Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - trekky0623

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 27, 2017, 01:06:19 AM »
I really don't see how this isn't a sign that if people on his administration were to have done something illegal, Trump would unquestionably pardon them. And if the judicial system can't hold the administration accountable, that only leaves the Republicans in congress with their impeachment power . . .

lol yea we're fucked buds.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 26, 2017, 01:14:33 AM »
Trump pardons ex-Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio

Get on Trump's good side now so you can get away with crimes.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 25, 2017, 11:15:30 AM »
2016: The Election that won't fucking end.

Who gives a shit about Clinton anymore?

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 22, 2017, 12:18:31 PM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41003929

The meme president gives no shits about your health advisories. Ain't no sun fuck with Trump.


5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 19, 2017, 08:30:32 PM »
I wonder what the #PresidentBannon crowd are thinking right now. The puppetmaster who was clearly 100% in charge of Trump got fired.

They'd probably think someone else got ahold of the strings, which is probably not far from the truth. And that person is probably General John Kelly. First the Mooch, now Bannon.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 18, 2017, 03:38:16 PM »
I don't think anybody is questioning the idea that Trump is batshit insane when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism.

Most of his supporters think he is reasonable about Islamic terrorism, and this his responses to them are justified. It's probably one of the main reasons they voted for him.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 18, 2017, 01:24:44 AM »
You should watch the BBC's "The World at War" if you want an in depth history of World War II.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Softening on Crime
« on: August 17, 2017, 01:39:39 AM »
What data is there to back up this claim that punishments for crime have gotten softer?

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 07:04:26 PM »
The speakers at the rally for the most part advocated for America as a white ethnostate. So I don't know what we're supposed to call them but neo-nazis or white supremacists seem to fit, and the term "alt-right" was coined by the same people. It's not really a shock it's made up of neo-nazis.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 16, 2017, 01:19:47 PM »
Trump's trying to see just how low we can get those approval numbers before the end of August.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 31, 2017, 07:11:17 PM »
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/31/trump-ousts-scaramucci-as-communications-director-241172

So he missed the birth of his child for a job that only lasted 10 days.

Well done. "No WH chaos!"

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 28, 2017, 08:20:36 PM »
Hot dog is code for cheese pizza.

Which is code for child pron.


I thought hot dog with no bun was code for circumcised young boy sex slave?

It might be. I didn't receive last month's liberal code book.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 28, 2017, 04:32:51 PM »
Hot dog is code for cheese pizza.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 26, 2017, 02:32:12 AM »
I like how Trump goes on and on about loyalty, but yet seemingly keeps throwing people under the bus when they disagree with him. Seems loyalty is a one-way street. He wants you to be loyal to him, not the other way around.

Sessions isn't turning out how you wanted? You want pesky Mueller gone? Time to get on Twitter and start ranting about Sessions.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 22, 2017, 08:51:08 PM »
Health savings plans aren't $12/year either. Pretty sure he's just not learned anything about health insurance, or is confused about what it is. He also said this a couple months ago:

Quote from: Trump
You're going to have absolute guaranteed coverage. You're going to have it if you're a person going in…don't forget, this was not supposed to be the way insurance works. Insurance is, you're 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you're 70, and you really need it, you're still paying the same amount and that's really insurance.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 22, 2017, 07:19:54 PM »
Quote from: Trump
So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan.

Where can I get these $12/yr health insurance plans?

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 21, 2017, 08:58:49 PM »
Sean Spicer's gone

Goodbye sweet prince. . .

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 15, 2017, 04:07:48 PM »
It didn't sound like hyperbole to me. It sounded pretty straightforward:

Unless you're halting him from passing legislation while loudly screaming about how you're doing it because he's 100% guilty and disgraceful. By virtue of stating someone's guilt, you're making it pretty clear that you believe them to be guilty.

No Democrat in Congress is doing that.

That's what I disputed. Are you going to move the goalposts now?

Is Trump not responsible for what happened in his campaign? Or are we still operating under Trump having no idea what was going on within his own presidential campaign, which strains credibility and is arguably worse.
Neither, but when your argument is that they were obstructing someone who was under investigation, it would be good if a) he was under investigation and b) they had a chance of knowing that at the time.

You and I both know the opposition party is not going to make a distinction between the president and the president's campaign being under investigation. For the purposes of their political manoeuvring to prevent legislation from being passed, both will do fine. And that's not a presumption of guilt, either. It's politics in action.

What are you expecting Democrats to do? Just vote with the Republicans anyway out of the kindness of their hearts? In what possible word are you envisioning opposition Democrats with a president whose campaign is under investigation voting for their agenda?

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 15, 2017, 01:41:39 PM »
This is operating under the presumption of guilt, as opposed to the presumption of innocence.

Quote
For those who do not know, impeachment does not mean that the President would be found guilty. It simply means that the House of Representatives will bring charges against the President. It's similar to an indictment but not quite the same thing.

Quote
‘We may have an illegitimate President of the United States currently occupying the White House,' says Ted Lieu

Oh look, what I said. These Democrats are not saying Trump is 100% guilty.


Hasn't James Comey stated that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign for the past year, since last July?
You're shifting goalposts away from Trump to the Trump campaign. Let's pretend you didn't do that for a while.

Is Trump not responsible for what happened in his campaign? Or are we still operating under Trump having no idea what was going on within his own presidential campaign, which strains credibility and is arguably worse.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM »
It's also not presuming guilt to want to halt your opponent from passing legislation while they're under investigation.
Unless you're halting him from passing legislation while loudly screaming about how you're doing it because he's 100% guilty and disgraceful. By virtue of stating someone's guilt, you're making it pretty clear that you believe them to be guilty.

No Democrat in Congress is doing that. And few people here are doing it. People are of course skeptical and are saying that Trump might be guilty of collusion. Or that the evidence seems to point that way.


And he wasn't under investigation. That's why everyone was proposing an investigation as an alternative to Democratic vigilantism.

Hasn't James Comey stated that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign for the past year, since last July? But even if that weren't the case, again, political manoeuvring is not vigilantism, and no Democratic congressmen were stating Trump was certainly guilty.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17  Next >