I will use my common sense and choose the candidate that I believe will do the best job... and that sure isn't the hag Hillary. There are other candidates that could do the job, but they are already in someone's pocket. Republicans and Democrats on both sides are corrupt, and I don't believe anyone can argue with that. Powerful and wealthy friends contribute to their campaigns and get them media coverage all while ensuring their backs are scratched if they win.
If both sides hate Trump and he is financing himself, he has my attention. Trump is the only one I can see that is 'his own man'.
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
I will use my common sense and choose the candidate that I believe will do the best job... and that sure isn't the hag Hillary. There are other candidates that could do the job, but they are already in someone's pocket. Republicans and Democrats on both sides are corrupt, and I don't believe anyone can argue with that. Powerful and wealthy friends contribute to their campaigns and get them media coverage all while ensuring their backs are scratched if they win.
If both sides hate Trump and he is financing himself, he has my attention. Trump is the only one I can see that is 'his own man'.
Would you say that he is winning by a landslide?
Trump's "campaign" thus far is a publicity stunt, not an attempt for political office. Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing.
That said, Hillary Clinton looks like the best likely candidate. As great as Bernie would be, it's not realistic to expect him to win a general election.
I want Trump to win because I care more about lulz than the future of this country
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.Yeah, I hate Hilary too.
America is choosing between the giant douche and the turd sandwich again. ::)Wait, which one is which?
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.Yeah, I hate Hilary too.
That's fairly common for our discussions, isn't it? (https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/collections/pride)I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.Yeah, I hate Hilary too.
I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.
I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.That's fairly common for our discussions, isn't it? (https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/collections/pride)
The clear choice is Hillary. She's not perfect, but Trump... Trump. C'mon.I don't think he's actually going to win the primaries. If he is, you're fucked either way. In one corner you have a crazy old hypocritical man, in the other, a crazy old hypocritical woman. It basically makes no difference.
I would rather have somewhat somewhat crazy than someone who's...you know...Trump.The clear choice is Hillary. She's not perfect, but Trump... Trump. C'mon.I don't think he's actually going to win the primaries. If he is, you're fucked either way. In one corner you have a crazy old hypocritical man, in the other, a crazy old hypocritical woman. It basically makes no difference.
I'd rather not see Hillary get the nomination. She has far too much baggage at this point.She knows where the kitchen is in the Whitehouse, though.
Hillary [...] a bit more liberal.I don't think an outspoken Christian fundamentalist and opponent of LGBT rights will count as more liberal than Obama.
All I've heard recently is her being pro-LGBT."Recently" being the keyword. That's also why I describe her as "hypocritical". She was very happy to spout her homophobic remarks until she started campaigning, at which point she's suddenly become oh-so-supportive. (And definitely (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614541904722665472) didn't (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614809916423995392) proceed to commercialise the fuck out of her "support").
But even if that's so. In terms of what she personally thinks, maybe she won't be. But I don't think that'll have that big of an effect on what she actually does in office. If she's adopting a pro-LGBT persona now that LGBT acceptance is becoming a much wider thing, I don't think she'll do a huge, polarizing 180 once she's in office.Similarly, you could argue that none of the crazy shit Trump says will affect what he does in office. Either of these arguments would be entirely faith-based.
I just personally think Hillary would do less damage than Trump.I'm not trying to defend Trump or side with him (God, please don't think I am...), but I honestly don't view either of them as better or worse.
Besides an evolution of views from eleven years agoJust because I picked an example from 2004 does not mean her views were evolving since then. She took a massive u-turn in 2013. I wonder why.
what are the major reasons people think Hillary would make a poor leader? She has extensive legislative and executive experience, she knows domestic and foreign policy, she has access to top advisers in literally every area from her years of experience in a variety of areas.Having experience is one thing. Being trustworthy, representative, and not outright evil is another.
Iran and their allies still hate us and the only thing keeping them from getting nukes is the UN, the same UN who can't even find official evidence that Israel has nukes.
Israel never signed the NPT, so the UN could hardly be investigating them for signs of nuclear weapons.
And by foreign policy, I suppose you're referring to the deal with IranOr the four years as Secretary of State. Or her extensive diplomatic efforts as First Lady.
She also aided in pushing through the affordable Care act, which is a joke. Socialized healthcare isn't a bad idea, but our implementation of it is a disaster. She'll never admit it.The Affordable Care Act wasn't socialized health care. Also, she was Secretary of State at the time, which focuses on foreign, not domestic, policy.
They do, however, officially claim not to have them and have had UN inspectors visit before, none of which found evidence of a nuclear program.First of all, the inspectors are from the IAEA, not the United Nations. The distinction is worth noting. Also, they have refused IAEA inspectors numerous times in the past and evidence has indicated they have developed nuclear technologies that have weapons-only applications.
Israel is still a member of the UN, and simply because they have not signed the NPT does not render them immune to the UN.It does, however, mean they do not have to abide by the NPT.
Having experience is one thing. Being trustworthy, representative, and not outright evil is another.Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?
Or the four years as Secretary of State. Or her extensive diplomatic efforts as First Lady.
The Affordable Care Act wasn't socialized health care. Also, she was Secretary of State at the time, which focuses on foreign, not domestic, policy.
First of all, the inspectors are from the IAEA, not the United Nations. The distinction is worth noting. Also, they have refused IAEA inspectors numerous times in the past and evidence has indicated they have developed nuclear technologies that have weapons-only applications.
It does, however, mean they do not have to abide by the NPT.
Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?
Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?Do you want Benghazi rants? Because that's how you get Benghazi rants.
You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.I guess you're an example of the reason the US has so many terrible presidents. ::)
Neither I, nor anyone with a brain, are willing to entertain a right-wing rant about a bureaucratic failure pinned a upon singular person. If you want to be belligerent go ahead. I just know you're far better than that.]Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?Do you want Benghazi rants? Because that's how you get Benghazi rants.
Neither I, nor anyone with a brain, are willing to entertain a right-wing rant about a bureaucratic failure pinned a upon singular person.Of course. That's why people talk about Benghazi, and not bureaucratic failures.
Even I have to say that video is horribly out of context.Yeah, it's pretty obvious. I was just hoping to find a source
It was from a speech on systemic racism:Thanks
https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/hillary-clinton-we-can-t-hide-from-hard-truths-on-race-96ce2257fe5a
You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.
Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.
Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.
I think Jura is saying that the Saudis are more likely to give WMDs to ISIS but won't because the Saudi-US relationship is too valuable.
No thanks. The new thing in America is to ignore history so that we may repeat it.
I don't get to vote, seems like a choice between an ugly American version of Silvio Berlusconi or an airbrushed Lucrezia Borgia, read up on Italian history and make your choice.
Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.
"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" only works if the enemy of your enemy isn't already your enemy. Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.
There is still another possibility: a third Obama term.
In fact, Congressional Representative Jose Serrano of New York has introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits the number of terms a U.S. President may serve.
But it doesn't even have to get to this stage: all that is needed is a declaration of martial law (ongoing terrorist uprisings, or a "nuclear" 9/11); so that the existing president remains in office until the emergency passes (some kind of event which will prevent the actual national election from taking place)
m8 I'd bet the rest of the money I earn in my life that he won't. I actually, sincerely told my conspiracy theorist brother in law I'd give him every dime I make from now 'til I die if Obama gets a third term. He very firmly believed he would, but wasn't willing to bet anything.Then he didn't believe it.
Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.
Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.
On December 12, I wrote:
Obviously, in Iowa, the evangelical vote will matter most.
(imagine having to go against a Cruz-Carson ticket)
Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.
On December 13, many hours before the actual poll came out:
Trump's role is to prepare the way for someone else
Then, the Iowa poll was published, surprising everyone (with the exception of those, including LordDave, who read my messages):
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-12/cruz-soars-to-front-of-the-pack-in-iowa-poll-trump-support-stays-flat-ii3p88rp (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-12/cruz-soars-to-front-of-the-pack-in-iowa-poll-trump-support-stays-flat-ii3p88rp)
On December 12, I also wrote:
the Fed gradually raising rates in 2016 to some 1%
At that time, everyone was sure that the Fed would only raise the rate by 0.25% and then stop for a long time before even considering raising the rates again.
Then, again, to just about everyone's surprise:
...signaling that the pace of subsequent increases will be “gradual”
Then the Fed separately forecast an appropriate rate of 1.375 percent at the end of 2016, implying four 0.25% increases in the rate next year.
As for what will happen on March 1, we will see...
Please provide the link.
You mean this?
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459642064/why-ted-cruz-could-have-a-real-shot-at-the-gop-nomination (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459642064/why-ted-cruz-could-have-a-real-shot-at-the-gop-nomination)
(it is dated December 14)
m8 I'd bet the rest of the money I earn in my life that he won't. I actually, sincerely told my conspiracy theorist brother in law I'd give him every dime I make from now 'til I die if Obama gets a third term. He very firmly believed he would, but wasn't willing to bet anything.Have you told your brother inlaw that the earth s flat?
I'm helping to get Hillary elected.
I'm helping to get Hillary elected.
Whilst secretly Berning on the inside
I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.
What's his stance on the Rebuilds?
Just a guess: he couldn't figure out what you meant by "evengelion" (I sure know I can't), so he pretended you said "Evangelion".I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.
What's his stance on the Rebuilds?
No idea what you mean.
Just a guess: he couldn't figure out what you meant by "evengelion" (I sure know I can't), so he pretended you said "Evangelion".I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.
What's his stance on the Rebuilds?
No idea what you mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuild_of_Evangelion
Well, it looks like it is going to be Trump.The GOP will block him at the caucus.
Trump will win Republican Idol because he has experience in reality TV competitions. And that is exactly what this presidential cycle will be like. Politicians used to have debates run by the groups such as women's lib who would ask questions of the candidates based on their area of interest. The candidates would get a 60 min opening speech, receive follow up questions and then provide a 30 min rebuttal.
Now they go on NBC or Fox debates. They have 60 seconds to talk about the economy for example, get a question back and give a 30 second rebuttal.
This plays to Trump. He's going to slaughter any other Republican.
Now Trump is also going to win the whitehouse. Janet Yellen has seen to that. By November the economy in America is going to be in meltdown with a crashed stock market, bail outs for banks, major corps, huge amounts of debt etc. Yellen pricked the bubble. And no democrat will stand a chance because they are going to be blamed for the financial turmoil as it has happened on Obama's watch and he kept telling everyone he saved the economy ... which he didn't, he kicked the can down the road.
So Trump it is. Enjoy America, enjoy.
I'm going with a utopian dream here, there are lots of intelligent Americans that will follow their hearts and Bernie will be the next president.Look, I know America prides itself in being the "land of the free", but that doesn't mean you can just have free shit forever.
I'm going with a utopian dream here, there are lots of intelligent Americans that will follow their hearts and Bernie will be the next president.Look, I know America prides itself in being the "land of the free", but that doesn't mean you can just have free shit forever.
free shit forever? i think a fairer criticism would be that his proposals are pretty expensive.Yes. Remember the part where I said you can't have free shit forever?
Bernie as I understand from the little I've read will put up taxes, especially on the rich and very rich, but also make sure that the corporations don't get away with screwing the system and also make them pay a living wage of $15.And give them free everything. Let's not forget that part.
What bothers me is the legions of dumb poor, bamboozled by the Republicans into paying for the rich by voting for continual cuts to their services via tax breaks for the rich, just because they hate gays and abortion, or believe Obama is a Muslim, despite people like Romney quite openly saying the lower 47% are not his concern, even worse the bigger share who just don't vote at all.Or, you know, perhaps some people aren't fans of socialism. Wealth redistribution is only good for you if you're underperforming.
free shit forever? i think a fairer criticism would be that his proposals are pretty expensive.Yes. Remember the part where I said you can't have free shit forever?
lol i get the gag, i just think it's off the mark. regardless of what bernie himself might say about the net effects, i don't think it's possible to pay for those policies without the middle class bearing a not-insignificant part of the tax burden. i think that's the 'referendum' that underlies his bid to be president: more taxes, more services. personally i'm down with it, but i don't think it's unreasonable not to be. i think it's ultimately shortsighted, but i sympathize.Honestly, we seem to be basically in agreement here. I'm just a bit more violent about my convictions.
The fate of the US presidential race depends on one age-old question:
Will /pol/'s love of Trump force them to get out of their homes and attend the primaries/caucuses?
Iowa caucus tonight, should have the results by 2300 central time zone. Everyone pray for god-emperor Trump's success.Nope. Looks like Cruz pulled off the upset.
Cruz (won) 27.7%
Trump 24.4%
Rubio 23.1%
Carson 9.3%
Paul 4.5%
Bush 2.8%
Kasich 1.9%
Fiorina 1.9%
Christie 1.8%
Huckabee 1.8%
Santorum 1%
Gilmore 0%
You understand as much about economics as you do about any other topic.
Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.
Congratulations. You were right by 3%.You understand as much about economics as you do about any other topic.Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82880#msg82880
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82620#msg82620
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg86809#msg86809
But I did with each and every message; read them again.
While all of you were busy praising Trump, I noticed several things which could not have occurred by chance (2 Corinthians, no show for the Iowa debate and many other very subtle things).
Now, we will see what happens on March 1; let us not forget that in 2012, a full 65% of the Republican voters in South Carolina said they were evangelical Christians.
My messages speak for themselves.
Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?I predict that the people will come to their senses and Trump will not win the nomination.
You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions, as you have done several times before.
My messages speak for themselves.
Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?
ld, let us carefully see what is going in NH.
Four years ago just 22% of the state's primary voters were evangelical (47% of the Republican voters described themselves as moderates).
However, the evangelical electorate of the Republican party was not enthusiastic at all in the past two elections; now, they do have someone they can identify with.
According to some social research organizations, there are some 300,000 people of faith who aren't voting in NH (of course, there is no guarantee that they will all vote Republican).
An expert on voting in NH estimated that "a top-notch, flawless field operation could bump up a candidate eight to 12 percentage points".
If Trump had really wanted to run a bona fide campaign, then he would not have committed the mistakes which have contributed greatly to his first loss.
Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?
His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political.
This is the impression left by his intentional behavior while on the campaign trail, not his real personality.
I repeat, Trump is not serious, at least so far, about campaigning for the GOP nomination.
Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?What makes you think that the Republican party wants Trump in the White House?
He's a plant to get a democrat in.
No, he is not; please read my comments posted on December 13, 2015:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82666#msg82666
While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it’s easy to say who was luckier.
The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.
The chances of her winning all six is so improbable that I call bullshit.
1.5% chance of all six being in her favor. So it isn't terrible, but I still call bull.
On the Republican side, the 18 percentage points difference in the recent NH polls can be overcome as I have described earlier.
On the Democratic side, there might still be surprises: if a major war breaks out, as I have said before, Obama's chances for a third term increase greatly.
If Hillary is forced to drop out of the race, another major figure (perhaps Kerry) might step in.
Let us go back to my message posted on December 12:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618
The number of candidates will then narrow considerably: conservative side vs. moderate (establishment) side.
This is exactly what is happening now: Cruz vs. Rubio. However, the establishment vote is split among several candidates, especially on March 1.
Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.
On March 1, whichever of the candidates is from a home state, will win big overall on that day.
According to exit polls, evangelical Christians comprised a majority of 2012 Republican primary voters in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Louisiana, and majorities of 2008 voters in Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas (states where exit polls were not conducted last time). Although exit polls aren’t available, evangelicals, based on their share of the overall population, will likely comprise a majority of GOP voters in other Heartland states including Kansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia.
In December, Cruz held only three events in Iowa, but attended 10 in the South.
By contrast, Trump's sole super state visit was to Virginia (one event). Likewise, Fiorina made only one visit to the southern states.
Cruz has devoted significant time and resources to the southern states even at a very early stage of the primaries.
The answer that you seek is virtually contained in the question that you posed: I already explained that Fiorina has not devoted the time/resources needed to win in the South.
Let us suppose that the numbers listed in the latest polls are somewhat right: with a very good ground operation, Cruz can add some 10% to his current standing. But it still won't be enough.
Therefore, the only way Cruz can win NH is if undeclared voters sign up to vote in the Republican primary, a very real possibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O74XDI-o7xc
Jeb is the only politician running for President that isn't a cruel sociopath.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-finds-eager-religious-audience-in-moderate-new-hampshire-217998 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-finds-eager-religious-audience-in-moderate-new-hampshire-217998)
The NH primary was today. I gave in and voted for Bernie. It looks like he and Trump have won.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi
Why is huffpost so hilarious?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi
Why is huffpost so hilarious?
Because the corporate masters demand it. They know that if Trump is president, they'll have to make a deal.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi
Why is huffpost so hilarious?
Interesting that a lot of sites are using similar titles with similar stories. Why is the media so afraid of Trump? They laughed at him when he "lost" Iowa. Is it not so funny anymore? Trump will make America great again and there is nothing these fuckers can do to stop it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi
Why is huffpost so hilarious?
Interesting that a lot of sites are using similar titles with similar stories. Why is the media so afraid of Trump? They laughed at him when he "lost" Iowa. Is it not so funny anymore? Trump will make America great again and there is nothing these fuckers can do to stop it.
Maybe because the last time an ego driven demagogue with floppy hair rode to power on the back of "I'll make this country great again" buoyed along by the prejudice of retards, we had a world war?
Maybe because the last time an ego driven demagogue with floppy hair rode to power on the back of "I'll make this country great again" buoyed along by the prejudice of retards, we had a world war?
Hitler objectively made Germany great again. Germany went from a economic mess to the most powerful country in Europe, and arguably it still is.
Point! But that was a long term effect and after half the country had been occupied by the Russians for years and most of their cities had been reduced to rubble.
From an outsiders point of view there are few if any American cities that wouldn't benefit from this, but as a local is it a risk you want to take, you will get to wear a uniform for a while, but it won't be up to standards of the Hugo Boss designed ones the Nazi's had, probably some Hilfiger nightmare. The plus point would be that there would be a great coming together of white, black and Hispanic,... as you languish together in Chinese concentration camps.
They want someone who lies (Trump has lied)
They want someone who will do things no matter what. (Who needs congressional approval)
They want someone with no political experience (A cry in 2008 was Obama having no real experience)
They want someone arrogant, vein, selfish, greedy, and good at making backroom deals. (This is Trump summarized)
They want someone who will fail at foreign policy (Trump would start WW3)
They want someone who will make oil many times more expensive in the US. (When you insult muslims, you insult OPEC, and right now, they're crashing the oil market so you bet they can raise it up. See the 1970s oil embargo)
They want a racist.
They want someone who will disregard the law and constitution at his leisure. (So long as its not against me)
So, Tump supporters want the Obama image they see as their leader.
I also predjct a Trump presidency will have more executive orders than Obama.
Point! But that was a long term effect and after half the country had been occupied by the Russians for years and most of their cities had been reduced to rubble.
From an outsiders point of view there are few if any American cities that wouldn't benefit from this, but as a local is it a risk you want to take, you will get to wear a uniform for a while, but it won't be up to standards of the Hugo Boss designed ones the Nazi's had, probably some Hilfiger nightmare. The plus point would be that there would be a great coming together of white, black and Hispanic,... as you languish together in Chinese concentration camps.
It took the entire planet a decade to stop Hitler. How long do you think it will take to stop God-Emperor Trump?
What is it with lefties and rushing into apocalyptic scenarios? I don't like Trump either, but I strongly doubt he's going to suddenly fuck the world up.
What is it with lefties and rushing into apocalyptic scenarios? I don't like Trump either, but I strongly doubt he's going to suddenly fuck the world up.
Right-wingers accused Obama of planning to start WW3? Could you show me some examples of that? I mean, I'm sure there was a fringe somewhere out there, but I strongly doubt you could compare that to the Trump doomsayers.
Right, don't take me wrong, but left-wing media claiming that the right said something isn't exactly all that convincing.
In Trump's case, we have gems like this (https://archive.is/7wlfF) plastered across seemingly "normal" (i.e. not considered radical) liberal media. I think a fair comparison would be Fox News putting out a feature on Obama's concentration camps on their front page, for example.
In this particular case, I'm linking to an archived homepage of HuffPo featuring this:
(http://i.imgur.com/o2N7gJy.png)
The original is unavailable since the homepage has since changed :(
Right, don't take me wrong, but left-wing media claiming that the right said something isn't exactly all that convincing.
In Trump's case, we have gems like this (https://archive.is/7wlfF) plastered across seemingly "normal" (i.e. not considered radical) liberal media. I think a fair comparison would be Fox News putting out a feature on Obama's concentration camps on their front page, for example.
Even if the US actually invaded Mexico the most we'd ever get is a stern warning letter from the UN. No country on the planet can afford to sanction us, no country on the planet can afford to go to war with us. Welcome to globalism.
Wait, are we talking about hysterical predictions of doom here, or just sensationalist ad hominem attacks? I shouldn't have to provide an example of the side I'm criticizing endorsing a loony conspiracy theory if you're just providing an example of the side you're criticizing simply calling someone names.Jura already provided us with an example. Remember what prompted me to ask the question in the first place? Everyday liberals are talking doomsday. That's a bit "out there". You can try and match it up with the far right, but that's still comparing the "norm" to the "extreme" on the opposite side.
I admit it's a blaringly sensationalist headline, but do you really not think Trump has shown himself to be all three of those things?I don't think he has. I don't think he's *right*, but he's not bigoted either.
Comparing it to talk of "Obama's concentration camps" (which I'm assuming don't actually exist in the real world, though you can correct me if I'm wrong) seems to go a bit on the deep end.I'm not sure why everyone suddenly thinks I'm comparing anything here. I criticised Jura for this literally-Hitler-doomsday-time post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg89593#msg89593) and claimed that many liberals seem to do that. Saddam then responded by pointing out that there are loonies on both sides, and he compared it to the "Obama concentration camps" claims. I then asked for examples, and tangentially brought up HuffPo as a hilariously bad sensationalist heading.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266285251515531264No doomsday, no concentration camps, no claims of bigotry, just an accurate statement of the economic situation at the time and a spot-on identification of the cause. Your point?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/11/14/market-selloff-after-obamas-re-election-no-accident-recession-coming/Again, not quite on topic. Saying that Obama fucked over the economy by the end of his second term is hardly a groundbreaking statement, and it's definitely not what you promised me.
http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-faber-obama-is-a-disaster-the-stock-market-should-have-fallen-50-and-you-should-buy-yourself-a-machine-gun-2012-11At least this guy is sensationalist. Still, nowhere near comparable.
http://www.newsmax.com/Outbrain/Limbaugh-doomed-Obama-re-elected/2012/09/11/id/451480/Unless you're saying we should take the word "doomed" literally (please don't), I don't see your point. Limbaugh gonna Limbaugh, and he's still not accusing Obama of even being a dictator.
Lol jura
Anyone who has ever been President is far more intelligent than most of the country. Anyone capable of mass manipulation, regardless of their endearing cohorts, is of utmost intelligence. In fact most candidates themselves have more leadership and intellect than most. By claiming what they are doing is unintelligent, you're basically saying it's easy, and if it's easy, a lot more people would be able to do it.
You could say that some weren't very knowledgeable, but I do hope you're not conflating knowledge with intelligence.
It doesn't matter who wins the Presidency now that Scalia croaked. The liberals will overtake the SC.
Vote 4 Bernie he will give us free liberal arts degreesAnd he'll give living wages to everybody regardless if they want to work or not, and pay off the debt, and free healthcare with a government run single payer system, and do it all by taking back the money from rich people or corporations and using those funds, and it will last forever.
And he'll give living wages to everybody regardless if they want to work or not, and pay off the debt, and free healthcare with a government run single payer system, and do it all by taking back the money from rich people or corporations and using those funds, and it will last forever.
Yep, the US can be a model socialist utopia just like Venezuela.
Lol jura
Anyone who has ever been President is far more intelligent than most of the country. Anyone capable of mass manipulation, regardless of their endearing cohorts, is of utmost intelligence. In fact most candidates themselves have more leadership and intellect than most. By claiming what they are doing is unintelligent, you're basically saying it's easy, and if it's easy, a lot more people would be able to do it.
You could say that some weren't very knowledgeable, but I do hope you're not conflating knowledge with intelligence.
LOL Rushy,
"I know that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully" Bush!
He may well be more intelligent than most of you, (which would explain alot) but on a world wide perspective? No.
Your only hope is Bernie.
The last time we had a bunch of idiots state what the problem is but have no idea how to solve it we got the Affordable Care Act to "solve" our healthcare crisis by giving millions of government dollars to the insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms that were fucking us in the first place.
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12718364_1087151531329602_4103902408220608278_n.jpg?oh=83532f660ce5766c7105ad082bce8199&oe=572B8D82)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O74XDI-o7xc
Jeb is the only politician running for President that isn't a cruel sociopath.
Ayy my main man Trump won South Carolina. Make America Great Again!Fuck....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWT_cm8XAAA-nNK.jpg)
I like how Levee has gone from vague nonsense predictions to just posting other people's opinions. What's wrong, buddy? You scared of Trump's high energy campaign to make America great again?
I am upping the ante on my prediction. I predict that, not only will Trump win the nomination, but he will win the general election. In January 2017, we will be welcoming Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.
Bibliographical references for the Lincoln affair:Lincolin's death is irrelevant to the 2016 elections.
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-mr-lincolns-war-an-irrepressible-conflict-1440
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lincfasc.html
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/03/the-imaginary-abe-a-reply-to-harry-jaffas-in-re-jack-kemp-v-joe-sobran.html
The staging of the Lincoln "assassination":
http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf
I am not a Cruz supporter.I don't.
I have been merely pointing out to you the strange things that occurred during the past three months: Trump not attending the debate prior to the Iowa primary, Two Corinthians, the media attacks on Cruz, and many other subtle facts, which could not have happened by chance.
All of you here are under the impression that Trump actually believes that American will be great again, or that he is financially independent, not taking orders from anybody.
Trump is not part of the upper echelon of power, he only acts out the part he has been given in this electoral process.
Levee supports moleman for president.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Hans_Moleman.png)
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/donald-trump-hiding-bombshell-in-tax-returns-mitt-romney/articleshow/51136198.cms
However, the following article was written four days ago, before it became a headline:
http://socialnewswatch.com/2016/02/20/if-trumps-tax-returns-didnt-contain-a-bombshell-he-would-have-released-them-already/
There is actually a massive amount of options we have at our disposal to force Mexico to pay for the wall. Cutting foreign aid or bringing back Mexican import taxes are two good examples floating around right now.
Trump, hilariously enough, could force them to effectively pay for the wall and bring back the jobs manufacturers are sending over there. Very effective.
There is actually a massive amount of options we have at our disposal to force Mexico to pay for the wall. Cutting foreign aid or bringing back Mexican import taxes are two good examples floating around right now.
Trump, hilariously enough, could force them to effectively pay for the wall and bring back the jobs manufacturers are sending over there. Very effective.
But then the price of your shit goes up.
Wouldn't import tax require the removal of NAFTA?
Tell that to the walmart shoppers.But then the price of your shit goes up.
Freedom isn't free.
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals. Or make Mexico or Canada happy.Wouldn't import tax require the removal of NAFTA?
Trump called NAFTA "a disaster" and wanted to break it entirely.
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals. Or make Mexico or Canada happy.
You have a national deficit. Your imports exceed your exports. You are giving people dollars that you print as you need them, in exchange for real goods and services. Who needs who?I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals. Or make Mexico or Canada happy.
I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
You have a national deficit. Your imports exceed your exports. You are giving people dollars that you print as you need them, in exchange for real goods and services. Who needs who?I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals. Or make Mexico or Canada happy.
I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
You have a national deficit. Your imports exceed your exports. You are giving people dollars that you print as you need them, in exchange for real goods and services. Who needs who?I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals. Or make Mexico or Canada happy.
I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
The real question is why is the world dumb enough to keep giving us resources for thin sheets of green paper that we print out billions of everyday.
The information in Trump's tax filings forms the basis of his claim that he, above all other candidates, has the business and negotiating skills to "make America great again."
His pretentions to leadership are directly related to those tax returns he absolutely does not want to release.
The information in Trump's tax filings forms the basis of his claim that he, above all other candidates, has the business and negotiating skills to "make America great again."
His pretentions to leadership are directly related to those tax returns he absolutely does not want to release.
Are you really surprised that someone doesn't want to post their private finances to the public? Would you want to post your tax returns on this forum?
If they couldn't force Barry to present his birth certificate as proof that he was even eligible to run as president they definitely can't force you to release your tax returns.
It's all a big show, trump is around to keep the flame kindled on racism because they know it's dying out on a popular level. Sanders is the flicker of hope à la Ron Paul they give us every few cycles, and Clinton represents business as usual.
Does anyone really think that the keys to our country would be given to someone that may only be around for four years? Anything they really want to implement is planned years in advance and done regardless who is in office.
If they couldn't force Barry to present his birth certificate as proof that he was even eligible to run as president they definitely can't force you to release your tax returns.
It's all a big show, trump is around to keep the flame kindled on racism because they know it's dying out on a popular level. Sanders is the flicker of hope à la Ron Paul they give us every few cycles, and Clinton represents business as usual.
Does anyone really think that the keys to our country would be given to someone that may only be around for four years? Anything they really want to implement is planned years in advance and done regardless who is in office.
How is Trump going to "keep the flame kindled on racism" if he has never said anything remotely racist? I don't understand where all this "TRUMP IS WAICIST" nonsense is coming from when no one can actually give me any quotes from Trump that prove racism.
The only racist things I've ever seen during this election is Bernie voters complaining that blacks are "too uneducated to realize Bernie is best for them." That's their only response to the fact that minority voters prefer Clinton.
He said Mexicans are rapists and murderers and proposed a immigration ban on Muslims.
Just because it's not black or white don't mean race isn't involved. His "supporters," if thats what you want to call the people paid to attend his rallies, are portrayed as this angry racist remnant that feels disenfranchised... Now I say portrayed because thats exactly what it is. We don't know if theres an actual faction of real citizens that feel this way, but the media pushing the concept inevitably influenced the TV watchers to either relate or debate.
To me it was overwhelmingly obvious that popular support the past two elections has been behind disestablishment candidates, Ron Paul, Sanders, (interestingly enough, only running in the twilight of their careers) and any numbers the media shows you are just that... As good as fabrications, designed to give credibility to a fixed system. Its one big production designed to keep a finger on the pulse of the average man, and give an illusion of choice and a share in the guilt associated with hazardous foreign and domestic policy.
How exactly do you single out those people in a broad sense if not by race?
I dont want to be the bearer of bad news but it is the entire system that is broken, trying to use this system to enact positive change is futile.
By "system" I mean the plain as day bribery that takes place through the vehicle of lobbying wherein corportate interests at the cost of the greater good are prioritized. It's obvious to everyone with any moderate level of mental ability that global corporations write the laws and have engineered a modern day form of slavery in the guise of capitolism. So no, I will not be voting.
How exactly do you single out those people in a broad sense if not by race?
Mexicans are from Mexico and Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet that could speak the word of god. I don't see how either of those things are related to a race. It sounds to me like you're the racist here, bucko.I dont want to be the bearer of bad news but it is the entire system that is broken, trying to use this system to enact positive change is futile.
By "system" I mean the plain as day bribery that takes place through the vehicle of lobbying wherein corportate interests at the cost of the greater good are prioritized. It's obvious to everyone with any moderate level of mental ability that global corporations write the laws and have engineered a modern day form of slavery in the guise of capitolism. So no, I will not be voting.
Literal defeatism.
Bernie Sanders is on Reddit literally begging his supporters for more money to fund his already dead chance of being POTUS:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/48bqz6/reddit_you_have_supported_me_since_this_campaign/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/48bqz6/reddit_you_have_supported_me_since_this_campaign/)
So far, the only certainty is this: Trump will lose big in a general election (running against either Clinton - who will unleash hellfire on Trump, making the primaries look like a knitting circle, or Sanders - if Hillary is indicted).
Again, we have to go back to the question I posed a long time ago:
Why would the GOP put up with Trump's candidacy from the very start?
If Cruz wins big in Texas, the number of candidates should narrow down to at most three.
Again, think: why would David Duke endorse Trump NOW, right before the crucial super tuesday primaries?
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)
You don't want America to be great again?
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.
That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)
You can say that, but he also owns many companies that operate all around the world. He is just saying shit that he thinks will resonate with his target audience right now. Nullifying Nafta is not something a president could ever accomplish on his own. It would take 10 years of study to even understand the impact it could have. Even if it somehow happened, it wouldn't simply make America "great again."
Serious question though, are you trolling or an actual Trump supporter? I haven't met a supporter in real life yet.
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.
That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).
David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.
That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).
David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.
Oh come on. He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump. Why split hairs? David Duke wants to make America great again!
And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke. Duke's people are his bread and butter after all. Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense. He used his name. What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.
That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).
David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.
Oh come on. He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump. Why split hairs? David Duke wants to make America great again!
And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke. Duke's people are his bread and butter after all. Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense. He used his name. What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?
Ah, yes, there it is, the Trump is racist bandwagon. This really adds to the discussion.
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.
The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.
The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.
Not that the latter surprises me. You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.
The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.
The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.
Not that the latter surprises me. You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.
People like Donald Trump are winning because his opponents don't know how to argue policy anymore. They're all like you and Saddam. Politicians and the media are so accustomed to making things go away by shouting "racism" that they have forgotten how to tackle policies head-on.
Feel free to argue policy here, though, since you can talk about racism to your heart's content but it won't convince anyone.
If I'm going to vote for a liar, I'm going to at least vote for an entertaining one.
Trump is literally winning for the exact same reason he didn't want to denounce David Duke: he is appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Period.
After all, you yourself said that you're voting for him because he's entertaining. Oh, but I'm sure his (likely impossible to implement, as you yourself seem willing to concede) policies are important to you too.If I'm going to vote for a liar, I'm going to at least vote for an entertaining one.
That this kind of thing is what matters to people in a presidential candidate is disturbing (to say the least), but after having been through eight years of Dubya, not entirely surprising.
Unless Trump murders a half-black, half-Asian Jewish Muslim LGBTQ toddler with Asperger's, the Republican nomination is sewn up.
Unless Trump murders a half-black, half-Asian Jewish Muslim LGBTQ toddler with Asperger's, the Republican nomination is sewn up.
And even then...
Cruz won his home state big (exactly as I have said from the beginning), a thing that neither Rubio nor Kasich would be able to do.
On March 1, whichever of the candidates is from a home state, will win big overall on that day.
The two quotes from my previous message can be understood even better, if an answer can be provided to the question/challenge I posed earlier:No. No it doesn't.
Who founded the KKK?
Remember, if you can answer this question, you will be able to understand everything re: American politics.
Did Cruz do what he was supposed to do, attack Trump directly and strongly on the issues which would have derailed any other candidate? He did not.
Yet, with doing practically nothing at all, he won three states (Alaska included).
Had he reminded the voters on the Trump university scam, the tax returns issue, he would have won in Arkansas, and perhaps in Georgia too.
I was right about everything except the extent of Cruz's win on super tuesday; yet, he refrained from attacking Trump, which would have done the job.
Now, can anybody answer this question: who founded the KKK?
Remember, you have to go back to at least 1830 to understand the whole issue.
The KKK was founded by the Knights of the Golden Circle, one of the most mysterious secret societies of the United States.I was going to list 4 names so it's a good thing I let you answer your own question with your own answer.
Now, who founded the KGC?
Cruz couldn't even win more than 50% of his home state. His campaign is toast.
http://conservativeangle.com/revealed-secret-recording-of-donald-trump-will-derail-entire-campaign/ (http://conservativeangle.com/revealed-secret-recording-of-donald-trump-will-derail-entire-campaign/)You seem to know alot about what would have happened yet not about what will.
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) urged Republican challenger Donald Trump to allow the New York Times to release a “secret tape” of Trump allegedly explaining the flexibility of his immigration plans.
According to a report published on Monday, the New York Times editorial board recorded an off-the-record meeting it had with Trump in January where he portrayed his immigration proposals as more flexible than previously stated.
“I call on Donald: Ask the New York Times to release the tape and do so today before the Super Tuesday primary,” he said before a campaign rally in San Antonio. “There are one of two instances. It is either false, and if Donald didn’t say that to the New York Times than he deserves to have this cleared up and releasing the tape can clear it up. The alternative is that it is true.”
“That tape can clear it up and the voters deserve to know if he says something different when he is talking to the New York Times than when he is talking to the voters and they deserve to know before Super Tuesday,” he said.
Had the tapes been available to the public before super tuesday, Trump would have lost in most of the southern states; also, Cruz's current lead in Texas, 44%, would have increased to over 50%.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271237-romney-nyt-transcript-could-be-another-trump-bombshell (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271237-romney-nyt-transcript-could-be-another-trump-bombshell)
lorddave...where did you attend school? Obviously you don't know d*ck about history, the four names you found were not the right ones.
Hey Dave, could you do me a favor and stop baiting Levee. He is quite literally insane and is incapable of adding any worthwhile content to the thread. I'd prefer someone like Roundy chime back in. I know him and Saddam are capable of policy discussion. They just don't want to discuss it.
Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.
Hey Dave, could you do me a favor and stop baiting Levee. He is quite literally insane and is incapable of adding any worthwhile content to the thread. I'd prefer someone like Roundy chime back in. I know him and Saddam are capable of policy discussion. They just don't want to discuss it.
Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.
Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.
Do you believe this growth to translate to a stronger middle class? Or is Trump going to be more worried about the 1% which he obviously can relate to a lot more than an average American Citizen.
which firms?
also, what do you find appealing about trump's china policy?
I'm more interested in how well my portfolio performs.
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)
Where in this image does it show that Hispanic's like Trump better than the alternatives?
Well in that case you can vote for whichever candidate is going to do that.
I would like to addendum my prediction on Trump. I predict he will win the nomination and the general election and IN ADDITION I predict his pick for VP will be John Kasich.
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.You think Trump cares about that?
I'm sure his campaign staff does.That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.You think Trump cares about that?
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.You think Trump cares about that?
https://youtu.be/4WCUtqw4rAs
Taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
I wasn't making the argument that Trump's plan is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better than the alternatives. Debt is important, but keep in mind that the Tax Foundation assumes that spending remains the same. You even mentioned Alan Cole's comments yourself. A lot of programs are going to be cut in the future; we quite simply can't maintain current federal spending.
I wasn't making the argument that Trump's plan is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better than the alternatives. Debt is important, but keep in mind that the Tax Foundation assumes that spending remains the same. You even mentioned Alan Cole's comments yourself. A lot of programs are going to be cut in the future; we quite simply can't maintain current federal spending.
i think cole's remark gets right to the heart of what i think is such a major flaw in trump's tax plan that he functionally has no tax plan at all. cole and his cohorts indicate that trump's tax cuts comes at the cost of a $10 trillion revenue shortfall for the fed that can only be mitigated by spending cuts. it's pretty unfathomable that congress would ever approve a tax plan that doubles our national debt in ten years, and it's even more unfathomable that congress would approve any budget that cuts spending by around 25%. we spend almost $4 trillion annually, and we'd have to permanently reduce that figure by $1 trillion annually to make it revenue neutral. even if it were conceivably possible (i really don't think it is), it would be a massive political battle for trump, even within his own party.
i'm also genuinely puzzled by the conservative support for such proposals. not trying to be snide, but you say yourself that we can't maintain current federal spending, and i assume that like most fiscal conservatives you believe that it's bad for national debt. does it not trouble you that his tax proposal so wildly increases our debt without really a word said on how to pay for it? isn't that at least a little irresponsible?
Heck, if he puts medicare funding to 0, thats most of it there.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-republicans-rally-around-ted-cruz-as-the-trump-alternative/ (the article includes the latest ad against Trump, "Unelectable", by itself it would spell disaster for Trump on any election day)Unlikely. The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.
i think cole's remark gets right to the heart of what i think is such a major flaw in trump's tax plan that he functionally has no tax plan at all. cole and his cohorts indicate that trump's tax cuts comes at the cost of a $10 trillion revenue shortfall for the fed that can only be mitigated by spending cuts. it's pretty unfathomable that congress would ever approve a tax plan that doubles our national debt in ten years, and it's even more unfathomable that congress would approve any budget that cuts spending by around 25%. we spend almost $4 trillion annually, and we'd have to permanently reduce that figure by $1 trillion annually to make it revenue neutral. even if it were conceivably possible (i really don't think it is), it would be a massive political battle for trump, even within his own party.
i'm also genuinely puzzled by the conservative support for such proposals. not trying to be snide, but you say yourself that we can't maintain current federal spending, and i assume that like most fiscal conservatives you believe that it's bad for national debt. does it not trouble you that his tax proposal so wildly increases our debt without really a word said on how to pay for it? isn't that at least a little irresponsible?
Unlikely. The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.
Doubling our national debt in 10 years isn't as bad as it sounds. Our debt has more than doubled since 2008 and no one has batted an eye.
What would your proposed solution be for reducing that debt? Increasing taxes won't work and decreasing them won't work. Therefore, the only possible solution is to cut spending, something you've already pointed out as apparently impossible.
The fact of the matter is that there is no viable solution to the debt without cutting spending and you've made it clear that is not a possible solution. I'm confused on what exactly you're expecting me to say, here.
1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.Unlikely. The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.
Which one is the logical candidate, then?
Trump released his healthcare plan today.I saw this. From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.Quote from: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite. The logical supporters are the minority.
I saw this. From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite. The logical supporters are the minority.
What proves this to be the case?
Sorry, I was referring to what I read, not my actual knowledge. What I read is that some of it is impractical, not that I read it and determined it was impractical.I saw this. From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.
It's good to know that not only are you an expert on practical healthcare applications, but that you believe Bernie Sanders invented the idea of imports.
If you want to critique the plan then a number-by-number format would suffice. I don't see how making vague statements about the plan helps the thread.
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.
Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall. Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security. So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall. And have Mexico pay for it. He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored. I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico. Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.
Then banning Muslims. This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not.
Sorry, I was referring to what I read, not my actual knowledge. What I read is that some of it is impractical, not that I read it and determined it was impractical.
Here's the article I read.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/03/469019745/trump-health-plan-recycles-gop-chestnuts-and-adds-a-populist-wrinkle
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!>second.
A dedicated lifelong Democratic voter said that voting for the Democratic Party is good for youThat's fantastic
The best thing about Bernie Sanders is that he has no idea how to run a campaign. We would be in trouble if he managed to get people to vote for him.
trump and bernie are basically the same candidate. "america sucks because of [insert your greatest fears here], and only i can save you with my plan to [insert policy proposal that congress will never, ever pass]."
imo imo tbqh
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.
Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall. Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security. So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall. And have Mexico pay for it. He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored. I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico. Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.
Then banning Muslims. This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not.
The support is largely based on "He will stop them". See my previous link to the rise of authoritarianism.
But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.
I've had the opposite experience. People are so polarized against Trump that they haven't bothered (or outright refuse) to learn about his actual policies. They just parrot "Trump is xenophobic! Trump is racist!" etc. without any real meat to their argument. I've learned the vast majority of people who hate Trump argue from emotion, not logic. No one here could even produce a single racist statement Trump made and the 'xenophobia' claim makes no sense either. Trump has only ever spoken about illegal immigration and has made a point that legal immigration is welcome. It's not xenophobic to filter out who can live in your country.
I looked at the fence Israel is building.
Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall. Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security. So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall. And have Mexico pay for it. He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored. I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico. Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.
There's a fence and it's mostly garbage and placed very terribly along the border. Trump has cited the wall the Israeli's built many times. It cost roughly 1.8 million dollars per mile and that's the "8 billion dollar" estimate comes from. When Trump says we'll "make Mexico pay for it" he doesn't literally mean Mexico will write us a check. Mexico receives billions of dollars in foreign aid. They're about to receive 8 billion dollars less.
Walls are generally a psychological barrier and not necessarily a functional one. Simply hearing about Trump being elected will probably deter a lot of would-be illegal aliens, whereas things like sanctuary cities and free education increase their movement.
But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.
I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014. In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent. Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.
Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
- A ditch and a pyramid shaped stack of six coils of barbed wire on the eastern side of the structure, barbed wire only on the western side.
- A path enabling the patrol of IDF forces on both sides of the structure.
- An intrusion- detection fence, in the center, with sensors to warn of any incursion.
- Smoothed strip of sand that runs parallel to the fence, to detect footprints.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)
Seems rather knee jerk and sterotypingBut he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.
I don't see an issue here.
Wrong fence. The one I'm talking about (the super one I assumed Trump meant) was the fence around the west bank, not the southern border. The southern border fence is not much different from waht we have just along a much much much smaller area.I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014. In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent. Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.
It was built to prevent illegal Egyptian migrants, not suicide bombings, and it prevented 99% of them. We have to keep in mind, though, that Israelis have a shoot-on-sight policy. Whereas we don't fire on migrants.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/31/israeli-fence-cuts-migration-egypt
Do you really expect the next president/congress to approve continued funding otherwise? Unless it has nearly immediate results or its guarenteed to be built no matter what, once Trump leaves it could be stopped at an instant.Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
- A ditch and a pyramid shaped stack of six coils of barbed wire on the eastern side of the structure, barbed wire only on the western side.
- A path enabling the patrol of IDF forces on both sides of the structure.
- An intrusion- detection fence, in the center, with sensors to warn of any incursion.
- Smoothed strip of sand that runs parallel to the fence, to detect footprints.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)
Why must it be built during Trump's term in office? Do you expect a fence to suddenly pop out of the ground when he is inaugurated?
Seems rather knee jerk and sterotyping
Wrong fence. The one I'm talking about (the super one I assumed Trump meant) was the fence around the west bank, not the southern border. The southern border fence is not much different from waht we have just along a much much much smaller area.
Also: how do they know no one came over? If they did and no one noticed, they'd have no clue.
Do you really expect the next president/congress to approve continued funding otherwise? Unless it has nearly immediate results or its guarenteed to be built no matter what, once Trump leaves it could be stopped at an instant.
...he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.
I don't see an issue here.
...he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.
I don't see an issue here.
You don't see an issue with a bullshit conspiracy theory that Trump pulled out of his ass to cater to racist morons?
Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?
Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?
I looked up "kafkabaiting" (or "kafkatrapping"); it appears to be a buzzword used exclusively by conspiracy nuts and sleazy right-wing webshites. The gist of it is that you accuse someone of something, then use their denials as further evidence of your accusation? That's certainly not what I'm doing.
Roughly speaking, achieving a balanced budget by 2026 would require roughly $8 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years; and that figure would increase to between $19.7 trillion and $23.1 trillion over a decade assuming the enactment of Mr. Trump’s website proposals.5(http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/app/uploads/2016/02/Trump-Cuts-4.png)
To achieve this level of savings with spending reductions alone would require huge cuts. For example, cutting the entire budget (other than the VA and immigration enforcement, which are increased in his plans) across-the-board would require a reduction of 39 to 46 percent – a figure that is highly unlikely to be achieved.
Those cuts, however, include cutting Social Security benefits by nearly half – when Mr. Trump has argued multiple times that Social Security benefits should be left alone. Exempting Social Security, cuts would need to total 55 to 65 percent. Also removing Medicare, which Mr. Trump has called for protecting as well (though he has also proposed some small potential savings in the Medicare space), cuts would need to total 75 and 87 percent. And if defense were also exempted, as an area Mr. Trump has committed to strengthening, it becomes literally impossible to balance the budget with only spending cuts.
Assuming Tax Foundation’s economic feedback estimates are linear relative to GDP growth after 10 years, it would require 7.7 to 9.0 percent real annual growth to simply pay for the initiatives on Donald Trump’s website, and 10.4 to 11.4 percent real annual growth to balance the budget within a decade. In other words, to balance the budget, growth would have to be roughly 5 times as large as projected, and twice as high as the fastest growth period in the last 60 years (which was between 1959 and 1968).
I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.
"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.
I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.
"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.
To continually deny the obvious racist implications of saying muslims should be banned from this country, and mexican immigrants are rapist and murderers, is at best apologetic and at worst wholehearted agreement with such bigoted rhetoric.
Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.
Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.
As I have said from the very start, Trump is reading a script, is acting out a role, that is all. He couldn't care less about America being great again, or about the wall at the border, or any other issue raised during the campaign; it is an act.But who and how? Even if he drops out the day before the election, its not like Ted Cruz can suddenly be on the ballott.
His main role is to prepare the way for someone else.
DAMMIT DAVE WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS
it is "literally impossible" to balance the budget under trump's proposals. his plan is demonstrably worse than the status quo.
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion. Hope his VP pick is good.it is "literally impossible" to balance the budget under trump's proposals. his plan is demonstrably worse than the status quo.
Then hopefully he will change it as necessary.
Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.
Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.
As the bullfrog is a warmonger (bomb the shit out of them, shoot em with bullets dipped in pigs blood etc), clearly crazed and by your admission, an ass, WTF, change sides Rushy. You can do it, there is a wonderful green option in Jill Stein, we got to change track sooner or later, the corporate backed ass-holes will lurch from one mess to another salting away their billions while the world goes to shit, hoping that when it all goes tits up they can ride it out in a bunker you won't have an invite to.
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion. Hope his VP pick is good.
Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion. Hope his VP pick is good.
Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?
Bernie Sanders was a 3-term mayor.
Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?
Bernie Sanders was a 3-term mayor.
TIL
No, this is simply that when something happens that he can't control (such as expenses run over or legal issues crop up) Donald Trump, like any smart business man, will jump ship.If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion. Hope his VP pick is good.
Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?
I'm not sure I can.If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion. Hope his VP pick is good.
Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.
"Trump's personality is amazing. You seem to be under the impression I think being an ass is an undesirable quality."
Clearly not Rushy, clearly not!
This is the third time you've very, very liberally (and incorrectly) interpreted a criticism of Trump's attempts to pander to racist voters to mean nothing more than "That's racist/Trump's racist/You're racist." Within the very same sentence, you turn on pedant-mode and insist that Mexico/Mexican is technically not a race in and of itself and therefore any discussion of race and racism is irrelevant - not the first time you've done that, either. Setting the apparent hypocrisy of this aside, I'll respond to both claims:
Briefly addressing the latter point first, you're quibbling. You know perfectly well what's meant when people talk about race and racism in this context. Yes, technically, nationalities and ethnicities aren't races, but it's very common to colloquially refer to general bigotry and discrimination as racism. Nobody's trying to trick you, nobody's trying to twist the argument into being about something it's not, they're just using everyday language in a casual sense. I wouldn't use those terms in an academic paper or anything, but in an informal discussion like this, I really don't think it's unreasonable to just let it slide.
As for the racism charge, I'll drop the loaded phrasing and express my concerns seriously. Trump's language feels like it's intended to appeal first and foremost to the lowest common denominator, ignorant, prejudiced people who know very little about politics beyond a knee-jerk fear of the unknown. The way he talks about illegal immigration shows this most vividly. There are plenty of reasons to want to crack down on illegal immigration, such as the importance of the rule of law, the impact on the economy (a subject that Trump, given his background, should be very qualified to talk about), etc., but Trump's position seems to be based more than anything else on the more sensational threat of the Mexicans being out to get us. The immigrants are drug smugglers. They're killers. They're rapists. That last one I know because, well, who else could it be that's doing the raping? Oh, and the Mexican government is behind it all, they're deliberately sending us these people!
And his weird brand of nasty populism doesn't stop there. There was the time he made up a story (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/) about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey after 9/11, which I would write off as him just mistaking some footage from Middle Eastern countries that were celebrating 9/11, if not for the fact that he doubled down on his claims when it was pointed out to him that both the media and police had no evidence of anything of the sort happening (and contrary to what certain websites have claimed, Trump has not been vindicated on this point, as discussed here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/02/new-information-doesnt-fix-donald-trumps-911-claim/)). He also championed the birther movement for a few years, and yes, I am absolutely calling the birthers racist to the core. As I mentioned earlier, he was even hesitant to fully disavow the nuts in Boston who beat up a homeless man in his name, instead just giving a rambling response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/21/trump-says-fans-are-very-passionate-after-hearing-one-of-them-allegedly-assaulted-hispanic-man/) about how passionate and driven his followers are. And finally, there's his Twitter account, which is full of delightful messages like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/), this (https://twitter.com/GoAngelo/status/617875992594546688), and this (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/635998754546548737).
That's what people are talking about when they mention Trump and racism. Nobody is accusing Trump of calling for a return to segregated schools, or declaring white people the master race. And personally, I don't think that he really believes all the garbage he says. What he is doing, however, is nudging and winking at the bigots out there that make up his base, hinting to them that he shares their concerns about these people, while always leaving himself enough wiggle room to deny any racist intention if called out on it publicly. But I think any reasonable person can connect the dots and figure out what the subtext is.
yeah living in america fuckin sucks i wish i lived someplace that was beating us at the trade game like china or brazil those places are awesome i wish we were great like china
i hate that actual retarded people are taking over our contry
How much is Mitt Romney winning by now?
yeah living in america fuckin sucks i wish i lived someplace that was beating us at the trade game like china or brazil those places are awesome i wish we were great like china
i hate that actual retarded people are taking over our contry
This is a non sequitur. I praised China's trade policies, not their country in general. Their currency manipulation and trade management is amazing for such a large nation.
I'm not sure I can.If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion. Hope his VP pick is good.
Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/
And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
But eh. Whatever. Point is, he's a business man. If there's no profit, why keep going?
Sanders and Clinton promised a Univision moderator not to deport a single person during their presidency during last night's debate.
Wow, I sure am glad I'm voting for the candidate who will actually enforce my country's laws.
Regardless of the election results, people are waking up and beginning to distrust the media and see the obvious strings.
I'm not sure I can.If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion. Hope his VP pick is good.
Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/
And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
But eh. Whatever. Point is, he's a business man. If there's no profit, why keep going?
What? In what universe does that make sense? Hillary's a mother so she'll bake cookies for America. Sanders is a Yankee so he'll go to war with the South. Trump is a businessman so he will quit if he's not making a profit.
This may shock you Dave, but people are more than their titles. You fire off all these things you're clearly parroting from whatever Facebook feeds you follow, and when asked to back up your assertions your response is, "I'm not sure I can." How about instead of regurgitating whatever you read that aligns with your presuppositions, you state things you can handle. Lets start with a small one:
Trump is going to make America great again. (You should repeat this often.)
I can't due to the size of the list involved. Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings. I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started. I doubt you could either.
Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.
I'll be here in a civilized country, avoiding America.
Hold on... Where did I say he's a failed businessman? He's obviously not as he holds a lot of properties, casinos, brands, tv shows, etc... Why he wishes to give them up to be president, however, is an interesting question.
I can't due to the size of the list involved. Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings. I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started. I doubt you could either.
Ohhhhh, so you meant to say that you heard he filed bankruptcy a couple times and closed a few projects before completion and in your ignorance of business you assumed that's the scarlet-letter mark of a failed businessperson. Gotcha.
Perhaps -- and this one's gunna blow your mind -- perhaps John Oliver doesn't know everything about everything and his show is -- hold on! -- just out to make ratings.British Documentary, actually. On Norwegian television.
My appologies, allow me to clarify:Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.
But that's not what you said is it? You said that because he's a businessman he will quit when there is no profit in it. You're just backpedaling now that you've been shown the inanity in your statement. However, as you appear to have forgotten, we are on a forum and I (or anyone really) can scroll up or click back to see what you said. I'm doing it now, lets see... Yep, Dave said that if there is no profit in it, Trump won't keep going. Looking for the part where you said say that their career will influence a politician's presidency... looking... looking... looking...
Nope, seems like you just made that shit right up when you were pressed on your ridiculous statements. If, perhaps, that's the message you meant to convey all along, then may I suggest you be more cognizant of the words you use. It will alleviate all this double-speaking backtalk you have to do to qualify all your statements and get us back on topic about how Trump will make America great again.
I don't know what Americans are so terrified of. It's not a dictatorship, presidents can't simply pass anything they want into legislation. However, if you look at Trump's policies that are actually reasonable, they're not that bad:
-anti-TPP
-reducing trade deficits
-bringing back overseas money on a single-time tax
-health care reform
-improved relations with Russia
A country’s capital account balance reflects its net sales or purchases of assets with other countries. Its current account balance reflects its net sales or purchases of goods and services with other countries along with net flows of income and transfer payments. The current account and capital account must exactly offset one another. This means the value of a current account surplus will be mirrored by the value of a capital account deficit, and a current account deficit will be mirrored by a capital account surplus of equal value.
[...]
In 2004 (the most recent calendar year for which data exist), the United States ran a current account deficit of $668 billion. This deficit meant the United States imported more goods and services than it exported. The counterpart to the U.S. current account deficit was a U.S. capital account surplus. This surplus meant that foreign investors purchased more U.S. assets than U.S. investors purchased in foreign assets, investing more in the United States than the United States invested abroad. By economic definition, a country’s current and capital account balances must offset one another. Therefore, the U.S. current account deficit was matched by a capital account surplus of $668 billion.
[...]
Because foreigners invested more in the United States than the United States invested abroad, the United States received net foreign capital and financial inflows (hereafter called net capital inflows). Countries like the United States that run capital account surpluses and current account deficits receive net foreign capital inflows.
[...]
What factors encourage large and persistent U.S. foreign capital inflows? Several factors, which reflect U.S. economic strengths, encourage these
inflows. In particular, a high rate of U.S. growth encourages foreign capital to be “pushed” toward the United States.
[...]
In principle, the United States can continue to receive net capital inflows (and run current account deficits) indefinitely provided it uses these inflows
in ways that promote its future growth and help the United States to remain an attractive destination for foreign investment. The key issue concerning U.S. foreign capital inflows is not their absolute level but the efficiency with which they are used. Provided capital inflows promote strong U.S. investment, productivity, and growth, they provide important benefits to the United States as well as to countries that are investing in the United States.
The consensus creed is based on a misunderstanding of how U.S. gross domestic product is calculated. Imports are not a “subtraction” from GDP. They are merely removed from the final calculation of GDP because they are not a part of domestic production.
Contrary to the prevailing view, imports are not a “leakage” of demand abroad. In the annual U.S. balance of payments, all transactions balance. The net outflow of dollars to purchase imports over exports are offset each year by a net inflow of foreign capital to purchase U.S. assets. This capital surplus stimulates the U.S. economy while boosting our productive capacity.
An examination of the past 30 years of U.S. economic performance offers no evidence that a rising level of imports or growing trade deficits have negatively affected the U.S. economy. In fact, since 1980, the U.S. economy has grown more than three times faster during periods when the trade deficit was expanding as a share of GDP compared to periods when it was contracting. Stock market appreciation, manufacturing output, and job growth were all significantly more robust during periods of expanding imports and trade deficits.
As a direct consequence of our current account deficits, the U.S. economy has been the beneficiary of more than $8 trillion worth of capital inflows from foreigners since 1980. Because the Balance of Payment accounts are based on double-entry bookkeeping, the annual current account and capital account have to net to zero, so that any current account (trade) deficit (surplus) is offset one-to-one by a capital account surplus (deficit) and the balance of payments therefore always nets out to (equals) zero. And that’s why it’s called the “balance” of payments, because once we account for trade flows and capital flows, everything balances, and there are no deficits or surpluses on a net basis.(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ahpWrFO8WFM/TZkyZmhwGLI/AAAAAAAAPKE/Tm_wnRXSOvs/s400/bp.jpg)
Hold on... Where did I say he's a failed businessman? He's obviously not as he holds a lot of properties, casinos, brands, tv shows, etc... Why he wishes to give them up to be president, however, is an interesting question.
I can't due to the size of the list involved. Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings. I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started. I doubt you could either.
Ohhhhh, so you meant to say that you heard he filed bankruptcy a couple times and closed a few projects before completion and in your ignorance of business you assumed that's the scarlet-letter mark of a failed businessperson. Gotcha.QuotePerhaps -- and this one's gunna blow your mind -- perhaps John Oliver doesn't know everything about everything and his show is -- hold on! -- just out to make ratings.British Documentary, actually. On Norwegian television.
Also, Trump is out to make money and an image. At least, he has been for 30+ years.QuoteMy appologies, allow me to clarify:Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.
But that's not what you said is it? You said that because he's a businessman he will quit when there is no profit in it. You're just backpedaling now that you've been shown the inanity in your statement. However, as you appear to have forgotten, we are on a forum and I (or anyone really) can scroll up or click back to see what you said. I'm doing it now, lets see... Yep, Dave said that if there is no profit in it, Trump won't keep going. Looking for the part where you said say that their career will influence a politician's presidency... looking... looking... looking...
Nope, seems like you just made that shit right up when you were pressed on your ridiculous statements. If, perhaps, that's the message you meant to convey all along, then may I suggest you be more cognizant of the words you use. It will alleviate all this double-speaking backtalk you have to do to qualify all your statements and get us back on topic about how Trump will make America great again.
Trump is a successful businessman. He is worth a few Billion in assets. He is not stupid. As a smart, successful businessman, he will not waste time on failed ventures. He will not continue to dump money into a non-profitable company without thinking it will be profitable. He will abandon anything that will damage his image or his fortune and fight, very very hard, to maintain both.
So, I expect a Trump presidency to be full of force, policy changes based on current need, and the interests of Trump's presidency and image to be more important than other people or the nation. He will make himself great. And nothing anyone says will persuade him that he's succeeded.
Maybe that's what you want. Maybe that's what America wants. But when president Trump is told No by congress for the first time, something he isn't accustomed to, it will not be pretty. I look forward to it.
The 20s or 50s.
Just wondered which era of American history you would turn the clocks back too? It's always a bit of a mystery when I hear people harking back to the golden age as they seem to cherry pick bits from here and there, forgetting all the shit that went with it.
The British nationalist have some mythical amalgamation of Richard the lion-heart (a particularly bad time to be in Britain if you know your history) and the height of the Victorians (see Dickens for the down side), so when was America great?
so when was America great?
The 90s were pretty fucking sweet too.
I don't know what Americans are so terrified of. It's not a dictatorship, presidents can't simply pass anything they want into legislation. However, if you look at Trump's policies that are actually reasonable, they're not that bad:
-anti-TPP
-reducing trade deficits
-bringing back overseas money on a single-time tax
-health care reform
-improved relations with Russia
he doesn't frighten me because i think he's going to be a despot. he frightens me because he represents the abandonment of substance for form. rushy's post basically spells out what i think all trump supporters share in common: the belief that it doesn't matter how dogshit trump's policies are so long as he says all the right ultranationalist keywords in all his speeches. i am frightened by the belief that it doesn't matter what trump says so long as he is angry, hateful, and insulting. those are poor qualities in anyone, let alone in the president.
and for some reason none of these supporters have managed to yet figure out that psst hey you know that he could just be saying whatever he thinks you want to hear, right? it's mind-boggling. like maybe when he says "we're going to slash taxes and slash the budget and also keep social security spending and medicare/medicaid spending and increase military spending," we should all take a moment to reflect on how dumb that is and tell him to get lost. it frightens me to think that maybe he could walk out on stage and declare that he's going to cut taxes to zero and increase military spending to infinity, and maybe he wouldn't lose any supporters in the process.
his trade deficit talk is just as outrageous, but again his supporters just lap it up because "yeah fuck china go america we rule they drool hahahaha!" he displays either an ignorance of economics so profound that it should be immediately disqualifying, or a willingness to lie that should be equally discrediting. trade deficits are not indicators of poor economic output. if anything, the opposite is true. this is because current account deficits are balanced by capital account surpluses. by definition. basically everything that trump says about trade deficits is breathtakingly, unforgivably wrong. he appears to fundamentally misunderstand how our economy works.
[...]
what ultimately disappoints me is not that trump couldn't pass a macro final or whatever. i couldn't, and i can't pretend to understand how our economy works. but it really didn't take me that long to find a slew of experts in economics all saying "uh, you know current account deficits are actually fine, and if anything they only happen because our economy is so fucking rad to maxxxxxxxx." if there are economic experts out there who agree with trump's characterization of our economic relationship with china, i'm struggling to find them.
oh look another obnoxiously long gg post. neat.
The 90s were pretty fucking sweet too.
Damn right. I grew up in the 90s so nostalgia is a factor but everything seemed better, before we had smart phones and social media, before the internet was weaponized into a weapon of mass distraction.
But there was a pretty bad crack epidemic we delt with for a while.
Trade deficits may not be as bad as Trump makes them out to be, but working to reduce them is hardly bad either - unless you wish to claim that creating jobs is bad.
And I think it's kinda interesting that you think he says "whatever we want to hear" when discussing a topic people barely understand in the first place. Just out of curiosity though, if you think Trump is misinformed and only speaking to people's fantasies, what do you think of Bernie Sanders? His policies are deliberately impossible and carry intrinsic and easy to understand benefits to the working class and college kids. His whole platform is just fantasy fulfillment. Shouldn't the support he's gaining be just as frightening to you, if not more so?
BLM simultaneously made Trump look good and caused Kasich, Rubio and Cruz to crucify themselves by blaming Trump for the riot. BLM and Bernie supporters just did more for Trump than the rally alone ever could.This is good for Bitcoin.
BLM simultaneously made Trump look good and caused Kasich, Rubio and Cruz to crucify themselves by blaming Trump for the riot. BLM and Bernie supporters just did more for Trump than the rally alone ever could.This is good for Bitcoin.
https://youtu.be/tE_G0hLByqI
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/trump-wine-is-built-on-acres-of-lies.html
Is that true? The wbsite does say that its not affiliated with Donald Tump...
The tolerant left:I looked at the videos but had no sound so I dkdn't hear anything.
https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/708525579600064512
https://twitter.com/HighCapacity223/status/708584057102151684
Please remember that Trump supporters are all scum of the earth evil racists. (◕‿◕✿)
The tolerant left:I looked at the videos but had no sound so I dkdn't hear anything.
https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/708525579600064512
https://twitter.com/HighCapacity223/status/708584057102151684
Please remember that Trump supporters are all scum of the earth evil racists. (◕‿◕✿)
Not sure what it proves.
Are you okay, Dave? Are they giving you any strange pills or injections in Norway?
I don't think it's fair to generalize trade deficits as a literal non-issue as you seem to portray them as, but if it's that much of a trigger to you, I'm willing to drop it - my point will stand just fine without it.
his budget proposal is garbage. his trade policy is garbage. his immigration policy is garbage. his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal. he's a joke, but it's a funny joke, so let's make that joke the president? ugh.
his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.ooh, dis gon' be gud.
his budget proposal is garbage. his trade policy is garbage. his immigration policy is garbage. his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal. he's a joke, but it's a funny joke, so let's make that joke the president? ugh.
Well, you don't have better options, so sure.
“No, no, no, no, he was,” Trump said. “If you look on the Internet, if you look at clips, he was waving an American flag... He was walking, dragging the American flag on the ground."
Trump was referring to a video posted on the Internet that shows DiMassimo marching and dragging an American flag. The video appears to depict a protest at Wright State University, which is in Dayton. The video Trump tweeted was overdubbed with Arabic music and text.
But the video appears to be a parody or a hoax, and no law enforcement agency has suggested that DiMassimo has terrorist ties of any kind.
Still, Trump remained adamant.
[...]
When Todd reminded him again that the video appears to be a hoax and that no law enforcement official has suggested any terrorist ties, Trump remained firm in his contention and the trustworthiness of its source.
“All I know is what's on the Internet,” the GOP front-runner said.
his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.ooh, dis gon' be gud.
Please, tell me more!
there are (and were) plenty of alternatives: kasich, clinton, bush, rubio, sanders, nolan ryan, my neighbor's new cat, an interesting leaf i saw outside once, etc. maybe even ted cruz.
those are all better options than 'being smart is dumb let's just be mad.'
he's already admitted that he wants to empower the justice department to sue journalists who oppose him, and now he's basically giving us a preview of coming attractions on how he'll probably deal with white house protestors: just assert that they're terrorists and have them arrested. that'll be neat for everybody.
I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.
I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.
I don't know. I mean, it's already been ruled that the first amendment allows the press to lie so Trump really has to take it.
Yeah but lawsuits against mega news networks are bound to fail or be tied up and cost more money than most people make.I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.
I don't know. I mean, it's already been ruled that the first amendment allows the press to lie so Trump really has to take it.
They're allowed to lie insofar as the government can't pass a law prohibiting them from lying, but they can still be sued for it. In any case, there are no federal laws on defamation, so there isn't a lot that the president can actually do about it. I suppose he could try and get one passed, but it would be tough to get it past the courts.
On another note: What happens to Donald's corporate holdings when he's president? He can't actually use them or manage them, right?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/13/470294270/trump-on-rally-violence-dont-accept-responsibility-might-pay-legal-bills
Ok, seriously, The Fuck?
How can you lie so blatantly and keep lying with the same story even when you have clips right there in front of you?
I can get that he'd say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys but when he's got clips of him literally telling people to use violence at his rallys, I ..
No, this man can't be sane or serious. I'm sorry, he's either delusional or he's trolling all of America.
Good to know he'll still be in contol then.On another note: What happens to Donald's corporate holdings when he's president? He can't actually use them or manage them, right?
He said his daughter, Ivanka, will take over.
Not my point.http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/13/470294270/trump-on-rally-violence-dont-accept-responsibility-might-pay-legal-bills
Ok, seriously, The Fuck?
How can you lie so blatantly and keep lying with the same story even when you have clips right there in front of you?
I can get that he'd say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys but when he's got clips of him literally telling people to use violence at his rallys, I ..
No, this man can't be sane or serious. I'm sorry, he's either delusional or he's trolling all of America.
He is saying that protesters who interrupt his rallies should be attacked, and they should. These guys are constantly pushing and shoving people and tearing up signs, so it's no surprise that Trump would think they should be punched in the face. The media hates Trump so they only report a protester being attacked, not the fact that the protester is always some thug.
not literally all of them.You're improving, but I'd still like to see some literally illegal policies :D
is that better? was i precise enough for you?
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he? He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.
Then why does he say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys? He clearly does!Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he? He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.
In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.
He wants to make sure these idiots are punished for attacking people at his rally. If you had been keeping up with politics you would have known far before the Chicago rally that BLM has been upsetting his rallies for several months.
It sounds to me like you've already decided you hate Trump and are now desperate for any information to support you. Why should I waste the truth on you?
And? Who cares?I am fully aware of the reasons for the Rise of Trump.
First, the other candidates may have their corruptions too.
Second, people support Trump in spite of his know corruption because they are tired of politically correct bullshit, they are ANGRY, they don't give a fuck about past dealings of Trump.
It's not about Trump per se as an individual, it's now about a symbol, the war against the mass media and the social justice warriors, the awakening against the censure and inquisition of the mass media and their hypocrisy.
Facts of corruption of Trump DON'T MATTER, it's an emotional war of many who are tired of the system and of being told who is "acceptable" and who is not.
The others are not better, their voters don't give a fuck about trump university.
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he? He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.
In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he? He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.
In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.
This is what I call the Dave Dance. Let me walk you though the steps:
1: Dave blasts out a comment that's demonstrably false and clearly shows his ignorance.
2: You correct him on his assertion.
3: Dave pretends like you misunderstood him and tells you what he really meant when he's really just changing what he said in step 1.
4: Repeat.
there are (and were) plenty of alternatives: kasich, clinton, bush, rubio, sanders, nolan ryan, my neighbor's new cat, an interesting leaf i saw outside once, etc. maybe even ted cruz.
I don't agree that those are better options. Can you explain why you think they are?
not literally all of them.You're improving, but I'd still like to see some literally illegal policies :D
is that better? was i precise enough for you?
BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?
TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.
BAIER: But they’re illegal.
TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.
The targeting of terrorists’ families isn’t a close call. “You have to take out their families,” Trump said in December, referring to members of ISIS and other terrorist groups. “They say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”
The logic of Trump’s call is clear: use the threat of death against terrorists’ families as a crowbar to change the terrorists’ behavior. So, ironically, is its legality: “Any order to specifically target civilian family members who are not directly participating in hostilities is simply a nonstarter for today’s military,” says Dunlap, who says he has no public opinion on any candidate. Such a command, he adds, would be a “classic example of an illegal order that could not and would not be obeyed.”
Second, how would the tariff increase impact American exporters? Trump's tariff wall is undoubtedly illegal under the WTO rules. The rules were designed to make sure that countries keep their trade promises. Donald Trump's proposal is a blatant breach of our promise to keep tariffs low. All of our tariff rates are "bound," meaning we have committed by treaty not to increase beyond the bound rate. Every imported product has a bound tariff rate, and under GATT Article II, any tariff above that ceiling violates the WTO rules.
Trump's proposed tariff wall would break United States' promise to maintain its current tariff rates. China would have the right to bring an action before the WTO to challenge the 45 percent tariff increase. Just as the United States would undoubtedly win if China tried to do something similar to us, China would undoubtedly win if it challenged the Trump tariff wall. The WTO would demand that the United States keep its tariff promises, and authorize China to raise tariffs on United States' products coming into China equal to the harm the United States caused to China.
more seriously, i'm not sure i could be much more clear: i think trump is divisive, abrasive, insulting, bullying, and ignorant. i think his personality is awful, i think his policies are dogshit, and i think the nationalism he's trying to rile up is dangerous and disturbing. i don't think the other candidates share all of those qualities. kasich, for example, is even-keeled and smart. i disagree with many of his policies, but they're at least debatable. kasich wouldn't completely fracture the gop as trump is doing now. he wouldn't be a daily embarrassment to our country. foreign heads of state probably wouldn't fantasize about strangling him.
Explain to me how Trump saying he does not condone violence at his rallys is false.
Explain to me how Trump saying he does not condone violence at his rallys is false.
There's nothing wrong with telling people to punch someone who pushes and shoves them or rips up their property.
Saying these are "protesters" at Trump rallies is a misnomer. They're terrorists. They attack people.
Tell me this, Dave. If Trump is so violent and encouraging his supporters to be violent, why is it that Trump's rallies are being attacked almost every time but not once has a Trump supporter attacked a Bernie or Hillary rally? I mean certainly if this violent rhetoric is working, wouldn't attacks on their rallies be more commonplace than attacks on Trump's rallies?
Or perhaps they're just regular Americans, while the "protesters" have already shown their true colours in Ferguson.But Trump is being attacked at all his rallys, even the ones not near Ferguson. Are you saying that one town is traveling/tailgating?
Only one of these groups has yet to set a town on fire, y'know.
the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention.
Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.
Oh please. What, you think people aren't paid to go to rallys to show numbers? That people aren't paid to post on social media sites? This shit happens. Of course you'll note I didn't think it likely. Doesn't make it impossible though.the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention.
I can't do this anymore.
Yeah, I am. Fuck being PC. You trump supporters are cowards. All of you are cowards. You yell and scream when you're safe in a crowd or hiding behind the computer but where are you the rest of the time? Do you complain about the filthy rapist mexicans to your coworkers? Do you talk about how Muslims need to be banned to your friends? Do you protest the media, loud and true?Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.
w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Oh please. What, you think people aren't paid to go to rallys to show numbers? That people aren't paid to post on social media sites? This shit happens. Of course you'll note I didn't think it likely. Doesn't make it impossible though.the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention.
I can't do this anymore.Yeah, I am. Fuck being PC. You trump supporters are cowards. All of you are cowards. You yell and scream when you're safe in a crowd or hiding behind the computer but where are you the rest of the time? Do you complain about the filthy rapist mexicans to your coworkers? Do you talk about how Muslims need to be banned to your friends? Do you protest the media, loud and true?Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.
w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Or have you been sitting on your fucking ass waiting for some big and powerful man's cock to suck?
My rant. Wanna complain about it? Tell me it makes no sense? Wanna pick it apart word by word? Go on! Do it! I fucking DARE you!Oh please. What, you think people aren't paid to go to rallys to show numbers? That people aren't paid to post on social media sites? This shit happens. Of course you'll note I didn't think it likely. Doesn't make it impossible though.the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention.
I can't do this anymore.Yeah, I am. Fuck being PC. You trump supporters are cowards. All of you are cowards. You yell and scream when you're safe in a crowd or hiding behind the computer but where are you the rest of the time? Do you complain about the filthy rapist mexicans to your coworkers? Do you talk about how Muslims need to be banned to your friends? Do you protest the media, loud and true?Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.
w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Or have you been sitting on your fucking ass waiting for some big and powerful man's cock to suck?
what in God's name am I reading
Are you okay, Dave? Are they giving you any strange pills or injections in Norway?
I don't think I am ok.
Trump supporters are cowards for not attacking people? Well, that's an interesting way to look at it...Trump Supporters are cowards for only speaking out and fighting back when in Trump's presence as opposed to all the pussy, wimpy liberals who are willing to fight inside the lion's den and risk a punch to the face.
You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?Well, that IS the way they want it. Just not THEIR political preferences.
You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?Well, that IS the way they want it. Just not THEIR political preferences.
Trump stirs in people a visceral sense of pride and support for America. It's easy to see why one would punch someone whose trying to tear down the foundations that this country was built on.He does!
Dave realized his anti-violence stance was complete garbage and 180'd so that he could argue people attacking Trump was a good thing lmaoHm?
Trump has stumped the shit out of Dave.
Go listen to a rally. That's all the source I need. Just listen to the crowd. Listen to how they KNOW they're right and everyone else is wrong. How those who oppose them need to be stopped. There is no compromise. There is no peace. There is only war.You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?Well, that IS the way they want it. Just not THEIR political preferences.
Source?
Look, I'm all for violence
What? If Trump can be all for violence, why not me?Look, I'm all for violence
Yikes
What? If Trump can be all for violence, why not me?Look, I'm all for violence
Yikes
Dave is beginning to accept the ideals of Trumpism. Now, if only we can get him to listen to what Trump stands for rather than listening to what people say Trump stands for.
So, in your mind, Dave, you think that when someone asks Trump what he plans to do for the economy, he answers something along the lines of, "I plan to attack illegals, Mexicans, and China."Attack in the sense of their impact on America, not bombs or punches. (Ie. Economically for China, legally for Illegals, etc..)
Is this correct?
Deport Illegals.
Oh I'm all for that one.Deport Illegals.
They are by definition breaking the law. ILLEGALS. What do you suggest we do with law breakers?
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.
What's the point? Trump could murder someone on 5th ave and you'd still vote for him. No argument, no matter how valid, would win in this thread. So I'm just going to keep being lazy and regurgitate headlines.
What can I say? The bombardment has worn me down. Besides, I left America for several good reasons. I'm quite Anti-America these days.Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.
What's the point? Trump could murder someone on 5th ave and you'd still vote for him. No argument, no matter how valid, would win in this thread. So I'm just going to keep being lazy and regurgitate headlines.
I'm disappointed in you, Dave.
What can I say? The bombardment has worn me down. Besides, I left America for several good reasons. I'm quite Anti-America these days.
Well, if you hate America, you should leave. That's what the internet always told me.What can I say? The bombardment has worn me down. Besides, I left America for several good reasons. I'm quite Anti-America these days.
Who would have guessed living in the most xenophobic country on the planet would cause you to hate other countries.
Donald Trump is the front person for the Knights Templar and the Orange Order (the very reason behind his orange hair and spray tan).I'm just curious what the Livonian Order and the Latin Empire have to say about this. I mean, we can't have a proper crusade without those guys, right?
I believe that a deal was struck with the Ancient Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and the Jesuit Order well before the actual electoral process, to have Trump prepare the way for someone else (the very reason for his bizarre behaviour and statements) and that, so far, nobody has yet betrayed this alliance.
(http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/03/DownGoesTrump-620x433.jpg)They haven't been able to stop him despite trying. And if they pull him, it'll do more damage than not.
SexWarrior... take a look at some of the hand gestures/signals made by Trump during many of his interviews, only an expert in the history of secret societies (such as yourself) could have missed out on something like this.
Presumably Trump would like to have his ideas translated into laws/regulations passed by the Congress: and here is his big problem.
If Trump makes to the final, the Democrats will win (not only the White House) both the Senate and the House with a clear majority (all they have to do is run ads featuring Trump's own words, as they have begun to do already).
He won't be able to get anything passed in the House, not to mention the Senate: no wall, no trade deals, nothing at all.
Again, the question I posed a long time ago: why would the GOP put up with Trump's excentric behaviour from the outset, when they could have stopped him in his tracks? Why would they want to lose the majority in both the House and Senate and at the same time be represented in the White House by a person which does not share conservative values?
If Trump makes to the final, the Democrats will win (not only the White House) both the Senate and the House with a clear majority (all they have to do is run ads featuring Trump's own words, as they have begun to do already).Do you have any evidence to support your claims, or are you just going to, quite literally, focus on hand-waving?
He won't be able to get anything passed in the House, not to mention the Senate: no wall, no trade deals, nothing at all
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said during a telephone interview on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning that he will not participate in the upcoming Fox News GOP debate.
[...]
Trump said that instead of participating in Monday’s debate in Salt Lake City, he will deliver a “major speech” at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
more seriously, i'm not sure i could be much more clear: i think trump is divisive, abrasive, insulting, bullying, and ignorant. i think his personality is awful, i think his policies are dogshit, and i think the nationalism he's trying to rile up is dangerous and disturbing. i don't think the other candidates share all of those qualities. kasich, for example, is even-keeled and smart. i disagree with many of his policies, but they're at least debatable. kasich wouldn't completely fracture the gop as trump is doing now. he wouldn't be a daily embarrassment to our country. foreign heads of state probably wouldn't fantasize about strangling him.
Well, that's a lot of opinions people clearly disagree with. Sure, you can have your own views, but I think a lot of what you've said is symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view - perhaps due to not fully understanding their perspective.
You want to hear my take on it? It's precisely because of the leftist culture of shaming that Trump is gaining traction - people see a constant increase in identity politics and silencing of dissenting views, and a public condoning of hate groups like BLM.
Recently (last week in fact) ABC News published a poll that puts Clinton up 21 points among women over Trump in a head-to-head matchup.
The second argument should be pretty clear: Trump is wildly unpopular with Republican voters.
you asked me why i would prefer any of the other candidates, and i answered. perhaps i do not fully understand your perspective, but i genuinely don't understand how stating my opinion of trump is "symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view." can you elaborate?
even if my response was unsolicited and incredibly inflammatory/insulting, how would that silence any of your dissenting views?
They haven't been able to stop him despite trying. And if they pull him, it'll do more damage than not.
Then, contrary to our friend SexWarrior's ramblings on the influence of secret societies, what you are saying is that Trump has a secret agenda, having been able to fool the entire GOP leadership and run an INDEPENDENT bid for the White House, while posing as a Republican.
Rather, it makes more sense to draw another conclusion: the GOP is using Trump to reach some very specific goals, before they get rid of his candidacy at the convention.
Please refrain from throwing about users' personal information without permission. ~Snupes
ITT: sandokhan sees Dave overtaking his throne as the craziest person on FES, attempts to retake itI'm not crazy. I really am a member of the Illuminati.
Your analogy is weak for several important reasons:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2016/03/15/1980-donald-trump-ronald-reagan/
Read my messages again.
There are two basic reasons why they needed the Trump circus before the convention itself.
I wasn't referring to your opinion, I was referring to some of your earlier posts in this thread. And I'm not trying to say you are as bad as the general leftist mindset - I'm sorry if I led you to believe otherwise.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/media/donald-trump-republican-debate-fox/
Debate cancelled lol
I really don't care about Trump's tax return. It's a distraction from the actual issues at hand.
(http://i.imgur.com/MfyPBZj.jpg)So no matter what, there will be riots.
BLM is promising to loot and riot if God-Emperor Trump becomes POTUS. I'll drench the streets with their blood.
(http://i.imgur.com/MfyPBZj.jpg)So no matter what, there will be riots.
BLM is promising to loot and riot if God-Emperor Trump becomes POTUS. I'll drench the streets with their blood.
Enjoy.
When these roaches scurry into the light I'll be able to personally reduce our welfare budget one bug at a time.
Yeah but we got the hackers on our side. :pWhen these roaches scurry into the light I'll be able to personally reduce our welfare budget one bug at a time.
The Liberals will be the ones without guns. FYI.
https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg
Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.
Notice how be sounds. How he speaks.https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg
Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.
I don't understand the troll.
Notice how be sounds. How he speaks.https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg
Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.
I don't understand the troll.
He's normal. He speaks clearly and average. He doesn't self promote as much and isn't outrageous in what he says.
The Trump of today is crazy by comparison. That's why I think he's trolling.
You know its funny, I thought Levee was shitting up my thread, but it was actually Lord "I'm okay with violence" Dave all along.I'm going to make this thread great again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)
Make American great again.The first is too vague to matter
Nato is an anachronism.
Let's deal with the 19 trillion debt.
No more bad trade deals.
Rebuild our infrastructure.
Improve relations with Russia.
Why would Trump venture to make such statements, knowing full well that they could never be fulfilled?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)
ISIS will be pleased. So am I, actually. We need less interferance. Thats how we stop ISIS attacks against us.
Agreed. Wonder how Israel feels...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)
ISIS will be pleased. So am I, actually. We need less interferance. Thats how we stop ISIS attacks against us.
Interventionism is what made ISIS in the first place. More interventionism is just going to get you more flavors of ISIS.
I can't wait for Trump to actually stop arming the 'moderate' rebels in Syria. Maybe for once we can actually stabilize the region instead of obliterating anything that resembles a government.
Who cares?Alot of people.
06:45 < Rushy> http://imgur.com/pvTZ9FuThis is my favourite thing ever.
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:
http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:
http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:
http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/
i thought we went over this already.
They claim we should stop talking about it because "countries are already bringing them back" and then go on to point out higher retail jobs than manufacturing jobs in the US.
Service industries are some of the least paying jobs available and are the leading cause of stagnant wages. Manufacturing is a skilled labor; services are not.
Companies are like water. They will go through the easiest path available. If that path is moving to Mexico, they will, if that path is moving to China, they will. If that path is moving their shit back to the US because they can't compete, they will. So this article "guys, guys, stop talking about it!!!" is the epitome of idiocy.
this is a painfully inaccurate description of their argument. what they actually say is, "Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago."
trump's position is exactly as asinine as decrying the loss of agriculture jobs in america and talking about how he's going to do policies x, y, and z to bring farm jobs back to america. it really wouldn't matter what his specific proposal is, and it wouldn't matter if farm jobs were the best and most high-paying jobs ever: machines do those jobs now, and that's the end of that. farm jobs are never going to supplant manufacturing or service jobs in america ever again. that's not how our economy works anymore. likewise, manufacturing isn't going to suddenly displace an industry in which 85% of americans work.
this is absolute nonsense and just plain wrong. the service industry comprises the overwhelming majority of jobs in america, and, as you can see from the graph above, wage stagnation started much later than growth in the service industry.
the service industry is huge, and less than 20% of those jobs are in retail. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm) transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, health care and social assistance, legal services, repair services, accounting and bookkeeping services, architectural and engineering services, management and technical consulting services, scientific research and development services, advertising, office administrative services, motion picture and sound recording industries, telecommunications, everything having to do with the internet; these are all hugely important skilled labor jobs in the service industry, and that's just to name a few.
after you actually read the article, please tell me more about labor costs, because you're making my point for me. if firms prefer cheap labor to expensive labor, then they probably really highly prefer automated mechanical labor to human labor, right? isn't that the most cost effective form of labor? isn't that kind of, maybe, exactly the 'idiotic' point that 538 is making?
How many jobs are or are not done by machines is irrelevant. I would rather the work being done by machines in America than Mexicans or Chinese. At least we can be sure the machines aren't subject to copious human rights violations.
The point I'm making is that a company moving its manufacturing to Mexico and China is in fact moving a non-zero amount of jobs. If a company makes its parts using machines, it better damn well be doing it in the United States. We're not exactly running out of room here.
Then I should have said the vast majority of services is unskilled labor, then. A great deal of it could even be done without a bachelor's degree (and the fact that many people think the opposite is true is why degrees are so worthless now).
What do you think will happen once China's economy gets done playing a game a catchup to ours? We're going to get economically destroyed in a few decades and we'll be stuck with a population almost entirely consisting of a service industry. The very worse case scenario is that results in a very bad case of brain drain and the best case is that we go into Cold War mk2 with China except we'll be holding the short end of the stick.
When it comes to GDP per capita, the World Bank puts the United States at $54,629 and China at $7,590. (China’s income inequality gap, which seems to matter to people, is wider than the United States’s.) Although the nearly eight years of progressive economics creeping into U.S. policy has degraded economic freedom, the World Economic Forum still ranks the U.S. economy as the third most competitive in the world. China is 28th. I could dig up another 100 metrics of wealth and well-being and they would all say the same exact thing. So, yeah, they’re not “killing us” in any measurable way.
Now, I can explain this to my increasingly shrinking pool of protectionist friends—show them some nifty graphs, maybe—but they won’t care. They’ll tell me we don’t make anything anymore! even if U.S. manufacturing output has quadrupled since 1990. They’ll tell me we’re losing, even though the United States is becoming more competitive in manufacturing through automation and other efficiencies, creating advanced technology products with higher pay. The average American worker is responsible for nearly six times the output of the average Chinese worker. Why would we want to “bring back” an unproductive economy that saps jobs, I’ll ask? It’s all BS, they’ll say.
They’ll tell me the working class is shrinking, but forget that it’s getting richer. Mark Perry at AEI has done great work on dispelling the myth that the middle class is losing ground. As Thomas Sowell points out today, 51 percent of American families will be in the top 10 percent of income earners at some point during their lifetime. Our wages haven’t gone up, says every politician. Yet if we consider what Americans can buy with a dollar, inflation, and how much employers pay in benefits, this isn’t exactly true for most people. They don’t care.
Manufacturing’s contribution to employment in the U.S. has fallen steadily for over half a century, long before America started running trade deficits. The rate of decline from 2000 to 2010—about 0.4 percentage points a year—was the same per year as during the previous 40 years. Moreover, the United States isn’t unique: Data going back to 1973 show that all industrialized countries, even those with large trade surpluses such as Germany and the Netherlands, have reported a similar trend. (See the exhibit “Manufacturing Employment Has Fallen Steadily and Globally.”)
Many people blame trade for the decline in America’s employment in manufacturing, but our research shows that the drivers of the trend in the U.S. are primarily a combination of two other factors: increasing productivity growth in American manufacturing and a shift in demand away from goods toward services.
America’s deindustrialization is “made in America,” so to speak, and it results primarily from Americans’ spending decisions. While productivity growth has led to lower prices, demand has not grown rapidly enough to prevent a declining trend in employment, the data suggest. The reason is similar to that which reduced employment in agriculture: Faster productivity growth has allowed the U.S. to meet its needs and to redeploy workers to other parts of the economy.
Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade. Using input-output tables that list the job content of production, we found that in 1998 and 2010, replacing imports with domestically produced goods would have increased manufacturing employment by 2.6 million and 2.9 million in each of those years, respectively. However, over that period, manufacturing employment would have declined by 5.7 million jobs with balanced trade—just 5% less than the 6 million jobs that were lost with the trade deficits that the U.S. actually experienced. (See the exhibit “Balanced Trade Won’t Offset Job Losses Permanently.”)
The main cause, again, is the increasing growth in labor productivity. In current dollars, the manufacturing trade deficit was twice as large in 2010 as it was in 1998, but the output per worker was higher, so the job content of each dollar of deficit has been falling rapidly. Even if the U.S. had enjoyed balanced trade in the past two decades, the share of manufacturing in employment would still have tumbled.
automated labor is super relevant. i'm saying that bringing lost manufacturing back to america is a fool's errand since it won't actually produce a significant amount of jobs. it will bring mostly robots and some additional output. since manufacturing output is already at record levels, we clearly don't need the output. or, more accurately, we don't need it so badly that we should dramatically raise the prices on consumer goods with a bunch of tariffs and import taxes.
really? what about electricians, plumbers, architects, bankers, brokers, pilots, truckers, utilities workers, videographers, every job related to computers/the internet, publishers, writers, the insurance industry, real estate managers, accountants/bookkeepers, engineers of every kind, scientific researchers, business managers, business owners, teachers, medical technicians, nurses, paralegals, dentists, therapists, entertainers, maintenance workers...those are just the ones i can think of off the top of my head. you're underestimating how vast the service sector is.
do you have any evidence to support any of the claims you make? this is all utter nonsense. that's not how any of this works. either way, crushing our economy under the weight of a bunch of idiotic protectionism (and heralded by the gop...i'm just so utterly confused about what's happening in america right now). how are tax hikes and increasing prices on consumer goods going to save us from china? are you people listening to yourselves?
QuoteWhen it comes to GDP per capita, the World Bank puts the United States at $54,629 and China at $7,590. (China’s income inequality gap, which seems to matter to people, is wider than the United States’s.) Although the nearly eight years of progressive economics creeping into U.S. policy has degraded economic freedom, the World Economic Forum still ranks the U.S. economy as the third most competitive in the world. China is 28th. I could dig up another 100 metrics of wealth and well-being and they would all say the same exact thing. So, yeah, they’re not “killing us” in any measurable way.
Now, I can explain this to my increasingly shrinking pool of protectionist friends—show them some nifty graphs, maybe—but they won’t care. They’ll tell me we don’t make anything anymore! even if U.S. manufacturing output has quadrupled since 1990. They’ll tell me we’re losing, even though the United States is becoming more competitive in manufacturing through automation and other efficiencies, creating advanced technology products with higher pay. The average American worker is responsible for nearly six times the output of the average Chinese worker. Why would we want to “bring back” an unproductive economy that saps jobs, I’ll ask? It’s all BS, they’ll say.
They’ll tell me the working class is shrinking, but forget that it’s getting richer. Mark Perry at AEI has done great work on dispelling the myth that the middle class is losing ground. As Thomas Sowell points out today, 51 percent of American families will be in the top 10 percent of income earners at some point during their lifetime. Our wages haven’t gone up, says every politician. Yet if we consider what Americans can buy with a dollar, inflation, and how much employers pay in benefits, this isn’t exactly true for most people. They don’t care.
Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade. Using input-output tables that list the job content of production, we found that in 1998 and 2010, replacing imports with domestically produced goods would have increased manufacturing employment by 2.6 million and 2.9 million in each of those years, respectively. However, over that period, manufacturing employment would have declined by 5.7 million jobs with balanced trade—just 5% less than the 6 million jobs that were lost with the trade deficits that the U.S. actually experienced. (See the exhibit “Balanced Trade Won’t Offset Job Losses Permanently.”)
The main cause, again, is the increasing growth in labor productivity. In current dollars, the manufacturing trade deficit was twice as large in 2010 as it was in 1998, but the output per worker was higher, so the job content of each dollar of deficit has been falling rapidly. Even if the U.S. had enjoyed balanced trade in the past two decades, the share of manufacturing in employment would still have tumbled.
The prices of consumer goods are eventually going to raise regardless. China is spoofing their currency to make huge gains in the current trading game. They're essentially fueling America's consumerism and in the end it isn't going to be good for the people or the economy of the United States. Talking about record high manufacturing isn't indicative of our situation, since our population employment participation rate is the lowest it has been since the 80's.
Historically, tariffs and import tax is actually very good for American interests and time and time again protectionism has proved to be an effective economic ideal. The EU, for example, exists almost entirely as a protectionist entity for European nations. The VAT is a form of 'idiotic' protectionism that's actually done very well.
This additionally proves very true in the manufacturing industry. The majority of Japanese vehicles are actually manufactured in the US, but this was not always true. When they were originally released to US markets many American vehicle companies suffered across the board. Harley Davidson wouldn't even be around if not for a tariff raise (http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/02/business/us-raises-tariff-for-motorcycles.html)
I'm talking about the future and you're busy quoting the present. Fantastic.
Tell that to the people who lost their job when a company moved to Mexico or China. I know plenty of them, and when a man stands up and says "I can bring your job back" they're going to vote for him.
why aren't the plants just closing altogether? They're moving, not closing
It is also very important to remember China is an enemy of the United States.
What is in Trump's plan?
Trump says as president, he would block the estimated $24 billion in remittances that Mexicans in the U.S. send back home until Mexico pays $5 billion to $10 billion for the construction costs of the wall.
Once the money is deposited, he says he would allow the flow of remittances to resume to Mexico again. In his campaign memo outlining the plan (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall), Trump writes, "It's an easy decision for Mexico. Make a one-time payment of $5 - $10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."
Williams’ fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz’s ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State (Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.
http://allnewsintheworld.com/2016/04/08/ted-cruz-risks-primary-disqualification-in-new-jersey-other-late-primary-states-charges-professor-victor-williams/
Rafael Cruz is a dirty Canadian rat and soon he might be taken off the ballot for failing to meet the definition of "natural born citizen." Constitutional lawyer, my ass. Go back to Canada, Rafael.QuoteWilliams’ fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz’s ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State (Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.
Stop getting your news from crank sites, Rushy.
Cruz is under no more serious scrutiny about his eligibility to be president than Obama, and the cries of a political activist on the Internet (along with the clickbait websites repeating his claims) are not going to change that. Also, Kim Guadagno is the lieutenant governor of New Jersey, not the Secretary of State.
He wasn't naturalized. He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen. Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature. It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.
Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.Out of curiosity, how do you feel about John Oliver and his audience calling Trump "Drumpf"?
Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.That seems far-fetched. Wojtyła and Bergoglio had/have to deal with it too. It's a bit rude, sure, but I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the sound of "Ratzinger".
There's power in a name, Saddam,
This is true, just ask Donald Drumpf!Yeah, that rich German dude clearly planned for his descendants to rise to power... during the Thirty Years' War...
He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael"
Also, he is a citizen because his mother was a citizen, but he was born in a foreign nation on foreign soil (e.g., not a military base). That doesn't meet the "natural born" requirement in the Constitution. Natural born is defined in English common law as "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" and while obviously you could say "lol Canada is a dominion of the crown of England!" the concept when applied to the US means you must be born within the dominion of the US. Unless he was born in an Embassy or on a military base, that requirement isn't meet overseas.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about John Oliver and his audience calling Trump "Drumpf"?
That seems far-fetched. Wojtyła and Bergoglio had/have to deal with it too. It's a bit rude, sure, but I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the sound of "Ratzinger".
As I told you on IRC, this isn't true. He's gone by Ted at least since 1992, as shown by a thesis he wrote back then:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/480888/cruz-thesis.pdf
"Natural born" isn't defined in the Constitution, while federal law extends birthright citizenship to those born either on American soil or to an American parent. I'll concede that it is possible that a court might rule that you
have to be born on American soil to be eligible to run for president, but the chances of that happening - especially in the next few months - are very remote.
“…A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens…”
Here’s how Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971):
"Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”
Here’s how Justice William O. Douglas said it in Schneider V. Rusk (1964):
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
And in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said:
"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
In U.S. v. Fisher , 48 F S 7, the court said:
"A naturalized citizen, broadly speaking, enjoys all the rights of the native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction, Const. rt. 2, par 1, cl 4 and this constitutional exception is limited alone to the occupancy of the office of President of the United States.”
...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/671) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.
But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:Quote...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/671) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.
So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen. The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad. Cruz's father is Cuban. His mother is American. His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown. If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law. If not, then he is not.
Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this. What does Rush Limbaugh think? Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny. Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.
But there hasn't been a ruling, has there? I see the opinions being stated and you're right, there is court precedence, but until it's actually ruled one way or another, it's up in the air, isn't it?But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:Quote...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/671) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.
So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen. The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad. Cruz's father is Cuban. His mother is American. His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown. If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law. If not, then he is not.
Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this. What does Rush Limbaugh think? Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny. Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.
The Common Law precedence doesn't matter because I later found actual Supreme Court rulings on the definition of "Natural Born" in the Constitution. The Common Law basis only comes into play if there is no Court precedence, which isn't the case anymore.
"Because the system is corrupt. And it's worse on the Republican side."
That was pretty immature too, but at the very least, it was intended to just give him a goofy name that nobody could take seriously, rather than a xenophobic hint that he wasn't one of us.There is nothing silly about "Drumpf" - it's a perfectly typical German surname. The only thing that's notable about it is exactly its origin. Your argument really boils down to "it's not xenophobic when I find it funny".
Drumpf is much less magical. It’s the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy. Drumpf. It’s the sound of a bottle of store-brand root beer falling off the shelf in a gas station minimart.
To the fickle American electorate, "Drumpf" does sound silly, just as "Trump" sounds impressive. Even if you disagree, that was Oliver's argument.I'm seeing a trend here. "Ratzinger" sounds funny, as is "Drumpf". Are you sure you (or the fickle American electorate) don't just find German names hilarious? If so, how can you argue that this stems from anything other than blatant xenophobia? Dummköpfe.
americans arent well versed in 19th century german surnamesYou're looking at the 17th century here. Yes, it's that petty. John Oliver is making fun of someone for changing their surname nearly 400 years ago.
You're looking at the 17th century here. Yes, it's that petty. John Oliver is making fun of someone for changing their surname nearly 400 years ago.
John Oliver is a comedian.That's a rather generous description.
The Drumpf thing was a joke. I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was intended to be a riff on the Donald's xenophobic attitude. It is funny to me that a conservative columnist , not to mention some people here, are taking it so seriously.What conservative columnist?
Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion, but I rather doubt it's something that is specific to Americans.I mean, given Americans' general level of awareness regarding the outside world, there's plenty of reason to suspect that you finding German names funny is rooted in xenophobia, and that it's specific to Americans.
i'm only suggesting that americans are even dumber than you give us credit.Fair enough.
Also, I'm just sick of the "racism/sexism/xenophobia is ok when we do it, it's just a prank bro!" attitude that the American left so loves to flaunt. You guys need to pick a side and stick to it - anything else is cheating.
It sounds like you are saying context and intention have no effect on the meaning of a communication.No, I'm saying that xenophobic jokes are still xenophobic, regardless of being jokes. "It's just a joke lol!" is a very poor excuse if you're trying to criticise someone else for their (alleged) xenophobia.
(http://i.imgur.com/vOlA2Ru.png?1)John Oliver is a comedian.That's a rather generous description.
yeah americans are super xenophobic of 17th century germans
ffs wtf are you even talking about
change 'germay' to any other country and the joke is exactly as funny. change 'drumpf' to 'muller' and the joke doesn't make any sense at all. it's not about germany. it's about the name 'drumpf' sounding dumb.
have y'all actually seen the bit? the setup is that name trump literally sounds like success. the punchline is that his ancestral name sounds goofy and silly and stupid. i really don't get how anyone could watch that bit and think that the joke has anything to do with the name being german, or even foreign. he even uses the word onomatopoeia to describe why it's funny.
Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?
Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?
have you ever smelled a german? gross.
Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?
have you ever smelled a german? gross.
There it is, folks. Germanphobia. I propose we ban Gary for being a racist, bigot, sexist, Germanphobic ableist cis pig.
change 'germay' to any other country and the joke is exactly as funny. change 'drumpf' to 'muller' and the joke doesn't make any sense at all.Look, this may make super perfect sense to you, but I'm not a xenophobe, so you may have to spell it out for me. The name "Drumpf" sounds like any other German name. The joke doesn't make any sense at all regardless of what name or country you pick1 -- unless you accept the axiom that foreign names are somehow funny.
it's not about germany. it's about the name 'drumpf' sounding dumb.Explain how it sounds dumb without invoking nationalities or native languages. In other words, explain it without invoking xenophobia.
he even uses the word onomatopoeia to describe why it's funny.Damn, he must be so educated and smart. Too bad he's still a bigoted asshole.
good faithlol you're currently pretending to be offended by something just to stick it to someone.
Explain how it sounds dumb without invoking nationalities or native languages. In other words, explain it without invoking xenophobia.ok...i'll let oliver speak for himself:
Imagine the outrage "comedians" of Oliver's calibre would try to spin if it turned out that "Clinton" meant something funny in a foreign language, or if someone tried calling her "Glympton" to make it sound "funny" (I still don't get it - am I doing it right?). It would be so xenophobic and sexist! But this is okay, because it's about Trump, and Trump is a big meanie.
You people are pathetic.
lol you're currently pretending to be offended by something just to stick it to someone.I'm not really offended. I'm just not a fan of making fun of people's nationalities, much less a fan of "haunting" someone with the nationality of their forefathers 4 centuries ago.
ok...i'll let oliver speak for himself:Okay, so he'd make another joke about how funny and German his name is. I don't see where you're going with this.
[...]
i'm going to make up a name: boof. i've never heard this name before, and if it's real, then i have no idea where it comes from. the joke is exactly the same if you replace drumpf with boof:
[...]
the origin of the name is irrelevant. drumpf, like boof, is an onomatopoeia. that's the joke. the joke doesn't work with any funny sounding name. it that's drumpf is an onomatopoeia. for example, bumgarner is a really funny sounding german name, but the joke wouldn't make sense at all using that name.
which people? people who aren't offended by the john oliver bit?People who pretend to care about discrimination, but are happy to discriminate when it suits them. As I said: pick a side.
if the clintons used to be the comptons, i would think that was p funny. would you not? that's a funny juxtaposition.I don't get it.
the problem here is that you're all bothered about things you just assume i must believe and not what i've actually said.Actually, I was criticising Saddam and Rushy. You just kind of rocked up and assumed I'm talking about you. It's probably because you're so easily offen-
you think liberals are too easily offended, and of course i must be liberal [...]oh
Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion
Okay, so he'd make another joke about how funny and German his name is. I don't see where you're going with this.i'm saying that the joke has nothing to do with the nationality of the name. that's why the oliver bit never mentions the nationality of the name or even that it's foreign. the joke is about the way these two words sound in contrast to one another. it's not even about the name sounding funny because it's foreign.
clinton is a prestigious name, and compton is a shitty neighborhood in los angeles. 'clinton' isn't an onomatopoeia, and i'm not a comedy writer; best i could do off the top of my head. the point is that i would definitely find equal humor in a bit about how the clinton's used to have a name that sounded distinctly un-prestigious.if the clintons used to be the comptons, i would think that was p funny. would you not? that's a funny juxtaposition.I don't get it.
You just kind of rocked up and assumed I'm talking about you.only when you were talking directly to me. you quoted me and asked me to imagine the outrage at a similar joke involving hilary, then said "you people are pathetic." you're taking my remarks out of context. the statements about you being bothered are in response to "you people are pathetic." prior to that i entered the conversation at my leisure because it's a web forum and not a dinner party.
Oh, don't worry, I wasn't hoping to convince you. I was mostly curious to see if I'm missing something, or if you're just racist (so much that you're willing to go back 400 years in your desperate search. You're beating birthers on that front by quite a margin!). But no matter how many opportunities I give you to explain yourselves, all you have to say is "it's just a prank bro!" or "wow how ridiculous!"
EDIT: Actually, no, I take it back. You did partially admit it.Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion
Yes, I'm entitled to my opinion that things which are xenophobic by definition are, in fact, xenophobic. Thank you for allowing me to consider that truism.
For it to be -phobic, it must by definition, be driven by fear.You're being overly restrictive. While most -phobias are indeed defined by fear, words such as homophobia and xenophobia have clearly evolved past that constraint. A dislike or prejudice are sufficient (https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/xenophobia), it doesn't have to be rooted in fear.
wouldn't the joke be just as funny/sensical if, hypothetically, the name 'drumpf' was an english name? how would the bit be any different?Hypothetically, yes; but that ignores like half of society. You wouldn't find an English name that sounds like something something being slapped across the face with wet money???, because you're already familiar with English names. The unfamiliarity is pretty much required for the joke to work. (And likely the reason why I'm not finding it funny no matter how hard I squint my eyes - I don't find German names to be unfamiliar or uncommon)
Onomatopoeia can easily be another explanation, which is the reason John Oliver offers, so why do you dismiss that out of hand?I don't dismiss it - I simply point out that it's completely irrelevant. The explanations of "German names are funny" and "German names are funny because they sound like farting noises or whatever" both share the same element of xenophobia.
You have to work really hard to assign racism to what Oliver said, really hard. But the master hair splitter has put in that work, and it’s a marvel. Missing/twisting the point is an art form only this boy has the motivation to master, or perhaps I am being ungenerous, and when he says “I don’t get it” maybe this is the case, humour (going on every post of his I’ve read) does seems an alien concept (racism?).Ah yes, another fantastic response of the "it's just a prank bro!!!!" variety. Thank you for your excellent contribution.
Can we just agree to disagree and move on?But calling liberals racist is hilarious.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/us/politics/donald-trump-losing-ground-tries-to-blame-the-system.htmlMeh. The two main parties in America are private entities and they can do whatever the heck they want. It was always an innate risk associated with that structure. However, as far as I understand, there's nothing stopping Trump/Sanders from running as independents, and if the system truly is rigged, they should stand a good chance to succeed (and perhaps change the system while they're at it)
lol called itCan we just agree to disagree and move on?But calling liberals racist is hilarious.
I'll have you know that I have an excellent sense of humour. I have the best humour. Everyone knows that, and everyone loves my humour. And I can make America humorous again. We will have jokes again if I win. And I will win, because I'm a winner.2016 joke of the year
wouldn't the joke be just as funny/sensical if, hypothetically, the name 'drumpf' was an english name? how would the bit be any different?Hypothetically, yes; but that ignores like half of society. You wouldn't find an English name that sounds like something something being slapped across the face with wet money???, because you're already familiar with English names. The unfamiliarity is pretty much required for the joke to work. (And likely the reason why I'm not finding it funny no matter how hard I squint my eyes - I don't find German names to be unfamiliar or uncommon)
Can we just agree to disagree and move on? Discuss this instead:Dumb people don't understand politics and instead of using Google and maybe learning something they get mad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/us/politics/donald-trump-losing-ground-tries-to-blame-the-system.html
Dumb people don't understand politics and instead of using Google and maybe learning something they get mad.
Oh, don't worry, I wasn't hoping to convince you.
Oh but you really have. I find foreign names with weird strings of letters funny, sometimes hilarious (I laughed out loud when I saw your real name for the first time, for example) and I never realized until now what a horrible person that makes me. I see now, American comedy has firm roots in racism and John Oliver is no better than a 1940s minstrel show.Another victory for common sense and reason; although I feel like you're denigrating minstrel shows here by comparing them to John Oliver. You still have much to learn.
I've always found "Bush" kind of humourous, mainly because it sounds like it'd be a sound effect for punching in either the '60s Batman or the comics.And yet you don't see hashtag campaigns demanding that Bush changes his surname to something else to make it more or less "funny".
I've always found "Bush" kind of humourous, mainly because it sounds like it'd be a sound effect for punching in either the '60s Batman or the comics.And yet you don't see hashtag campaigns demanding that Bush changes his surname to something else to make it more or less "funny".
You also don't see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.Jeb had his prime, even if it didn't end so well. So, uh, yeah, you do see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.
You also don't see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.Jeb had his prime, even if it didn't end so well. So, uh, yeah, you do see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.
But calling liberals racist is hilarious.Because a lot of them are.
Ye, but just look how desperate they are to defend themselves.But calling liberals racist is hilarious.Because a lot of them are.
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.
Literally what?
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.
Literally what?
Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, was accused of assault/battery by Michelle Fields during a Florida rally. It was big news in March because Trump refused to fire Lewandowski for "assaulting a journalist."
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.
Literally what?
Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, was accused of assault/battery by Michelle Fields during a Florida rally. It was big news in March because Trump refused to fire Lewandowski for "assaulting a journalist."
Seems like standard American histrionics. Lewandowski maybe grabbed her arm? He should apologize like a big boy and everyone move on.
In my opinion she should have been tackled on the spot for crossing the secret service perimeter.
...yes. It's quite literally the reason the Florida prosecutor's office dropped the case: she crossed the secret service line.
Is there a secret service perimeter for someone seeking a presidential nomination?
Anyway, a well-worded apology could have made it go away quickly without really taking culpability for the action. For example, apologize for over-stepping the secret service, it could have make him seem like a take charge kind of guy who cuts around the red tape, etc...
Oliver was also making the claim that Trump was being hypocritical when he attacked Jon Stewart for his name change from Leibowitz to Stewart. Granted, the situations aren't the same, Stewart changed his while Trump's ancestor was the one who made the change. Without that attack on Stewart's name, I'd be surprised if Drumpf would have ever found the light of day.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4372969,00.html
Since there are only a few primaries left, we can calculate the total number of delegates alloted for each candidate, up until June 7:
Trump 964
Cruz 794
Kasich 178
That is, Trump will need to win at least 273 delegates, out of a total of 303, come June 7.
He wasn't naturalized. He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen. Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature. It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.
He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael" There's power in a name, Saddam, and using the right name at the right time and place can ruin a man; especially a man running on a platform of voters that aren't fond of foreigners.
nomen est omen
Math is hard.
I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.
I doubt it. The berniebots hate Trump. You can't make the rebels lkke Vader just because he's Luke's father.I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.
He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
I doubt it. The berniebots hate Trump. You can't make the rebels lkke Vader just because he's Luke's father.I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.
He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
That scares me.I doubt it. The berniebots hate Trump. You can't make the rebels lkke Vader just because he's Luke's father.I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.
He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
You seriously underestimate how much Berniebots hate Hillary. I've seen countless Bernie supporters claim they would rather vote for Trump than Hillary. And even if we ignore the young Reddit crowd, it's undeniable that Trump supporters and Bernie supporters are largely intersectional - they both consist largely of anti-establishment libertarians. It's very likely that many of them will switch over to Trump, even if they disagree with his tone or policies.
How can Cruz have a "secret society" behind him if you know and post about it?
Cruz has behind him a very powerful secret society, which could have helped him to have performed much better in the NE, but chose not to
Shandokhan knows everything.How can Cruz have a "secret society" behind him if you know and post about it?
Cruz has behind him a very powerful secret society, which could have helped him to have performed much better in the NE, but chose not to
It is very easy to discern which secret societies are behind Cruz or Trump: look at their hand signs, and also decipher the following quotes:
Tonight Iowa has proclaimed to the world: morning is coming
T. Cruz
Donald is not going to make America great, he's going to make America orange
M. Rubio
They're better off playing nice with Trump so he's more controllable and picks a conservative SCOTUS if elected.
What you are implying is that the GOP had no way to control Trump, or to predict what was going to happen, and that Cruz is running a false campaign.
Or that they will accept the potential loss of both the Senate and the House in November, just to play nice to Trump.
Or that they do not know that nine out of ten hispanics view Trump unfavorably.
Trump's promises/foreign policy run contrary to everything the GOP has stood for in the past twenty years or so.
This is the reason why I think something else is going on, an unfolding of events which will become clearer the closer we get to November.
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)
Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8. Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.
Unless I'm mistaken, the founding fathers originally had the Articles of Confederation which was too weak to keep a federal government intact or useful. So pardon me for not giving 18th century people fresh from revolution absolute faith in their ability to plan for 200 years in the future.The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)
Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8. Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.
The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many time. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.
I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
David Duke did endorse Trump, that is a fact.
Unless I'm mistaken, the founding fathers originally had the Articles of Confederation which was too weak to keep a federal government intact or useful. So pardon me for not giving 18th century people fresh from revolution absolute faith in their ability to plan for 200 years in the future.The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)
Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8. Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.
The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many times. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.
I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
Unless I'm mistaken, the founding fathers originally had the Articles of Confederation which was too weak to keep a federal government intact or useful. So pardon me for not giving 18th century people fresh from revolution absolute faith in their ability to plan for 200 years in the future.The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)
Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8. Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.
The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many times. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.
I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
You need to go back and do some research on the reason for the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were indeed weak. They allowed the States to do things to each other that would over time have destroyed the United States and the reason the Senate and House were elected by TWO different election processes. The CA also did not protect the citizens form the government. The Constitution does, or did, until people started saying it said things it doesn't and ignoring what the writers said it meant.
Then there is the cherry picking of what to support and why. The out of context of Jefferson's "Separation of Church and State," quoted by the anti-religious. Far to many people believe the phrase is actually part of the Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment. But if you quote Jefferson on the Right to bear arms, those same leftist will scream he was a racist slave owner and his words are from Satan himself. And God help anyone that points out Jefferson attempted to end slavery with 2nd Continental Congress, and later in Va House of Burgess and as POTUS. On that the left says ALL the history books are wrong.
The real problem is we don't, and have not for a long time, teach our own history. We spend our time examining their warts, instead of what they accomplished, then use those warts to mangle our laws into something we want.
I want to know how this fits into sandokhan's calculations
I want to know how this fits into sandokhan's calculations
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.??? ??? ??? ??? ???
I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.
But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.??? ??? ??? ??? ???
I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.
But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.??? ??? ??? ??? ???
I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.
But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Crooked Hilary and lying Ted will bow before the God-Emperor.
Trump's "campaign" thus far is a publicity stunt, not an attempt for political office. Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing.
That said, Hillary Clinton looks like the best likely candidate. As great as Bernie would be, it's not realistic to expect him to win a general election.
Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were. I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.
No, I was mostly commenting on how your message doesn't consist of a single coherent sentence. Originally I hoped you're just spamming copypasta, but that doesn't seem to be the case.Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.??? ??? ??? ??? ???
I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.
But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Maybe they support The Serial Liar or Can't Count.
Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were. I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.lol you're still trying.
Shrug it off and move on.If only he were capable.
No, I was mostly commenting on how your message doesn't consist of a single coherent sentence. Originally I hoped you're just spamming copypasta, but that doesn't seem to be the case.Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.??? ??? ??? ??? ???
I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.
But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Maybe they support The Serial Liar or Can't Count.Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were. I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.lol you're still trying.
Saddam. It's okay. You were wrong. We were right. It's not a big deal. It's a thing that happens. You don't have to keep defending yourself every time something doesn't go your way. Shrug it off and move on.
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
XD. Classic!Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
Archived for later commemoration in the meme history of FES
Except for my naming Clinton Serial Liar and Sanders Can't Count. what I posted is clear. Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?Sigh, okay, let's go through your post step by step:
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders."Can Count Sanders"? What can he count? Why is that an insult?
That tells me was not going along to get along.What? "That tells me not going along to along"? Are you trying to say something along the lines of "That tells me he was not going to get along with the Republican establishment"?
that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people."That are will stand castrate the opposition"? Look, I'm not1 going to bash you for not speaking English as a first language, but please try to proofread your posts before publishing them.
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?Sig'd. That was too good.
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...
I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...
I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???
And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...
I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???
And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?
That is a direct response to Round Fact's statement. I didn't imply any kind of refutation of any argument, merely asked a question. Please learn what a straw man is before throwing around accusations.
"Can Count Sanders"? What can he count? Why is that an insult
What? "That tells me not going along to along"? Are you trying to say something along the lines of "That tells me he was not going to get along with the Republican establishment"
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281556-trump-decides-he-wont-debate-bernie-sanders
It's a shame he back-tracked but such is life.
Not a good move by the Don. Probably the first real blunder in his campaign.
Or maybe south Korea will actually start paying more for their own protection.Maybe!
If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't. South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?
If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't. South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?
Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US
If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't. South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?
Are you asking if I think the USA should withdraw from South Korea? If so, then not really, I would rather they get more stakeholders in the region to take lead on it though.
Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US
if us foreign policy ever becomes this shortsighted, then the joke will definitely be on us
Are you agreeing now that China is an enemy of the US? North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!" The world has gone so upside down that the FES leftists are now arguing for unadulterated military spending.
North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!"
The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.
so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?
North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!"The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.
ruminate on this one for a bit.so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?
the big deal is that we stand to gain very little and lose a great deal. at best we recoup maybe $2 billion. the us spends like $3,000 billion/year. also how are we going to force seoul to 'foot the entire bill'? what if they say no? we bail?
Hmm, your argument is that we shouldn't attempt to save money anywhere because we spend lots of money everywhere. Good one.
Also, you might want to further explain your points. If you want just quote me and say "ruminate on this" I'm going to assume you have no worthwhile argument.
keep misconstruing my argument if you like. you are manufacturing some good zingers. my argument was that the opportunity-cost to abandoning the korean peninsula is probably greater than saving 0.06% of yearly spending. i know you're smart enough to understand fractions.
"seoul is an invaluable financial and political asset for the us. guaranteeing its security is a no-brainer. there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the best way to go about that, but that conversation will never involve trump, a candidate serially committed to not being even remotely interested in whether or not the things he's saying are true."
i don't really give a shit that he wants to change our foreign policy toward south korea. i care that he has any clue at all what our foreign policy toward south korea currently is, and i care that he's completely willing to pretend that he does without any apparent self-motivation to fill those gaps in his knowledge. he just says a bunch of shit that isn't true, gets corrected, says a bunch of new shit that isn't true, gets corrected again, and on and on and on. but whatever as long as it's super populist and angry then that's cool.
you started by saying that north korea is a joke, and no one could support the argument that we stay because north korea is a threat, and then ended by saying that North Korea is an existential threat to Seoul. i dunno how to reconcile those two things.
"It's just a few billion dollars, man, no big deal." If we look at every budget constraint and say "well, gee, it's only 0.06% of the budget" then surprise! The budget never changes and we go into debt.
North Korea is theoretically an existential threat, yes, in the same way that China, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, UK, etc. are also existential threats to the world. North Korea could vaporize all of its neighbors. However, the DPRK is not verging on a murder-suicide, no matter how many times you read about it on whatever garbage it is you get your news from. They are a joke and do not warrant the absolute waste of human and materiel resources in the country.
you're still misunderstanding my argument. i'm not saying that any amount of spending on anything is fine. i'm saying that the net value of this spending is positive because it secures our access to an economic asset that is worth more to our budget than we spend to secure it.
russia != threat therefore dprk != threat that's probably right
TheThorkIsOnHere
Gaddafi was only "all of a sudden" a bad guy to people who were weren't paying to world affairs and/or didn't know their history. He was very bad news and had been for many years.
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab
Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab
Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.
I was agreeing with you, retart.
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab
Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.
I was agreeing with you, retart.
Oh. muh bad
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab
Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.
I was agreeing with you, retart.
Oh. muh bad
There's actually a lot of people who believe the Arab Springs were a direct result of covert American influence. Basically a destabilization of the region, because it doesn't really matter to US Policy who is in control, as long as there is civil war and unrest intermittently.
The net impact of the actual money being sent to South Korea is extremely small (going in line with you noting it's only a few billion!) North Korea isn't staying out of South Korea just because the US has people there, since they could easily kill all of those people. North Korea is staying out of South Korea because North Korea knows North Korea will stop existing if they ever do happen to invade South Korea.
The world avoids North Korea because it is a political disaster, not a military threat.
Russia is much more of a threat than DPRK is. Russia could theoretically strike out at other nations and still remain a stable nation. You seem to have swallowed some fantastical "North Korean bogeyman" garbage.
russia is an ally.
let's hope that the dprk always assesses the situation exactly as you do from your armchair in tennessee or whatever. i can't think of any conflicts that ignited over miscalculations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Course_of_the_war), or the ideological obsessions of dictators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), or random and unpredictable events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Sarajevo_assassination), or some other nonsense altogether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait)...can you?
so now we're on to russia = threat therefore dprk != threat? awesome. hey dummy: there two things aren't related. our foreign policy toward russia doesn't have to be the same as our foreign policy toward north korea. they probably shouldn't be, since, again, russia is an ally.
south korea is also an ally, and a valuable one at that. we probably shouldn't follow trump's advice to extort them to save a measly 0.06% of our budget. that's dumb. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/with-trump-the-united-states-would-be-a-weaker-power/article29959459/)
All of those events were perpetrated by countries that had reasonable chances of winning the war. If the DPRK attack South Korea, everyone loses, regardless of how many billions or even trillions of dollars we put into South Korea.
What is your argument at this point? Do you believe that an American base in South Korea makes a crazy, unpredictable DPRK less likely to nuke Seoul?
china and russia and the dprk
right. events that were beyond their control motivated them to start wars they thought they could win, even though at least 2 of those conflicts (both germanys) were almost certainly completely un-winnable by the instigators and lacked internal consensus that war was the appropriate course of action.
your whole argument rests on the bizarre premise that kim jong un and the dprk are always going to assess things the way you do and could never be motivated by irrationality or external forces. that's asinine.
my argument is that trump is a retard with a retard proposal to extort our allies our of some petty cash, and no one should take seriously the inane ramblings of someone who isn't even really interested in learning who pays for what, or what we get in return, or any other fact that will impede on his bloviating on what an idiot everyone else is. it's actually kinda beautiful in its way.
i think it's exceedingly unlikely that north korea will ever nuke anyone. but yeah, nuking us soldiers is obviously going to elicit a stronger response from the us than nuking south korean soldiers. it's more about deterring conventional conflict. we deter north korea, but also we exert control over south korean forces that are also capable of starting a conflict. as a bonus, we get to deter north korea from conflicts with other neighbors besides south korea simply by having a strong presence in the region and establishing those neighbors as us interests.
i'm loving this. keep going. i only want to hear more about how comparable our relationships with russia and china are to the dprk.
fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies. if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk, even confined solely to the subject of "let's not war with each other," then you're hopeless.
i don't even get why we're talking about russia and china since i don't think i ever said anything like "anyone with a strong military force or nuclear weapons requires a us military presence as close to them as possible no matter what the cost." i mean, you keep pretending that i do, but i've not actually said anything like that.
A rational actor would not attack South Korea at all.if you would take the time to actually read the content of my posts, you'd find that this is the statement i've been disagreeing with for 2 pages now. rational people can disagree about things. rational people can make miscalculations. rational people can be influenced by emotions, ideology, appeals to concepts like justice/retaliation/whatever, etc. your argument rests on the idea that all rational people see the the same way: the way you see them. that's not an argument; it's just ego.
An irrational actor would attack South Korea regardless of US presence. Tell me, what exactly is the US presence supposed to be doing if Kim Jong-un is just a nutter who is willing to get himself and his country destroyed regardless of the consequences?here's a scenario: without a us presence on the peninsula, the dprk could be more emboldened to attack more south korean ships with sub attacks, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) or plant more landmines on the sk side of the border (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/world/asia/north-korea-placed-mines-that-maimed-2-south-korean-soldiers-at-dmz-seoul-says.html), or whatever. i mean i know a rational actor would not attack south korea at all lol, but setting that aside, suppose south korea gets all pissy and finally decides to hulk out on north korea. so they get into a bunch of shit, and north korea goes all guerrilla war, and then maybe china or russia or both decide to start materially aiding the dprk and the peninsula is now up to its dick in a new korean war. or something along those lines.
Asking people to pay for a service provided isn't extortion. Other countries can afford extravagant social and education programs because a completely different country is absorbing their defense costs. It's time they pay up a few billion dollars at a time. I mean, it's just "petty cash," right?right. compared to our budget, it's small change. sk isn't fueling their university system by saving $2bln on military expenses, and our healthcare system isn't $2bln away from being top of its class. so imagine the audacity of actually phoning up an ally and saying, "give us $2bln or we're going to take our security forces and go home." forget about the utility of the troops: it's just a fucked up thing to do to a nation we call friends. we've promised to guarantee their security, and keeping us troops there is as much about the gesture as it is anything else. it signals to both koreas that we are serious about protecting these allies, a signal that probably could have prevented the first korean war. that was a HUGE contributing factor of the first korean war: sung incorrectly perceived the us to be uninterested in supporting the south because of ambiguous and often downright misleading signaling by the us.
Oh, please. This is just embarrassing.
We'd "cooperate" with North Korea too, if they actually had anything worth having.
if you would take the time to actually read the content of my posts, you'd find that this is the statement i've been disagreeing with for 2 pages now. rational people can disagree about things. rational people can make miscalculations. rational people can be influenced by emotions, ideology, appeals to concepts like justice/retaliation/whatever, etc. your argument rests on the idea that all rational people see the the same way: the way you see them. that's not an argument; it's just ego.
please stop pretending that all rational people always agree with each other about what is most rational. how do you not realize that the implication of that belief is that everyone who disagrees with you is either crazy or just trying to annoy you?
here's a scenario: without a us presence on the peninsula, the dprk could be more emboldened to attack more south korean ships with sub attacks, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) or plant more landmines on the sk side of the border (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/world/asia/north-korea-placed-mines-that-maimed-2-south-korean-soldiers-at-dmz-seoul-says.html), or whatever. i mean i know a rational actor would not attack south korea at all lol, but setting that aside, suppose south korea gets all pissy and finally decides to hulk out on north korea. so they get into a bunch of shit, and north korea goes all guerrilla war, and then maybe china or russia or both decide to start materially aiding the dprk and the peninsula is now up to its dick in a new korean war. or something along those lines.
to be clear, i'm not saying that absolutely 100% would definitely happen in exactly that manner, but it's obviously not hard to think of some scenarios in which a us military presence would be a useful means of de-escalating south korea from going to war. sunk warships are exactly the kind of event that causes otherwise "rational actors" to make less-than-optimal decisions.
if anything, suddenly bailing from the peninsula makes such miscalculations more likely.
I'm not sure why i should be embarrassed to say that russia and the dprk are qualitatively different and do not require identical foreign policies. i still don't get what russia has to do with whether or not the dprk is a threat to seoul. ffs the dprk doesn't even have a 'let's try not to nuke each other hotline.' (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/world/asia/north-korea-shuts-last-remaining-hotline-to-south.html) they don't cooperate on arms control at all. they regularly threaten to destroy south korea and the us. they semi-regularly attack and kill south korean military personnel. we don't trade with them and we actively try to stop them from trading with others. they're ruled by a dictator with nearly absolute authority. the list goes on and on...
You guys are arguing over US foreign policy like ANY of it makes sense to begin with. We have done little with our foreign "aid" packages, military presence, covert and overt influences, regime change etc than alienate ourselves from the rest of the World.
By projecting the idea that we know what's good for each and every country and unique culture better than they do, actively undermining sovereignty on a global scale, we've made begrudged allies who would be enemies if they weren't basically reliant on our money. Look at Saudi Arabia... our so called biggest ally in the middle east, let's pretend 911 wasn't a conspiracy, the so called hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is literally no difference between Saudi ideology and ISIS ideology. We pay Islamic Rebels to fight Syria, while simultaneously fighting Islamic Rebels in Iraq. We overthrow Giddafi and let extremists fight over control of Libya. We are allies with Turkey who are actively fighting our main ally in the fight for Iraq, the Kurds.
Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.
Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
russia is an allyWhose? ???
russia is an allyWhose? ???
(The correct answer is India, China, Belarus, Iran, Syria)
You guys are arguing over US foreign policy like ANY of it makes sense to begin with. We have done little with our foreign "aid" packages, military presence, covert and overt influences, regime change etc than alienate ourselves from the rest of the World.
By projecting the idea that we know what's good for each and every country and unique culture better than they do, actively undermining sovereignty on a global scale, we've made begrudged allies who would be enemies if they weren't basically reliant on our money. Look at Saudi Arabia... our so called biggest ally in the middle east, let's pretend 911 wasn't a conspiracy, the so called hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is literally no difference between Saudi ideology and ISIS ideology. We pay Islamic Rebels to fight Syria, while simultaneously fighting Islamic Rebels in Iraq. We overthrow Giddafi and let extremists fight over control of Libya. We are allies with Turkey who are actively fighting our main ally in the fight for Iraq, the Kurds.
Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.
Now here is a thing, Truthy; I agree with every word you say through the whole post, never thought that would happen, damn!
Quote from: Yes, MinisterSir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Simply replace 'Europe' with 'World' and 'Britain' with 'America'
and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies. if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."Oh, hey, I missed that bit. Then again, it's just as wrong as your original claim so I'm not sure what the point is.
and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies. if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."Oh, hey, I missed that bit. Then again, it's just as wrong as your original claim so I'm not sure what the point is.
Referring to your homeland's biggest adversaries as "not technically allies" is not strictly inaccurate, but it's a choice of words even Fox News would approach with caution.
Countries which actively oppose and try to destabilise the west can be compared. Just because some of them are strong enough to actually be taken seriously doesn't mean that's no longer true.
If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. I too would feel that way if an actual Hitler came to power in this country. I would join the resistance and try to take out the Hitler-like leader. You should do the same. No one wants an actual President Hitler.
Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs
Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs
i genuinely love how strongly trump's rhetorical tactics have influenced your own.
Also, Trump bears no responsibility for any violence at his rallies, despite his repeated calls for his followers to use force against people who shouldn't be there and his promise that he'll pay any legal bills they accrue; however, it's totally the fault of Hillary and the media when some guy tries to assassinate Trump. Very consistent.
Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs
i genuinely love how strongly trump's rhetorical tactics have influenced your own.
Hmm, or maybe it's possible that they're violent nutjobs. Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.
Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans. Trump has accrued five shutdowns so far. "Trump says we're violent, dangerous, and should be deported. Let's show him who's boss by being violent and dangerous!"
Not all of Trump's rallies were shutdown by violence, some of them were shutdown because he was scared there would be violence (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4846.msg99216#msg99216). Is a leader who is scared of breaking a few eggs really going to make America great again?
Not all of Trump's rallies were shutdown by violence, some of them were shutdown because he was scared there would be violence (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4846.msg99216#msg99216). Is a leader who is scared of breaking a few eggs really going to make America great again?
"Not all of them were shutdown by violence, some were shut down just by the threat of violence!"
Am I in some kind of parody universe?
Hmm, or maybe it's possible that they're violent nutjobs.
Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.
Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.
Weird how leftists think a presidential candidate shouldn't be concerned about the safety of his supporters
Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.
lol maybe do a single google search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots) before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."
Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.
it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. (http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trump-supporters-pepper-spraying-prote-1780399845)
nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.
Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.
lol maybe do a single google search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots) before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."
Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him. Saying "yeah, but they wanted to kill him" would be illogical, because then we'd have to start counting Facebook comments as assassination attempts. Good one.
Why don't Hillary or Bernie face repeated assassination attempts? Ah, that's right, they're the ones that are violent.
Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.
it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. (http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trump-supporters-pepper-spraying-prote-1780399845)
nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.
This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct, that instead of just conceding and saying "Yes, Rushy, Bernie or Hillary have never had a right-wing group shut down their rally by threatening violence or actually assaulting attendees" you pick the strawman route and say "but look! look these Trump supporters were pepper spraying protesters that were yelling in their face
and assaulting other people!"
I know right? It's like counting the threat of violence as violence! LOL that would be dumb.
Hillary and Bernie are encouraging democrats to assassinate Trump? Man, this campaign is getting dir-tay.
So wait, Trump supporters are pepper-spraying democrats, yet its only the democrats you are violent? Yes, you are living in a parody universe, and are starring in the show.
NOT YELLING IN THEIR FACE! THOSE ANIMALS!
If you read the entire article you would notice that in this case, the Trump supporters were clearly the instigators in this case. Can you get off your high horse, or is too far to fall?
Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him.
Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?
This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct
Trump’s entire personal and professional history is Obama-esque: When it serves his interests, Trump lies. He has lied to business associates, employees, friends, spouses, and now to millions of prospective voters. Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself. When it becomes expedient for Trump to lie, he will.
So you do blame Hillary and the media for people trying to assassinate Trump, while simultaneously insisting that Trump bears zero responsibility for the violence at his rallies that he openly calls for and encourages?
- A plot in Tennessee involved two white supremacists, Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart, who planned to drive their car toward the Democratic nominee Obama and open fire with guns. They were arrested on October 22, 2008, before taking any action. Schlesselman and Cowart pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the threat in 2010 and were sentenced to 10 and 14 years in prison, respectively.
- In November 2011, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a man who believed he was Jesus and that Obama was the Antichrist, hit the White House with several rounds fired from a semi-automatic rifle. No one was injured. However, a window was broken.
- Another attempt was made in April 2013 when a letter laced with ricin, a deadly poison, was sent to President Obama.
this is literally exactly what trump does. you say something absurd, like, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do," don't back it up with any evidence, and then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you just define your way out of the argument. you're about to do it again right now by coming up with some convoluted reasons why the attempts on obama and clinton, for instance, don't count.
protip: combining shitty inductive reasoning with confirmation bias makes your argument worse, not better.
so just to be clear, "Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs," and trump supporters are not, but only if we count the times that someone decided to cancel a rally? if your argument is that trump's opposition are "generally violent" nutjobs, in apparent contrast to trump supporters, then i feel like examples of trump supporters being violent are pretty apropos. but, again, if you want to just define yourself as correct without regard to reality, then i certainly can't stop you.
hey dummy: if it's only the times that a rally gets canceled that count, then you now have five total examples of 'trump's opposition' being violent. wow how general. shitty inductive reasoning is shitty.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/chronicling-donald-trumps-lies/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/24/Donald-Trump-s-8-Most-Recent-Blatant-Lies
http://www.ibtimes.com/list-donald-trump-lies-10-claims-gop-front-runner-immigration-muslims-kkk-dont-hold-2330265
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?
"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"
Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"
lol
And just calling the websites that fact-check Trump liars isn't much of a defense when they provide the facts and explain their reasoning alongside their judgments. I'll grant that Politifact does have a tendency to use weasel words and make some very subjective calls, but there's no doubt that Trump has told some absolutely outrageous lies. Claims like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/03/donald-trump/donald-trumps-ridiculous-claim-linking-ted-cruzs-f/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/), and this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/06/donald-trump/trump-mexican-government-they-send-bad-ones-over/) are jaw-dropping in their audacity, and go far beyond whatever fibs about which emails were sent from where that Hillary may have been telling. If Trump is willing to lie so blatantly - and stick to his story even when the rest of the world contradicts him - who knows what fabrications he'll come up with once he's in the Oval Office?
It's funny that you've now managed to make this about Obama without investigating my base statement that Republicans face more assassination attempts than Democrats. I'm waiting for you to count them up.you said, "Take Obama, for example...", so i did. your original statement was, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do." but it turns out that "Assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States have been numerous: more than 20 attempts to kill sitting and former presidents, as well as the Presidents-elect, are known," and that, "With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."
Once again you can't even manage to admit basic truths, then you turn around and complain about me and making personal attacks. I can see you may very well be one of those violent people I mentioned. If you don't understand the difference between hundreds to thousands of people attacking and shutting down rallies versus "yeah, but that one Trump supporter used pepper spray!" then I have bad news.i think your reasoning is shitty and asinine, so i may very well be violent? what?
Media sites are pretty useless when they're all trying to peddle lies.so the liberal sources are unreliable because they're liberal, regardless of the actual content, and conservative sources are unreliable because i personally sometimes disagree with other material they've written on other topics. oh, and the centrist outlets are unreliable in general because they're news outlets. lol.
you said, "Take Obama, for example...", so i did. your original statement was, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do." but it turns out that "Assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States have been numerous: more than 20 attempts to kill sitting and former presidents, as well as the Presidents-elect, are known," and that, "With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."
but by all means, you probably have a special way of counting that excludes the attempts on democratic politicians, so do some counting for me.
i think your reasoning is shitty and asinine, so i may very well be violent? what?
if it wasn't obvious, i don't think that i just magically happened to find the one trump supporter who was ever violent with a protestor at a rally. not really sure what i'm supposed to admit to since i'm not the one suggesting that violence is a tendency reserved only to one political party. that's your asinine position. i think it all counts.
this is the fucked up position you put yourself in by getting drawn into 'good guy v bad guys' political demagoguery. this will shock you to hear, but awareness of the basic fact that there are definitely violent and provocative trump supporters doesn't preclude me from awareness of violent trump protestors.
so the liberal sources are unreliable because they're liberal, regardless of the actual content, and conservative sources are unreliable because i personally sometimes disagree with other material they've written on other topics. oh, and the centrist outlets are unreliable in general because they're news outlets. lol.
so you're officially on the side of 'everyone else is a liar.' srsly you're like a little trump acolyte or something. it's almost adorable.
Hmm, I get that feeling you still haven't counted, though."With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."
I never once said all Trump supporters are peaceful monks and all anti-Trump's are violent, but anti-Trumps do tend to generally be more violent. An awful lot of people thought that assassination attempt was praise worthy.
The vast majority of media pushes an outright false narrative and outright lies right in their articles. They even go as far as using ridiculous images to prove their point (but the videos those images are from never make it to the article, how convenient!). You should be examining yourself, for example, since you've been driven to post links to The Blaze of all places. That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?
A death threat and an assassination attempt are two entirely different things...Hmm, I get that feeling you still haven't counted, though."With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."
do you want me to count for you the number of republicans and democrats who have been in office sine john f kennedy? is that going to be helpful in some way? ok. including jfk i count 4 democrats and 5 republicans. oh wow, the disparity...
i think one of the places where trump supporters spend time not being peaceful monks is at political rallies. again, maybe i just happened to find the sole example of a trump supporter instigating violence at a political rally, but i kinda doubt it. i think it's more likely that trump supporters at rallies are also agitated and instigative. you can keep asserting that no no no they really are generally more violent, but just saying a thing doesn't make it so.You've obviously ignoring the exact same thing that happens when a Trump supporter gets anywhere near any kind of "progressive (repressive)" rally. They get attacked and their sign gets torn up. Let's just admit, through intentional divisiveness, the American political process has created a bunch of crazed violent idiots who are incapable of reacting to a different opinion with anything but anger.
The vast majority of media pushes an outright false narrative and outright lies right in their articles. They even go as far as using ridiculous images to prove their point (but the videos those images are from never make it to the article, how convenient!). You should be examining yourself, for example, since you've been driven to post links to The Blaze of all places. That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?
right, everyone's a liar but you and your buddy. i mean, the facts and sources to support those claims are laid out right in front of you, but those are all probably lies, too, right? very sophisticated reasoning. everyone's a dumb liar but you. how convenient.
no, it doesn't strike me as strange to substantiate my argument with literature from both sides of the political isle. it was intentional. i think that makes my position stronger and more credible, not less. that was the whole point of collecting sources from the left, right, and center.
the national review already said it best for me: "Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself." i would add to that list anyone who thinks trump hasn't lied to them already. a lot. as a matter of course.
do you want me to count for you the number of republicans and democrats who have been in office sine john f kennedy? is that going to be helpful in some way? ok. including jfk i count 4 democrats and 5 republicans. oh wow, the disparity...
i think one of the places where trump supporters spend time not being peaceful monks is at political rallies. again, maybe i just happened to find the sole example of a trump supporter instigating violence at a political rally, but i kinda doubt it. i think it's more likely that trump supporters at rallies are also agitated and instigative. you can keep asserting that no no no they really are generally more violent, but just saying a thing doesn't make it so.
right, everyone's a liar but you and your buddy. i mean, the facts and sources to support those claims are laid out right in front of you, but those are all probably lies, too, right? very sophisticated reasoning. everyone's a dumb liar but you. how convenient.
no, it doesn't strike me as strange to substantiate my argument with literature from both sides of the political isle. it was intentional. i think that makes my position stronger and more credible, not less. that was the whole point of collecting sources from the left, right, and center.
the national review already said it best for me: "Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself." i would add to that list anyone who thinks trump hasn't lied to them already. a lot. as a matter of course.
If you have a response, please feel free to formulate it. Since you haven't made an argument, I can't even pick a Current Year(tm) for your statement to work.and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies. if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."Oh, hey, I missed that bit. Then again, it's just as wrong as your original claim so I'm not sure what the point is.
Referring to your homeland's biggest adversaries as "not technically allies" is not strictly inaccurate, but it's a choice of words even Fox News would approach with caution.
Countries which actively oppose and try to destabilise the west can be compared. Just because some of them are strong enough to actually be taken seriously doesn't mean that's no longer true.
what you're saying would make perfect sense in 1985
You've obviously ignoring the exact same thing that happens when a Trump supporter gets anywhere near any kind of "progressive (repressive)" rally. They get attacked and their sign gets torn up. Let's just admit, through intentional divisiveness, the American political process has created a bunch of crazed violent idiots who are incapable of reacting to a different opinion with anything but anger.
Breaking News: Politicians LIE!
Also just in: The media can twist the truth to whatever narrative they want to!
I believe you are allowing your personal feelings get invested entirely too much into this debate. It's obvious you are coming from an emotional point of view and Rushy seems to be coming from a logical point of view. I have to admit, I mentioned earlier in this thread about how Trump was a racist, narcissist etc, and since I have realized that I actually allowed the media to influence this opinion, and upon further inspection determined it is not much more than false narratives supported by 5-10 second sound bytes meant to undermine an independent bid for the presidency. Yes, he's still an out of touch asshole. But he isn't Hitler. Hillary no doubt has about infinity % more blood on her hands than Trump does, and considerably less credibility than he does, and that's not up for debate.
Wow, you made this entire argument against a point that was already correct, so instead of going straight for saying "well, that's correct, but..." you argued that it wasn't correct. This makes it pretty obvious that you didn't even bother checking whether or not you were correct in the first place.
Hmm, it's almost like having a bunch of protesters show up punching people in the face, you get people who retaliate. Find me violence at a Trump rally that doesn't involve an anti-Trump. I'll save you the trouble and let you know that such an event doesn't exist. Your argument is bogus and you know it. You don't get to claim Trump supporters are violent and mean by citing all the incidents of Trump supporters defending themselves against the anti-Trumps.
You'll judge the how trustworthy something is by what side its on (e.g. your "both sides of the isle" comment). Your conclusion is that because The Blaze is well known for lying --but-- its a well known right-wing source of lying, that they couldn't possibly do something like spin lies around Trump. That's hilarious.
[If you have a response, please feel free to formulate it. Since you haven't made an argument, I can't even pick a Current Year(tm) for your statement to work.
every president faces assassination threats and plots. that makes you wrong, not right.
lol you obviously didn't actually read the link i posted. i get it, though, it came from a news outlet so it was probably bullshit anyway. yeah these guys smiling and spraying the pepper spray and taking photos of it look super terrified and assaulted:
i genuinely don't understand what you mean by this. i do not judge the trustworthiness of a news source according to its politics. you seem to, and that's why i included sources from left, right, and center; i haven't said anything at all about the blaze being well-known for lying. i haven't said anything at all about the blaze before, i don't think. don't like the blaze? read the other sources, then. i'm partial to the national review article and the washington post thing, myself.
actually fair enough, 1985 was mostly denouement, but the point is that i wildly disagree with your description of us-russian relations, and the comparison you and rushy draw between russia and the dprk would only maybe make sense if we were living in the height of the cold war. but we're not, so it isn't.Okay, so your argument is "no u". 10/10
there are significant qualitative differences, the most obvious of which are things like red phones, arms control agreements, lots of trade, neither being run by a dictator with absolute control over a brainwashed and isolated population, a lack of ideological predisposition toward annihilate the other, etc.Oh, okay, so you don't know much about
either way, what difference does it make? let's suppose you're right and russia is a huge threat. what does one have to do with the other? i'm not making any argument about what foreign policy toward russia is or isn't good. my argument was that 1) i don't think trump should have anything to do with directing foreign policy toward the peninsula, and 2) our current foreign policy there is reasonably sound.Yes, and we were explaining to you why you're wrong using examples which we (or, well, I) had hoped would be more familiar to you. It's difficult because you're apparently in denial not only about the situation between the US and North Korea, but also about the situation between the US and Russia - what with your frantic jumping between calling them ALLIES (I'm honestly not over that), calling them uhh-not-enemies-I-guess, randomly and incorrectly invoking history, etc.; all that just to avoid responding to an argument. I guess we could try again with, oh, I dunno, ISIS, but that'd probably end up going the same way. "History ain't history and current events ain't current events so ha!!!!!"
"No secretary of state has been more wrong, more often, in more places, than Hillary Clinton," he said. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."
Yes, and we were explaining to you why you're wrong using examples which we (or, well, I) had hoped would be more familiar to you. It's difficult because you're apparently in denial not only about the situation between the US and North Korea, but also about the situation between the US and Russiarushy asserted that since i think the dprk is a threat then i must think russia is a threat. let's assume you're both right that russia is a threat. what does that have to with the net-benefits of maintaining a military base in south korea?
what with your frantic jumping between calling them ALLIES (I'm honestly not over that), calling them uhh-not-enemies-I-guess, randomly and incorrectly invoking history, etc.; all that just to avoid responding to an argument.indeed, allies was the wrong word, and although i wouldn't call immediately admitting that i was incorrect "frantic," i agree, again, that it is the wrong word to use to describe our relationship with russia. feel free to strike that sentence from my reasoning, because it is incorrect.
So if the Russian state were nothing more than an extension of Putin, how would one explain the reckless decision to invade and annex Crimea in 2014 or the risky military intervention in Syria that Russia launched last year? If Russia were a pure autocracy, such actions would suggest a leader with a personality like Stalin’s or Mussolini’s. But there are no evil geniuses in the Kremlin today. Rather, powerful figures such as Sergei Ivanov, Putin’s chief of staff; Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s chief adviser on political strategy; and even Putin himself are more akin to experienced, competent bureaucrats, generally able to exercise administrative control, even if they act mostly in their own interest.
The reality, as attested by the past two years of chaos, is that despite his image as an all-powerful tsar, Putin has never managed to build a bureaucratically successful authoritarian state. Instead, he has merely crafted his own version of sistema, a complex practice of decision-making and power management that has long defined Russian politics and society and that will outlast Putin himself. Putin has mastered sistema, but he has not replaced it with “Putinism” or a “Putin system.” Someday, Putin will go. But sistema will stay.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are safe, however, even if they do not feel that way: the Kremlin has no interest in risking nuclear war by attacking a nato member state, and the sphere of Russian control to which Putin aspires certainly excludes these countries. At the same time that Russia is rebuilding its military, nato is ramping up its own military presence in eastern Europe. The result will likely be a new and open-ended military standoff. Unlike during the Cold War, however, there is little prospect for arms control agreements between Russia and the West anytime soon because of the many disparities in their conventional military capabilities. Indeed, the Russian armed forces are unlikely to become as powerful as the U.S. military or threaten a nato member state with a massive invasion even in the long term. Although Moscow seeks to remain a major player
on the international stage, Russian leaders have abandoned Soviet-era ambitions of global domination and retain bad memories of the Cold War–
era arms race, which fatally weakened the Soviet Union.
What is more, Russia’s resources are far more limited than those of the United States: its struggling economy is nowhere near the size of the U.S. economy, and its aging population is less than half as large as the U.S. population. The Russian defense industry, having barely survived two decades of neglect and decay, faces a shrinking work force, weaknesses in key areas such as electronics, and the loss of traditional suppliers such as Ukraine.
Although Russia’s military expenditures equaled 4.2 percent of gdp in 2015, the country cannot bear such high costs much longer without cutting back on essential domestic needs, particularly in the absence of robust economic growth. For now, even under the constraints of low energy prices and Western sanctions, Russian officials have pledged to continue the military modernization, albeit at a slightly slower pace than was originally planned.
Putin and other Russian officials understand that Russia’s future, and their own, depends mostly on how ordinary citizens feel. Just as the annexation of Crimea was an exercise in historic justice for most of the Russian public, high defense spending will be popular so long as Russian citizens believe that it is warranted by their country’s international position. So far, that seems to be the case. The modernization program could become a problem, however, if it demands major cuts to social spending and produces a sharp drop in living standards. The Russian people are famously resilient, but unless the Kremlin finds a way to rebuild the economy and provide better governance in the next four or five years, the social contract at the foundation of the country’s political system could unravel. Public sentiment is not a trivial matter in this respect: Russia is an autocracy, but it is an autocracy with the consent of the governed.
The cease-fire represents the second time that the Russians and the Americans have unexpectedly and successful cooperated in Syria, where the civil war has pitted Moscow (which acts as the primary protector and patron of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad) against Washington (which has called for an end to Assad’s rule). In 2013, Russia and the United States agreed on a plan to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons, with the Assad regime’s assent. Few believed that arrangement would work either, but it did.
These moments of cooperation highlight the fact that, although the world order has changed beyond recognition during the past 25 years and is no longer defined by a rivalry between two competing superpowers, it remains the case that when an acute international crisis breaks out, Russia and the United States are often the only actors able to resolve it. Rising powers, international institutions, and regional organizations frequently cannot do anything—or don’t want to. What is more, despite Moscow’s and Washington’s expressions of hostility and contempt for each other, when it comes to shared interests and common threats, the two powers are still able to work reasonably well together.
And yet, it’s important to note that these types of constructive interactions on discrete issues have not changed the overall relationship, which remains troubled[...]
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483085166/donald-trump-clinton-is-the-most-corrupt-person-ever-to-run-for-presidentQuote"No secretary of state has been more wrong, more often, in more places, than Hillary Clinton," he said. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."
Trump is trying to get people to assassinate Hillary. How dare he.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483085166/donald-trump-clinton-is-the-most-corrupt-person-ever-to-run-for-presidentQuote"No secretary of state has been more wrong, more often, in more places, than Hillary Clinton," he said. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."
Trump is trying to get people to assassinate Hillary. How dare he.
Might as well call her Hitlery Clinton, amirite?
He didn't simply call her corrupt, as the article makes clear. He's blaming her for the creation of ISIS and the deaths of thousands worldwide. The obvious takeaway is that she would be even more dangerous if she were to win the election. Gee, how many tens, or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are on the line if she becomes the president? If she were to be killed now, all those people would be saved! It sure seems like it's morally justified to kill her now and stop this genocide before it happens, doesn't it?
If Hillary and the media are subtly calling for Trump's assassination, than Trump is calling for Hillary's, and far more blatantly. I say if because this whole scenario is ridiculous to begin with, but it's interesting to see yet another double standard among Trump fans.
Well, I'm glad you asked me that, because some on the other side who are already advocating to deport 11, 12 million people
[...]round them up and, I don't know, put them in buses or boxcars, in order to take them across the border.
When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched" I think the difference stands pretty clear.
It's true, Hillary has never straight said "Trump is Hitler!" but the theme is there.
What [Trump] is doing, however, is nudging and winking at the bigots out there that make up his base, hinting to them that he shares their concerns about these people, while always leaving himself enough wiggle room to deny any racist intention if called out on it publicly. But I think any reasonable person can connect the dots and figure out what the subtext is.
But ultimately the point is, Saddam, I don't care if you call me or Trump or his supporters racist or xenophobes or whatever you want because you can't tell me why. You think about the morality of a policy, not its actual impact, and so therefore your thoughts on the subject are irrelevant. You live in a 'reality has a liberal bias' world. A feels>reals world. So feel free to move to Canada with the rest of the feels peoples while their economy burns to ashes.
You even have popular media talkshows such as Colbert accidentally making Trump->Nazi Graphs:
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/BORpMjd91J3gm80R_RbcUQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTc1O3c9NjAw/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Stephen_Colbert_used_a_Nazi-055890cb040129953c7f8c74875919b7.cf.png)
When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched" I think the difference stands pretty clear.
Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said
She's not a plague carrier. Nor is the US currently at war with anyone who was an ally before she was secretary of state. Nor is her husband dead.When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched" I think the difference stands pretty clear.
Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said
Umm... is he wrong?
Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said, and yes, the difference is pretty clear. Trump's language is far more extreme, as it always is, because the man lives and breathes hyperbole. That's arguably been one of his key strengths of his campaign. There's no sense in downplaying it. And Hillary's quote is from almost a year ago (for an extra dose of irony, the same Washington Post you allege is part of the anti-Trump/call-Trump-Hitler conspiracy called Hillary out for that line and defended Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sorry-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-is-no-nazi/2015/08/31/2cee0bda-4fdc-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html)). Don't you have anything more recent?
You rejected this, of course. No, Trump has never said "Whites > blacks" and therefore any sign of racism from him is in the eye of the beholder. Hillary is responsible for everything she implies and insinuates, but how dare you read anything into Trump's words no you're the real racist. Oh, and here's a gem from the very entertaining response (I want to say it's half-capeshit villain, half-Bond villain) you wrote to that post:
And yet here you are complaining about morality and feels. Getting soft on us, Rushy? This is the real world, and hard, logical effects are what's important, not your romantic sentimentalism. Having Trump killed is the surest way of guaranteeing that he'll never sit in the Oval Office, so why bother criticizing Hillary for sending assassins after him? She's just trying to get shit done! And wouldn't it be hilarious (Hillarious?) if Trump really was assassinated? Talk about a yuge, yuge cucking for his fans! You've talked before about watching the spiraling despair of Bernie's fans on reddit as it became more and more obvious that he had lost. I bet that would be nothing compared to the mass suicides being planned on r/TheDonald.
That was a fucking joke, Rushy. Did you seriously think it was "accidental"?
ITT: Saddam knows other people better than they know themselves
You're still downplaying what Trump says on a daily basis while exaggerating the impact of what Hillary once said a year ago, still insisting on double standards where Trump means no more than what he literally says as a rule, but Hillary can be blamed for any meaning you wring out of her words, and still backtracking on your previous "I am above your silly morals" edgelord stance to feign outrage now. I'm focusing on the hypocrisy of your reasoning because it's not atypical of much of Trump's support, especially on the Internet - a quickly slapped-together set of flimsy, inconsistent principles meant to disguise the fact that this election is all just a big joke to you. Yeah, I know that this is kind of like the George Scott fallacy (I wonder how many people here will get that reference), but it needs to be said. You don't support Trump the politician; you support Trump the meme. You, along with God knows how many of Trump's fans, just want him to be elected because you think it would be hilarious to see the President of the United States tell journalists he doesn't like to fuck off at press conferences, to see him grab his crotch and roll his eyes while a rival politician gives a speech opposing his latest plan, to hear about diplomatic meetings that were broken off in anger because he kept leering at the women in attendance, etc. You're obviously entitled to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but there's no sense in pretending it's about anything more than entertainment value to you.
That's really all I have to say about this. I mean that sincerely - I'm not saying that I've won the argument and this is the final word on the subject or anything, just that my argument has reached its conclusion, and to say anything more would be repeating myself. You may have a fantastic response to this, but I won't have one for you.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Gotta keep the neverending scandal narrative going.
there was no evidence that Clinton or her staff deleted emails with the intention to hide contents
Quote from: James ComeyTo be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
He is verbatim telling us that Hillary won't be charged or punished in any manner because she is Hillary.
Quote from: James ComeyTo be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
He is verbatim telling us that Hillary won't be charged or punished in any manner because she is Hillary.
lol not even close. your reading comprehension is genuinely terrible.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences [at all]. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions [even when criminal sanctions are not warranted]. But that is not what we are [tasked with deciding]."
He is verbatim telling us that Hillary won't be charged or punished in any manner because she is Hillary.
Quote from: James ComeyTo be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
He is verbatim telling us that Hillary won't be charged or punished in any manner because she is Hillary.
He wants to alienate or already has alienated some key foreign partners and large segments of the American population.
He wants to alienate or already has alienated some key foreign partners and large segments of the American population.
And you think Hillary hasn't?
I'm willing to be a fair amount of those thousands of emails she deleted might have alienated a couple foreign "partners" had the contents been disclosed.
She was pretty much ordering regime change via hotmail.
US elections are designed to alienate large segments of the American population, that's why it is so neatly organized into Left and Right, Blue and Red. It is a polarized nation by design. BTW if you don't live here than you don't have a clue what it's like, so keep you uninformed opinions to your damn self.
He wants to alienate or already has alienated some key foreign partners and large segments of the American population.
Can you be more specific about these "key foreign partners"? Also, about what alienated them?
I don't honestly think that Trump could say anything that would alienate any foreign entity. You don't stop working with someone because they said mean things about you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/british-parliament-set-to-debate-banning-donald-trump/2016/01/18/7351d87a-ba14-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html
But you maybe do not give them the credence that a more reasonable person might receive. There have been numerous instances in Canada-US relations that have been impeded because the PM didn't like POTUS and vice versa. Also, see how Mexico feels after Trumpadump builds a wall along their border.
That doesn't mean he wasn't. Besides, you get a bit more scrutiny when you have a chance of winning your nomination.
Even MSNBC crushed Hillary (and the FBI). That was a bit unexpected, but good to see even left leaning outlets calling out her blatant lies.
James Comey...went on to say we won't do anything but someone else in a similar situation would face consequences.
James Comey...went on to say we won't do anything but someone else in a similar situation would face consequences.
Again, that's not true. The distinction that Comey was making wasn't between Hillary and someone else, but between legal consequences and "security or administrative sanctions." The former is something that the FBI, being a law enforcement agency, would be involved in. The latter has nothing to do with criminal law or the justice system, and so the FBI would have no involvement in imposing those penalties on anyone. There are plenty of reasons to criticize this decision, but this misunderstanding of Comey's words isn't one of them.
I didn't say otherwise, Saddam. I even said she would likely not go to jail. What you've posted here is quite literally a straw man. You've misidentified my argument from "she should be punished" to "she must be charged."
But then why bother bringing up the FBI at all, when they have nothing to do with imposing security or administrative sanctions? It seems to me like you think Comey said that Hillary won't be getting any security or administrative sanctions for this, but someone else totally would be. He didn't say either, as the subject is completely out of his hands. The State Department has only just begun its own investigation of this incident:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/state-department-reopens-probe-into-clinton-emails/
If Hillary does end up with any security or administrative sanctions, this is where she'll be getting them from. Not the FBI.
And the probe is re-opened. Wouldn't it be great if it's proven that she committed perjury (even if it is just a congressional inquiry)?Trey Gowdy's questioning of Director Comey proves the FBI knew she lied to them and did so under oath. But Comey will STILL not act. He is addicted the breathing, and AG Lynch has been promised a seat on the SCOTUS
Sorry, hill-dog.
Please note that you might have your own reasons for wanting Trump; maybe you're antisemitic yourself for example (heh heh, just kidding, that's a little of that famous Jewish humor for you, you're welcome). I'm perfectly fine with that, because obviously Hillary is not an ideal choice.
Go Hillary 2016. Sigh.
He tweeted a picture that used a default MS Paint shape, so he's obviously an antisemite, duh
Hillary "fucking Jew bastard" Clinton is perfectly clean, though :^)
He tweeted a picture that used a default MS Paint shape, so he's obviously an antisemite, duh
Hillary "fucking Jew bastard" Clinton is perfectly clean, though :^)
What does it being a default have to do with the context and message he coupled it with? Maybe he isn't an anti-semite, maybe he is just retarded. But if he didn't do anything wrong, why did he change it? After all, Trump stands up for what he believes in mirite?
Is anyone claiming this?
Did I say he didn't do anything wrong? Surely, if anything, changing the tweet means it was an honest mistake and he's not actually antisemitic.
Well, if you're voting based on antisemitism, it seems strange to support the candidate with a history of making antisemitic slurs.
Did I say he didn't do anything wrong? Surely, if anything, changing the tweet means it was an honest mistake and he's not actually antisemitic.
Why "surely"?
Did I say he didn't do anything wrong? Surely, if anything, changing the tweet means it was an honest mistake and he's not actually antisemitic.
Why "surely"?
Why else would he change the tweet?
Did I say he didn't do anything wrong? Surely, if anything, changing the tweet means it was an honest mistake and he's not actually antisemitic.
Why "surely"?
Why else would he change the tweet?
Well I suppose the "honest mistake" could be that he was mistaken about how pissed off he would be at a tweet that tries to put Hilary in league with money-grubbing Jews. Or is it money-grubbing sheriffs? Oh, yeah, Hilary and Sheriff's offices have a long standing alliance built on corruption ::)
Or, you know, maybe it's just a star.
Or, you know, maybe it's just a star.
Hey, if you think that is the case, go to. In this case, I have a really hard time believing that this image, taken from a board frequented by white supremacists and neo-nazis no less, was not scrutinized for its context and implications and that his campaign was not comfortable with all of those implications.
This "fucking Jew bastard" thing is a he-said-she-said story coming from a pretty fringey source. Even if it is true, it was forty years ago. I don't think there's any comparison between that and Trump's repeated "accidental" postings of racist memes.
Do you think Trump has a team of people around him at all times while he is on his phone retweeting images? No, he is actually a real person that has actual actions that aren't 100% calculated, deliberate, preplanned, passed through committee, sent to a focus group for review prior to doing them, unlike certain other robotic cybernetic reptilians he is running against.
I'm so confused as to how that picture was anti-Semitic. Can someone explain in plain words how it was deemed to be that way?
This "fucking Jew bastard" thing is a he-said-she-said story coming from a pretty fringey source. Even if it is true, it was forty years ago. I don't think there's any comparison between that and Trump's repeated "accidental" postings of racist memes.
You're right, Hillary has gotten pretty good at hiding her antisemitism in the past 40 years.
Or, you know, maybe it's just a star.
Hey, if you think that is the case, go to. In this case, I have a really hard time believing that this image, taken from a board frequented by white supremacists and neo-nazis no less, was not scrutinized for its context and implications and that his campaign was not comfortable with all of those implications.
So in your view the flag of Israel is anti-semitic, because it has the Star of David on it. All Sherif and Police Departments with with 6 sided star are also anti-semitic. Never mind that Trump's grand kids are Jewish.
You sir ARE the problem. You see hate where none exists, except for the hate YOU feel toward someone you disagree with.
So in your view the flag of Israel is anti-semitic, because it has the Star of David on it. All Sherif and Police Departments with with 6 sided star are also anti-semitic. Never mind that Trump's grand kids are Jewish.
No, why would you say that?QuoteYou sir ARE the problem. You see hate where none exists, except for the hate YOU feel toward someone you disagree with.
I'm not surprised.
Are you seriously saying Clinton is not corrupt?
Are you seriously saying Clinton is not corrupt?
No, I have actually said she is incredibly corrupt. Why?
Are you seriously saying Clinton is not corrupt?
No, I have actually said she is incredibly corrupt. Why?
Because it appears as though you support her.
This may be the least palatable election in US history. It's hard to imagine a situation where you could make a case that Trump is the better choice, yet here we are. Good luck America and may God have mercy on your souls. Please stay the fuck away from us.
I'm so confused as to how that picture was anti-Semitic. Can someone explain in plain words how it was deemed to be that way?
This "fucking Jew bastard" thing is a he-said-she-said story coming from a pretty fringey source. Even if it is true, it was forty years ago. I don't think there's any comparison between that and Trump's repeated "accidental" postings of racist memes.
You're right, Hillary has gotten pretty good at hiding her antisemitism in the past 40 years.
Just like it was cool that she was hugging and kissing former KKK leader Robert Byrd. (http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan)
(http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/clinton-byrd.png)
Cus he was like, the KKK leader so long ago, ya know?
I'm so confused as to how that picture was anti-Semitic. Can someone explain in plain words how it was deemed to be that way?
Well, it comes from /pol/ apparently, so that doesn't do it any favors. But it's the combination of the star-shaped thingy over a bunch of money to insinuate that Clinton is corrupt from Jewish money. The shape alone is not the issue. It stems from a long-standing form of anti-semitism.
This is really just the straw that broke the camel's back. Trump has retweeted or spread messages that originate from white supremacist or neo-nazi sources before, and this is just one more example. His team needs to exercise to message discipline and vet the stuff they put out on his Twitter account.
Seems to me that this is grasping at straws to break the camel's back. It feels like another weak attempt to make Trump literally Hitler. I'm pretty sure Hitler wouldn't have had an hour long speech at AIPAC.
I also doubt Trump is anti-semitic, considering his daughter, son-in-law and grandchild are Jewish.
You are talking about a guy that said he would date his daughter with her standing right there. Awareness is not his strong suit.
I don't think he is anti-semitic either, but in this case, I don't the complaints against this message are unfounded, and definitely not weak. It appears at best, that this is a communications tactic to stir controversy and a) keep people talking about him and b) keep fuelling the ever widening divide between the left and right.
For me its about as blatant as someone with a picture of them self with fried chicken, watermelon and a heineken with a caption reading, "I support black people." Yes, you can claim, "I really do love those things!", but to lack awareness of how those symbols appear in context is not an excuse for someone running for POTUS.
The Snopes article does an excellent job of explaining why that's a pretty weak argument to use against Hillary.
You are talking about a guy that said he would date his daughter with her standing right there. Awareness is not his strong suit.
Who wouldn't date his daughter? Anyway, he voiced his opinion of her attractiveness in a weird way. Listening to him say it doesn't sound at all like he meant he literally wants to date his daughter.
dudes it's obviously just a sheriff's badge. he was only trying to imply visually that clinton is corrupt, like a sheriff.
that's why it was changed less than 2 hours after it was posted; he realized how offensive that imagery is to sheriffs.
dudes it's obviously just a sheriff's badge. he was only trying to imply visually that clinton is corrupt, like a sheriff.
that's why it was changed less than 2 hours after it was posted; he realized how offensive that imagery is to sheriffs.
This isn't disingenuous at all
These false attacks by Hillary Clinton trying to link the Star of David with a basic star, often used by sheriffs who deal with criminals and criminal behavior, showing an inscription that says “Crooked Hillary is the most corrupt candidate ever” with anti-Semitism is ridiculous.
The social media graphic used this weekend was not created by the campaign nor was it sourced from an anti-Semitic site [LOL]. It was lifted from an anti-Hillary Twitter user where countless images appear.
The sheriff’s badge – which is available under Microsoft’s “shapes” – fit with the theme of corrupt Hillary and that is why I selected it.
Can you provide some additional context to this? A quick search on google and Snopes didn't yield anything for me, but maybe I'm not using the right search words.
Also, do you have an actual opinion on any of this? You are well known for having opinions, as well as writing fairly long reflections. However in this case it seems you've been reduced to short quips, and essentially parroting the narrative for Hillary, which is essentially, "even if she's done shady shit, she's still better than Trump." I think that is a sad position to take, but if I am off base then correct me.
Can you provide some additional context to this? A quick search on google and Snopes didn't yield anything for me, but maybe I'm not using the right search words.
The link was in the post I quoted, albeit broken, and I fixed it in my post. Here it is, just to be clear:
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan]
Regarding the email issue, it is genuinely shitty. However, I do feel that the issue is receiving something of a, how best to put it, disproportionate response from the Republicans in Congress who are apparently trying to make this out to be the worst political scandal in American history. Hillary did something stupid, and then she tried to cover it up in a stupid way. That's certainly not something I want our leaders to be doing. But it pales in comparison to some of the shit that politicians and/or the government in general have done in recent years and continue to do today. I don't see this huge, months-spanning investigation being a priority for any other reason other than political ones - that is to say, trying to sink Hillary's presidential campaign, something that I find very frustrating. To put it another way, corrupt politicians should be investigated and brought down for the sake of justice, not so their equally-corrupt rivals can benefit from their absence.
The world we live in sucks, don't it?Can you provide some additional context to this? A quick search on google and Snopes didn't yield anything for me, but maybe I'm not using the right search words.
The link was in the post I quoted, albeit broken, and I fixed it in my post. Here it is, just to be clear:
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan]
Regarding the email issue, it is genuinely shitty. However, I do feel that the issue is receiving something of a, how best to put it, disproportionate response from the Republicans in Congress who are apparently trying to make this out to be the worst political scandal in American history. Hillary did something stupid, and then she tried to cover it up in a stupid way. That's certainly not something I want our leaders to be doing. But it pales in comparison to some of the shit that politicians and/or the government in general have done in recent years and continue to do today. I don't see this huge, months-spanning investigation being a priority for any other reason other than political ones - that is to say, trying to sink Hillary's presidential campaign, something that I find very frustrating. To put it another way, corrupt politicians should be investigated and brought down for the sake of justice, not so their equally-corrupt rivals can benefit from their absence.
Nixon was going to be impeached, WITH the GOP backing impeachment, for far less than what hillary did, and with the protection of the Dem party. Sad.
but then the Dems covered for her husband too. "A blow job is not sex" sure thing. Right.
What image are you all talking about?
Regarding the email issue, it is genuinely shitty. However, I do feel that the issue is receiving something of a, how best to put it, disproportionate response from the Republicans in Congress who are apparently trying to make this out to be the worst political scandal in American history. Hillary did something stupid, and then she tried to cover it up in a stupid way. That's certainly not something I want our leaders to be doing. But it pales in comparison to some of the shit that politicians and/or the government in general have done in recent years and continue to do today. I don't see this huge, months-spanning investigation being a priority for any other reason other than political ones - that is to say, trying to sink Hillary's presidential campaign, something that I find very frustrating. To put it another way, corrupt politicians should be investigated and brought down for the sake of justice, not so their equally-corrupt rivals can benefit from their absence.
The latest Trump thing is hardly worth arguing about. Of course the picture was made by racists, and of course the star was meant to refer to Jews. Everyone here knows it, and so does Trump, as indicated by his removal of the image when the backlash got too strong. As his supporters here so often remind us, Trump is a smart guy and a savvy politician. He knows he has a strong following among racists, and he's doing his best to take advantage of it as much as he can without alienating mainstream America. Bringing up Trump's family or arguing about what he truly feels in his heart is beside the point. This is a political tactic of his; nothing more, nothing less.
lol so just to be clear, you're comparing the cover of disney's frozen to /pol/ memes...
adorable
lol so just to be clear, you're comparing the cover of disney's frozen to /pol/ memes...
adorable
It's the same shape, no?
This is a "tu quoque" fallacy. You can't claim that it's unfair to want punishment for corrupt politicians because the politicians that want to punish her are also corrupt. You constantly try to argue from hypocrisy and I have to be here telling you that's not an argument. Mishandling classified information in Hillary's position gets people killed, and to no surprise, that's exactly what she's done. It's asinine to excuse her corruption because "other politicians are corrupt too!"
Stating things as a matter of fact doesn't make them any more factual, Saddam. As I said before, this is desperate grabbing for straws. "Trump has never outright said anything racist or anti-semitic, so I guess we'll just have to stretch whatever we can find to fit our narrative." - MSM
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/07/07/Trump-trending-large_trans++Adw0VrjqLWSqJHfZ45Ae0UPhGu3d8eCxEbnX1CfWC0c.jpg)
Of course this picture was made by racists and of course it was meant to refer to Jews. It's claiming that Jews have a cold frozen heart. This is just one of countless examples of a six pointed star shape being used in advertising.
I'm not excusing anyone's corruption; I'm just disappointed by such selective enforcement of the law for the sake of a partisan agenda. I'd be delighted if this was the beginning of a new era of zero tolerance and cracking down on all misbehavior from politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, but it's not, and that overshadows the whole thing for me.
I'm not excusing anyone's corruption; I'm just disappointed by such selective enforcement of the law for the sake of a partisan agenda. I'd be delighted if this was the beginning of a new era of zero tolerance and cracking down on all misbehavior from politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, but it's not, and that overshadows the whole thing for me.
Who are these politicians that are currently getting overlooked by law enforcement?
lol so just to be clear, you're comparing the cover of disney's frozen to /pol/ memes...
adorable
lol so just to be clear, you're comparing the cover of disney's frozen to /pol/ memes...
adorable
It's the same shape, no?
It's the combination of the star, the wording, the money, and the source.
is there a point to this whole "similar shapes are similar" line of thought?
If the star wasn't racist when Frozen used it, then it can't be racist when /pol/ used it. By the same logic, if Squidward from SpongeBob SquarePants having a big nose wasn't racist:
...then it can't be racist for a character like this to be drawn with a big nose:
Or maybe symbols mean different things in different contexts. Who knows?
The point is that it's a common shape used in ads.
You think /pol/ used that shape cuz it's common in ads? lol k.
Plus it isn't. It's not like this shape pops up all over the place. If it did, that'd be a different story.
You think /pol/ used that shape cuz it's common in ads? lol k.
What does it matter what /pol/ did? Are you saying the image is only anti-semitic if you happen to know who made it? Oh golly gee this is just nuts.
The point is that it's a common shape used in ads. "But this time it means Jews!" is conspiratard level nonsense.
that two symbols can have identical shapes and different meanings is such a ubiquitous phenomenon that it has its own name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym). pretending to be unaware of this doesn't make one's argument better, only worse and more confusing.
if /pol/ ever becomes an advertising agency, then i'll concede the point. until then, you're comparing apples and white nationalist oranges. there are no centuries-old stereotypes/conspiracies of jewish people hoarding ice princesses and exerting unseen control over winter castles, so i just don't see what frozen has to do with anything. literally no one is saying that it's anti-semetic just because the star is six-sided. it seems like you want to have a discussion with an entirely different group of people saying entirely different things.
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.I never said you didn't.
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.I never said you didn't.
Just saying "good job for voting these people in. Hows it working for ya?"
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.I never said you didn't.
Just saying "good job for voting these people in. Hows it working for ya?"
Well I didn't vote for Obama, and I will NOT vote for Clinton. So for now, at least for POTUS my vote hasn't done much. For the House, my vote has worked. For Senate it is 50/50 and looks to remain so.
The issue of the subject of this thread, is just so much left wing bull shit deflection, in order to avoid the clear violations of the laws and regulations of Clinton's handling of classified materials and documents. And the fact that the DOJ, via the FBI is NOT doing its job by not prosecuting her. Or at the very least revoking her clearance.
The Star is just a star. Those that are doing mental gymnastics to see anti-semitic messages, are the ones that are anti-semitic, by assuming the star and money are greedy Jews. They see it, because they buy into it. They see it, because the race card is all they have in their arsenal against Trump. They see it, because the race card is the last refuge of a bankrupt mind.
Your ideas of what the ad is represents your own preconceptions about Jews. The only people who think this ad is inherently anti-semitic are either already anti-semitic themselves or trying to virtue signal by calling others out on innocuous ideas. You and others are falling for the very same stereotypes that anti-semites proliferated in the first place.
It's pretty funny how deeply you can get leftists to think about anti-semitic stereotypes in order to craft a conspiracy theory like this.
The Star is just a star. Those that are doing mental gymnastics to see anti-semitic messages, are the ones that are anti-semitic, by assuming the star and money are greedy Jews. They see it, because they buy into it.
Great new tactic, guys. "No, you're the real racist!" As if the stereotype of Jews being greedy and obsessed with money is some kind of obscure notion that requires all sorts of stretching and racist assumptions to arrive at.
that two symbols can have identical shapes and different meanings is such a ubiquitous phenomenon that it has its own name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym). pretending to be unaware of this doesn't make one's argument better, only worse and more confusing.
This is only relevant if the shapes do have different meanings, which is clearly not what Rushy is arguing. Bad bait.
It's pretty funny how deeply you can get leftists to think about anti-semitic stereotypes in order to craft a conspiracy theory like this. The point here is that if Disney were implicated in anti-semitic activity, I'm sure you could craft a similar narrative for Frozen as well. And if you can't - well, maybe you're not using your imagination well enough. But up until that happens, there's plenty reason to believe that you're only willing to apply a ridiculous amount of conjecture to one thing but not the other.
the hillary image isn't anti-semetic because what if under different circumstances i made a bad argument suggesting that the cover of frozen is anti-semetic? what?
so this image can't be anti-semetic because you believe i would make different arguments about different things under different circumstances...i dunno how to respond to that...
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.
that two symbols can have identical shapes and different meanings is such a ubiquitous phenomenon that it has its own name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym). pretending to be unaware of this doesn't make one's argument better, only worse and more confusing.
This is only relevant if the shapes do have different meanings, which is clearly not what Rushy is arguing. Bad bait.
indeed. i am saying that the shapes do have different meanings. meaning is always contextual. as i see it, you and rushy are arguing a reductio ad absurdum: the view that the hillary meme is anti-semetic necessarily leads to the absurd conclusion that the cover of frozen must also be anti-semetic. the problem is that not one person is claiming that any use of a six-sided star is anti-semetic.
in other words, we're saying that it's reasonable for someone to believe that this particular use of these symbols, in this particular context (esp. its origin), reeks of long-standing and well-understood anti-semetic stereotypes and conspiracies.
"but someone else used one of these symbols in a completely different context for a completely different purpose!" doesn't actually address the criticism of this use of these symbols in this context.It's pretty funny how deeply you can get leftists to think about anti-semitic stereotypes in order to craft a conspiracy theory like this. The point here is that if Disney were implicated in anti-semitic activity, I'm sure you could craft a similar narrative for Frozen as well. And if you can't - well, maybe you're not using your imagination well enough. But up until that happens, there's plenty reason to believe that you're only willing to apply a ridiculous amount of conjecture to one thing but not the other.
the hillary image isn't anti-semetic because what if under different circumstances i made a bad argument suggesting that the cover of frozen is anti-semetic? what?
so this image can't be anti-semetic because you believe i would make different arguments about different things under different circumstances...i dunno how to respond to that...
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.
Voting is just a method for the establishment to shift the blame for our shitty circumstances to the general public, when it's pretty damn obvious to me that we are constantly sold down the river by politicians on both sides of the isle.
At least with tyrants we had someone to hate, now they want to say "You see what you did?!? You should've voted for John Jackson instead of Jack Johnson, you fucked everything up!"
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.
Voting is just a method for the establishment to shift the blame for our shitty circumstances to the general public, when it's pretty damn obvious to me that we are constantly sold down the river by politicians on both sides of the isle.
At least with tyrants we had someone to hate, now they want to say "You see what you did?!? You should've voted for John Jackson instead of Jack Johnson, you fucked everything up!"
????????????????????????
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.
Voting is just a method for the establishment to shift the blame for our shitty circumstances to the general public, when it's pretty damn obvious to me that we are constantly sold down the river by politicians on both sides of the isle.
At least with tyrants we had someone to hate, now they want to say "You see what you did?!? You should've voted for John Jackson instead of Jack Johnson, you fucked everything up!"
????????????????????????
What didn't you understand? The kings and queens of old realized to stop the people from chopping their heads off they had better create this shell entity called democracy where you pretend to give the people a say in the things that affect their lives.
Was a simple way to shift blame from themselves yet still retain control. If you think the world has evolved past that kind of power structure imagine how many major western countries are still commonwealth countries with allegiance to the Queen of England.
Hillary Clinton is NOT Jewish. Never claimed she is and as far as I know, no one else is saying she is. So, anyone making the claim that the image used is referring to Jews, now needs to connect the dots showing that a Jewish symbol with her picture, a person NOT Jewish is in fact anti-semitic.
Good look with that mental gymnastics.
Hillary Clinton is NOT Jewish. Never claimed she is and as far as I know, no one else is saying she is. So, anyone making the claim that the image used is referring to Jews, now needs to connect the dots showing that a Jewish symbol with her picture, a person NOT Jewish is in fact anti-semitic.
Good look with that mental gymnastics.
The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.
The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.
NOPE not even close. Saudi money yes, and proven.
But keep trying, this is fun to watch
The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.
NOPE not even close. Saudi money yes, and proven.
But keep trying, this is fun to watch
I was not commenting on the veracity of the claim, dummy. I was saying that it exists, and is the mindset from which the antisemitic Hillary picture came from.
The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.
NOPE not even close. Saudi money yes, and proven.
But keep trying, this is fun to watch
I was not commenting on the veracity of the claim, dummy. I was saying that it exists, and is the mindset from which the antisemitic Hillary picture came from.
It exists because that is all the left has. Playing the race card is the last refuge of bankrupt mind. IE 99.99% of the left
The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.
Who attacked you?
NOPE not even close. Saudi money yes, and proven.
But keep trying, this is fun to watch
I was not commenting on the veracity of the claim, dummy. I was saying that it exists, and is the mindset from which the antisemitic Hillary picture came from.
It exists because that is all the left has. Playing the race card is the last refuge of bankrupt mind. IE 99.99% of the left
Ok seriously, all this ad hominim is annoying. You're being an ass so stop it.
The United States was founded by the brightest people in the country,
and we haven't seen them since.
Gore Vidal
The rules committee meets on Wednesday and on Thursday: they may have the votes to add new rules.
Since Trump wants good relationships with Russia, to print one's own money (in effect, getting rid of the Fed), to make America great again, let us take a look at the possible scenarios.
1. Romney/Ryan ticket (convention takeover) - from the point of view of secret societies, a Romney nomination is as good as a Cruz nomination.
2. Trump falls victim to a false flag assassination attempt (he is allowed to live, the public never hears from him again) - least likely.
3. Trump defeats Hillary, and then has to face countrywide riots/revolution, a civil war (especially if Deutsche Bank is allowed to implode).
4. Trump joins Sanders to face both Hillary and Romney.
1. Romney/Ryan ticket (convention takeover) - from the point of view of secret societies, a Romney nomination is as good as a Cruz nomination.
2. Trump falls victim to a false flag assassination attempt (he is allowed to live, the public never hears from him again) - least likely.
3. Trump defeats Hillary, and then has to face countrywide riots/revolution, a civil war (especially if Deutsche Bank is allowed to implode).
4. Trump joins Sanders to face both Hillary and Romney.
For all the new people here, please keep in mind Levee (Sandohkn) will ramble endlessly. Please don't bait him or purposely delve into a discussion about the knights Templar, Masons, and other irrelevant garbage or I will remove it from this thread and I will punish YOU not him. Thank you.
it definitely makes sense that anyone at cnn would think that cutting off a reporter, during one interview, after the interviewer already mentions the thing she's apparently not supposed to mention, is going to keep anyone from becoming aware of one of bill clinton's most significant pieces of legislation. a ton of sense.
hey can you think of anything that happened around 1970 that may have contributed to the increase in incarceration rates? haha yeah me neither.
NINJA EDIT: clinton's crime act is a giant piece of dogshit legislation. it's awful, and they should both be ashamed to have supported it. but it probably wasn't so terrible that it caused an increase in incarceration rates 25 years before its passage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diaCHYO7haY
Trump supporters are such triggered, oversensitive cucks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/rep-steve-king-wonders-what-sub-groups-besides-whites-made-contributions-to-civilization/
neat
Who has been chosen by the elites to lead America?
For all the new people here, please keep in mind Levee (Sandohkn) will ramble endlessly. Please don't bait him or purposely delve into a discussion about the knights Templar, Masons, and other irrelevant garbage or I will remove it from this thread and I will punish YOU not him. Thank you.
Who has been chosen by the elites to lead America?For all the new people here, please keep in mind Levee (Sandohkn) will ramble endlessly. Please don't bait him or purposely delve into a discussion about the knights Templar, Masons, and other irrelevant garbage or I will remove it from this thread and I will punish YOU not him. Thank you.
You know, with all the things levee has said, it occurs to me that Trump has gotten by far easier than one might expect. The RNC's attempt to stop him failed multiple times. I think, if there is a co spiracy and secret society, its Trump whose their choice.
Sure, the movement, but there was a lot of push against him when he began to rise. Nevertrump was the leftovers of those who didn't bow to the popularity of Trump. I suspect that most of the party leaders were against Trump for months until they gave in to pressure.You know, with all the things levee has said, it occurs to me that Trump has gotten by far easier than one might expect. The RNC's attempt to stop him failed multiple times. I think, if there is a co spiracy and secret society, its Trump whose their choice.
The "never Trump" movement's numbers are a very small minority. If they managed to get anything done, that in and of itself would be conspiracy material.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0)
let's make america great again by turning our foreign policy apparatus into an extortion racket. that'll work. hey maybe we can squeeze a few extra bucks out of estonia.
ffs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0)
let's make america great again by turning our foreign policy apparatus into an extortion racket. that'll work. hey maybe we can squeeze a few extra bucks out of estonia.
ffs.
....
Ok, in fairness, this may actually be a good idea to reduce American hatred. Yes, it's going to cause millions to suffer in the long run but getting America out of sticking it's nose into other countries business is the first step in making them not hate us as much.
Of course, I doubt this would apply to oil rich nations. Trump is a businessman, after all.
Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so. They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us.
In NATO, for instance, only 4 of 28 other member countries, besides America, are spending the minimum required 2% of GDP on defense.
We have spent trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.
The whole world will be safer if our allies do their part to support our common defense and security.
It stands to reason that these nations shouldn't get to benefit from NATO and not actually have to shoulder any burdens. It's a defense treaty, not a welfare club.
negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements
negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements
The cost-sharing has already been negotiated and it has been ignored. What you're calling for is forgiving these nations for not living up to the treaty, exactly what Trump is pointing out. These countries know that much of the current government doesn't mind that they don't pay their fair share. People like yourself don't mind. You consider their non-payment to be worth their supposed alliance. I don't. If a country can't defend itself and instead wants us to defend them instead, we should just annex their country or abandon it entirely. Clearly they don't consider their country to be in danger, right?
we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more.Please back this claim up. Otherwise, we'll be looking at an endless "no u" fest between you two. Right now it's "Yah huh, if our allies contribute more to our collective strength then we can contribute less without losing said collective strength" vs "NUH HUH THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE I PICKED A SMALL COUNTRY LIKE ALBANIA AND THAT'S FUNNY".
I can think of one good way to start a war with Russia.But they're our ally!
negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements
The cost-sharing has already been negotiated and it has been ignored. What you're calling for is forgiving these nations for not living up to the treaty, exactly what Trump is pointing out. These countries know that much of the current government doesn't mind that they don't pay their fair share. People like yourself don't mind. You consider their non-payment to be worth their supposed alliance. I don't. If a country can't defend itself and instead wants us to defend them instead, we should just annex their country or abandon it entirely. Clearly they don't consider their country to be in danger, right?
none of what you're saying is very congruent with how nato funding works. the nato common fund (the one to which member states contribute directly) is small. the total us contribution to the common fund is ~$750 million, so there's virtually nothing to recoup there.
the 2% figure that your graphic cites is individual member nation defense spending as a percent of gdp. that means there's nothing to recoup. we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more. trump is categorically wrong that we "[spend] trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia." we spend trillions of dollars on our military to support our own national interests. we support nato because it's in our national interest. defending europeans is incidental.
Not a whole lot of enemies to fend off. Hell, the last time a nation in Europe was attacked by a foreign agent, it was a NATO member who was the aggressor.negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements
The cost-sharing has already been negotiated and it has been ignored. What you're calling for is forgiving these nations for not living up to the treaty, exactly what Trump is pointing out. These countries know that much of the current government doesn't mind that they don't pay their fair share. People like yourself don't mind. You consider their non-payment to be worth their supposed alliance. I don't. If a country can't defend itself and instead wants us to defend them instead, we should just annex their country or abandon it entirely. Clearly they don't consider their country to be in danger, right?
none of what you're saying is very congruent with how nato funding works. the nato common fund (the one to which member states contribute directly) is small. the total us contribution to the common fund is ~$750 million, so there's virtually nothing to recoup there.
the 2% figure that your graphic cites is individual member nation defense spending as a percent of gdp. that means there's nothing to recoup. we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more. trump is categorically wrong that we "[spend] trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia." we spend trillions of dollars on our military to support our own national interests. we support nato because it's in our national interest. defending europeans is incidental.
By not spending the appropriate amount of funding on their military, they're opening themselves up to being attacked by outside forces, which then we have to intervene. An analogy would be you have car insurance and the insurance company says you must change your oil at least every 10,000 miles or your insurance claim might not be approved. You've chosen to change your oil every 25,000 miles instead, putting your engine and car at higher risk of damage. Assuming the company knows you did this, they'd dismiss any insurance claims you make because you neglected to handle your own risk profile.
These countries believe that since the US is backing them up, then they don't need to put forward an expected amount of their own people, equipment, or infrastructure to fight off enemies. Again, why should the US defend someone not even interested in defending themselves? If this is all about the US' best interest, then clearly we can do whatever we want without NATO since the other countries in NATO have an almost nonexistent military regardless.
There’s a fair argument that European NATO allies need to spend more on defense. They set up a goal of getting each country to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, and so far, only five of the 28 members meet that threshold — the U.S., Britain, Estonia, Poland and Greece.
But the hyperbolic portrayal of our closest allies as “ripping us off” and their collective $300 billion per year on defense spending as “almost nothing” is typical ill-informed, insulting Trumpism.
The world’s third-largest defense budget is . . . the United Kingdom, at $66 billion. France is fifth at $52 billion. Germany ninth $43 billion. Italy, Canada, and Turkey rank 13th, 14th, and 15th. And these are countries with much smaller populations and economies than the United States.
Overall, non-U.S. NATO countries make up nine of the 25 largest defense budgets on Earth.
we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more.Please back this claim up. Otherwise, we'll be looking at an endless "no u" fest between you two. Right now it's "Yah huh, if our allies contribute more to our collective strength then we can contribute less without losing said collective strength" vs "trump is categorically wrong that we "[spend] trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia." we spend trillions of dollars on our military to support our own national interests. we support nato because it's in our national interest. defending europeans is incidental.".
Laicie Heeley, a military budget expert at the Stimson Center, a defense policy think tank, sees things otherwise.
"Sanders' claim is a commonly quoted misperception, or misleading quote, however you choose to see it," Heeley said. "The stat says nothing about the U.S. relationship to NATO. It simply states that the United States is the world's greatest military spender."
Lisa Samp, a fellow with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, also describes Sanders’ words as a "common misunderstanding."
"There is a difference between what nations contribute to NATO and what they spend on their own defense," Samp said. "More accurate would be to say the United States contributes 22 percent of NATO’s common funding."
I can think of one good way to start a war with Russia.But they're our ally!
By not spending the appropriate amount of funding on their military, they're opening themselves up to being attacked by outside forces, which then we have to intervene. An analogy would be you have car insurance and the insurance company says you must change your oil at least every 10,000 miles or your insurance claim might not be approved. You've chosen to change your oil every 25,000 miles instead, putting your engine and car at higher risk of damage. Assuming the company knows you did this, they'd dismiss any insurance claims you make because you neglected to handle your own risk profile.
These countries believe that since the US is backing them up, then they don't need to put forward an expected amount of their own people, equipment, or infrastructure to fight off enemies. Again, why should the US defend someone not even interested in defending themselves? If this is all about the US' best interest, then clearly we can do whatever we want without NATO since the other countries in NATO have an almost nonexistent military regardless.
it's worth noting that only 4 members spend less than 1% (fuck you, iceland!), which means that most nations are under their requirement by only fractions of a percent of gdp.That's an interesting way to frame it, but ultimately a misleading one. A country spending 1.8% of their GDP would only be meeting 90% of the target. "Fractions of a percent of GDP", in this case, are rather quite significant.
fixed. although i genuinely did have a difficult time deciding on which nato member state has the funniest sounding name.Well, you did manage to pick the least relevant country here, I'll give you credit for that. Indeed, the country with the smallest military spending in all of NATO would probably not matter much even if they did double their spending to meet expectations.
we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe. that's nonsense.Has anyone claimed otherwise, or are you just building a strawman here?
how petty.Of all people in this thread, you're easily the least justified in being upset about someone making petty remarks about the silly things you said. Half of the time you just call people's arguments "nonsense" with no substantiation, or you mock them by implying that they think Albania's defence budget would somehow impact that of the USA (protip: swap in Germany for Albania and the claim becomes much more nuanced)
it's worth noting that only 4 members spend less than 1% (fuck you, iceland!), which means that most nations are under their requirement by only fractions of a percent of gdp.
we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe. that's nonsense. we spend what we spend because we believe it supports our own national interests across the globe.
how petty.
this is answered above: the other countries in nato do not comprise "an almost nonexistent military force." that's nonsense.
also international relations aren't like oil changes or car insurance or whatever. the shortsightedness it takes to reduce this issue to a mere accounting of dollars and cents is precisely the quality i don't want in a president.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock
So you all hear?
The conspiracy theory that Bernie Sanders was being marginalized by the DNC? Totally true.
Total agreement.http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock (http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock)
So you all hear?
The conspiracy theory that Bernie Sanders was being marginalized by the DNC? Totally true.
Bernie has already said on MSNBC that this changes nothing and he supports Hillary. He's probably known for months and took people's donations anyway just to give them to Hillary. What an absolute shill of a man.
we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe. that's nonsense.Has anyone claimed otherwise, or are you just building a strawman here?
Of all people in this thread, you're easily the least justified in being upset about someone making petty remarks about the silly things you said. Half of the time you just call people's arguments "nonsense" with no substantiation, or you mock them by implying that they think Albania's defence budget would somehow impact that of the USA (protip: swap in Germany for Albania and the claim becomes much more nuanced)
Is it really so petty to just reverberate your own argument? I have to wonder if you still think Russia and China are our allies, and if you do still think so, why you would think NATO should even exist.
"nato and car insurance aren't even remotely relatable. your analogy captures exactly none of salient issues and relationships between the actors involved." Sigh.
just to be clear, my criticism of trump here is not that he suggested that nato members should spend more on defense. i'm critical of his methodology.
let me ask you this: to the best of your knowledge/reasoning, why do you think nato pursues members like albania, croatia, latvia, et al.? i mean it's obvious why we'd want members like germany, france, and the uk; but, in your opinion, why does nato pursue these smaller states at all? or, if you like, why do we allow these other 24 states to pay under their "fair share"? why haven't we kicked them out already?
srsly that really isn't even close to analogous. i honestly am not sure i even get who the players are supposed to be. we're the insurer, and europe is the insured, and the oil change is defense budgets, and mechanical failure is war? is that how it goes?
geico isn't a state with budgets set by political parties with constituents and all the other shit that makes up nations. europe isn't a single consumer running a household budget. insurance companies don't have their own interests and motivations for insuring your car even if you can't pay your bills. the list goes on...
this is precisely the issue i have with the way you and trump see things. you actually do think it's all as simple as a single consumer making a decision about purchasing car insurance. as if the effect it has on our budget is the only effect that matters.
i take it to be an implicit justification for the argument that defense spending by nato nations somehow trades-off with us defense spending. in other words, if our defense spending is motivated by own our priorities, objectives, and interests, then there's no necessary, causal link between what germany spends on defense and what we spend on defense.
fwiw, i find it petty because you're so elated at such a trivial mistake. i called russia an ally and said we cooperate on a whole bunch of foreign affairs shit, like arms control and syria and whatnot."Friend or foe?" is one of the few things you really shouldn't get wrong when discussing military operations. Unless it's WW1. Fuck WW1.
let me ask you this: to the best of your knowledge/reasoning, why do you think nato pursues members like albania, croatia, latvia, et al.? i mean it's obvious why we'd want members like germany, france, and the uk; but, in your opinion, why does nato pursue these smaller states at all? or, if you like, why do we allow these other 24 states to pay under their "fair share"? why haven't we kicked them out already?Might it be because we value peace quite a lot? There's nothing wrong in having alliances where a smaller nation benefits more than a large world power. Again, I very strongly doubt that Trump's issue lies with Albania, and I very strongly suspect that it has much more to do with Germany. But to target Germany without targeting Albania would be kinda discriminatory - if we agreed that 2% of GDP is the goal for everyone, then 2% it shall be for everyone.
This election is shaping up to be a complete clown show. I'm especially sick of the liberal camp that proclaims to be a bastion of tolerance when they are just as bigoted as conservatives.
I can't read Trump's mind
This whole election can be summed up with this video:Holy shit, do these people not understand how microphones work?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-42A37zxM
This election is shaping up to be a complete clown show. I'm especially sick of the liberal camp that proclaims to be a bastion of tolerance when they are just as bigoted as conservatives.
I'm as sick of this as I am of conservatives acting like assholes and then acting high and mighty when people call them assholes.
This whole election can be summed up with this video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-42A37zxM
Check out his jaw gnashing. Definitely cocaine. Maybe booze too, you just never know.
Who are you even talking about? The Democratic National Committee? Trump? The hackers?
You're making a huge leap of logic. You seem to rely on the claim that nations remain militarised because of some concrete, immediate threat (in this case, you named Russia, but I understand that you probably didn't mean for that to be taken super-literally).
NATO, as a whole, needs to maintain a reasonable degree of hard power so that if an immediate threat appears, they don't suddenly scramble to assemble a force. If other nations aren't playing their part in the agreement, the USA has the option of playing World Police and overspending to make up for others' failures (currently the status quo). It also has the option of exerting pressure on other NATO members and demanding that they contribute fairly. Should it choose to do so, and should NATO listen, the option of reducing US military spending is then somewhat more available (although that doesn't mean it would be pursued - I can't read Trump's mind).
"Friend or foe?" is one of the few things you really shouldn't get wrong when discussing military operations. Unless it's WW1. Fuck WW1.again, excluding that one word in that one sentence, i do not think i've described russia as entirely one or the other. i described our relationship with russia (in comparison with our relations with the dprk) in much more detail than "we're allies," and i even provided quality sources echoing some of the distinctions i made. if you want me to pick one side or the other, then i think they're more friend than foe.
NATO, the EU, the EEA, Schengen, etc. these are all efforts to solidify countries under strong alliance banners. The current political manifesto is to control countries through alliances and treaties. They haven't been kicked out of NATO because having the US leech their defense capabilities is the primary purpose of the treaty. Once these nations have a military that is verging on falling apart entirely, they'll have to subsume and allow foreign control of their nation. The only nukes in Germany belong to the US. The only nukes in Turkey belong to the US. An ungodly percentage of Europe's entire military belongs to the US. We've been effectively invading and occupying 'allies' for decades.
This isn't about our budget. I never even once complained that we spend too much yet you continually bring up this straw man.
Who are you even talking about? The Democratic National Committee? Trump? The hackers?
Can't it be all of them?
They did though. All of them.Who are you even talking about? The Democratic National Committee? Trump? The hackers?
Can't it be all of them?
None of them make any sense, though. We haven't put Trump in charge of anything, we haven't put the hackers in charge of anything, and we haven't put the DNC in charge of anything. It's ridiculous to look at this clusterfuck and say "haha America you deserve this because you voted for it."
I bought a MAGA button at the county fair today. Then I made SU wear it.The white cisgender heterosexual male patriarchy in action, folks.
a little hyperbolic, but otherwise i basically agree. we have a significant stake in maintaining as much authority as possible over member state militaries. europe being under a single military and diplomatic roof is good for america.
well, you're on about how shitty it is that these other nations aren't paying their "fair" share. if it's not about the money, then what is it about? fairness?
So the DNC got hacked.Yes, I bet it was Russia and not a bunch of neckbeards from a *chan who got bored.
Days after Trump asked Russia to "find hillary's e-mails".
Russia likes Trump alot.
Meh. It's certainly possible but the timing is convenient. *shrug* But whatever. We'll never know anyway.So the DNC got hacked.Yes, I bet it was Russia and not a bunch of neckbeards from a *chan who got bored.
Days after Trump asked Russia to "find hillary's e-mails".
Russia likes Trump alot.
Chill with the conspiracy theories, we already know Hillary doesn't know how to use email, it's hardly surprising that some script kiddie would get her.
I think you have your timeline mixed up, the DNC hack happened well before Trump's comments on Hillary's deleted emails.Oh.
I think you have your timeline mixed up, the DNC hack happened well before Trump's comments on Hillary's deleted emails.
Even the latest one?I think you have your timeline mixed up, the DNC hack happened well before Trump's comments on Hillary's deleted emails.
Yeah, Trump asked that after it was reported Russia was likely responsible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html
:-\
Interviewer: What do you say to the man saying you don't understand true sacrifice?
Trump: i've made a lot of sacrifices, for example, i have a lot of money and jobs
Interviewer: ...those are sacrifices?
Trump: yes they are i am rich and i make a lot of money
Amazing. He's not even president and he's already as much of a goldmine as George W. Bush was.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html
:-\
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html
:-\
People like Hillary are the reason their son is dead. That they support her for some reason is strange when Trump is the anti-war candidate.
This also happens to be why personally I can't vote for Hillary. She is a woman who has made a living by dragging more and more nations into bloody conflicts.
trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents? does it trouble you at all?
If Russia has them and the US does not, the US has a shitty intelligence agency. Just saying.trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents? does it trouble you at all?
I don't condone hacking, but if Russia already has Hillary's emails (and I'm like 99% sure they do, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if every country other than the US had them), then it would only be in US intelligence's best interest to have them as well. Why would the US want Russia to know what's in those documents without knowing themselves?
If Russia has them and the US does not, the US has a shitty intelligence agency. Just saying.trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents? does it trouble you at all?
I don't condone hacking, but if Russia already has Hillary's emails (and I'm like 99% sure they do, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if every country other than the US had them), then it would only be in US intelligence's best interest to have them as well. Why would the US want Russia to know what's in those documents without knowing themselves?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html
:-\
People like Hillary are the reason their son is dead. That they support her for some reason is strange when Trump is the anti-war candidate.
This also happens to be why personally I can't vote for Hillary. She is a woman who has made a living by dragging more and more nations into bloody conflicts.
That's a good response. Trump should have said something like that, instead of speculating that the mother wasn't allowed to speak.
trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents? does it trouble you at all?
If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.
Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?
If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.
Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?
Where does Hillary say that the missing e-mails are of national security?
I chose not to keep my private personal emails -- emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.
Nothing in that statement says those deleted emails were of national security, merely that a political opponent encouraging foreign espionage against his opponent is a matter of national security.If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.
Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?
Where does Hillary say that the missing e-mails are of national security?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoYqFARXgAEYT-N.jpg:large)
I suppose a more accurate statement would be "Hillary's campaign" now admits to the emails being a national security issue. I'm sure Hillary still holds this opinion:Quote from: Hillary ClintonI chose not to keep my private personal emails -- emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.
The 33,000 deleted emails that weren't handed over to the FBI were just emails about Chelsea's wedding and yoga routines. Why would it be a big deal for Russia to have those emails?
The Russia nonsense, regardless, is a red herring built up so that people ignore the leaks because of who might have released them. Assange claims the leaks came from a DNC insider, not Russians. I'd believe Assange before I believe Hillary shills.
Nothing in that statement says those deleted emails were of national security, merely that a political opponent encouraging foreign espionage against his opponent is a matter of national security.
The statement would hold true for anyone.
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk. If you have another statement I'm interested.Nothing in that statement says those deleted emails were of national security, merely that a political opponent encouraging foreign espionage against his opponent is a matter of national security.
The statement would hold true for anyone.
Trump wanted the emails, and the emails were either a national security concern or they weren't. Hillary claims they weren't and someone in her campaign claims they are. That's a pretty interesting rift in opinion.
Also, we have a treaty with Russia that makes them legally obligated to release information to us that shows illegal activity. If they do have the emails, they're legally obligated to release them to the DoJ at the very least. Since the emails aren't a national security concern, no big deal.
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk. If you have another statement I'm interested.
As for the second part. Absolutely. If they have them I hope they do share them.
Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk. If you have another statement I'm interested.
As for the second part. Absolutely. If they have them I hope they do share them.
Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.
That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk. If you have another statement I'm interested.
As for the second part. Absolutely. If they have them I hope they do share them.
Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.
That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?
Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.
He asked them to find them.But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk. If you have another statement I'm interested.
As for the second part. Absolutely. If they have them I hope they do share them.
Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.
That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?
Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.
Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.
He asked them to find them.But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk. If you have another statement I'm interested.
As for the second part. Absolutely. If they have them I hope they do share them.
Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.
That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?
Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.
Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.
So unless he knows they have them in a data archive, where else would they get them?
Absolutely not. Why would you think that?He asked them to find them.But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk. If you have another statement I'm interested.
As for the second part. Absolutely. If they have them I hope they do share them.
Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.
That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?
Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.
Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.
So unless he knows they have them in a data archive, where else would they get them?
You believe the Russians can hack a server that's been offline for at least two years?
trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents? does it trouble you at all?
I don't condone hacking, but if Russia already has Hillary's emails (and I'm like 99% sure they do, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if every country other than the US had them), then it would only be in US intelligence's best interest to have them as well. Why would the US want Russia to know what's in those documents without knowing themselves?
If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.
Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?
While his answer wasn't great, I don't think that's a fair way to paraphrase it. He wasn't talking about the money he makes personally, but the number of Americans he employs and pays money to.
That's how he makes his money though. It's just what a business owner does.
i don't get how employing someone is a sacrifice.
Without granting Trump a lot of things he didn't say, which is also intellectually dishonest
he said nothing about the sacrifices he has made. Saying he employed a lot of people is neutral on the topic, and he has shown himself to have enough command of the English language and enough of a desire to answer directly that it is fairer to assume that he was intentionally avoiding the question. After all, he wades right in to hit-button issues with an admirable transparency, it's why he is on the ballot today, yet this straightforward line of questioning eludes him? I find it hard to believe, it seems much more likely that he is an egoist concerned with profiting from others than sacrificing for others.
Without granting Trump a lot of things he didn't say, which is also intellectually dishonest
Good thing nobody has done that.
[/quote]he said nothing about the sacrifices he has made. Saying he employed a lot of people is neutral on the topic, and he has shown himself to have enough command of the English language and enough of a desire to answer directly that it is fairer to assume that he was intentionally avoiding the question. After all, he wades right in to hit-button issues with an admirable transparency, it's why he is on the ballot today, yet this straightforward line of questioning eludes him? I find it hard to believe, it seems much more likely that he is an egoist concerned with profiting from others than sacrificing for others.
Sure. As I said, it wasn't a great answer. It just wasn't as hilariously terrible of an answer as Snupes's paraphrasing made it sound.
Unless you start granting him things he did not say, he did not answer the question about what he had sacrificed.
Wouldn't that strongly imply that he has no answer? Which means he either does not sacrifice or can't remember the last time?Unless you start granting him things he did not say, he did not answer the question about what he had sacrificed.
Correct. He didn't.
Wouldn't that strongly imply that he has no answer? Which means he either does not sacrifice or can't remember the last time?
but how do you feel about trump's particular encouragement to russia to release the stolen/hacked documents? does it not trouble you at all? forgive me, but this all seems like a lot of equivocation. i have a hard time believing that you'd be this magnanimous toward clinton if in an interview she'd said anything at all like "and hey russia, if you have any dirt on trump that you've illegally stolen, now would be a good time to get some coin on that."
is this what we can expect from president trump? foreign intelligence services are free to hack us so long as the info makes trump's enemies look bad? that just sounds...crooked.
but how do you feel about trump's particular encouragement to russia to release the stolen/hacked documents? does it not trouble you at all? forgive me, but this all seems like a lot of equivocation. i have a hard time believing that you'd be this magnanimous toward clinton if in an interview she'd said anything at all like "and hey russia, if you have any dirt on trump that you've illegally stolen, now would be a good time to get some coin on that."
is this what we can expect from president trump? foreign intelligence services are free to hack us so long as the info makes trump's enemies look bad? that just sounds...crooked.
Actually, this is exactly what the problem with Hillary's server was about. Her documents were easily seen by every foreign power with an internet connection.
I don't feel that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack her. Rather, he's encouraging them to release the emails if they have them (they would in fact be legally obligated to do this, though they would need to disclose them to the DoJ, not the public).
Ultimately, I can see what point he might have been trying to make, he just didn't make it very well. I think pretending he didn't go any way to making a point at all is intellectually dishonest. But hey, that's how the left operates in 2016.
Well no one has called Trump Hitler
...........................oh.................has anyone in the Clinton campaign?Well no one has called Trump Hitler
No offense but I don't think that's true.............................................................
Do you have proof of this rather bold claim that every foreign power could see it?
And why would Russia admit to breaking international law?
And note the number of fucks America gave.Do you have proof of this rather bold claim that every foreign power could see it?
And why would Russia admit to breaking international law?
Russia invaded and annexed a portion of a neighboring country. I really doubt they care about releasing hacked emails in regards to international law.
The astute reader must have noticed the link posted in one of my earlier messages:Those who wanted it tried and failed.
http://thesaker.is/inside-the-secret-super-majority-that-decide-election-2016-war-with-russia/ (http://thesaker.is/inside-the-secret-super-majority-that-decide-election-2016-war-with-russia/)
This explains why there was an exception in 1980.
It is this super majority block of voters that will decide the outcome of this election again, especially if the S&P performs poorly until October.
Unless... the GOP decides to speed things up:
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/03/panic-stricken-gop-bosses-exploring-trump-exit-strategy/ (http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/03/panic-stricken-gop-bosses-exploring-trump-exit-strategy/)
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/08/03/developing.-donald-trump-campaign-freefall.-gop-leaders-planning-trump-exit-video/ (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/08/03/developing.-donald-trump-campaign-freefall.-gop-leaders-planning-trump-exit-video/)You'll forgive me if I don't trust what looks like a blog.
An exit would mean that the nomination would go to the second place candidate, and not the VP (it is of interest to note that not only Cruz already picked a VP, the only other candidate to do so, but also failed to endorse Trump).
He also did this (http://gawker.com/donald-trump-holds-press-conference-to-mock-fire-marsha-1784670059).Wow...
Looks like America wants a criminal for president.America thinks all politicians are criminals.
>voting for criminalsIt's the American Way.
Looks like America wants a criminal for president.
You don't need to have been charged with a crime in order to be a criminal.Looks like America wants a criminal for president.
What crime was she charged with? ???
You don't need to have been charged with a crime in order to be a criminal.Looks like America wants a criminal for president.
What crime was she charged with? ???
[/quote
Oh no! She must have committed a crime. Which one?
You don't need to have been charged with a crime in order to be a criminal.Looks like America wants a criminal for president.
What crime was she charged with? ???
If a you steal something without getting caught and charged with the crime, you're still a criminal.
I never said she stole anything. I was just trying to demonstrate that it's possible for a person to have commited crimes without having been charged with one.If a you steal something without getting caught and charged with the crime, you're still a criminal.
Oh cool, what did she steal? Your trust?
I never said she stole anything. I was just trying to demonstrate that it's possible for a person to have commited crimes without having been charged with one.If a you steal something without getting caught and charged with the crime, you're still a criminal.
Oh cool, what did she steal? Your trust?
Did CTR infiltrate FES as well? Hillary's law-breaking is not up to question, as per FBI's own findings and Comey's admission. She's violated, at the very least, the following statutes:
18 USC §793
18 USC §1924
18 USC §798
18 USC §2071
Didn't they simply say that they didn't recommend filing charges? Not the same as saying there's no criminality, just that there isn't any point in filing charges.Did CTR infiltrate FES as well? Hillary's law-breaking is not up to question, as per FBI's own findings and Comey's admission. She's violated, at the very least, the following statutes:
18 USC §793
18 USC §1924
18 USC §798
18 USC §2071
The same FBI found no criminality to her behavior. If anyone can say she is not a criminal it is them. I don't agree with her behavior, but these are the official findings.
It is not the FBI's job to tell prosecutors whether they should or should not prosecute someone. The fact that they did only suggests that they might be interested in covering her ass. It is not an indication of anything good, by any measure.
Didn't they simply say that they didn't recommend filing charges? Not the same as saying there's no criminality, just that there isn't any point in filing charges.
to call her a criminal is assuming quite a lot and is an opinion rather than any sort of substantial fact.Well, yes, she's never gonna get prosecuted because she's Hillary Clinton and the USA is an oligarchy (I mean that quite literally (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746), too). Opinions are all we'll ever get on this matter, unless Berniebots/BLM/Alex Jones unite and start a revolution to overthrow the system.
>opinions can't change
i mean he was extolling hillary as recently as 2012Maybe he didn't know she was crooked back then, or maybe she wasn't crooked back then.
> Trump says something vague enough for news outlets to allege a suggestion to assassinate. People here are literally calling it terrorism.
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.
Seems to be par for the course these days.
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.
Oh, come on, you can't say something like this and not back it up. Who died, how were their deaths mysterious, and how did they benefit Hillary?
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.
Oh, come on, you can't say something like this and not back it up. Who died, how were their deaths mysterious, and how did they benefit Hillary?
He didn't say it directly, but it's certainly implied.
As I say, not as a serious suggestion, more like the kind of stupid joke you'd make between mates, but when it's a part of a presidential candidates' speech, it should raise eyebrows about his judgement.
Nothing in the article said he was tied up. Or did I miss something?> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.
Oh, come on, you can't say something like this and not back it up. Who died, how were their deaths mysterious, and how did they benefit Hillary?
The DNC's IT director was killed on the street in an apparent mugging, but nothing was stolen:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html
Julian Assange later indicated that this is the man who leaked the DNC emails to him.
This is the most prominent one. There are five other staffers who were killed in various other ways, but this one is the most interesting because the suspect tied Seth Rich up and shot him in the back multiple times.
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.
Oh, come on, you can't say something like this and not back it up. Who died, how were their deaths mysterious, and how did they benefit Hillary?
The DNC's IT director was killed on the street in an apparent mugging, but nothing was stolen:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html)
Julian Assange later indicated that this is the man who leaked the DNC emails to him.
This is the most prominent one. There are five other staffers who were killed in various other ways, but this one is the most interesting because the suspect tied Seth Rich up and shot him in the back multiple times.
"He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder. He founded ISIS."
nb4 someone explains to me that trump wasn't saying obama founded isis and that's just the leftist media twisting his words to make him sound bad
"He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder. He founded ISIS."
nb4 someone explains to me that trump wasn't saying obama founded isis and that's just the leftist media twisting his words to make him sound bad
What he MEANT was...
"Obama's actions in the middle east allowed ISIS to rise in power by creating a power vacuum when the US left"
But the moment Trump starts talking like that, the morons who vote for him won't understand shit so he just simplifies it. It loses a lot in translation.
The man just does not know how to form an argument. Whenever he's challenged he tries to argue against it, bails mid-sentence, and says "look, he's evil, ok? I'm good, he's evil. Just shut up and accept it.""He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder. He founded ISIS."
nb4 someone explains to me that trump wasn't saying obama founded isis and that's just the leftist media twisting his words to make him sound bad
What he MEANT was...
"Obama's actions in the middle east allowed ISIS to rise in power by creating a power vacuum when the US left"
But the moment Trump starts talking like that, the morons who vote for him won't understand shit so he just simplifies it. It loses a lot in translation.
plus it wouldn't connect as well with his 'obama is a kenyan muslim' nonsense.
in other news: whoops.
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis-2016-8 (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis-2016-8)
what a piece of shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NkjNvwuaU&feature=youtu.be
He must have accidentally said ISIL instead of "moderate rebels".
I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)
What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers. Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy. Why wouldn't I join the fight against them? I have nothing to lose now anyway.
President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there. While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.
I think he could. Iran isn't at war with us, after all.I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)
What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers. Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy. Why wouldn't I join the fight against them? I have nothing to lose now anyway.
President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there. While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.
Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.
I think he could. Iran isn't at war with us, after all.I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)
What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers. Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy. Why wouldn't I join the fight against them? I have nothing to lose now anyway.
President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there. While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.
Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.
We tore the Middle East to big pieces. I fear Trump would tear them into smaller ones, stomp on them, then burn them. All because the fallen bits spelled "tiny hands".
Yeah but how long do you think it would be before Trump demands Israel pay protection money? Israel is pretty tough but at the end of the day, if the US said they wouldn't assist them, they'd get far worse than mortars and rocks across the wall.I think he could. Iran isn't at war with us, after all.I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)
What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers. Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy. Why wouldn't I join the fight against them? I have nothing to lose now anyway.
President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there. While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.
Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.
We tore the Middle East to big pieces. I fear Trump would tear them into smaller ones, stomp on them, then burn them. All because the fallen bits spelled "tiny hands".
I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.
However, Hillary would likely worsen the situation, not Trump. Her extreme necessity to please the Saudis seems to result in decimating the Saudi's enemies, which includes Iran.
Yeah but how long do you think it would be before Trump demands Israel pay protection money? Israel is pretty tough but at the end of the day, if the US said they wouldn't assist them, they'd get far worse than mortars and rocks across the wall.
As for decimating the Saudi's enemies, why is that bad? You said it yourself, most of them have horrible human rights. So why not destroy them? It's what Trump would do.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/
Major polling outlets run by the liberal media and Putin.http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/)
Yes, I definitely trust some random app's poll numbers versus major polling outlets.
I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.
QuoteI wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.
You know, one of those human rights you talk of is 'the right to life' killing a load of civilians in order to tear apart a country with poor human rights is somewhat hypocritical.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Trump literally has no idea what the first amendment is.
Of course, slander isn't legal so he can easily get a retraction or something done if he takes it to court.
True but ya gotta prove its a lie.https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Trump literally has no idea what the first amendment is.
Of course, slander isn't legal so he can easily get a retraction or something done if he takes it to court.
Hmm, but he is right. The media doesn't have the legal ability to spread written or spoken lies. The problem is that punishing media outlets for spreading false information is nearly impossible. A long and arduous court battle will maybe get them a slap on the hand and by then the damage is already done.
The effect of this massive propaganda platform is plain to see. Just say "Al Gore thinks he invented the internet" and suddenly half of the country thinks it's true. Even more than a decade later, a lie about Gore has stuck around. That's real power. The ability to warp the very fabric of reality through mass media.
Trump's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Them dang Poles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd_GOEMz3og
Its a lie perpetuated by the liberal, clinton owning media.
Even Fox.
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490558406/watch-donald-trump-expresses-regret-for-sometimes-saying-the-wrong-thing (http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490558406/watch-donald-trump-expresses-regret-for-sometimes-saying-the-wrong-thing)
What is this nonsense, what is going on?
Careful. That's heresy.I am far from your borders. I shall speak and dance in heresy until the sun goes nova around me.
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490558406/watch-donald-trump-expresses-regret-for-sometimes-saying-the-wrong-thing
What is this nonsense, what is going on?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html
What'd he help with? Serious question.
a catastrophe that the media couldn't be bothered to report on
a catastrophe that the media couldn't be bothered to report on
you mean the historical flooding that literally every news outlet that outlets news is reporting?
The Times is not the only news organization being criticized for doing too little too late on the floods. Even so, from my scanning of the media’s reaction, The Times’s performance seems particularly weak.
the flooding started on the friday the 11th. the first nyt piece appeared on sunday the 13th. oh wow two whole weekend days that this one outlet didn't cover the flood.
i agree with the opinion of the nyt that they did not cover the flood for two days. gasp. anyone who didn't know about the louisiana flood until trump visited today probably isn't super into the news.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html
Serious campaign chaos and still makes time to go help in Louisiana. Impressive.
Well, donald is direct. Others get donations in the millions for victims. Donald gives them Trump Steaks.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html
Serious campaign chaos and still makes time to go help in Louisiana. Impressive.
The making time to help is part of righting the ship on his campaign. I'm not saying it's not a good thing to do, but you make it seem like this is a huge sacrifice for him. One semi-truck of supplies is nothing to this guy.
...you make it seem like this is a huge sacrifice for him.No, I didn't. It was something worth pointing out. You're the one who wants to reduce it to making up for campaign issues.
One semi-truck of supplies is nothing to this guy.Ah, there it is. I was waiting for someone to minimize it. How many trucks worth should he have personally provided?
Well, donald is direct. Others get donations in the millions for victims. Donald gives them Trump Steaks.
Also, the semi was full of water and diapers and stopped for 15 min. At a time.
No, I didn't. It was something worth pointing out. You're the one who wants to reduce it to making up for campaign issues.
Ah, there it is. I was waiting for someone to minimize it. How many trucks worth should he have personally provided?
Not really, no. But generally, politicians campaign and ask for donations to X organization to aid in Y disaster if they wanna look good.Well, donald is direct. Others get donations in the millions for victims. Donald gives them Trump Steaks.
Do you have a source to support any of these claims?
Also, the semi was full of water and diapers and stopped for 15 min. At a time.
So I'll assume you have no source for your previous claims, then.
As far as your current claim goes, I'm sure there were water and diapers on the truck, as those things are very important to people who have lost everything. If you watched the video for two seconds, you can see there's obviously more than just water and diapers on the truck, though.
If you read or listen to the accounts of people who actually live there, you'll see they're very grateful for the help. That's all that really matters at this point, people getting help.
Bah, I fucked up my reply on mobile. I'll post again when I'm done moving, not that anyone cares.
Basically yelled at Rama for saying I thought it was impressive when I didn't. Although I did use the word impressive in an earlier post so I can see how that was taken.
https://blog.chibicode.com/you-can-submit-a-pull-request-to-inject-arbitrary-js-code-into-donald-trumps-site-here-s-how-782aa6a17a56#.g0yzhqz52Politics aside, purely on a technological level, this is just about the dumbest drivel I've ever read in my life.
Trump is hiring shit people. Clearly he does not know the best people.
https://blog.chibicode.com/you-can-submit-a-pull-request-to-inject-arbitrary-js-code-into-donald-trumps-site-here-s-how-782aa6a17a56#.g0yzhqz52Politics aside, purely on a technological level, this is just about the dumbest drivel I've ever read in my life.
Trump is hiring shit people. Clearly he does not know the best people.
"hey guys did you know that if you edit a public library to say 'trump is a dum-dum' and the maintainer of said public library accepts it, stuff will happen?????"
No fucking shit. That's why no self-respecting library maintainer would ever do that, unless they wanted to jettison their software to obscurity. It's like saying that you could add "lol the erth is round!!!" to this website and it would only take one click of a button from Parsifal, Blanko or myself to accept it. It's true on a technicality, but definitely not worth an article in its own right. This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.
Yes, sure, there is a mild risk of the maintainer deciding to troll Trump, and I guess it's kinda-sorta mitigated by using a local copy of the library rather than an upstream link (assuming you don't update it regularly, or that you rigorously scrutinise your libraries before updating them). There are some stability and compatibility concerns. But to say that you can arbitrarily inject JS code into his website is a yuuuge stretch.
God damn it I hate people who pretend to understand how shit works.
Doesn't mean its not impossible to put in a back door vulnerability in that's hard to spot.I feel like you haven't read what I said. Yes, he could do it, if he wanted to spell the end of his career. It's a safe assumption that he wouldn't do it.
Heck, the guy in charge of checking could do it.
Point is, it was a foolish thing to do. Not for some small business or low risk site but for a major political candidate who has drawn a ton of criticism, right or wrong.If anything, a big business or political candidate is probably in a better position, since they could easily get the guy sued.
Plus, sucking bandwidth from gitbub is a shit move, even if its only a few kb per visit.I don't know what gives you that impression. There is nothing in GitHub's terms and conditions that would suggest they're even mildly opposed to people hotlinking their resources. And if they were, I'm sure they would take action to address it long before "tech bloggers" of this guy's calibre would get involved.
This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.
In less stupid news, here's a shameless hit piece from the (failing) New York Times. Sad!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html
Doesn't mean its not impossible to put in a back door vulnerability in that's hard to spot.I feel like you haven't read what I said. Yes, he could do it, if he wanted to spell the end of his career. It's a safe assumption that he wouldn't do it.
Heck, the guy in charge of checking could do it.
Point is, it was a foolish thing to do. Not for some small business or low risk site but for a major political candidate who has drawn a ton of criticism, right or wrong.If anything, a big business or political candidate is probably in a better position, since they could easily get the guy sued.
Eh, I'd think the same if it was on anyone's site. Which, if it's common, probably is.Plus, sucking bandwidth from gitbub is a shit move, even if its only a few kb per visit.I don't know what gives you that impression. There is nothing in GitHub's terms and conditions that would suggest they're even mildly opposed to people hotlinking their resources. And if they were, I'm sure they would take action to address it long before "tech bloggers" of this guy's calibre would get involved.
So far, you're confirming my suspicion:This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.
It really seems like you have no reason to find it relevant, other than someone telling you that someone related to Trump supposedly did something incompetent. It doesn't matter if it's true so long as it attacks the politician you don't like, right?
In less stupid news, here's a shameless hit piece from the (failing) New York Times. Sad!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html
Trump is good at debt, but he doesn't have shit on Obama. The trillions he's added to the national debt would make the Donald blush...
It's not his fault he followed Bush.Ummm.. Actually it is. He chose to run while George was president.
It's not his fault he followed Bush.
It's not his fault he followed Bush.
Or every other president before Bush, apparently, since he's practically accumulated more debt than all of his predecessors combined...
He gets a pass for FY '09, but saying he cut the deficit every year as a blanket statement is a bit disingenuous as it ignores how much debt was accumulated during his terms.
It's a matter of fact that the deficit went down every year he was president.Agree. It's also a matter of fact that he's added more debt than nearly all of his predecessors combined.
How much should he have cut the deficit, and how?No idea, I'm not an economic advisor. Something less than a near 100% increase in debt seems better.
Why does he only get a pass for 2009? Does economic policy and events only have effects a year in to the future? Or did the sub-prime crisis, Clinton's fault, have effects for multiple years?Because he had no control whatsoever coming into FY '09. He did after that. We both know it isn't like the president controls the purse anyway, but people associate spending with the president in $CURRENT_YEAR so that's what my earlier quip was about. Just because I throw silly one liners at Obama doesn't mean I don't like him. I voted for him twice.
EDIT: For clarity the deficit went from 1.5T in 2009 to 400B in 2015.
It's a matter of fact that the deficit went down every year he was president.Agree. It's also a matter of fact that he's added more debt than nearly all of his predecessors combined.QuoteHow much should he have cut the deficit, and how?No idea, I'm not an economic advisor. Something less than a near 100% increase in debt seems better.
QuoteWhy does he only get a pass for 2009? Does economic policy and events only have effects a year in to the future? Or did the sub-prime crisis, Clinton's fault, have effects for multiple years?Because he had no control whatsoever coming into FY '09. He did after that. We both know it isn't like the president controls the purse anyway, but people associate spending with the president in $CURRENT_YEAR so that's what my earlier quip was about. Just because I throw silly one liners at Obama doesn't mean I don't like him. I voted for him twice.
QuoteEDIT: For clarity the deficit went from 1.5T in 2009 to 400B in 2015.
It was 438B, right near what Bush finished his last year on with 459B, although Bush's deficit before that was 161B. The deficit this year is estimated at over 600B though, so it looks like the little factoid won't hold up for his entire term. Bush added about half of the debt Obama has and he's seen as a war mongering pillar of the military industrial complex.
... a reductionist way of evaluating his performance.
... a reductionist way of evaluating his performance.
About as reductionist as saying he decreased the deficit every year.
You go girl.
By the way, every president since Clinton has doubled the national debt and Reagan almost tripled it. It's what America does.Cool story, bro.
Now tell me more about Obama...Seems like a decent guy. What else do you want to be told more about?...
Hey, guys, can we talk about the presidential election?
Clinton will win.lol
I'll be sure to quote this again in November.Clinton will win.lol
Too bad the second one was engineered but whatever.Oh, because the first one wasn't :^)
We've no evidence of it. Maybe, but I'm not going to say it was if no one even hinted that it was.Too bad the second one was engineered but whatever.Oh, because the first one wasn't :^)
We've no evidence of it. Maybe, but I'm not going to say it was if no one even hinted that it was.Too bad the second one was engineered but whatever.Oh, because the first one wasn't :^)
If Hillary wins, America will remain a shithole and will probably only get worse.
Trump will make America Great AgainDid Trump change his immigration stance?
If Hillary wins, America will remain a shithole and will probably only get worse.
If Trump wins...
The same thing will happen. Maybe an added war.
Quite simple:If Hillary wins, America will remain a shithole and will probably only get worse.
If Trump wins...
The same thing will happen. Maybe an added war.
What leads you to believe that Trump as opposed to Hillary would be more likely to start a war?
Can you cite some examples of wars being caused because someone said something mean (aka hurt feelz).No.
Can you cite some examples of wars being caused because someone said something mean (aka hurt feelz).No.
But I can cite plenty of wars started by people who were assholes and believed that another group was unfair or had something they wanted.
My point being: Donald Trump does not have a gentle touch nor does he go into diplomatic situations fully armed with the knowledge he should have. He talks off the cuff and while that may sound great on the campaign trail, it's not good for diplomatic relations.
Sure, I'm probably exaggerating about one wrong word causing a war but I've no doubt that he could make relations very strained by his words. Maybe not enough to start a war, but certainly enough to destroy trade opportunities.
You actually have to wonder about that? Of course Trump is the one who's lying.No, they both lied. Just not sure whose lying more.
The best case scenario for Trump is as follows: right before June 7, he will be some 100 delegates short, having to rely on winning in California to make up the difference.
He will have to release his tax returns very soon, and also he will have to testify in the university scam cases, not to mention that he will hit a roadblock at the convention.
Trump is still trying to run as an independent, while using the Republican party as a platform: this means that the GOP had this planned from the very start, a sure sign that they are not about to lose the general election to the Democrats, not to mention the House and Senate elections, by supporting a nominee who will have a hard time getting the needed Hispanic, Black and Catholic votes on his side; something else must be going on.
Instead of retroactively pointing out evidence of past attacks maybe you should give us conspiracy evidence of future attacks.
Or how the wrong hand signals were given at the presidential speech.Instead of retroactively pointing out evidence of past attacks maybe you should give us conspiracy evidence of future attacks.
And then when they don't happen, he'll claim that he's prevented the attacks by scaring off the would-be perpetrators with his exposé.
Against Hillary, any of the well-known Republican candidates would have won.Which is why the GOP tried very hard to support Trump's opponents.
The question is: why did the RNC put up with Trump?As I answered, if they tanked Trump, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Trump is popular and despite their best efforts, they couldn't kill the campaign in the primaries. And killing it at the convention would have turned MANY voters against them. So their only option to winning the white house is unity. Hence why they pushed for people like Paul Ryan to support Trump.
Why the smooth sailing when there should have been none?
Why did the other candidates not utter a word about the economy, allowing Trump to take the stage?They... did. I... I really don't know what your question is. The other candidates talked about the economy. Trump mostly just said "Everything sucks, I'm great, you're great, let's make illegals suffer!"
Let me remind you: we still are waiting to find out the real reason why Trump was allowed to get this far, we'll see if it matches what I believe to be true, that a certain segment of the American people is being set up for something very nasty.You've been pointing to 9/11 predictions for the last 2 days so where are the clues as to what this "something very nasty" is? And which segment? If it's a voter bloc then not much that could affect them that won't hit everyone else.
Trump has explicitly said that the United States CAN PRINT ITS OWN MONEY, without the need to borrow from the banks, and that he wants to get rid of the Fed.Yes... the US Can print it's own money... It's kinda one of the many powers given to the federal government. And what Fed? The federal reserve, whose job it is to print the money? Cause... that would be kinda... pointless.
He also said this: "wouldn't it be wonderful if we got along well with Russia?"Because they have no choice. It's either "Put up with Trump and TRY to make him behave" or "Piss off the voters who wanted him and definitely lose the white house."
He wants America to be great again.
He also suggested a very direct solution for the student loan problem.
And yet, those who are perfectly against these very proposals, are letting Trump sail so smoothly all the way to the ballot box in November.
Levee, you have it backwards, the Federal Reserve lends to banks, not the other way around. The Federal Reserve's interest rate is a basic component to economics in the US.He's probably confusing the federal reserve with the various "loans" we've gotten from various nations. Our "National Debt" as it were.
70s?
No. That's not hot.
She felt weak. But I won't hold it against her. FDR couldn't walk at all.
Didn't't know she was injured.70s?
No. That's not hot.
She felt weak. But I won't hold it against her. FDR couldn't walk at all.
FDR's condition was physical only, his mental state was mostly unaffected until his death.
Hillary's condition stems from complications of her head injury in 2012. The FBI interviews that were released have her admitting that her injury has caused significant ongoing issues, including poor memory. She couldn't even tell them what the (C) stood for in document headers.
She couldn't even tell them what the (C) stood for in document headers.
I don't know, I think we should all just make assumptions about things instead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdbmG_H2PhgAnd?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-pneumonia.html
She has pneumonia, which is hardly a terminal illness. It doesn't matter, anyway. Even if all the memes about how Hillary's health and sanity are hanging by a thread ended up being true, she'd be succeeded by a VP equally qualified at not being Trump.She couldn't even tell them what the (C) stood for in document headers.
You believed her when she said she didn't know? I think it's far more likely that she was lying about it.
yeah i mean what are the odds of a 68 year old woman developing pneumoniaOh it's not the lack of rarity, more like the symptoms she isn't displaying or wasn't displaying.
i think ill just believe whatever alex jones says it is that's probably smart
yeah i mean what are the odds of a 68 year old woman developing pneumoniaOh it's not the lack of rarity, more like the symptoms she isn't displaying or wasn't displaying.
i think ill just believe whatever alex jones says it is that's probably smart
yeah i mean what are the odds of a 68 year old woman developing pneumonia
i think ill just believe whatever alex jones says it is that's probably smart
This is an interesting post you've made here, Saddam. You've managed to make the argument that I should believe Hillary and her campaign about her health while simultaneously arguing that she lied to the FBI about classification headers (why would she do that, I might add?).
Hillary's condition magically changes based on media coverage of her episodes. She's had erratic coughing fits for over a month but she's only had pneumonia since Friday, isn't that interesting? Furthermore, how does a presidential candidate catch pneumonia in the August/September time frame? Even worse, why would a presidential candidate with a contagious disease hug a little girl the same day that disease caused her to collapse to the ground?
yeah i mean what are the odds of a 68 year old woman developing pneumonia
i think ill just believe whatever alex jones says it is that's probably smart
I'm simply pointing out that whatever is wrong with her has been ailing her for months at the least and she admitted her head injury complications to the FBI. The only way out of such an obvious logic trap is to take the Saddam route and say Hillary lied to the FBI and that she's now telling the truth. How wonderful.
I don't listen to Alex Jones, and making the response "hurr durr vast right wing conspiracy!!" any time someone points out her ongoing health issues is childish at best and delusional at worst.
This is an interesting post you've made here, Saddam. You've managed to make the argument that I should believe Hillary and her campaign about her health while simultaneously arguing that she lied to the FBI about classification headers (why would she do that, I might add?).
Because she fucked up in a major way with the emails and was trying to mitigate her culpability by playing dumb.QuoteHillary's condition magically changes based on media coverage of her episodes. She's had erratic coughing fits for over a month but she's only had pneumonia since Friday, isn't that interesting? Furthermore, how does a presidential candidate catch pneumonia in the August/September time frame? Even worse, why would a presidential candidate with a contagious disease hug a little girl the same day that disease caused her to collapse to the ground?
Listen to yourself. What do you actually know about pneumonia? You're not a doctor, and even if you were, you've never examined Hillary. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. These are just memes coming straight from Internet cranks who have no idea what they're talking about either, and the fact that you really want it all to be true is blinding you to the fact that it's all smoke and no fire.
I'm offering Sen. Obama a chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. ... Just the two of us going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions; we'll set whatever rules seem fair
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/12/trump-challenges-clinton-to-debate-without-a-moderator.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/12/trump-challenges-clinton-to-debate-without-a-moderator.html)With Obama it would have been at least somewhat ordered.
Trump is asking Hillary for a debate without moderators, claiming that moderators create bias in the debate. The most interesting thing is that Hillary asked for the same thing in 2008. I wonder how she'll respond. http://archive.is/cuSqP (http://archive.is/cuSqP)QuoteI'm offering Sen. Obama a chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. ... Just the two of us going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions; we'll set whatever rules seem fair
Edit: Trump's electability is in inversely related to Mexico's currency valuation: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-12/want-to-know-how-trump-s-doing-just-look-at-the-mexican-peso (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-12/want-to-know-how-trump-s-doing-just-look-at-the-mexican-peso)
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/
ayy lmao
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/HACKERS ON STEROIDS MK. 2
ayy lmao
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/HACKERS ON STEROIDS MK. 2
ayy lmao
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/HACKERS ON STEROIDS MK. 2
ayy lmao
It's not, the campaign confirmed the legitimacy of the article and that the connection between frog memes and neo-nazis simply must be broadcasted as wide as possible. CNN even held an entire segment on it. Just who is this 4chan and why does he matter? Stay tuned.
"Trump's a racist!"
Hillary was the one who started the birther nuts offIndirectly, she was. Tacit approval of shitty things that one's supporter's do is something Trump keeps getting shit for (and here, across the pond, the same applies to Jeremy Corbyn). It's only fair that Hillary receives the same treatment.
The paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.
More specifically, Sidney Blumenthal started the birther nonsense. Having your top aide try to make the argument about Obama's heritage and then claiming you didn't start it is pretty hilarious.
And actually, "Trump's a racist!" is pretty much exactly what Obama said. He told an entire race of people not to vote for Trump because... why else? Oh, he's a racist! Race baiting doesn't work anymore and the longer Democrats keep trying to use it the deeper the hole they'll dig.QuoteThe paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.
More specifically, Sidney Blumenthal started the birther nonsense. Having your top aide try to make the argument about Obama's heritage and then claiming you didn't start it is pretty hilarious.
And actually, "Trump's a racist!" is pretty much exactly what Obama said. He told an entire race of people not to vote for Trump because... why else? Oh, he's a racist! Race baiting doesn't work anymore and the longer Democrats keep trying to use it the deeper the hole they'll dig.QuoteThe paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.
What is your source that a Clinton aid started the birther movement?
Hillary was the one who started the birther nuts offIndirectly, she was. Tacit approval of shitty things that one's supporter's do is something Trump keeps getting shit for (and here, across the pond, the same applies to Jeremy Corbyn). It's only fair that Hillary receives the same treatment.
And actually, "Trump's a racist!" is pretty much exactly what Obama said. He told an entire race of people not to vote for Trump because... why else? Oh, he's a racist! Race baiting doesn't work anymore and the longer Democrats keep trying to use it the deeper the hole they'll dig.
Our work's not done. But if we are going to advance the cause of justice, and equality, and prosperity, and freedom, then we also have to acknowledge that even if we eliminated every restriction on voters, we would still have one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples. That's not good, that is on us.
And I am reminded of all those folks who had to count bubbles in a bar of soap, beaten trying to register voters in Mississippi. Risked everything so that they could pull that lever. So, if I hear anybody saying their vote does not matter, that it doesn't matter who we elect, read up on your history. It matters. We've got to get people to vote.
In fact, if you want to give Michelle and me a good sendoff, and that was a beautiful video, but don't just watch us walk off into the sunset now, get people registered to vote. If you care about our legacy, realize everything we stand for is at stake, on the progress we have made is at stake in this election.
My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot. Tolerance is on the ballot. Democracy is on the ballot. Justice is on the ballot. Good schools are on the ballot. Ending mass incarceration, that's on the ballot right now.
And there is one candidate who will advance those things. And there is another candidate who's defining principal, the central theme of his candidacy is opposition to all that we have done.
There's no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter. It all matters. And after we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down it's guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send off? Go vote! And iI'm going to be working as hard as I can these next seven weeks to make sure folks do.
Hope is on the ballot. And fear is on the ballot too. Hope is on the ballot and fear is on the ballot too.
QuoteThe paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.
Hillary turned a blind eye to her supporters who promoted the birther theoriesYeah, that's what I meant by "tacit approval"
Also, could you please define the term "race-baiting" for me?I'll have a stab at it. Race-baiting is using the subjects of race and racism to achieve goals that aren't really relevant. It could be selling a product, achieving a political goal, or pretty much anything else.
Obama was definitely pointing towards the emancipation and civil rights promotions of African Americans as a struggle that needs to be continued.
While not specifically race... isn't Trump's policy of banning Muslims very similar?Arguably, but that's neither here nor there when you're making an appeal to African-Americans specifically.
Also, I read what Obama said and he didn't say offended nor about race. What he said could apply to gays, transexuals, and white people who hate all the cop killings.It was the Congressional Black Caucus dinner. He was certainly speaking to a well-defined demographic. And he did say he would take it as a personal insult if they didn't vote - I don't think it's a big stretch to paraphrase that as "he'd be offended".
There may be a racial subtext there, but there's also a gay subtext so is it really race baiting?I really think it's more than subtext - if he gave the same speech elsewhere, fair enough, I can see how it could go either way.
There's nothing there calling Trump racist. Maybe it's implied when he said that "tolerance" is at stake, but that's very slim grounds for you to base your generalization on. It seems more like you saw that this was a negative statement about Trump that also talked about race, so you made your usual knee-jerk assumption that the author was just saying, "Trump is racist!" Also, could you please define the term "race-baiting" for me?QuoteQuoteThe paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.
I love how you put this in quote tags as if it's some kind of wise aphorism. The only thing it's missing is the "I'm not a professional quote-maker..." disclaimer at the beginning.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html
Sidney Blumenthal is the one who supposedly spread it as far as he could. He has been a constant aid to Hillary (and still is) even after President Obama blacklisted him from the White House (oh, gee, I wonder what pissed him off?)
Meanwhile, former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.
“During the 2008 Democratic primary, Sid Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Co.,” Asher said in an email Friday to McClatchy, noting that he was at the time the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage.
“During that meeting, Mr. Blumenthal and I met together in my office and he strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya. We assigned a reporter to go to Kenya, and that reporter determined that the allegation was false.
“At the time of Mr. Blumenthal’s conversation with me, there had been a few news articles published in various outlets reporting on rumors about Obama’s birthplace. While Mr. Blumenthal offered no concrete proof of Obama’s Kenyan birth, I felt that, as journalists, we had a responsibility to determine whether or not those rumors were true. They were not.”
In fact, there were several people publicly pushing the theory, which was repeated extensively on conservative news outlets. There were the two Clinton supporters, but there is no evidence that Clinton herself or her campaign spread the story.
Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s campaign manager during part of the 2008 race, told CNN on Friday that an Iowa campaign worker had passed on an email about the birther conspiracy and that Clinton quickly fired him.
Solis Doyle said she’d called Obama campaign official David Plouffe at the time “to apologize and basically say that this was not coming from us. It was a rogue volunteer coordinator.”
SPREADING THE STORY
The Internet helped spread the story, through Web sites such as WorldNetDaily.com and dozens of other conservative sites, often repeating charges without evidence or attribution beyond other like-minded Web sites.
"This is abetted by changes in the structure of communications," said Michael Barkun, an expert in conspiracy theories and a political science professor at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University.
"What once would have been fringe ideas are spread very quickly and much more widely than would have been the case even 10 years ago. . . . Ideas that originate in quite small subcultures can very quickly get mainstreamed."
Once the story spread on the Internet, several of the birthers have found a stage on talk radio and cable TV. Lou Dobbs of CNN, for example, has said he thinks the allegation is false, yet he continues airing them.
i personally have no trouble believing that this conversation took place, but it doesn't really matter. the birther stuff was already around and already being spread, mostly by folks on the right. hillary distanced herself from birthers right off the bat.
lol but because he says literally one time that he believes obama is am american citizen, suddenly he gets credit for "finishing" the movement? what? the movement he's been championing almost single-handedly for five years? dude you don't have to like hillarly clinton, but do you really have such a boner for the god emperor that you can't admit that, yes, trump has been the primary flag bearer for the birther movement, and he's been doing it for way longer than anyone else?
essentially both are entirely at fault for the birther movement.
Hillary never fully disavowed...She likely fanned the flames...her plan failed...a movement that Hillary started
i can't tell if you're kidding or not. one of them has never accused obama of being a foreigner and has explicitly decried the notion. the other has been publicly advancing the same for at least 5 years. those are equivalent to you?
source?
It's a shame he gave it up. Obama was born in Kenya and is definitely a Muslim.The God Emporer Trump never surrenders. Don't you hear him speak?
he can hold two contradictory opinions at once and still be correct on both.(http://i.imgur.com/XyTlGKK.jpg)
You want me to source Hillary not doing things? Have you really been James Comey this whole time?
You want me to source Hillary not doing things? Have you really been James Comey this whole time?
i meant evidence that clinton started, or really even had anything to do with, the birther movement.
it would look something like this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/16/donald_trump_s_birther_tweets_in_order.html
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495211893/after-bitter-primary-fight-ted-cruz-to-back-donald-trump
I am deeply disappointed.
Does anyone in politics have a backbone to stick by their convictions?
More like I'm surprised certain politicians are politicking in the form of unity and not stubbornness.http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495211893/after-bitter-primary-fight-ted-cruz-to-back-donald-trump (http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495211893/after-bitter-primary-fight-ted-cruz-to-back-donald-trump)
I am deeply disappointed.
Does anyone in politics have a backbone to stick by their convictions?
Are you saying you're surprised that politicians are politicking?
I appreciate the hand waiving away of an assault victim.It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leave it to liberals to dehumanise someone the moment said someone complains about being dehumanised.
Well it's not too difficult to comprehend that they're probably tired of being patronized about safe-spaces and trigger words to the point where they don't care if Republicans get their "karma."I appreciate the hand waiving away of an assault victim.It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leave it to liberals to dehumanise someone the moment said someone complains about being dehumanised.
Well it's not too difficult to comprehend that they're probably tired of being patronized about safe-spaces and trigger words to the point where they don't care if Republicans get their "karma."Sure, but because everyone else is also human, they're likely to have little respect for people who practise the opposite of what they preach.
They're humans, not saints.
Sure, but because everyone else is also human, they're likely to have little respect for people who practise the opposite of what they preach.Well, to be fair - I don't think the people in El Cajon are the ones wanting safe spaces. San Diego has historically been a Republican county. I'm honestly surprised this even happened, but I suppose emotions were high at the protests.
I appreciate the hand waiving away of an assault victim. He deserved it because of what he was wearing, amirite? Gee, that sounds familiar.
If we are trying to point out retarded election shit on Reddit, I'd suggest also checking /r/politics
Might is Right, so this guy was obviously wrong.
The key is to hide your Trumpism until voting day and color that shit in or hit the button where no one can see. This guy didn't get the memo.
Bernie Sanders said Hillary Clinton's assessment that his supporters were the "children of the recession" who live in their "parents' basement" is "absolutely correct" in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday's broadcast of ABC's This Week.
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)
“I really feel that not just Democrats, but the senior Republicans are all corrupt and not looking after the people anymore. I think Trump is doing that,” Reeves said. “I truly believe that man will put aside his greed as everyone does not believe — he’ll put aside his greed and work for this country.”
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)But seriously, if anyone thinks half the shit they read isn't prestaged, they're as delusional as a child on christmas thinking Santa came.
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)But seriously, if anyone thinks half the shit they read isn't prestaged, they're as delusional as a child on christmas thinking Santa came.
I second that. And it's been that way for decades. There's more truth and understanding of the current in a methodical search through old books than through current media.
One in particular seems especially relevant: Rajani Palme Dutt's 1934 book on fascism states that social democracy is the twin of fascism. Both systems work for the same capitalist master. Weimar Germany, pre-Mussolini Italy, pre-Franco Spain, the U.S. and most western democracies are social democracies, or social fascist countries. They become openly fascist when the capitalist rulers feel their power threatened. Both American political parties are social democratic. America and the other social democracies are the moderate wing of fascism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html)
“Because that’s not Donald Trump’s position now.”
lol.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html)
“Because that’s not Donald Trump’s position now.”
lol.
That is fucking hilarious.
All politicians are actors, Trump just keeps changing his role.
All politicians are actors, Trump just keeps changing his role.
isn't trump supposed to be the paragon of honesty and telling it like it is and not being an actor/politician? idgi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html)
“Because that’s not Donald Trump’s position now.”
lol.
That is fucking hilarious.
When Hillary flip flops every election cycle everyone commends her for evolving, but if Trump changes on any issue he is chastised for being a hypocrite. Am I the only one who notices.
is something wrong if your campaign is apparently bipolar.
http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/07/487980/Clinton-US-president--war-Syria
i'm increasingly convinced that the entire campaign is performance art. and if it is, then it's utterly brilliant.
In other news, what a class act:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html)
“Because that’s not Donald Trump’s position now.”
lol.
That is fucking hilarious.
When Hillary flip flops every election cycle everyone commends her for evolving, but if Trump changes on any issue he is chastised for being a hypocrite. Am I the only one who notices.
That doesn't make any sense. Accusing Russia of orchestrating the hacking only calls more attention to the revelations of those emails. The best thing to do if they wanted to downplay the scandal would be to simply never bring it up and hope that people forget about it over time. It's far more likely that Russia really is behind the hacking than that this is some weird, poorly thought-out political stunt.Yeah but maybe it's a way to show that Trumps friend, Putin, is trying to help Trump win. Or it has nothing to do with politics and wasn't thought of in any political way.
In other news, what a class act:Trump read a pre-prepared script as a response. And man was it in stark contrast. He looked like a presidential candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html)
That doesn't make any sense. Accusing Russia of orchestrating the hacking only calls more attention to the revelations of those emails. The best thing to do if they wanted to downplay the scandal would be to simply never bring it up and hope that people forget about it over time. It's far more likely that Russia really is behind the hacking than that this is some weird, poorly thought-out political stunt.
In other news, what a class act:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html
Yeah but maybe it's a way to show that Trumps friend, Putin, is trying to help Trump win.
Plus, the article doesn't mention the email scandal. It just says the Obama administration claims Russia is hacking election systems.
The leaked emails appeared to show that Democratic Party officials were biased against Bernie Sanders in his primary race against Mrs Clinton.
"All of this behavior occurred when he [Trump] was a Democrat," said Hutchison. "I'm saying that the man was Democrat at the time and that Bill Clinton defined this behavior."
i've said plenty of shit in my life that i wish i could unsay, but this notion that 'well you know whatever this is how all dudes talk to each other in private' is not accurate. there's a world of difference between "omg that chick is hot af i wanna do dirty things with her" and "lol yeah bro i just force myself on women whenever i want it's p awesome just kiss her and grab that pussy." if this was just a video of trump talking about how smoking hot his costar was, then no one would give a shit.
plus i just don't think that this is the same as a private conversation among friends. he was on a bus on the set of a tv show, wearing a microphone, having a conversation with someone he barely knows, and among a bunch of other people he barely knows, like the bus driver.
holy shit this is brilliant: (http://komonews.com/news/local/he-was-channeling-bill-clinton-state-gop-chair-blames-democrats-for-trumps-comments)Quote"All of this behavior occurred when he [Trump] was a Democrat," said Hutchison. "I'm saying that the man was Democrat at the time and that Bill Clinton defined this behavior."
Wow...
Just...
Is that really how she justifies it? She's really grasping at straws...
Plus, the article doesn't mention the email scandal. It just says the Obama administration claims Russia is hacking election systems.
Sure it does:QuoteThe leaked emails appeared to show that Democratic Party officials were biased against Bernie Sanders in his primary race against Mrs Clinton.
There are so many email scandals now, I have to specify which one. This is just amazing.
There are so many email scandals now, I have to specify which one. This is just amazing.Aren't there really only 2?
There are so many email scandals now, I have to specify which one. This is just amazing.
You've never even mentioned the Dubya private email server... Maybe start there?
There are so many email scandals now, I have to specify which one. This is just amazing.Aren't there really only 2?
So, a thought occurred to me.
Right now, the GOP is distancing themselves from Trump.
If enough people vote 3rd party or write-ins, the Republican controlled house chooses the president.
Would the house choose Donald Trump?
I'm starting to think they wouldn't. I get the feeling that dealing with Donald has been very hard for them and they wish they had removed him somehow. So maybe, just maybe, they'd vote for someone else other than Donald. Probably make it a close margin between him and Hillary. "Oh no, all those Democrats voted Hillary and a few of our retiring senators with generous severance checks turned traitor. Oh no..."
It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.So, a thought occurred to me.
Right now, the GOP is distancing themselves from Trump.
If enough people vote 3rd party or write-ins, the Republican controlled house chooses the president.
Would the house choose Donald Trump?
I'm starting to think they wouldn't. I get the feeling that dealing with Donald has been very hard for them and they wish they had removed him somehow. So maybe, just maybe, they'd vote for someone else other than Donald. Probably make it a close margin between him and Hillary. "Oh no, all those Democrats voted Hillary and a few of our retiring senators with generous severance checks turned traitor. Oh no..."
A third party candidate would have to win at least 1 electoral vote with neither Trump or Hillary getting to 270. It won't happen.
It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.
It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.
What I'm saying is, though it's possible third-party could get significant portions of the popular vote, in order to be considered by Congress, a third-party candidate would have to either win a state, or win one of Nebraska or Maine's districts. That takes coordination and more than just a significant amount of people writing in or voting third-party.
It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.
What I'm saying is, though it's possible third-party could get significant portions of the popular vote, in order to be considered by Congress, a third-party candidate would have to either win a state, or win one of Nebraska or Maine's districts. That takes coordination and more than just a significant amount of people writing in or voting third-party.
Fair enough.
Still gonna anyway. Not like it matters. At this point Hillary could win in a landslide victory.
Hell, even the wiki leaks "surprise" was more of a bore than incriminating evidence. Plenty of people thought it would doom Hillary. HA! All it did was prove she's a politician.
I think the Trump October surprise was far more damning.
http://www.politico.com/live-blog-updates/2016/10/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks-000011It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.
What I'm saying is, though it's possible third-party could get significant portions of the popular vote, in order to be considered by Congress, a third-party candidate would have to either win a state, or win one of Nebraska or Maine's districts. That takes coordination and more than just a significant amount of people writing in or voting third-party.
Fair enough.
Still gonna anyway. Not like it matters. At this point Hillary could win in a landslide victory.
Hell, even the wiki leaks "surprise" was more of a bore than incriminating evidence. Plenty of people thought it would doom Hillary. HA! All it did was prove she's a politician.
I think the Trump October surprise was far more damning.
Which wikileaks surprise?
[W]e need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy.
Maine Governor Paul LePage, everyone:Quote[W]e need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy.
"We need an authoritarian because the previous president was too authoritarian." :-\
Well, the polls may not be rigged, but the demographics of the polls is meant to reflect the 2008 and 2012 voter turnout numbers. e.g. they assume Hillary will receive the same turnout percentages that Obama received.
Well, the polls may not be rigged, but the demographics of the polls is meant to reflect the 2008 and 2012 voter turnout numbers. e.g. they assume Hillary will receive the same turnout percentages that Obama received.
According to this article on 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/), most polls do not weight results based on party-affiliation. They weight for demographics, and estimated turnout is going to be determined by the questions they ask to score your likelihood to vote ("likely voters").
Maine Governor Paul LePage, everyone:Quote[W]e need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy.
"We need an authoritarian because the previous president was too authoritarian." :-\
Polls weight based on certain demographics, e.g. they'll reflect 2008/2012 numbers by estimating roughly 45% of voters will either lean or be registered as Democrats. (also, Nate Silver's idea that party affiliation is an attitude, not a demographic, is utter nonsense.)
Trump got a record number of votes in a primary season that also had a record number of Republican voters (and this was against several other relatively popular opponents). I can almost guarantee we'll see a surge of people who don't normally vote coming out and voting for Trump. Is it enough to swing the polls into his favor? I suppose we'll find out.
Are you making an argument here, or just contradicting the article? The author (who wasn't Silver, by the way, rendering the bulk of this paragraph irrelevant) explained his reasoning in detail, and made a very convincing case. Handwaving it away by calling it "utter nonsense" isn't exactly a compelling counterargument.
He also had (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-got-the-most-votes-in-gop-primary-history-a-historic-number-of-people-voted-against-him-too/) a record number of votes cast against him. For all we know, there'll be a surge of people who don't normally vote coming out to vote against him.
you're assuming that increased turnout for the primaries will be reflective of the turnout for the general election. How do you know these extra voters for the primaries weren't people who already vote in the general elections?
i don't think rushy read any more of that "apology" than the headline. it actually says the opposite of what he's claiming it does.
i don't think rushy read any more of that "apology" than the headline. it actually says the opposite of what he's claiming it does.
Oh, really? What part?
But why didn’t we build a model for the nomination process? My thinking was this: Statistical models work well when you have a lot of data, and when the system you’re studying has a relatively low level of structural complexity. The presidential nomination process fails on both counts. On the data side, the current nomination process dates back only to 1972, and the data availability is spotty, especially in the early years. Meanwhile, the nomination process is among the most complex systems that I’ve studied. Nomination races usually have multiple candidates; some simplifying assumptions you can make in head-to-head races don’t work very well in those cases. Also, the primaries are held sequentially, so what happens in one state can affect all the later ones.
To be more precise, it’s the output from a computer program that takes inputs (e.g., poll results), runs them through a bunch of computer code, and produces a series of statistics (such as each candidate’s probability of winning and her projected share of the vote), which are then published to our website. The process is, more or less, fully automated: Any time a staffer enters new poll results into our database, the program runs itself and publishes a new set of forecasts.4 There’s a lot of judgment involved when we build the model, but once the campaign begins, we’re just pressing the “go” button and not making judgment calls or tweaking the numbers in individual states.
Nate Bronze is under the impression that as an attitude, party identification changes a lot. The problem is that is, as I said, utter nonsense. While yes, quite a few people change their party line during election season, the vast majority of people do not. They vote exactly the same way each and every time. Hence, they are a demographic. What matters is whether they show up or not, not necessarily which way they vote.
And you think all of those GOP voters will vote for Clinton? Your best bet is that they don't show up at all.
...primary turnout always predicts the winner. Hence why I mentioned the primary model, a model that predicts the winner based on primary turnouts and has been correct every year for the past century. Though, to be fair, the model was created in 1996 and "backtracks" in order to predict the winners since 1912.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/politics/trump-comments-linked-to-antisemitism.html
Trump has finally gone off the deep end.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/09/there-s-still-time-to-replace-donald-trump-as-the-gop-nominee.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/09/there-s-still-time-to-replace-donald-trump-as-the-gop-nominee.html)
He talks about how horrible Hillary is but if you're able to start from almost nothing and have the power to bend the will of the media AND bring down the entire US as a member of the Illuminati... you're pretty fucking good at what you do.She was born into a wealthy political family so I wouldn't say she started from nothing.
She was?He talks about how horrible Hillary is but if you're able to start from almost nothing and have the power to bend the will of the media AND bring down the entire US as a member of the Illuminati... you're pretty fucking good at what you do.She was born into a wealthy political family so I wouldn't say she started from nothing.
It's not the antisemitic thing; it's that he's hit the bottom of the barrel in his conspiracy rants. The destruction of U.S. sovereignty? Hillary plotting with global financial powers? He might as well just start yelling about chemtrails and jet fuel not being able to melt steel beams while he's at it.
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)But seriously, if anyone thinks half the shit they read isn't prestaged, they're as delusional as a child on christmas thinking Santa came.
I second that. And it's been that way for decades. There's more truth and understanding of the current in a methodical search through old books than through current media.
One in particular seems especially relevant: Rajani Palme Dutt's 1934 book on fascism states that social democracy is the twin of fascism. Both systems work for the same capitalist master. Weimar Germany, pre-Mussolini Italy, pre-Franco Spain, the U.S. and most western democracies are social democracies, or social fascist countries. They become openly fascist when the capitalist rulers feel their power threatened. Both American political parties are social democratic. America and the other social democracies are the moderate wing of fascism.
I disagree. Old books show us nothing of greater value or truth. Anyone can write a book and publish it, regardless of truth. Worse yet, when all your facts flow from a limited source (books and news papers) its easier to control.
Well shit.
CIA operative...
I'm gonna have to look into him. Might be my vote in November.
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/trump-voters-reaction.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0
Well shit.
CIA operative...
I'm gonna have to look into him. Might be my vote in November.
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/trump-voters-reaction.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0
You're voting?
Don't you live in Norway?And?
https://streamable.com/6g5v (https://streamable.com/6g5v)He's right though.
Don't look at the email leaks! It's illegal! Don't worry, we'll tell you if we find anything important. ;)
He's right though.
Possession of stolen data is illegal if you know it's stolen. Same with stolen items. If I walk into a bank and (somehow) steal all their financial records, then give them to someone else saying "Dude, hold my stolen bank records" well... that's illegal.
Or "Dude, I just stole this car! Can you keep it in your garage? Thanks."
Wait... so I can have a copy of every single stolen piece of data and it's not illegal? Like I can buy a stolen credit card number with social security # and it's totally legal?He's right though.
Possession of stolen data is illegal if you know it's stolen. Same with stolen items. If I walk into a bank and (somehow) steal all their financial records, then give them to someone else saying "Dude, hold my stolen bank records" well... that's illegal.
Or "Dude, I just stole this car! Can you keep it in your garage? Thanks."
Actually, it isn't. Unless you're a government employee or hold a security clearance, possession of wikileaks documents isn't illegal. Electronic records don't follow the same laws that real property does, hence your car/bank records analogy is pointless.
The act of stealing the records is illegal, the act of possessing them is not.
Wait... so I can have a copy of every single stolen piece of data and it's not illegal? Like I can buy a stolen credit card number with social security # and it's totally legal?
Interesting...
Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails". Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".
Question though: All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump? I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails? That's only fair, right? Why so much focus on Clinton? We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.
I thought they had people who helped them and not just "random people who decided to send shit to them".Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails". Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".
Question though: All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump? I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails? That's only fair, right? Why so much focus on Clinton? We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.
Wikileaks simply releases whatever you email them. If you want Trump's emails, then I suggest you find some hackers that want them, too.
With the Mormons putting forth one of their own (McMullin), their plan is not to actually win the US presidential election, but rather to “distort/skew” the United States Electoral College in Clinton's favor.
I thought they had people who helped them and not just "random people who decided to send shit to them".Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails". Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".
Question though: All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump? I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails? That's only fair, right? Why so much focus on Clinton? We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.
Wikileaks simply releases whatever you email them. If you want Trump's emails, then I suggest you find some hackers that want them, too.
With the Mormons putting forth one of their own (McMullin), their plan is not to actually win the US presidential election, but rather to “distort/skew” the United States Electoral College in Clinton's favor.
Clinton already has a huge lead.
Also, why would they? They're conservatives.
Soo...I thought they had people who helped them and not just "random people who decided to send shit to them".Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails". Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".
Question though: All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump? I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails? That's only fair, right? Why so much focus on Clinton? We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.
Wikileaks simply releases whatever you email them. If you want Trump's emails, then I suggest you find some hackers that want them, too.
Anyone can upload to their servers, then on the wiki leaks side they have people who vet and verify what is uploaded.
This is just another result of spreading the narrative that Trump is literally Hitler and that only Nazis could ever possibly care about who comes across our nation's border.
Soo...I thought they had people who helped them and not just "random people who decided to send shit to them".Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails". Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".
Question though: All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump? I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails? That's only fair, right? Why so much focus on Clinton? We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.
Wikileaks simply releases whatever you email them. If you want Trump's emails, then I suggest you find some hackers that want them, too.
Anyone can upload to their servers, then on the wiki leaks side they have people who vet and verify what is uploaded.
They choose what they leak and what they don't with no way to verify it's from the source indicated?
Honestly, they sojund just like the media.
This is just another result of spreading the narrative that Trump is literally Hitler and that only Nazis could ever possibly care about who comes across our nation's border.
lol triggered
sounds like you need a safe space
Leading the horde of uneducated mongrels, a man who thinks SnL has singled him out for a "hit job" (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-snl-alec-baldwin-2016-10?client=safari).
Or Trump, you delicious mongrel, you.
My safe space is 3.8 million square miles and its currently being invaded by uneducated mongrels. Out out out!That's funny coming from a country with such a shit education system where 32 million adults are illiterate.
My safe space is 3.8 million square miles and its currently being invaded by uneducated mongrels. Out out out!That's funny coming from a country with such a shit education system where 32 million adults are illiterate.
Leading the horde of uneducated mongrels, a man who thinks SnL has singled him out for a "hit job" (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-snl-alec-baldwin-2016-10?client=safari).
Or Trump, you delicious mongrel, you.
I guess unrestrained immigration from third world nations has drawbacks for years to come.Yeah, because our school system sucks and apparently can't teach poor people how to read even if they were born in America.
I guess unrestrained immigration from third world nations has drawbacks for years to come.Yeah, because our school system sucks and apparently can't teach poor people how to read even if they were born in America.
Leading the horde of uneducated mongrels, a man who thinks SnL has singled him out for a "hit job" (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-snl-alec-baldwin-2016-10?client=safari).
Or Trump, you delicious mongrel, you.
OK... Can someone explain why and how these high up, specially secret campaign guys would talk to a random person and reveal all their secrets?
It's a lot more than just a poverty problem. There are plenty of extremely poor areas in the US that have normal literacy rates.Anti-intellectualism in inner cities? Isn't that a rural problem?
In many inner cities there exists a culture of anti-intelligence. Where you're actively ostracized for trying to learn in an education environment. That will have to be tackled long before we begin delving into impoverishment.
Anti-intellectualism in inner cities? Isn't that a rural problem?
What are your sources, sir? For poor places that have normal literacy and poor places that are anti-intellectualism.
Right, I'm speaking of ghetto inner city areas that can sometimes even be food deserts. Places like the Bronx or something. So.. black people. They're usually not anti-intellectualism, they just don't have good encouraging family environments. Schools struggle to all be the same standard which is not what they need and inner city schools are usually way overcrowded and lack funding. Because America doesn't seem to care too much about education. So yeah, if you have a stable family and own books (which is a luxury to poor people), you'll probably be able to read.Anti-intellectualism in inner cities? Isn't that a rural problem?
What are your sources, sir? For poor places that have normal literacy and poor places that are anti-intellectualism.
It's a problem for rural areas, yes, but an even larger problem for cities, especially those with large minority populations. Notice the most rural states in the US have better literacy rates than the most urbanized.
(https://www.missourieconomy.org/images/newsletter/literacy_us_2003.jpg)
The anti-intellectualism is simply my experience in a city school. If there are papers on it, I haven't seen them.
I've already shown that 91% of the illiterates are non-whites. There must be something other than "they're poor" driving that anomaly because poor rural states in the Midwest have relatively high literacy rates.
It's just the latest shenanigans from James O'Keefe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe). His pattern is to approach employees of liberal organizations under false pretenses (sometimes multiple times), have long discussions with them, and then very carefully edit the hours of footage he's recorded into a misleading video that seemingly shows his targets saying ominous and incriminating things. I don't know what the contexts of these conversations are, but given O'Keefe's record, it's a near-certainty that they've been twisted and manipulated into appearing much more sinister than they really are.
Did you watch it? Did anything look carefully edited? I mean the dude literally spilled all the beans. That's why he's fired. Not for anything unethical he did. That is part of the job description.
They are literally paying people to make Trump supporters look like assholes. How much poking and prodding do you think it takes before anyone loses their shit. If you want to know go to a pro-choice rally talking about anything except how great abortions are and see what happens.
Did you watch it? Did anything look carefully edited? I mean the dude literally spilled all the beans. That's why he's fired. Not for anything unethical he did. That is part of the job description.
They are literally paying people to make Trump supporters look like assholes. How much poking and prodding do you think it takes before anyone loses their shit. If you want to know go to a pro-choice rally talking about anything except how great abortions are and see what happens.
Sure, it looks bad now. And the ACORN videos looked bad when they were first released - so much so that they too fired an employee apparently implicated in them, although an investigation eventually showed that he was completely innocent and he collected a settlement (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/andrew-breitbart-and-james-okeefe-ruined-him-and-now-he-gets-100-000/273841/) of $100,000 from O'Keefe after suing him. O'Keefe's record speaks for itself. He is not an honest journalist, and he does not present honest evidence. Every single exposé from him has been either outright debunked or largely discredited after further investigation. If this turns out to be the one time that he really has uncovered a genuine scandal, then so be it, but it's not unreasonable to be highly skeptical at this early stage.
Did you watch it? Did anything look carefully edited? I mean the dude literally spilled all the beans. That's why he's fired. Not for anything unethical he did. That is part of the job description.
They are literally paying people to make Trump supporters look like assholes. How much poking and prodding do you think it takes before anyone loses their shit. If you want to know go to a pro-choice rally talking about anything except how great abortions are and see what happens.
Sure, it looks bad now. And the ACORN videos looked bad when they were first released - so much so that they too fired an employee apparently implicated in them, although an investigation eventually showed that he was completely innocent and he collected a settlement (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/andrew-breitbart-and-james-okeefe-ruined-him-and-now-he-gets-100-000/273841/) of $100,000 from O'Keefe after suing him. O'Keefe's record speaks for itself. He is not an honest journalist, and he does not present honest evidence. Every single exposé from him has been either outright debunked or largely discredited after further investigation. If this turns out to be the one time that he really has uncovered a genuine scandal, then so be it, but it's not unreasonable to be highly skeptical at this early stage.
The guy literally said he gives homeless people meals, showers and hotel stays to do crazy, violent shit. He is ordered to do this by a super PAC that is in "constant rolling" contact with the DNC and Hillary's campaign.
So Clinton's campaign is helping to solve the homeless and jobless problem in America?Did you watch it? Did anything look carefully edited? I mean the dude literally spilled all the beans. That's why he's fired. Not for anything unethical he did. That is part of the job description.
They are literally paying people to make Trump supporters look like assholes. How much poking and prodding do you think it takes before anyone loses their shit. If you want to know go to a pro-choice rally talking about anything except how great abortions are and see what happens.
Sure, it looks bad now. And the ACORN videos looked bad when they were first released - so much so that they too fired an employee apparently implicated in them, although an investigation eventually showed that he was completely innocent and he collected a settlement (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/andrew-breitbart-and-james-okeefe-ruined-him-and-now-he-gets-100-000/273841/) of $100,000 from O'Keefe after suing him. O'Keefe's record speaks for itself. He is not an honest journalist, and he does not present honest evidence. Every single exposé from him has been either outright debunked or largely discredited after further investigation. If this turns out to be the one time that he really has uncovered a genuine scandal, then so be it, but it's not unreasonable to be highly skeptical at this early stage.
The guy literally said he gives homeless people meals, showers and hotel stays to do crazy, violent shit. He is ordered to do this by a super PAC that is in "constant rolling" contact with the DNC and Hillary's campaign.
why is this footage edited at all? why can't i watch the entire dialogue from beginning to end?
In other news:
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress
Yeah... that's all in there.In other news:
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress)
He also proposed a five year ban on congressmen lobbying after their term as well as a five year ban on executive branch officials lobbying. To top it off he proposed a lifetime ban on any senior executive branch official from lobbying Congress or speaking on behalf of a foreign nation.
Yeah... that's all in there.In other news:
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress)
He also proposed a five year ban on congressmen lobbying after their term as well as a five year ban on executive branch officials lobbying. To top it off he proposed a lifetime ban on any senior executive branch official from lobbying Congress or speaking on behalf of a foreign nation.
Why didn't he start with this? If he had this plus a more tame and less angry persona, he'd almost be likable.
True.Yeah... that's all in there.In other news:
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress)
He also proposed a five year ban on congressmen lobbying after their term as well as a five year ban on executive branch officials lobbying. To top it off he proposed a lifetime ban on any senior executive branch official from lobbying Congress or speaking on behalf of a foreign nation.
Why didn't he start with this? If he had this plus a more tame and less angry persona, he'd almost be likable.
His temperament is what got him to where he is in the first place. If he didn't act like he does, we wouldn't be discussing his policies because it'd be Hillary versus #Cruzmissile
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates. Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again? Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?
Ah. So classic trump. Taking from the school of ad homin debating.I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates. Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again? Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?
Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Quote-mining is a dishonest tactic:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/12/donald-trump/trump-ive-been-proven-right-about-clinton-wanting-/QuoteMy dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.
It's a vague piece of wishy-washy environmentalism, nothing more. It's certainly not her laying out her immigration policies. I wish she had made more of this fact, rather than so awkwardly changing the subject to Wikileaks. Someone who didn't know about this quote and didn't look it up after the fact would assume that she had been caught in a lie and was frantically trying to cover it up.
Ah. So classic trump. Taking from the school of ad homin debating.I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates. Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again? Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?
Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Considering that it was a paid, secret speech made to a bank, yeah, she did try to cover this up. There's no soft interpretation of "my dream is an open market and open borders" The whole speech is available if you want to read it, this wasn't a case of quote mining.
His answer on Aleppo sounded like an essay from a literature student who hadn't actually read the book.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/8a/cd/1d8acd8c6e8e337ce31bef84a8636491.jpg)Ah. So classic trump. Taking from the school of ad homin debating.
Wrong!
i was going to vote for hillarywtf you sick fuck
fixedi was going to vote forwtf you sick fuckhillaryshilleryall-time mlb strikeout leader nolan ryan
Ah. So classic trump. Taking from the school of ad homin debating.I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates. Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again? Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?
Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
And did he back it up? What was the claim Hillary made?Ah. So classic trump. Taking from the school of ad homin debating.I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates. Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again? Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?
Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
And did he back it up? What was the claim Hillary made?Ah. So classic trump. Taking from the school of ad homin debating.I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates. Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again? Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?
Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
Also, he called her a nasty woman. How is that NOT an attack of her character?
I did not see it. Not all of it.And did he back it up? What was the claim Hillary made?Ah. So classic trump. Taking from the school of ad homin debating.I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates. Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again? Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?
Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
Also, he called her a nasty woman. How is that NOT an attack of her character?
You obviously didn't watch the debate whatsoever, so why are you trying to even discuss it?
She made a ton of claims, that turned out to be false. Don't use politifact though or you will see just how biased and absurd it is. Do your own research if you want to see instead of relying on second hand accounts on internet forums.
Not without giving me a valid, credible source of unbiased information.
Clinton: I find it ironic that he is raising nuclear weapons. This is a person who has been very cavalier, even casual about the use of nuclear weapons.
Trump: Wrong.
Clinton: He has advocated more countries getting them. Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia. He’s said if we have them, why don't we use them which I think is terrifying. But here's the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There is about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that is why ten people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and in an unprecedented way said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button.
Trump: I have 200 generals and admirals, 21 endorsing me. 21 congressional medal of honor recipients. As far as Japan and other countries, we are being ripped off by everybody in the world. We're defending other countries. We are spending a fortune doing it. They have the bargain of the century. All I said is we have to renegotiate these agreements. Because our country cannot afford to defend Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and many other places. We cannot continue to afford. She took that as saying nuclear weapons.
Clinton: At the last debate, we heard Donald talking about what he did to women, and after that a number of women have come forward saying that's exactly what he did to them. Now, what was his response? Well, he held a number of big rallies where he said that he could not possibly have done those things to those women because they were not attractive enough for –
Trump: I did not say that.
Clinton: -- them to be assaulted.
Trump: I did not say that.
Clinton: In fact, he went on to say --
Wallace: Her two minutes. Sire, her two minutes.
Trump: I did not say that.
Wallace: Her two minutes.
Clinton: He went on to say “look at her, I don’t think so.” About another woman, he said “that wouldn't be my first choice.” He attacked the woman reporter writing the story, called her disgusting, as he has called a number of women during this campaign. Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don't think there is a woman anywhere that doesn't know what that feels like.
Clinton: Well, every time Donald is pushed on something, which is obviously uncomfortable like what these women are saying, he immediately goes to denying responsibility and it's not just about women. He never apologizes or says he's sorry for anything, so we know what he has said and what he's done to women. But he also went after a disabled reporter, mocked and mimicked him on national television.
Trump: Wrong.
Clinton: Well, you know, once again Donald is implying that he didn't support the invasion of Iraq. I said it was a mistake. I said that years ago. He has consistently denied what is --
Trump: Wrong.
Clinton: -- is a very clear fact that before the invasion
Trump: Wrong.
Clinton: -- he supported it. I just want everybody to go google it. “Google Donald Trump Iraq” and you'll see the dozens of sources which verify that he was for the invasion of Iraq.
Trump: Wrong.
There's only one way Hillary would actually face real consequences at this point and it has nothing to do with the legal system.
There's only one way Hillary would actually face real consequences at this point and it has nothing to do with the legal system.
Yeah, the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.
If online enthusiasm was a more accurate gauge of support than polls, Ron Paul would have been elected president a long time ago.
If online enthusiasm was a more accurate gauge of support than polls, Ron Paul would have been elected president a long time ago.One day... one day we shall overcome ;_;
As far as Obama's personal experience went, he was talking about local elections, as indicated by him bringing up Chicago. And regarding his apparent skepticism of the voting process for federal elections, maybe he just didn't know then? He was only replying to an audience question, after all, not deliberately turning it into a major campaign issue like Trump has.
Obama's key point was that electronic machines can't be trusted and you should always have a paper trail.Coincidentally, this is also what most Western nations will tell you.
Obama's key point was that electronic machines can't be trusted and you should always have a paper trail.Coincidentally, this is also what most Western nations will tell you.
Interesting that he now believes it is utterly impossible to rig an election in one person's favor.
Ohio has 8,887 voting precincts. Do you really think that you could ensure the winner by manipulating the votes in just two of those?
Saddam, do you understand how software works? It's not like anyone in their right mind would try to rig each and every machine individually when they all run the same code.
They don't. The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.Saddam, do you understand how software works?
I think the biggest issue is delivering the software.They don't. The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.Saddam, do you understand how software works?
Hardware aside, surely there can't be many underlying different software systems in concurrent use. Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.
To give you a quick bite-size example: most self-checkout machines in the world run one of four software systems. Even though the machines look very different and offer different sets of functionality, they often share the same underlying software. If I find a way to, say, get NCR's software system to let me check out without paying, I could screw over most of Sainsbury's, Tesco and ASDA locations in the UK, as well as most Walmart and Target stores in the USA.
Now, is it a stretch to transfer some factors from retail to the US presidential election? Yeah, I would hope that the software systems driving the electoral process are guarded a bit more heavily; but the principle remains. If someone were to produce an altered version of the software and set it up on the machine, thus causing it to do whatever said person wants it to do. How likely is that to happen? Intuitively, not likely, but that strongly depends on how corrupt the powers that be are.
I think the biggest issue is delivering the software.In an absolute doomsday scenario (the Democratic party are literally North Korea, intend to overthrow democracy and install a one-party system), the machines could come pre-packed with the "right" software. A massive foreign power could probably build up the numbers of corrupt officials necessary to pull something like that off too. It's not like the US hasn't installed puppet governments around the world before.
And then you have the original votes which can be recounted by hand if there's a dispute.I believe 5 states don't have a paper audit trail at all. Add to that numerous counties in the remaining states. Again, I doubt you could rig an election as clear as 1996 or 2008, but 2000, 2004 and 2012 are just about within the realm of slim possibility.
They don't. The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.Saddam, do you understand how software works?
Hardware aside, surely there can't be many underlying different software systems in concurrent use. Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.
To give you a quick bite-size example: most self-checkout machines in the world run one of four software systems. Even though the machines look very different and offer different sets of functionality, they often share the same underlying software. If I find a way to, say, get NCR's software system to let me check out without paying, I could screw over most of Sainsbury's, Tesco and ASDA locations in the UK, as well as most Walmart and Target stores in the USA.
Now, is it a stretch to transfer some factors from retail to the US presidential election? Yeah, I would hope that the software systems driving the electoral process are guarded a bit more heavily; but the principle remains. If someone were to produce an altered version of the software and set it up on the machine, thus causing it to do whatever said person wants it to do. How likely is that to happen? Intuitively, not likely, but that strongly depends on how corrupt the powers that be are.
genuine question from someone who doesn't understand software/programming/whatever on the same level as you: could these things be done without getting caught?
Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.
These are stories that are made up, these are total fiction. You'll find out that, in the years to come, these women that stood up, it was all fiction. They were made up. I don't know these women, it's not my thing to do what they say. You know I don't do that. I don't grab them, as they say, on the arm. One said, 'he grabbed me on the arm.' And she's a porn star. You know, this one that came out recently, 'he grabbed me and he grabbed me on the arm.' Oh, I'm sure she's never been grabbed before.
This so very reminds me of the clinton scandal.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski."
I'm sure all those other women were fakes too.
Bill Cosby.This so very reminds me of the clinton scandal.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski."
I'm sure all those other women were fakes too.
The difference being all of those women didn't magically appear twenty years after the incident to berate their assaulter only weeks before his campaign ends.
If someone sexually assaults you, I suggest not waiting twenty to thirty years, accusing the person during their presidential campaign, and then getting upset when people think you're a lunatic.
Excellent point. I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public. It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.
The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.
The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.
Excellent point. I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public. It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.
Such as the candidate saying he would never act the way he talked about acting, and them knowing differently so they come forward to call him out on his lie?Excellent point. I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public. It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.
But I can certainly imagine many reasons why they would show up the last month of the presidential campaign.
The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.
"We'll tell you all of the logistics so you understand the context," Morales said. "There were seven other people on the bus with Mr. Trump and Billy Bush at the time. They were with a two-person camera crew, the bus driver, an 'Access Hollywood' producer, a production assistant, Mr. Trump's security guard and his PR person. Upon arriving at our NBC lot our camera crew was let off the bus so they could record Mr. Trump getting off and meeting the soap opera star."
The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.
This wasn't a private conversation among friends. He was bragging to a bus full of strangers (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/donald-trump-comments-women-access-hollywood-229331), or at least people he only had a passing professional relationship with:Quote"We'll tell you all of the logistics so you understand the context," Morales said. "There were seven other people on the bus with Mr. Trump and Billy Bush at the time. They were with a two-person camera crew, the bus driver, an 'Access Hollywood' producer, a production assistant, Mr. Trump's security guard and his PR person. Upon arriving at our NBC lot our camera crew was let off the bus so they could record Mr. Trump getting off and meeting the soap opera star."
A minor point, but I'm sick of the narrative of that this was just normal male bonding, something that all men do, not at all unusual when bros are chilling, etc.
Unfortunately on that tape he is describing actions that other women have also described before the tapes were even released. Jill Harth, for one, made her allegations in 1997 of Trump fondling her private parts, and she stood by that story in July of this year, months before the Billy Bush tape came out.
And without a proper conviction it's just as believable as the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" meme.
And without a proper conviction it's just as believable as the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" meme.
Well, I mean, Bill Clinton isn't on tape talking about how he did actually rape someone, though.
And without a proper conviction it's just as believable as the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" meme.
Well, I mean, Bill Clinton isn't on tape talking about how he did actually rape someone, though.
No one mentioned is this thread is on tape saying they raped someone.
Trump is on tape talking about groping womenNot without consent. On the same tape, he states that they let him do it.
I either have to believe Trump's an anomaly and a creep, or be terrified of the idea that all guys just talk about groping and assaulting women and trying to sleep with taken women and just generally sound rapey among friends. I really like to believe my male friends aren't such creeps.
Trump is on tape talking about groping womenNot without consent. On the same tape, he states that they let him do it.
Being obscene is one thing, being a criminal is another. Let's keep them separate.
I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Holy interpretation, Batman. Trump is still a living human being. You can't just write a book report on what the author may have meant.
The same goes for me. I suggested none of these things, but here you go loudly proclaiming what I did and didn't think. It reeks of desperation.
And yes, it does go against these women's claims. Our society necessarily relies on the presumption of innocence1. Abandoning it because you violently disagree with a politician sets an abysmal precedent, and in this case reflects on you much more than on either Trump or Clinton. If it's convenient, we don't need evidence, right? haha politics everyone
1 - this goes both ways. Until good evidence has been presented to determine either way, both Trump's claims that the women are lying and the women's claim that Trump sexually violated them are entirely null and void.
You are correct. Please educate the rest of the Trump supporters about that. I'm tired of having Trump and his followers say that Hillary should be in Jail without so much as a trial.Hey, I'm no Trump fan (I think he might be a tiny bit less shit than Hillary, but I don't envy anyone who actually needs to make that choice). I'm still salty about my "let's get a moderate Republican in" idea going to shit.
Our society necessarily relies on the presumption of innocence1. Abandoning it because you violently disagree with a politician sets an abysmal precedent, and in this case reflects on you much more than on either Trump or Clinton.
I'm not calling for Trump to be punished for alleged crimes, or even saying that he is guilty of them.
I'm not calling for Trump to be punished for alleged crimes, or even saying that he is guilty of them.
Indeed - I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if you were only doing something so innocuous. You're doing something far more sinister than that. You choose to ignore the justice system and instead exact your own idea of justice by attempting to smear him with baseless allegations (which, by your own admission, rely on reading Trump's words in reverse...).
This is just a less competent variant of SJWs trying to get people fired for saying disagreeable things on Facebook. It's disgusting, and if you manage to set the precedent, you'll get to enjoy an even more broken country.
But hey, whether or not you want to go there is for Americans to decide. In this particular case, it's not a Trump vs Hillary issue. It's a Saddam/Trekky vs ethics issue.
Indeed - I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if you were only doing something so innocuous. You're doing something far more sinister than that.
You choose to ignore the justice system
and instead exact your own idea of justice by attempting to smear him with baseless allegations
(which, by your own admission, rely on reading Trump's words in reverse...).
This is just a less competent variant of SJWs trying to get people fired for saying disagreeable things on Facebook. It's disgusting,
and if you manage to set the precedent, you'll get to enjoy an even more broken country.
But hey, whether or not you want to go there is for Americans to decide. In this particular case, it's not a Trump vs Hillary issue. It's a Saddam/Trekky vs ethics issue.
Nah I'm pretty sure you can read them in the correct order and still see that he's talking about groping women[...]Right, let's give you a chance to explain yourself, then. Here's what you have quoted (additional emphasis mine):
He did say he does it without consent though (emphasis mine).QuoteI just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything
Going by your logic, isn't that far worse than what's happened with this groping issue? They're not simply trying to ignore the justice system, they're trying to outright defy it!In fairness, people have been calling for Trump to be prohibited from running... and the Hillary case isn't exactly closed either (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37805525)... But those minor details aside, I agree. I've said it twice, and I'll said it a third time: the problem exists on both sides. That doesn't give you an excuse to do it as well, imo. "Many people are shitheads therefore I can be a shithead too" just doesn't sit well with me.
[...]
To put it another way, that would be more like if people were demanding that Trump be forcibly removed from the ticket and prohibited from running. Which, come to think of it, is another thing that Trump and much of his fanbase have been openly calling for about Hillary. Hmm.
Well, fair enough. If you're interested in employing Trump's tactics by yourselves, be my guest. I'll simply continue to point it out to you and explain over and over how absolutely bonkers that is.Nah I'm pretty sure you can read them in the correct order and still see that he's talking about groping women[...]Right, let's give you a chance to explain yourself, then. Here's what you have quoted (additional emphasis mine):He did say he does it without consent though (emphasis mine).QuoteI just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything
So, either you think that kissing is groping, or you decided to apply a later statement ("Grab them by the pussy") retroactively to "I don't even wait." Now, having known you for a while I assume you know that kissing is not in fact groping (http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/kissing-sex-1140), so that leaves me with the conclusion that you have read the statements in reverse. If neither of these is correct, could you present an alternative explanation?
TRUMP: I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
BUSH: Whatever you want.
TRUMP: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Trump is saying that he can do anything to women without askingYes, but not that he does do it.
Here's the thing: if he is talking about consensually fingering women, then why the heck is he bragging about it to Billy Bush? That's not unexpected or unusual. What's unusual is the point of the story he's telling: That his fame allows him to get away with the things he does to women.Or that the fame means he can obtain consent more easily than others. If you're so committed to the idea of the presumption of innocence (by your own admission, you're not trying to threaten it, no siree Bob!), why do you jump to the most demeaning conclusion possible?
I don't think you understand what slander is.nice meme bro
as a proponent of free speech I'd think you'd realize that.Your freedom of speech does not in any way change how appalling your eagerness to ignore morality when it suits you is, and the disastrous consequences it would have if your attitude became more commonplace. It also in no way interferes with my freedom of pointing these things out. You're free to promote fascism if you want to (well, in some countries you are), but that doesn't make fascism any less shit, and people are likely to tell you that. Freely.
You made an untrue statement in an attempt to damage somebody's reputation (which you're now attempting to rephrase and rationalise over and over). It had nothing to do with what you think - it was a factually incorrect account of what's contained in a recording. At best, you can get pedantic and point out that your statement wasn't spoken, but many definitions do not posit that as a strict requirement.
Your freedom of speech does not in any way change how appalling your eagerness to ignore morality when it suits you is, and the disastrous consequences it would have if your attitude became more commonplace. It also in no way interferes with my freedom of pointing these things out. You're free to promote fascism if you want to (well, in some countries you are), but that doesn't make fascism any less shit, and people are likely to tell you that. Freely.
The rest of your post is a classic SJW "accusations have been made and therefore listen and believe" ramble, and I don't really have anything to say about it other than once again calling it distasteful.
Fair enough?Not in the slightest. Your interpretation involves inventing new definitions for words and reading words right-to-left (Did you know that if you listen to the American anthem in reverse it actually says TRUMP 2K16? QED the Founding Fathers love Trump!). Mine relies on presumption of innocence until evidence arises. If the accusers whose word you take at face value have some evidence, they should present it and let us get on with it. My interpretation is not generous at all, whilst yours requires making stuff up for it to even conceivably work.
I am not "listening and believing" anything when the women's own alleged perpetrator is on tape saying he could do the things these women claim if he wanted to.I could probably get away with some crimes if I wanted to. Let's go with the cliché of "hacking". I was once accused of that by a local charity I was working for, and now (j'accuse!) there's a written record of me saying that I could probably do it if I wanted to. And (mon Dieu!) the accusations predate my statement! That means I'm probably guilty, right? Right?!
computer words
more computer words
Rape cases or sexual assault cases are extremely hard to prove or even provide evidence for. By your argument, anyone who is sexually assaulted should never bother trying to get justice unless they have physical evidence or an eye witness of some credibility. What's the point of asking for an investigation if the only evidence you can immediately present is your word?Fair enough?Not in the slightest. Your interpretation involves inventing new definitions for words and reading words right-to-left (Did you know that if you listen to the American anthem in reverse it actually says TRUMP 2K16? QED the Founding Fathers love Trump!). Mine relies on presumption of innocence until evidence arises. If the accusers whose word you take at face value have some evidence, they should present it and let us get on with it. My interpretation is not generous at all, whilst yours requires making stuff up for it to even conceivably work.
Did you think lying again would make you seem less ethically questionable? Because it didn't work.I am not "listening and believing" anything when the women's own alleged perpetrator is on tape saying he could do the things these women claim if he wanted to.I could probably get away with some crimes if I wanted to. Let's go with the cliché of "hacking". I was once accused of that by a local charity I was working for, and now (j'accuse!) there's a written record of me saying that I could probably do it if I wanted to. And (mon Dieu!) the accusations predate my statement! That means I'm probably guilty, right? Right?!
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TPxrwzUOwmo/ViY4smdGobI/AAAAAAAABGw/RsjNw3BV_7s/s1600/trump.gif)
SPOILERS: Wrong. The accusation was never taken to court, and the organisation's internal disciplinary process concluded that I deserved an apology for the moronic assertion
By your argument, anyone who is sexually assaulted should never bother trying to get justice [...]On the contrary, I insist that they do seek justice instead of going on TV and presenting their 20-years-old claims to everyone but the judicial system.
What's the point of asking for an investigation if the only evidence you can immediately present is your word?Law enforcement are pretty good at securing evidence - probably better than you or me. That's why you talk to them.
By your argument, anyone who is sexually assaulted should never bother trying to get justice [...]On the contrary, I insist that they do seek justice instead of going on TV and presenting their 20-years-old claims to everyone but the judicial system.What's the point of asking for an investigation if the only evidence you can immediately present is your word?Law enforcement are pretty good at securing evidence - probably better than you or me. That's why you talk to them.
Is there evidence to show they did not go to the police first?Given that Trump is Trump, any charges pressed would be pretty high profile - I doubt we'd have to speak in hypotheticals. I mean, they're digging out tapes from a decade ago where he's bragging about how macho he is. Do you really think we'd miss something this major?
SexWarrior, none of what you're saying makes any sense.nice meme bro
don't you think that this would be something that Trump or his campaign/defenders would have brought up?I do, and he has. He did it quite poorly, but he made it clear that he doesn't do this things (and that Bill does do them).
and not just correct, but apparently very clearly and unambiguously correct to the degree where anyone who claims to disagree with you is being dishonestOh, you're welcome to disagree. Just try not to lie while you're at it.
in fairness sw, your indigence would be more convincing if it were evenly applied. i don't recall seeing you this perturbed over anyone calling hillary a crook and a criminal.Fair enough. I tend to side with the minority opinion because I find it more interesting. But, for the record, Trump does stupid and borderline illegal shit 24/7 and it's disgusting.
besides, isn't slander a crime for which one is presumed innocent until proven guilty?I would argue I provided my evidence together with the accusation - thus hopefully erasing most presumption either way.
This is all ridiculous. People on a semi-private forum are not committing slander by making unofficial claims of guilt based on available information. It is not unjust, it's inconsequential gossip. Ditto for people saying Hillary is a crook.It's just locker room banter, bro.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=US&q=change%20early%20voteCan't shill the Jill
Related topic: Federal Bureau of Investigation
lmao.
Apparently one woman did file a lawsuit but withdrew it.Is there evidence to show they did not go to the police first?Given that Trump is Trump, any charges pressed would be pretty high profile - I doubt we'd have to speak in hypotheticals. I mean, they're digging out tapes from a decade ago where he's bragging about how macho he is. Do you really think we'd miss something this major?
But okay, it's fair to assume that we have no idea, at least formally speaking. Even then, you need to consider the context of this conversation.
- If they did report it and charges were successfully pressed, presenting the evidence you need to shut me up should be very easy. The burden's on the other crowd, not on me.
- If they did report it and nothing happened, then every single accusation I've made of Trekky and Saddam being sinister have just been amplified tenfold. After all, we no longer have to presume innocence - we have established innocence. Both Trekky and Saddam made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in ignoring or defying the justice system. In this case, they would have been lying.
- If they didn't report it, we're back to my previous question.
I do, and he has. He did it quite poorly, but he made it clear that he doesn't do this things (and that Bill does do them).
He denied doing those things, but your argument seems to be that he never even really said that he did those things to begin with because of the chronological order of the phrases he used, or something like that.No.
Also, some tiny nitpicks to some different posts in this thread - "The Star-Spangled Banner" was written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key and didn't become the national anthem until over a hundred years later, so it had nothing to do with the Founding FathersBreaking news: it also doesn't say TRUMP 2K16 when played backwards.
He denied doing those things, but your argument seems to be that he never even really said that he did those things to begin with because of the chronological order of the phrases he used, or something like that.No.
baseless allegations (which, by your own admission, rely on reading Trump's words in reverse...)
you decided to apply a later statement ("Grab them by the pussy") retroactively to "I don't even wait."...that leaves me with the conclusion that you have read the statements in reverse.
Your interpretation involves inventing new definitions for words and reading words right-to-left (Did you know that if you listen to the American anthem in reverse it actually says TRUMP 2K16? QED the Founding Fathers love Trump!).
No, I'm pretty sure that is what you were trying to argue:No, Saddam. Take a step back and try to read the conversation again. Try to understand what everyone's saying, together with context, then you might be able to actually not derp. It is true that in order to make your insane accusation, you necessarily need to read Trump's statements in reverse or to believe that kissing is groping, but it is not true that "he never even really said that he did those things to begin with because of the chronological order of the phrases he used, or something like that". The fact that you'd have to read Trump's statements in reverse to believe what you believe is just an easily-accessible proof of just how detached from reality your claim is.
[...]
You even rephrased it a few times ("reverse," "retroactively," "right to left") to make it clearer. I'm not misunderstanding you.
You made this argument, and it's only fair that you get called out for how silly it is.Well, it's either that or you think that kissing is sex. I agree, both of your options are incredibly silly and you should probably come back with a better argument. But hey-ho, here you are :^)
AC: [...] You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women.
DT: I don't think you understood.
[snip - lots of Trump dodging the question]
AC: So, you're saying you never did that.
DT: I said things that frankly, you hear these things. And I was embarrassed by it. But I have tremendous respect for women.
AC: Have you ever done those things?
DT: No, I have not.
Guys I cucked out and voted for Hillary. Sorry...It's okay, we all knew you were a traitor. That's why you don't have access to the secret meme stash.[/list]
No, Saddam...It is true that in order to make your insane accusation, you necessarily need to read Trump's statements in reverse or to believe that kissing is groping, but it is not true that "he never even really said that he did those things to begin with because of the chronological order of the phrases he used, or something like that". The fact that you'd have to read Trump's statements in reverse to believe what you believe is just an easily-accessible proof of just how detached from reality your claim is.
Breaking news: it also doesn't say TRUMP 2K16 when played backwards.
(https://i.sli.mg/LvHG6W.jpg)
For the record, I still think Comey is trying to cover shit up. Something out of his control has forced him to do this.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y
Moving on, it looks like the FBI (not Comey) fucked up by underinforming their director. Now he caught up with things and realised he was never ready to close the case in the first place. An unfortunate turn of events, but not the conspiracy either side is decrying.
I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.
Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.
I thought Obama was gonna take your guns. What happened to that?He tried, but Congress happened, so he had to settle on unlawfully banning the banning of gay marriage and mass-amnesty of illegals :^)
Congress bows before the SCOTUS! Which sounds like Scrotum. Which is what gay men gargle.I thought Obama was gonna take your guns. What happened to that?He tried, but Congress happened, so he had to settle on unlawfully banning the banning of gay marriage and mass-amnesty of illegals :^)
They need to do it in increments so as not to raise any alarm.I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.
Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.
I thought Obama was gonna take your guns. What happened to that?
Who is they?They need to do it in increments so as not to raise any alarm.I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.
Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.
I thought Obama was gonna take your guns. What happened to that?
Who is they?They need to do it in increments so as not to raise any alarm.I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.
Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.
I thought Obama was gonna take your guns. What happened to that?
Because we've been through alot of presidents and so far none of them have taken away the guns. And if it is incremental, how long is it supposed to take? Because during the Bush years, any work on "taking the guns" could (and might have been?) undone completely.
Which THEY?Who is they?They need to do it in increments so as not to raise any alarm.I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.
Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.
I thought Obama was gonna take your guns. What happened to that?
Because we've been through alot of presidents and so far none of them have taken away the guns. And if it is incremental, how long is it supposed to take? Because during the Bush years, any work on "taking the guns" could (and might have been?) undone completely.
They haven't because they can't. So as a consolation prize they can only hope to put just enough restrictions to make the 2nd amendment useless while at the same time saying it's integrity is intact.
Which THEY?
Which THEY?
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/2/2d/Illuminati.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117022611)
Which THEY?
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/2/2d/Illuminati.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117022611)
If you don't, or just refuse to, believe in a "they" then there is really not much to discuss. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence, along with plenty of concrete proof, that there is a cabal (many of them) bent on influencing global affairs to their advantage and pushing their sick agenda. Either you haven't done your research or you're just happy living under a rock.
An armed populace as big as the one in the country I live in is a problem for even the strongest militaries in the world. It's something that they are afraid of and frankly don't want to deal with at full strength.
In my opinion, the ultimate goal is 100% dependence on the state for everything, including your safety and protection --which as we've seen during the violent crackdown on protestors, and the slaying of Americans by police, that that would be a terrible idea.
Which THEY?
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/2/2d/Illuminati.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117022611)
If you don't, or just refuse to, believe in a "they" then there is really not much to discuss. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence, along with plenty of concrete proof, that there is a cabal (many of them) bent on influencing global affairs to their advantage and pushing their sick agenda. Either you haven't done your research or you're just happy living under a rock.
An armed populace as big as the one in the country I live in is a problem for even the strongest militaries in the world. It's something that they are afraid of and frankly don't want to deal with at full strength.
In my opinion, the ultimate goal is 100% dependence on the state for everything, including your safety and protection --which as we've seen during the violent crackdown on protestors, and the slaying of Americans by police, that that would be a terrible idea.
I asked which ones not questioning if they exist.
Also, why would they want state dependancy? That's literally the dumbest idea. Its expensive as shit and you risk making people angry at you when you can't deliver.
Right...Which THEY?
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/2/2d/Illuminati.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117022611)
If you don't, or just refuse to, believe in a "they" then there is really not much to discuss. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence, along with plenty of concrete proof, that there is a cabal (many of them) bent on influencing global affairs to their advantage and pushing their sick agenda. Either you haven't done your research or you're just happy living under a rock.
An armed populace as big as the one in the country I live in is a problem for even the strongest militaries in the world. It's something that they are afraid of and frankly don't want to deal with at full strength.
In my opinion, the ultimate goal is 100% dependence on the state for everything, including your safety and protection --which as we've seen during the violent crackdown on protestors, and the slaying of Americans by police, that that would be a terrible idea.
I asked which ones not questioning if they exist.
Also, why would they want state dependancy? That's literally the dumbest idea. Its expensive as shit and you risk making people angry at you when you can't deliver.
Something about absolute control appeals to these people. It's a gradual, very slow process, but we are already seeing it unfold. The middle class has been under assault all across the world. Poverty is definitely a prerequisite to surrendering your rights. The ever constant spectre of terrorism and war with [insert other world power] has caused people all around the world to give up their privacy and liberties for perceived security.
Anyway:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached
This is a new low. At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point. Clinton won't even get that.
I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know. So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?
You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word “rape,” and I’m going to mess your life up… for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet… you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it.
Who is they?Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....
Who is they?Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....
Who is they?Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....
Lower level agents know the higher ups are covering shit up and handing immunity deals out like they're candy.Yep.
The FBI Twitter recently put out a guide from the 1950s on how to evade a Soviet occupying force. Interesting timing all things considered.
America must fall to save America.So, are we looking at a 50+ independent states sort of dealio, or would you rather reestablish the British Empire?
they are moving behind the backs of FBI superiors.Well, surely it's not entirely behind their backs if Comey decided to go public with the reopening of the case?
they are moving behind the backs of FBI superiors.Well, surely it's not entirely behind their backs if Comey decided to go public with the reopening of the case?
America must fall to save America.So, are we looking at a 50+ independent states sort of dealio, or would you rather reestablish the British Empire?
I'm all for independent states. Balkanise everything!
Anyway:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached
This is a new low. At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point. Clinton won't even get that.
Yes and she's competent.Anyway:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached)
This is a new low. At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point. Clinton won't even get that.
Because Obama was a choir boy compared to this bitch
The problem here is that Dave, not living in the US, thinks the status quo is good enough.Pretty sure elections have been rigged for years. She's just the only one who got published about it... for some reason.
Furthermore, no, Hillary will not maintain the status quo. Her presidency would be proof you can rig the primary and the election and get away with all of it. Her presidency would spell the end of this government as it currently exists. She'll do unspeakable damage to the supreme Court and my rights. I won't allow it.
I love incendiary rhetoric. According to either side, the country is literally doomed.
I love incendiary rhetoric. According to either side, the country is literally doomed.
It's true. This is the end times, junker. The cubs won the world series.
Well, yeah.I love incendiary rhetoric. According to either side, the country is literally doomed.
It's true. This is the end times, junker. The cubs won the world series.
This is probably the most telling revelation. Although, like the election, the WS was also rigged...
I love incendiary rhetoric. According to either side, the country is literally doomed.
It's true. This is the end times, junker. The cubs won the world series.
This is probably the most telling revelation. Although, like the election, the WS was also rigged...
I haven't seen enough proclamations from people who are totally leaving the country if candidate X gets elected. Maybe this election cycle is too tame for that old hat.
I haven't seen enough proclamations from people who are totally leaving the country if candidate X gets elected. Maybe this election cycle is too tame for that old hat.
http://ijr.com/2015/12/504520-trump-wins-moving/
Ask and ye shall receive
If Donald Trump Becomes President I'm Moving To Hawaii. Peace Out America[emoji111]????????????
Yes and she's competent.Anyway:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached)
This is a new low. At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point. Clinton won't even get that.
Because Obama was a choir boy compared to this bitch
Look, what would you prefer: someone who's intelligent, competent, and corrupt or someone who's quick to anger and has no knowledge of politics or how governments work?
When choosing between two evils, I go with the competent one. At least they will keep the status quo.
Trump clearly knows how politics and government work: corruption and cronyism.
See that's where we're going to differ in opinion. Trump clearly knows how politics and government work: corruption and cronyism. That's why he is vowing to "Drain the Swamp".
Tell me, are you capable of solving complex mathematical equations?Yes and she's competent.Anyway:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached)
This is a new low. At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point. Clinton won't even get that.
Because Obama was a choir boy compared to this bitch
Look, what would you prefer: someone who's intelligent, competent, and corrupt or someone who's quick to anger and has no knowledge of politics or how governments work?
When choosing between two evils, I go with the competent one. At least they will keep the status quo.
See that's where we're going to differ in opinion. Trump clearly knows how politics and government work: corruption and cronyism. That's why he is vowing to "Drain the Swamp". Just to be clear: It's your opinion she is competent and intelligent, but simultaneously incapable of operating a secure server or knowing classified material shouldn't be sent thru insecure means. Her literal defense is stupidity and incompetence, because the other option involves criminality.
why do you believe him? why are you willing to simply take him at his word that he's willing or able to end political corruption?
So tell me, why is she so unintelligent for choosing an e-mail server she likely knew little about but was probably better than the state department's system?
I don't know what the other guy's argument is, but mine has always been that Hillary has been very purposefully using that server to sell information to foreign governments. If she wasn't selling it, then she was giving it away for free. Either option speaks to incompetence.
If you take your car to a mechanic. The best mechanic. And he says "Sure, your car can drive under water" are you gonna question him? Probably not. He's the best mechanic, why would he lie?
We know Clinton setup her own e-mail server, not by her own hand but by a hired one. Whose to say those she hired didn't simply say "Yep, it's totally secure. Unhackable. Don't worry about it."
Hillary is now struggling in New Hampshire, which makes this a not-entirely-unlikely scenario:
(http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/9Bxpj.png) (http://www.270towin.com/maps/9Bxpj)
God help us all . . .
I don't know what the other guy's argument is, but mine has always been that Hillary has been very purposefully using that server to sell information to foreign governments. If she wasn't selling it, then she was giving it away for free. Either option speaks to incompetence.
what evidence do you have to support this assertion?
Authorities now believe there is about a 99 percent chance that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News.
That map forgets Trump is +15 in ME CD2 which is worth a single electoral vote. If Trump sees a map like that he's at 270, not 269. ME should be striped blue/red.
Fair enough. Then how about "your car can keep you safe in a highway crash" or "that noise isn't anything to worry about".If you take your car to a mechanic. The best mechanic. And he says "Sure, your car can drive under water" are you gonna question him? Probably not. He's the best mechanic, why would he lie?
We know Clinton setup her own e-mail server, not by her own hand but by a hired one. Whose to say those she hired didn't simply say "Yep, it's totally secure. Unhackable. Don't worry about it."
The thing is, no, I would not agree with that mechanic, because even with my very limited experience with cars, I know they don't drive underwater. Similarly, Clinton should have known that handling possibly classified information on a private E-mail server was not a good idea. Personally, I think she did it specifically to avoid FOIA requests, but we'll probably never know.
Quote<blockquote>Authorities now believe there is about a 99 percent chance that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News.</blockquote>
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percent-chance-foreign-intel-agencies-breached-clinton-server.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percent-chance-foreign-intel-agencies-breached-clinton-server.html)
Either she sold it to them and will claim "they hacked me" or they gained access due to her sheer incompetence. As I said, both are bad options.
I don't know what the other guy's argument is, but mine has always been that Hillary has been very purposefully using that server to sell information to foreign governments. If she wasn't selling it, then she was giving it away for free. Either option speaks to incompetence.
what evidence do you have to support this assertion?QuoteAuthorities now believe there is about a 99 percent chance that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percent-chance-foreign-intel-agencies-breached-clinton-server.html
Either she sold it to them and will claim "they hacked me" or they gained access due to her sheer incompetence. As I said, both are bad options.
And after those restrictions based on make-believe concepts, misleading lists, no knowledge of the subject matter, or some other bs, then what? More restrictions.Who is they?Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....
Ssoo....people who want Gun restrictions?
I thought it was some kind of big conspiracy but its just normal people like me?
You just described most people in regards to political issues.And after those restrictions based on make-believe concepts, misleading lists, no knowledge of the subject matter, or some other bs, then what? More restrictions.Who is they?Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....
Ssoo....people who want Gun restrictions?
I thought it was some kind of big conspiracy but its just normal people like me?
so apparently clinton and podesta literally worship satan...fuck this, i'm out, and at this point i genuinely hope trump wins. i can't take another four years of listening to this stupid bullshit.
so apparently clinton and podesta literally worship satan...fuck this, i'm out, and at this point i genuinely hope trump wins. i can't take another four years of listening to this stupid bullshit.
so apparently clinton and podesta literally worship satan...fuck this, i'm out, and at this point i genuinely hope trump wins. i can't take another four years of listening to this stupid bullshit.
Breathe
Before or after you're drafted into the army because Trump went to war with both Mexico AND Canada at the same time?so apparently clinton and podesta literally worship satan...fuck this, i'm out, and at this point i genuinely hope trump wins. i can't take another four years of listening to this stupid bullshit.
Breathe
srsly tho, we're talking about at least four more years of this nonsense if hillary wins. at least if trump wins i'll get to spend four years being super smug all the time. that'll be kinda fun.
srsly tho, we're talking about at least four more years of this nonsense if hillary wins.
And let's not forget next election to. Unless the democrats don't run because they've been banned.srsly tho, we're talking about at least four more years of this nonsense if hillary wins.
Only if Hillary wins? We'll have to endure all this during Hillary's inevitable trial if Trump wins too.
ok but Gary Johnson thosrsly tho, we're talking about at least four more years of this nonsense if hillary wins.
Only if Hillary wins? We'll have to endure all this during Hillary's inevitable trial if Trump wins too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/us/politics/donald-trump-rally.html
It turns out that the supposed assassination attempt against Trump yesterday was in fact no such thing - his fans beat the shit out of an innocent man. ::)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html
It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI. I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html
It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI. I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.
Can you screen shot any of the article? I have no NY Times subscription.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html)
It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI. I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html
It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI. I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.
If that were the case he wouldn't have announced anything about reopening the investigation.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html)
It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI. I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.
Of course she has been. Which federal prosecutor is going to go after the first potential female president? This isn't a Kevin Costner movie. All those mother effers at the top have serious dirt, and they all protect each other. That's one thing Trump has going for him: he may be a loudmouthed asshole, but he is very anti-establishment. If he's elected it will be Spring cleaning for all the power structures in Washington.
Would've been great if, you know, Comey had looked into that before sending his vague as shit letter 12 days before the election.
If that were the case he wouldn't have announced anything about reopening the investigation.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html)
It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI. I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.
Of course she has been. Which federal prosecutor is going to go after the first potential female president? This isn't a Kevin Costner movie. All those mother effers at the top have serious dirt, and they all protect each other. That's one thing Trump has going for him: he may be a loudmouthed asshole, but he is very anti-establishment. If he's elected it will be Spring cleaning for all the power structures in Washington.
No, this was a political play. Mostly to cover his own ass.
As for Trump:
No, he is not anti-establishment. He SAYS he is but he only goes after the establishment that isn't helping him. He'll happily say Congress is amazing if Congress does what he wants. He harks on the media only when the media prints negative stories about him. He harks on Republicans only when Republicans started abandoning him or fighting him.
All those who disagree with Trump are the enemy. Remember that.
That's not anti-establishment.If that were the case he wouldn't have announced anything about reopening the investigation.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html)
It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI. I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.
Of course she has been. Which federal prosecutor is going to go after the first potential female president? This isn't a Kevin Costner movie. All those mother effers at the top have serious dirt, and they all protect each other. That's one thing Trump has going for him: he may be a loudmouthed asshole, but he is very anti-establishment. If he's elected it will be Spring cleaning for all the power structures in Washington.
No, this was a political play. Mostly to cover his own ass.
As for Trump:
No, he is not anti-establishment. He SAYS he is but he only goes after the establishment that isn't helping him. He'll happily say Congress is amazing if Congress does what he wants. He harks on the media only when the media prints negative stories about him. He harks on Republicans only when Republicans started abandoning him or fighting him.
All those who disagree with Trump are the enemy. Remember that.
You just explained why he's anti-establishment: he doesn't play by the usual political rules.
Most people don't know what the new investigation was even about. All they will know is that the "partisan witch-hunt" led by the FBI will have failed its plan to unfairly prosecute one of the greatest, most honorable women of our time.
That first exoneration didn't really stick, so they wanted to have another one right before the election to make the sheep feel safer about selecting their next executioner in chief
QuoteThat first exoneration didn't really stick, so they wanted to have another one right before the election to make the sheep feel safer about selecting their next executioner in chief
If that were the case, then why not just announce that after further review, they're sticking to their decision to not charge her? Why first throw the race into chaos with the vague letter declaring the investigation back open? That was hardly going to reassure anyone.
QuoteThat first exoneration didn't really stick, so they wanted to have another one right before the election to make the sheep feel safer about selecting their next executioner in chief
If that were the case, then why not just announce that after further review, they're sticking to their decision to not charge her? Why first throw the race into chaos with the vague letter declaring the investigation back open? That was hardly going to reassure anyone.
Because they're not that bright. Maybe the net positive outweighed the net negative in their focus groups, I don't know. But I've seen people triumphantly celebrating this second FBI "clearing" of Clinton, as some kind of assertion that they were right all along about the emails not mattering. The emails do matter. We will see some shit go down after she's elected, I'll be shocked if she gets out of this without an Obama pardon
QuoteThat first exoneration didn't really stick, so they wanted to have another one right before the election to make the sheep feel safer about selecting their next executioner in chief
If that were the case, then why not just announce that after further review, they're sticking to their decision to not charge her? Why first throw the race into chaos with the vague letter declaring the investigation back open? That was hardly going to reassure anyone.
Because they're not that bright. Maybe the net positive outweighed the net negative in their focus groups, I don't know. But I've seen people triumphantly celebrating this second FBI "clearing" of Clinton, as some kind of assertion that they were right all along about the emails not mattering. The emails do matter. We will see some shit go down after she's elected, I'll be shocked if she gets out of this without an Obama pardon
Couple of things.
1. I have not heard people celebrating this. But then again, I turned off my facebook feed. But even so, the e-mails don't matter anymore. If they haven't found whatever missing e-mails by now, they never will.
2. We will not see some shit go down after the election. What would change? Why would it suddenly cause someone to say "Oh hey, I've got these e-mails!"
3. Obama can't pardon someone who isn't convicted of a crime. Even IF she suddenly got charged today, unless she pleaded guilty, Obama would be out of office long before the trial concluded.
It's all ogre. Trump wins. Here's hoping he doesn't do something massively stupid.
http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/11/09/donald-trump-elected-45th-president-of-the-united-states/
Well he doesn't want a no-fly zone over Syria like Hillary, risking war with Russia, so maybe there's that?
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1805.msg106124#msg106124
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vZ0wyIFgvog/VupXRwJo-nI/AAAAAAAATEs/Lb337g5Cm8kuPOCVNs4mmI_EGdFxUQu2A/s320/psy-op.jpg)Just an FYI, that cartoon doesn't predate the real events on which it was based.
Your enthusiasm is way out of proportion in comparison to the facts...
http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13170020/mike-pence-vice-presidential-debate-russia
Huh?(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vZ0wyIFgvog/VupXRwJo-nI/AAAAAAAATEs/Lb337g5Cm8kuPOCVNs4mmI_EGdFxUQu2A/s320/psy-op.jpg)Just an FYI, that cartoon doesn't predate the real events on which it was based.
Huh?It didn't. Stupid people are spreading an urban myth. It was a short that aired in July 2015.
How do you figure?
The episode aired in 2000.
inb4 Hillary runs again in four yearsShe won't.
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.
Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.
Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.
Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.
The majority of polls assume a turnout equivalent to the average of the last two turnouts for the presidential race. Hillary's turnout didn't come close to Obama's 2012 turnout.
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.
The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.
This is more or less what happened with Brexit, too. While exceptions apply, the division was mostly between experts and those who have (quite famously by now) had enough of experts. When society as a whole begins to fail certain groups, these groups seek alternatives. Whether you consider them reasonable or not, people like militant MRAs/MGTOWs, the alt-right, or campus SJWs feel that the current order of matters doesn't work for them. They seek alternatives, and when they're sufficiently pissed off, they'll take any alternative that seems like a stern departure from "the system". Such behaviour is difficult to predict unless you're already on the inside of these discontent group.
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.
This is more or less what happened with Brexit, too. While exceptions apply, the division was mostly between experts and those who have (quite famously by now) had enough of experts. When society as a whole begins to fail certain groups, these groups seek alternatives. Whether you consider them reasonable or not, people like militant MRAs/MGTOWs, the alt-right, or campus SJWs feel that the current order of matters doesn't work for them. They seek alternatives, and when they're sufficiently pissed off, they'll take any alternative that seems like a stern departure from "the system". Such behaviour is difficult to predict unless you're already on the inside of these discontent group.
I'm actually starting to wonder if Trump may actually become decent. And that all of his persona during the election was purely an act to get elected.
Ok so what this tells me is that everyone who voted for Trump just got anti-Trump.
I'm actually starting to wonder if Trump may actually become decent. And that all of his persona during the election was purely an act to get elected.
I'd believe that if I hadn't seen the last 6 months of Trump's media frenzy.Ok so what this tells me is that everyone who voted for Trump just got anti-Trump.
I'm actually starting to wonder if Trump may actually become decent. And that all of his persona during the election was purely an act to get elected.
No, this is just politics. They would be saying this no matter how much they hated each other, because they have another two months to go until Trump takes over, and nobody wants to start a frenzy of media drama for the next two months.
I'd believe that if I hadn't seen the last 6 months of Trump's media frenzy.
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.
This is more or less what happened with Brexit, too. While exceptions apply, the division was mostly between experts and those who have (quite famously by now) had enough of experts. When society as a whole begins to fail certain groups, these groups seek alternatives. Whether you consider them reasonable or not, people like militant MRAs/MGTOWs, the alt-right, or campus SJWs feel that the current order of matters doesn't work for them. They seek alternatives, and when they're sufficiently pissed off, they'll take any alternative that seems like a stern departure from "the system". Such behaviour is difficult to predict unless you're already on the inside of these discontent group.
Also, more and more people cleave to their own kind either on the internet or (for the older generation) in their homes. The explosion of TV channels and internet groups leads counterintuitively to less choice as they can filter out what they don’t want to hear, and as the media seems incapable or unwilling to screen out, (or culpable in) the outrageous lies that politicians increasingly use to shock/scare/irate people to vote for them, this isolation with its lack of balance is hard to breach and it would seem harder to gauge.
Many people (such as my mother) also appear to have a sense of guilt that their views have hardened, whilst others become entrenched and defensive, so if reached by pollsters would probably refuse to answer or downright lie, further skewing results.
There was very thorough fact-checking from the media throughout the election, and anyone who was so inclined could do a cursory Google search and discover the extensive documentation and debunking of Trump's endless lies. In some cases, you didn't even need to go online, as the TV news shows fact-checked Trump in their chyrons.I agree with most of your post, but let's not forget that Hillary also exists; and her getting a free pass on the (much fewer, but also more poorly executed) blatant lies did not win the media any friends among the already disenfranchised. Gary's point from a while ago directed at me applies here as well:
in fairness sw, your indigence would be more convincing if it were evenly applied.
we're very early on to be sure, but so far trump's teams appears to be indicating that he's going to let paul ryan control the legislative agenda. as a mostly-centrist, that actually makes me pretty happy. i'd much rather ryan set trump's docket for him, so to speak. but doesn't that run afoul of his campaign message of draining the swamp and not letting washington insiders control the white house?
we're very early on to be sure, but so far trump's teams appears to be indicating that he's going to let paul ryan control the legislative agenda. as a mostly-centrist, that actually makes me pretty happy. i'd much rather ryan set trump's docket for him, so to speak. but doesn't that run afoul of his campaign message of draining the swamp and not letting washington insiders control the white house?Trump has gone 180 from his campaign.
Anyone who thought the "swamp" was going to be drained was naïve. That ain't happening.So far, he's doing better than others
we're very early on to be sure, but so far trump's teams appears to be indicating that he's going to let paul ryan control the legislative agenda. as a mostly-centrist, that actually makes me pretty happy. i'd much rather ryan set trump's docket for him, so to speak. but doesn't that run afoul of his campaign message of draining the swamp and not letting washington insiders control the white house?Trump has gone 180 from his campaign.
He no longer wants to repeal Obamacare.
He's no longer going to focus on the wall (it'll be built... eventually).
He's not going to make China pay 45% import tax.
And he says Obama is both a fine man AND he'll seek his council.
But of course, his supporters aren't gonna talk about this.
The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.
“I am blown away!” said one worker, an African American man who asked for anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press. “The man I just saw there talking to people is nothing like what I’ve seen, day in and day out, in the news.”
But I've heard him speak. I've SEEN his rallies.we're very early on to be sure, but so far trump's teams appears to be indicating that he's going to let paul ryan control the legislative agenda. as a mostly-centrist, that actually makes me pretty happy. i'd much rather ryan set trump's docket for him, so to speak. but doesn't that run afoul of his campaign message of draining the swamp and not letting washington insiders control the white house?Trump has gone 180 from his campaign.
He no longer wants to repeal Obamacare.
He's no longer going to focus on the wall (it'll be built... eventually).
He's not going to make China pay 45% import tax.
And he says Obama is both a fine man AND he'll seek his council.
But of course, his supporters aren't gonna talk about this.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/)QuoteThe press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.
Please, we've been saying this for months. The person you (Dave) think Trump represents is actually just a straw man built by the media. They lied to you, and now instead of acknowledging that, you instead seek to lash out.Quote“I am blown away!” said one worker, an African American man who asked for anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press. “The man I just saw there talking to people is nothing like what I’ve seen, day in and day out, in the news.”
Congratulations on being easily manipulated, Dave. Keep up the good work.
For example you haven't even bothered to look up what you're talking about. When did "I'll keep parts of Obamacare, such as requiring insurance companies to ignore preexisting conditions" turn into "HE ISN'T GOING TO REPEAL OBAMACARE OMG"? Trump is a businessman. He isn't going to actually make black-and-white decisions. He isn't dumb, he isn't literally Hitler, he's a business mogul. Thinking Trump is a retarded version of Hitler is just as bad as thinking Hillary was literally a pedosatanist.
This is going to be 8 long years of cognitive dissonance. Where Trump actually gets things done that are good for the nation (even things the left wanted done themselves!) and they spin it to be bad, more or less what the right did to Obama for eight years.
Anyone who thought the "swamp" was going to be drained was naïve. That ain't happening.So far, he's doing better than others
Insurance premiums are spiking because companies have been given monopolies over the states they control. You don't get to choose between companies, so they get to charge you whatever they want. They don't have a price cap, they just have to give the government the prices in advance and say "we're doing this next fiscal year" and that doesn't invalidate their contract.But they didn't spike like they are now. Not like they suddenly got a monopoly.
I wouldn't call the members of his cabinet short list of Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Stephen Bannon, and Myron Ebell "better." They're almost all part of the Republican establishment. It's not surprising, given that Trump is apparently letting Pence pick his cabinet members for him, but it's far from "draining the swamp."Ah, right, so it seems that your idea of disempowering the establishment is to give it the boot altogether and hire a bunch of non-politicians. I can see how that would work, but I don't think it's a fair interpretation of Trump's promise, not even by a long shot.
Insurance premiums are spiking because companies have been given monopolies over the states they control. You don't get to choose between companies, so they get to charge you whatever they want. They don't have a price cap, they just have to give the government the prices in advance and say "we're doing this next fiscal year" and that doesn't invalidate their contract.But they didn't spike like they are now. Not like they suddenly got a monopoly.
And even so, it IS profit prohibitive to allow customers whose medical costs per lifetime exceed their lifetime contribution.
I wouldn't call the members of his cabinet short list of Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Stephen Bannon, and Myron Ebell "better." They're almost all part of the Republican establishment. It's not surprising, given that Trump is apparently letting Pence pick his cabinet members for him, but it's far from "draining the swamp."Ah, right, so it seems that your idea of disempowering the establishment is to give it the boot altogether and hire a bunch of non-politicians. I can see how that would work, but I don't think it's a fair interpretation of Trump's promise, not even by a long shot.
I think the key word in that is "profit".Insurance premiums are spiking because companies have been given monopolies over the states they control. You don't get to choose between companies, so they get to charge you whatever they want. They don't have a price cap, they just have to give the government the prices in advance and say "we're doing this next fiscal year" and that doesn't invalidate their contract.But they didn't spike like they are now. Not like they suddenly got a monopoly.
And even so, it IS profit prohibitive to allow customers whose medical costs per lifetime exceed their lifetime contribution.
Apparently not very prohibitive, seeing as how every other first world nation seems to be doing it just fine.
I'll be sure to quote this again in November.Clinton will win.lol
I hate being wrong.I'll be sure to quote this again in November.Clinton will win.lol
lol
I hate being wrong.I'll be sure to quote this again in November.Clinton will win.lol
lol
Hillary will win the nomination and then lose to God Emperor Trump.
I hate being wrong.I'll be sure to quote this again in November.Clinton will win.lol
lol
You have no idea.I hate being wrong.I'll be sure to quote this again in November.Clinton will win.lol
lol
You must be hateful a lot.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey
"I respect him alot."
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey
"I respect him alot."
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.
Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.
As Rama said, there are ways to remove a director and, surprise surprise, there's gonna be a full Republican run house, senate, and white house.http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey (http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey)
"I respect him alot."
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.
Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey
"I respect him alot."
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.
Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.
President's can and have removed FBI Director's with cause and congress can also impeach them.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey
"I respect him alot."
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.
Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.
President's can and have removed FBI Director's with cause and congress can also impeach them.
Which has no bearing on Comey since he's done nothing criminal. Comey can stick around as long as he wants and Hillary would have been stuck with a Republican majority Congress if she won, anyway.
Yeah, for all we know, Trump will come in, find out he DID do something he shouldn't have that could be considered criminal, and get in trouble cause Obama would have let it slide.http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey (http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey)
"I respect him alot."
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.
Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.
President's can and have removed FBI Director's with cause and congress can also impeach them.
Which has no bearing on Comey since he's done nothing criminal. Comey can stick around as long as he wants and Hillary would have been stuck with a Republican majority Congress if she won, anyway.
Comey could be protecting his ass against losing his job anyway. We continue not to have the full picture of what made the FBI behave like they did throughout the Clinton affair and the election.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413
The swamp-draining continues.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413)
The swamp-draining continues.
The swamp is draining. It just so happens that the drain leads right to 1600 Pennsylvania.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413)
The swamp-draining continues.
The swamp is draining. It just so happens that the drain leads right to 1600 Pennsylvania.
Trump explained this though:
Down there, all you have are lobbyists. So what else can he do?
Especially ones who don't side with "the enemy" (aka muslims)http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413)
The swamp-draining continues.
The swamp is draining. It just so happens that the drain leads right to 1600 Pennsylvania.
Trump explained this though:
Down there, all you have are lobbyists. So what else can he do?
Probably should've thought of that before promising to drain the swamp. And, if the only choices he has are lobbyist, at least pick some qualified, intelligent lobbyists.
I'm still not sure why any of you thought that "draining the swamp" would mean not hiring professional politicians. I guess it's another one of those "Brexit means Brexit" scenarios where everyone gets to choose their favourite interpretation and then be outraged that it wasn't correct.
In other news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38003747
Trump is such a badass he even went out without telling mom.
I'm still not sure why any of you thought that "draining the swamp" would mean not hiring professional politicians. I guess it's another one of those "Brexit means Brexit" scenarios where everyone gets to choose their favourite interpretation and then be outraged that it wasn't correct.
Nobody expected him to not work with politicians, only that he wouldn't be working with the same mainstream, business-as-usual, longtime Washington insiders that he spent so much of his campaign criticizing as corrupt and inefficient.But why? I really strongly doubt you could make an argument that this is what he meant. He said he'd make government smaller, thus saving lotsa cash. Whether or not he'll do that remains to be seen, but the logic of "haha Giuliani QED!" just doesn't apply.
Mike Pence took over the transition team and the lobbiests were fired, and Chris Christie was demoted.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306309-pence-removes-lobbyists-from-trump-transition-team
Mike Pence took over the transition team and the lobbiests were fired, and Chris Christie was demoted.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306309-pence-removes-lobbyists-from-trump-transition-team (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306309-pence-removes-lobbyists-from-trump-transition-team)
Since Christie’s removal, many of his appointees on the team have also been dismissed, and the transition effort has been taken over by campaign loyalists.Super.
Nobody expected him to not work with politicians, only that he wouldn't be working with the same mainstream, business-as-usual, longtime Washington insiders that he spent so much of his campaign criticizing as corrupt and inefficient.But why? I really strongly doubt you could make an argument that this is what he meant. He said he'd make government smaller, thus saving lotsa cash. Whether or not he'll do that remains to be seen, but the logic of "haha Giuliani QED!" just doesn't apply.
(http://i.imgur.com/C6Q3i7m.png)It's clear that the election was rigged.
Candidate | Popular Vote | EC, current | EC D'Hondt | EC-436 | EC-436 D'Hondt | |||||
Clinton | 47.7% | 232 | 267 | 191 | 219 | |||||
Trump | 47.4% | 306 | 268* | 245 | 214 | |||||
Johnson | 3.3% | 2 | 2 | |||||||
McMullin | 0.3% | 1 | 1 |
Mittt Romney considered for Secretary of State.
Mittt Romney considered for Secretary of State.
Better than Giuliani. Best choice I've heard so far.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html)
BAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics. We should call Trump Mr. Pussy instead of Mr. President. Also, so much for not settling the case against Trump University out of principle:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-defends-25-million-settlement-trump-university-lawsuits/story?id=43654491 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-defends-25-million-settlement-trump-university-lawsuits/story?id=43654491)
It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.See, this is a problem with not being a centrist. It never ceases to amaze you that the safe-space mentality is stupid when your opponents engage in it. Meanwhile, the fact that safe-space proponents are suddenly jeering now that their ideology doesn't immediately work in their favour is a-OK.
Uhh...It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.See, this is a problem with not being a centrist. It never ceases to amaze you that the safe-space mentality is stupid when your opponents engage in it. Meanwhile, the fact that safe-space proponents are suddenly jeering now that their ideology doesn't immediately work in their favour is a-OK.
Uhh...It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.See, this is a problem with not being a centrist. It never ceases to amaze you that the safe-space mentality is stupid when your opponents engage in it. Meanwhile, the fact that safe-space proponents are suddenly jeering now that their ideology doesn't immediately work in their favour is a-OK.
George is talking about Trump's response as being harassment to Pence.
Also, the definition of safe-space mentality is not what Trump used as is used by the left. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the left side "safe space" the "you can be yourself without judgement"?
But the way Trump used it "Safe Space" means "No talking to certain people" Or "No Politics Zone".
Not only that but he called it harassment. Do you think Mr. Pence was harassed?
i didn't know "safe space" ever included safety from being graciously thanked for attending a play.
i always thought it was supposed to be more like when the_donald bans dissent because they want to have a place to get stoked on trump without having to constantly defend that premise to people who aren't stoked on trump. which is perfectly reasonable, i think.
I think you mean when /r/politics pretended to be a nonpartisan space, but asshammered any post that didn't conform.
At least the other shitty sub didn't pretend to be objective.
Also, the definition of safe-space mentality is not what Trump used as is used by the left. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the left side "safe space" the "you can be yourself without judgement"?I'm sure that's going to be contentious, but hey ho:
But the way Trump used it "Safe Space" means "No talking to certain people" Or "No Politics Zone".Yup, and I claim that that's what the left does too. There are plenty of examples of college students setting up safe spaces filled with plush puppies so that their trigger-happy friends can run away from the real world while the rest of the world is saying something mean.
Not only that but he called it harassment. Do you think Mr. Pence was harassed?Absolutely not. I don't agree with the content of the actor's little spiel, and I don't think it was particularly professional of him to do it, but being unprofessional is hardly the worst thing in the world.
Ok. I'll not argue as my understanding of "safe space" is rather limited but based on what you said and the link you provided, it sounds less like a "safe space" and more like a calming room. In Special Education for small children (elementary school kids) there's a room which is basically devoid of anything except padded walls, maybe some music. The idea being that when a kid with behavior issues gets set off and gets out of control, you put them in there so they can work out their energy, frustration, etc... until they calm down. (I'm not a professional but I've spoken to them on the subject. I may be a little inaccurate but the general idea is correct).Also, the definition of safe-space mentality is not what Trump used as is used by the left. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the left side "safe space" the "you can be yourself without judgement"?I'm sure that's going to be contentious, but hey ho:
They like to advertise it as places where you can be yourself without judgement, and I know that these exist too, but "safe spaces" are also very commonly established as something like "here's a room you can go to during a speech or debate so you don't have to experience the content of said speech, even by proxy".
Decent example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html)
Everything you said and linked still contradicts Trump's use of Safe Space. Pence's "safe space" would be his home or Donald's penthouse at Trump Tower. A theater, which just put on a play that was about politics, can't be a safe space from politics. It would be like if a college said "Lecture Halls are Safe Spaces". You can't calm down in a lecture hall, especially if you're a student taking a course. If anything, you'll get MORE stressed from the information being given to you and the pile of work. And a theater, plays specifically, are a form of art, which is expression of emotion or point of view. Both of which are the exact opposite of what a 'safe space' is. So to say that a Theater should be a Safe Space is just ignorant about what safe space means.But the way Trump used it "Safe Space" means "No talking to certain people" Or "No Politics Zone".Yup, and I claim that that's what the left does too. There are plenty of examples of college students setting up safe spaces filled with plush puppies so that their trigger-happy friends can run away from the real world while the rest of the world is saying something mean.
Unprofessional? I'm not so sure. Had they done it prior or between acts, I'd have said yes. But they did it after, when their job was finished. Nor did they do anything to forcefully keep Pence from walking away.Not only that but he called it harassment. Do you think Mr. Pence was harassed?Absolutely not. I don't agree with the content of the actor's little spiel, and I don't think it was particularly professional of him to do it, but being unprofessional is hardly the worst thing in the world.
Everything you said and linked still contradicts Trump's use of Safe Space. Pence's "safe space" would be his home or Donald's penthouse at Trump Tower.Okay, so it seems like you think I've made a leap of judgement here. Fair enough, I didn't present a good enough example. I was trying to illustrate the ridiculous mentality, not draw a direct parallel. Let's try something else. How about the Yale students who believe Yale is not about creating an intellectual space, but rather creating a home, a space of comfort?
Yeah... that's a bit much. Like I said, calming rooms (safe spaces) are medically sound ideas and I'm all in favor of it, but it should be for a "I'm being hit with a PTSD attack" and not "I'm angry that I have to look at a Hitler costume!".Everything you said and linked still contradicts Trump's use of Safe Space. Pence's "safe space" would be his home or Donald's penthouse at Trump Tower.Okay, so it seems like you think I've made a leap of judgement here. Fair enough, I didn't present a good enough example. I was trying to illustrate the ridiculous mentality, not draw a direct parallel. Let's try something else. How about the Yale students who believe Yale is not about creating an intellectual space, but rather creating a home, a space of comfort?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308422/Students-rage-professor-sent-email-telling-students-just-look-away-offended-Halloween-costumes.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308422/Students-rage-professor-sent-email-telling-students-just-look-away-offended-Halloween-costumes.html)
We're completely in agreement that this mentality is stupid. You don't need to convince me of that, or explain to my why it's self-contradictory. Unfortunately, it still exist, and it's gaining in popularity. The left just enjoys ignoring it when it happens on their side (i.e. most of the time).
I don't think it's necessary to make a tu quoque argumentI mean... I agree... but you literally opened this conversation with a tu quoque, and I'm in the middle of telling you off for that. Are you now changing your position?
It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.
I think you mean when /r/politics pretended to be a nonpartisan space, but asshammered any post that didn't conform.
At least the other shitty sub didn't pretend to be objective.
i wasn't criticizing the_donald. i think that literally is the purpose of a safe space. like, i think it's fine for trump supporters to have a place to get stoked about trump without having to defend the premise to anyone else. i only don't think it applies to being politely thanked and asked to pay careful attention to the themes of the performance.
I don't think it's necessary to make a tu quoque argumentI mean... I agree... but you literally opened this conversation with a tu quoque, and I'm in the middle of telling you off for that. Are you now changing your position?It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!
You really showed them.
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!
You really showed them.
Thank you.
This just shows how efficient he is as a business man. Unlike other politicians, which back out of their promises slowly over time and use vague language to justify it, Donald Trump cuts through the Washington BS and not only says it out right but BEFORE he even takes office.I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!
You really showed them.
Thank you.
So how are you enjoying Trump backing off on most of his promises so far?
Or.... Trump, realises that those that fear what he represents are happy to imagine he will abandon his stance, and those that voted him in, quite happily sneering from the side-lines while he comes into line.
Until he gets sworn in. He will not, he cannot, he does not want to become another bland part of the machine. The moment he takes office expect a fire in the pentagon, attributed to a Democratic, Mexican Muslim, pro-abortion gun snatching terrorist organisation, followed by the Pentagon fire decree suspending all personal freedom. By June, bibles, Billy clubs, book burning and bad hair styles. Welcome to the neo golden age.
Most of your other posts, that I've read, seem very sensible and level-headed.
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!
You really showed them.
Thank you.
So how are you enjoying Trump backing off on most of his promises so far?
Correct. That does not mean he will.I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!
You really showed them.
Thank you.
So how are you enjoying Trump backing off on most of his promises so far?
I wouldn't say most. As far as his main promise about locking up Hillary, all he said was he isn't going to pursue it. That doesn't mean he'll appoint a FBI director that will.
I wouldn't say most. As far as his main promise about locking up Hillary, all he said was he isn't going to pursue it. That doesn't mean he'll appoint a FBI director that will.
And he won't persue the clintons. They're good people.
No, I'm quoting Donald Trump.And he won't persue the clintons. They're good people.
You probably think George Soros is a philanthropist too, huh?
I'm quoting Donald Trump.
That's the whole point of the statement. So it's totally relevant.I'm quoting Donald Trump.
Irrelevant
That's the whole point of the statement. So it's totally relevant.I'm quoting Donald Trump.
Irrelevant
The moment he takes office expect a fire in the pentagon, attributed to a Democratic, Mexican Muslim, pro-abortion gun snatching terrorist organisation, followed by the Pentagon fire decree suspending all personal freedom.
The President of the United States should know this."POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."
I feel like I'm going to be saying that last line a lot over the next four years.
"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."
In less retarded news, Trump continues to prepare for his job just as expected:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38155141 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38155141)
"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."
genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about? like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?
e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.
genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about? like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?[Same disclaimer about being genuine and not trying to be snarky applies to all of this post]
e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.
"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."
genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about? like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?
e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.
The only reason I can think of why he wants to make such a law, is that he has just cornered the rights to export bits of coloured rag to the middle east/pretty much anywhere, as soon as it becomes illegal to deface it in the US it will become (even more) the du-rigueur thing to do at all parties and public gatherings out there.
genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about? like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?[Same disclaimer about being genuine and not trying to be snarky applies to all of this post]
e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.
Tbh I have no idea what people are upset about. Donald Trump's Twitter feed is not an accurate depiction of his policy proposals and actions as president-elect. I'm sure that's not a controversial proposal. Looking at a small section of responses to the tweet itself, people seem to be angry because what Trump said, if turned into actual law, would violate the Bill of Rights. From my point of view, there's nothing to be upset about. He's welcome to his personal opinion, and if he tries to influence the law in this direction (unlikely imo), he'll get stuck in a short legal fight after which he'll be told to shove it.
That's not to say you can't or shouldn't be upset. I was specifically responding to Saddam's mentality. The idea that "Trump should know that there's a legal precedent for this, ergo he shouldn't be tweeting about it!" is extremely silly.
[...]what Trump said, if turned into actual law, would violate the Bill of Rights. From my point of view, there's nothing to be upset about. He's welcome to his personal opinion, and if he tries to influence the law in this direction (unlikely imo), he'll get stuck in a short legal fight after which he'll be told to shove it.
That's not to say you can't or shouldn't be upset. I was specifically responding to Saddam's mentality. The idea that "Trump should know that there's a legal precedent for this, ergo he shouldn't be tweeting about it!" is extremely silly.
... and personally i'm on the side of 'let's reserve our criticisms for policy proposals, not personality traits and tweets.' not that i follow my own advice all the time, but i agree with the principle.
... and personally i'm on the side of 'let's reserve our criticisms for policy proposals, not personality traits and tweets.' not that i follow my own advice all the time, but i agree with the principle.
This, to me, is dangerous. Those tweets ARE him. His personality. His words. When he talks to other law makers behind closed doors, those tweets are the closest we'll ever get to what he says.
Asking us to ignore "the man" and just follow "the policy" is asking us to ignore a big part of him. I mean, it's important that someone can do the job, but if they're an asshole, it's not going to make it easier for anyone else.
It's like he just shoots these tweets off the moment he thinks of them. He doesn't take the time to consider his actions, maybe look over his wordsThat's precisely what he does. That's precisely what a personal Twitter account is meant for. If you don't like Twitter, perhaps you just shouldn't use it?
reflect on what the consequences might be>twitter
Of course, you don't see many articles from the mainstream media criticizing the frailty of the modern conservative, because the narrative is that conservatives are strong, stoic, and masculine, while liberals are weak, whiny, and feminine.Saddam, am I really going to have to introduce you to left wing media? The "uh oh conservatives are the reaaaal triggered snowflakes" meme is so old and tired, you can't possibly believe that MSM are ignoring it.
That's precisely what he does. That's precisely what a personal Twitter account is meant for. If you don't like Twitter, perhaps you just shouldn't use it?
>tweets
>consequences
Fucking lol. The only possible "consequences" of personal tweets is that a bunch of butthurt liberals might try to get the owner of the account fired. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what's happening, just with zero success.
Saddam, am I really going to have to introduce you to left wing media? The "uh oh conservatives are the reaaaal triggered snowflakes" meme is so old and tired, you can't possibly believe that MSM are ignoring it.
I mean, this really isn't that hard.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/fragile-conservatives-upset-a-woman-blocked-them.html
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/08/tv_as_a_conservative_safe_space_fragile_viewers_cant_handle_being_challenged_by_their_entertainment/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/michelle-obama-makes-fragile-white-conservatives-lose-their-minds-just-by-saying-slavery
>tweets
>consequences
Fucking lol. The only possible "consequences" of personal tweets is that a bunch of butthurt liberals might try to get the owner of the account fired. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what's happening, just with zero success.
They are no different than if any celebrety or political figure went on national[ftfy: Twitter is not TV. One carries an expectation of content and quality control, the other does the opposite. But otherwise:]TVTwitter and said those things.
Twitter accounts aren't "meant" for anything beyond expressing a message less than 140 characters long at a time. There are a variety of things that people use them for, and Trump uses his for stirring up controversy, flexing his e-penis, and venting when he's angry.Saddam... you are literally agreeing with me, except you're starting the sentence with "no ur wrong".
I don't know how you could possibly argue something like this after the election we just witnessed. Trump's tweets have already had major consequences, both positive and negative. He probably would have lost the election if not for Twitter. Don't you remember the shitstorm about him retweeting posts from white nationalists, like the "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!" picture? Or how he's been hammered for continuing to make pro-birther tweets years after he supposedly "ended" the issue by getting Obama to release his long-form birth certificate? Or the hilarity that ensued when Hillary began calling attention to Trump's friendliness with people tweeting Pepe memes? Even one tweet he made years ago about global warming being a Chinese hoax formed Hillary's main argument against him on that issue. As far as Trump's administration goes, the consequences I expect we're going to see play out are how heavily he's strained his relationship with top Republicans.Ah, yes, all those things that massively set his campaign back and caused MSM to Streisand Effect the fuck out of his candidacy. Yep, definitely the consequences of tweets.
When I talked about the mainstream media, I had meant reasonably moderate newspapers, like the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., rather than openly left-wing sources. However, after further research, I've discovered that those moderate newspapers aren't nearly as unanimously pitted against the whiny liberals and their safe spaces as I had thought. Indeed, there are just many articles from them defending such liberals and their ideas as there are articles criticizing them. So I'll retract my complaint about this being the mainstream narrative, as that doesn't appear to be the case.Woop woop, you backed away from your least insane claim, the one you could have actually tried defending, while doubling down on the sheer lunacy of "Pepe the Frog helped Trump win the election". Well done.
Yeah, I walked into that one.They are no different than if any celebrety or political figure went on national[ftfy: Twitter is not TV. One carries an expectation of content and quality control, the other does the opposite. But otherwise:]TVTwitter and said those things.
Precisely! When Tila Tequila or Kanye West get on Twitter and say retarded shit, a few news outlets will report on it, a few people (usually on the left, because most moral busybodies tend to align themselves with the left) will get outraged, and then... nothing will happen. Another tweet will come up, and the cycle will begin anew.
Thank you so much for backing up my point so eloquently.
I think the whole Pepe thing showed more people that Hillary had no idea what the fuck she was talking about while also ostracizing anyone who does use Pepe for the lulz.I agree, but can you really put the blame for the fact that Trump can navigate online shitposting culture better than Clinton on either:
At least I think that was one of her more retarded moves - so it's certainly plausible that it didn't help her campaign at least.
@SexWarrior - You don't have to look very hard to see that Twitter activities have caused celebrities and plebs alike to lose jobs over tweets.Agreed pre-emptively:
The only possible "consequences" of personal tweets is that a bunch of butthurt liberals might try to get the owner of the account fired. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what's happening, just with zero success.To clarify, "zero success" refers to the fact that Trump (specifically) isn't getting fired over tweets, rather than that no one has ever been fired over tweets.
As for consequences, I don't think it's as consequence free as you think. Ticket sales, banned accounts, loss of contracts, opportunities, record deals, sponsorship, etc... are all very real for those celebrities. Bad PR and all that.Again, I already acknowledged that his statements set his campaign back. As they should have. If people disapprove of Trump's statements, they shouldn't support Trump. However, I think it's fair to say that these aren't the consequences that Saddam fears when he says "He doesn't take the time to consider his actions, maybe look over his words, reflect on what the consequences might be - no, he has to go wherever his id drags him." - and that's precisely the statement I'm ripping into here.
What consequences, exactly, do you expect? Not like Kanye West can start a war with China by calling Xi Jinping an asshole.Wrong person to ask. I expect no serious consequences of personal tweets. It's Twitter, for Christ's sake. Saddam's the one who thinks people on Twitter should "think about the consequences" before posting.
Saddam... you are literally agreeing with me, except you're starting the sentence with "no ur wrong".
Ah, yes, all those things that massively set his campaign back and caused MSM to Streisand Effect the fuck out of his candidacy. Yep, definitely the consequences of tweets.
All those super serious issues like people insisting that this:
(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2016/07/trumptwitter-e1467482685925.jpg)
contains a Star of David and is therefore clearly anti-semitic. All those serious, influential people, who apparently have never been to a supermarket before (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/best-price-label-promotion-12324993.jpg). It's a shame that he didn't come out as a Satanist (https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1Hm97IVXXXXafapXXq6xXFXXX5/6-9CM-Push-font-b-sale-b-font-POP-explorer-advertising-paper-card-DIY-promotion-label.jpg) instead.
I'm glad that you genuinely think Pepe won the election, though, and that you're taking yourself seriously enough to admit it. That's hilarious.
(http://i.imgur.com/mUWtowV.jpg)
No, I'm not. You're saying, "This is the correct use of Twitter, therefore there is nothing wrong with what he's doing,"Except that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm laughing at you thinking that Twitter is serious business, and that Trump's tweets should be taken seriously.
Media coverage and criticism are still consequences, regardless of whether or not you think the coverage was justified or the criticisms were deserved. All you're really arguing here is "I don't care what people say on Twitter, therefore nobody does."Except that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm laughing in your face for your "he doesn't even think about the consequences!!!" spiel. If the consequences you're so worried about is that someone might write a story about how Trump is totally a mean bean, that's laughable. "Trump shouldn't say words because someone else might also say words" is a very, very poor argument, and a big downgrade even from what you originally said.
Except that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm laughing at you thinking that Twitter is serious business, and that Trump's tweets should be taken seriously.
Except that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm laughing in your face for your "he doesn't even think about the consequences!!!" spiel. If the consequences you're so worried about is that someone might write a story about how Trump is totally a mean bean, that's laughable. "Trump shouldn't say words because someone else might also say words" is a very, very poor argument, and a big downgrade even from what you originally said.
George is right though. Personal tweets or not, The president of the United States isn't going to get a pass on anything he tweets just because "It's twitter". It's easy to dismiss it as "lol, why so serious" but it's still words. It's still your words. If I go on tweeting my feelings about something, those who follow me are going to think that's how I feel. To do otherwise would be saying that I'm tweeting lies or satire. So far, we've no indication that Donald isn't serious in everything he tweets. It may be a lie or wrong, but he's serious about the message he's sending. He's also using it to bypass the press and deliver his message directly. His tweets are even going to be archived by the government.As for consequences, I don't think it's as consequence free as you think. Ticket sales, banned accounts, loss of contracts, opportunities, record deals, sponsorship, etc... are all very real for those celebrities. Bad PR and all that.Again, I already acknowledged that his statements set his campaign back. As they should have. If people disapprove of Trump's statements, they shouldn't support Trump. However, I think it's fair to say that these aren't the consequences that Saddam fears when he says "He doesn't take the time to consider his actions, maybe look over his words, reflect on what the consequences might be - no, he has to go wherever his id drags him." - and that's precisely the statement I'm ripping into here.What consequences, exactly, do you expect? Not like Kanye West can start a war with China by calling Xi Jinping an asshole.Wrong person to ask. I expect no serious consequences of personal tweets. It's Twitter, for Christ's sake. Saddam's the one who thinks people on Twitter should "think about the consequences" before posting.
What the President of the United States says publicly is absolutely serious business, and it doesn't matter if his medium of choice is Twitter, MySpace, Instagram, or scribbling down messages on paper airplanes that he throws at journalists.Fuck me, am I glad that your worldview is losing ground so quickly.
Pardon meLet me talk to you about that after I get into office.
You said yourself that more people than ever before are relying on social media for their news. Why should the president's Twitter account be any different?Primarily because of the way he uses it. It's a good channel for some things, but "news" is taking it way too far.
I'd understand where you were coming from if it was solely dedicated to his casual musings, but he's making hiring/nomination announcements there, linking to interviews and news articles he wants his followers to see, and discussing his touring schedule.Eh. I don't think the presence of serious tweets makes the entire channel serious. I'll concede that it's not a pure stream of shitposts, but that doesn't make his shitposting any more serious.
(https://i.redd.it/3o220qscz61y.jpg)Compulsory Trump Steak ads, coming soon to your mobile phone.
So... I just learned how the hackers got into the DNC e-mail and that they tried something similar in the RNC systems.
An e-mail.
It was a fucking e-mail. The god damn, moron clicked a link in a suspicious god damn e-mail.
The RNC, by the way, didn't click the suspicious link.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hackingI admit I only skimmed through the document [e: I have since read it more thoroughly], so I may have well missed something that's hidden in plain sight, but (other than pointing the finger very loudly) has this report made any attempt of providing evidence that the attackers were Russian intelligence agencies?
the report: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf
But Rushy assured me that the WaPo had made all of this up because they were sore losers! :oHis assurances appear to be as evidence-based as DHS's allegations to date.
I admit I only skimmed through the document [e: I have since read it more thoroughly], so I may have well missed something that's hidden in plain sight, but (other than pointing the finger very loudly) has this report made any attempt of providing evidence that the attackers were Russian intelligence agencies?
Lol, at this point Obama is deliberately destroying his country to make Trump's job harder.
it all seems very schematic to me, but i would've posed the same question to you since i have virtually no expertise of any kind in coding/networking/whatever other computer things matter here.When it comes to cyber attacks, attribution is extremely difficult. You can find plenty of hints (mostly cultural, e.g. people from different backgrounds write code differently, so some analysis can give you an idea of the dialect used, much like in a human language), but hard evidence is rare. That's why it's so uncommon for high profile conflicts to arise from cyber attacks.
for me personally it's difficult to see how or why this would all be manufacturing from whole cloth. i'm not even sure why the claim that russia uses these sorts of clandestine operations to fuck with the us is controversial. i mean they're not exactly our allies...Aside from the suspicious level of confidence, the lack even a vague hint as to how they figured it out, and the aggrandised claims about the scale of the attacks, it's really not controversial. It's perfectly possible that the Russian government ordered their intelligence agencies to find dirt on Hillary to boost Trump. It's even less controversial since it looks like all they did was supply the press with correct and accurate information. But the US response suggests that there's either much more to it, or (as I chose to believe) much less to it.
sigh. i mean i know he's on the blue team or whatever, but get real.No, no, hear me out, this has nothing to do with teams. Obama has 20-something days left in office and suddenly he simultaneously launches diplomatic conflicts with Russia, Israel (America's puppet state), and by extension the UK. The Israel thing is because suddenly they realised that Netanyahu is Netanyahu. They've been ignoring him for 7 years (awfully close a period to someone's presidency...), but now, just in time for Trump to take over, the Obama administration won't stand for Israel for another 3 weeks. It's hilarious. I hope they cut ties with South Korea in a week or something like that.
But if that isn't so then who should we believe? That the DNC is incompetent and clicked on a phishing e-mail twice? Or that someone inside got access to the e-mail account and did it him/herself?I mean, they hired Podesta. Clearly the brain drain is widespread...
Even Rolling Stone is skeptical!2017 is off to a zany start!
Honestly, I'm not sure what other evidence you could present besides:They aren't known Russian hackers, that's exactly the problem. They made a completely unsubstantiated assertion.
"These urls and domains are used by known Russian hackers." Not like they sign their names on each packet or something.
That's what I got from the document when they listed all those handles and domains, that they knew they were russians from those.Honestly, I'm not sure what other evidence you could present besides:They aren't known Russian hackers, that's exactly the problem. They made a completely unsubstantiated assertion.
"These urls and domains are used by known Russian hackers." Not like they sign their names on each packet or something.
The argument of "These urls and domains are used by known Russian hackers." would be even poorer than what they're actually doing. They're just saying "it's the Russians, trust us, also here are a few factual errors about what happened and some computing 101 tips on how to stay safe online"
That's what I got from the document when they listed all those handles and domains, that they knew they were russians from those.It's very difficult to explain if you're not willing to listen. Perhaps an analogy will help.
No no, I got that. There are certainly names the FBI made like APT28 and APT29 but I don't think all the names and domains on that list are made up by them. (Plus the file names for some reason)That's what I got from the document when they listed all those handles and domains, that they knew they were russians from those.It's very difficult to explain if you're not willing to listen. Perhaps an analogy will help.
What we know right now is that a criminal made a phone call using a burner phone. He purchased the phone in LA, from a shop clerk called Juan. The FBI decided to codename this phone "LADY LIBERTY THE FREE" while the CIA opted for the name "ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER".
Now, one of these agencies published a report saying "this phone, known as LADY LIBERTY THE FREE or ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER, is thought to have been purchased by Vladimir Putin". How do we know this? Why do we know this? Bah, don't bother me with details, after all they published a couple of names!!!
Aside from the suspicious level of confidence, the lack even a vague hint as to how they figured it out, and the aggrandised claims about the scale of the attacks, it's really not controversial. It's perfectly possible that the Russian government ordered their intelligence agencies to find dirt on Hillary to boost Trump. It's even less controversial since it looks like all they did was supply the press with correct and accurate information. But the US response suggests that there's either much more to it, or (as I chose to believe) much less to it.
diplomatic conflicts with Russia, Israel (America's puppet state), and by extension the UK.
And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.
why is it reasonable for you to speculate about obama's motives and behavior without direct evidence, but unreasonable for me to do the same regarding putin and russia?I'm criticising the US government, not you (you're welcome to speculate about whatever you want). Here's why I'm holding Obama/FBI to a higher standard than you or me:
ultimately i doubt we diverge much on this issue. i completely agree that, to date, no direct evidence [...] prior knowledge of russia's clandestine operations.Agreed. What we seem to disagree on is whether or not it's appropriate for Obama to take such drastic action based on educated guesses (or, indeed, whether this action is drastic to begin with). To me, he's had plenty of time to make this call - no new information has been released, and I doubt they've made a breakthrough that suddenly prompted him to act. So I have to wonder: why did the timing end up being what it is?
maybe a more succinct way of putting it is this [...]No objections there.
fwiw i also just don't think any of it matters. even if the cia were to produce a video [...]
i'm almost patently unwilling to believe the argument that obama is intentionally trying to sabotage america to fulfill some vendetta against trump. i know a very wise person who once said something to the effect that there's no need to assert malice where incompetence suffices.I'd be willing to entertain this if not for the report you've linked. It's being presented as proof that Russia did it, and a justification for Obama's actions. But it doesn't come even close to providing good evidence. Intuitively, this reeks of deception to me. I refuse to believe that the FBI got an unpaid intern (who blagged his way through his interview) to write this report, and I reckon that's what it would take to make it *this* incompetent.
I'm criticising the US government, not you (you're welcome to speculate about whatever you want).
I'd be willing to entertain this if not for the report you've linked. It's being presented as proof that Russia did it, and a justification for Obama's actions. But it doesn't come even close to providing good evidence. Intuitively, this reeks of deception to me. I refuse to believe that the FBI got an unpaid intern (who blagged his way through his interview) to write this report, and I reckon that's what it would take to make it *this* incompetent.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-seized-enough-land-and-water-in-8-years-to-cover-texas-three-times/ (http://www.infowars.com/obama-seized-enough-land-and-water-in-8-years-to-cover-texas-three-times/)
Obama is acting like a toddler who didn't get the Christmas present he wanted.
And really, is that bad?
So... http://fox13now.com/2016/12/28/utah-republicans-critical-of-bears-ears-national-monument-designation/And really, is that bad?
Yes, it's bad. It's bad for two main reasons.
First, it's quite clear from the article that the Utah state legislature was in opposition to the move. The federal government should not steal land away from the states it is supposed to be representing.
Second, government-enforced "nature reserves" are harmful to everyone involved. By denying the potential of humans to live and work harmoniously with nature, they also deny them the opportunity to do so, instead contributing to overcrowding of already populated areas. In turn, the people who never see or appreciate the natural area (because they aren't allowed to go there) see no interest in helping to maintain it.
Far better would be to permit development of the area and provide tax incentives for land owners and farmers to do their part for sustainability. That has two major benefits: first, the strain on existing cities and towns is reduced as more land opens up for development, allowing those cities to become more sustainable; and second, the care for natural resources is left in the hands of people who see and work the land every day, not bureaucrats on the other side of the country.
This is just yet another example of statists unnecessarily and condescendingly enforcing their own notion of sustainability by fiat.
So... http://fox13now.com/2016/12/28/utah-republicans-critical-of-bears-ears-national-monument-designation/
Utah is basically saying that it takes away land from Utah and keeps Utah people from maintaining that land (which it doesn't)
(c) Relinquishment to Federal Government.— When an object is situated on a parcel covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the parcel, or so much of the parcel as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Federal Government and the Secretary may accept the relinquishment of the parcel on behalf of the Federal Government.
and that the government should help them build roads and schools, which isn't relevant anyway.
Also the people who used to own the land and consider it sacred (it's got cultural significance) are very happy with this. I mean, it sounds like the argument is "We, the people who don't care about the Indian cultural relics, want to do whatever we want with the land." which, in my opinion, is pretty bad.
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes issued a statement threatening a lawsuit:
“The Antiquities Act was passed to protect archaeological sites from pillage by treasure hunters with narrow, focused designations of thousands of acres or only what was absolutely necessary. It has turned into a tool for the Executive Branch to bypass proper Congressional authority, to designate millions of acres at a time and far beyond what is necessary to preserve sacred sites.
Secondly, history has proven time and time again that humans and nature do not mix well when you add "development". How many times have strip mining companies failed to clean up? How many times do lumber companies just leave a forest cleared? Fraking, for god's sake, is causing Earth Quakes in Oklahoma.
With the support of the Trump administration, that land could easily have been strip mined(or whatever) and all of those cultural heritage icons lost forever. And it's not like we don't have an abundant amount of farm land.
As for tax incentives... I don't think that ever works. Hell, fines don't work either. Just look at how much coal mines get away with for safety violations and they just pay the fine cause it's cheaper. The tax incentives would, at the very least, need to be set to 0 and even then, it might not offset the cost.
National park authorities have staff who work closely with farmers. We help them apply for grants that pay money to farmers who farm in ways that help protect the countryside. We give advice and sometimes work with volunteers to do practical work like repairing dry stone walls or footpaths.
Plus, why in god's name do you need to develop everything? Cities aren't bulging because there's no place to live, cities are bulging because people have no financial ability or desire to leave.
It very explicitly does:And what part of that says that citizens of the state of Utah will not be hired by the federal government to assist in maintaining the land?Quote from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/54/320301-(c) Relinquishment to Federal Government.— When an object is situated on a parcel covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the parcel, or so much of the parcel as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Federal Government and the Secretary may accept the relinquishment of the parcel on behalf of the Federal Government.
It's relevant in that the federal government does not have infinite money, and they could be prioritising spending better than funding the maintenance of land needlessly stolen from states.Except the money the federal government uses to maintain the land frees up the money the STATE used to maintain the land. So now the state has more money it can use to spend on whatever it thinks it needs.
Improve the lives of Americans? Ok, first off, it hasn't. The state has had that land for I don't know how long and has yet to develop it. It's possible it's value is insignificant compared to the political backlash of destroying the landmark. But things have changed. Anger is in. Development is in. And Obama chose those two spots so odds are, he knows something we don't. Otherwise, why would he bother? What would be the motivation?
From the article you linked:QuoteUtah Attorney General Sean Reyes issued a statement threatening a lawsuit:
“The Antiquities Act was passed to protect archaeological sites from pillage by treasure hunters with narrow, focused designations of thousands of acres or only what was absolutely necessary. It has turned into a tool for the Executive Branch to bypass proper Congressional authority, to designate millions of acres at a time and far beyond what is necessary to preserve sacred sites.
This goes way beyond protecting sacred sites to reserving massive swathes of land that could otherwise be developed to improve the quality of life for Americans.
Besides, native Americans aren't the only ones with interests that matter. Obviously we should be protecting legitimate cultural relics, but America shouldn't hold itself hostage to the demands of a minority, regardless of how much they were wronged in the past.
I could find plenty of examples of companies doing the right thing for sustainability. So what? It doesn't mean that development is necessarily good or bad. Should we just pack it in and not give ourselves the opportunity to learn from our collective mistakes because some people did a bad job?The problem isn't some people doing a bad job, it's that the system of punishing that bad job is inadequate so much so that it's is cheaper to pay the price of disaster than to do things correctly in alot of cases with regards to resource extraction. And the businesses can't be shown to self regulate. When they've gotten what they want, they leave. The people affected are minor compared to the whole US and thus, the PR damage is simply listed as a cost of business.
I don't know what you mean by "with the support of the Trump administration". Like, do you seriously think Trump is just going to get into office and steamroll the country?Think about the oil pipeline. The Obama administration spent years blocking it. A Trump administration plans to allow it to go through. With the support of Trump, even a "Destroying these old buildings is good for business." could be enough to crush any opposition. Hell, just look at the natives who have that oil pipeline going through their burial land. Look how much they're being pushed aside and arrested. And that's with a sympathetic president. Now picture an unsympathetic one.
You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow humans. Most people want to do the right thing; the tax incentive makes it financially viable to do so.Most people do. Most people, however, don't run development companies. Or resource extraction companies. Or deal with the financial burden of fixing what they destroyed to get said resources that may, in fact, make the whole thing financially burdensome. The idea is to maximize profit and if you can do that by not replacing the rock you removed when you mined out the copper, then why would you?
An example of a system like this working well is in the UK, where their national parks are largely composed of privately owned parcels of land, governed by a national park board.Great! How many requests to develop buildings, factories, or mining do they get? Cause it seems to me that it operates as a park with people who live there and farm and not as development land.Quote from: http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/students/wholooksafternationalparks/meetpeopleintheparksNational park authorities have staff who work closely with farmers. We help them apply for grants that pay money to farmers who farm in ways that help protect the countryside. We give advice and sometimes work with volunteers to do practical work like repairing dry stone walls or footpaths.
Irrelevant. By that logic, the federal government might as well ban Crocs. After all, nobody needs to wear them.How about "The damage to this area by development will not offset the social benefit gained." ?
"You don't need it" is not a valid reason to prohibit something.
Otherwise, why would he bother? What would be the motivation?The same reason he's been trying to wreck American diplomacy over the past couple weeks, presumably.
From what I've been reading the intelligence departments, Democrats, and Republicans in congress all agree that Russia tried to influence the election. I'm not sure he's trying to wreck American diplomacy, just attack Russia.Otherwise, why would he bother? What would be the motivation?The same reason he's been trying to wreck American diplomacy over the past couple weeks, presumably.
From what I've been reading the intelligence departments, Democrats, and Republicans in congress all agree that Russia tried to influence the election. I'm not sure he's trying to wreck American diplomacy, just attack Russia.There is also Israel. Openly denouncing your own puppet state for actions that took place throughout your entire presidency at the very end of it...
True, it IS kinda unusual but like I said in the other thread, I don't blame him for doing it. I think Obama saw the writing on the wall as "Fuck you, we don't care how nice you are we still hate you and your party". So he did what he thought was right, not what was politically correct. Which, ironically, is what America seems to want now.From what I've been reading the intelligence departments, Democrats, and Republicans in congress all agree that Russia tried to influence the election. I'm not sure he's trying to wreck American diplomacy, just attack Russia.There is also Israel. Openly denouncing your own puppet state for actions that took place throughout your entire presidency at the very end of it...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/top-russians-celebrated-when-trump-won-intel-report-says-source-n703741
True, it IS kinda unusual but like I said in the other thread, I don't blame him for doing it. I think Obama saw the writing on the wall as "Fuck you, we don't care how nice you are we still hate you and your party". So he did what he thought was right, not what was politically correct. Which, ironically, is what America seems to want now.Well, yes, by being "nice" he set a precedent of overreaching and ignoring the will of those he's supposed to work for/with for the sake of what he considered to be "right". No wonder people told him to fuck off. Deliberately damaging the country now is not gonna make the Democrats any more popular. Perhaps The Donald paid him off to ensure a lasting reign for the Republicans?
I'm not sure anything Obama can do is going to change a thing.True, it IS kinda unusual but like I said in the other thread, I don't blame him for doing it. I think Obama saw the writing on the wall as "Fuck you, we don't care how nice you are we still hate you and your party". So he did what he thought was right, not what was politically correct. Which, ironically, is what America seems to want now.Well, yes, by being "nice" he set a precedent of overreaching and ignoring the will of those he's supposed to work for/with for the sake of what he considered to be "right". No wonder people told him to fuck off. Deliberately damaging the country now is not gonna make the Democrats any more popular. Perhaps The Donald paid him off to ensure a lasting reign for the Republicans?
Well, yes, by being "nice" he set a precedent of overreaching and ignoring the will of those he's supposed to work for/with for the sake of what he considered to be "right". No wonder people told him to fuck off. Deliberately damaging the country now is not gonna make the Democrats any more popular. Perhaps The Donald paid him off to ensure a lasting reign for the Republicans?
And what part of that says that citizens of the state of Utah will not be hired by the federal government to assist in maintaining the land?
Except the money the federal government uses to maintain the land frees up the money the STATE used to maintain the land. So now the state has more money it can use to spend on whatever it thinks it needs.
Improve the lives of Americans? Ok, first off, it hasn't. The state has had that land for I don't know how long and has yet to develop it. It's possible it's value is insignificant compared to the political backlash of destroying the landmark. But things have changed. Anger is in. Development is in.
And Obama chose those two spots so odds are, he knows something we don't. Otherwise, why would he bother? What would be the motivation?
The problem isn't some people doing a bad job, it's that the system of punishing that bad job is inadequate so much so that it's is cheaper to pay the price of disaster than to do things correctly in alot of cases with regards to resource extraction. And the businesses can't be shown to self regulate. When they've gotten what they want, they leave. The people affected are minor compared to the whole US and thus, the PR damage is simply listed as a cost of business.
Think about the oil pipeline. The Obama administration spent years blocking it. A Trump administration plans to allow it to go through. With the support of Trump, even a "Destroying these old buildings is good for business." could be enough to crush any opposition. Hell, just look at the natives who have that oil pipeline going through their burial land. Look how much they're being pushed aside and arrested. And that's with a sympathetic president. Now picture an unsympathetic one.
Most people do. Most people, however, don't run development companies. Or resource extraction companies. Or deal with the financial burden of fixing what they destroyed to get said resources that may, in fact, make the whole thing financially burdensome. The idea is to maximize profit and if you can do that by not replacing the rock you removed when you mined out the copper, then why would you?
Great! How many requests to develop buildings, factories, or mining do they get? Cause it seems to me that it operates as a park with people who live there and farm and not as development land.
National Parks contain small towns and villages as well as more isolated farms. Some areas of towns or villages are protected as conservation areas to keep their traditional look and feel.
Some families have lived in the area for many generations. Traditionally people would make money from the landscape around them, as farmers, fishermen, foresters, miners or as craftsmen.
How about "The damage to this area by development will not offset the social benefit gained." ?
What now? How did Obama deliberately damage the country?By triggering two diplomatic crises over two weeks, neither of them with any good justification.
Are you saying he acted as president with the intent to make the country worse?Yes, recently. I made the accusation openly and directly a couple of times now (go back a couple pages (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg109161#msg109161)). I also explained why I believe this assumption explains his actions better than the alternatives.
The report makes assessment based on patterns.
The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.
Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.
Whether you ultimately accept that it did happen depends on whether you are willing to trust the FBI, CIA, NSA, as well as private security firms that have backed up their findings.Which I absolutely am not, given the immense scale of the accusations, the extremely low likelihood of appropriate evidence existing, and the extremely high likelihood that the person behind the "hack"* was a script kiddie. This is Cybersecurity 101 stuff. If the FBI/NSA/CIA said that the Czech government is actually a shadowy conspiracy type of dealio that runs all the banks and has funded every single war since 1720 BC, and kept saying "trust us, we have proof", I would also reject it outright until at least a shred of evidence was presented.
Why is Russia treated as a "cyber threat" when the real threat is the complete lack of cybersecurity in the DNC?
Why are we more concerned about potential influence on an election than actual corruption?
Even if the "hacks" did influence the election, the people deserve to know what terrible shit their government is up to. This is just a convenient excuse for the DNC to absolve themselves of any guilt.
Because if foreign governments are allowed to influence US elections without consequence, it will continue to happen.It's been happening for centuries, and nowadays it's usually America doing it and bragging about it (http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1996/1101960715_400.jpg). The USA is in no position to talk about how dangerous the precedent might be here.
Foreign governments will continue to leak information about whichever political party they don't want to win, and the American people will feel their election was fine because at least now they know the losing party's dirty laundry (forgetting that the other political party is most likely just as corrupt.)Okay, let's ban all forms of investigative journalism because we can't ensure that it will target everyone equitably.
They deserve all the information, not information selectively presented to them by a foreign government in order to sway an election.Assuming the information was presented to them by a foreign agent (even though a lot of it was presented by the US State Department in response to a FOI request, but I guess they're foreign now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), are you suggesting that foreign individuals should be prohibited from whistleblowing? Why should they withhold information from the general public if said information is true and accurate? Should we expand this to US citizens as well, just so we can make Edward Snowden's case easier? Whistleblowing bad, mainstream media good, right?
Why is Russia treated as a "cyber threat" when the real threat is the complete lack of cybersecurity in the DNC?
Because if foreign governments are allowed to influence US elections without consequence, it will continue to happen. Foreign governments will continue to leak information about whichever political party they don't want to win, and the American people will feel their election was fine because at least now they know the losing party's dirty laundry (forgetting that the other political party is most likely just as corrupt.)
Why are we more concerned about potential influence on an election than actual corruption?
Is a lack of cybersecurity really corruption?
Even if the "hacks" did influence the election, the people deserve to know what terrible shit their government is up to. This is just a convenient excuse for the DNC to absolve themselves of any guilt.
They deserve all the information, not information selectively presented to them by a foreign government in order to sway an election.
Assuming the information was presented to them by a foreign agent (even though a lot of it was presented by the US State Department in response to a FOI request, but I guess they're foreign now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), are you suggesting that foreign individuals should be prohibited from whistleblowing? Why should they withhold information from the general public if said information is true and accurate? Should we expand this to US citizens as well, just so we can make Edward Snowden's case easier? Whistleblowing bad, mainstream media good, right?
Assuming the information was presented to them by a foreign agent (even though a lot of it was presented by the US State Department in response to a FOI request, but I guess they're foreign now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), are you suggesting that foreign individuals should be prohibited from whistleblowing? Why should they withhold information from the general public if said information is true and accurate? Should we expand this to US citizens as well, just so we can make Edward Snowden's case easier? Whistleblowing bad, mainstream media good, right?
Unless there was something illegal in the leaked E-mails, it wasn't whistleblowing, at least not under US law. It was a leak of embarrassing information. Are there any examples in the E-mail leaks of illegal activities taking place?
Yeah, sorry, I don't agree with your understanding of what whistleblowing is under US law, and neither does Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States). I must admit I much prefer the wording of UK law, which focuses on the public interest of the information more than the exact nature thereof, but the two definitions seem largely compatible with one another.
I just do not think that illegal cybersecurity breaches from foreign powers that effect elections should go unpunished.Would this be different if the much more likely scenario was true, and the breach came from a hobbyist or a Nigerian prince? Let's say, hypothetically, that he was an American citizen and a committed Democrat, to make things less ambiguous. Should he be punished for releasing information of public interest to the public?
If they do, then the elections just become a sham as nations continue to influence them for their own gain.Again, America's been doing it for ages.
Had Clinton won, and it turned out a foreign nation had leaked information on Trump to influence voters, I'm sure Trump supporters would also be up in arms about the election results.Of course, but you most certainly wouldn't see Obama double down on trying to instigate international crises (unsuccessfully, thank fuck) over unsubstantiated allegations.
{stuff directed at me}I'm not ignoring you, but I have determined that I can not debate with you on this subject, so I conced.
Would this be different if the much more likely scenario was true, and the breach came from a hobbyist or a Nigerian prince? Let's say, hypothetically, that he was an American citizen and a committed Democrat, to make things less ambiguous. Should he be punished for releasing information of public interest to the public?
Again, America's been doing it for ages.
Had Clinton won, and it turned out a foreign nation had leaked information on Trump to influence voters, I'm sure Trump supporters would also be up in arms about the election results.Of course, but you most certainly wouldn't see Obama double down on trying to instigate international crises (unsuccessfully, thank fuck) over unsubstantiated allegations.
Well, what they did would be illegal, first off, and I don't think illegal cybersecurity breaches should go unpunished either just because it happens to help the guy in power.That's great, but please answer the question. I was asking about public interest, not whether or not it helps Trump. Unless you dispute that the DNC's dirt is a matter of public interest (as much as RNC's dirt would be)?
And? That doesn't make it right. I am not defending every action the US makes.Right, you're doing the same thing Gary was doing earlier. I'm not criticising you, I'm criticising Obama. I'm sure you wouldn't try and undermine the electoral process of a foreign country, but Obama is POTUS.
Had Clinton won, and it turned out that, say, China had hacked the Trump campaign and released info to help her, I would place good money on Trump supporters calling for sanctions or some sort of international response at this gross invasion into our electoral process.Of course, but once again you changed the subject. I'm not suggesting that Trump supporters wouldn't be up in arms about it, I'm suggesting that Obama wouldn't have done anything about it. He'd probably tell Trump to stop whi- oh wait (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/obama-donald-trump-election.html).
And given the information Obama presumably has, I don't think his actions are unjustifiedThat's the thing, I'm not willing to take the FBI's word for it. If they throw the public a bone and explain even in the broadest of strokes why they're so unbelievably confident of something that's so difficult to be confident about, I'll be happy to consider it. But this is not something to be presumed.
and they certainly aren't going to lead to international crises.We have Putin and Netanyahu to thank for that. Again, I'm criticising Obama for trying to start shit, regardless of whether he was competent enough to succeed or not.
Again, if Clinton had won due to Chinese espionage, would it be undesirable to expel Chinese diplomats and intelligence workers?See, this is where you and I differ on a fundamental level - I struggle to reason about extreme hypotheticals.
That's great, but please answer the question. I was asking about public interest, not whether or not it helps Trump. Unless you dispute that the DNC's dirt is a matter of public interest (as much as RNC's dirt would be)?
Right, you're doing the same thing Gary was doing earlier. I'm not criticising you, I'm criticising Obama. I'm sure you wouldn't try and undermine the electoral process of a foreign country, but Obama is POTUS.
Of course, but once again you changed the subject. I'm not suggesting that Trump supporters wouldn't be up in arms about it, I'm suggesting that Obama wouldn't have done anything about it. He'd probably tell Trump to stop whi- oh wait (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/obama-donald-trump-election.html).
We have Putin and Netanyahu to thank for that. Again, I'm criticising Obama for trying to start shit, regardless of whether he was competent enough to succeed or not.
Again, if Clinton had won due to Chinese espionage, would it be undesirable to expel Chinese diplomats and intelligence workers?See, this is where you and I differ on a fundamental level - I struggle to reason about extreme hypotheticals.
Because of my (limited, but probably above average) understanding of cybersec, I find the premise of this question to be so unlikely that I find it very difficult to even think about the consequences. It really reads to me like something along the lines of "If China built a big gravity gun and pulled the moon into the Earth, should we <some sanctions go here>?" I kind of stop reading the sentence halfway and go "whoaa there, slow down". I think I would be on the fence with a slight lean towards "no, whistleblowing should not be treated as anything else when it's performed by a foreign government. Should the information provided prove to be false, fair enough, but otherwise releasing truthful information about wrongdoings in public interest should be protected and encouraged".
You asked if he should be punished, actually, which I answered. The fact that it's a matter of public interest doesn't change that a crime was committed.It literally does change it. I asked about whistleblowing (which, by US law, it would be illegal to retaliate against -- not that stuff being illegal has ever stopped Obama before :^)), and your answer conveniently stripped that away. If this makes no functional difference for you, just tell us you think whistleblowing protections should be repealed and be done with it.
I don't think Obama is defending every action the US has done either. You're trying to appeal to hypocrisy, which I don't deny. The US is a hypocrite, but that doesn't make it wrong in this instance.I'm taking it farther than that. It's not just that the USA is a hypocrite. It's also not just that Obama, personally, is a hypocrite. What makes this truly hilarious is that one of Obama's crowning achievements was undermining and destabilising multiple nations' governments through similar means. It's a particularly amusing sort of hypocrisy.
He might not, no, because his party won, and that would be bad of him, and Trump supporters would be right in being upset.*shrug* All I can say to that is "nope", to which you can probably not say much more than "nope" back. Agree to disagree?
Just a question, but do you criticize Trump for the same things when he, for instance, accepts calls from Taiwan? The US shouldn't just lay down and take whatever foreign governments throw at it.Given that one of the key overtones of the Trump campaign was "haha fuck China", it's more a case of him doing exactly what he promised. I strongly suspect that he deliberately set the call up, although my response when that happened was that of enthusiasm, not of criticism.
This just sounds like climate change denialism at this point, to think that foreign espionage to influence an eleciton is the same as a "gravity gun"Once again you misrepresent what I said. It was an exaggeration meant to illustrate a difference in how we think, and blatantly not a direct comparison - that's why I went for an abstract claim instead of, say, nukes. Looks like it worked too well - we've unearthed a whole bunch of differences, just not the right one.
especially when you yourself admit the US has done the same thing in the past.Yes, the fact that we've observed similar things in the past gives us something tangible to compare this claim against. It is perhaps the most damning piece of evidence suggesting that American intelligence agencies are simply lying. The very important thing to learn from this precedent is that we only know that it happened because the US openly admits their meddling and takes pride in it. There was no mysterious totally-true-but-plz-no-peeking proof that the victims of US attacks held. And no, American cybersec experts aren't far enough ahead of the rest of the world to explain this anomaly away.
It literally does change it. I asked about whistleblowing (which, by US law, it would be illegal to retaliate against -- not that stuff being illegal has ever stopped Obama before :^)), and your answer conveniently stripped that away. If this makes no functional difference for you, just tell us you think whistleblowing protections should be repealed and be done with it.
Whistleblowing has to be done through the correct channels. It does not mean unilaterally hacking into a computer and leaking files to the public because you believe something wrong was done.Fair enough, I suppose thanks to my favourite president we now have the precedent of Snowden. Oh well, one more thing to add to Obama's legacy, here's hoping it can be undone.