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 - Lord Dave

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 202  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 23, 2020, 09:04:23 PM »
It was by a landslide!

Beautiful.
Somewhere in 2012, Mitt Romney is feeling the Bern.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 23, 2020, 04:12:07 PM »
Is it me or are the moderates just being a bunch of stupid greedy schmucks right now? If they're so scared of a socialist in the White House why do they continue diluting the field against him with their hopeless campaigns? If so much is at stake why hasn't Klobuchar or Warren dropped out and paved the way for a potential Biden win? There's not much time left and no indication any of them plan to quit. It's kind of stunning, all that obstinacy is going to lead to is a socialist president as the best case scenario. ::)

Go Bernie!

When was the last time you saw a selfless politician?

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 23, 2020, 12:34:55 PM »
Then Trump made all the American's rich and they all lived happily ever after.

When did he do this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

"SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans in 2018, at an expenditure of $57.1 billion.

Approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point during 2017, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits.  Beneficiaries and costs increased sharply with the Great Recession, peaked in 2013 and have declined through 2017 as the economy recovered."

So the economy recovered from 2013 through 2017, Trump was elected in 2016, and this program still is in operation ... ?

Its not something we get rid of.  SNAP is what used to be Food Stamps. 

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 23, 2020, 08:17:34 AM »
Looks like Bernie's winning Nevada.

He is.  We may go into "What if Bernie Won the nomination in 2016" and do the ultimate matchup of angry old white guys.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 20, 2020, 04:47:29 PM »
Yes, Trump is a populous president.  He says what is popular.  He does what is popular.  If it won't make a crowd of supporters cheer, he won't say it.

Also, did you not see the republican debates in 2016?  They ripped Trump apart and he still won.  Soak that in.

I think it is interesting that you admit that the majority of America wants lower taxes, border control, smaller government, no handouts, and not to be Europe's military.

So bad of Trump to lie to people, feigning the role of a good leader who follows the desires of the people, when in truth it's an elaborate sham, that he is merely giving people exactly what they want and those are not his ideals at all!
I never said majority, just popular.  In this context, popular to his base.
Ex: hating latin american immigrants.  Very popular.
Lower taxes: he did not lower taxes in any meaningful way for most people.
Border control: everyone wants that.  We just have different ideas on how.
Smaller government: You aren't paying attention, are you?  Trump wants bigger and bigger government.  He wants as much power as possible.  His base does not care.  If he became king of America, they'd all cheer his name.
No handouts: Considering many of his supporters need handouts, not sure this is true.
Not being Europe's military: And yet they'll happily bomb muslims.  Don't think they really mind being the police.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 20, 2020, 04:17:36 PM »
Yes, Trump is a populous president.  He says what is popular.  He does what is popular.  If it won't make a crowd of supporters cheer, he won't say it.

Also, did you not see the republican debates in 2016?  They ripped Trump apart and he still won.  Soak that in.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 20, 2020, 02:01:00 PM »
Even so, beating Trump is my top priority.  Hell, I'd vote for another republican over Trump.
Don't you like low unemployment and a strong economy?  ???

Yes, all praise Barack Obama for getting our country out of one of its worst financial crises in history and starting the period of economic prosperity we're currently in.

Good on Trump for not fucking it up yet, I guess. I'm sure he's saving it for his second term like most Republican presidents (that's when the more unsavory aspects of his "massive tax cut" are set to kick in). Of course our national debt is soaring under his watch so it's not like it's all roses.

Does anybody else remember when the Republicans were supposed to be the party of "fiscal responsibility"?

Couldn't have said it better.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 20, 2020, 07:56:15 AM »
1. His popularity is polarized, not rising.  Republicans love him because they're told only UnAmerican, liberal commies hate Trump.  And who would wanna be that?  They also are told that anyone who hates Trump or criticizes him is evil and are actively trying to destroy America.  So yeah, most republicans support him.  Because if they don't, the enemy wins.

2. Trump is good for rich people.  Rich people play the stocks.  The stocks didn't crash because Trump being impeached didn't mean much.  He wasn't gonna be removed and everyone knew it.  Hell, McConnel flat out said it.

3. Good stocks (unless Trump tweets something thst upsets prices, as he often does) may be a good thing, but its not the only way to determine 'objectively good'.  Communism was objectively good for the USSR for decades.  Why are you against communism?

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 20, 2020, 05:42:18 AM »
https://www.newsweek.com/72-democratic-voters-believe-bernie-sanders-would-beat-trump-2020-election-new-poll-shows-1488010

Apparently Democrats think he's most likely to beat Trump out of all the candidates. This is important because a lot of Democrats are putting ability to defeat Trump ahead of any other issues in the primaries.

Go Bernie!

I don't put stock in polls these days.  Not after 2016.

Even so, beating Trump is my top priority.  Hell, I'd vote for another republican over Trump.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 19, 2020, 09:51:30 PM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/trump-regime/606682/

The idiots that support Trump no matter what he does or how he behaves because economy/immigrants/courts/whatever will surely dismiss this article as hyperbole, if they even read it which many won't since they will immediately write it off as a product of the "Deep State" Trump and his sycophants in the media have scared them so much about, but look around. This is where we're at now. This is what's at stake in the coming election.

If you have a brain, prove it. Don't be a stupid Trump toady. Vote Democrat across the board, and maybe (just maybe, given the damage that's already been done to our democracy) we can reverse the trend.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/19/trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-for-covering-up-russian-hacking.html

And if only gets more dumb.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion?
« on: February 18, 2020, 05:48:50 AM »
Best evidence against the president knowing: Trump hasn't tweeted it.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 18, 2020, 05:47:26 AM »
It was a trap question.
And Trump is too dumb to avoid them or pay attention to words.  I wouldn't call it a reversal.  Not yet

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 17, 2020, 09:27:04 PM »
I’d vote for a clinical psychopath if I knew he’d make the world a better place, particularly the country I live in. Always blows me away how much damage he receives like this yet he’s done so much for the country.

He really hasn't done much positive.
Most of what happens is done by congress.  You think Trump wrote the tax law he signed?  He just demanded jobs appear three times in the title and signed it.  Of course, it didn't do what he had hoped but whatever, the wealthy got a good tax break.

While the economy is doing well, for now, it was doing well before he took office.  So basically he hasn't killed it.  Good on him.

He has left more deals than made and his diplomacy can be described as shitting on other people's chairs while drunk.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 17, 2020, 12:24:46 PM »
Currently, Medicare provides Part A and Part B. ....

What do you actually WANT, though?

As a non-American, I know that my taxes have, in part, covered things such that I can get taken care of in cases of medical emergency without suffering financial ruin. Americans don't seem to have the same safety net.

Do you want the safety net? Are you American?

Allow me to explain American philosophy:
"If you can't save yourself, why should I help?"

Basically they want the safety net, but only for themselves.  Because its cheaper.  The less money they give to others, the better.



Currently, Medicare provides Part A and Part B. ....

What do you actually WANT, though?

As a non-American, I know that my taxes have, in part, covered things such that I can get taken care of in cases of medical emergency without suffering financial ruin. Americans don't seem to have the same safety net.

Do you want the safety net? Are you American?
I want people to recognize that government can't fix anything (as evidenced by their track record) and anyone promising "free" stuff is a shyster.

I want to live free and then die...as nature intended.
You should avoid hospitals and doctors and civilization then.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 15, 2020, 11:02:52 AM »
Trump's supporters support everything Trump does. It's almost amazing how dumb they are,  like Rush's dittoheads, only even dumber. You think, like, how can someone be so dumb as to buy that this thing he's doing is good for our country, or isn't a disgusting abuse of his power of some kind, but then you realize this is a person who voted for Donald Trump in the first place, of course the bulb is a bit dim.

I honestly don't even know how to talk to a Trump supporter about Trump anymore. It's gotten too easy to get frustrated and call the Trump supporter a moron, because at this point what else are you supposed to think? As long as State Sponsored Propaganda tells them what Trump does is not only perfectly acceptable but actually benefits the country somehow, something Fox is always willing to do, they will never see reason to criticize Trump.

At this point you have to be a moron to still be supporting Trump, there's just no way around it. It's depressing that such a high percentage of the country is morons, but it is what it is as they say.

Oh its not about intelligence.  Its pride.

How many people here are happy to say "yes, I was wrong, sorry."?  They're in too deep to back out now.  And add peer pressure from other republicans plus only having a two party system, and you get people supporting Trump because they must.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 13, 2020, 09:42:46 PM »
Welp, Barr criticized Trump.  Guess we'll need a new AG.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 12, 2020, 09:21:15 PM »
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/prosecutors-prison-roger-stone-113542

The draining of the swamp continues.

(the very next day) Oh, wow, I guess I spoke too soon:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-takes-control-legal-matters-interest-trump-including-stone-sentencing-n1135231

This is blatant corruption. How anybody can be okay with this is beyond me.

Because Trump is good for America.  So what if he has to directly stop the evil justice department?  They all hate him so its ok.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 07, 2020, 07:15:39 PM »
Trump doesn't let anything go.  Why should we? :P

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 07, 2020, 01:35:28 PM »
The judge rules it so
I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.
Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?
They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.
I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

As opposed to those casting not guilty who have said, blankly, this is not a fair trial, its a partisan one.

So really, Dems wanted a fair one but were forced to play by republican rules.  And republican rules were, quite simply: vote to aquit or be denied funding.
Look, dems wanting a fair trial, not getting it...yet voting guilty anyway...truly shows hypocrisy.

Voting to acquit was the only sane choice.

It wasn't a fair process, let alone a fair trial.
Hey, when ya can't play fair, play by the rules.
And the rules were clear: Republicans must vote to aquit.  Dems must vote guilty.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 07, 2020, 01:14:31 PM »
The judge rules it so
I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.
Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?
They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.
I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

As opposed to those casting not guilty who have said, blankly, this is not a fair trial, its a partisan one.

So really, Dems wanted a fair one but were forced to play by republican rules.  And republican rules were, quite simply: vote to aquit or be denied funding.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 202  Next >