead, but it would all work itself out when people are forced to shop for it.
-
Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose ::) hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose ::)
Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.
Did I mention how pathetic you are?
It isn't 'healthcare' you fucking brain dead imbecile. It is compulsory insurance. Yes, in some cases it may have worked out better, but that depends on which state you are in. Quite obviously, obombercare is not the answer. Thanks to that clueless moron there was no cross state competition which would bring prices down. Trump addressed this in his debates but you were too busy and retarded focusing on 'racism'. You need help.
"Quite obviously"? :hahaha:
Trump lost. Get over it.
-
:CanofWorms:
Personally preferred the first response. It was an excellent point and would be willing to discuss if that point were made again.
I just asked if anyone but me has ever wondered whether or not the federal government actually has the power to force an American citizen to purchase a particular product. An example might be if "TeH G'vment" made everyone buy McDonald's three times per week or face a penalty.
Conceding that something MUST be done for the lower to middle classes, I mentioned one of the many overreaches the current law takes such as the fact that a young male must pay for maternity coverage, despite the fact that he will be unlikely to become pregnant.
Continuing my previous example, I likened this to being forced to buy more McDonald's than one can possibly use just to make this McDonald's overage available for others to use.
The current system is broken, but we need something in place. I believe we need some fix available that is driven by the open marketplace, something with an a la carte menu, to continue with my junk food simile.
I also wanted to remind each of us that what is in place currently took about fifteen years to establish, pass and take root and it will NOT be corrected, fixed and made fair for everyone in The First Hundred Days of a brand new administration.
After reading a few previous pages, I realized that the points had already been made and I felt stupid and removed the redundant text, leaving only the obvious, since it can not be mentioned enough.
:CanofWorms:
-
Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose ::) hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose ::)
Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.
Did I mention how pathetic you are?
It isn't 'healthcare' you fucking brain dead imbecile. It is compulsory insurance. Yes, in some cases it may have worked out better, but that depends on which state you are in. Quite obviously, obombercare is not the answer. Thanks to that clueless moron there was no cross state competition which would bring prices down. Trump addressed this in his debates but you were too busy and retarded focusing on 'racism'. You need help.
"Quite obviously"? :hahaha:
Trump lost. Get over it.
You think so? I am not so sure he did?
In trying to marry up elements of the GOP, Trump had to get some prominent GOP figures on board. Pence went a long way to that and so did Reibus.
However, the opposition in the party still is substantial - Ryan, McCain, McDonnell, Sasse, Graham, Flake. So this bloc and Trump's team, are fighting for the loyalty of the Republican Party.
It is back and forth battle. But here comes an opportunity. Ryancare. Trump knows that Obamacare left to run on will hurt America. He knows that Ryan wants to make the replacement - a show of his competence. So he designates this to Paul Ryan.
IF Paul Ryan comes through with the goods AND he strongly backs him both Trump and Ryan are raised in the eyes of the Republicans. If Paul Ryan fails and Trump is critical, others will distrust Trump to back his party members and will seem disloyal. He can instead blame the loss in confidence NOT in the Republicans but in the Democratic Party and warn them that the Obamacare is going to hurt Americans if NOT repealed and replaced. (This is what happened).
So in the wash - Ryan looks incompetent. Trump looks supportive. He knows that Obamacare will be exposed in time for how horrendous it really is.
As Obamacare premiums get worse, people will point fingers at Ryan (Trump has a perfect shield) for not doing a better job and he will fall in grace further than what he would do even if Trump went head to head with him. People will virtually beg for a replacement and Trump will be shown to be right again. When he comes next time with a bill, it will not be Ryancare and Paul Ryan will not be in a position to block any other bills. It will be a Healthcare bill created by the likes of Paul Rand and Ted Cruz and such. A better bill that most republicans and even Democrats will vote for to repeal the proved catastrophe named Obamacare.
Trump will get what he wants across the board and his success will be palpable and contrast so very differently against Paul Ryan and co. He will, again, rise in estimation with the Republican party and perhaps even the Democratic party.
You think he lost? How?
-
I just asked if anyone but me has ever wondered whether or not the federal government actually has the power to force an American citizen to purchase a particular product.
There it is. Obama's campaign promise to provide everyone an affordable government health insurance option, was essentially a promise to provide a service which would have put health insurance industry out of business via government competition within the capitalistic market. The US thrives on capitalism and the public has a lack of faith in the federal government, so not really sure if that would have been a better option. Personally believe the compulsory part of the act was the trade-off in negotiating the terms of the act with insurance lobbyist, in order to get rid of pre-existing condition clauses and lower costs for a specific subset of people. The McDonald's analogy is a good one, to ask the question of government enforcement for people to pay for something they don't want or need, just so someone else can have too. It's an excellent question. Some people ask similar questions about their taxes, and the answer to them is, because they live in a functioning society. That's the answer here too, but the thorn in the side with that answer is because this law doesn't revolve within a tax based system, but rather a capitalistic one. Still, that's exactly why the ACA is successful, because it's functioning like taxes. Millions of people are now mandated to pay for something they don't want, need or even use, in order for millions of other people to have that service. Should the government have the right to mandate for people to buy something if they don't want it, to mandate for people to be on welfare if they don't want it, to dictate what a capitalistic industry can charge or write into the terms of their service? Probably not. As said before, it's not a perfect system. However, it will work.
-
Obamacare has it's flaws, but it was "something", before there was "nothing".
A bigger person would work on fixing those flaws though, not replacing it with something that cuts off people, eliminates services to women, and makes it even more unlikely that people can afford it. Sure it won't be mandatory anymore...dying has always been mandatory, it's just choosing how you want to do it.
I won't say Trump lost, I'll just say he doesn't know shit about healthcare and should leave it to someone/anyone that might know more...for the same reason you don't give a 6 yr old a paint brush and tell him to go paint the kitchen walls.
...and word on Russia is that Flynn may have flipped on Trump. The proof has been there, Comey had been looking into it since July, but made no mention of it in August when he mentioned Hillary.
The push is there for an independent investigation...and I agree I think one is needed.
-
Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose ::) hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose ::)
Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.
Did I mention how pathetic you are?
It isn't 'healthcare' you fucking brain dead imbecile. It is compulsory insurance. Yes, in some cases it may have worked out better, but that depends on which state you are in. Quite obviously, obombercare is not the answer. Thanks to that clueless moron there was no cross state competition which would bring prices down. Trump addressed this in his debates but you were too busy and retarded focusing on 'racism'. You need help.
ever heard of minimum medical loss ratio? Yeah I didn't think so.
-
:CanofWorms:
Personally preferred the first response. It was an excellent point and would be willing to discuss if that point were made again.
I just asked if anyone but me has ever wondered whether or not the federal government actually has the power to force an American citizen to purchase a particular product. An example might be if "TeH G'vment" made everyone buy McDonald's three times per week or face a penalty.
Conceding that something MUST be done for the lower to middle classes, I mentioned one of the many overreaches the current law takes such as the fact that a young male must pay for maternity coverage, despite the fact that he will be unlikely to become pregnant.
Continuing my previous example, I likened this to being forced to buy more McDonald's than one can possibly use just to make this McDonald's overage available for others to use.
The current system is broken, but we need something in place. I believe we need some fix available that is driven by the open marketplace, something with an a la carte menu, to continue with my junk food simile.
I also wanted to remind each of us that what is in place currently took about fifteen years to establish, pass and take root and it will NOT be corrected, fixed and made fair for everyone in The First Hundred Days of a brand new administration.
After reading a few previous pages, I realized that the points had already been made and I felt stupid and removed the redundant text, leaving only the obvious, since it can not be mentioned enough.
:CanofWorms:
the mandate is the worst part of the aca. I'm with you on that.
-
Obamacare has it's flaws, but it was "something", before there was "nothing".
A bigger person would work on fixing those flaws though, not replacing it with something that cuts off people, eliminates services to women, and makes it even more unlikely that people can afford it. Sure it won't be mandatory anymore...dying has always been mandatory, it's just choosing how you want to do it.
I won't say Trump lost, I'll just say he doesn't know shit about healthcare and should leave it to someone/anyone that might know more...for the same reason you don't give a 6 yr old a paint brush and tell him to go paint the kitchen walls.
...and word on Russia is that Flynn may have flipped on Trump. The proof has been there, Comey had been looking into it since July, but made no mention of it in August when he mentioned Hillary.
The push is there for an independent investigation...and I agree I think one is needed.
I see no evidence and a lot of "people say". Trump may actually be Guccifer 2 or the 400 lb hacker he burned as an image into our brains. But there is no evidence of that either.
I am actually wondering at the line in the sand. At what point do people say "Okay there was nothing ever in the Russia collusion narrative."
Not say that there is or not but what would it take? 12 months no evidence? Comey ruling definitely? Clappet has already said so (that there was no evidence), but what if Mike Rogers said so too
-
There are questions that need to be answered truthfully and people that deserve to hear those answers...so until then...waiting game.
Watergate occurred in the summer of 1972, although some reports of shady events leading up to it occurred much earlier. Boiling point wasn't reached until mid 1973 when an independent prosecutor was brought in Nixon had just been inaugurated for his second term in Jan of that same year.
November 17, 1973...Nixon declares..."I am NOT a crook."
Nixon resigns on August 9, 1974.
Gov. protocol.
Actually if you compare the two...things are moving along just about right..or faster.
-
There are questions that need to be answered truthfully and people that deserve to hear those answers...so until then...waiting game.
Watergate occurred in the summer of 1972, although some reports of shady events leading up to it occurred much earlier. Boiling point wasn't reached until mid 1973 when an independent prosecutor was brought in Nixon had just been inaugurated for his second term in Jan of that same year.
November 17, 1973...Nixon declares..."I am NOT a crook."
Nixon resigns on August 9, 1974.
Gov. protocol.
Actually if you compare the two...things are moving along just about right..or faster.
But I am not seeing the collusion.
Hillary and the Democrats were responsible for the collusion against Sanders and the private server and all manner of ill deeds that came out in the leaked Podesta emails.
It could have been Russian hackers and maybe sponsored even by the Kremlin. But this was stuff they did that was wrong and tge American public ought to have been able to factor into their decision making regardless of whether it was bought to light in a legal or illegal senee.
The hacking of polling machines was said to be from Russia but ultimately failed.
Did Trump set Hillary up to have a private server or did he manipulate Donna brazile to give questions to the DNC or perhaps he manipulated the DNC to work against Bernie all while colluding with Russia to steal emails off John Podesta after they do?
It sounds a bit far fetched. It may be some other collusion though. What is the charge? I know hebis supposedly colluding but what are the actual specifics of tge allegations?
-
Like I said, we wait.
Guccifer 2 was traced back to Russia, despite his claims to the contrary. Trump tweeting away on his little unsecured android phone is no more a hacker than I am a rocket scientist.
Key players in the drama:
Sessions.
Page.
Flynn.
Stone.
Manafort.
What's the charge? What's it about? Probably what it's always about... $$ and power.
Maybe there isn't a charge, maybe he will be **gasp** proven "innocent"...but it bears looking at...way too many ties/too many lies.
I actually "hope" they find nothing.
I do not like Trump, admitted...but the thought of something like treason or someone selling out our democracy in this country to further pad their pockets and doing it so brazenly would be far more sickening to me.
-
Like I said, we wait.
Guccifer 2 was traced back to Russia, despite his claims to the contrary. Trump tweeting away on his little unsecured android phone is no more a hacker than I am a rocket scientist.
Key players in the drama:
Sessions.
Page.
Flynn.
Stone.
Manafort.
What's the charge? What's it about? Probably what it's always about... $$ and power.
Maybe there isn't a charge, maybe he will be **gasp** proven "innocent"...but it bears looking at...way too many ties/too many lies.
I actually "hope" they find nothing.
I do not like Trump, admitted...but the thought of something like treason or someone selling out our democracy in this country to further pad their pockets and doing it so brazenly would be far more sickening to me.
No that is not a charge, you are ascribing a motivation.
Here is what I mean. If some burly detectives took you into an interrogation room and told you that you had motivation to steal and rob because you use money and would likely be happier with more money, they would not have made a charge. All they have done is made vague smears on your character and inferred you had motive and therefore were suspicious.
If you then asked for what robbery or theft and they shrugged and stated that people rob and steal all the time, you'd probably think the interrogation a bit unusual.
I am not saying Trump is not whatever it is that he is supposed to be. But all of this "Trump colluded with the russians to win the election" narrative, how?
Did he get russians to trick Hillary into setting up a private server?
Did he crack John podesta's email and give that to the Russians?
Were the teenage girls sexting Weiner Russian spies set up by Trump?
Was Trump paying off Donna Brazile with Russian money to leak questions for Hillary?
This is what I am saying.
I do getthat he won and she lost. I do get that whoever the hacker or leaker was, is said to be Russian. I get the ill feeling. I dont get the accusation. what did he specifically do to collude with Russian that won him the election?
-
Right now it is an "investigation".
I don't know what they have.
I do know that you can trace the ties, people are lying, and being caught in those lies...and a lot of those so called "fake" facts in the dossier can be verified by an kid under the age of 12 with search skills.
-
Right now it is an "investigation".
I don't know what they have.
I do know that you can trace the ties, people are lying, and being caught in those lies...and a lot of those so called "fake" facts in the dossier can be verified by an kid under the age of 12 with search skills.
Of course there is an investigation. Every Democrat jumped up and down to Schumer's drumbeat and I think even Donald said "Whatever"
People are lying? The only person I saw lie was Flynn. He claims he forgot. Probably not. I don't know. I do not care really. I do know that this was his crime and that it was not deemed collusion but rather lying about contact or whatever. Bad optics.Donna Brazile lied and was exposed doing so about the DNC leaked questions. Hillary lied on the stand about her emails. But who committed lies in this instance?
Fake facts in the dossier? You mean the #pissgate dossier which was soundly debunked and all the Liberal media scurried from leaving (I think) Buzzfeed holding the can? Or is there another dossier floating about?
I do not know whether I am either seeing what you see or have the knowledge of things that you seem to but I personally would find it interesting if there was a bit more to it. Trump as a double or triple agent working deep undercover somehow. I just don't see it.
I do not see the connections and how he influenced things for the Russians or how they helped him.
-
:CanofWorms:
Personally preferred the first response. It was an excellent point and would be willing to discuss if that point were made again.
I just asked if anyone but me has ever wondered whether or not the federal government actually has the power to force an American citizen to purchase a particular product. An example might be if "TeH G'vment" made everyone buy McDonald's three times per week or face a penalty.
Conceding that something MUST be done for the lower to middle classes, I mentioned one of the many overreaches the current law takes such as the fact that a young male must pay for maternity coverage, despite the fact that he will be unlikely to become pregnant.
Continuing my previous example, I likened this to being forced to buy more McDonald's than one can possibly use just to make this McDonald's overage available for others to use.
The current system is broken, but we need something in place. I believe we need some fix available that is driven by the open marketplace, something with an a la carte menu, to continue with my junk food simile.
I also wanted to remind each of us that what is in place currently took about fifteen years to establish, pass and take root and it will NOT be corrected, fixed and made fair for everyone in The First Hundred Days of a brand new administration.
After reading a few previous pages, I realized that the points had already been made and I felt stupid and removed the redundant text, leaving only the obvious, since it can not be mentioned enough.
:CanofWorms:
the mandate is the worst part of the aca. I'm with you on that.
Way back before I joined here, well before O'care, I was a father with no job, a working wife with a shit job, living off our investments for our retirement. I was not quite ready to retire completely yet.
In order to safeguard my family I was "forced" (forced due to life circumstances, that is) to buy a form of health care insurance on the open market which was not at all active, since those who need it could not afford it and those who could afford it did not need it due to having great employer provided coverage or generous family wealth.
Either way there was no "competitive" open market for healthcare insurance and many restrictions to those who tried to provide such products to those who might NEED some.
I was suddenly "downsized" at work, lost my job (get rid of the old full time guy with the high pay and commissions, all those expensive benefits he has worked for years to earn and hire three or four young part-timers who could not give two shit about their future benefits, just want quick money today, and save half of what we are paying that old guy) and ended up with losing our healthcare plan. We could have continued to pay for it on our own but due to the sixteen hundred dollar per month price tag to continue on my own with no support from a large company I had worked for for fourteen years, loyal and faithful to that company we had to give iy up.
I went to the marketplace and there was only one option available to me, forget day to day care of a family (too expensive - over two thousand per month- way more than almost anyone spends at the doctor's office per month.) and buy healthcare insurance that would only cover ME in case of massive injury or devastating disease and pay for a death benefit as well in case of my demise and we were spending over eight hundred per month. Still way more than we spend getting the kids shots and so forth.
We are fine now. My wife has a great job and I do work some as well, but her company (UPS) provides all allowable coverage for her entire family. Most do not have anything as decent to fall back upon in case of injury or disease.
I have lived through "NEEDING" and having to provide my own healthcare insurance through the "closed marketplace." I was lucky to have many resources at our disposal to get through this time, but most can not do as well as we managed during that lean time for us.
This country needs to have something in this area, but fixing the broken parts of the existing system is going to be better than a repeal and replace plan, IMHO
-
Flynn lied, Sessions lied, Nunes lied, Trump and the rest have lied about Manafort...etc.
Ivanka's bff is rumored to be Putin's squeeze.
Manafort (who they are trying to deny they even know anymore) played in Russia a lot, he helped work their campaign, he lived in Trump tower.
All that "buy American, hire American" and Trump signing the okay for the XL pipeline with the stipulation that the steel be American made?
Guess where the steel is coming from?
10 points if you said Russia.
...and the list goes on.
Does anyone know why the Viktor Leonov loiters around the coast of Conn. close to DC now and then vacations closer to Mar A Lago on weekends? Better fuel prices?
The main question at this point though is:
Did they collude with Russia to undermine the election?
Did they enlist Russia's help to sway it to their favor interfering with our democracy as a nation?
The dossier is more than Pissgate, no one cares about pissgate...there are events, meetings between certain key players, and payments that are mentioned that correlate to actual events, that's what people are looking at.
It has not been swept under the rug and discounted...not yet.
-
Flynn lied, Sessions lied, Nunes lied, Trump and the rest have lied about Manafort...etc.
Ivanka's bff is rumored to be Putin's squeeze.
Manafort (who they are trying to deny they even know anymore) played in Russia a lot, he helped work their campaign, he lived in Trump tower.
All that "buy American, hire American" and Trump signing the okay for the XL pipeline with the stipulation that the steel be American made?
Guess where the steel is coming from?
10 points if you said Russia.
...and the list goes on.
Does anyone know why the Viktor Leonov loiters around the coast of Conn. close to DC now and then vacations closer to Mar A Lago on weekends? Better fuel prices?
The main question at this point though is:
Did they collude with Russia to undermine the election?
Did they enlist Russia's help to sway it to their favor interfering with our democracy as a nation?
The dossier is more than Pissgate, no one cares about pissgate...there are events, meetings between certain key players, and payments that are mentioned that correlate to actual events, that's what people are looking at.
It has not been swept under the rug and discounted...not yet.
Sessions lied? Nunes lied? What did they lie about? Who was Nunes in the Trump campaign?
-
:CanofWorms:
Personally preferred the first response. It was an excellent point and would be willing to discuss if that point were made again.
I just asked if anyone but me has ever wondered whether or not the federal government actually has the power to force an American citizen to purchase a particular product. An example might be if "TeH G'vment" made everyone buy McDonald's three times per week or face a penalty.
Conceding that something MUST be done for the lower to middle classes, I mentioned one of the many overreaches the current law takes such as the fact that a young male must pay for maternity coverage, despite the fact that he will be unlikely to become pregnant.
Continuing my previous example, I likened this to being forced to buy more McDonald's than one can possibly use just to make this McDonald's overage available for others to use.
The current system is broken, but we need something in place. I believe we need some fix available that is driven by the open marketplace, something with an a la carte menu, to continue with my junk food simile.
I also wanted to remind each of us that what is in place currently took about fifteen years to establish, pass and take root and it will NOT be corrected, fixed and made fair for everyone in The First Hundred Days of a brand new administration.
After reading a few previous pages, I realized that the points had already been made and I felt stupid and removed the redundant text, leaving only the obvious, since it can not be mentioned enough.
:CanofWorms:
the mandate is the worst part of the aca. I'm with you on that.
See, I make that as a relevant point to reel in some who have found the need for these products in their lives, but the real "kicker" here is all the federal regulations that prevent interstate competition between the most capable of providers.
Clear the way for any number of companies in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Seattle, Los Angeles to compete for each others' business and suddenly, you have solved the "Group Insurance" scam that has been allowed to create just legally short of a monopoly in the insurance business.
Yes, I am an American. I believe that business and the simplest form of capitalism - competition - will rule the day. Insurance may not be the ultimate answer, but I sure as Hell want to see those big companies cross swords with each other to earn my dollars!
At least give the free market a try before Uncle Sam has to do it all by himself.
-
You think he lost? How?
This was the first time he tried to achieve something without a presidential decree. He marketed himself as the dealmaker but couldn't close the deal in spite of having a Republican majority. Yeah, I'd say he lost.
But you know this.
-
It's interesting to note that you seem to live in some sort of denial over what Trump is and what he does, Al. I don't know why, exactly, considering that you say you don't care.
-
Yep, I'm done here.
Google is your friend...or your source of "fake news"...or can probably support whatever your reality wants to believe...somewhere.
I've got things to do and clothes to fold.
-
You think he lost? How?
This was the first time he tried to achieve something without a presidential decree. He marketed himself as the dealmaker but couldn't close the deal in spite of having a Republican majority. Yeah, I'd say he lost.
But you know this.
I know this was Paul Ryan's baby. Paul Ryan had it written and kept in secret in the weeks leading up to it's release. Paul Ryan not only refuse to let other Senators like Paul Rand see it BUT he refused to allow any other competing proposals be heard.
It failed.
You already know all of this.
Next bill will gwt more support and Trump will know where everyone stands. He will not have quite the pushback from Ryan's faction
-
It's interesting to note that you seem to live in some sort of denial over what Trump is and what he does, Al. I don't know why, exactly, considering that you say you don't care.
Interesting is the word. All of this American politics at the moment is interesting. Everyday 3 or 4 things are on the go.
What is happening in Australian politics? Does anyone know or care? Is it interesting?
I could not tell you the Swedish prime minister's name.
So is interested the same as caring about something? Not by the definition you care to associate my interest.
As to being in denial about what or whom Trump is, that is an interesting assertion.
By what metric do you gauge objectively my understanding or your undrrstanding or as to which of us has the better understanding of this person we know from tv?
You don't have one? It was your belief/feeling/subjective opinion? Okay, thanks for sharing
-
At least give the free market a try before Uncle Sam has to do it all by himself.
In order for health insurance to work for everyone, then everyone has to work with it; there's probably no way around that other than taking measures to destroy the industry and move on to something else entirely. The industry simply needs plenty of people who pay in more than they use, to accommodate those who use more than they pay. Uncle Sam fixed it the only way they know how, and those who can have to make up for those who can't, because it works. Uninsured rates are down to 8%, and about half of those people are millenials. Seems a fair portion of the nation's young and healthy are balking at the new system and making things difficult by opting to take the tax penalty because it's cheaper than insurance. Damn democratic kids need to get with the program. :laugh:
-
At least give the free market a try before Uncle Sam has to do it all by himself.
In order for health insurance to work for everyone, then everyone has to work with it; there's probably no way around that other than taking measures to destroy the industry and move on to something else entirely. The industry simply needs plenty of people who pay in more than they use, to accommodate those who use more than they pay. Uncle Sam fixed it the only way they know how, and those who can have to make up for those who can't, because it works. Uninsured rates are down to 8%, and about half of those people are millenials. Seems a fair portion of the nation's young and healthy are balking at the new system and making things difficult by opting to take the tax penalty because it's cheaper than insurance. Damn democratic kids need to get with the program. :laugh:
Yeah and most of those do not support families, YET!
Going from :wanker: to OMG IT'S A BABY!! changes people.
I still do not think that the big money insurance companies have been given free rein to compete fairly in a dynamic marketplace. I do not mind a bit of Uncle Sam holding the reins and even jerking a bit from time to time but to hobble a massive industry with (Fucking R word) restrictions is insane and we all know this.
If you think that having the federal government control about one fifth of the national economy is a "kind of" good thing then you and I will have to agree to disagree, Period.
There HAS to be a better way!
-
It's interesting to note that you seem to live in some sort of denial over what Trump is and what he does, Al. I don't know why, exactly, considering that you say you don't care.
Interesting is the word. All of this American politics at the moment is interesting. Everyday 3 or 4 things are on the go.
What is happening in Australian politics? Does anyone know or care? Is it interesting?
I could not tell you the Swedish prime minister's name.
So is interested the same as caring about something? Not by the definition you care to associate my interest.
As to being in denial about what or whom Trump is, that is an interesting assertion.
By what metric do you gauge objectively my understanding or your undrrstanding or as to which of us has the better understanding of this person we know from tv?
You don't have one? It was your belief/feeling/subjective opinion? Okay, thanks for sharing
I tend to agree on a few points.
I mean who the fuck gives a (straight, mind you) fuck about other foreign leaders?
It feels a bit embarrassing that an abject foreigner who lives in motherfucking Australia FFS seems to know more about our big players than the average US citizen.
I cringe! There are so many here putting up signs in people's yards to support something they were told was "cool" or the opposite and half of them know nothing about what they decide to support.
I could blame our news media. Remember the great ancient, but more current than ever before words from Thomas Jefferson about when the citizenry is well informed they can be trusted to govern themselves, but when things go wrong they should know and be trusted to set things right again and I have to paraphrase, since it has been about fifty years since I last read Jefferson. This assumes an informed public.
We do not have that in this day and age.!!
If you spend an hour per day reading what news you could in his day one knew everything there was to know, sort of, but today there is so much to read through to find an inkling of what you need to make decisions that might affect our futures, one becomes overwhelmed quickly.
Anyway, I applaud you for even knowing who our President is.
I remember my President talking to Prime Minister Turnbull about the refugee deal that was made with President Obama, but I could not go much deeper than that into your country's government.
I guess my question is WHY do even give a fuck about what is going on here?
-
It's interesting to note that you seem to live in some sort of denial over what Trump is and what he does, Al. I don't know why, exactly, considering that you say you don't care.
Interesting is the word. All of this American politics at the moment is interesting. Everyday 3 or 4 things are on the go.
What is happening in Australian politics? Does anyone know or care? Is it interesting?
I could not tell you the Swedish prime minister's name.
So is interested the same as caring about something? Not by the definition you care to associate my interest.
As to being in denial about what or whom Trump is, that is an interesting assertion.
By what metric do you gauge objectively my understanding or your undrrstanding or as to which of us has the better understanding of this person we know from tv?
You don't have one? It was your belief/feeling/subjective opinion? Okay, thanks for sharing
"Interested" will simply include whatever news there is. "Caring" will filter them according to some criteria. This thread alone offers many examples of the latter. But hey, I'm not judging, just observing.
-
I guess my question is WHY do even give a fuck about what is going on here?
Because it affects us all. Our guy, over here in Sweden, is an absolute moron, in my ever-so-humble opinion, but what he does or doesn't do barely affects me and most certainly not you or Al.
-
It's interesting to note that you seem to live in some sort of denial over what Trump is and what he does, Al. I don't know why, exactly, considering that you say you don't care.
Interesting is the word. All of this American politics at the moment is interesting. Everyday 3 or 4 things are on the go.
What is happening in Australian politics? Does anyone know or care? Is it interesting?
I could not tell you the Swedish prime minister's name.
So is interested the same as caring about something? Not by the definition you care to associate my interest.
As to being in denial about what or whom Trump is, that is an interesting assertion.
By what metric do you gauge objectively my understanding or your undrrstanding or as to which of us has the better understanding of this person we know from tv?
You don't have one? It was your belief/feeling/subjective opinion? Okay, thanks for sharing
I tend to agree on a few points.
I mean who the fuck gives a (straight, mind you) fuck about other foreign leaders?
It feels a bit embarrassing that an abject foreigner who lives in motherfucking Australia FFS seems to know more about our big players than the average US citizen.
I cringe! There are so many here putting up signs in people's yards to support something they were told was "cool" or the opposite and half of them know nothing about what they decide to support.
I could blame our news media. Remember the great ancient, but more current than ever before words from Thomas Jefferson about when the citizenry is well informed they can be trusted to govern themselves, but when things go wrong they should know and be trusted to set things right again and I have to paraphrase, since it has been about fifty years since I last read Jefferson. This assumes an informed public.
We do not have that in this day and age.!!
If you spend an hour per day reading what news you could in his day one knew everything there was to know, sort of, but today there is so much to read through to find an inkling of what you need to make decisions that might affect our futures, one becomes overwhelmed quickly.
Anyway, I applaud you for even knowing who our President is.
I remember my President talking to Prime Minister Turnbull about the refugee deal that was made with President Obama, but I could not go much deeper than that into your country's government.
I guess my question is WHY do even give a fuck about what is going on here?
Turnbull had a whole heap of illegal immigrants he refused to let into Australia. Trump was running his Presidency strong on a "Don't want to let immigrants into the country". Obama wanted to piss off Trump by making sneaky payments to Iran, declassifying certain intelligence, and arranging with a desperate Pm to do this "refugee trade" by stealth.
So he would have known he got one over Trump through Obama and that it was a shit thing to do. "I do not want these illegals here so I will send them to America and sign it just bvefore the guy who does not want them either comes to power". It was a shit thing to do and he got shit for it. No biggie really.
Turnbull is a dickhead but no worst than most.
-
It's interesting to note that you seem to live in some sort of denial over what Trump is and what he does, Al. I don't know why, exactly, considering that you say you don't care.
Interesting is the word. All of this American politics at the moment is interesting. Everyday 3 or 4 things are on the go.
What is happening in Australian politics? Does anyone know or care? Is it interesting?
I could not tell you the Swedish prime minister's name.
So is interested the same as caring about something? Not by the definition you care to associate my interest.
As to being in denial about what or whom Trump is, that is an interesting assertion.
By what metric do you gauge objectively my understanding or your undrrstanding or as to which of us has the better understanding of this person we know from tv?
You don't have one? It was your belief/feeling/subjective opinion? Okay, thanks for sharing
"Interested" will simply include whatever news there is. "Caring" will filter them according to some criteria. This thread alone offers many examples of the latter. But hey, I'm not judging, just observing.
Yup. No metric. I find many things interesting. Youtube videos of Ghosts and supernatural events and strange mysterious creatures caught on film. Interesting. Do I give a fuck if they are real or true or whatever? Nope. It's interesting and enjoyable. MMA wrestling - do I find that interesting? Absolutely. Do I care if they lose or win? No, someone will but it is the journey I like.
Then why on Earth if I will watch youtubes on these things, would I not watch ALL youtube videos irrespective of what was on them? See??? See Al? You care!
Righto then. So long as we are being honest in what we are trying to infer.
-
I guess my question is WHY do even give a fuck about what is going on here?
Because it affects us all. Our guy, over here in Sweden, is an absolute moron, in my ever-so-humble opinion, but what he does or doesn't do barely affects me and most certainly not you or Al.
In fact, I believe it affect both you and I, very little at all, but Dirt Dawg more so.
-
Yep, I'm done here.
Google is your friend...or your source of "fake news"...or can probably support whatever your reality wants to believe...somewhere.
I've got things to do and clothes to fold.
Since a few years newspapers here will not use anonymous sources anymore, though they may opt for not reveiling their source, while explaining why.
About a week ago there was a redactional article about how news from the USA was harder to check, because anonymous and thuis uncontrollable sources are common in USA news sources.
Gathering news can be hard and tricky.
At the moment my eyes are more on Erdogan than on Trump though.
-
Yeah and most of those do not support families, YET!
Going from :wanker: to OMG IT'S A BABY!! changes people.
I still do not think that the big money insurance companies have been given free rein to compete fairly in a dynamic marketplace. I do not mind a bit of Uncle Sam holding the reins and even jerking a bit from time to time but to hobble a massive industry with (Fucking R word) restrictions is insane and we all know this.
If you think that having the federal government control about one fifth of the national economy is a "kind of" good thing then you and I will have to agree to disagree, Period.
There HAS to be a better way!
Having a baby changes people from not needing insurance to then needing it. The system needs people who don't need it. Won't agree government control is necessarily a good thing, but will agree it's a functioning thing. Will have to disagree with market changes making insurance work for everyone, because pre-existing condition clauses made insurance not work for a lot of people regardless if they could afford it or not. A lot of pre-existing conditions have jumped into the pool, so healthy people have to jump in too. Not convinced there's a better way that sill involves insurance.
-
Devin Nunes is Chairman of the Intelligence Committee that is investigating this.
He is 100% Trumpdog loyal.
He has given contradictory statements, disclosed classified information to the public and has been observed meeting on White House grounds in an attempt to keep the president "informed" on issues under investigation.
He has been asked to step down by other members due to his obvious inability to remain impartial in this investigation.
He refuses to do so.
-
Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose ::) hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford. There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices. This needs to be changed. I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'. Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose ::)
Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.
Did I mention how pathetic you are?
It isn't 'healthcare' you fucking brain dead imbecile. It is compulsory insurance. Yes, in some cases it may have worked out better, but that depends on which state you are in. Quite obviously, obombercare is not the answer. Thanks to that clueless moron there was no cross state competition which would bring prices down. Trump addressed this in his debates but you were too busy and retarded focusing on 'racism'. You need help.
ever heard of minimum medical loss ratio? Yeah I didn't think so.
Please enlighten me? Does it help if the minimum loss is still shit loads?
-
Right now it is an "investigation".
I don't know what they have.
I do know that you can trace the ties, people are lying, and being caught in those lies...and a lot of those so called "fake" facts in the dossier can be verified by an kid under the age of 12 with search skills.
Neither do they :lol1:
-
You think he lost? How?
This was the first time he tried to achieve something without a presidential decree. He marketed himself as the dealmaker but couldn't close the deal in spite of having a Republican majority. Yeah, I'd say he lost.
But you know this.
This isn't about Trump winning, you childish fuck. It's about people's lives. Replacing nothing with something awful really isn't solving the issue. Trump was blocked because he won, he won the election. It wasn't blocked because these crooks care about people, they work for the business community, not normal people. You're that ignorant, naive, retarded and closed minded that you genuinely believe evil psychotic killers like McCain blocked it because they care about people getting healthcare etc :hahaha:
-
Yep, I'm done here.
Google is your friend...or your source of "fake news"...or can probably support whatever your reality wants to believe...somewhere.
I've got things to do and clothes to fold.
Since a few years newspapers here will not use anonymous sources anymore, though they may opt for not reveiling their source, while explaining why.
About a week ago there was a redactional article about how news from the USA was harder to check, because anonymous and thuis uncontrollable sources are common in USA news sources.
Gathering news can be hard and tricky.
At the moment my eyes are more on Erdogan than on Trump though.
As they should be. A lot of simpletons are more interested in Trump tweeting.
-
I guess my question is WHY do even give a fuck about what is going on here?
Because it affects us all. Our guy, over here in Sweden, is an absolute moron, in my ever-so-humble opinion, but what he does or doesn't do barely affects me and most certainly not you or Al.
In fact, I believe it affect both you and I, very little at all, but Dirt Dawg more so.
Oh, it affects DD more than us, but make no mistake, it affects us. Google it.
-
You think he lost? How?
This was the first time he tried to achieve something without a presidential decree. He marketed himself as the dealmaker but couldn't close the deal in spite of having a Republican majority. Yeah, I'd say he lost.
But you know this.
This isn't about Trump winning, you childish fuck. It's about people's lives. Replacing nothing with something awful really isn't solving the issue. Trump was blocked because he won, he won the election. It wasn't blocked because these crooks care about people, they work for the business community, not normal people. You're that ignorant, naive, retarded and closed minded that you genuinely believe evil psychotic killers like McCain blocked it because they care about people getting healthcare etc :hahaha:
You're right in that this isn't about Trump winning. He lost. :M
-
:facepalm2:
-
:popcorn:
What took you so long benji? Did you get a life...or did you forget to check your email alerts?
-
Well if I didn't have stuff to do I'd be checking my "email alerts" wouldn't I :autism: Sorry to keep you waiting.
-
These Republicans just don't know when to quit, do they? Now Paul Ryan said that they'll try again with the Obamacare repeal! Jesus, one day, they said that they'll just wait until Obamacare "implodes", next day, they're all "NO WE CAN'T WAIT ANY LONGER, WE GOTTA REPEAL OBAMACARE NOW NOW NOW!!!"
Fucking pathological lying assholes can't keep their story straight. The very same pathological lying assholes who will vote in favor of allowing ISP's to sell our Internet browsing data, today as of this post.
:facepalm2:
I fucking hate our government.
EDIT: Guess what? Your Internet history will soon now be sold to the highest bidder, and every single "yea" was from a Republican!
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_sale_of_internet_histories/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
BONUS: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/climate/trump-executive-order-climate-change.html
Our environment is fucked. Thanks, Trump. :grrr:
-
EDIT: Guess what? Your Internet history will soon now be sold to the highest bidder, and every single "yea" was from a Republican!
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_sale_of_internet_histories/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
This ruling was published 12/02/16 so the telecommunications industry already had the legal right to sell people's information. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services If anyone wanted this ruling to stick, they would have published it sooner; they had years to do that. When an outgoing administration bypasses congress and tosses new rulings over the fence during its final days, a new congress has the right to vote to revoke them. Basically what this means is, nothing has changed.
-
BONUS: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/climate/trump-executive-order-climate-change.html
Our environment is fucked. Thanks, Trump. :grrr:
This article makes it sound like it doesn't matter what Trump tries to do. There's other laws in place which this executive order can't compete against.
Legal experts say it could take years for the E.P.A. administrator to carry out the process of withdrawing and revising the climate change regulations, and the process will be hit by legal challenges at every turn. A coalition of states, including New York and California, has already vowed to fight Mr. Trump.
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York said he was preparing to challenge any effort to do away with regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Such a move, he argued, violated the Clean Air Act, as well as established case law.
-
Was just pricing coal online the other day, anthracite to be specific. Not actually going to buy coal, and live in paradise with no need for coal, but still know how much a 10 year supply of coal would cost and the spatial dimensions needed to store it. :laugh:
-
Does it help if the minimum loss is still shit loads?
Yes, it does. It also means competition has been rendered pointless.
-
Was just pricing coal online the other day, anthracite to be specific. Not actually going to buy coal, and live in paradise with no need for coal, but still know how much a 10 year supply of coal would cost and the special dimensions needed to store it. :laugh:
Believe it or not, about 25 or so miles downriver on the east bank of the Mississippi there is a coal storage lot(?). The coal is stored in the open between River Road and the river. About 200 feet to the left of River Road there is a marsh. I never thought I would see coal so far from the mountains in such a hot climate just a throw away from the swamp.
-
Was just pricing coal online the other day, anthracite to be specific. Not actually going to buy coal, and live in paradise with no need for coal, but still know how much a 10 year supply of coal would cost and the special dimensions needed to store it. :laugh:
Believe it or not, about 25 or so miles downriver on the east bank of the Mississippi there is a coal storage lot(?). The coal is stored in the open between River Road and the river. About 200 feet to the left of River Road there is a marsh. I never thought I would see coal so far from the mountains in such a hot climate just a throw away from the swamp.
Apparently 93% of all coal use in the US is used by utilities companies for generating electricity, so that might be what it's for, that or steel production.
-
On a "lighter" note, here's a robot that automatically prints and burns copies of Trump's tweets.
http://imgur.com/9fRUylO
:zoinks:
-
Devin Nunes is Chairman of the Intelligence Committee that is investigating this.
He is 100% Trumpdog loyal.
He has given contradictory statements, disclosed classified information to the public and has been observed meeting on White House grounds in an attempt to keep the president "informed" on issues under investigation.
He has been asked to step down by other members due to his obvious inability to remain impartial in this investigation.
He refuses to do so.
Ha, I know that when Amy Schumer's favourite unclue, Chuck Schumer, is not berating Manhattan restaurant goers, he is going to do his very best to denounce all Republican's and everything they do. You know IF the Democrats were in the same position that the Democrats are in, The Republicans would likely be doing the same. It's what the opposition party does.
The truth is that there are three issues that are being too often conflated. There is an issue of surveillance/wiretapping/spying on one Candidate/President Elect's administration by the outgoing President's Administration, There are the leaks out of the White House and there are the accusations of Trump and his team colluding with the Russians to influence the outcome of the election.
Devin Nunes DID report the findings of one of those investigations to Trump. President Trump as the Commander in Chief of the nation is certainly in a need to know position. Now here is the thing. Liberals and Democrats, do not like that Trump is able to be informed. They want him powerless, uninformed, or misinformed and throttled. Devin Nunes is simply treating him like thePresident of the United States of America, which he actually is, despite any wishings that he was not. That does not make Devin Nunes incompetent, nor a Trumpdog and it would be wrong to assert that.
I actually have an idea that Democrats and many Liberals do not actually care too much about what if President Trump does a bad job. If he does a bad job, then they will have something to point to and the Republicans that he is hanging onto with his fingernails will round on him. Sentiment from his fan base will turn against him. He may get impeached and he may get impeached. 2018 would be a big one in the mid-year elections and both the Republicans and the Democrats would block near on anything he said......................If he did a bad job. All of that would be great for the leaderless Democrats, right?
Now let's look at things the other way. What if, despite every accusation and smear, he did a GREAT job? How are those mid-years going to go? How credible will those Liberal Talking Heads look? How strong will the Democratic party look? How disempowered would Trump be? How disempowered would the Republican party be?
I think the Democrats are shitting themselves that he will be a great President. Personally, I think the court is out. Too early and he ha not been given a enough free rope to see if he hangs himself or does something impressive.
I really think that the Democrats need to really be a little less on the attack and be a little more self-reflective. They need to organise who is going to lead them. There are so many losers amoung them (plenty on the other side too BUT the other side has all the power). Bernie, Warren, Waters and Pelosi and old kooks and have embarrassed themselves.
I think that the young blood up and coming is the best (that does not include Franken - I thought he had potential and he kept being silly). Old Joe Biden? Too old. Chuck Schumer? I have mixed feelings. I give him a little more rope than the others because he is half-way bright and has a very difficult job. He is disingenuous and all but he has a difficult position. Keith Ellison is a radical. I think Booker and Duckworth are amoung the better ones. I think Booker being young and without a history of making an ass out of himself MAY be teh ticket if he sticks with his moderate voice and is in it for the long haul.
-
Was just pricing coal online the other day, anthracite to be specific. Not actually going to buy coal, and live in paradise with no need for coal, but still know how much a 10 year supply of coal would cost and the special dimensions needed to store it. :laugh:
Believe it or not, about 25 or so miles downriver on the east bank of the Mississippi there is a coal storage lot(?). The coal is stored in the open between River Road and the river. About 200 feet to the left of River Road there is a marsh. I never thought I would see coal so far from the mountains in such a hot climate just a throw away from the swamp.
Apparently 93% of all coal use in the US is used by utilities companies for generating electricity, so that might be what it's for, that or steel production.
Yeah. I assume it's being stored there awaiting shipment to some utility plant overseas. Since there's no railroad nearby, it's transported by ship. So is it possible it's coming in from overseas? I've never seen any activity there. But I haven't been down to Plaquemines Parish since before 2000.
-
I think the Democrats are shitting themselves that he will be a great President.
Right. :spitscreen:
Not going there because you see only what you want to see Al.
All I will say is this, if 1/4 of all this "smoke" I'm reading turns out to be verifiable this will sadly be bigger than Watergate ever was. So keep your popcorn handy, just in case.
-
Saw speculations about Trump maybe trying to win support from the Democrats, now so many Republicans don't play along nicely.
The guy speculating about this said he thought it a possible scenario, because Trump cares about Trump and successes for Trump. Not about the Republicans.
I wil stay tuned a bit, from a distance.
-
I think the Democrats are shitting themselves that he will be a great President.
Right. :spitscreen:
Not going there because you see only what you want to see Al.
All I will say is this, if 1/4 of all this "smoke" I'm reading turns out to be verifiable this will sadly be bigger than Watergate ever was. So keep your popcorn handy, just in case.
It's been Hell of a ride so far
-
There is an issue of surveillance/wiretapping/spying on one Candidate/President Elect's administration by the outgoing President's Administration,
It takes a bit more than a few tweets to prove it. If you have something, let the FBI know about it.
-
EDIT: Guess what? Your Internet history will soon now be sold to the highest bidder, and every single "yea" was from a Republican!
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_sale_of_internet_histories/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
This ruling was published 12/02/16 so the telecommunications industry already had the legal right to sell people's information. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services If anyone wanted this ruling to stick, they would have published it sooner; they had years to do that. When an outgoing administration bypasses congress and tosses new rulings over the fence during its final days, a new congress has the right to vote to revoke them. Basically what this means is, nothing has changed.
Try not to confuse him. Just say it was Trump and Putin, that's all he understands.
-
I think the Democrats are shitting themselves that he will be a great President.
Right. :spitscreen:
Not going there because you see only what you want to see Al.
All I will say is this, if 1/4 of all this "smoke" I'm reading turns out to be verifiable this will sadly be bigger than Watergate ever was. So keep your popcorn handy, just in case.
Still not a shred of evidence. Maybe you need to stop wasting your time.
If you are interested, check this out. This pretty much explains the reality of where we are at. And before you say "Russia, Russia, Russia...", All 3 guests are American, 1 contributes to the Huffington Post and another also writes for it as well as Salon.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1VXmdrDVv8
-
Was just pricing coal online the other day, anthracite to be specific. Not actually going to buy coal, and live in paradise with no need for coal, but still know how much a 10 year supply of coal would cost and the special dimensions needed to store it. :laugh:
Believe it or not, about 25 or so miles downriver on the east bank of the Mississippi there is a coal storage lot(?). The coal is stored in the open between River Road and the river. About 200 feet to the left of River Road there is a marsh. I never thought I would see coal so far from the mountains in such a hot climate just a throw away from the swamp.
Apparently 93% of all coal use in the US is used by utilities companies for generating electricity, so that might be what it's for, that or steel production.
Yeah. I assume it's being stored there awaiting shipment to some utility plant overseas. Since there's no railroad nearby, it's transported by ship. So is it possible it's coming in from overseas? I've never seen any activity there. But I haven't been down to Plaquemines Parish since before 2000.
First reflex was to say no; can't imagine the US need to import much coal, but the southeastern part of the country does because it's less expensive to import from South America than freight from within the US.
-
Here's an article from March, 2014 about our coal terminals. Who knew all these facts? Or alternate facts? I didn't.
http://wwno.org/post/environmental-groups-sue-plaquemines-coal-terminal-violating-clean-water-act
-
Still not a shred of evidence. Maybe you need to stop wasting your time.
Want some more kool-aid with your popcorn? :yawn:
-
There is an issue of surveillance/wiretapping/spying on one Candidate/President Elect's administration by the outgoing President's Administration,
It takes a bit more than a few tweets to prove it. If you have something, let the FBI know about it.
Who is this lady and what position has she held that may make her claim of spying on Trump credible?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gapRNpEjXUo
-
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia.
The thing about this is she resigned in September of 2015.
-
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia.
The thing about this is she resigned in September of 2015.
You are absolutely right. That is what makes things more troubling.
Like when leakers have bettet intel than the people investigating. Shr seems particularly well informed, up to date and confident in what she is saying. She is also the person to whom relationships could conceivably have been developed to keep her abreast of intel developments...........illegally.
You are right in wgat you say. She should be asked two very difficult questions, how do you know and how is the spreading of this intel not illegal?
-
This whole thing has nearly been going a year. My popcorn is stale. The funny thing is that Hillary actually had ties with Russia through her foundation. Media keeps 'forgetting' that.
-
(http://www.steveaoki.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/trump-putin-gay.jpg)
:zoinks:
-
This whole thing has nearly been going a year. My popcorn is stale. The funny thing is that Hillary actually had ties with Russia through her foundation. Media keeps 'forgetting' that.
Undeniably true.
-
This is my perspective. It is like a poker game that both of the opponents have gone all in. Its exciting
BUT what strikes me is simply that Trump and his Administration have gone all in against it. If there was ANY likely proof or even evidence, surely they would be trying to mitigate the possibly discovery of this.
There is to my mind either two reasons for the dems to go all in. Either they feel they have something OR they feel desperate and beaten and want to try to get him to prove a negative because they are desperate.
I don't know and don't much care. Its fun. But it appears it is the latter, doesn't it?
-
It's official.
Flynn is requesting immunity in exchange for his testimony.
The shit may be about to get real.
*passes the butter
:popcorn:
-
This whole thing has nearly been going a year. My popcorn is stale. The funny thing is that Hillary actually had ties with Russia through her foundation. Media keeps 'forgetting' that.
Undeniably true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.c034ebc58f84
-
It's official.
Flynn is requesting immunity in exchange for his testimony.
The shit may be about to get real.
*passes the butter
:popcorn:
Hmm. I wonder why he would request such a thing.
Hey, Benji, what do you think? :zoinks:
-
It's official.
Flynn is requesting immunity in exchange for his testimony.
The shit may be about to get real.
*passes the butter
:popcorn:
YES!!! I want some action and some intrigue and not boring vague insinuation.
I like Flynn and dislike Trump discarding both him and Lewindowsky. (Did not like Mannafort)
That said I think for all the drumrolls, it will be great for Flynn and not for the investigators. Remember how Comey gave the Criminal who wiped Hillary's server, immunity so he could pass on any information he had and it so happened that he had no information to give? I think it will be something similar for all the beat up.
I COULD be wrong and I HOPE I am. I want a bit of action.
-
It's official.
Flynn is requesting immunity in exchange for his testimony.
The shit may be about to get real.
*passes the butter
:popcorn:
Hmm. I wonder why he would request such a thing.
Hey, Benji, what do you think? :zoinks:
Can't speak for Benji but personally, I think he wants to exonerate himself from any charges from any investigations or any fallout. He ha clean his slate so to speak.
But I do not think you are asking that. I think you are implying that yo believe he has something on Trump and the narrative of Trump colluding with the Kremlin to cause Trump to win and Hillary to lose the election (I think this is the general charge or some variation of it)? But I think in this endeavour, he will not have much.
What I think may be the most he will or could come up with is that Tillerson, Mannafort, and Kushner have all have dealings with Russian elite rich (oligarchs) and such dealings are usually endorsed or ratified by the Kremlin and thus they have by proxy dealt with the Kremlin and therefore they could conceivably be considered to be favourably disposed to a foreign power and therefore some may consider that members of Trump Administration have a predisposition to Russia and this may affect their sense of moral latitude to do the bidding of the Russia government.................or may not at all.
Unfortunately, I think that is where they are really at.
I think EVEN IF they get THIS much from Flynn and they conclude that it "looks bad' and "looks like various members of the Trump Administration MAY be working on behalf of Russians and for the Russian benefits, and THEREFORE these members are advised to quit, because POSSIBLE conflicts...."
All Trump needs to say is "It may look like that to you be you are still speculating and fuck you, they are not resigning and I am not interested in defending this narrative"
Then what? Still no proof and more demands but no smoking gun.
I WILL enjoy the fireworks though and I think we need a bit more drama.
-
I also like Flynn, I do not know what he has to bring to the table, but I hope it's something.
Trump has always been a big fan of the Enquirer...and they've been known to cater to him...even more so now.
There latest propaganda cover still in supermarkets now:
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/381565/large/enquirer2-1.jpg?1490373097)
Basically it brands Flynn as the Russian spy and throws him under the proverbial bus. :facepalm2:
I hate the tabloids...and drama queens that like to use them as their "tool"...like I said, I hope he's got something.
-
I also like Flynn, I do not know what he has to bring to the table, but I hope it's something.
Trump has always been a big fan of the Enquirer...and they've been known to cater to him...even more so now.
There latest propaganda cover still in supermarkets now:
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/381565/large/enquirer2-1.jpg?1490373097)
Basically it brands Flynn as the Russian spy and throws him under the proverbial bus. :facepalm2:
I hate the tabloids...and drama queens that like to use them as their "tool"...like I said, I hope he's got something.
Yes, I hope he has something too. I don't really care about the National Enquirer.
Flynn had a rough deal. I can sympathise a little with Trump's position and I think his rationale gives him a "reason" to get rid of Flynn BUT it was not the right thing to do. A bit of pressure SHOULD have meant Trump should have gone Balls to the wall. That is the only reason the Democrats have gone after both Sessions and Gorsuch so hard. They were emboldened because Trump caved under Flynn. I understand it, sure, but I do not like it and I like Lewindowski more and hate that he was cut loose.
I want Flynn to clear himself. in whatever manner it takes to do that. I don't know what he has BUT so long as what he says is not petty backbiting, I am okay with it. I do not care if it is anti-Trump but so long as it does not come off as bitchy or petty, I do not mind. No gossip, just facts. Flynn is military and I think he will do exactly that.
He deserves a chance to wipe the slate clean and have some closure. If trump cops due heat, that is fine, he should have looked after Flynn better and gone the extra mile for him and not cut him when he could.
I am a believer in fair.
I have said it before and I will say it again. What you will get from Flynn may or may not be tantilising BUT the proof is in the pudding on what you will get from Mannafort. If Mannafort (who I do find deplorable) is subpoenaed and given immunity he will either bring down the campaign and vindicate every Liberal talking point OR not bring anything to the table and IF that is the case then you will know at that point, there will be NOTHING to bring
-
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kekwillsmitethisshithole/free-kekistan-kekfugeeswelcome-2wcpf?utm_term=.pvQ6PQn8Z7#.yy7n970GDK
https://archive.fo/WdPKu
-
This whole thing has nearly been going a year. My popcorn is stale. The funny thing is that Hillary actually had ties with Russia through her foundation. Media keeps 'forgetting' that.
Undeniably true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.c034ebc58f84
Haha, you and that rag. Did you even read the article? Go on, explain it all?
There's more evidence here connecting the Clinton's and the Russians than there is with Trump, but you believe that like a blind moron because your media says so. I'm sure it was all just a coincidence that Russia got the deal while Clinton was Secretary of State and millions were poured into their foundation by people directly connected to the deal :facepalm2:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
-
Reported that the FBI has no interest in granting immunity to Flynn.
:popcorn:
-
This whole thing has nearly been going a year. My popcorn is stale. The funny thing is that Hillary actually had ties with Russia through her foundation. Media keeps 'forgetting' that.
Undeniably true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.c034ebc58f84
Haha, you and that rag. Did you even read the article? Go on, explain it all?
There's more evidence here connecting the Clinton's and the Russians than there is with Trump, but you believe that like a blind moron because your media says so. I'm sure it was all just a coincidence that Russia got the deal while Clinton was Secretary of State and millions were poured into their foundation by people directly connected to the deal :facepalm2:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
Did YOU read it? Did you check the sources?
No?
-
It's official.
Flynn is requesting immunity in exchange for his testimony.
The shit may be about to get real.
*passes the butter
:popcorn:
Hmm. I wonder why he would request such a thing.
Hey, Benji, what do you think? :zoinks:
Can't speak for Benji but personally, I think he wants to exonerate himself from any charges from any investigations or any fallout. He ha clean his slate so to speak.
But I do not think you are asking that. I think you are implying that yo believe he has something on Trump and the narrative of Trump colluding with the Kremlin to cause Trump to win and Hillary to lose the election (I think this is the general charge or some variation of it)? But I think in this endeavour, he will not have much.
What I think may be the most he will or could come up with is that Tillerson, Mannafort, and Kushner have all have dealings with Russian elite rich (oligarchs) and such dealings are usually endorsed or ratified by the Kremlin and thus they have by proxy dealt with the Kremlin and therefore they could conceivably be considered to be favourably disposed to a foreign power and therefore some may consider that members of Trump Administration have a predisposition to Russia and this may affect their sense of moral latitude to do the bidding of the Russia government.................or may not at all.
Unfortunately, I think that is where they are really at.
I think EVEN IF they get THIS much from Flynn and they conclude that it "looks bad' and "looks like various members of the Trump Administration MAY be working on behalf of Russians and for the Russian benefits, and THEREFORE these members are advised to quit, because POSSIBLE conflicts...."
All Trump needs to say is "It may look like that to you be you are still speculating and fuck you, they are not resigning and I am not interested in defending this narrative"
Then what? Still no proof and more demands but no smoking gun.
I WILL enjoy the fireworks though and I think we need a bit more drama.
When you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime
-
JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUAL³³º¹ @th3j35t3r 22h22 hours ago
#FLASH A previously reliable source says they have 2 further sources stating Trump is "considering his options, including resignation".
1,342 replies 6,142 retweets 11,353 likes
:popcorn:
-
JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUAL³³º¹ @th3j35t3r 22h22 hours ago
#FLASH A previously reliable source says they have 2 further sources stating Trump is "considering his options, including resignation".
1,342 replies 6,142 retweets 11,353 likes
:popcorn:
Interesting. I would like to see how it plays out. If he resigned you know who Americans are left with. THAT could be even more fun
-
I'll believe it when I see it.
-
I'll believe it when I see it.
Agreed. Anything less is really political gossip. Plenty on both sides.
-
An anonymous source has informed me that Donald Trump is actually 3 Oompa-Loompa's in a suit. :orly:
-
An anonymous source has informed me that Donald Trump is actually 3 Oompa-Loompa's in a suit. :orly:
Probably no worse than any other anonymous sources then, in terms of accuracy.
-
All those anonymous sources make it really hard to following the news.
My newspaper explusin a while ago that they would be using information from newsagencies in the USA, but that they could not vouch for it being true, because of all the use of realy anonimous sources.
Even lots of news from Syria has more verifiable sources. :GA:
-
All those anonymous sources make it really hard to following the news.
My newspaper explusin a while ago that they would be using information from newsagencies in the USA, but that they could not vouch for it being true, because of all the use of realy anonimous sources.
Even lots of news from Syria has more verifiable sources. :GA:
I am in two minds with it, of course, more speculation and anonymous sources is more drama and excitement. It makes things interesting and so on. My big problem is when people choose one narrative over another BASED on anonymous sources. I am cool saying "Such and such said x and so wouldn't it be hilarious/hysterical/scary/mindblowing if y happened"
Treat what is proven as real and what is not as potential. Not fact.
My big prediction in all of this is that Trump will remain President. Obama and every other person in the Obama Government and Hillary and her groupies, will all get away with whatever they are accused of. No one will go down for anything and IF anything is actually discovered and proven, it will result in changes but no criminal charges or jail time for anyone.
-
I am in two minds with it, of course, more speculation and anonymous sources is more drama and excitement. It makes things interesting and so on. My big problem is when people choose one narrative over another BASED on anonymous sources. I am cool saying "Such and such said x and so wouldn't it be hilarious/hysterical/scary/mindblowing if y happened"
Treat what is proven as real and what is not as potential. Not fact.
But there is no "such and such" saying X. It's anonimous. It could be true, it could be fiction. There is no way of verifying the source, not even for the journalist writing the article. Yet people reading or hearing it act on it as if it could be true. Fiction is getting too big an influence.
I'm old school. News should be gathered in a way similar to science. Give sources, check sources. Nothing wrong with biased sources, as long as the context is clear.
Long time ago my dad would write reports with a colleague. To make sure they read and checked one another, they'd hide fiction or recipes in their texts, like Easter eggs for the other to find.
Nothing wrong with fiction on the Potuses either. But make it a story or a fiction novel.
-
So, my thought on this?
Either the journalists are not doing their fucking job or the USA has become such a repressed country (via sueing) that people don't dare to be a verifiable source any more. I sure hope the latter isn't true.
-
Take it with a grain of salt and as rumor until proven otherwise.
I personally tend to enjoy unverifiable sources from people with a past high accuracy level...I view it like having a potential warning system before a possible shitstorm. :laugh:
There is so much shit flying here lately they can't seem to keep up with it or edit it fast enough.
-
JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUAL³³º¹ @th3j35t3r 22h22 hours ago
#FLASH A previously reliable source says they have 2 further sources stating Trump is "considering his options, including resignation".
1,342 replies 6,142 retweets 11,353 likes
:popcorn:
Another option would be suicide. :M
-
JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUAL³³º¹ @th3j35t3r 22h22 hours ago
#FLASH A previously reliable source says they have 2 further sources stating Trump is "considering his options, including resignation".
1,342 replies 6,142 retweets 11,353 likes
:popcorn:
Another option would be suicide. :M
Actually I've thought about that since the beginning. :P
He's the first one I think that is unstable enough that I would consider at risk when the ship starts sinking.
-
He should commit seppuku.
-
An alternative would simply be, settle in, take down or minimise those that are warring against him fulfil his promises he made to the people that elected him and work through any roadblocks the people aligned against him have currently put up. And no, not all people have to like or support it, but he was voted in to do exactly that.
I think this is more constructive
-
:thumbup: Come to the USA and have fun with that.
Me, I'm venting online because I'm pissed off about unrelated things.
After all, seppuku is a time-honored tradition and Trump attempting to participate would only defile the ritual.
-
:thumbup: Come to the USA and have fun with that.
Me, I'm venting online because I'm pissed off about unrelated things.
After all, seppuku is a time-honored tradition and Trump attempting to participate would only defile the ritual.
I know, I just see (not only here) everyone saying 'He has to step down", "he should kill himself", "he needs to give up". Why ought he not just do what he was elected to do?
-
:thumbup: Come to the USA and have fun with that.
Me, I'm venting online because I'm pissed off about unrelated things.
After all, seppuku is a time-honored tradition and Trump attempting to participate would only defile the ritual.
The Japanese would be insulted.
-
Think that most people want him to do what he should be doing. But are not seing him do that yet.
-
:thumbup: Come to the USA and have fun with that.
Me, I'm venting online because I'm pissed off about unrelated things.
After all, seppuku is a time-honored tradition and Trump attempting to participate would only defile the ritual.
I know, I just see (not only here) everyone saying 'He has to step down", "he should kill himself", "he needs to give up". Why ought he not just do what he was elected to do?
Because he won't do the things he was elected to. Duh.
-
:thumbup: Come to the USA and have fun with that.
Me, I'm venting online because I'm pissed off about unrelated things.
After all, seppuku is a time-honored tradition and Trump attempting to participate would only defile the ritual.
I know, I just see (not only here) everyone saying 'He has to step down", "he should kill himself", "he needs to give up". Why ought he not just do what he was elected to do?
Because he won't do the things he was elected to. Duh.
YOu mean he has not done all the things he promised to do in the first 3 months of his 4 year term, right? Duh?
-
:thumbup: Come to the USA and have fun with that.
Me, I'm venting online because I'm pissed off about unrelated things.
After all, seppuku is a time-honored tradition and Trump attempting to participate would only defile the ritual.
I know, I just see (not only here) everyone saying 'He has to step down", "he should kill himself", "he needs to give up". Why ought he not just do what he was elected to do?
Because he won't do the things he was elected to. Duh.
YOu mean he has not done all the things he promised to do in the first 3 months of his 4 year term, right? Duh?
No he acts like a whiny spoiled 4 yr old brat and has created chaos here in just 3 months...even people that supported his fat ass to the end are now regretting it.
American's have basically bought a timeshare in Trump Tower and are paying out the ass for weekends in Mar A Lago while he does "works his magic"...next we're all going to buy a wall that we don't need because no one with an ounce of fucking sanity is immigrating here, because we've got a nutjob at the helm. :roar:
I don't really wish violence or death on anyone...but I seriously hope he gorges himself on about 6 boxes of Twinkies and falls into a sugar coma for about a month and gives us all a damn break already. :zoinks:
-
I'm not saying he SHOULD kill himself.
I wouldn't mind if he did, though. Obama's dog would do a better job.
-
:thumbup: Come to the USA and have fun with that.
Me, I'm venting online because I'm pissed off about unrelated things.
After all, seppuku is a time-honored tradition and Trump attempting to participate would only defile the ritual.
I know, I just see (not only here) everyone saying 'He has to step down", "he should kill himself", "he needs to give up". Why ought he not just do what he was elected to do?
Because he won't do the things he was elected to. Duh.
YOu mean he has not done all the things he promised to do in the first 3 months of his 4 year term, right? Duh?
Okay, then educate me. What the fuck has Trump done?
-
:thumbup: Come to the USA and have fun with that.
Me, I'm venting online because I'm pissed off about unrelated things.
After all, seppuku is a time-honored tradition and Trump attempting to participate would only defile the ritual.
I know, I just see (not only here) everyone saying 'He has to step down", "he should kill himself", "he needs to give up". Why ought he not just do what he was elected to do?
Because he won't do the things he was elected to. Duh.
YOu mean he has not done all the things he promised to do in the first 3 months of his 4 year term, right? Duh?
Okay, then educate me. What the fuck has Trump done?
What has Trump done in his 4 year term? He had a lot of promises and it is only reasonable that in 4 years of his term he will have accomplished many or most and hopefully all of them. So now that he has done his 4 year term what has he achieved?
What....? Don't be silly, Al? He HASN'T done 4 years? He has hardly started and barely got half his cabinet in, how the heck is he supposed to have achieved everything or Hell, anything by now? That is stupid.
The BEST he COULD have done under best conditions is to have done what he has done already PLUS passed the Obamacare alternative IF paul Ryan was prepared to negotiate and consider alternative proposals (which he didn't)
So....?
-
I think this is a big part of the problem Al.
I don't even think the people that voted for him are expecting him to change the world in 3 months. From a realistic point that would be impossible for anyone to accomplish.
What no one was expecting was him to hurry and try to ram all this shit down our throats in 3 months when it wasn't fully planned out, full of loopholes, and lacking vital details.
You have an idea...you take time to plan, you draw it up, you consult people...and you figure out the details.
Instead, he's trying to serve us shit half baked. As a businessman he should already be aware that poor planning often leads to failure. But instead he seems clueless and instead passes the blame onto others. :dunno:
-
This whole thing has nearly been going a year. My popcorn is stale. The funny thing is that Hillary actually had ties with Russia through her foundation. Media keeps 'forgetting' that.
Undeniably true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.c034ebc58f84
Haha, you and that rag. Did you even read the article? Go on, explain it all?
There's more evidence here connecting the Clinton's and the Russians than there is with Trump, but you believe that like a blind moron because your media says so. I'm sure it was all just a coincidence that Russia got the deal while Clinton was Secretary of State and millions were poured into their foundation by people directly connected to the deal :facepalm2:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
Did YOU read it? Did you check the sources?
No?
OK. So you didn't read it and can't explain it.
-
Trump has done more in a few months than Obama did in 8 years. Though Obama did try to do a lot in his last couple of months. A weaker man would have collapsed already under the constant rampage from the media and 'intelligence' agencies. Clinton definitely would have collapsed again. The US really is becoming a laughing stock, but not so much because of Trump. It's more about the meltdown of the media and the Democrat party and beating a dead horse over the Russia conspiracy theory stuff. They go round the world promoting 'democracy' but can't accept a democratic vote in their own country :lol1: Even if the conspiracy theory was true about Russia, the US wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Given how they just other throw governments across the world and supports coups. Just take what Obama was doing in Syria by arming terrorists to fight Assad. As well as other throwing the government jn Honduras in 2011, not to mention their involvement in Libya.
-
I guess you never actually check the sources.
-
Trump has done more in a few months than Obama did in 8 years. Though Obama did try to do a lot in his last couple of months. A weaker man would have collapsed already under the constant rampage from the media and 'intelligence' agencies. Clinton definitely would have collapsed again. The US really is becoming a laughing stock, but not so much because of Trump. It's more about the meltdown of the media and the Democrat party and beating a dead horse over the Russia conspiracy theory stuff. They go round the world promoting 'democracy' but can't accept a democratic vote in their own country :lol1: Even if the conspiracy theory was true about Russia, the US wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Given how they just other throw governments across the world and supports coups. Just take what Obama was doing in Syria by arming terrorists to fight Assad. As well as other throwing the government jn Honduras in 2011, not to mention their involvement in Libya.
This is so true. Half the country is still saying he is illegitimate sfter the other half votrd him in.
One long dummy spit
-
I guess you never actually check the sources.
What are you struggling with?
-
Sure he's done more in 3 months.
A shame it's all been done half-assed and been poorly planned out.
I know electricians that can wire a house in a day...might take 6 months before it burns down...but hey :zoinks:..they can do it in a day.
Whippee...who gives a fuck?
-
He got rid of TPP and cut off arms to terrorists in Syria. It was worth him getting in just for that.
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
And? What's you're point? They all knew how the system worked before the election. No one was crying before. Gore was actually cheated, as was Sanders by Clinton.
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
And? What's you're point? They all knew how the system worked before the election. No one was crying before. Gore was actually cheated, as was Sanders by Clinton.
Sanders wouldn't have had much of a chance. Clinton was a far safer choice for Democrats. She also got cheated due to Wikileaks being selective in their leaks of emails.
Also, you're and your are not interchangeable.
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
And? What's you're point? They all knew how the system worked before the election. No one was crying before. Gore was actually cheated, as was Sanders by Clinton.
Sanders wouldn't have had much of a chance. Clinton was a far safer choice for Democrats. She also got cheated due to Wikileaks being selective in their leaks of emails.
Also, you're and your are not interchangeable.
Trump had Access Hollywood tapes andshe had all of the Liberal media in her pocket AND got the questions of the debates given to her BUT she had lied under oath on the Benghazi hearings AND had played hard and loose with a private server.
I am also wondering what you are saying about the popular vote. Half the eligible voters voted. and of those both candidates got approximately the same number of votes, with Trump winning the electoral college and thus the Presidency.
So what was your point?
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
And? What's you're point? They all knew how the system worked before the election. No one was crying before. Gore was actually cheated, as was Sanders by Clinton.
Sanders wouldn't have had much of a chance. Clinton was a far safer choice for Democrats. She also got cheated due to Wikileaks being selective in their leaks of emails.
Also, you're and your are not interchangeable.
Trump had Access Hollywood tapes andshe had all of the Liberal media in her pocket AND got the questions of the debates given to her BUT she had lied under oath on the Benghazi hearings AND had played hard and loose with a private server.
I am also wondering what you are saying about the popular vote. Half the eligible voters voted. and of those both candidates got approximately the same number of votes, with Trump winning the electoral college and thus the Presidency.
So what was your point?
A lot of Democratic voters didn't get the chance to vote because their local voting places got shut down by Republicans.
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
And? What's you're point? They all knew how the system worked before the election. No one was crying before. Gore was actually cheated, as was Sanders by Clinton.
Sanders wouldn't have had much of a chance. Clinton was a far safer choice for Democrats. She also got cheated due to Wikileaks being selective in their leaks of emails.
Also, you're and your are not interchangeable.
So it was alright to cheat him and voters and put Clinton in place? :facepalm2:
:rofl: She got cheated by getting found out? You fucking moron! Assange was just levelling the playing field. The media was utterly silent about Clinton's endless crimes but went on and on about what Trump said 11 years ago on a bus. If the media were consistent Trump would have won in a landslide, that's how awful that woman is. She was endorsed by 9/10 of the leading arms companies. Just let that sink in you stupid cunt.
It happens with auto correct.
-
(http://img.memecdn.com/amp-quot-there-their-they-amp-039-re-amp-quot_o_2033313.jpg)
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
Hillary won the popular vote against Obama in 2008. Hey why not bitch about that too?
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
And? What's you're point? They all knew how the system worked before the election. No one was crying before. Gore was actually cheated, as was Sanders by Clinton.
Sanders wouldn't have had much of a chance. Clinton was a far safer choice for Democrats. She also got cheated due to Wikileaks being selective in their leaks of emails.
Also, you're and your are not interchangeable.
So it was alright to cheat him and voters and put Clinton in place? :facepalm2:
:rofl: She got cheated by getting found out? You fucking moron! Assange was just levelling the playing field. The media was utterly silent about Clinton's endless crimes but went on and on about what Trump said 11 years ago on a bus. If the media were consistent Trump would have won in a landslide, that's how awful that woman is. She was endorsed by 9/10 of the leading arms companies. Just let that sink in you stupid cunt.
It happens with auto correct.
Ass-sausage was just leveling the playing field? Bullshit. He wanted Trump and the Republicans to win because he's working for the Russians now. If Ass-sausage really cared about "leveling the playing field", he would've released stuff about Trump as well, but he chose not to, because Putin's got him wrapped around his little finger.
The media gave plenty of airtime to the Republicans asking about nothing but emails, emails, emails. And somehow, people thought that was enough of a reason to vote for Trump, and in turn the Republicans.
Also, the "leading arms companies" were probably banking on a Clinton win. Everybody was. If the leading arms companies thought Trump was going to win, they would've endorsed him instead. It doesn't matter now, because the military-industry complex is getting what it wants, anyway. More spending on the military and more war.
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
And? What's you're point? They all knew how the system worked before the election. No one was crying before. Gore was actually cheated, as was Sanders by Clinton.
Sanders wouldn't have had much of a chance. Clinton was a far safer choice for Democrats. She also got cheated due to Wikileaks being selective in their leaks of emails.
Also, you're and your are not interchangeable.
So it was alright to cheat him and voters and put Clinton in place? :facepalm2:
:rofl: She got cheated by getting found out? You fucking moron! Assange was just levelling the playing field. The media was utterly silent about Clinton's endless crimes but went on and on about what Trump said 11 years ago on a bus. If the media were consistent Trump would have won in a landslide, that's how awful that woman is. She was endorsed by 9/10 of the leading arms companies. Just let that sink in you stupid cunt.
It happens with auto correct.
Ass-sausage was just leveling the playing field? Bullshit. He wanted Trump and the Republicans to win because he's working for the Russians now. If Ass-sausage really cared about "leveling the playing field", he would've released stuff about Trump as well, but he chose not to, because Putin's got him wrapped around his little finger.
The media gave plenty of airtime to the Republicans asking about nothing but emails, emails, emails. And somehow, people thought that was enough of a reason to vote for Trump, and in turn the Republicans.
Also, the "leading arms companies" were probably banking on a Clinton win. Everybody was. If the leading arms companies thought Trump was going to win, they would've endorsed him instead. It doesn't matter now, because the military-industry complex is getting what it wants, anyway. More spending on the military and more war.
Hahaha. Trump wants war and Clinton wanted peace. Up is down. Left is right and black is white.
-
They both wanted war. So what? It's not like they have different tactics or anything. ::)
Clinton wanted to keep Obamacare as is and improve upon it over time.
Trump wanted to throw out every good part of Obamacare, and help make UnitedHealthcare even richer.
(While 24 million people lose their insurance.)
Clinton wanted to retain Obama's net neutrality and Internet privacy rules.
Trump wants to throw them out because Comcast doesn't like those rules.
Clinton wanted to invest more in green energy and climate change mitigation.
Trump wants to invest in coal and pretend climate change doesn't even fucking exist.
Even though Big Oil are finally acknowledging the problem of climate change.
Clinton wanted to actually help create jobs.
Trump wants to sit and do nothing but take credit every time a company happens to create 10 new jobs.
Clinton wanted to improve accessibility to family planning and reproductive care centers.
Trump wants to defund Planned Parenthood because abortion's bad, m'kay?
May I go on? Or should Al come up with more strawmans? :wanker:
-
They both wanted war. So what? It's not like they have different tactics or anything. ::)
Clinton wanted to keep Obamacare as is and improve upon it over time.
Trump wanted to throw out every good part of Obamacare, and help make UnitedHealthcare even richer.
(While 24 million people lose their insurance.)
Clinton wanted to retain Obama's net neutrality and Internet privacy rules.
Trump wants to throw them out because Comcast doesn't like those rules.
Clinton wanted to invest more in green energy and climate change mitigation.
Trump wants to invest in coal and pretend climate change doesn't even fucking exist.
Even though Big Oil are finally acknowledging the problem of climate change.
Clinton wanted to actually help create jobs.
Trump wants to sit and do nothing but take credit every time a company happens to create 10 new jobs.
Clinton wanted to improve accessibility to family planning and reproductive care centers.
Trump wants to defund Planned Parenthood because abortion's bad, m'kay?
May I go on? Or should Al come up with more strawmans? :wanker:
Hillary-ous. Irony knows no bounds.
If I can be bothered. I will take this apart piece by piece. But not now. Work tomorrow...today. Gotta go to bed or I will sleep in and won't wake my daughter and we will both be late.
-
Al or benji don't give two shits about women loosing their reproductive rights or access to birth control.
They don't care if their neighbor's family is broken up and he's suddenly deported after years of being here.
Neither one is worried that they might lose their health care or not be able to afford it for the next 4 years.
They don't care if budget cuts do away with Meals on Wheels or any of the other programs that help the people that really need it.
They aren't paying to protect Princess Peach in her golden tower in NYC, they're not paying for any walls, golf trips, or weekends at Mar a Lago either.
They just like to argue and tell us what's "best" for us. They aren't dealing with any of the repercussions, or the protests, or the constant drama on the news.
I shouldn't bother, because neither one is going to see it any other way...and neither will I for that matter...but personally I find their arguments amusing.
-
Benji is hilarious at times.
-
Al or benji don't give two shits about women loosing their reproductive rights or access to birth control.
They don't care if their neighbor's family is broken up and he's suddenly deported after years of being here.
Neither one is worried that they might lose their health care or not be able to afford it for the next 4 years.
They don't care if budget cuts do away with Meals on Wheels or any of the other programs that help the people that really need it.
They aren't paying to protect Princess Peach in her golden tower in NYC, they're not paying for any walls, golf trips, or weekends at Mar a Lago either.
They just like to argue and tell us what's "best" for us. They aren't dealing with any of the repercussions, or the protests, or the constant drama on the news.
I shouldn't bother, because neither one is going to see it any other way...and neither will I for that matter...but personally I find their arguments amusing.
That's funny, because there are millions who live right in the USA and still don't care. :grrr:
-
That's funny, because there are millions who live right in the USA and still don't care. :grrr:
I know.
Many will never care until something hits home.
It's fucked up in so many ways.
It's not all of them though, I try to remember that.
-
Speaking of democracy, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. As did Al Gore.
And? What's you're point? They all knew how the system worked before the election. No one was crying before. Gore was actually cheated, as was Sanders by Clinton.
Sanders wouldn't have had much of a chance. Clinton was a far safer choice for Democrats. She also got cheated due to Wikileaks being selective in their leaks of emails.
Also, you're and your are not interchangeable.
So it was alright to cheat him and voters and put Clinton in place? :facepalm2:
:rofl: She got cheated by getting found out? You fucking moron! Assange was just levelling the playing field. The media was utterly silent about Clinton's endless crimes but went on and on about what Trump said 11 years ago on a bus. If the media were consistent Trump would have won in a landslide, that's how awful that woman is. She was endorsed by 9/10 of the leading arms companies. Just let that sink in you stupid cunt.
It happens with auto correct.
Ass-sausage was just leveling the playing field? Bullshit. He wanted Trump and the Republicans to win because he's working for the Russians now. If Ass-sausage really cared about "leveling the playing field", he would've released stuff about Trump as well, but he chose not to, because Putin's got him wrapped around his little finger.
The media gave plenty of airtime to the Republicans asking about nothing but emails, emails, emails. And somehow, people thought that was enough of a reason to vote for Trump, and in turn the Republicans.
Also, the "leading arms companies" were probably banking on a Clinton win. Everybody was. If the leading arms companies thought Trump was going to win, they would've endorsed him instead. It doesn't matter now, because the military-industry complex is getting what it wants, anyway. More spending on the military and more war.
Any evidence for these conspiracy theories? The New York Times released stuff on Trump. Do you think Trump stole Putin's red slippers?
Yes "emails", but not a word about the content of the emails pretty much.
They were endorsing their girl. They were horrified with Trump's stance in Syria and him being against nukes. Don't worry, the war industry have Trump now. The 'experts' are already praising him.
-
Abortion isn't a good thing. I just care more about the US killing millions across the world.
-
Abortion isn't a good thing. I just care more about the US killing millions across the world.
I never said it was a good thing...I will say that sometimes I feel it can be the right thing.
Quality vs. quantity of life...what do you choose?
Walk a mile in someone else shoes, then pass judgement.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/health/texas-wrongful-birth-dortha-lesli/index.html
Dortha is not "fake news"...neither is Lesli...and they are not alone.
You choose to remain childless because that is your choice...and it's an easy choice to make for you.
Sometimes women don't have that "easy" choice.
We can be denied birth control, denied sterilization, and we are left with the choice to remain celibate, hope that we are never raped...or that no one lies to us about that vasectomy they "might" have had, the condom never breaks, ...or we never have a child with severe health problems and get to watch them suffer for the rest of their lives and ours.
-
You choose to remain childless because that is your choice...and it's an easy choice to make for you.
I think other people choose it for him. :zoinks:
-
Have the opinion men actually have fewer choices.
-
Have the opinion men actually have fewer choices.
In whether or not to have children? I think the choice there is between acting responsibly and not, which is still a choice we get to make.
If men got pregnant abortions would be free.
-
Have the opinion men actually have fewer choices.
In whether or not to have children? I think the choice there is between acting responsibly and not, which is still a choice we get to make.
If men got pregnant abortions would be free.
Men have fewer birth control choices. Condom effectiveness rates are similar to the rhythm and withdrawal methods, so sterilization or abstinence are the only highly effective options.
-
Have the opinion men actually have fewer choices.
In whether or not to have children? I think the choice there is between acting responsibly and not, which is still a choice we get to make.
If men got pregnant abortions would be free.
Men have fewer birth control choices. Condom effectiveness rates are similar to the rhythm and withdrawal methods, so sterilization or abstinence are the only highly effective options.
And sterilization is free (for now)
-
And a very good idea for some. :zoinks:
-
Have the opinion men actually have fewer choices.
In whether or not to have children? I think the choice there is between acting responsibly and not, which is still a choice we get to make.
If men got pregnant abortions would be free.
Men have fewer birth control choices. Condom effectiveness rates are similar to the rhythm and withdrawal methods, so sterilization or abstinence are the only highly effective options.
And sterilization is free (for now)
It is?
-
Have the opinion men actually have fewer choices.
In whether or not to have children? I think the choice there is between acting responsibly and not, which is still a choice we get to make.
If men got pregnant abortions would be free.
Men have fewer birth control choices. Condom effectiveness rates are similar to the rhythm and withdrawal methods, so sterilization or abstinence are the only highly effective options.
And sterilization is free (for now)
It is?
Under your health insurance as preventative medicine. Yeah, yeah, you could argue that you have to pay for health insurance, just like you have to pay for water and electricity and sewer, so "free" within the confines of what you already have to pay for to live.
-
Have the opinion men actually have fewer choices.
In whether or not to have children? I think the choice there is between acting responsibly and not, which is still a choice we get to make.
If men got pregnant abortions would be free.
Men have fewer birth control choices. Condom effectiveness rates are similar to the rhythm and withdrawal methods, so sterilization or abstinence are the only highly effective options.
And sterilization is free (for now)
It is?
Under your health insurance as preventative medicine. Yeah, yeah, you could argue that you have to pay for health insurance, just like you have to pay for water and electricity and sewer, so "free" within the confines of what you already have to pay for to live.
Men too?
-
On every health insurance policy I have owned since the ACA was passed anyway. I've been contemplating.
-
It was my understanding the ACA only specified women; could be wrong about that.
-
Free sterilization was part of my insurance plan in my early twenties, but assumed they offered it because it's cheaper than a birth. :laugh:
-
It may be covered if you're a woman (mine was) but still not easily obtainable everywhere.
I know that here, 19+ years ago it was basically impossible to find a Dr. willing to perform the operation if you were childless...almost just as impossible if you only had one child, (I had to fight like hell...and my chart for future child-bearing basically had "high risk" stamped all over it). Unfortunately I hear from many that it still hasn't changed much.
-
That was the point; was talking about men's lack of effective choices. Looked it up and the ACA doesn't guarantee anything for men; though some insurance carriers may offer it, and a couple of states have individual state laws requiring insurance companies to also cover men.
-
I would have voted for Trump purely on his stance in Syria, fighting with Assad and Putin rather than against them.
"Trump launches military strike against Syria
The United States launched a military strike Thursday on a Syrian government target in retaliation for their chemical weapons attack on civilians earlier in the week.
On President Donald Trump's orders, US warships launched between 50-60 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian government airbase where the warplanes that carried out the chemical attacks were based, US officials said."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html
Oh wait...CNN is fake news...better pull that shit up on Fox. :facepalm2:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/06/us-launches-missiles-into-syria-in-response-to-chemical-weapons-attack.html
-
Free sterilization was part of my insurance plan in my early twenties, but assumed they offered it because it's cheaper than a birth. :laugh:
I did my own free sterilization. It's called "Be celibate till you're too old to conceive." :prude: :P
-
They both wanted war. So what? It's not like they have different tactics or anything. ::)
Clinton wanted to keep Obamacare as is and improve upon it over time.
Trump wanted to throw out every good part of Obamacare, and help make UnitedHealthcare even richer.
(While 24 million people lose their insurance.)
Clinton wanted to retain Obama's net neutrality and Internet privacy rules.
Trump wants to throw them out because Comcast doesn't like those rules.
Clinton wanted to invest more in green energy and climate change mitigation.
Trump wants to invest in coal and pretend climate change doesn't even fucking exist.
Even though Big Oil are finally acknowledging the problem of climate change.
Clinton wanted to actually help create jobs.
Trump wants to sit and do nothing but take credit every time a company happens to create 10 new jobs.
Clinton wanted to improve accessibility to family planning and reproductive care centers.
Trump wants to defund Planned Parenthood because abortion's bad, m'kay?
May I go on? Or should Al come up with more strawmans? :wanker:
Hillary-ous. Irony knows no bounds.
If I can be bothered. I will take this apart piece by piece. But not now. Work tomorrow...today. Gotta go to bed or I will sleep in and won't wake my daughter and we will both be late.
Clinton wanted to keep Obamacare as is and improve upon it over time.
Trump wanted to throw out every good part of Obamacare, and help make UnitedHealthcare even richer.
(While 24 million people lose their insurance.)
Yes, work on the affordable part of the Affordable health act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI7vpO5M8rI
(http://i.imgur.com/AjDueaP.jpg)
Woo Hoo. There is a health plan worth saving. :lol1:
Clinton wanted to retain Obama's net neutrality and Internet privacy rules.
Trump wants to throw them out because Comcast doesn't like those rules.
Did she? What did Obama want to do with the internet and what was his position?
Did Obama give away control of the internet from the US Government to a private organisation? The answer is either yes or it is no. Is giving control over to a private organisation (and considering that Private organisations are beholden to the shareholders and driven by the need to make a profit, whereas the government is driven by a need to fulfill its role of looking after it's citizens) making a good or a bad thing?Does keeping control of the net in the government give the net more or less censorship? Does it give the net more or less risk of a departure from neutrality?
No? http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/265087/hillary-clinton-censor-internet-or-people-will-die-daniel-greenfield
Hillary thinks censorship is good or bad? Morally speaking.
Clinton wanted to invest more in green energy and climate change mitigation.
Trump wants to invest in coal and pretend climate change doesn't even fucking exist.
Even though Big Oil are finally acknowledging the problem of climate change.
Does climate change exist?
Does man's interaction with the environment change the climate measurably?
How measurably?
Here is the thing, people get two positions confused. Is the climate "changing"? YES! Will it continue to change? Yes. Are some of these changes not beneficial for us? Yes.
Has the Earth always been changing? Yes. Was it changing before we were around? Yes. Will it continue to change long after we stop existing on this planet? Yes. Are some of these changes bad for humans? Yes.
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.
How much? Dunno.
When people deny climate change the Liberals call them stupid and say that it is proved that the environment is changing and the climate is changing and so ...duh....man is changing the environment and so the climate is changing. But is he. If so to what extent. To what extent would any measure make any difference?
It is not known and it is all theory. It would be beyond stupid to thing that nothing man does has any affect on anything or that there is not measurable changes in the climate or whatever. But it would be equally as stupid to blame this all on man. Somewhere on a VERY long spectrum lays the truth and everyone is entitled to an opinion and NO ONE has trhe ultimate truth on this.
Anyone who pretends to is made more foolish by the pronouncement.
So.....your point?
Clinton wanted to actually help create jobs.
Trump wants to sit and do nothing but take credit every time a company happens to create 10 new jobs.
Nothing? Okay
Campaign Promise 1: To replace Antonin Scalia with a like-minded justice from a list of 20
The Nomination of Neil Gorsuch who is one of the most qualified people ever nominated to the SCOTUS whose nomination to the 10th Circuit Court was unanimously approved by Republicans, and Democrats including Cuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden in 2006. And before the opposition says "but, Merrick Garland" tell them to look up up the Biden Rule
Campaign Promise 2: To suspend immigration from terror-prone countries
Trump has attempted to enact a Travel Ban that is 100% CONSTITUTIONAL AND is made from the seven (six, now) "countries of concern" outlined by the Hussein Administration. This has been blocked by an extremely liberal Hawaiian judge who was appointed by Obama. (The blocking of this travel ban might piss me off more than anything that has happened during his presidency, because judges should be blind to politics, but that is proving to be false.) Hopefully this will go to the Supreme Court and be overturned quickly.
Campaign Promise 3: To defund and crack down on sanctuary cities
Trump has implemented a YUGE crackdown on sanctuary cities, threatening to defund them
Campaign Promise 4: To revive the Keystone Pipeline and Dakota Access Pipeline
The revival of the Dakota and Keystone XL Pipelines creating American jobs
Campaign Promise 5: To pull the US out of the TPP, an Obama-era trade deal detrimental to the US
Trump pulled us out of the TPP which would have been absolutely disastrous for the US
Campaign Promise 6: DONALD TRUMP LOVES WOMEN AND WANTS TO HELP WOMEN!
Trump has signed an Executive Order promoting women in STEM jobs (careers real feminists strive for, not "dance therapy" feminists)
Trump has Launched a Council empowering female leaders and female entrepreneurs
Campaign Promise 7: To renegotiate, or pull out of Bill Clinton's terrible trade deal, NAFTA
Trump met with Justin Trudeau (what a joke) to discuss the tweaking of NAFTA to benefit the US more, after he threatens to leave it
Campaign Promise 8: To undo ridiculous Obama-era federal agency regulations
Trump ordered a two-for-one repeal for all new regulations enacted by federal agencies
Campaign Promise 9: To rollback Obama-era regulations on small businesses
Trump has rolled back ridiculous Obama-era regulations that have made it nearly impossible for small businesses to hire employees
Campaign Promise 10: To help America's inner-cities deeply in need of rebuilding
Trump has signed an Executive Order to give major funding to "Historically Black Colleges and Universities," helping out inner-cities immensely
Campaign Promise 11: To protect our policemen, the true everyday heroes
Trump signed an Executive Order protecting our police
Campaign Promise 12: To crackdown on illegal immigration and to BUILD A WALL
Trump has implemented a YUGE crackdown on illegal immigration and he has started the WALL initiative
Campaign Promise 13: To bolster our depleted military
Trump has increased our military budget because we don't want to use our military, but want to be prepared to use it
Campaign Promise 14: To enact a five year lobbying ban on government Officials after they leave office
Trump has placed a five year and lifetime lobbying ban on government officials for when they leave office
Campaign Promise 15: To crackdown on drug cartels and illegal drugs crossing the border
Trump signed an Executive Order cracking down on drug cartels
Campaign Promise 16: To revitalize the dying coal industry in the US
Trump has enacted Joint Resolution 38 putting thousands of coal miners back to work
Campaign Promise 17: To create American JOBS and bring companies back to America
Trump negotiated a deal with Carrier promising to bring manufacturing and jobs back to the US.
Trump has met with CEOs from huge companies to work on bringing jobs back to America
There was an increase of 298,000 jobs in February alone (liberals will say that counts in Obama's fiscal year, but we know the truth)
Trump met with Intel CEO who promised $7 Billion investment and over 3,000 high paying (not "shovel ready" bullshit jobs) in America
Trump met with the CEO of Softbank who has promised 50,000 more American jobs and has already fulfilled 3,000 of those jobs
Kroger has promised over 10,000 new jobs in the era of Trump
The month of March yielded 263,000 new jobs, which passes the month's estimated 185,000 Big League
Campaign Promise 18: Pushing NATO allies to pay their fair share or face the reality of the US possibly leaving
Trump has put major pressure on the members of NATO to pay their fair and equal share because there are only a handful of countries in NATO who currently pay as much as agreed upon
Campaign Promise 19: To make America energy independent, relieving us from our dependence on foreign entities, such as OPEC
Trump has taken major steps towards America's energy independence
Campaign Promise 20: To enact a hiring freeze on government employees to help stop corruption
Trump enacted a hiring freeze to all federal employees, cutting down on the over-bloated bureaucracy
Campaign Promise 21: Trump could be the president that takes us to Mars!
Trump signed a Bill allowing NASA funding, including an exploration to Mars
Campaign Promise 22: To undo many of Obama's unconstitutional Executive Orders
Rescinding (one of) Obama's incredibly unconstitutional actions regarding transgender bathrooms in schools
Campaign Promise 23: The repeal and replacement of Obamacare. The recent GOP fallout of AHCA Plan was no fault of Trump's. The blame solely belongs to Speaker Ryan. He created a shit bill and couldn't even capitalize to get enough votes. Obamacare will crash in 2017 when individual mandates kick in and Democrats will be to blame. That is when Trump will truly work to Repeal and Replace it with a plan he promised us.
Trump got rid of the idiotic penalty in Obamacare that fines you if you choose not to participate in the program
Campaign Promise 24: To "Bomb the shit out of ISIS"
He called for a drone strike in Afghanistan killing Qari Yasin, a Pakistani Al-Qaeda leader
Campaign Promise 25: To not take a salary as President
He donated his first quarterly salary to the National Park Service
ACTIONS NOT PROMISED ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, BUT HAVE BEEN PUT IN EFFECT:
(Even though it was Mike Pence) The defunding of clinics that perform abortions. Because no matter whether you are pro-choice/pro-life, the government should not be funding abortions. (Also, if people bring up the Hyde Amendment which is supposed to not let any federal funding go towards abortions, LET THEM KNOW that US taxpayers pay for about 24% of abortions despite of that "amendment")
Huge spikes in the NASDAQ average index and the DOW average index starting November 8th. (This will count for Obama unfortunately, but we know where the real credit belongs.)
He has placed sanctions on Iran after they tested ballistic missiles
He has met with/talked to over 30 foreign leaders.
Trump has moved on to tax reform, lowering taxes for Americans
He negotiated down the Price of the new Air Force One one billion dollars in a meeting that lasted just one hour
He issued major cuts to the costs of the F-35 saving billions
Clinton wanted to improve accessibility to family planning and reproductive care centers.
Trump wants to defund Planned Parenthood because abortion's bad, m'kay?
Abortion is good? No, it isn't. So with that out the way we can look at the nuance.
Obviously, the are competing rights. The baby's rights? The mother's rights? The Father's rights? There are some who given this, say only the Mother's say is important. She should be able to terminate pregnancies on demand and the state should pay for this in all instances. Some people say that it is immoral and that no one should pay for this and it should be banned. There is no RIGHT answer in this. However, it is certainly true that there are a lot of people with a lot of opinions on it.
So how does a politician accept that committing taxpayers money to this that many of the taxpayers find repugnant is not accceptable and at the same time, many people consider it a natural and human right? What is the answer to such situations? One is to allow planned parenting to run but allowing it to fund itself. That way the people that DOP support these services can support it. Another is to say that Liberal cities are more likely to support abortion laws and Conservative cities aren't and rather than having the most people in a city or a state upset by one law forced on them over this issue, they can each vote and voice their opinion in the voting booths around abortion. So each state chooses their own collective tolerance rather than the nation stipulating a national standard
Damn.
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
-
I've lost the ability to read thanks to Les's long and poorly formatted and written post. :grrr:
-
I would have voted for Trump purely on his stance in Syria, fighting with Assad and Putin rather than against them.
"Trump launches military strike against Syria
The United States launched a military strike Thursday on a Syrian government target in retaliation for their chemical weapons attack on civilians earlier in the week.
On President Donald Trump's orders, US warships launched between 50-60 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian government airbase where the warplanes that carried out the chemical attacks were based, US officials said."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html
Oh wait...CNN is fake news...better pull that shit up on Fox. :facepalm2:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/06/us-launches-missiles-into-syria-in-response-to-chemical-weapons-attack.html
:clap: Give yourself a pat on the back Captain Hindsight. You never fail to amaze me when it comes to showboating your retardation and ignorance.
The one thing that Trump had been consistent on was Syria, for nearly 3 months he'd reversed Obama's policy of supporting terrorist groups like Al Nusra and Assad was winning the war. I definitely fell for Trump's stance with Syria, but it just shows that he's a puppet to the arms industry, not Putin. So it's you lot with egg on your faces regarding that. Obama had attacked the Syrian army, but claimed it was a mistake :facepalm2: And Clinton would have just done it sooner. I wonder if you fucktards will now use that same level of outrage against Trump after doing this. Or as I've said before, you're so backward that you'll make out the US has bombed them just because of Trump. Trump is just doing what Zio neocons have wanted him to do. Israel bombed Syria a couple of weeks ago, this is their war, as usual. Who knows, maybe he done one of his wonderful 'deals' and agreed to change his stance on Syria if the hawks didn't have him impeached.
-
Who the hell is going to impeach Trump?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/AjDueaP.jpg)
Woo Hoo. There is a health plan worth saving. :lol1:
That's probably a bunch of crap.
-
That's probably a bunch of crap.
That's not to say Obamacare isn't a financial problem for some people; some still simply can't afford it. Though the ACA isn't entirely to blame; there are 22 states which have refused government incentives to expand their state Medicaid programs to include adults without children who fall within a certain income level. Those are the states where people are also experiencing the highest increases in ACA insurance rates. Still, as for that image, probably didn't happen. For example, I don't qualify for Obamacare because I already have a health insurance option available which the government deems adequate an affordable, so I have to take that option or go searching in the marketplace myself for something else. People aren't switching to Obamacare, unless it's determined workplace plans are inadequate coverage and/or unaffordable, and with the new rules for insurance carriers in place that's probably not happening much either.
-
Who the hell is going to impeach Trump?
Well Russia apparently controls the US, so Russia maybe? Especially now he's upset them. Maybe they had hacked his brain, but then when you guys shaved his head the other day he found the hacking chip inside and removed it. There's no other explanation.
Everyone was trying to impeach him a few days ago, but now he's seen the light and started bombing Syria, he's become a good person.
-
:clap: Give yourself a pat on the back Captain Hindsight. You never fail to amaze me when it comes to showboating your retardation and ignorance.
Yep, I'm a tard that never forgets. I like to rattle the cage a little when I can Mr. Billiant. :zoinks:
I still have my bottle of impeachment wine stored away waiting...nothings changed.
If anything I'm a bit even more disturbed now that he's testing out the war machine. I think he pulled the trigger too fast, and he strikes me as the type that might grow to enjoy playing army way too much. This week Syria...next week N. Korea.
Russia pissed off? Somehow I'm doubting that, although I think they may act the part for awhile.
He called Russia to tell them before the strike...but not congress.
-
I've lost the ability to read reason thanks to Les's long and poorly formatted and written post. :grrr:
Fixed.
EDIT: Maybe we ought to question the word "lost" in this sentence too
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.
How much? Dunno.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know. I would suggest you to study the evidence instead of embarrassing yourself. Here (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) are some basics for you to start with.
-
There are plenty of other sources. Have a look at what the EPA says. You know, the people Trump wants to shut down. Gee, I wonder why.
-
:clap: Give yourself a pat on the back Captain Hindsight. You never fail to amaze me when it comes to showboating your retardation and ignorance.
Yep, I'm a tard that never forgets. I like to rattle the cage a little when I can Mr. Billiant. :zoinks:
I still have my bottle of impeachment wine stored away waiting...nothings changed.
If anything I'm a bit even more disturbed now that he's testing out the war machine. I think he pulled the trigger too fast, and he strikes me as the type that might grow to enjoy playing army way too much. This week Syria...next week N. Korea.
Russia pissed off? Somehow I'm doubting that, although I think they may act the part for awhile.
He called Russia to tell them before the strike...but not congress.
Trump gets impeached and replaced with another war monger. How wonderful.
Too fast? He shouldn't have done anything. It wasn't Assad who used the chemical weapons.
Yes, they're pissed off, they've said it came very close to conflict. No he did not! Russia have denied he called them and I don't believe what comes out of the US until I see evidence. And I don't need to prove a negative.
-
People have vested interests on both sides. The whole global warming/climate change thing is used as an extortion racket. The people pushing it don't actually care about the environment, it's just another way to make money. Al Gore flies around in a private jet urging people not to fly.
-
Believe what you want Benji.
Whatever makes you comfortable.
-
Believe whatever your TV says, it never lies. People like you are beyond help.
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.
How much? Dunno.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know. I would suggest you to study the evidence instead of embarrassing yourself. Here (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) are some basics for you to start with.
It's painfully obvious that your reply "Anything for Trump" has not got a thing to do with anything I said.
Are you able to make that case because until you do I don't much care for you trying to distract me with other bullshit.
-
Believe whatever your TV says, it never lies. People like you are beyond help.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/d5600adb296593b2319c9223ed5b6934_zpsi7xn4tws.jpg)
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.
How much? Dunno.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know. I would suggest you to study the evidence instead of embarrassing yourself. Here (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) are some basics for you to start with.
It's painfully obvious that your reply "Anything for Trump" has not got a thing to do with anything I said.
Are you able to make that case because until you do I don't much care for you trying to distract me with other bullshit.
/shrugs
I can't help you if that wasn't enough context for you. And no, it's not other bullshit, it's the particular bullshit you posted.
-
Believe whatever your TV says, it never lies. People like you are beyond help.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/d5600adb296593b2319c9223ed5b6934_zpsi7xn4tws.jpg)
I love telling people to suck my dick. Every woman should have her own dick stashed away somewhere, if only to serve this purpose. :zoinks:
-
Sugarbutt likes saying, suck my cock, but he's a yankee so it comes out sounding like cack. :lol1:
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.
How much? Dunno.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know. I would suggest you to study the evidence instead of embarrassing yourself. Here (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) are some basics for you to start with.
It's painfully obvious that your reply "Anything for Trump" has not got a thing to do with anything I said.
Are you able to make that case because until you do I don't much care for you trying to distract me with other bullshit.
/shrugs
I can't help you if that wasn't enough context for you. And no, it's not other bullshit, it's the particular bullshit you posted.
No there was none to be had. You tried for snark to vaguely imply something. When asked to explain, all you had was snark and no argument. It's is weak, but whatever. Not life or death.
-
Believe whatever your TV says, it never lies. People like you are beyond help.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/d5600adb296593b2319c9223ed5b6934_zpsi7xn4tws.jpg)
I love telling people to suck my dick. Every woman should have her own dick stashed away somewhere, if only to serve this purpose. :zoinks:
Pro wrestler chyna doll had a small penis from using steroids.
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.
How much? Dunno.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know. I would suggest you to study the evidence instead of embarrassing yourself. Here (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) are some basics for you to start with.
It's painfully obvious that your reply "Anything for Trump" has not got a thing to do with anything I said.
Are you able to make that case because until you do I don't much care for you trying to distract me with other bullshit.
/shrugs
I can't help you if that wasn't enough context for you. And no, it's not other bullshit, it's the particular bullshit you posted.
No there was none to be had. You tried for snark to vaguely imply something. When asked to explain, all you had was snark and no argument. It's is weak, but whatever. Not life or death.
Hey, you posted shit that made you look like you denied that the climate change is caused by humans, not me. If that isn't your position, then just say so. Go reread what you wrote instead of evading.
-
It looked like Sir Les was just trying too hard to look intellectual and philosophical in that post about climate change, ha ha.
-
It looked like Sir Les was just trying too hard to look intellectual and philosophical in that post about climate change, ha ha.
Al is what Al does. He is not particularly good at arguing.
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.
How much? Dunno.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know. I would suggest you to study the evidence instead of embarrassing yourself. Here (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) are some basics for you to start with.
It's painfully obvious that your reply "Anything for Trump" has not got a thing to do with anything I said.
Are you able to make that case because until you do I don't much care for you trying to distract me with other bullshit.
/shrugs
I can't help you if that wasn't enough context for you. And no, it's not other bullshit, it's the particular bullshit you posted.
No there was none to be had. You tried for snark to vaguely imply something. When asked to explain, all you had was snark and no argument. It's is weak, but whatever. Not life or death.
Hey, you posted shit that made you look like you denied that the climate change is caused by humans, not me. If that isn't your position, then just say so. Go reread what you wrote instead of evading.
No, no, no, Odeon. It did not look like that at all. This is what people like yourself do. Because you ae sold on your idea that the questions around climate change are completely answered and denying climate change is immoral and stupid and hold a smug and superior position in your own mind, you refuse to question what you believe and anyone not holding the same positions as you will be dismissed as stupid if not immoral as well. It is what I have seen from you a bit in the last 12 months or so.
But no, it did not look like I was denying climate change, at all.....by any reasonable reading.
I WAS stating that I did not have all the answer and more to the point, neither do you - as smug and condescending as you may be.
Now, I am MORE than happy to agree to some base facts. We know that man DOES have an effect on the environment and some effect on the climate ("an effect" and "some effect" being the operative disclaimers). For example: The Great Barrier Reef has beautiful Coral. The government of Australia and State Government of Queensland, beyond all reason, keeps trying to make deals with various coal companies to dump dredgings into the waters near the reef. The Reef is a fragile ecosystem and already has suffered from things like well-meaning snorkellers wearing suntan and sunscreen lotion accidentally and incidentally polluting it. Now they want to dump waste into that ecosystem. For the record I donated to the activism against that. Hell, remember when the Middle East and was lush? No, it hasn't been so for thousands of years. Alexander the Great's rolling armies stripped the of all resources and changed not on the environment but the climate in that area of the world too. Knocking down trees and clearing land will always have an effect on the environment. Releasing pollutants into the air or into the water will always have an effect.
But that does not make this argument an open and shut case at all and pretending it does is stupid and worse, being smug and holding yourself as more superior for having this opinion is beyond stupid.
Between the position of "all the evidence is in and everything is decided on climate change and we know what we pertain to know" (your position) and "climate change is all bullshit and a hoax. None of it is true and it is a monumental scam by stupid Liberals (the position you are stupidly implying that I hold), is a position that I ACTUALLY hold. That is "Not all the facts are known and we do not even know what we do not know. IF the changes in climate are happening, how much of that is CAUSED by man and how much of that is the Earth just being the Earth?
For example: a long season may just be a long season a change in temperature could be just a change in temperature. Melting Ice Caps could be just melting ice caps. We can say "This is caused by man" but it is not proven. The Earth Does change. Continents move. Huge changes in the climate happen and places that were lush and even jungles become frozen and back again. HUGE temperature changes. It does not need man's involvement and it is doubtful man could have prevented it even if he knew how it happened - which he doesn't. But even IF we can say definitively that we know what is exactly caused by man and what is not, how do we measure the degree to which it is affected and by what? But even if we could do this and know exactly what caused what and to what degree, what are we able to do to reverse said damage? Now an argument would be stopping doing all things that have been shown to badly affect the environment BUT what if we cannot and it comes down to minimisation strategies and so we need to know what is negligible and what effect ANY and all reversals of whatever will make."
We do not even know what we do not know and so many people are pretending it is a completely understood and answered concept. It is not even close. Personally, I am happy to listen to all sides of the debate and find them all interesting. People like you are not though are you Odeon? You hear someone not say "I believe in climate change" and you lose your reasoning.
No, what I wrote was NOT difficult to understand and my saying "I dunno" ACTUALLY means "I dunno". It does not imply, infer, suggest or outright state a position in the denunciation or affirmation of a position and saying that it did is REALLY Stupid.
So, back to you and Penty to appreciate why you stated "made it look" that way. It is demonstrably false and stupid to suggest it. So why did you?
-
I love telling people to suck my dick. Every woman should have her own dick stashed away somewhere, if only to serve this purpose. :zoinks:
Pro wrestler chyna doll had a small penis from using steroids.
I don't suggest taking it quite that far. :lol1:
-
I love telling people to suck my dick. Every woman should have her own dick stashed away somewhere, if only to serve this purpose. :zoinks:
Pro wrestler chyna doll had a small penis from using steroids.
I don't suggest taking it quite that far. :lol1:
There's pics on the internet.
(http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/sports/chyna/chyna-clit-sm.jpg)
-
:aff:
-
Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.
Next.
-
Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.
Next.
There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?
I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.
-
CNN needs to screen refugees they interview :hahaha:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=--3VjJ9jaNE
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Where do you stand on the shape of the earth?
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Where do you stand on the shape of the earth?
You got to read better, Scrap. I'm not denying Climate change.
-
You got to read bette,r Scrap. I'm nit denying Climate change.
That's not Scrapheap.
-
Where do you stand on the shape of the earth?
Mind your own longitude. :zoinks:
-
The earth is shaped like a cube :M
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o9LO8veeAuY/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/5/55209/2888813-110817kphanhtinhvuong2.jpeg)
:headbang2: :zoinks:
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RgZ4DyU1LbE/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
You can put those lampshades on your head when you're drunk. I guess if you're deity sized.
-
You can put those lampshades on your head when you're drunk. I guess if you're deity sized.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/first-theyignorevou-then-they-laughat-you-then-they-fight-you-6665075.png)
-
You can put those lampshades on your head when you're drunk. I guess if you're deity sized.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/first-theyignorevou-then-they-laughat-you-then-they-fight-you-6665075.png)
(http://www.troll.me/images/retard-superman/big-win-thumb.jpg)
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Where do you stand on the shape of the earth?
You got to read better, Scrap. I'm not denying Climate change.
Yeah, not Scrappy-doo. And honestly, I can't get to the bottom of what you are actually trying to say anymore. It mostly seems like arguing for the sake of arguing with Odeon. Glad to hear we are on the same page re: climate change and the shape of the world though. :thumbup:
-
In respect to this? Climate change?
Probably best explaining it is like this.
Let say you are a Christian and you are trying to sell me on the concept of God's existence and you go with the strongest argument, God the creator. The universe and everything in it had to come from somewhere? Now let's say your argument was particularly persuasive and I agreed to tge fact that there was a God that created everything. (i should not have to point out at this point I do not believe in these things and that this example is only illustrative but I don't want this misconstrued)
So I agree with THAT much and now you say "I expect to see you Sunday at church because patt of believing in God is to appreciate, he listens to your prayers and looks after your soul in the afterlife or sends you to Hell and occasionally interferes in worldly matters, including impregnating a woman and later killing his child (but dont worry, he loves you)...."
You would rightly say "Look I agree with what is reasonable BUT that doesn't mean everything about your ideology is now a foregone conclusion and that every possible thing that could possible be informed by this ideology is equally as credible or evident.
The same is to be said of the ideology of climate change. Yes, I believe in climate change in general and where specific facts seem strong and or evident ti me. But making broad reaching conclusions or extrapolating everything and pretending it is equally as proven or evident is equally as bad as the above illustration.
So where I have the issue is when people hold a smug faux intellectual superior position because they buy everything lock stock and barrel and will roll their eyes at people who do not.
The fact that my pointing out that there is plenty that is not known nor proved has people assuming I am a climate change denier or that this ought to be the position to defend is strange.
I think people claiming truth and knowledge both sides is odd but I will listen out the best arguments on both sides. I am not going to say it doesn't exist nor that it is every change in climate is due to humans.
-
I tried to follow that Al, I really did. What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".
-
I tried to follow that Al, I really did. What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".
What science have I said I disbelieve? NOT climate change and I said a few times now I believe in climate change and so being that it is NOT that....what science do I disbelieve?
What I said is not THAT hard to follow.
If I told you that MOST people believe that there are changes in the climate. We would both be in agreement.
If I told you that the Earth over millennia has changed it's climate drastically and is continuing to change, we would likely not disagree that either.
If I told you that man does and can change the climate with his actions, We would still be in agreement. (In fact, I listed my efforts in this regard and gave what I believe are some pretty solid examples of this).
Yet, you say I am denying science. It is rather strange.
So given all the above, whenever there is a change in the climate and people instantly go to "Climate change" as an explanation and someone like me says "Make your case for THIS instance being a case of man made climate change" what I get is a smug condescending "You are a climate change denier" attitude. Maybe not specifically by you but I certainly get it.
Agreeing with the basic premise that man can and does change the climate DOES NOT mean that every instance of change in climate is due to man. It is not radical to question the instances or ask for evidence. It could be in ANY situation of changes in climate that man has had some effect on the climate or most of the effect, all the effect or none at all.
I would imagine that the best position is not skepticism but being open to all viewpoints. I am pretty sure that if the human race was wiped out overnight, the Earth would still continually change and that many changes that may well have been blamed on man's influence was simply the Earth being the Earth. By the same measure, I am sure doing the right thing and making the right changes will make a marked improvement in combating what changes man has made or influenced on the climate.
Too many people blame man made/influence climate change on every change in the climate, and too many people say there is no such thing. I think they are both wrong and I am happy to calll them out.
-
Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.
Next.
There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?
I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.
Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.
This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
Where do you stand on the shape of the earth?
:lol1:
-
I tried to follow that Al, I really did. What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".
What science have I said I disbelieve? NOT climate change and I said a few times now I believe in climate change and so being that it is NOT that....what science do I disbelieve?
What I said is not THAT hard to follow.
If I told you that MOST people believe that there are changes in the climate. We would both be in agreement.
If I told you that the Earth over millennia has changed it's climate drastically and is continuing to change, we would likely not disagree that either.
If I told you that man does and can change the climate with his actions, We would still be in agreement. (In fact, I listed my efforts in this regard and gave what I believe are some pretty solid examples of this).
Yet, you say I am denying science. It is rather strange.
So given all the above, whenever there is a change in the climate and people instantly go to "Climate change" as an explanation and someone like me says "Make your case for THIS instance being a case of man made climate change" what I get is a smug condescending "You are a climate change denier" attitude. Maybe not specifically by you but I certainly get it.
Agreeing with the basic premise that man can and does change the climate DOES NOT mean that every instance of change in climate is due to man. It is not radical to question the instances or ask for evidence. It could be in ANY situation of changes in climate that man has had some effect on the climate or most of the effect, all the effect or none at all.
I would imagine that the best position is not skepticism but being open to all viewpoints. I am pretty sure that if the human race was wiped out overnight, the Earth would still continually change and that many changes that may well have been blamed on man's influence was simply the Earth being the Earth. By the same measure, I am sure doing the right thing and making the right changes will make a marked improvement in combating what changes man has made or influenced on the climate.
Too many people blame man made/influence climate change on every change in the climate, and too many people say there is no such thing. I think they are both wrong and I am happy to calll them out.
In other words, you don't understand the science and have trouble accepting the conclusions. You don't want to look like an outright denier of climate change caused by man because that would make you look stupid, but since it's me pointing this out, it's something of a rock and a hard place thing for you now.
-
He's not a denier, he's a "skeptic". ::)
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/skndytu4NK0/hqdefault.jpg)
I love the smell of vaporised jihadis in the morning. Smells like bacon.
-
Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.
Next.
There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?
I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.
Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.
This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).
Nope, you and not only you, get resistant to ANYTHING that does not say something along the lines of "Every change in climate is due to man-made climate change and man is ultimately responsible for everything bad in the climate".
If I say ANYTHING is up for question you stop reading or comprehending and YOUR inability to push yourself to see exactly what I have said reinforces your erroneous position. I hardly think that is on me.
-
British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts.
British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.
The communications were captured during routine surveillance of Russian officials and other Russians known to western intelligence. British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what's known as "incidental collection," these sources tell CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/trump-russia-british-intelligence/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/european-countries-shared-trump-russia-intel-with-us-agencies-report/article/2620248
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
Thank you Britain. :asthing:
-
I tried to follow that Al, I really did. What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".
What science have I said I disbelieve? NOT climate change and I said a few times now I believe in climate change and so being that it is NOT that....what science do I disbelieve?
What I said is not THAT hard to follow.
If I told you that MOST people believe that there are changes in the climate. We would both be in agreement.
If I told you that the Earth over millennia has changed it's climate drastically and is continuing to change, we would likely not disagree that either.
If I told you that man does and can change the climate with his actions, We would still be in agreement. (In fact, I listed my efforts in this regard and gave what I believe are some pretty solid examples of this).
Yet, you say I am denying science. It is rather strange.
So given all the above, whenever there is a change in the climate and people instantly go to "Climate change" as an explanation and someone like me says "Make your case for THIS instance being a case of man made climate change" what I get is a smug condescending "You are a climate change denier" attitude. Maybe not specifically by you but I certainly get it.
Agreeing with the basic premise that man can and does change the climate DOES NOT mean that every instance of change in climate is due to man. It is not radical to question the instances or ask for evidence. It could be in ANY situation of changes in climate that man has had some effect on the climate or most of the effect, all the effect or none at all.
I would imagine that the best position is not skepticism but being open to all viewpoints. I am pretty sure that if the human race was wiped out overnight, the Earth would still continually change and that many changes that may well have been blamed on man's influence was simply the Earth being the Earth. By the same measure, I am sure doing the right thing and making the right changes will make a marked improvement in combating what changes man has made or influenced on the climate.
Too many people blame man made/influence climate change on every change in the climate, and too many people say there is no such thing. I think they are both wrong and I am happy to calll them out.
In other words, you don't understand the science and have trouble accepting the conclusions. You don't want to look like an outright denier of climate change caused by man because that would make you look stupid, but since it's me pointing this out, it's something of a rock and a hard place thing for you now.
Not at all. It would be an idiot's interpretation which is why I am a little curious as to why you are making it. The default position ought to be that there is an amount of evidence showing that Climate Change caused by man IS a real thing but that this proves that SOME changes in the climate have been influenced if not caused by man. That SHOULD be the default position.
Calling this position skepticism is stupid and calling it Climate Change Denialism is BEYOND STUPID. So Odeon, given YOUR comments, why are you taking the latter approach? (The answer is not "But you said, as I have been reaffirming the same position over and over and I can do that by quoting what I said word for word and highlighting where these themes are repeated).
If you are struggling with this, I have an even more difficult task, which aspects of man Made Climate Change and which incidences of Climate change have I disputed? All of them? Some of them? Any of them? None of them? You may need a bit of a run-up to tackle this one.
If I were you, I would go with a condescending non-answer or vaguely blame me for not writing clearly (You refusing to comprehend what was pretty elementary). Up to you though.
-
Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.
Next.
There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?
I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.
Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.
This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).
Nope, you and not only you, get resistant to ANYTHING that does not say something along the lines of "Every change in climate is due to man-made climate change and man is ultimately responsible for everything bad in the climate".
If I say ANYTHING is up for question you stop reading or comprehending and YOUR inability to push yourself to see exactly what I have said reinforces your erroneous position. I hardly think that is on me.
Where did I say "every change"? I do imply "most" because science very strongly supports that conclusion (and yes, I do understand the science), but I did not say "every change"
So yes, this is on you, your inability to articulate and your inability to understand the evidence. I'd stop if I were you because you are embarrassing yourself.
-
British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts.
British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.
The communications were captured during routine surveillance of Russian officials and other Russians known to western intelligence. British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what's known as "incidental collection," these sources tell CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/trump-russia-british-intelligence/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/european-countries-shared-trump-russia-intel-with-us-agencies-report/article/2620248
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
Thank you Britain. :asthing:
The did try. :P
But you know, if you drop some big bombs, reverse your stance on key issues and generally make some noise, hopefully people will forget about this particular little embarrassment.
-
I tried to follow that Al, I really did. What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".
What science have I said I disbelieve? NOT climate change and I said a few times now I believe in climate change and so being that it is NOT that....what science do I disbelieve?
What I said is not THAT hard to follow.
If I told you that MOST people believe that there are changes in the climate. We would both be in agreement.
If I told you that the Earth over millennia has changed it's climate drastically and is continuing to change, we would likely not disagree that either.
If I told you that man does and can change the climate with his actions, We would still be in agreement. (In fact, I listed my efforts in this regard and gave what I believe are some pretty solid examples of this).
Yet, you say I am denying science. It is rather strange.
So given all the above, whenever there is a change in the climate and people instantly go to "Climate change" as an explanation and someone like me says "Make your case for THIS instance being a case of man made climate change" what I get is a smug condescending "You are a climate change denier" attitude. Maybe not specifically by you but I certainly get it.
Agreeing with the basic premise that man can and does change the climate DOES NOT mean that every instance of change in climate is due to man. It is not radical to question the instances or ask for evidence. It could be in ANY situation of changes in climate that man has had some effect on the climate or most of the effect, all the effect or none at all.
I would imagine that the best position is not skepticism but being open to all viewpoints. I am pretty sure that if the human race was wiped out overnight, the Earth would still continually change and that many changes that may well have been blamed on man's influence was simply the Earth being the Earth. By the same measure, I am sure doing the right thing and making the right changes will make a marked improvement in combating what changes man has made or influenced on the climate.
Too many people blame man made/influence climate change on every change in the climate, and too many people say there is no such thing. I think they are both wrong and I am happy to calll them out.
In other words, you don't understand the science and have trouble accepting the conclusions. You don't want to look like an outright denier of climate change caused by man because that would make you look stupid, but since it's me pointing this out, it's something of a rock and a hard place thing for you now.
Not at all. It would be an idiot's interpretation which is why I am a little curious as to why you are making it. The default position ought to be that there is an amount of evidence showing that Climate Change caused by man IS a real thing but that this proves that SOME changes in the climate have been influenced if not caused by man. That SHOULD be the default position.
Calling this position skepticism is stupid and calling it Climate Change Denialism is BEYOND STUPID. So Odeon, given YOUR comments, why are you taking the latter approach? (The answer is not "But you said, as I have been reaffirming the same position over and over and I can do that by quoting what I said word for word and highlighting where these themes are repeated).
If you are struggling with this, I have an even more difficult task, which aspects of man Made Climate Change and which incidences of Climate change have I disputed? All of them? Some of them? Any of them? None of them? You may need a bit of a run-up to tackle this one.
If I were you, I would go with a condescending non-answer or vaguely blame me for not writing clearly (You refusing to comprehend what was pretty elementary). Up to you though.
See my previous reply.
-
Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.
Next.
There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?
I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.
Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.
This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).
Nope, you and not only you, get resistant to ANYTHING that does not say something along the lines of "Every change in climate is due to man-made climate change and man is ultimately responsible for everything bad in the climate".
If I say ANYTHING is up for question you stop reading or comprehending and YOUR inability to push yourself to see exactly what I have said reinforces your erroneous position. I hardly think that is on me.
Where did I say "every change"? I do imply "most" because science very strongly supports that conclusion (and yes, I do understand the science), but I did not say "every change"
So yes, this is on you, your inability to articulate and your inability to understand the evidence. I'd stop if I were you because you are embarrassing yourself.
Oh please, you are figuratively donning a clownsuit, wig, and red nose and then pointing at me and saying "Look at the size of that guy's shoes".
I think I can hold up just fine.
I am enjoying your efforts. So I am inarticulate and a climate denialist or was it a climate change skeptic? I do not have a problem with you holding any stupid opinion that you hold nor do I have an issue with your inability to comprehend what I write or for you to make silly claims. HOWEVER, this is I2 and now comes the bit where you can back yourself.
You may wonder what there is to back (In fact I more than suspect in your enthusiasm to throw accusations and condescend, you did not read well enough to know what I said)?
What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?
So, no Odeon, you do not get to fall back on vague and/or condescending dismissals. You get to simply back your claims. If you can't I will press for a callout.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/NquHPBK.jpg)
-
Got to admit that always sounded better than "Massive Ordnance Air Blast".
Who names these damn things anyways?
-
British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts.
British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.
The communications were captured during routine surveillance of Russian officials and other Russians known to western intelligence. British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what's known as "incidental collection," these sources tell CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/trump-russia-british-intelligence/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/european-countries-shared-trump-russia-intel-with-us-agencies-report/article/2620248
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
Thank you Britain. :asthing:
The did try. :P
But you know, if you drop some big bombs, reverse your stance on key issues and generally make some noise, hopefully people will forget about this particular little embarrassment.
British 'intelligence', American 'intelligence'. Same shit. Luckily, people who aren't brain dead can remember the same 'intelligence' that told us all the bullshit about Iraq.
Trump's probably trying to save himself from those who are out to get him, as in the ones who want these wars.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/AjDueaP.jpg)
Woo Hoo. There is a health plan worth saving. :lol1:
That's probably a bunch of crap.
Some of it, but my wife's job includes full family insurance coverage under a group insurance plan and finding anything even marginally comparable to the massive coverage we enjoy would cost us well over twenty thousand dollars per year to upkeep on our own.
Yes!! Her insurance is truly about one sixth of her total wage!
As far as glasses referring to the point made here, My "old man" eye examine is extensive (to protect the doctor from malpractice lawsuits) and it takes many tests and most of an afternoon, about thirteen hundred dollars worth of tests, but it is "free" (paid for by our expansive insurance coverage) for us and my glasses are covered up to one hundred dollars, normal lenses covered, but no specialties are included.
My daughter likes the cute teen styles and needs a simple astigmatism correction, so hers are "free" (within the confines of our insurance plan). My son on the other hand is a fucking "Marmaduke" - clumsy ass bigfooted stumbling dog. Love him to death, but he is now bigger (six feet two tall, two hundred forty five pounds) than I am at eighteen and as clumsy as any typical four year old. He needs those bendy glasses that supposedly can not be broken. Being super-sensitive to light we also pay for his lenses to be shading or darkening in sunlight, kind of a big cost. We pay out an additional two hundred dollars for his spectacles.
ME, I can not see through glass very well regardless, so I have to have the finest space age super clear Lexan, treated with rare earth elements to ensure they are glare free and super light. I also need to have super light frames made of very expensive titanium alloy and since I have a very large head they have to be the super sized for giants to be usable for me (yep, you could say I look like a fucking bug wearing my glasses). Also, I need to wear trifocals to see up close well, but I can not stand to have lines in my field of view, so I have to buy the "progressive trifocal" type of lenses that have no visible lines. All told my glasses cost one thousand two hundred dollars to buy. Fortunately our insurance covers up to seven hundred dollars on mine because of my astigmatism and age.
Mine cost, out of pocket, just over five hundred dollars because of our extensive insurance coverage.
This may be an extreme case, but I would not want to try to navigate this industry without some kind of insurance coverage.
-
Hold on. You're a climate denier now?
Anything for Trump. :M
What do you mean, Odeon?
Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.
One of the first things I ever found on the internet back in the nineties when I finally got an account was satellite pics of some of the most massive icebergs breaking off from peninsulas in Antarctica and I was wondering WTF!??!
I might have started "the climate change frenzy" on my own.
:green:
-
Some of it, but my wife's job includes full family insurance coverage under a group insurance plan and finding anything even marginally comparable to the massive coverage we enjoy would cost us well over twenty thousand dollars per year to upkeep on our own.
Yes, insurance without an employer contributing is expensive, some people don't have an employer option and people who can afford it have to pay it. Still don't believe anyone's existing insurance premiums and deductibles increased by 21,500 per year because of Obamacare.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/NquHPBK.jpg)
:laugh:
-
I might have started "the climate change frenzy" on my own.
:green:
Odeon said it's my fault. :zoinks:
-
I might have started "the climate change frenzy" on my own.
:green:
Odeon said it's my fault. :zoinks:
I said that I was one of the first common folk to notice it. I showed everyone I knew. Most did not see anything out of the ordinary, but then I pushed the "snowball" downhill.
I insist that I started it!!
8)
-
Some of it, but my wife's job includes full family insurance coverage under a group insurance plan and finding anything even marginally comparable to the massive coverage we enjoy would cost us well over twenty thousand dollars per year to upkeep on our own.
Yes, insurance without an employer contributing is expensive, some people don't have an employer option and people who can afford it have to pay it. Still don't believe anyone's existing insurance premiums and deductibles increased by 21,500 per year because of Obamacare.
Probably not.
I was talking about the market value of our insurance if we were not a part of a giant group of insurance buying individuals. We are very glad to have what we do have. Thank the gods that we do not have to buy our own insurance under the current system.
I have tried to and have had to buy my own insurance in the past. It was terribly expensive without an employer taking up half the cost or being a part of a huge buying group or having one hundred percent of the cost taken up by an e,ployer in the case of my wife's employer.
Those with dodgy jobs working their way out of poverty can not afford even the least bit of health care these days without some help.
Obamacare helps some people and ditching it is a mistake, but working out the flaws is a way toward the benefit of everyone who makes a median level salary.
DO not think for a second that I do not know what it is to provide for a family with only one income and living without the safety net of a health care plan. I have been there. Fortunately, those times are well behind us, but I can still understand what the people with less income are going through.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/NquHPBK.jpg)
:laugh:
I do not have to think much. That damn thing is one helluva dangerous clit!!
I am scared to touch it!
:hide:
-
Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.
Next.
There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?
I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.
Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.
This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).
Nope, you and not only you, get resistant to ANYTHING that does not say something along the lines of "Every change in climate is due to man-made climate change and man is ultimately responsible for everything bad in the climate".
If I say ANYTHING is up for question you stop reading or comprehending and YOUR inability to push yourself to see exactly what I have said reinforces your erroneous position. I hardly think that is on me.
Where did I say "every change"? I do imply "most" because science very strongly supports that conclusion (and yes, I do understand the science), but I did not say "every change"
So yes, this is on you, your inability to articulate and your inability to understand the evidence. I'd stop if I were you because you are embarrassing yourself.
Oh please, you are figuratively donning a clownsuit, wig, and red nose and then pointing at me and saying "Look at the size of that guy's shoes".
I think I can hold up just fine.
I am enjoying your efforts. So I am inarticulate and a climate denialist or was it a climate change skeptic? I do not have a problem with you holding any stupid opinion that you hold nor do I have an issue with your inability to comprehend what I write or for you to make silly claims. HOWEVER, this is I2 and now comes the bit where you can back yourself.
You may wonder what there is to back (In fact I more than suspect in your enthusiasm to throw accusations and condescend, you did not read well enough to know what I said)?
What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?
So, no Odeon, you do not get to fall back on vague and/or condescending dismissals. You get to simply back your claims. If you can't I will press for a callout.
See my previous replies. :yawn:
-
Apparently, the MOAB killed 36 people.
How do they know?
-
Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.
Next.
There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?
I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.
Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.
This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).
Nope, you and not only you, get resistant to ANYTHING that does not say something along the lines of "Every change in climate is due to man-made climate change and man is ultimately responsible for everything bad in the climate".
If I say ANYTHING is up for question you stop reading or comprehending and YOUR inability to push yourself to see exactly what I have said reinforces your erroneous position. I hardly think that is on me.
Where did I say "every change"? I do imply "most" because science very strongly supports that conclusion (and yes, I do understand the science), but I did not say "every change"
So yes, this is on you, your inability to articulate and your inability to understand the evidence. I'd stop if I were you because you are embarrassing yourself.
Oh please, you are figuratively donning a clownsuit, wig, and red nose and then pointing at me and saying "Look at the size of that guy's shoes".
I think I can hold up just fine.
I am enjoying your efforts. So I am inarticulate and a climate denialist or was it a climate change skeptic? I do not have a problem with you holding any stupid opinion that you hold nor do I have an issue with your inability to comprehend what I write or for you to make silly claims. HOWEVER, this is I2 and now comes the bit where you can back yourself.
You may wonder what there is to back (In fact I more than suspect in your enthusiasm to throw accusations and condescend, you did not read well enough to know what I said)?
What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?
So, no Odeon, you do not get to fall back on vague and/or condescending dismissals. You get to simply back your claims. If you can't I will press for a callout.
See my previous replies. :yawn:
I saw them and responded to them. They were shit replies and did not answer this or my previous replies. Why are you fucking hopeless and cannot answer these questions, Odeon?
I think it is time for a callout. This really ought to have been avoided. Because we know where this is heading again. We should be avoiding it
-
Apparently, the MOAB killed 36 people.
How do they know?
killed 96
-
Apparently, the MOAB killed 36 people.
How do they know?
killed 96
I will refrain from saying good until I am sure they are all the people that deserve to be killed rather than innocents. IF they are all ISIS and the like then I am happy enough.
-
I might have started "the climate change frenzy" on my own.
:green:
Odeon said it's my fault. :zoinks:
I said that I was one of the first common folk to notice it. I showed everyone I knew. Most did not see anything out of the ordinary, but then I pushed the "snowball" downhill.
I insist that I started it!!
8)
Oh okay, you're saying you started the noticing. I thought you were trying to take my credit for causing it. :zoinks:
-
Apparently, the MOAB killed 36 people.
How do they know?
killed 96
OMG SKYBLUE1 IS BACK!! :GA:
-
I might have started "the climate change frenzy" on my own.
:green:
Odeon said it's my fault. :zoinks:
I said that I was one of the first common folk to notice it. I showed everyone I knew. Most did not see anything out of the ordinary, but then I pushed the "snowball" downhill.
I insist that I started it!!
8)
Oh okay, you're saying you started the noticing. I thought you were trying to take my credit for causing it. :zoinks:
Not even that.
I am saying that I am the first non-educated (High School drop out here. I dumped my senior year with a month to go to run off and join a rock band), gun-toting (I actually own enough effective firearms to arm my entire neighborhood, if the need exists and enough ammo set by to maintain and sustain an extended "cruise" if necessary) self reliant (grow much of our own food, hunt and gather), republican voting often (Maybe too often at times, but I look for truth in a candidate), conservative living (I do not run down the street giving everyone else my money. I have raised my kids to be self reliant and not depend on the G'vment and to follow the Golden Rule FFS!).
I would like to know how digging holes, fucking anything that, well ... whatever, stealing grain and hay from those who grow it and being great long range targets for drunken shooters caused the phenomenon we have come to know as Global Climate Change.
I know that Odeon knows things that we do not, but please, identify the connection.
:nerdy:
-
Apparently, the MOAB killed 36 people.
How do they know?
killed 96
My question stands. Do they count body parts?
-
I'm wondering about the MOAB, though. Are they seriously thinking they can do any real damage this way?
-
I'm wondering about the MOAB, though. Are they seriously thinking they can do any real damage this way?
No, that is not my understanding. 20 MOAB have a shelf life which ends next year. They are great at causing networks of tunnels in mountainsides to collapse and apparently the noise and blast have a bit of a chilling effect. THAT was my understanding.
-
So they have a couple of bombs they need to use by next year? My question stands.
-
So they have a couple of bombs they need to use by next year? My question stands.
Seems a problem by the looks. I wrote four sentences and you managed to read two of them. No wonder you are not acting on all the information at your disposal.
Possibly why you are not able to make way in your callout.
Read more, Odeon, before you comment on it.
-
Here (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) are some basics for you to start with.
NASA has good visuals. Though one noticed was this one for light pollution. https://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-change?id=566#566-light-pollution-milan This is a change personally noticed over the years from airplanes at night, as cities migrate to LED street lighting, the nighttime landscape is transforming from an amber glow to bright white. Though that's an energy conservation type of change, so seemed odd to include it with changes otherwise viewed as negative.
-
Here (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) are some basics for you to start with.
NASA has good visuals. Though one noticed was this one for light pollution. https://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-change?id=566#566-light-pollution-milan This is a change personally noticed over the years from airplanes at night, as cities migrate to LED street lighting, the nighttime landscape is transforming from an amber glow to bright white. Though that's an energy conservation type of change, so seemed odd to include it with changes otherwise viewed as negative.
Very cool, and good point.
-
Here (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/) are some basics for you to start with.
NASA has good visuals. Though one noticed was this one for light pollution. https://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-change?id=566#566-light-pollution-milan This is a change personally noticed over the years from airplanes at night, as cities migrate to LED street lighting, the nighttime landscape is transforming from an amber glow to bright white. Though that's an energy conservation type of change, so seemed odd to include it with changes otherwise viewed as negative.
Very cool, and good point.
At first it was annoying; would assume the people at NASA are smart enough know what they're looking at in those images, so thought they might assume I'm not. Many of the images, it's true I'm not. People are often spoonfed crap and assumed to swallow it, so it cast a bit of a cloud over the slideshow, because that particular bite came across as being fed crap someone simply wants me to consume. Although, there's also a single image in there of a solar farm, and another of a newly created dam. There's a couple of agricultural development and urban growth too. Not really sure what images like that are intended to convey as evidence of climate change when mixed with such a heavy concentration of receding glaciers, floods, droughts, and wildfires.
-
I would like to know how digging holes, fucking anything that, well ... whatever, stealing grain and hay from those who grow it and being great long range targets for drunken shooters caused the phenomenon we have come to know as Global Climate Change.
I know that Odeon knows things that we do not, but please, identify the connection.
:nerdy:
It's probably because I'm so freaking hawt. :zoinks:
-
So they have a couple of bombs they need to use by next year? My question stands.
Seems a problem by the looks. I wrote four sentences and you managed to read two of them. No wonder you are not acting on all the information at your disposal.
Possibly why you are not able to make way in your callout.
Read more, Odeon, before you comment on it.
You wrote "my understanding", which is an oxymoron, really. Dream on.
-
So they have a couple of bombs they need to use by next year? My question stands.
Seems a problem by the looks. I wrote four sentences and you managed to read two of them. No wonder you are not acting on all the information at your disposal.
Possibly why you are not able to make way in your callout.
Read more, Odeon, before you comment on it.
You wrote "my understanding", which is an oxymoron, really. Dream on.
Only an idiot would make that reply.
-
So they have a couple of bombs they need to use by next year? My question stands.
Seems a problem by the looks. I wrote four sentences and you managed to read two of them. No wonder you are not acting on all the information at your disposal.
Possibly why you are not able to make way in your callout.
Read more, Odeon, before you comment on it.
You wrote "my understanding", which is an oxymoron, really. Dream on.
Only an idiot would make that reply.
Projecting again, Al?
-
So they have a couple of bombs they need to use by next year? My question stands.
Seems a problem by the looks. I wrote four sentences and you managed to read two of them. No wonder you are not acting on all the information at your disposal.
Possibly why you are not able to make way in your callout.
Read more, Odeon, before you comment on it.
You wrote "my understanding", which is an oxymoron, really. Dream on.
Only an idiot would make that reply.
Projecting again, Al?
Not at all. My understanding was based on what was said and so your snark falls flat again, because you are an idiot.
-
Definitely projecting.
-
You are a skilled projectionist. You are a master at it. You are also a master at baiting people. Odeon the master baiter.
-
I was good at it but cinemas are no longer cinemas, you know.
-
I was good at it but cinemas are no longer cinemas, you know.
No you still project your own foibles like a pro
-
I was good at it but cinemas are no longer cinemas, you know.
No you still project your own foibles like a pro
It took you two weeks to come up with this?
-
No, I only just saw it. It was kind of the crux of what I had been saying before but then that ought to be obvious.
-
That you've been saying moronic things for a while? Yes, it's been obvious to pretty much anyone here.
-
That you've been saying moronic things for a while? Yes, it's been obvious to pretty much anyone here.
Project, deflect, snark. You are a bore aren't you Odeon?
-
That you've been saying moronic things for a while? Yes, it's been obvious to pretty much anyone here.
Project, deflect, snark. You are a bore aren't you Odeon?
You're not very bright, Al, and it's just so easy to take you down.
-
That you've been saying moronic things for a while? Yes, it's been obvious to pretty much anyone here.
Project, deflect, snark. You are a bore aren't you Odeon?
You're not very bright, Al, and it's just so easy to take you down.
Why are you unable to? The best you can do is run to your Admin Panel. That is not taking down Odeon. Don't big yourself up unnecessarily. You are a weak insecure man who has nothing in his grab bag except for an exaggerated sense of self-worth and an inability to recognise their many failings. Pathetic and hopeless.
-
Here's a picture of my butt. :zoinks:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3534/3458461480_833f652155_z.jpg?zz=1)
-
That you've been saying moronic things for a while? Yes, it's been obvious to pretty much anyone here.
Project, deflect, snark. You are a bore aren't you Odeon?
You're not very bright, Al, and it's just so easy to take you down.
Why are you unable to? The best you can do is run to your Admin Panel. That is not taking down Odeon. Don't big yourself up unnecessarily. You are a weak insecure man who has nothing in his grab bag except for an exaggerated sense of self-worth and an inability to recognise their many failings. Pathetic and hopeless.
And yet, here you are, unable to move on. You're just so easy.
-
That you've been saying moronic things for a while? Yes, it's been obvious to pretty much anyone here.
Project, deflect, snark. You are a bore aren't you Odeon?
You're not very bright, Al, and it's just so easy to take you down.
Why are you unable to? The best you can do is run to your Admin Panel. That is not taking down Odeon. Don't big yourself up unnecessarily. You are a weak insecure man who has nothing in his grab bag except for an exaggerated sense of self-worth and an inability to recognise their many failings. Pathetic and hopeless.
And yet, here you are, unable to move on. You're just so easy.
I am curious as to what you "take me down" and what that entails. I am guessing it requires the use of the Admin Panel again.
This is the textual equivalent of you now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyh3C1xDT3Y
You can keep telling me you spooked me took me down Spagett Odeon, but it doesn't mean a whole lot
-
I'm sure you had a point there. Pretend I reacted in an appropriate manner.
-
Here's a picture of my butt. :zoinks:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3534/3458461480_833f652155_z.jpg?zz=1)
Gopher porn :LOL:
-
I'm sure you had a point there. Pretend I reacted in an appropriate manner.
You talk a lot of shit and talking a lot of shit does not make it meaningful or correct or right. You are just like Spagett.
-
I'm sure you had a point there. Pretend I reacted in an appropriate manner.
You talk a lot of shit and talking a lot of shit does not make it meaningful or correct or right. You are just like Spagett.
Pretend you managed to produce another point. Celebrate with another video.
-
La Pen lost. Thank God.
-
La Pen lost. Thank God.
Agreed. :)
-
La Pen lost. Thank God.
No, "I'm with her","first female President" thing? Okay, fair enough
-
Glad she lost.
-
I like how Macron looks a lot older than I do even though he's only a year older than me.
-
Glad she lost.
Indeed. Enough morons getting elected these days. Let's take a break.
-
Hope Macron can get people together for the next election. Being a newcomer out of the blue also has great disadvantages.
France has quite a way to go.
-
It's a huge relief, and even more so because it wasn't even close.
-
Here's a picture of my butt. :zoinks:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3534/3458461480_833f652155_z.jpg?zz=1)
Gopher porn :LOL:
Oh, you like that, huh? :eyelash:
-
Here's a picture of my butt. :zoinks:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3534/3458461480_833f652155_z.jpg?zz=1)
Gopher porn :LOL:
Oh, you like that, huh? :eyelash:
Who doesn't?
-
I know, right? :zoinks:
-
This quote was in an article about Jefferson Davis (New Orleans Times-Picayune)
The resume notwithstanding, Davis is generally viewed by historians as a failure, largely because of a quick temper, an inability to navigate politics and a willingness to reward friendship over competence.
Just substitute Trump for Davis and you've got a pretty accurate picture.
-
This quote was in an article about Jefferson Davis (New Orleans Times-Picayune)
The resume notwithstanding, Davis is generally viewed by historians as a failure, largely because of a quick temper, an inability to navigate politics and a willingness to reward friendship over competence.
Just substitute Trump for Davis and you've got a pretty accurate picture.
and those are trumps best qualities.... :poo:
-
Quality has very little to do with Trump.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C_lXGMmWsAAyRnc_zpssufk7bpf.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C_krrG6UwAAWSX5_zps9x3o3hgb.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C_dzeD8XkAA-xAe_zpsex323nsn.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C_rDW-vVYAE1U55_zpsq90l9cy8.jpg)
-
:laugh:
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C_krrG6UwAAWSX5_zps9x3o3hgb.jpg)
I find this oddly disturbing. Wondering what the story is behind this.
-
I find this oddly disturbing. Wondering what the story is behind this.
I couldn't find anything about it, but in his defense I was wondering if it wasn't an orthopedic shoe/sandal, used for minor foot surgery.
You would of thought he would of paired it with something similar in color though, instead of his "lucky" cowboy boot. :zoinks:
-
Spicer did not make any on-camera appearances on Tuesday, but The Post reported that Spicer at one point spent several minutes “hidden in the darkness and among bushes” outside the White House while deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway made TV appearances.
People have responded by printing cardboard cutouts of Spicer and putting them in their garden hedges.
Scroll to the bottom for instructions and links to the printable to make your very own "Garden Spicer - hiding in the bushes" lawn decoration.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/333213-cutout-of-sean-spicer-in-the-bushes-becomes-internet-meme
-
Spicer did not make any on-camera appearances on Tuesday, but The Post reported that Spicer at one point spent several minutes “hidden in the darkness and among bushes” outside the White House while deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway made TV appearances.
People have responded by printing cardboard cutouts of Spicer and putting them in their garden hedges.
Scroll to the bottom for instructions and links to the printable to make your very own "Garden Spicer - hiding in the bushes" lawn decoration.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/333213-cutout-of-sean-spicer-in-the-bushes-becomes-internet-meme
This place is all about helping people. :zoinks:
-
This place is all about helping people. :zoinks:
Arts and crafts have great therapeutic benefits. :M
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/C_ksjRAW0AAccAM_zps93f8pdrz.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/271bfb80c05ee9b11ec066c0f47af3dd_zpsncbnizno.jpg)
-
I find this oddly disturbing. Wondering what the story is behind this.
I couldn't find anything about it, but in his defense I was wondering if it wasn't an orthopedic shoe/sandal, used for minor foot surgery.
You would of thought he would of paired it with something similar in color though, instead of his "lucky" cowboy boot. :zoinks:
Was thinking the same thing; the darker one does look like a sandal.
-
You would of thought he would of paired it with something similar in color though, instead of his "lucky" cowboy boot. :zoinks:
Cowboy accessories only look good with naked. :zoinks:
-
*chilling the impeachment wine.
I do believe the ship is actually sinking.
Keep watching.
-
Looks like he just can't help himself.
-
Looks like he just can't help himself.
Nope.
Game plan strategy.
1. Have staff make statements saying you didn't leak any classified info to your Russian friends.
2. Go on Twitter a little later and tell everyone exactly why you leaked classified info to your Russian friends.
Obviously he should take up drinking...he might come up with a better game plan.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/271bfb80c05ee9b11ec066c0f47af3dd_zpsncbnizno.jpg)
You've been violating. :autism:
Now I am curious. :nerdy:
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/271bfb80c05ee9b11ec066c0f47af3dd_zpsncbnizno.jpg)
You've been violating. :autism:
Now I am curious. :nerdy:
>:D
I don't even know what I violated. There was no full nudity.
-
Looks like he just can't help himself.
Nope.
Game plan strategy.
1. Have staff make statements saying you didn't leak any classified info to your Russian friends.
2. Go on Twitter a little later and tell everyone exactly why you leaked classified info to your Russian friends.
Obviously he should take up drinking...he might come up with a better game plan.
I suspect the WH staff might already be drinking more than they should. Who can blame them?
-
Looks like he just can't help himself.
Nope.
Game plan strategy.
1. Have staff make statements saying you didn't leak any classified info to your Russian friends.
2. Go on Twitter a little later and tell everyone exactly why you leaked classified info to your Russian friends.
Obviously he should take up drinking...he might come up with a better game plan.
I suspect the WH staff might already be drinking more than they should. Who can blame them?
In the last couple statements Spicer made people were commenting he looked like he was almost in tears.
Gotta be hell, I actually feel a tiny bit sorry for some of them being paid to try and defend him in this shit storm he created. Kind of wondering who will bail first.
-
(http://cdn2.thr.com/sites/default/files/2017/05/thr_issue_15_snl_cover.jpg)
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/30/politics/russians-trump-campaign-information/index.html
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/30/politics/russians-trump-campaign-information/index.html
It's been said a sealed indictment has been served. Nothing officially confirmed though yet...waiting.
-
Trump lawyer Michael Cohen declined the request to provide information and testimony to the investigation.
He has now been issued a subpoena.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-intel-subpoenas-trumps-personal-attorney/2017/05/30/695ea882-455c-11e7-8de1-cec59a9bf4b1_story.html?utm_term=.b3d571b97fb4
-
Comey's coming to the party on Tuesday.
WH has went into silent mode.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/DAC7MtQXoAAz1lq_zpsytn9fxqh.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/DBGGsSOVYAEo_PO_zpsylnwr5pg.jpg)
-
And Spicer looks more exhausted than ever. I think he starts his day with a bottle.
-
I just saw a slideshow of mountain glaciers before-and-after pictures; If I were an environmentalist, then I'd start my day with a bottle as well. A bottle of pills!
Congratulations, the United States of Trump! You have joined the TWO other countries who have chosen not to be part of the Paris climate agreement: Syria and Nicaragua.
Two successful, developed, and stable countries with no big problems whatsoever! :orly:
-
I just saw a slideshow of mountain glaciers before-and-after pictures; If I were an environmentalist, then I'd start my day with a bottle as well. A bottle of pills!
Congratulations, the United States of Trump! You have joined the TWO other countries who have chosen not to be part of the Paris climate agreement: Syria and Nicaragua.
Two successful, developed, and stable countries with no big problems whatsoever! :orly:
It's not over yet. New York, California, & Washington drew up a "Climate Change Alliance" plan basically in preparation of this.
So far the mayors of Boston and Pittsburgh :asthing: have both come forward to say they will continue to abide by the Paris climate change agreement, I think more will follow. The voice mail at the EPA filled up in less than an hour...they are encouraging people to write in via email to voice their concerns (pruitt.scott@epa.gov).
(http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/61/50/40/13011004/3/920x920.png)
-
His immense stupidity's got to be a record of some kind.
-
Out of interest, how much were they looking to reduce the temperature and over what period of time and how binding were the agreements? Does anyone know?
-
Out of interest, how much were they looking to reduce the temperature and over what period of time and how binding were the agreements? Does anyone know?
Had the impression it was about reducing greenhouse gasses, not necessarily temperatures, but Wikipedia says temperatures:
Aims
The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:[8]
"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."
Countries furthermore aim to reach "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible". The agreement has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment.[9][10]
how binding were the agreements?
Understand there are no penalties noted as such. Though the media hype about Trumps declaration to withdraw may be only that, hype. The US has entered into an agreement which effectively takes a presidential term to get out. Trump will have to be elected to a second term to actually make that happen, or his successor would have to uphold his declaration.
Article 28 of the agreement enables parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending withdrawal notifications to the depositary three years after the agreement goes into force in that country, and the withdrawal is effective one year after the depositary is notified.
On 1 June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement.[75] In accordance with Article 28, as the agreement entered into force in the United States on 4 November 2016, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date for the United States cannot be earlier than 4 November 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
-
Out of interest, how much were they looking to reduce the temperature and over what period of time and how binding were the agreements? Does anyone know?
Had the impression it was about reducing greenhouse gasses, not necessarily temperatures, but Wikipedia says temperatures:
Aims
The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:[8]
"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."
Countries furthermore aim to reach "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible". The agreement has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment.[9][10]
how binding were the agreements?
Understand there are no penalties noted as such. Though the media hype about Trumps declaration to withdraw may be only that, hype. The US has entered into an agreement which effectively takes a presidential term to get out. Trump will have to be elected to a second term to actually make that happen, or his successor would have to uphold his declaration.
Article 28 of the agreement enables parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending withdrawal notifications to the depositary three years after the agreement goes into force in that country, and the withdrawal is effective one year after the depositary is notified.
On 1 June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement.[75] In accordance with Article 28, as the agreement entered into force in the United States on 4 November 2016, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date for the United States cannot be earlier than 4 November 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
...Reducing emissions, which in turn reduces the greenhouse gasses which effect the temperature.
So far a total of 180 mayors from different cities have joined in and voiced that they will NOT withdraw from the agreement since his announcement to withdraw...more are expressing that they will follow.
Leaders are taking things into their own hands at a state level...and other countries have been echoing the 2020 date.
https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climate-mayors-commit-to-adopt-honor-and-uphold-paris-climate-agreement-goals-ba566e260097
-
It's one more nail in his coffin. He won't be re-elected, should he last the whole first term (which I seriously doubt).
-
It's one more nail in his coffin. He won't be re-elected, should he last the whole first term (which I seriously doubt).
I honestly think he will be too old to go 4 years after his first BUT if he does, I am not so sure he will not get re-elected. I think you have to lot at things sensibly and logically. He was elected on a series of promises and platforms. This was one of them and he stuck to his word. Trump voters are 96% sure that they would vote for him again if given the choice. That means a lot and nothing at all. It means a lot in that at this point the people that voted for him like what he is and what he is doing DESPITE the forces against him and how polarised the American voting people are. But it also does not mean anything given that he is only 4 months in a 48 month term.
If he does what he said he will do and does not deviate then he stands a great chance to keep essentially all of his voting base. HOWEVER, IF he does something against his promises or slows down on promoting the values he has run on OR is conviction of something or whatever THEN maybe. Also IF at the end of 4 years he has done extremely well, despite the unpopularity of his policies in some quarters, then he may pick up Democrat voters if they say "I do not like the man and many of his policies BUT the effect on the country of his Presidency has proven to be good"
Of course, between now and then is too long and anything could happen and maybe the country stumbles economically or he breaks trust or promises will his base or is discovered to be a Russian Spy or whatever.
I kind of think that if he does not run again, the party will lose a lot of the base and popularity as he was a Populist and I think his ideas were not traditional. I think that in this respect it would be hard to have a person emulate his stances and imitate him.
-
Out of interest, how much were they looking to reduce the temperature and over what period of time and how binding were the agreements? Does anyone know?
Had the impression it was about reducing greenhouse gasses, not necessarily temperatures, but Wikipedia says temperatures:
Aims
The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:[8]
"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."
Countries furthermore aim to reach "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible". The agreement has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment.[9][10]
how binding were the agreements?
Understand there are no penalties noted as such. Though the media hype about Trumps declaration to withdraw may be only that, hype. The US has entered into an agreement which effectively takes a presidential term to get out. Trump will have to be elected to a second term to actually make that happen, or his successor would have to uphold his declaration.
Article 28 of the agreement enables parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending withdrawal notifications to the depositary three years after the agreement goes into force in that country, and the withdrawal is effective one year after the depositary is notified.
On 1 June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement.[75] In accordance with Article 28, as the agreement entered into force in the United States on 4 November 2016, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date for the United States cannot be earlier than 4 November 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
...Reducing emissions, which in turn reduces the greenhouse gasses which effect the temperature.
So far a total of 180 mayors from different cities have joined in and voiced that they will NOT withdraw from the agreement since his announcement to withdraw...more are expressing that they will follow.
Leaders are taking things into their own hands at a state level...and other countries have been echoing the 2020 date.
https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climate-mayors-commit-to-adopt-honor-and-uphold-paris-climate-agreement-goals-ba566e260097
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
Reduce it by how much? 1/20th of a degree Celsius?
It is not enforceable?
Is China or India going to reduce their CO emissions and how much ver the next few years?
I do not know but I have heard some interesting things and I think MOST people do not know. I think that this arrangement is not completely meritless. Reducing pollution and fostering co-operation in other countries and such is all positive.
I do think that acting like Armageddon is coming and the world is lost because he is not saving 1/20th of a degree or whatever is a bit much. It seems relatively negligible but it does not mean that stepping away from the agreement was the best idea either.
My take is that sometimes showing solidarity over a cause is good. Sometimes fostering equitable agreements is good. Sometimes making yourself approachable is good. The end result may not be either here or there BUT the process in which this was achieved may be good.
This is a horrible analogy but it is like a group of kids getting together to play a game of something and working out and announcing who is on who's side and the game they are going to play and what the rules are, making them up on the fly. Now if one kid says "I am not playing because I do not like that game", it is a rejection of not only the game but also of being a part of working together supportively.
-
...Reducing emissions, which in turn reduces the greenhouse gasses which effect the temperature.
Though it does seem strange that temperature is the value being used. It's probably more difficult to know exactly what are the calculations of emissions to produce a temperature change, or even to calculate the emissions, while it's not difficult to know the calculations of coal and oil consumed by a nation. While it makes sense, these things are connected, it still strikes as odd to discuss temperature goals, and the pledges of countries to reduce their emissions by certain percentages, when it would be more realistic and concrete to say a decrease of x percentage in non-renewable resource usage.
-
Is China or India going to reduce their CO emissions and how much ver the next few years?
China will likely come out looking very good, and it's largely coincidental. They already have their own goals, and the Paris agreement will only serve to gain them worldwide notice for their efforts. Discussed china's nuclear power initiatives some time back in the ghost city thread.
In the past China's main source of power has been fossil fuels, but now turning to nuclear power. 70% of China's nuclear power plants have been built in the last ten years, they have 36 reactors in production, are reported to have another 20 under construction, and more planned to start construction with a goal of doubling current capacity by 2020.
-
I think MOST people do not know.
This is a valid point, and my reason for making the point of calculations for temperatures and emissions. Goals of destinations are great, but what do they mean in terms of getting there? The US has made a pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions by 26% by 2020; that's a big goal for four yeas, and it's meaningless because I don't understand how greenhouse emissions are calculated. However do know there are more things than natural resource use which cause these emissions so a quarter decrease of usage will not produce that result. How much less coal, oil and natural gas usage is required; how many nuclear power plants, dams, solar and wind farms are required to replace that energy? These are concrete calculation people outside of the EPA can actually understand, and thus makes them more likely to be done.
-
Deforestation doesn't help. I remember in Geology we were told that even if everybody suddenly stopped giving out emissions, it would still take 50 years for the Earth to recuperate. I don't know how true this is.
A goal temperature seems an odd thing to me too, how would they know the temperature would go down? It would have to be a massive, global effort to reverse the temperature.
-
...Reducing emissions, which in turn reduces the greenhouse gasses which effect the temperature.
Though it does seem strange that temperature is the value being used. It's probably more difficult to know exactly what are the calculations of emissions to produce a temperature change, or even to calculate the emissions, while it's not difficult to know the calculations of coal and oil consumed by a nation. While it makes sense, these things are connected, it still strikes as odd to discuss temperature goals, and the pledges of countries to reduce their emissions by certain percentages, when it would be more realistic and concrete to say a decrease of x percentage in non-renewable resource usage.
Why Pittsburgh was one of the first to say no.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/stunning-photos-of-pittsburghs-air-pollution-in-the-1940s?utm_term=.leLK3l7LZ#.nrw25bQM9
Most of those pictures where taken in the DAY TIME.
Then in 1948 there were the deaths in Donora...which is just down river from me.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103359330
-
Why Pittsburgh was one of the first to say no.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/stunning-photos-of-pittsburghs-air-pollution-in-the-1940s?utm_term=.leLK3l7LZ#.nrw25bQM9
Most of those pictures where taken in the DAY TIME.
Then in 1948 there were the deaths in Donora...which is just down river from me.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103359330
Yes, and the US as a whole has history of legislation, initiatives, agreements between power suppliers and the government, and clear trends of improvement toward goals in improving air quality.
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends#sonat
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/carbon-monoxide-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/lead-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/nitrogen-dioxide-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/ozone-trends
World pledges aren't needed to show these goals already exist and are being achieved in the US. These achievements make the Paris agreement such a non-issue. Think Obama did a great thing in this, but failed completely in making it so vulnerable by not bringing it before congress. It's nothing more than a show of solidarity, so announcing a withdrawal is harmful to US world solidarity, not the environment, and that's why people are really upset.
-
Solidarity is the least of it to me.
What I don't agree with is the attitude that it doesn't matter, or isn't occurring, or that "god will take care of it"...and his persistent efforts to do away with the legislation measures that do already exist to protect what we've managed to clean up in the last 30 years.
Put more effort into cleaner forms of energy, encourage growth and investment in new technology...I don't care if Trump thinks windmills are "ugly and ruin the scenery"...they work...and they don't belch smoke.
If anyone wants to see the wonders that strip mining, coal, and fracking have brought to us I would invite them to live next to it for awhile...and please...drink the water. :zoinks:
-
It's one more nail in his coffin. He won't be re-elected, should he last the whole first term (which I seriously doubt).
I honestly think he will be too old to go 4 years after his first BUT if he does, I am not so sure he will not get re-elected. I think you have to lot at things sensibly and logically. He was elected on a series of promises and platforms. This was one of them and he stuck to his word. Trump voters are 96% sure that they would vote for him again if given the choice. That means a lot and nothing at all. It means a lot in that at this point the people that voted for him like what he is and what he is doing DESPITE the forces against him and how polarised the American voting people are. But it also does not mean anything given that he is only 4 months in a 48 month term.
If he does what he said he will do and does not deviate then he stands a great chance to keep essentially all of his voting base. HOWEVER, IF he does something against his promises or slows down on promoting the values he has run on OR is conviction of something or whatever THEN maybe. Also IF at the end of 4 years he has done extremely well, despite the unpopularity of his policies in some quarters, then he may pick up Democrat voters if they say "I do not like the man and many of his policies BUT the effect on the country of his Presidency has proven to be good"
Of course, between now and then is too long and anything could happen and maybe the country stumbles economically or he breaks trust or promises will his base or is discovered to be a Russian Spy or whatever.
I kind of think that if he does not run again, the party will lose a lot of the base and popularity as he was a Populist and I think his ideas were not traditional. I think that in this respect it would be hard to have a person emulate his stances and imitate him.
You should apply for a job within his administration. He needs more people like you.
-
Why Pittsburgh was one of the first to say no.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/stunning-photos-of-pittsburghs-air-pollution-in-the-1940s?utm_term=.leLK3l7LZ#.nrw25bQM9
Most of those pictures where taken in the DAY TIME.
Then in 1948 there were the deaths in Donora...which is just down river from me.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103359330
Yes, and the US as a whole has history of legislation, initiatives, agreements between power suppliers and the government, and clear trends of improvement toward goals in improving air quality.
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends#sonat
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/carbon-monoxide-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/lead-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/nitrogen-dioxide-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/ozone-trends
World pledges aren't needed to show these goals already exist and are being achieved in the US. These achievements make the Paris agreement such a non-issue. Think Obama did a great thing in this, but failed completely in making it so vulnerable by not bringing it before congress. It's nothing more than a show of solidarity, so announcing a withdrawal is harmful to US world solidarity, not the environment, and that's why people are really upset.
Yes, I agree.
I have tried to bring this up before. There seems to be a bit of a grab bag at the moment. Environmental protection sounds like a great thing and everyone can understand at a base level, that if you defecate or urinate into your drinking water supply, you will get sick. If you breathe in smoke all day every day, you will get sick....and so on.
So making claims around these things is hardly contentious. Those that object are not arguing in good faith. So releasing toxins into the air or into the water and not disposing of it will, is a problem and is pollution and needs to be regulated from people who know it is bad but seek to do it anyway.
Finding alternative fuel supplies is not a BAD idea. The problem is two-fold. The efficiency of such energy sources (both to generate energy and the delivery of the energy) and cost to do so. (I will not include the effect the wind farms have on birds). Some will say that the ability to generate as much energy as needed or the need to pay more is offset by the cost to do so. This IS an argument but there are two sides to that one.
So that is pollution and using traditional vs alternative forms of energy. Then you start getting into areas that ARE much more contentious. Areas where understanding is limited and any modelling tends to do poorly and where knowledge is developing. Climate change. Man does have an effect on the planet AND the planet changes - sometimes quite drastically - naturally. Not every change in climate is influenced by man and not every change in climate natural.
It ought to be an obvious point and as obvious as the point I made earlier about drinking water. I made it a while ago and started all the shit that proclaimed me a climate change denier. Clearly, only an idiot would think such a position was true. This is part of the Climate Change Summits and whatever is people lump everything in, reasonable, unreasonable, known, unknown, facts, guesses, things that relate to each other and things that do not, and present it together. Question any aspect of it and you are (like I was) labelled a Climate Change denier. Not adhering to the belief that the planet is doomed and that every change is due to humans and that we have the power to stop the planet's climate from doing as it has been doing for billions of years, is NOT seen as a difference of opinion but as a heretic rejecting a fundamental doctrine (one that is a lot more faith than the believers would like to admit).
Man does affect the climate and I think that there is definitely a need for monitoring and exposing companies and individuals that pollute and damage their environment. I do think that What man does on planet Earth is not inconsequential and can affect people for generations after (automatically think of Chernobyl and China's want to go nuclear). I think that the development of alternative forms of energy and making developments to and maintenance of existing and future delivery of energy is great. Education is not a bad thing either.
What is a bad idea is ideological demagoguery and toothless or unfairly weighted agreements or being dishonest about things known or unknown.
-
Heh. Clearly only an idiot would post the above.
-
Solidarity is the least of it to me.
What I don't agree with is the attitude that it doesn't matter, or isn't occurring, or that "god will take care of it"...and his persistent efforts to do away with the legislation measures that do already exist to protect what we've managed to clean up in the last 30 years.
Put more effort into cleaner forms of energy, encourage growth and investment in new technology...I don't care if Trump thinks windmills are "ugly and ruin the scenery"...they work...and they don't belch smoke.
If anyone wants to see the wonders that strip mining, coal, and fracking have brought to us I would invite them to live next to it for awhile...and please...drink the water. :zoinks:
I see. Misunderstood then. That's what the climate mayors are doing by creating an association, making a stand in the name of solidarity. It has value and was worth pointing out.
-
The efficiency of such energy sources (both to generate energy and the delivery of the energy)
It's true wind and solar aren't considered great solutions due to intermittent output. There aren't enough rivers to dam. This is why the switch from coal to natural gas can be attributed for the bulk of recent improvements in the US. While natural gas produces greenhouse gasses, it's only about half the rate of coal, so it's considered to be a 'clean' source of energy here. Not the best solution, but that's what's being done.
-
Not even your biggest power plants run at 100% efficiency, and the costs aren't as bad as they used to be as with any newer technology...they are going down as they become more popular.
Windpower...available anywhere basically (although better in higher elevation areas), no fuel costs or emissions, and the land is still usable for farming, development, etc...and they have found that if migratory patterns are taken into account before construction the dangers to birds is just about eliminated.
As of 2013, Pennsylvania ranks 16th in the nation for wind energy generation. The state has enough wind farms to produce 750 megawatts (MW) of electricity – enough to power 180,000 homes. Though Pennsylvania is far from reaching its predicted wind potential of 3,307 MW, it's been building its fleet of wind turbines for more than a decade. Now Pennsylvania has 24 wind farms that provide clean energy for its residents.
https://www.saveonenergy.com/green-energy/take-a-tour-of-the-wind-farms-in-pennsylvania-part-1/
I drive past the one occasionally on trips up to the mountains...personally, I think it's beautiful and have considered building my own smaller turbine for the hillside, which actually is not that hard or expensive at all. 8)
-
Heh. Clearly only an idiot would post the above.
You are vpearly an idiot for thinking so.
-
they have found that if migratory patterns are taken into account before construction the dangers to birds is just about eliminated.
A company in Italy has developed a bladeless wind turbine. The output isn't as great as blades, but they're less expensive to produce and maintain due to fewer moving parts, and there's the plus of no problem for the birds. Looks like they still have a way to go with financial backing. The article is a critical review, but also seems fair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_Bladeless
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/537721/bladeless-wind-turbines-may-offer-more-form-than-function/
Wind and solar should be definitely be considered a potential primary source when wind and sun are available, but there's no escaping the problems related to any power source which relies on batteries to provide around the clock service.
-
I should imagine that if companies see a benefit to these energy sources and produce them, then people will buy them. Given the uproar about the climate agreement, there are millions of potential customers eagerly waiting. Do they need the government to regulate, fund or subsidise?
-
The US government already does all three, though that's true of all energy sources including the subsidizing of the oil, gas, and coal industries. There's probably aren't many energy sources anywhere which weren't developed with some level of government funding. The bladeless turbine already has funding from their own government; though apparently not quite enough.
-
Regulations keep factories and people that don't give a shit from creating another Love Canal, Hinkley, or worse.
Big business is about $$, they seek the most cost effective way to do things by contracting out things like disposal and clean up to the lowest bidder. If they aren't required to monitor emissions or be held accountable for any disposal methods very, very few of them will.
Trump wants to create jobs...if he deregulates things, and he already has to some extent, eliminating one ruling already preventing miners from dumping waste into streams... here in the coal and fracking region that's a BIGLY one.
But it may bring more industry and more JOBS!!
...and at what price? When you or your kids have asthma and can't breathe or drink the water in 20 years, at least you'll have a job to pay the medical bills. ;)
Ever play in a sulphur creek or one contaminated with acid mine water? Both my parents did...might eliminate his need for the orange spray tan and save him $$$.
-
Yes business follows the dollars. If people are falls ng over themselves to have green energy, the market will reward their want with green options.
You may say that without the Paris accord consumers will not have green options. I say if there is market demand, and people like yourself seen to indicate that there is, the a capitalist market place will cater to them by companies filling the niche.
-
eliminating one ruling already preventing miners from dumping waste into streams...
There are still environmental laws in place regarding mining waste; though the new ruling would have made it more difficult to obtain permits. This is another instance of nothing has changed, of the Obama administration waiting for eight years to then sign vulnerable administrative rulings in December of 2016. This isn't something Trump did on his own; congress voted on this. It probably doesn't even matter to anyone's job. The lower costs from natural gas surplus is what's killing the coal industry, not stricter regulations. Like you said, big business is about the money, and coal is no longer where the money is.
-
Heh. Clearly only an idiot would post the above.
You are vpearly an idiot for thinking so.
Anything for Trump, right?
-
Heh. Clearly only an idiot would post the above.
You are vpearly an idiot for thinking so.
Anything for Trump, right?
Why ask me? I gave no idea?
-
Heh. Clearly only an idiot would post the above.
You are vpearly an idiot for thinking so.
Anything for Trump, right?
Why ask me? I gave no idea?
Covfefe.
-
Heh. Clearly only an idiot would post the above.
You are vpearly an idiot for thinking so.
Anything for Trump, right?
Why ask me? I gave no idea?
Covfefe.
And?
-
:zoinks:
(https://video-images.vice.com/articles/593050ca97924a42940f7b63/lede/1496339909528-Cofveve-toffifee.jpeg?crop=1xw:0.7574415308291992xh;center,center&resize=1050:*)
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/10dpp2.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/DB5ka9dUQAAjJpf_zpswfgg0yoc.jpg)
-
I guess G.W. Bush wasn't radical enough.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/182y92.jpg)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJmK8YLEj9Y
-
A compulsive liar Trump is. He's been an intrinsic utter bullshitter, core deep, most of his life. (my opinion now).
-
Reminds me of Mussolini. Except Mussolini was a success when he went into office.
Rebuilt Italy's infrastructure. Built up the military. Had one of the largest navies in the world.
The people loved him.
Of course then he got involved in Germany's war.
An appropriate look for Trump would be a Hitler mustache.
-
I seem to remember that there were people on here who were glad when Trump beat Hilary.
Where did they all go?
-
I seem to remember that there were people on here who were glad when Trump beat Hilary.
Where did they all go?
Why wouldn't someone be glad Trump beat history.
As far as ALLL those people, as far as I remember it was me and Benji. Benji periodically drops off the radar just like Rage.
So what the Hell are you talking about?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/danny0023/cult45_zpskuazabkp.jpg)
-
I seem to remember that there were people on here who were glad when Trump beat Hilary.
Where did they all go?
They're probably still in their respective foreign countries. :zoinks:
-
People are stupid. It is known. :M
-
I seem to remember that there were people on here who were glad when Trump beat Hilary.
Where did they all go?
They're probably still in their respective foreign countries. :zoinks:
I certainly am.